Sitting of 2 December 1936

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

  GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND BELGIUM.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what country at the present time technical arrangements exist as a result of Staff conversations for immediate co-operation between the armed forces of Great Britain and other countries to resist collectively aggression?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): There have been no Staff conversations since those referred to in a question by the hon. Member on 28th May last, and I have nothing to add to the statement which my Noble Friend made in reply to that question on that date.
  Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the Staff arrangements made between this country and France and Belgium still hold good?
  Mr. EDEN: Those conversations were confined to the giving of information.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be desirable that the conversations should be renewed?
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended that our engagements to support by armed force France and Belgium in the event of an act of aggression should bind us even when such aggression should arise as a result of action taken by France under the Franco-Soviet pact or through her treaties with the Little Entente or Poland?
  Mr. EDEN: The engagements of this country in the matter of assistance to France and Belgium under the Treaty of Locarno are clearly defined in that instrument. While I cannot undertake, while
  1230
  negotiations for a new treaty are in progress, to discuss the possible provisions of that treaty, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the scope of their obligations in the new treaty should approximate as closely as possible to those in the Treaty of Locarno.
  Mr. MANDER: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind answering the question on the Paper, which he has not done, as to whether our obligation holds good in the event of France being attacked under the Franco-Soviet Pact or through her treaties with the Little Entente or Poland?
  Mr. EDEN: The hon. Gentleman will find the answer to it in the Treaty of Locarno.
  Mr. MANDER: Does that mean that our position is quite indefinite, and that no one knows how we shall act?
  Mr. EDEN: Our position is governed by our engagements.
  Mr. De CHAIRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether our pledge to defend Belgium from aggression extends to the Belgian Empire also?
  Mr. EDEN: The guarantees given under the Treaty of Locarno are clearly limited to Europe by the wording of the Treaty.

  SPAIN.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before taking action concerning the threatened bombardment of Barcelona, he has consulted the Admiralty as to the practicability of any fleet attacking an armed port in view of our experience of the Great War?
  Mr. EDEN: The only action required or taken by His Majesty's Government in this matter has been to pass on the warning to the British shipping concerns and to ask the insurgent authorities to indicate a safe anchorage for shipping, which, as the House is aware, they have now done.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a threat to bombard Barcelona would obviously be an idle threat, in view of our experiences during the Great War?
  Mr. EDEN: I am not responsible for our action, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not going to bombard Barcelona.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to the application by the Spanish Government for a special meeting of the Council of the League of Nations; when this will take place; and who will be the British representative?
  Mr. EDEN: The council will meet on 10th December at Geneva to consider the Spanish communication. The United Kingdom representative will be either my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary or myself.
  Mr. KELLYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether employés of the Admiralty at Gibraltar who live in Spain are able to go to and from their work without hindrance; whether in Spain any penalties have been imposed on these workers; and what increase has been made in the cost of transport for these people?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Samuel Hoare): Admiralty employés residing in Spain are allowed to proceed to and from their work in Gibraltar without hindrance, provided they are in possession of the necessary identity cards. These include two Spanish permits as follow:
  (1) A municipal identity card issued by the local Spanish authorities, which has been in existence for many years. The charge for this card varies with the income of the holder and the charge for workmen has recently been increased to 4.40 pesetas. The card is available for one year.
  (2) A pass introduced by the insurgent authorities. The cost of this is 25 centimes, but in the case of those regularly employed in Gibraltar, it is a non-recurring charge.
  No penalties have been imposed on Admiralty employés, but, in common with all Spaniards, they are required to change sterling wages earned in Gibraltar into Spanish currency at La Linea at a rate fixed from time to time by the authorities, and no one may take Spanish paper money into Spain or bring silver coinage out. Transport costs have not been increased.
  Mr. KELLY: Does this apply to those Admiralty employés who are employed on the fuel works that are owned by private individuals still; and why is it that they are not allowed to change pesetas into British currency in Gibraltar?
  Sir S. HOARE: I should want, notice of the first supplementary question. The answer to the second is that I am informed that this regulation affects not only workmen working in Gibraltar, but all persons going to or from Spain.
  Mr. KELLY: Since when has this arrangement as to the changing of their money applied? Is it a fact that formerly they changed their money in Gibraltar?
  Sir S. HOARE: I could not answer that question without notice.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is the authority which from time to time fixes the exchange value of British currency in Spanish currency? Is that authority the Spanish Government, or is it the rebel Government?
  Sir S. HOARE: I would prefer to say, the Spanish authorities.
  Mr. BELLENGERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the strength of the German and Italian naval forces now in Spanish waters?
  Sir S. HOARE: My information is that the German naval forces now in Spanish waters consist of two cruisers and six; the Italian naval forces of one cruiser, one flotilla leader and two destroyers.
  Mr. BELLENGERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the strength of the British naval forces now in Spanish waters?
  Sir S. HOARE: One battleship, one cruiser, one depot ship and seven destroyers are in Spanish ports; three destroyers and one cruiser are at Gibraltar and Tangier respectively and three destroyers are at St. Jean de Luz; also one destroyer is on its way to Marseilles to disembark refugees.
  Mr. BELLENGER: In view of the extra duties which will be thrown on the British Navy in Spanish waters by the passing of the Merchant Shipping Bill last night, has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals to augment these forces in Spanish waters?
  Sir S. HOARE: We shall consider the situation as it arises.
  Mr. MAXTON: Is the First Lord aware that the statement he has just made was regarded as not being in the public interest by his colleague last night?

  GERMANY AND JAPAN.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was in accordance with instructions given by His Majesty's Government that the British Ambassador in Tokyo informed the Japanese Government that His Majesty's Government strongly disapproved of the views expressed in a leading article in the "Times" of 18th November respecting the then pending Japanese-German Agreement; and whether the British Ambassador in Moscow is instructed to make similar démarches to the Soviet Government when articles of an unfriendly nature appear in the British Press respecting that Government?
  Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo did not make a communication to the Japanese Government in the terms represented by the hon. Member. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of the most responsible newspaper offices in Fleet Street the general view is held, as a result of that correspondence, that such disapproval was conveyed, and are the Government doing nothing in the matter?
  Mr. EDEN: I think that what happened was that the Ambassador stated that what appeared in the "Times" was not necessarily an expression of the views of His Majesty's Government. That is a perfectly correct declaration. Of course, the Press is free in this country, but that is not always appreciated abroad.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether His Majesty's Government actually approve of the view expressed in the "Times" on that occasion?
  Mr. EDEN: That is not the question. I stated our view very frankly to the House two days ago.

  PEACE BROADCASTING
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with the hope expressed by the last Assembly of the League of Nations, the British Government propose to accede to the international conference concerning the use of broadcasting in the cause of peace?
  Mr. EDEN: A delegation from the United Kingdom attended the Intergovernmental Conference on the use of broadcasting in the cause of peace which was held at Geneva from 17th September to 23rd September of this year. The convention drawn up by this conference was signed by the United Kingdom delegates.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (INTELLECTUAL WORKERS, UNEMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with the request of the last Assembly of the League of Nations, the British Government propose to facilitate to the best of their ability the application of the plan prepared by the international committee on intellectual cooperation to combat unemployment among intellectual workers?
  Mr. EDEN: So far as the proposals of the international committee on intellectual co-operation lie within the field of Government action, His Majesty's Government will give sympathetic consideration to any measures which appear to them to be practicable.

  MANCHURIA.
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State fur Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the arrangements which have been made for compensating British interests affected by the establishment of a Japanese oil monopoly in the State of Manchukuo?
  Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on 10th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Porritt), to which I have at present nothing to add.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CONTRACT MATERIALS (TRANSPORT).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a condition of naval contracts that any coastal transport of material which may be involved in the fulfilment of such contracts shall be undertaken by British ships?
    Sir S. HOARE: Since the end of 1934 a stipulation has been made in Admiralty contracts, whenever practicable, that contractors shall employ British ships if delivery is to be made coastwise.

    CRUISERS.
    Miss WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cruisers have still to be allocated under this year's naval programme; and when the allocations may be expected?
    Sir S. HOARE: The 1936 New Construction programme includes seven cruisers, two of which have already been ordered by contract. Of the remaining five vessels, three are to be built by contract and tenders for these will be invited in the course of the next few weeks, with a view to the placing of orders about February next. The other two ships will be built in His Majesty's dockyards, and construction will, it is anticipated, commence in March.

    BATTLESHIPS (RE-ENGINING).
    Miss WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been come to with regard to the reengining of two of His Majesty's battleships, which was foreshadowed last July?
    Sir S. HOARE: Tenders for the reengining of two battleships were received a few days ago, and are now under consideration. It is hoped to reach a decision very shortly.

    CLERICAL STAFF, MALTA.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the recently announced increases in the pay of civilian employés at His Majesty's Dockyard at Malta do not meet the claims of the staffs concerned; and, as it is still desired to refer the question to arbitration, whether he will cause instructions to be given for the
    1236
    immediate reference of the matter to the Civil Service arbitration tribunal?
    Sir S. HOARE: The question of arbitration on the claim of the locally entered clerical staff is receiving active consideration.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that his visit to the Mediterranean was necessary to ascertain that an increase in the rates of remuneration. of locally-entered clerical staffs at Malta was necessary, he will take steps to ensure that for the future the legitimate claims of staffs serving abroad can, by use of the machinery of the staff side of the departmental Whitley Council of the Admiralty, be considered and dealt with reasonably without delay?
    Sir S. HOARE: I see no reason to assume that the existing machinery for dealing with claims from local staffs in His Majesty's Naval establishments abroad is not competent to deal with such questions with no greater delay than may result from the nature of any particular question.
    Mr. McENTEE: In view of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave last week as to the pay of employés at Malta having been increased, does he propose to make that increase date from the time when the application for arbitration was made?
    Sir S. HOARE: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the request of the staff association concerned for the reference to the Civil Service arbitration tribunal of a claim on behalf of locally-entered clerical staffs employed in His Majesty's dockyard at Malta; whether he is aware that this is due to the inability of the association to secure an agreement with the Admiralty either as regards the pay of these staffs or the reference of their claim to arbitration; and whether he is prepared to place the conciliation machinery of his Department at the disposal of the Admiralty and the association in order to facilitate an agreement in respect of the matters in dispute or their reference to the appropriate arbitration tribunal of the Civil Service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer on the same subject given to him to-day by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, which states that he has the question of arbitration on this claim under active consideration. In these circumstances the second and third parts of the hon. Member's question do not arise.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this case has been under active consideration for the past four months?

    SABOTAGE.
    Mr. DAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of cases of damage, or attempted damage, to His Majesty's ships undergoing refit in His Majesty's dockyards during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and in how many of these cases sabotage was suspected?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am glad to say that the number of occasions on which sabotage was suspected during the last 12 months is small, but I am not prepared to give a more detailed statement.
    Mr. DAY: Have any inquiries taken place and have any prosecutions followed?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir; I think there have been prosecutions.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say with what result?
    Sir S. HOARE: Not without notice.

    TANGANYIKA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the outbreak of scurvy in the Lupa mining area, and to the statement in the report of the recent Government Commission in Nyasaland that emigrant labour in this area is underfed and that the average pay is only 10s. a month; and what steps are being taken, by the enforcement of better conditions of pay and food, and by labour inspection and medical facilities, to prevent such an occurrence in the future?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Government of Tanganyika is already paying attention to problems arising from the employment of natives in the Lupa goldfield, and a special effort is being made in particular to deal with the incidence of scurvy. I am sending the hon. Member a memorandum which sets out some of the measures taken or contemplated by the Tanganyika Government in this area. In addition, the general question of labour conditions in the Territory has recently been the subject of review by an authoritative local committee, whose report is expected early in the New Year.

  KENYA.

    SOIL CONSERVATION.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to implement the proposals as to soil conservation in Kenya Colony made by Sir Alan Pim; whether his warning against the treatment of the question as of secondary importance will be taken into account; and what instructions are being given to both administrative and technical officers?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I can assure the hon. Member that the Government of Kenya is now fully alive to the vital importance of soil conservation. The problem affects both the settled areas and the native reserves, and while, within the compass of a Parliamentary reply, I cannot give a detailed account of the various steps that are being taken to deal with it, I may say that the active co-operation of administrative and technical officers is being enlisted. I have also been glad to learn of the valuable assistance which is being rendered by private individuals and associations in the effort to awaken all sections of the community, both European and native, to a realisation of its importance.

    MINES (NATIVES).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that the natives of Kenya are the only section of the community which, under the existing arrangements, will not benefit from the exploitation of the mines so

    1239
    far as their main development services are concerned, what steps are being taken to remedy this anomaly?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not share the view that the fact that mining royalties and fees are paid into the general revenues of the Colony and not into any local fund constitutes an anomaly. In the first place, the natives share indirectly with all other sections of the community in the benefits arising from the receipt by the Government of mining royalties. In the second place they derive very substantial direct benefits from the operation of the mines in the Reserves by way of the profitable employment which is now available to them, the easy and expanding market provided for their produce, and the ground rents and fuel royalties which are paid to the local Native Councils, for the benefit of the communities directly affected.
    Mr. LUNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show what direct benefits come to the natives from these developments and improvements?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As examples I have given the ground rents, the fuel fees, and employment at far higher wages than they have ever had before.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Do these natives enjoy the same amount of benefit as miners in Britain from the royalty owners, because there are 44,000 of them out of work now?

    PALESTINE (LIQUOR LICENCES).
    Mr. C. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of his Department has been called to the figures given at the 23rd session of the Mandates Commission to the effect that before the War there were in Palestine over 25 licences to sell intoxicating liquor, and that the number had grown to 970; whether these figures are approximately correct; and what additional licences have been granted during each of the last five years?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is impossible to check the actual number of licences issued in Palestine before the War, but the num-
    1240
    ber of licences in 1933 was approximately as stated. I am not in possession of the figure for 1935, but the number of licences issued in the years 1930–1934 are as follow:

    1930

    1,063

    1931

    1,063

    1932

    1,054

    1933

    973

    1934

    1,241

    Mr. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state or will obtain information as to the number of licences for intoxicating liquor in Palestine held by Arabs, Jews, or other nationals, respectively?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE:: I have not this information, but I will inquire whether if, can be supplied.

    GOLD COAST.
    Mr. SORENSENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies at what date the Provincial Commissioner of the Eastern Province was informed that the Governor of the Gold Coast did not recognise Asamangkese's claim to he independent of the stool of Akim Abuakwa?
    Mr. 0RMSBY-G0RE: This claim was referred by agreement to arbitration and was rejected by the arbitrator in an award dated 9th September, 1929. I have no knowledge of any communication on the subject from the Governor of the Gold Coast to the Provincial Commissioner of the Eastern Province.
    Mr. SORENSENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that for some time past there has been a state of unrest in the chiefdom of Akim Abuakwa and its sub-divisions in the Eastern Province of the Gold Coast, that the stool of Asamangkese and the stool of Akwatia are sub-stools of the paramount stool of Akim Abuakwa and members of the council of that State, and that by orders, dated 12th August last, the Governor of the Gold Coast has deposed the Odikro Kwame Kuma and ordered him and four of his councillors to leave the Asamangkese division, to reside in another district, and not to return home; what is the reason for this deportation without trial, whether the

    1241
    orders were issued at the instance of or after consultation with the paramount chief of Akim Abuakwa and with the knowledge and approval of His Majesty's Government; and whether the question of the deportation of the mankrado of Asamangkese and of Mr. Anti-Dakwa, the Oman secretary to the joint stools of Asamangkese and Akwatia, has been considered by the Governor?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir. The Odikro was deposed by an order issued by the Governor on 4th August, and he and four councillors were ordered to leave the Asamangkese division by orders issued by the Governor on 12th August. The Governor acted under the powers conferred upon him by Sections 9 to 11 of the Asamangkese Division Regulation Ordinance of 1935, which enables him to depose and remove chiefs and others who appear to him to have obstructed the officers in charge of the Stool Treasuries in the exercise of their duties. The persons concerned were given five weeks in which to answer the charges, but failed to exculpate themselves to the Governor's satisfaction. The Governor acted on his own initiative and the approval of His Majesty's Government was riot required. I have no information with regard to the last part of the question.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable disturbance has been caused in the Gold Coast district owing to the deposition of the Odikro Kwame Kuma and his subsequent deportation? Further, is he aware that some of these men referred to have been sent far into the jungle, in a part of the country where they find it very difficult to live, and can he find some means to secure for them a more suitable area pending their return to their own country?
    Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: I cannot possibly commit myself to approving their return to their own part of the Gold Coast. They wilfully disobeyed the lawful instructions of the British Government and their paramount chief, and were guilty of causing grave trouble in the district. They appear to be undesirable individuals, and the Governor has insisted that they shall live far away from the district.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Is it not a fact that a large number of natives in this part
    1242
    of Africa are very agitated and disturbed by this action and will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to state that these men are not necessarily of a character to be described as undesirable? Further in view of the generally unpleasant odour that has arisen from the Gold Coast will he not take steps to order an inquiry into the cause?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I know of no unpleasant odour. If we are to have what is called indirect rule—rule through chiefs and recognised institutions or stools as they are called on the Gold Coast—the proper management of them is a vital concern of the Government if we are to preserve authority. These persons have defied lawful native authority and are rebels against their paramount chief.

    MALTA (DEFENCES).
    Mr. RATHBONEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government intend to maintain the defences of Malta.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir. I am aware that reports to the contrary have been circulating in irresponsible quarters, but I cannot think that the slightest credence has been given to them by informed opinion. I need scarcely say that they have no foundation whatsoever in fact. His Majesty's Government have commitments in Malta both to the Maltese people and to the general defence of the Empire. They have no intention of renouncing those commitments.

  AVIATION.

    GATWICK AIRPORT.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether there is an adequate meteorological organisation for a night air service at Gatwick Aerodrome; and whether any alterations are proposed;
    (2) whether there are any trained meteorological observers at Gatwick airport; and whether any alterations are proposed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The Gatwick airport is connected directly by teleprinter

    1243
    line with the meteorological station at Croydon and regularly receives from that station the weather forecasts and reports required by scheduled air services whether by day or night. There are at present no trained meteorological observers at the Gatwick airport itself, but as part of a general scheme for improving meteorological facilities two will be posted as soon as they can be trained.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a strong feeling among pilots that aerodromes from which regular air liners start at night should have the finest equipment it is possible to have?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The equipment at Gatwick for night flying is perfectly adequate. It had been decided several months ago to post two trained meteorological observers to this airport, but, as the hon. Member knows, the expansion scheme has made greater demands on trained men.
    Mr. EVERARD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman had any communication from any association of pilots to show that Gatwick aerodrome is not in any way satisfactory?
    Sir P. SASSOON: On the contrary. The information that I have is that the pilots at Gatwick consider the existing arrangements to be eminently satisfactory.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to instal an adequate cloud projector for measuring cloud heights by night at Gatwick aerodrome?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I understand that the owners of Gatwick airport have decided to instal a cloud projector for determining the height of low cloud.
    Mr. PERKINS: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the Air Ministry should take the initiative in getting these things installed, and not wait for this to be done?
    Sir P. SASSOON: This is a private aerodrome belonging to a private company: It has been open only five months, and the owners of the airport have concentrated on first essentials.

    RADIO BEACONS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether an international agreement has yet been reached as to the systems and wave lengths to be employed in the use of radio beasons; and how many of these installations are now equipped and available for use in Great Britain?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The Telecommunications Convention of 1932 embodied world agreement in respect of certain wave lengths. There exist in addition later agreements between various countries, the terms of which will come under review at the next Telecommunications Convention which is due to meet in 1938. The present number of radio beacon installations in this country of all types, including five under trial, is 10.
    Mr. DAY: Have the trials of the systems installed at Croydon been successful?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put that question down.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain internal air lines have been unable to use wireless owing to the statement of the Air Ministry that there are not wave lengths available; and can he give the House the assurance that there are the wave lengths necessary for further development
    Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that question down.

    FLIGHTS, LONDON (ALTITUDE).
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for the home Department, in view of the fact that the police regulations prohibit aeroplane flights over towns except at such altitude as will enable the aircraft to land outside in the event of mechanical breakdown, what minimum altitude is prescribed by the police for flights over the centre of London and what measures are adopted to ensure that the police regulations are observed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): This matter is controlled not by police regulations but by

    1245
    an Order in Council made under the Air Navigation Act, 1920. That Order does not prescribe any minimum altitude except in the case of prohibited areas. The police are instructed if they observe any contravention of the provisions of the Order relating to dangerous flying to consider the question of instituting proceedings after consultation with the Air Ministry where necessary.
    Mr. SANDYS: Can my hon. Friend say whether, in practice, the police are given any particular altitude below which it is regarded as dangerous to fly over the centre of London?
    Mr. LLOYD: No, Sir. In certain circumstances they consult the Air Ministry. For example, recently, aeroplanes have been observed flying very low over the Crystal Palace and as a result, the Air Ministry sent two Royal Air Force aeroplanes there to-day, to see whether they could not obtain expert evidence on this point with a view to proceedings.
    Mr. CROSSLEY: Is my lion. Friend aware of the growing practice of aeroplanes flying low over London for advertising purposes; and does he not think it would he most desirable to stop that practice?

  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

    BARRAGE SCHEME, LONDON.
    Mr. LOGANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the balloon barrage scheme recently decided on by the Government for protecting London against hostile air raids is the result of the defensive measures put forward in September, 1935, by Mr. C. Morris, of 62, Empire Street, Liverpool; and what recognition, if any, apart from the postcard acknowledgement sent to him on 21st September, 1935, has he received?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The suggestions put forward by Mr. Morris did not include any novel feature of practical utility. A letter informing him to that effect and thanking him for the trouble which he had taken was addressed to him on 26th September, 1935.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this notice has been
    1246
    given to the House about half a dozen other persons claim also to have been the instigators of it, and state that it is due to their initiative that this has been brought into practice; and can he say whether there is any truth in the statement that anybody outside brought this to the notice of the Department and never received any compensation?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am not at all aware that so many claimants are in the field, but it is quite obvious that none of them can possibly be successful claimants, because the scheme for the balloon barrage was used for the defence of London as far back as 1918.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is it true, then, to say that a Mr. Diamond, of Carlisle, in 1913 submitted to the Department exactly what is now in use, because he sent me a letter yesterday saying that he did so?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The question on the Order Paper refers to Mr. Morris.

    FIRE BRIGADE SERVICES.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to announce plans for the extension of the fire brigade services to meet the dangers of incendiary bombs?
    Mr. LLOYD: Considerable progress has been made, with the assistance of two Advisory Committees which my right hon. Friend has appointed, in investigating this problem. Among the matters under consideration are possible methods of dealing with numerous fires simultaneously, the selection of suitable types of appliances and equipment for emergency purposes and the preparation of plans for their production on a large scale, the instruction of firemen in handling incendiary bombs, the recruitment and training of auxiliary personnel, the exploration of water supplies for fire fighting, and the preparation of plans for emergency schemes of co-operation between fire brigades. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to address a circular letter on this subject to local authorities before the end of the month. In the meantime, I can inform the House that a new administrative division of the Home Office has been created and is actively engaged in preparing plans and in settling, in consultation with the

    1247
    Treasury, the basis on which the Exchequer should give to local authorities the substantial assistance which, as I have already informed the House, the Government have decided to grant towards the cost of the provision of additional equipment and personnel for fire brigade services in an emergency.
    Mr. SANDYS: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction and relief?
    Mr. KELLY: Is that circular intended to replace the existing manual for fire protection in schools and public buildings?
    Mr. LLOYD: I would like notice of that question, but I should not think so. I think it would be supplementary to it.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY CROSSING, DENARY MAIN.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience and dislocation of traffic which is caused by the railway crossing at Denaby Main; whether any scheme is under consideration for the erection of a bridge; and, if so, whether his Department will make a substantial grant towards the cost?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The five-year programme of the West Riding County Council includes provision for a new bridge to replace the level crossing at an estimated cost of £150,000. The council have not yet submitted details, but I shall be prepared to consider an application for a 75 per cent. grant to an approved scheme.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, when it is recognised that the case is an exceedingly bad one, the Ministry ever use their influence to expedite the carrying out of the?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, Sir, we use our influence, but we are finally dependent upon the wishes of the highway authorities.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Having regard to the fact that for some considerable time the 75 per cent. grant has not attracted local authorities to clear away these level crossings, will the Minister give the matter further consideration, or they are
    1248
    likely to continue in existence for a great many years?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I fail to see what more we can do than pay 75 per cent. In some cases it has been successful, and in some cases it has not yet been successful.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Seeing that there are 1,500 who have been out of work for more than six months, and 2,500 receiving unemployment benefit, making 4,000 in all, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the county council to try to expedite the scheme?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should have thought that the first person to be satisfied with my answer would have been the hon. Gentleman who asked the question, because it has elicited the offer on my part of 75 per cent.

    ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION.
    Sir WILLIAM JENKINSasked the Minister of Transport whether, as successor to the Road Board, he has exercised the powers to construct and maintain any new roads or bridges, with the approval of the Treasury, contained in Section 8 (1) of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and, if so, what works have been undertaken, where, and at what cost in each case?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to increase the grants from the Road Fund towards road construction by local authorities in special or any other areas; and, if so, what the increases are to be and to what areas any such increases apply?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My Department is concerned in this matter with encouraging public facilities for traffic, and to this end makes grants on a graduated scale for approved works.
    Mr. DAVIES.Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind those distressed areas which are not scheduled as "Special", which are in a very bad way financially as far as the local authorities are concerned, and cannot the Executive grant of 75 per cent. be made towards construction in these cases?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have said in the answer that the grants are graduated.

    1249
    I am a traffic authority, and must be concerned with the value to the public of any improvement.
    Mr. LOGAN: Does that answer mean that, as far as Liverpool is concerned, the question of the tunnel may receive further consideration?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means by "further consideration". The tunnel, happily, is already there.
    Mr. LOGAN: I am aware that the tunnel is there, but what I am wondering is whether the Minister who is dealing with these matters is also there. I am asking him whether it means that the question of the expense of taking over the tunnel may be considered by his Department?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir; my Department have made a very lavish contribution to the construction of this tunnel, and the use of it has, happily, exceeded all the estimates.

    TYNE BRIDGES AND FERRIES.
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Minister of Transport whether any scheme is under consideration by his Department for improving the facilities for crossing the River Tyne east of Newcastle so as to prevent traffic having to go from Sunderland and South Shields to Newcastle in order to get to North Shields, Tynemouth, Whitley Bay and the North generally; and what steps are being taken to deal with this situation?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 18th November to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay).
    Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a bridge were built over the lower reaches of the Tyne, it would greatly facilitate the passage of traffic between north and south and would keep a large volume of traffic from the streets of the city of Newcastle, which at times are very congested; and can he tell us whether it is his intention to go forward with the scheme for the bridging of the Tyne east of Newcastle?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I gave a series of answers on 18th November which promised grants to a number of schemes,
    1250
    and I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will look at that answer.
    Mr. EDE: Is it not the fact that none of these schemes was for a bridge east of Newcastle, and that all that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to do there is to make an inadequate ferry service free and better than it is to-day?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: They were all directed to improving the communications east of Newcastle.
    Miss WILKINSON: Has the Department of the right hon. Gentleman done anything more than merely make that promise? Has the right hon. Gentleman tried to get the county authorities to carry that scheme through?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA.Certainly, Sir, I have communicated with the town clerks of the authorities concerned.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. MARCUS SAMUELasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any reports on the decline of deaths on the road in the past week; and whether it was due to less traffic on the roads or bad visibility?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As causes of accidents are analysed on an annual basis, I am unable to give my hon. Friend information beyond the gross figures for each particular week.

    UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (SEATING ACCOMMODATION),
    Mr. GOLD1Easked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that statistics published by the London Passenger Transport Board show that during the rush hours on the underground railways seating accommodation is only provided for one in every three passengers; whether he is satisfied that this is consistent with public safety; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure for every passenger the seating accommodation for which he has paid?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am advised that no accidents to passengers on the board's trains have been reported in recent years as having been due to overcrowding. For the rest, I will inform the board of my hon. Friend's representations, which I have no power to meet.
    Mr. GOLDIE: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the payment of the fare entitles the passenger to a seat?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think many things, but my thoughts are not relevant upon this subject. I can only exercise my powers. I have laid the views of my hon. and learned Friend before the board, and I am sure they will receive the attention which they are entitled to receive.
    Captain PLUGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can arrange that the length of the rush hour should be expanded, thus reducing congestion, by suggesting to the leading London firms that their clerks should start and finish at varying hours, and suggest to the London Transport Board that they might set an example by doing so with their clerical staff?

    TRAFFIC CONTROL, LONDON.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the strong public feeling against the proposed regulations restricting the use of selected streets in London by horse-drawn and other slow-moving traffic; and whether he can assure the House that the regulations will not become operative in London or elsewhere without the approval of the local authorities concerned?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not aware of any public feeling except in favour of these proposals, although, of course, as was to be anticipated, the interests more particularly affected have stated their case.
    Mr. BENSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department considering the possibility of traffic control on these lines?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, I am about to make a provisional Order.

    SEVERN BRIDGE.
    Sir W. JENKINSasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the urgent need that Parliament should deal effectively with the distress in the Special Areas by creating means of employment, and of the report of the Commissioner for Special Areas, he will now take steps to proceed with the building of the Severn Bridge, having regard to the importance of this means of communication in the
    1252
    national interest, and to South Wales and Monmouthshire in particular?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Government's decision which I announced on 5th November.

    CARRIERS' LICENCES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the methods adopted by the railway companies in opposing applications for renewal of "A" and "B" licences and, in particular, to a case before the East Midland Traffic Commission Court, in which the applicant has already answered approximately 1,000 questions put by railway companies; and will he consider the advisability of issuing regulations which will prevent the railway companies causing unnecessary inconvenience and expense to applicants for a renewal of licences?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The conduct of an inquiry into an application for a licence is a matter for the licensing authority, and Parliament has conferred rights of objection, with which it is not competent for me to interfere, on railway companies in common with other persons who provide facilities for transport.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that the railway companies are asking the most intimate questions about the private business of firms who are merely applying for the renewal of these licences which they have had for many years, and will he consider the fact that firms all over the country are being put to great expense?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot exceed the powers which Parliament has bestowed upon me.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the railway company asked to be granted the right to inspect the private books of this man?
    Mr. JAMES HALLasked the Minister of Transport (1) the total numbers of "A," "B," and "C" licences issued to road transport undertakers, and the number of licences which have been withdrawn in each group for offences in

    1253
    regard to the keeping of records, the hours of drivers, and the fair wages condition?
    (2) the actual number of examiners appointed under the Road Traffic Acts; the number of summonses taken upon reports made by them as to breaches of the Acts; and the number of convictions obtained against the holders of "A," "B," and "C" licences, respectively
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will, with permission, circulate the figures asked for in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is tine information:
    The total numbers of carriers' licences extant on 30th April, 1936, were: "A" licences, 28,916; "B" licences, 34,320; "C" licences, 161,535. The number of examiners appointed under Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, is 280, excluding officers who are occasionally employed upon duties connected with the enforcement of the conditions attached to licences. Such information as is available on the other points raised in the questions is contained in the annual reports of the Licensing Authorities published in March, 1936, and covering the period up to 30th September, 1935.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Minister of Transport whether any cases have occurred in which holders of "A" and "B" licences granted for claimed tonnage, having a clean driving record and being fully employed on the same work as when the licences were granted, have been refused a renewal of their licences; and, if so, on what grounds?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no information. The licensing authorities do not report their detailed decisions to me.
    Mr. HASLAMIs my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction among these small business men driving their own cars about the difficulties the railway companies place in their way in renewing their licences.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware that many people have grievances, but I can only deal with those grievances with which I have power to deal.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman not take power to get rid of this gross injustice which is inflicted upon road transport?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not prepared to admit the gross injustice.
    Captain STRICKLAND: We have given evidence.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should have to have the facts before me.

    CHARING CROSS (BRIDGE).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport what conclusions he has now come to with reference to the construction of a bridge in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am awaiting the observations of the London County Council.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has had the report for some time, and does he not think it is time a statement was made?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I sent the report to the London County Council on 22nd July. I have not yet received a reply from them.
    Mr. DAY: Does that prevent the right hon. Gentleman giving a decision as to whether he proposes to act on the Committee's report, or does the final decision rest with the London County Council?

    KINGSTON BY-PASS (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that during the eight days ending 22nd November three persons were killed, each at different spots, between Hinchley Woods and Tolworth, on the Kingston by-pass road; will he state the aggregate number of persons killed and injured on the Kingston by-pass road over any latest period of 36 months; and will he consider prohibiting the use of this by-pass road, in its present state, for motor traffic owing to its dangers to life and limb?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Figures are not readily available covering a period of three years, but in the four months ended September last there were two fatal and 100 non-fatal accidents. The Surrey County Council propose to construct dual carriageways in the by-pass. In the meanwhile, traffic signals will be erected at the road junction at Hinehley Wood. My hon. Friend will realise that it would not be practicable to close this road to motor traffic.
    Mr. LIDDALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say what is preventing agreement being reached in regard to the details of this Surrey County Council scheme?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would like to have notice of that.

    BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (INQUIRY).
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Prime Minister when he will be able to make a statement with regard to the inquiry that he has set up into the matters concerning the British Broadcasting Corporation raised by the Lambert v. Levita case?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I understand that the board of inquiry are likely to complete their report next week. As I stated on the 12th ultimo, in reply to a supplementary question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the report is made to me; and when a decision has been reached on it, the decision and the report are issued as Command Papers.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the desire expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that there should be an

    Number of boys recruited as apprentices to His Majesty's Forces.

    —

    1930–31.

    1931–32.

    1932–33.

    1933–34.

    1934–35.

    1935–36.

    1936–37.

    Royal Navy (a)

    163

    165

    174

    166

    align="right"195

    align="right"225

    267(d)

    Army(b)

    474

    294

    471

    427

    449

    529

    200(e)

    Royal Air Force(c)

    1,121

    902

    508

    582

    899

    2,063

    2,725(f)

    (a) Age Limits 15–16 years: Recruiting year 1st April-31st March.

    (b) Age Limits 14–16 years, 4 months: Recruiting year 1st October-30th September.

    (c) Age Limits 15–17 years, 3 months: Recruiting year 1st January-31st December.

    (d) 1st April, 1936, to date.

    (e) 1st October, 1936, to date.

    (f) 1st January, 1936, to date.

    MUNITIONS CONTRACTS.
    Mr. BELLENGERasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether there is any delay by British factories in the fulfilment of munitions contracts; and whether any orders for munitions on Government account have been recently placed with foreign or Dominion manufacturers?
    opportunity of debating all these affairs before the new charter of the Corporation comes into existence, which is on 1st January next?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I will bear that in mind without committing myself.

  DEFENCE

    APPRENTICES (RECRUITMENT).
    Mr. A. JENKINSasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the number of boys between the ages of 14 and 16 years recruited as apprentices to His Majesty's Forces for each year from 1930 to the most recent date, the number recruited from elementary, secondary, and other schools, and the number of applicants who have been rejected because of physical unfitness?
    The MINISTER for the COORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): The age limits for recruitment as apprentices do not coincide with the limits mentioned in the first part of the question. I have had a table prepared which gives the available information and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I regret that there is no information available.
    Following is time table:
    Sir T. INSKIP: The progress of the rearmament programme in regard to the supply of munitions has, in general, proceeded according to estimate, the principal exceptions being the case of airframe production which, as stated recently in this House, is at present slightly behind schedule, and that of shell production by firms not normally em-

    1257
    ployed on such work. In order that the flow of certain supplies shall be maintained until the requisite output is available from British factories, orders have been placed outside this country. Such orders have been placed recently to the value of about £400,000 and include the purchase of certain scientific instruments, and a contract for shell bodies placed in one of the Dominions.
    Mr. BELLENGER: In view of that statement, what method of control is exercised by his Department to supervise costing prices in respect of orders placed abroad?
    Sir T. INSKIP: The same arrangements are made with regard to all contracts, that is to say, the prices paid are based upon costings examinations.
    Captain BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he anticipates that the lag in aircraft production will be made good in the next few months or whether it is a lag which cannot be made good within the time of the expansion programme?
    Sir T. INSKIP: It is difficult to say whether the lag which has taken place, which is not substantial, will not be made good by a particular date, but I anticipate that there will be no further lag after the preliminary difficulties have been met, as they have been met.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is the original difficulty with regard to machine tools and gauges now completely overcome?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by the "original difficulty" The machine tools which are required cannot be obtained until after a substantial period of time, but the supply is proceeding at the present time and there has been an acceleration as a result of the arrangements made.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: What about gauges?
    Sir T. INSKIP: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put a question down. The position with regard to gauges is satisfactory.
    Miss WILKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything with regard to the arrangements made with Krupps firm in Germany?

    SHORE-BASED RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT.
    Captain PLUGGEasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is satisfied that potential naval war requirements are given due weight in the design of flying boats and other reconnaissance aircraft supplied to the Royal Air Force?
    Sir T. INSKIP: In the design of flying boats and other shore-based reconnaissance aircraft full consideration is given by the Air Ministry, with whom the sole responsibility for these particular aircraft rests, to their function of cooperation with naval forces.
    Captain PLUGGE: May I ask whether the Admiralty are consulted before the final design of these ships is passed?
    Sir T. INSKIP: The answer I have given states that the Air Ministry are solely responsible, but co-operate with the Admiralty in the settlement of the design of these ships.

    FOOD (DEFENCE PLANS) DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he can give particulars of the scope and organisation of the new Department which has been set op to deal with the question of national food supplies
    Sir T. INSKIP: The Food (Defence Plans) Department will he responsible, under the President of the Board of Trade and in co-operation with me, for the organisation of supplies of food and feeding stuffs for defence purposes. The Department will not be directly responsible for home production in peace tune. This will continue to be the responsibility of the Agricultural Departments. The Food (Defence Plans) Department, however, will continue and complete the plans for the maintenance of supplies and for the control and distribution of food and feeding stuffs in all possible conditions of war. The volume of home production in peace time will, of course, be taken into account in the preparation of these plans. Consultation will take place with the Agricultural Departments, through which provision will be made for the further increase of home production as and when required.
    Mr. SANDYS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in that connection, whether a decision has yet been taken as to the

    1259
    desirability of increasing the storage of grain?
    Sir T. INSKIP: Yes, in parts. I do not want the hon. Member to suggest that the matter has now passed beyond the stage of consideration as to other proposals for storage.
    Captain HEILGERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that storage in stacks is the most desirable way of storing grain?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I am sure that that proposition has not been overlooked.
    Mr. L. SMITH: Has the Department also considered storage for fertilisers which are not produced in this country and which will have to come in from abroad?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I appreciate the importance of fertilisers, but that is a matter which would be considered primarily by the Agricultural Departments.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the work of the original Beveridge Committee has now terminated and has been transferred to the new Department?
    Sir T. INSKIP: The Beveridge Committee completed its task of preparing plans for the rationing of food. The Department for which I am answering deals with the arrangements for providing food which, in such circumstances, would be rationed.

    CONTRACTS (PROFITS).
    Mr. MACLAYasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (1) whether there is any committee or body of experts engaged as a whole-time occupation in investigating and checking the extent of profits made by private firms engaged in Government contracts resulting from the Government's rearmament programme;
    (2) whether when applying a test as to whether excessive profits are being made by firms engaged under Government contract in the supply of goods made necessary by the Government's rearmament programme, he will have instituted as careful investigations into the profits of sub-contractors as are carried out in the case if primary contractors?
    Sir T. INSKIP: The duty of assessing the amount of profit to be allowed in Government contracts resulting from the Government's rearmament programme, rests with the contracts branches of the three Defence Departments who work on a procedure agreed between those Departments and the Treasury, and are assisted by whole-time staffs of technical and cost accountants. The investigation of the profits of sub-contractors cannot always be carried out by the same methods as are employed in the cases of main contractors, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that it is the practice of the Departments to exercise as close a check as possible in both spheres, and that the matter is continually under review.
    Mr. MACLAY: I appreciate the complexity of the problem, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will satisfy himself that the experts are fully alive to the position, which is that the main contractors are showing small profits and large profits are shown by sub-contractors; and will he see that they closely investigate the possibility of financial connections between the main and sub-contractors?
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman still considering carrying out the recommendations of the Government's Royal Commission, which made specific recommendations to control profits?
    Sir T. INSKIP: That is another question altogether, but the Report of the Royal Commission is being very carefully examined by a Committee which will report in due course, and I hope that in no great length of time the Government will make a final decision.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no extravagant profits are being made out of the national necessities regarding armaments?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I can assure the House that every possible step is being taken to prevent extravagant profits being made in respect of any of the contracts.
    Mr. BENSON: Are they being successful?
    Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Arising out of the original answer, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the procedure which

    1261
    is in force, having regard to the extraordinarily large profits that are being made in the aircraft industry; and, further, is he aware that a well-known large manufacturer recently offered to place his books before a chartered accountant with a view to giving an undertaking that he was making a reasonable profit, and that that offer was turned clown by the Committee?
    Mr. HARDIE: Owing to the unsatisfactory replies that have been given, I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for the consideration of the Motion put down for an early day by the hon. Member for Croydon, South? —
    "That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the truth of the allegations contained in an article published in the 'Sunday Express' newspaper on Sunday, 29th November, written by Mr. Archie de Bear, to the effect that the late Sir Basil Zaharoff made corrupt payments to servants of the Crown."
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I may add that I have no intention whatever of taking any action on vague and irresponsible statements of the kind referred to in my hon. Friend's Motion. If, however, he is in a position to furnish me, on his own responsibility, with any information showing a prima facie case for inquiry, I shall, of coarse, be ready to consider it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Prime Minister aware that these allegations as to the corruption of public servants by the late Sir Basil Zaharoff were made by a gentleman who was his private secretary at the time when these alleged corruptions took place, and in those circumstances is the Prime Minister prepared to give the matter further consideration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that I have replied to the question.

    KING'S PARK, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the
    1262
    First Commissioner of Works, whether he is now in a position to state how far he is prepared to relax the regulations relating to the parade ground in King's Park, Edinburgh, with reference to its use for playing games by children?
    Captain A. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury)(for the First Commissioner of Works): My Noble Friend asks me to say that he gladly agrees, as an experiment, to make the whole of the parade ground available for children's games, except on Wednesday and Saturday afternoons, when the ground is used for football matches. The hon. Member may also like to know that when the new dressing room is provided next year, schools should be able to make greater use of this ground for organised games of football.

    HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS).
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the Attorney-General whether it is the intention of the Government to publish the report of the committee, presided over by Mr. Justice Atkinson, which has inquired into the subject of official shorthand writing in the High Court of Justice; What conclusions the committee have arrived at; and whether any decision has been taken as to future practice on this matter?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): When my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has the opportunity of considering the recommendations contained in the report, to which the hon. Member refers, he will at the same time take into consideration the question as to whether the report shall be published.

    WAR RISKS (INSURANCE).
    Mr. PARKERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Lloyd's and insurance companies decline to write war risks on land in this country, the Government are now prepared to write this risk and to continue so doing during hostilities should they arise; what is the present rate of premium; and does it vary According to the district and/or the nature of the property?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am not in a position to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member on 12th November.
    Mr. PARKER: Do not the Government intend to take some action in this matter?
    Dr. BURGIN: The answer given on 12th November dealt with what the Government were proposing to do.
    Mr. PARKER: They were not taking any action.

    INDIA (PRESS (EMERGENCY POWERS) ACT).
    Miss WILKINSONasked the. Under-Secretary of State for India whether any security and, if so, what amount and on what grounds, has been demanded from a magazine entitled the "Bharata Sahitya," the organ of the All-India Literary Academy at Delhi?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): On 8th September security of Rs.1,000 was demanded from the "Bhariya Sahitya" under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act. I have no information as to the grounds for this action.
    Miss WILKINSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this magazine is a purely cultural magazine connected with the encouragement of Indian workers of the Left, and, in these circumstances, will he undertake to make some inquiries as to how far this has been pushed?
    Mr. BUTLER: I presume the authorities had reasons for the action they took, but I will make inquiries to find out what were those reasons.

    NEW BUILDINGS (SCAFFOLDING, INSPECTION).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Home Secretary when the last inspection was made by his officers of the scaffolding at the new building of the Earl's Court Exhibition?
    Mr. LLOYD: These premises have been visited by members of the factory inspectorate on a number of occasions within the past few weeks. On 6th November, special attention was paid to the scaffolding on the site.
    Mr. KELLY: Was there a report upon that portion which gave way, and was the cause of injury to the workpeople?
    Mr. LLOYD: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Home Secretary how many of the inspectors of his Factory Department are engaged on the work of inspecting scaffolding erected for new buildings?
    Mr. LLOYD: Inspections for the enforcement of the Building Regulations are made by the local staffs as part of their general duties, assisted where necessary by engineering inspectors from headquarters. The work, therefore, is not confined to any particular group or number of the inspectors; about 150 are normally available to take part in it.
    Mr. KELLY: Have those 150 inspectors to do the inspection work for the whole country, or are they for London only?
    Mr. LLOYD: For the country.

    LONDON UNIVERSITY BUILDING (ACCIDENT).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information about the accident at the new University buildings in Bloomsbury on last Friday afternoon in which four persons were injured, since which the Principal of the London University has died?
    Mr. LLOYD: I understand that Sir Edwin Deller and another visitor were being taken up from the ground floor in a hoist when a truck was pushed into the hoist shaft from the first floor and fell upon the party below. A workman had taken the truck, containing concrete, to that floor and emptied it, and he then pushed it back into the hoist opening without apparently realising that meantime the hoist platform had been lowered for the party in question. Further investigation is being made.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    CHARITABLE ORGANISATIONS.
    Mr. MAINWARINGasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information showing the amount of money expended by charitable organisations to

    1265
    assist necessitous families and individuals in the distressed and Special Areas during each of the last four years?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I regret that I am not in possession of the information asked for.
    Mr. MAINWARING: Has the Department any information whatever regarding activities of a charitable nature in those areas?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

    DURHAM COUNTY (TRAINING CENTRE).
    Mr. LESLIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of providing a training centre in the derelict village of Stillington, County Durham, in order that unemployed men should have an opportunity of being trained in suitable trades in the hope of industry being attracted to this village where excellent railway facilities are available?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The possibility of including Stillington in the area to be served by the proposed preparatory centre for young unemployed men at Spennymoor is at present under consideration. On the general question of establishing vocational training centres in areas such as Stillington, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to his question on 26th November.

    SPECIAL AREAS ACT (LANCASHIRE).
    Mr. CARYasked the Minister of Labour what districts in Lancashire are to be scheduled as Special Areas in any new legislation; whether before districts are so scheduled the fullest inquiries will be instituted to ascertain whether this step is in accordance with unanimous local opinion; and whether, in reaching a decision to schedule these districts as distressed, he will take into account the disadvantages which may result there-from owing to the tendency of new industries to avoid areas so described?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the proposals which will be embodied in the Bill to amend the Special Areas Act.
    Miss WILKINSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when that Bill will be introduced?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, I could not give the date.
    Miss WILKINSON: May we take it, then, that this is one more of the innumerable things that are still being considered by the present Government?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Yes, it is being considered.
    Mr. BURKE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take particular notice of the fact that the feeling in Lancashire is that it should not be regarded as a distressed area, but that something should be done before it gets into that plight.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  PIT BATHS.
  Mr. GALLACHER: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the urgent need for pit baths, and move a Resolution.
  DISTRESS IN SCOTLAND.
  Mr. R. GIBSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of distress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and move a Resolution.
  THE WEATHER.
  Lord APSLEY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the weather, and move a Resolution.
  SPECIAL AREAS.
  Mr. DAGGAR: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Special Areas, and move a Resolution.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Assheton; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lennox-Boyd.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY.
3.46 p.m.
Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I beg to move,
"That this House urges the Government to take immediate and effective measures in relation to the livestock industry in order to restore that balance in agriculture which is essential if it is to make its full contribution to the nation's food supply in time of peace and war and to assure a better standard of life to all engaged in the industry."
This Motion is drawn in very wide terms because my hon. Friends and I thought it desirable that this vitally important subject should be debated in the widest possible way and without necessarily appearing, by the terms of the Motion, to make an attack upon anybody. I observe that an hon. Member of the Liberal party has tabled an Amendment to the Motion—in line 5, at the end, to add:
"and hopes that the Government's policy will be based upon the improvement in the quality of the products of the industry, the reduction in the costs of production and distribution, and the stimulation of demand."
I do not know what other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may think of that Amendment, but I do not think it makes a great deal of difference and, if it should be called, I do not think I shall care very much whether that addition is made to the terms of my Motion or not, provided always that the words:
"reduction in the costs of production and distribution"
are not intended to involve any reduction of the standard of life of those engaged in any branch of agriculture. I say that deliberately, because, of course, there are some branches of agriculture in which a reduction in the costs of production is not easily effected without reducing the wages of the workers or the legitimate remuneration of the farmers. I say that, also, in order to protect myself from the possibility of a misinterpretation of my views. It may seem strange to some hon. Members that one who represents an urban constituency should, on the first occasion on which he has ever drawn a place in the Ballot for Notices of Motions, select an agricultural subject for discussion. My decision was a deliberate one. I have never failed to tell my constituents that, in my judgment, until we restore
1278
prosperity to agriculture, we shall never solve the problem of urban unemployment. The two things are so closely associated that I think it is the right and proper thing for urban or industrial Members constantly to impress upon their constituents how important agriculture is to the nation.
Some two or three years ago, in the course of a Debate on this question, I made a statement which, I think, rather startled the not very many hon. Members who were present in the House, but which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland repeated subsequently, after, I presume, he had tested its validity, and which I would like to repeat to-day. If you imagined our country divided into two countries, the one called industrial Britain and the other called agricultural Britain, if you were then to examine the trade statistics and find out how much industrial Britain exported to agricultural Britain, and if you then were to compare that with the exports of industrial Britain to the two great Continents of Asia and Africa, which between them contain three-fifths of the world's population—in round figures, some 1,200,000,000 human beings—it would be found that rural Britain was a bigger market for industrial Britain than the whole of Asia and Africa put together. That is, I think, to most people, almost startling in its significance. I, like everybody else, attach a proper and due importance to export trade, but I think we have often been inclined to exaggerate its importance. We do in fact live, so far as 90 per cent. of us are concerned, by what is called taking in one another's washing.
I hope it will not be thought improper if I very briefly review what I will call recent history. From the period 1929 to 1931, when our party were in Opposition, there developed a very acute fiscal controversy. It had many aspects. There was, on the one hand, the controversy between those who were protectionists and those who were not, but within the protectionists' ranks there was an even fiercer controversy between those who took Lord Beaverbrook's point of view of Empire Free Trade and those who took the point of view of the Prime Minister and supported the doctrine of Imperial Preference. I always thought that Lord Beaverbrook was wrong and that the Prime Minister was right. I never

1279
thought it wise that if we became a Protectionist country, we should do so on the basis that we were not entitled, when necessary, to secure to our agriculture or our industries a measure of protection against competition from Empire countries, while at all times giving Empire products a substantial preference over foreign products. I well remember being called upon, the day after Lord Beaver-brook launched his crusade, by a representative of one of his newspapers and being asked my views. I said, "On that basis you can never protect British agriculture," and from that point of view I have never departed.
The unfortunate thing was that though the Prime Minister fought manfully for Imperial Preference against Empire Free Trade, and on two occasions nearly lost his leadership of our party, the time came when he fell into bad company, if I may say so with great respect—I do not see any of them sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, which is a pity—because he became associated with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had spent their lives as propagandists for Free Trade and whom events had converted to a new cause which they never thoroughly understood, and unfortunately the Conservative party came into a National Government without having secured thoroughly the acceptance of its fiscal policy. When the Import Duties Bill was introduced—I was fighting my by-election in Croydon at the time—I was horrified when I read in the newspapers that we had decided to adopt Empire Free Trade instead of Imperial Preference. It was a blunder of the first magnitude. The Empire did not expect it, and we have now created vested interests from the Imperial point of view with which it will be very difficult to deal.
Mr. MacLAREN: Will the hon. Member repeat that sentence?
Mr. WILLIAMS: I said that we have now created vested interests from the Imperial point of view. Everybody else's interest is a vested interest, I would ask the hon. Member to understand. That was the first decision. The second decision in the Import Duties Bill was to place meat on the free list. That was the second great blunder, and a blunder of the very gravest magnitude. An attempt was made to reverse it, be-
1280
cause it will be remembered that the Chairman of Committees interpreted the Financial Resolution as permitting Motions to omit items from the free list. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), always a stalwart for the cause of agriculture, moved that meat should be left out, and there were 44 stalwarts who went into the Lobby in support of him and his fellow-teller, and 341 less well informed people who voted the other way. I say "less well informed" because nearly all of them would have voted the way we voted if the vote had been taken to-day. Among those who voted with the 44 were myself, the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard), who will second this Motion to-day, and, I rejoice beyond all measure, our new Minister of Agriculture.
We still hoped, however, that when the month of August, 1932, came and that powerful delegation of six Cabinet Ministers went to Ottawa, the thing would be put right. I think the Dominions expected it, and the bulk of us expected it, but to our amazement the provisional grant of Empire Free Trade to the Dominions up to 15th November, 1932, was continued for the duration of the Ottawa Agreement, that is, until some time in 1937. That was the third great blunder, and when the Secretary of State for Scotland became Minister of Agriculture, and when the agreement to differ could not be continued any longer and Sir Herbert Samuel and his colleagues left the Government, he became Minister of Agriculture but was a Minister in Free Trade chains. I do not think that when he originally took on that responsibility he quite realised how much he was going to be hampered. But still there was hope. We were still tree so far as foreign products were concerned, and then, in the summer of 1933, there came the final blow, the trade agreement with the Argentine, under which it was impossible to impose a duty on beef, certainly until 7th November of this year.
Now I see by the papers that the new trade agreement with the Argentine was signed at the Foreign Office yesterday, though I do not think the document is yet available in the Vote Office. I do not know whether the forecast of it contained in to-day's "Daily Herald" is accurate, but most of us are a little

1281
pessimistic. I have attempted to describe, very briefly, the recent history of this matter. Some of us made the life of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland a burden almost with monthly questions as to the growing imports of beef, veal, and other competitive products, and ultimately the time came when something had to be done and we had the cattle subsidy scheme. Not representing an agricultural area and not being engaged from day to day in the actual problems of the live stock industry, I do not profess to speak with any authority on how that scheme has worked out, but I know there will be many hon. Members taking part in this Debate who will explain in what respects they think the present scheme is defective and in what respects they think the forecasted scheme may prove to be unsatisfactory.
But what has happened since the Argentine Trade Agreement? Some 80,000 workers have been driven off the land of Britain. We rejoice, month after month, as we see the statistics published by the Ministry of Labour announcing the new conquests of industry. To-day there are approaching a million more people in this industry than was the case at the top of the 1929 period of trade activity, an amazing result, for which the Government are entitled to claim every conceivable credit. But during a period of only three years—as hon. Members know, the agricultural statistics are taken on 4th June of each year—from June, 1933, to June, 1936, the decline in the number of agricultural employed workers was 79,500 odd—a tragedy—80,000 driven off the land at a time when we ought to see people marching on to the land in increasing thousands.
What is the reaction of this meat problem on other branches of agriculture? It will be seen that in my Motion I refer to the balance in agriculture. That is the vital thing. Agriculture is a group of industries which are not rapidly interchangeable. Although agriculture works from year to year it is not like industry, which can change its products in five minutes. It is nevertheless true that if one branch of agriculture is depressed, with very considerable rapidity those engaged in agriculture engage in other branches. The depression in the livestock industry
1282
has forced a great number of farmers to increase their dairy herds. Each month I receive without charge the publication of the Milk Marketing Board and I always turn to the statistical page. I want to find out how many million gallons of milk have gone into manufacture. I find what has been the trifling increase in the consumption of liquid milk. The thing is the most incredible farce. The more successful the Milk Marketing Board are in stimulating milk production, the nearer they drive every farmer to bankruptcy, because for each additional gallon of milk produced 5½ d. is obtained from the factories instead of 1s. 2½ d. from the milk distributor. The right hon. Gentleman opposite does not, I know, take my point of view, but he agrees with me that we have to make the livestock industry prosperous if we are to relieve other branches of agriculture.
Let me remind the House of the declaration made at Ottawa by the Government. As Schedule H of the Ottawa Agreement with Australia there was a lengthy statement which occupies a page and a half of the bound volume of the Statute, and one paragraph read as follows:
"The policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in relation to meat production is, first, to secure development of home production; and secondly, to give to the Dominions an expanding share of imports into the United Kingdom."
I agree with both of those proposals. We have to give to the Dominions an expanding share, but we have failed to give to the home producers their expanding share.
I have already said that the former Minister of Agriculture was in Free Trade chains during his period of Office. He had not been there very long before he realised the fact, and he struggled valiantly, and as far as I can make out he passed on to his successor, to whom we all wish the best of prosperity, a measure of freedom which he himself did not enjoy. We are all now speculating as to what we are going to read in a day or so when the Argentine Agreement is published. A general rumour is that at last there is going to be a duty on foreign meat of ¾d. a lb. I also understand that when the Bill is introduced in about a fortnight's time there is the probability that a subsidy scheme is to be developed somewhat, and that a fixed sum of £5,000,000 a year is to be available. That

1283
is the rumour, as has been generally stated in the public Press.
What is to be the effect of the ¾d., assuming that that is the proposal? Roughly half of our beef is produced in this country. A considerable amount comes from foreign sources and a growing proportion from Empire countries. As long as the growing proportion from Empire countries is duty free, the ¾d. will have no effect on prices. The effect on prices of import duties depends on the proportions which are duty free and otherwise. It is not a fixed thing, and that is one of the mistakes that the Free Traders have made. As long as you have from Empire countries a growing proportion duty free, I do not think the ¾ d. will make any difference to prices in this country. I understand and sympathise with the point of view of the Argentine. They do not want to have a duty which is so high as to ruin them, and I gather that ¾d. is all that they can swallow. They are probably right and know their own business. But if we put ½d. a lb. on Empire meat and ½d extra, on foreign meat I think the price effect would be materially different. You would get an upward movement in price probably equal to ½d. a lb. Such a thing is difficult to forecast: You have to say "Provided other things are equal" and so forth. I believe that with ½. a lb. on Empire meat and a 1¼d. on Argentine meat—it would not represent any additional burden—the total sum accruing to the Treasury would be very much greater and there would be an enhancement of meat prices by a ½d. a lb.
I may be criticised by my constituents in saying it, but I do say that I think the urban community ought not to grudge an extra ½d a lb. on meat prices, and for reasons which I will give. For the moment we know that what I have indicated is not likely to be the case. But what has happened to meat prices? What was the declaration made at Ottawa? In reference to the depressed level of meat prices there was the recognition in 1932 that prices were not on a remunerative level. If hon. Members will go into the Library and consult the Ministry of Labour Gazette they will find the monthly table giving the average retail prices as collected from 5,000 shops every month, many of them
1284
branches of multiple shops and, therefore, very representative of the prices which the ordinary manual worker is paying. In 1932, in November, just after Ottawa, when we were passing the Ottawa Agreements Act, fresh ribs of beef on the average were being sold at 1s. 2¼d. a lb. The price on 1st November, 1936, was 1s. 1½d. That is ¾d. lower now than at the time of the Ottawa Agreements. Thin flank, the lower quality of beef, was 7½d., and it is now 7d.
I think that a proposal which at the outside would not quite restore the level of prices prevailing at the time of the Ottawa Agreements, is something which no consumer in this country can object to, because all the consumers in the industrial areas, with few exceptions, are substantially better off to-day than they were then. Therefore, I am not asking the industrial community to do anything unreasonable, and if we can restore the level of Ottawa prices the subsidy will be entirely available for raising the wholesale price which the farmer receives. I do not want to take the House through a mass of figures, but if any hon. Member cares to study the imports of beef he will find that in 1932 they were 11,964,000 cwt.—that is in the Ottawa year—and in 1935 they were 12,421,000 cwt., an increase of nearly 500,000 cwt.; and if we compare the first 10 months of this year with the first 10 months of last year we find that there has been an increase of 242,000 cwt. So it is perfectly clear that this year as a whole, if it continues as it has gone on for 10 months, is going to show an importation about 750,000 cwts. greater than that which was recorded in the Ottawa year.
It is clear, therefore, that the livestock industry has not had a square deal. I am not going to suggest that protection by tariff, which I prefer, is the only thing to be done. I am not going to deny that those engaged in agriculture have their part to play. They have to manage their herds in the best possible manner. I am quite satisfied that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), who is to move an Amendment to my Motion, will advance the argument that by better management of herds better results can be obtained without any one's standard of living being degraded. I think that those who produce beef ought to do more to

1285
advertise their products. What teetotal Members of the House may say about "A Guinness a day keeps the doctor away," I do not know. I am not considering its merits as the advertising of a particular commodity, but its merits as an advertisement. There is not the slightest doubt that the clever slogan advertising popular products has an amazing effect. Those engaged in the production of beef ought to advertise their products, if they can work out some satisfactory scheme.
It is also of vital importance that more attention should be devoted to quality beef. The reputation of British beef is based fundamentally on quality, but there is a good deal of British beef offered for sale which is below the quality we expect. In that way both distributors and farmers injure themselves. I am afraid that a good many old cows are killed and offered for sale as fresh beef, and they do not advertise quality. If we were to have a phrase such as "Let us can the cows and hand them over to Mr. French for our next great war," it might be useful. I always think that such beef when canned is much nicer than when it is fresh. There is no doubt that if you took off the fresh meat market the very substantial qualities of cow beef that are offered to-day, the net result would be an enhancement of the remaining first class beef.
Although the main burden of my speech is to advocate the proper fiscal protection of the livestock industry, nevertheless I recognise to the full that there are other things which ought to be attended to, and I certainly hope that the new subsidy scheme will have due consideration from the quality aspect of the problem. How vital this problem is, is shown by the many communications that I have received since it was known that I intended to move this Motion. If I were to expound all the matter I have received by post I should be able to talk out my own Motion. Nevertheless, bearing in mind how important it is that this subject should be discussed from every conceivable aspect, I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the House, and without further words I move my Motion.
4.1:3 p.m.
Mr. EVERARD: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure that the whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for South
1286
Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) not only for bringing this Motion before the House, but also for the extremely able way in which he has proposed it. I only hope that when another birthday comes—I understand it is his birthday to-day—he will not be too old to forget the agricultural industry, and that he will be able to support us for many years to come. The case which has been made out by my hon. Friend is a particularly interesting one, because it comes from a Member representing an urban constituency. If there is one thing which has appealed to me more than anything else since I have been in this House it is the better understanding and the greater interest which Members representing urban constituencies take in the great industry of agriculture. I only hope that those of us who represent the agricultural industry will see that we do our share to look after those whose prospects and future are in the great towns.
As my hon. Friend has said, the whole future prosperity of the towns lies in the agricultural community outside, and the corollary is also a fact. We are also fortunate this afternoon in having the new Minister of Agriculture with us. I have always appreciated the great feeling for, and knowledge of, agriculture which he has, and his constituency is one which should produce a Minister of Agriculture. If we are receiving a new friend among us, it would be fitting if we said a word of appreciation of the Secretary of State for Scotland who, during his tenure of office, as Minister of Agriculture, probably did more to endeavour to improve the difficult times through which agriculture has passed than any other Minister in recent times. This is a particularly opportune moment for a Debate on the livestock industry because in the last Debate, when the late Minister was speaking on the Second Reading of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act on 17th July, he used these words:
"Only yesterday the Scottish National Farmers' Union representatives came down and interviewed hon. Members of this House on the question of the quality subsidy, whether it would be adequate, and under what terms it would be given. All these matters which, within the time afforded by the temporary Bill, we shall have an opportunity to discuss with them, and they desire and demand that it should be discussed with them, and rightly so. If I were to announce here and now that everything had been definitely decided, there would be no more

1287
use for argument and debate or for the Debate now taking place. We intend to have still more discussions with the producers' representatives and with the representatives of the distributive trade between now and next autumn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1930; col. 2491, Vol. 314.]
We therefore presume that the late Minister and his successor have been carrying on these negotiations with the producers and the distributive trade, because I think that it must have been made perfectly clear to the late Minister from the speeches which came from practically all the agricultural Members in his own party on the last occasion when we had a similar Debate that there was a great feeling of dissatisfaction at the pronouncement which the Government had made on the long-term policy which they were to institute for the livestock industry. It is interesting to note the great improvements which have taken place in those sides of agricultural production which have been given a more or less guaranteed price and the certainty of a market. Under the wheat quota there is an increase of wheat of about 75 per cent. Then there is the enormous and ever-increasing production of milk, which is now about 3,000,000 gallons a day more than it was four or five years ago. There is, too, the increase of sugar beet. All these are items of agriculture upon which the farmer has the definite knowledge that he can sell his commodity, and he knows what sort of price he is likely to get.
When we come to the side of the agricultural industry in which the most capital and to which the most consideration must be given—that of livestock—it is far more difficult for the farmer with the knowledge that it takes three years before he can get his money back, to decide whether he will rear his calves or slaughter them, or whether he will continue in the livestock industry or turn to milk or some other side of agricultural production. It is because livestock is the slowest and most difficult side of the industry upon which the farmer can take a decision that it deserves and should get so much attention from this House. I give the Government full credit for the efforts they have made since 1932 to do something for the industry. They have made substantial efforts by the cutting down of fat cattle coming in, by the sub-
1288
sidy, by the Ottawa Agreements, and in other ways to bring back prosperity to the livestock industry. I should not be stating the facts if I did not say that the industry fully appreciates those efforts. We have to face the fact as it is to-day, however, and the fact is that whereas before all these efforts were made the index figure for fat cattle stood at 112, it stood last month at 113, including the subsidy. In other words, the farmer is no better off although the subsidy is being paid. During the last three years the average price of fat cattle has been in the neighbourhood of 37s. per cwt., whereas every British farmer knows, and it is generally agreed in the House, that, taking the country as a whole, it is impossible to produce and to pay an adequate wage or anywhere near it unless the price is 48s.
The breeders of store cattle are in a desperately bad condition. Calves have been killed to an enormous extent and we have now to face the position that very nearly half of our stores are coming from Ireland. I cannot believe that that is a satisfactory state of affairs. Although I speak very largely for the grazing side of agriculture, I appreciate that in the north of England and in other places where stores are the whole livelihood of the farmer, it is vitally important that the Government should, in whatever steps they take, ensure that British store cattle have an advantage over those which come in from abroad. I am sure that unless something is done in the new arrangement, the breeders of store cattle will cease to be able to operate.
I was very impressed by the arguments which were used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) in the last Debate on the Government's new proposal which, as we understood it from the answer which the Minister gave on 6th July, was that there should be an increase of the subsidy to £5,000,000 for fat cattle. There is little doubt that there will be a duty of ¾ d. a lb. on Argentine imported cattle, which will produce about £3,000,000. The consequence is, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon said, the Exchequer which is now having to find £4,000,000 a year will be relieved of £2,000,000 of the cost of the subsidy by the duty on the importation of fat cattle and chilled beef from the Argentine. I do not approve of the Government's scheme

1289
because I do not approve of the subsidy. I think that it is the most dangerous method of giving relief to any industry because it is so easily stopped if any Government comes into power that does not approve of it. Far better do nothing at all for livestock than something which will be stopped in a year or two. That is my whole case against subsidies. Farmers still remember the Corn Production Act, and we certainly do not want a repetition of anything of that sort.
For that reason I consider that an actual Exchequer subsidy is a dangerous and bad method of dealing with the present situation. I believe that the only possible method of dealing with the livestock industry is by the method which we have several times put forward in the House of the levy subsidy. We should first have an import duty or levy on all cattle and livestock from all countries, including the Dominions. The Dominions should, of course, pay a considerably smaller amount. We should get in that way a large enough sum to make up the deficiency, irrespective of the Exchequer, and bring the price up to 48s. per cwt. I am certain that until we get down to some scheme of that sort, which will work itself, which will not be dependent on the good will of any particular individual at any time, there will be no security in the agricultural industry.
I agree with the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) who is going to move the Amendment. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon that there is nothing in the Amendment which we do not all desire to see, but all these things will come much more easily when the industry is in a position to be capable of carrying it out. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman visits many farmsteads outside his own well-kept estate. My experience goes to show that the ordiary farmstead in a great many parts of England is almost in the same position as the Crystal Palace is to-day, or at any rate, getting very near it, because of lack of money to enable farmers and owners to keep their buildings and tenements in repair. It is folly to say that we can expect these people without any capital to put all these things right before we have put right the fundamental trouble which has brought them to their present
1290
position, and made livestock a paying proposition.
The whole of this problem is undoubtedly closely associated—much more than most of us think—with the defence of this country. I do not think that anywhere near a sufficient case has been made out for help for agricultural production in time of emergency, and particularly for the livestock industry. The cereal crop takes a year to grow, but if we want to produce a large quantity of any sort of livestock, it takes several years before we get any stock at all. I congratulate the Government on setting up the Food (Defence Plans) Department, and I hope that they will go ahead with it. Anything that any of us can do to help them we will be only too delighted to do, because it is a definite move in the right direction. We may rebuild a large portion of our Navy, but what is the good of doing that simply to escort ships from the Argentine or elsewhere with food, which we could equally well produce in this land and thus save the cost of those ships or at least have them for the defence of the country instead of for the convoy of food ships?
The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence said they were now considering or had made arrangements to have a reserve wheat supply, and that is very important, but meat supplies are equally important. Meat forms one of the heaviest cargoes we have to bring across the sea, and I should have thought that one of the first things the Minister would have done would have been to ensure that as far as possible we import less of it from abroad. Further, in time of war one of the most important supplies of fat would be the fat from bullocks and other beasts, because all the pigs and other animals which live on articles of food capable of use by human beings would be slaughtered very much earlier than those which live on grass and other natural foods.
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend has brought into this Motion, and rightly so, the question of agricultural workers. While it is only fair to say that in the last two years the wages of agricultural workers in this country have gone up by about £1,500,000, I do not think anyone in any part of the House who represents an agricultural constituency would say that the pay of the agricultural worker is

1291
any way near commensurate with the pay of a similar man who does a job in a town, and until that situation has been rectified we ought not to be satisfied. After all, it is not the man's fault that he happens to live in some outlandish part of Cumberland or Westmorland or the Highlands of Scotland. He has to work where he is, and if he moves into a town he has often greater difficulty in finding employment. Anything which can help to provide permanent employment for agricultural workers and to improve their standard of living and wages is something which everyone would willingly support.
I am convinced from my knowledge of my own constituency that, if the particular side of agriculture now under consideration is not put on a proper and firm foundation for the future, we shall see a large additional number of men put out of work, and they are the skilled agricultural workers. Every man employed in the livestock industry is a skilled man; he is not the ordinary unskilled worker who can be used for other purposes. Those are the men we must keep in the industry. I appeal to the Government to do something more than is proposed in the scheme which I envisage as in their minds at the moment. I may be wrong in my criticism of the Government on one point. I have said that I do not like an Exchequer subsidy but would rather have a subsidy from a levy on imported produce. There is one other way to do it and still get a standard, or a reasonable, price for agricultural produce. I understand they are taking powers to control imports. If they use those powers properly they can effect the same object of raising prices in this country to the figure which I have mentioned just as well as by any other means. I would ask the Minister whether, if these powers are being taken, the Government intend to make serious use of them in order to bring up the price of beef to 48s. per cwt., or at least to a figure in that region. I feel that the problem before us is one with which everybody in the House, no matter whether his interests are urban or agricultural, must closely associate himself, and I hope that this Debates may be the means of securing a sympathetic consideration of these agricultural problems.
4.36 p.m.
Mr. R. ACLAND: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add:
"and hopes that the Government's policy will be based upon the improvement in the quality of the products of the industry, the reduction in the costs of production and distribution, and the stimulation of demand."
In moving this Amendment I should like to express my sincere gratitude to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion not only for their able and interesting speeches, but for giving the House this opportunity of discussing the principles on which agricultural policy should go forward, apart from the rather binding provisions of any particular Bill which might be before us; and the more so—and I say this without any disrespect to his predecessor—because we have a new Minister of Agriculture in whose ability and energy we on this side of the House have more confidence than we have in, at any rate, some of his colleagues. I hope that the Mover of the Motion will appreciate that I have not suggested the alteration of a word or a line in his Motion. Indeed, it would be impossible to do so when we are asked to support, "immediate and effective measures to…restore that balance in agriculture," "make its contribution to the nation's food supply" and provide "a better standard of life to all engaged in the industry."
Those are aims which are universally and equally desired by all sections of the House; but we occasionally hear speeches from farmers' representatives, both inside and outside the House, in which it is suggested that if the Government would stiffen up the quantitative limitation of imports and instead of this miserable¾d. a pound on foreign meat impose an import duty on Dominion beef and a higher one on foreign beef, so adjusted as to give the livestock industry a nice little guaranteed price, then the Minister of Agriculture could go to sleep assured that his name would go down to history as that of the man who had solved the livestock problem. It was my fear that this Motion, so admirably worded, might be supported by speeches of that kind, and thereafter, if it were carried by the House, give the Minister and the nation the impression that the House regarded such a policy as not only necessary but as being sufficient.

1293
It is not my purpose to deny that financial assistance is required by the industry at the present time. I admit all the facts stated by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and I do not dispute many of the conclusions which he reached. I moved this Amendment for the purpose merely of emphasis. If it is the view of the House that agricultural policy should be founded upon State assistance, and that organisation should be merely a superimposed veneer, or, as one might say, a kind of tiresome homework which the farmer is expected to do before or after dinner, then, of course, this Amendment will be defeated; but if the House takes the view that a reduction of costs of distribution and of production, an improvement in quality and the stimulation of demand are the basis upon which an agricultural policy ought ultimately to be built to stand alone, financial assistance being a temporary necessity from which we ought some day to be able to escape, then I hope the Amendment will be carried.
There are so many things one could say about the Amendment that if I omit some of them I hope that it will not be accounted to me as carelessness, but rather as righteousness. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) that although I agree with him that when farmer-owners are loaning money they cannot improve their farms to the same extent as when they are making money, the suggestions which I am going to put before the House are not in any way dependent upon whether or not individual farmers are making or are losing money. I will give two quotations from the Bingley Report. It states on page 81:
"From the inquiries we have made we conclude that the full benefit of higher prices will not accrue to the home producer without greater efficiency primarily in the field of marketing, but also in the production of livestock and its preparation for sale as meat."
On page 31 it states:
"The general lack of marketing organisation, the excessive numbers of markets… inefficient use of methods of sale…the lack of market intelligence and of knowledge of supplies and prices the blind movements of stock in search of a reasonable market, the fluctuation of supplies at markets—all these are unfavourable to the farmers' interests.
That is strongish language, and we hope that the Minister really means business.
1294
It is well known that many farmers intensely dislike any form of interference, but I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if they represent to the farmers that a levy-subsidy is alone sufficient to solve the problem, and if the Members of the Opposition endeavour to organise the farmers' dislike of any alteration in the present system in terms of the ballot-box, we shall be rendering the greatest possible disservice to the people whom we endeavour to serve.
I have a few words to say on the question of breeding. It is a tragedy that whereas our best stock is better than any in the world our average is not as good as the average of some of our competitors. It is a very grave problem, and I hope the Minister will pay particular attention to the recommendation in the Bingley Report that the Ministry's premium bull scheme should be extended, and should be concentrated particularly on supporting a light-weight good beef type of bull in those areas which export store cattle. It is very largely a question of weight in these days, because consumers, and also to a large extent our competitors, are turning away from the heavy-weight animals to baby beef, and our farmers must do the same. Here is another quotation from page 62 of the report:
"Although there is some demand for large joints from certain sections of the meat trade, this demand is insufficient to absorb the available supplies of heavy cattle over 11 cwt. live weight, except at relatively low prices for the best class of family trade the tendency in the last few years is to regard 9½ cwts. as the most useful live weight."
There is a tendency among farmers' representatives to speak in these terms: "Our costs of production are so much and the price we can get is so much. Therefore, we require a subsidy of so much to bridge the gap." That argument is very plausible, but when you take an extreme case it breaks down. I might say: "The cost of manufacture of a stage coach is so much and yet all I can get for it is so much. Therefore, I demand a subsidy to bridge the gap." That is an extreme illustration, but the difference between that case and the case of the 13 cwt. of beef is a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.
In this matter the Minister might, I suggest, have two objects in view. Let

1295
it be clear for several years to come that the production of the 9½ cwt. 20-months beast is going to be quite profitable. With regard to the 13 cwt. three-year-old beast, admittedly we cannot drive that sort of beast into the bankruptcy courts, but let it be clear that the consumer cannot be expected for ever to bridge the gap between its cost of production and the market cost of an article which the market requires less and less at the present day.
That brings me to the question of slaughtering. Last Session I said in one Debate that in slaughtering we had made very little progress since the days of William the Conqueror. I was taken to task by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I now want to suggest that many of our municipal slaughterhouses are rather more like the slaughterhouses of William the Conqueror's time than they are like the Chicago or Adelaide meat factories. I am aware that in the smaller centres the methods are open to objection. There port of the technical committee on abattoir design indicates that something might be done among the smaller centres by co-operation among the butchers, but they suggest that the problem was outside their terms of reference. As regards the smaller centres, it cannot be denied that further investigation is necessary. That does not apply to the large centres. We had a report from the Agricultural Committee on the Marketing of Beef and Cattle seven years ago. I make no apology for quoting from it to the House:
"It cannot be seriously maintained that our meat supplies, taken as a whole, are handled as efficiently as are the meat supplies of our overseas competitors with their up-to-date plant, where nothing is wasted and supplies reach the consumer in the best possible condition. The public abattoirs in this country have none of the advantages of the foreign meat factories.
Both absence of resting before slaughter and movement of carcases before setting are injurious to meat. Further, such procedure does away with the possibility of hanging supplies at a proper temperature in large cooling chambers, which is a feature of the trade in most progressive countries."
There is one other quotation:
"The cost of hanging a carcase for a week in Amsterdam is 1s. 8d. and in Smithfield is 15s. 6d."
There is no possibility of getting further information than we have on this sub-
1296
ject, except by taking action. Investigation and report have reached finality. There is this report of the technical committee on abattoir design; I hope the Minister means to do something really big on the lines of setting up factory abattoirs, may be experimentally at first. I submit that the experiment must be conducted on a big enough scale to show us how the public will react to the better quality in the meat which will be brought about by better slaughtering methods and better hanging facilities, and that the experiment in abattoir construction must be accompanied by a vigorous advertisement campaign in the district in which the experiment is made.
While I am talking of experiments may I conclude with one small point which is really separate from anything which I have said before, and that is on the question of artificial dried grasses? I believe that for some years now the position has been that the proposal is perfectly sound in principle, in theory, and economically, but that a certain number of quite small technical engineering problems have yet to be overcome. Nevertheless, on the whole, private enterprise is funking those technical problems. Quite a large capital is needed to start one small experimental plant. Would the Minister not think it worth while to go into this question of the artificial drying of grasses in a big way? Let him put £500,000 or £1,000,000 into experiment and research to overcome those technical difficulties. If he succeeded, he would be able to keep the process in his own hands and develop it along lines approved by him. It would make a considerable contribution to the solution of the coal problem, because coal is required in the process. It would enable the farmers to feed their beasts into the autumn, without having to rely so much upon foreign imported foodstuffs, and it would have its effect upon the autumn gluts, when most of our beasts are sold at the lowest prices. If the Minister failed—I hope he will not be afraid of failure—in an experiment of that kind, and if he came to this House and said, "I have spent a million of money on research and I have accomplished nothing," he must not be afraid that the House would turn him out. It would not be the first time that a Government had spent £500,000 or £1,000,000 of public money, and in return had got nothing.
4.53 p.m.
Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has given me the pleasure of seconding his Amendment. I framed it with him, as the Member for a neighbouring constituency, and in other ways. It is a great pleasure to me to join in this Debate at his request. Before I come to the subject of his Amendment, perhaps the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion, and whose speeches I very much admired, will allow me to say a word or two arising out of something that was said. They have given a perfectly admirable introduction to the very important subject which we are to discuss to-day. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) put forward the alternative of a levy-subsidy, compared to a tax. To ordinary people they will seem to be precisely the same thing. Each of them is just as stable and just as unstable, with the Government in power at any time able to modify them up or down, in the Budget of each year, just as they can modify the Tea Duty, the Sugar Duty or anything of the sort. The idea that there is any special virtue in nominally earmarking the yield of a special tax for a special purpose is "all my eye." It does not work. It has never been admitted by the Treasury. The Minister of Agriculture, having come from the Treasury with a good Treasury training, is the last person in the world to admit it. We might as well be perfectly honest about this and say, as we are going to say: "We are going to tax beef." To call it a levy-subsidy will not hurt anybody in the long run.
Mr. EVERARD: There is one difference, and it is that the levy-subsidy comes definitely into the Cattle Fund. It does not go into the Exchequer. It is very much easier to take off a subsidy than it would be to destroy the whole of the Meat Act which was set up by the Government.
Sir F. ACLAND: It goes into the Cattle Fund as long as the House of Commons says that a similar sum shall be paid into the Cattle Fund. There is no guarantee. If any Government thought that the nation ought to be taxed differently, they would provide the money differently. There is no virtue in that idea of earmarking certain
1298
revenue for certain payments. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member said about the condition of many farms, not only freehold farms, but farms held by landowners. I want to touch upon that to make this point: We shall all have to be prepared sooner or later for the position to arise that the deeper we get into what we are now setting up so certainly and surely, namely, the dependence of all, or the main part, of the agricultural industry upon the State, the less possible it will be, in the long run, to avoid the State having some say in regard to subjects like rent and the conditions in which farms are kept, and what happens to the share subsidy, which has not come yet, I may say as a landowner. One hopes it may come soon to the landowner, who has hitherto done nothing but reduce his rent. That is an unavoidable aspect, if we really look forward.
With regard to the main point of the Motion and the Amendment, I could not help thinking when I heard the two hon. Members speak, how politely and how easily we now cover up the fact that we regard it not only as normal, but as natural and necessary, that advances to agriculture shall rest in one way or another on the general taxpayer. I would bet, if it were in order in this House to bet, that of a dozen speeches from the Government side of the House, 11 would advocate more State money to be applied in some way or other, particularly to that part of the agricultural industry which happens to be practised in their constituencies. In regard to the Amendment, although that process goes on merrily, from the taxpayers' point of view, but not quite so merrily from the farmers' point of view, it all points in the direction of getting ultimately a stiffer State control. We have the Milk Report, of course, on which we cannot ask the Government to do anything yet, which recognises definitely that the main policy in regard to milk shall be taken away from the representatives of the producers and put under public control. That may or may not be wise, and may or may not be done, and we cannot discuss it to-day, but if that sort of thing is done for milk it will follow for beef. If it follows for beef it will be done in other directions, as it has already been done more or less for sugar-beet. You get State control unavoidably, as a corollary to subsidy.

1299
That being so, it is not unreasonable, again as a corollary to subsidy, or tax, or assistance, to suggest to the Government—I am glad to feel that we are not on controversial lines on this matter—that the control which they exercise, in whatever way they choose to exercise it, must take into account the consumers' end. However much they may try, and however successfully they may go on for a few years, ultimately the help which they are tending to give more and more to the different branches of the industry, will be secured only if the consumers are satisfied that they are getting something in return for the large amount of money, which, in one way or another, they are called upon to pay. Therefore, it is right to bring into the picture from the first not merely the question, overwhelmingly important as it is from the point of view of our constituents, of the producer doing better, but also that the consumer has something which he is anxious about, namely, such matters as quality, marketing, the margin between wholesale and retail prices, and matter such as has been touched on by my hon. Friend. These are really essential as elements in these big matters from the beginning. I hope, therefore, that the representative of the Government will be able, as an earnest of his agreement on that main point, namely, that the picture has two sides, the producers' side and the consumers' side, to accept the Amendment as well as the Motion. That would lead to a greater amount of agreement, and therefore a greater amount of good will in regard to the schemes which the Government have to put forward.
5.2 p.m.
Sir EDMUND FINDLAY: I hope that the mere fact that I have some practical knowledge of agriculture will commend itself to the House when I am dealing with this subject, as I have not spoken on any other subject here before. I should like to congratulate the Government on what they have done in connection with subsidies, and the assistance they have given to the English farmer. With the new arrangements that they are making for the cattle subsidy they have put the problems on a satisfactory basis, or satisfactory as far as possible. They have a levy-subsidy for wheat. They have the sugar beet subsidy to help them with their root crops. They have an
1300
arrangement with Argentina to enable them to put their feeding market on a correct basis, and they have a further subsidy which is paid in cash out of the pockets of the farmers. They get their feeding stuffs, oats and barley, below the cost of production. I maintain that this is quite unreasonable.
What is the position in Scotland in this connection? As far as the cereal crop is concerned we get nothing. Certain farmers grow wheat, but in my opinion as a practical farmer those farmers are growing wheat to the detriment of their land, because it is not wheat-bearing land. But it is difficult to suggest that where you get a Government grant of over £3 15s. an acre you should not take a chance. As far as roots are concerned we grow turnips and mangold wurzals, but we cannot grow sugar beet to any degree. Oats we grow below the cost of production to subsidise the English farmer in his marketing of beef. There is a very serious danger that these grievances will endanger the whole idea of co-operation which the Government are trying to bring about between farmers as a whole. I am very loath to suggest, in fact I think it is ridiculous to suggest, that we should get further grants from the Treasury, but I do believe, and I would ask, that the grants which are to-day made should be more fairly allocated. We in Scotland have as much right to this money as the farmer in England.
It was suggested yesterday that as Norfolk has been the means of getting the sugar beet subsidy they have the first right. Perhaps that is correct, but I maintain that those people who have the greatest difficulty in carrying on should receive at least a proportion of the subsidy which the Government are prepared to pay to agriculture. It is a difficult problem, because any subsidy which the Government have to pay on the livestock industry must depend entirely on price. The Government have not yet made up their minds what is a fair price level. Before they come to this House with proposals they must be certain—I say this in all seriousness—what acreage they propose that a farm should be. Three hundred acres is the acreage which the normal tenant farmer farms to-day. That is the case in 80 per cent, or so of the farms. It would be much more efficient to farm considerably

1301
more; but it is the policy of the Government to suggest smaller holdings. Smaller holdings mean greater costs of production. I would ask hon. Members not to take the Amendment too seriously, that a reduction in the cost of production is absolutely essential. The Government could easily insist on a serious reduction in the cost of production. What would be the result? First of all, the farmers would have to cut down every hedge, every tree—
Mr. MacLAREN: And every landowner.
Sir E. FINDLAY: No. And they would have to use tractors and farm the land as land is farmed on the prairies. The trees and the hedges are there for a purpose. I believe that the old Liberal view of individualism should be continued. Therefore, the Government should not consider the cost of production too carefully and too economically, that is, from the point of view of the economist, if they want to retain the countryside as it is. How often has one heard the phrase, "The Garden of England." Do we wish an economy which will reproduce in England the condition of the prairies, so that the townsman will have nothing to go to see on his week-ends, or do we wish a very small increase in price, or else a certified price which will enable us to carry on our agricultural industry and make a profit in the way we are doing to-day
It would hardly be fair if I sat down without discussing one or two problems which we have particularly in Scotland. I would ask the Government, before they formulate finally their livestock policy, to allow us representation. I believe that an agreement has already been signed with Argentina which will make it quite impossible for representatives of that industry to make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee This may or may not be of assistance to the country as a whole, but I think it is very hard luck on the farmer. I would ask the Government, in formulating a new policy, to consider quality. At the present time the subsidy on a weight basis militates against the Scottish farmer in producing quality. I have taken out some figures which show that, according to the wireless prices, at Carlisle market a 10-cwt. beast fetches
1302
30s. per cwt., which amounts to £15. The farmer gets a subsidy of 5s. per cwt., or 16⅔ per cent. The beasts of my constituents in the North-East of Scotland fetch 50s. to 51s. per cwt., and they get the same subsidy, or only 10 per cent. That is a direct encouragement to grow low-quality beef.
I know that there are difficulties, and I would congratulate the Government on what has happened so far. We have a livestock policy. I think it was Dr. Addison who introduced the licensing of bulls in 1929. He said in this House that that would in time cause an improvement in the cattle trade, and it has done so, but I would most earnestly ask the Government to consider, in regard to the licensing of bulls, the very serious question, which has not been brought up before, of contagious abortion. An enormous improvement has admittedly been made by the use of premium bulls, but it must be remembered that such bulls can become infected with this complaint and can spread it through the herds in their district, and there is no method by which the Government can prevent these bulls from catching it.
Further, we have had experience in Scotland of promises, which I must admit were made in good faith, that the wheat subsidy would be of assistance to the oat grower. The Government must admit that that has not been the case. I think, too, that the promises that the cattle subsidy would be of assistance to the breeder of store cattle have not been borne out either, and I would suggest that in the Government's final livestock policy some direct assistance should be given to the breeder of store cattle. It is in the Government's interest. From my own personal knowledge I can assure them that it costs no more to fatten a good beast than a bad beast. I can also assure the Government that by the time, as a breeder, I have got my percentage, by the time the auctioneer has got his percentage, and by the time the other people interested have got theirs, there is mighty little left of the Government grant to go to the feeder. They are a difficult class to deal with; they require a good deal of showing how to do it. I would humbly suggest to the Government that they should revive again what they did at the Alloa show some years ago, and put forward some practical form of exhibit showing the breeder what is

1303
wanted. They did it at Alloa for the pig trade. An ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. You will not get farmers to read blue-books, but you will get them to come to cattle shows and see what they should do, and I believe that this would be of considerable advantage in the breeding of good store cattle in this country.
Before I sit down I would like to put forward one further plea. The Prime Minister at the end of July gave a personal undertaking that he would go into the oat question and the barley question. We in Scotland produce, and it is our only paying crop, wheat, and we are not content to remain with only one crop, out of all the crops that we grow, as a paying crop. I would ask the Minister to remember that it is no use holding up the waters of prosperity if you leave a hole in the dam. At the present moment there is a very serious hole which is open. It is no good having a livestock policy unless you have a good growing policy to feed that livestock.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. HOPKIN: I am sure that Members in every part of the House will desire to congratulate the hon. Baronet the Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay), who has just spoken. He has brought to this House that which we all desire to bring, namely, the result of our own experience in the world outside. Most of us can merely claim to be theorists, particularly in the matter of agriculture, and I am sure the House is delighted to hear that we have one more Member who is something more than a theorist, and who is a practical man prepared to put his experience to the use of the whole House.
The problem, for me, is contained in one sentence that I heard in Carmarthen last Saturday. It is that for some considerable time prime beef has been sold in Carmarthen at 30s. a cwt. plus 5s. subsidy; that is to say, the farmer gets 35s. per cwt. for his prime beef. Is there a Member in any part of the House who will stand up in his place and say that beef can be produced at a profit when it is sold at 35s. a cwt.? If there is not, what is the answer to the question now that figure can be raised? The farmer will not take any glib answer, nor will he take any political theory for a reply, because for him it is a, matter of life and
1304
death whether he gets a sum of money that will at least pay him his cost of production. I admit most readily that I have no practical knowledge—I only wish I had—of agriculture, but I make it my duty to get from the farmers themselves exactly where they stand, particularly as regards prices. A figure of 48s. a cwt. has been mentioned here, but let us take 40s. plus 5s. subsidy as a sum which would clear the farmer's expenses and leave him some little profit. Matters simply cannot go on as they are now, and, just as this House came to the aid of British railways, so in my respectful submission it must come to the aid of the farmer who depends upon livestock and the livestock industry. At the present ridiculous figure, the farmer gets absolutely no profit on his animals; in fact, he loses, because he pays almost that sum, and sometimes a little more, for the stores that he buys earlier in the year. He feeds them all through the summer into the autumn, and then sells them for the sum he gave for them, or even less.
The result is that the farmers, particularly in West Wales, are abandoning the livestock industry altogether and are going in for milk. We see further evidence of that when we look at the figures of the decreasing number of store cattle in the whole country. I asked the Minister of Agriculture some months ago for the comparable figures covering the same month, but in different years, for West Wales, and they showed that there were some thousands fewer store cattle this year than there were last year. Mention has been made more than once in this Debate of the importance of agriculture in relation to defence. If it is a fact that the number of stores is decreasing in this country, then agriculture is by that fact the less efficient for the country in case we went to war. I cannot do better than read what has been written by Professor Stapledon in his book entitled "The Land." With reference to stores he says, on page 197:
"The only real hope for cattle is a complete recovery of the store trade on some permanent basis, not only the restoration of prices, but some greater promise of stability in prices than even in times of reasonable prosperity has been associated with this essentially dealers' business."
How do the Government intend to improve this present problem? As far as

1305
I understand, the one practical thing that has been mentioned during the Debate since it started at a quarter to four is a reference to A¾d. per lb. on Argentine meat. It seems to me that that is just like offering, to a man who has broken his leg, a piece of sticking-plaster. I have in mind all the time the farmer who gets this 30s. a cwt., and I ask myself, will the imposition of this ¾d. a lb.—whether it is right or wrong does not very much matter for the purposes of this argument—affect the price in the slightest degree? The farmers look with very grave suspicion on any suggestion that is put forward about a Central Meat Board. They seem to think that the last person in the world who is considered in these matters is the British farmer, and that the first person who is thought of is the man in this country who has money on loan in Argentina.
The farmer looks with envy on the iron and steel industry and what has been done for that industry. Rightly or wrongly he asks, if that has been done for iron and steel cannot something be done—he does not suggest that it should be done in the same way—for agriculture, to free it from the position in which it is to-day? He sees, when he looks at iron and steel, that so much is produced in the home market, but what is short is bought in bulk, and so imports are not allowed to come in to such an extent as to knock the bottom completely out of the price in the home market. Farmers are very much attracted, rightly, by the idea of a standard price. We know that, if we go into a shop, we have to pay "X" pennies for a lump of soap, and the price will cover the cost of production and some kind of profit for the manufacturer. The Government ought to see whether something of the same kind cannot be done for agriculture under which the farmer, who produces the things that we eat, might know with certainty that he is not going to sell them at a loss. In dealing with foreign stores might I suggest that after four years the subsidy should cease, and during that term should be a dwindling subsidy?
A matter that is of very great importance to the farmer is that of markets. and I hope the Government is going to deal with those small markets which, at present, do very much damage in reducing prices for the farmer, who attends
1306
the market very often about five or six times during the year. I should like to offer three suggestions to the Government. The first is that they should do everything in their power to stimulate home production. They should do every thing to bring more pasture land into use. It has been calculated that in Wales some 300,000 acres could be made into first class agricultural land at a cost of £6 an acre, and Professor Stapleton suggested that a loan of £12,000,000 spread over 20 years would completely revolutionise agriculture in Wales. What is there to prevent some such loan being made? I entirely support the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) about grass drying plants. Three friends of mine have put their money together to the extent of £2,000 and bought one of these plants, and another has bought a plant at about £1,600, but for the ordinary farmer this is quite outside the range of possibility. Some time ago I asked the Minister if he would consider giving some kind of credit to the farmer for these plants. The answer was No. It is an extraordinary thing that we can make loans to colonies and places all over the world, but we cannot make a decent loan to the farmer with which he could produce things that the country needs.
My second suggestion is that cheaper and easier credit should be provided. At present many hundreds of farmers are in the hands of the dealers. If the Government would only provide some better scheme for cheap credit which is easily available, they would be doing the farmer a great deal of good. My third suggestion is that the Government should build up a collecting and distributing scheme by which the farmer could have the advantage of a bigger share of the price that the consumer pays. We have had a report from the Reorganisation Committee on Milk. From beginning to end the one consideration was the consumer. I am here to put forward the other side of the picture, and I make no kind of apology for doing it, because in Carmarthenshire there are over 8,000 holdings of one acre and more, and these small farmers have as much right to justice and to what is right as the consumer, about whom so much is written in this report. The Government has not taken the big view of this enormous

1307
problem, which affects the lives of more than 1,000,000 people. It deals with a fundamental industry. There are other interests which are more powerful and have greater weight with the Government than the home farmer. It has been the spoken policy of every Government as long as I can remember to give the home farmer a fair deal. As far as I know, no Government has done what it has said and given him the first look in on the home market.
5.39 p.m.
Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Member who has just spoken is quite right in what he has said about the price of beef. I do not care who tries to produce beef at that price, it cannot be done without loss. We have had an extremely interesting and valuable Debate. I have been specially interested in two of my colleagues from the West of England, to see how well the son led the father and how well the father followed the son. It is quite an example for parents in Devonshire. I am grateful for this Debate, because it is necessary. If it were a question of a distressed area, we should have a crowded House and it would be made a political question. I should like to see an equal interest taken in agriculture, because I am certain that a great deal of urban unemployment and a considerable amount of the distress in the distressed areas is due to the depletion of workers on the land. In 1921, when the records were first taken, there were 996,000 agricultural workers, and on 4th June this year there were 749,700. Is it not a devitalising movement in our national life when you have 25 per cent. of the agricultural workers going from the land in 15 years? To my mind it is one of the greatest questions that we have to face. The Prime Minister in his election address in 1924 gave this pledge:
"I regard it as vital that the basic industry of agriculture should be not merely preserved but restored to a more prosperous condition as an essential balancing element in the economic and social life of the country."
I think that is wise—that we want a better balance between agriculture and industry—but unfortunately the drift is all the other way; it is from the country to the town. I cannot help
1308
thinking that it is a tragic commentary on all our promises to agriculture. Agricultural labourers are deserting the land largely because wages in other industries are higher. There is no way out of it. If a man can get in an aerodrome or on the road 5s. or 10s. a week more, he is going there. The Wage Board fixes agricultural wages at anything from 30s. to 35s. weekly. You will not keep men on the land at that wage when they see railway workers getting 10s. or 15s. more. The only way to get better wages is to make the produce realise sufficient to pay them. It is rather a commentary on the agricultural situation that we have just passed an Insurance Act for unemployed agricultural workers. There are none. A real, genuine agricultural worker in Devonshire can get half a dozen jobs. I cannot help thinking that we are beginning at the wrong end.
What I have pleaded for and what I am certain is necessary is a stable, reasonable price for agricultural products. Farming is a long-term business. It is no good saying that you can start a farm and produce immediately. Let the men who are prepared to put their capital into the land—and there are plenty of them, for they love the land not because of the amount of money they may get, but because they love the life on the land—know something of what they are going to get. I am certain also that the health of our population would be improved. We have an enormous amount of tinned concoctions and frozen products coming in, but wholesome food is very much better for the people.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the new Minister, although I must say that the former Minister strove his very best for the agricultural industry. I think he was hampered from the beginning; he was tied up with the methods of the Ministry itself. The Ministry of Agriculture seems to be a great advocate of marketing schemes. I have never had much faith in marketing schemes, and I have less faith in them to-day than I ever had. They were the inspiration of the Ministry of Agriculture. The hon. Gentleman opposite held in his hand a report of the Milk Marketing Commission, and I have a copy here. It came from the Stationery Office. Here is the Milk Marketing Board, which has been in operation two, three or four

1309
years, and subsidy after subsidy has been poured into it, and now there is a report an inch thick. Who is going to read it? This is one of the Yellow Books that the Ministry of Agriculture has published from time to time. I had a long list of them the other day. If I were my right hon. Friend I would take the lot and burn them at Smithfield.
What has been the result of the Milk Marketing Board? It really is tragic, but it is also comic. A mother requiring milk for her child has to pay 6d. a quart, and the manufacturer 6d. a gallon. The thing is hopeless. That is the position in the village in which I live, and it is a replica of all the villages in the land. We are not allowed to sell milk at less than 6d. a quart. Many people would sell at 4d. and would be very glad to do so. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not allow himself to be tied up with these marketing schemes. I will give him a piece of candid advice. He represents an agricultural constituency himself, and he has, I am sure, a good many hard-headed farmers there. Let him send his officials from the Ministry down to Gloucestershire, and let him bring some of these hard-headed farmers up to advise him at Whitehall. The officials would be doing something useful, and the farmers, I have not the slightest doubt, would give good advice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) spoke about the iron and steel industry. I cannot understand why agriculture is not to have the same treatment as the iron and steel. industry.
Sir F. ACLAND: It has had four times as much already.
Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend opposite says that it has had four times as much, and I should like to challenge that figure very much. Can he point to any agricultural population that is as prosperous as the iron and steel population? I should like to find it. Can he find anything like the profits being made in agriculture that are being made in iron and steel to-day? I never like to say anything unkind about my Liberal friends in the West country. We try to keep together as much as we can, but we are a good deal apart on many things apparently. The Minister will have to deal with a very prominent Member of his own Government—the Chancellor of
1310
the Exchequer. He does not seem to have realised how necessary it is that agriculture should have the same treatment.
We have asked over and over again that Dominion products should, with a preference, pay a duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when in Devonshire some time ago. chided the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons because they had demanded that treatment. I think that that demand is only reasonable. We have said right the way through, "The home producer first, the Dominion producer next, and the foreigner third." I say very respectfully to the Government that, if the agricultural interest has a rankling grievance against the Dominion producers, it will not be advantageous for the Empire. The iron and steel tariffs have benefited Birmingham, and I cannot see why Devonshire should be vivisected for the benefit of Birmingham. If the Empire is to be strong and united there must be no sense of grievance anywhere. We were told that the Ottawa Agreement would bring an enormous amount of trade. It has, and one reason is that all Dominion products are introduced into this country free. My right hon. Friend gave an answer to an hon. Gentleman opposite only a few days ago when he said that:
"Voluntary arrangements have been made with the Dominions for the regulation of their exports of meat to this country."—
the very subject of this Debate—
"The arrangements have provided for increases in the quantities imported."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1936; col. 435, Vol. 318.]
So these voluntary arrangements to which we are to trust have resulted in an increase in the quantities imported. We therefore cannot have much confidence in these voluntary arrangements for restricting imports. I would say this to the lion. Gentleman opposite, that the main agricultural competitors of this country are Denmark, Argentina, Australia and New Zealand. Every one of those countries has a depreciated currency and we have to compete with that. What would hon. Gentlemen who so ably represent mining constituencies say if coal came into this country from countries with depreciated currencies?
Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: What about coke?
Mr. LAMBERT: I agree, and I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned coke. Only a few days ago there was a Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment. When it was known that 100,000 tons of coke had been brought into this country immediately the mining Members were on their legs to protest against it. That was all right, but we have to compete against countries with depreciated currencies. How can you expect agriculture to prosper in such circumstances? The last question I wish to touch upon is that of defence, which is referred to in the Motion of my hon. Friend. I happen to have been in the House right through the late War, when the real danger was not invasion but starvation. We were told the other day that we had only six weeks' supply of food. If the food danger was great in the last War, it will be infinitely greater in the next. With the menace of aeroplanes, I do not see how any vessel can come up the Channel or how the population of London is to be fed. Eleven million people must be fed from the Port of London. The Port of London is very vulnerable and I really do not know how the distribution from the Port will take place, how the Port itself will be protected, and how shipping will be able to come up the Channel in the presence of this new aeroplane menace. Therefore, it behoves us, as a measure of defence, to increase the quantity of home-grown food. This would be far more efficacious in a future war than spending an enormous sum upon battleships.
It is said that we are to ration, but before we can ration we must have production and the food itself. From the point of view of the strength of the country and of defence it is essential that we should have a larger amount of homegrown food. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day that the Minister was engaged in working out schemes for the increase of production of food in time of emergency. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that cannot come about in a moment. You cannot produce cattle and wheat without a considerable amount of preparation. I remember that during the late War some of the adventurous gentlemen who sat on that bench started to plough all sorts of land. They ploughed up Richmond Park. They got more wireworms than oats, as you would if you ploughed up an old
1312
park. You must have suitable groundwork. You require the framework. If you have the land to cultivate you can expand it, but you want to be able to expand it easily without having a very considerable framework to work upon at the moment. There is no subject that can better engage the attention of this or any other Government than the encouragement of a virile population living and working on the land.
5.59 p.m.
The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I should like, first of all, to express my sincere thanks to those hon. Members in different parts of the House who were good enough to make kind personal references to myself, and to assure them that I appreciate their good will and am grateful for it and will try my best to deserve it. I cannot say how much I feel indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) for seizing the opportunity of the ballot to ventilate this most important topic. It shows in the hon. Member a range of vision which extends far beyond the mere interests of his own constituency, because he raises a subject which is of national importance and of no mere local significance. I feel happy speaking on this subject because the discussion has revealed a very encouraging degree of unanimity in all quarters of the House on the importance of preserving agriculture, and particularly the vital branch of it concerned with the production of livestock. No one entering on his duties at the Ministry of Agriculture could fail to be encouraged by the growing conviction, which is evident, of the interdependence of town and country. The prosperity of one redounds to the prosperity of the other, and any true advance must be secured by an advance along the whole line.
The House has expressed its desire that measures should be taken to improve and safeguard this branch of the industry. In the Motion I can find no cause of complaint, neither can I with the Amendment. Both Motion and Amendment are entirely in accord with the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I hope the House will take what course it pleases with regard to the Amendment. I gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon that he was prepared to accept it, although he made the stipulation that efficiency of produc-

1313
tion was not to entail any lowering of the standards of the agricultural labourer or those engaged in farming. That is a condition which I am certain the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) will readily accept. I am sure it is the desire of all parties that those who earn their livelihood on the land shall, as a result of the efforts of this House, have a better chance of living in comfort and in some degree of security. The hon. Member for South Croydon, with his uncanny memory of the past, drew attention to several incidents and to several steps taken by the Government which he described as blunders. My concern is with the present and with the future, and he will forgive me if I do not enter into a dispute with him as to what has happened in the past. I would not like, however, to leave this part of his speech without reminding the House and my hon. Friend that if there have been blunders there have also been triumphs, and I should like to say how grateful agriculture and the House must feel to my predecessor for the efforts he made in a state of collapse of world agriculture to devise measures for restoration. The community can never be sufficiently grateful for the fertility and resource with which expedient after expedient was tried in order to save a vestige of prosperity to the industry, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend leaves the Ministry with the good wishes of the whole agricultural population.
The hon. Member for South Croydon drew attention to one sad feature—the loss of labour from the agricultural industry. That is a feature which cannot but be disquieting to anyone who has the interests of the countryside at heart. I must point out, however, that this loss of labour has not been accompanied by any reduction in production; indeed, there has been, during the last four years, an increase of production of a considerable order. There is no doubt that some part of the cause of the loss of labour is to be found in increased mechanisation, a feature which has disturbed the supply of labour in more than one industry, and, in the second place, in the increasing prosperity in the towns and the attraction of high wages which are payable as a result of the success of the Government's policy in the industrial field. There is no doubt that the only way to secure a greater number of men on the land is to take such
1314
measures as we can to ensure the prosperity of agriculture in the future. Along this line alone can we secure that men shall live in comfort and security.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) referred to the discussions which were held with various bodies when the Government were framing their policy for the livestock industry. These discussions are still continuing and much assistance has been derived by the Department not only from representative producers and distributors, but also from those representative members of local authorities who have been consulted, and I should like to thank them for the great trouble to which they put themselves in order to assist the Department by their advice in regard to many features of the Livestock Industry Bill. The hon. Member for Melton drew attention to the question of prices. That, no doubt, is a feature which is accepted as a criterion of its prosperity by all those connected with the industry. It is the reward for their immense toil. If you regard the price situation at the present moment, it is not fair to judge the state of the industry entirely by the prices we have recently been experiencing. There has been a heavy seasonal decline in the prices of cattle, due to many causes, one of which undoubtedly is the summer, if it can be called a summer, which brought a plentiful supply of grass and a great increase in the number of cattle coming forward compared with last year. I would not like those who are attempting to estimate the effect of the Government's proposed assistance of £5,000,000 to this industry to frame their calculations too pessimistically on what is a seasonal low figure. I believe the signs are that the tide has already turned, and that prices will continue to heighten, and we may expect a better return to the farmer who produces beef cattle. That this opinion is widely held is shown by the steady demand for store cattle. It looks as if those in the industry had not been too disheartened by the recent low level of prices but are looking forward to the future with a considerable amount of hope which we trust will be justified.
One point has been made, and I cannot pass from it without emphasising it. I know that disappointment is sometimes expressed with the Government's policy in that the levy to be raised on foreign beef is not in some way earmarked for

1315
the purpose of assisting the cattle industry. Some people feel that if you were to frame such a system, with the money going into a certain fund, that some degree of permanent assistance would be achieved for the industry. After a, moment's reflection those who are aware that one Parliament cannot bind its successor, will agree that no alteration in the form of the assistance makes the slightest difference, that it is entirely a question of what is the most convenient way for the House to handle the matter, and that if the money was paid into a fund, as the history of the Road Fund clearly establishes, no greater degree of permanence would be secured. I should like those who have any misgivings to be reassured that one form of assistance is as permanent as another, and that it is really a question of the most convenient way of doing it. If the Government were to take the advice of my hon. Friend and do nothing about meat which could be upset, it would mean that we should do nothing at all, because anything which one Parliament can do can be upset by its successor. Even the complete tariff system which was advocated by my hon. Friend is not immune from such a reversal. It did not take Lord Snowden very long to reverse the McKenna Duties, and I would urge my hon. Friend to agree that there is no quality of permanence to be derived from the policy he suggests which is not present in the proposals of His Majesty's Government.
The hon. Member for Barnstaple asked us to apply methods which would secure the efficiency of marketing and slaughtering. I cannot reply fully to the hon. Member to-day, because these matters form part of the Livestock Industry Bill which will be in the hands of hon. Members shortly, but I can assure him and other hon. Members that when they see the Bill they will find that this aspect of the problem has been prominently before us and that it contains provisions giving effect to his desires, including the question of central slaughtering. He also referred to grass drying plants. I agree that this is a very important thing and we should—I was going to say, leave no stone unturned—do everything we can to see that this system, if it is a practical proposition, is investigated. I can assure
1316
the hon. Member that it is being investigated by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Research Council and that we are actively pursuing our investigations. Every single proposal that has been made has been examined, and we are having a meeting shortly to discuss what is the best scheme, and whether it is an economic proposition. While I do not commit myself to the lavish spending of £1,000,000 which the hon. Member advised yet, at the same time, I can assure him that we shall take every practical step to see that the investigation is pursued, and that the results are brought to the attention of those who are interested.
The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), in his customary vigorous intervention in these debates, made certain suggestions which he said should receive my most careful consideration. I say at once that I cannot accept his suggestion that I should make a bonfire of yellow books. I have no doubt that more heat than light would proceed from any such proceeding. I cannot promise to be such a rabid and ruthless iconoclast with regard to the milk scheme as my right hon. Friend suggested, nor can I follow his advice that I should dispense with my present assistants and officers at the Ministry of Agriculture and bring in some hard-headed farmers to run the Ministry for me. When my right hon. Friend advocates the destruction of the milk scheme, he should remember that the hard-headed farmers voted for the continuance of that scheme.
Mr. MACGUISTEN: The cows voted for it—not the farmers.
Mr. LAMBERT: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the farmers were told that if there was to be any regulation of imports, they must support these marketing schemes?
Mr. MORRISON: I think it is generally recognised by the farming community that they would be in a worse position without the scheme than they are with it. That is the practical situation as it appeals to the hard-headed farmers to whom my right hon. Friend made such a flattering reference. I do not wish to detain the House at any length, for I know there are many hon. Members who wish to take advantage of this opportunity; but since I have been asked what

1317
is the Government's policy in this matter, I would like to deal with some of the speeches made. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton advised us to beware of legislation which follows the evil model of the Corn Production Act. I thoroughly agree with that statement. But what is the feature of the Corn Production Act which most calls for criticism and which brought about the unhappy result that in the long run it inflicted more damage than good upon the agricultural industry? It was that the Act envisaged an unlimited call upon the Treasury, no matter what should happen to world prices in the meantime. That is precisely what some critics of the Government would seem to wish to have as a substitute for the farming subsidies. I myself have the greatest confidence in the proposals that are now before the House and that were enunciated by my right hon. Friend my predecessor on 6th July last.
There is great danger in attempts to load the public finances with a, liability which cannot be foreseen, and, although I would like to see every conceivable thing done to assist the agricultural industry, and the livestock industry in particular, I ask hon. Members who are still fiddling with the idea that a scheme of guaranteed prices with an unlimited call on the Exchequer is a feasible proposition, to remember that meat is in a very different position from wheat for which the subsidy and guaranteed price have worked extremely smoothly and efficiently. In the case of wheat, some 15 per cent. of the total consumption is grown at home, and that gives a very large area of overseas supplies on which a very low levy produces a considerable sum of money which can be spread out over the small area of the 15 per cent. of home production. In the case of meat the position is different. We produce roughly half the supply and, if one excludes Dominion meat from the levy, one would be left with a very small amount to spread over a very large proportion that is home produced. Other difficulties consist in the fact that meat is an article of many grades, is not as homogeneous as wheat, and, moreover, the grades vary very greatly.
Considering that those difficulties would have to be foreseen and dealt with
1318
if a policy of guaranteed prices were to have any permanence, and considering that there are grave risks as to the permanence—as the precedent of the Corn Production Act shows—of any policy which makes an unlimited call on the public funds, I would ask the House to agree with me that His Majesty's Government are proceeding more wisely and more in the interests of the agricultural industry by making in the meantime this grant, which they think to be adequate—given the proper prices for which we hope—out of public funds and then keeping the situation under review to see what the actual course of events may turn out to be. Those are the reasons which I advance to my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who are interested in this question.
With regard to the levy of ¾d. a lb. on Argentine meat, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Croydon as to what would be the effect on prices, and I was very glad to note that his conclusion was endorsed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin), who also seemed to be of the opinion that it would not cause any rise in prices to the consumer. I hope the hon. Member for Carmarthen will retain that attitude when we produce the Bill imposing the levy, and I hope that he is speaking for all his hon. Friends. The hon. Member spoke of the livestock industry, and I gathered that he asked why the livestock industry cannot be given the same opportunity as is given to the steel industry for the producers in that industry to regulate the market and so improve their individual position. Curiously enough, that is precisely what the Government propose to do, for one feature of their proposals will be a world meat conference at which producers would have the opportunity of examining the situation. The meat-producing countries, among which, of course, our country would be represented, would have an opportunity of investigating the situation and taking such steps among themselves,, by arrangement, as would maintain supplies at reasonable levels. If the hon. Member reflects upon that, I think he will see that we are making an effort to give agricultural producers something of the opportunity which they ought to have in the world market.

1319
I would like again to thank the House for the way in which it has conducted this Debate to-day. I would ask hon. Members to remember that the whole livestock policy as at present envisaged will be contained in the Bill shortly to be presented to Parliament. This proposal to impose a levy of ¾d. a lb. on meat coming from foreign sources will not be contained in that Bill, bat in another Bill accompanying it. Effect is also given to that in the Argentine Agreement, which I think at this time is available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. The International Conference arrangements are designed to give quantitative regulation of imports to the people who can best exercise it, namely, those who are aware of what meat is coming forward, and who can, we believe, do it better than the Government; but at the same time, if these hopes are not fulfilled—if the machinery of the conference should break down—His Majesty's Government will take powers themselves to regulate imports with the same end in view. The marketing arrangements, which have been criticised by hon. Members opposite and which we have been urged to amend and improve, will be covered by the Bill, and at the same time an increased subsidy of £5,000,000 will be paid to those engaged in the industry.
The Bill will contain the qualitative provision of which some suggestion was made by many hon. Members opposite, that is to say, arrangements will be made for a higher level of subsidy to be paid for the good-quality article. I believe that to be fundamentally right. I believe that even in times of depression the best article always gets its price. Even in these times in which we are now living, when we have been suffering from a seasonal glut, there are many good quality cattle still getting a very good price. I hope that one result of the Government's long-term policy will be to base the remunerative value of livestock upon a higher proportion of first-quality beasts which will always secure the confidence of the public and always secure a good price. The hon. Baronet the Member for Banff (Sir John Findlay), to whose speech we listened with such interest, spoke as one having certain practical knowledge of the interests of his constituents, and he asked me to deal with the oats situation. Oats are not connected directly with livestock, except
1320
that the dictionary definition of Dr. Johnson is that they are supposed to be, in England, food for horses; but I would ask the hon. Baronet to reflect with some confidence on the fact that the quality provisions will, we hope, be of great assistance to that industry in the North-East of Scotland, from which fat cattle of the best quality have always come in the past.
I would like to thank the House for dealing with this subject in the way in which it has. There is no doubt that the interests of agriculture and the towns are bound up together, and it is a happy omen that the hon. Member for South Croydon should have moved this Motion this afternoon. I feel there is growing in the country a conviction that this is the case. In peace time, the countryside, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Banff so charmingly said, is a garden, a place which no townsman, however much he may have to labour and live in the towns, would like to be destroyed or taken away. I would also ask the House to reflect on this, that in these times of world fluctuations in prices and exchanges, British agriculture is a pendulum on the price of food which prevents exploitation of our own consumers by foreign producers. It is very obvious that the production, on the whole, of a wonderful supply of food, considering the circumstances in this country, has acted as a very fine balancing factor in preventing wide fluctuations in prices. In war time, our agriculture is essential to our continued survival as a nation, and it can only play its whole part in an emergency, should one come, if in the meantime it is kept in good heart and ready to respond with speed to the extra demands that would he made upon it.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) asked—if the House will permit me to say so—a most intelligent question of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He asked whether a Minister would be appointed to look ahead, and whether the right hon. Gentleman realised the danger of allowing an industry to die and presenting posterity with the horrible problem of a depressed area. I commend that question to the consideration of the House. We have seen what can happen if industries are allowed to perish. Let the House imagine what would be the position if

1321
we were to be so short-sighted in our generation as to allow the agricultural industry to perish from our land so that the whole of this garden to which the hon. Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay) referred became a depressed area. That would be a dreadful result and a dreadful monument to human futility and stupidity. I hope that no such thing will be allowed to happen by this House. I hope we shall continue to regard the land of this country, not as a possession of the generation now living upon it, not as its creation, but as land drained, cleared and tilled by generations which preceded us. It is not ours to ravish and lay waste because of any passing whim or economic doctrine of one generation, but is something that we should preserve as an inalienable possession of our people and hand down if we can, in better condition than we receive it.
Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the international Meat Conference will start at work?
Mr. MORRISON: We hope at the begining of next year, say, in January.
Mr. MacLAREN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his predecessor, in winding up the last discussion which we had in this House on agriculture, promised that the Department would inquire into the contributory elements in the cost of production? During the whole of that Debate there were constant references to the cost of production and the then Minister said he would communicate with the Cabinet Committee and urge them to make an inquiry into the elements in the cost of production of meat. Has anything been done in that respect?
Mr. MORRISON: I could not say, but it will be obvious to the House that the cost of production of cattle must vary enormously according to whether they are grass-fed or stall-fed.
6.32 p. m.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I begin by wishing the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) many happy returns. Last Wednesday we heard him scintillating on electricity. To-day we have heard him sparkling on agriculture, and his eloquence was such as almost to leave the House without a word to say
1322
on this subject. May I also take the opportunity of saying to the right hon. Gentleman who has just made his maiden speech as the head of this Department, that in the short time at his disposal he seems to have obtained a thorough grasp of his new obligations? Apart from the contrast between the turbulent waters of the frozen North which used to roll so fiercely on these occasions, and the calmer waters which flowed so sweetly this afternoon, one might have thought from the speech we heard that the former Minister of Agriculture still stood at that Box so little has the situation changed with the change in individuals. Those who were present when the hon. Member for South Croydon began his speech will remember that he showed that he had not lost his sense of humour, because he said he had put down the Motion in the widest possible terms so as to have a wide debate and so that it should give rise to no criticism. He then proceeded to declare that the expedient of Empire free trade was calamitous, that placing meat on the free list was a disaster; that maintaining it on the free list until 1937 was a tremendous disaster and that the last word in the ill-treatment of agriculture was the trade agreement with the Argentine. He followed up these remarks with a reference to the milk scheme as farcical and his speech, following a Motion which was supposed to give rise to no criticism, was more critical of the Government and many of their proposals than we have ever been.
The hon. Member further showed that he had not lost his sense of humour by asking the Government for something. immediate and effective. Just fancy asking this Government for anything immediate and effective. The hon. Member must know that the only method of the. Government in dealing with livestock production or any other question is to start with emergency measures which are extended periodically until finally it is discovered that the issue can no longer be avoided, and then they embody their proposals in some sort of ad hoc measure. At all events the effective and immediate measures for which the hon. Member asks were clearly understood. He does not want to potter about with levies and subsidies and restrictions and all the other half-baked policies—presumably that is the implication—which the Government have pursued. What

1323
he wants is a practical policy, an import duty large enough to make livestock production an economic proposition in this country.
Like many other speakers on the benches opposite, he was careful not to tell us whence he drew the figure of 1¼d. which he thought would turn the livestock industry into an economic proposition. I know that the Seconder of the Motion said that the price to-day was approximately 37s. per cwt. and that no farmer could produce beef and pay reasonable wages under 48s. per cwt. Therefore, it was argued, what we want is a minimum of 48s. per cwt. It is easy to understand what the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) wants. At the moment we are giving to the livestock side of the industry £4,000,000 per annum. They have been promised that that shall be increased to £5,000,000 per annum. The hon. Member wants an additional lls. per cwt. which would mean an additional £6,000,000 on top of the £4,000,000 per annum which they are now receiving, or £10,000,000 in all. It would be easy for a charitable and generous Chancellor of the Exchequer to give that amount, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister who has only recently left the Treasury, will not, I think, find it as easy to secure from the Chancellor that extra £6,000,000 as the hon. Member for Melton seems to think.
I regret that I should have to introduce into this Debate one discordant tone. We have reached a stage in our agricultural Debates at which it has become difficult for any hon. Member to do either himself or the subject justice. This afternoon we are dealing with the livestock industry, but that industry is not a separate item; it is part and parcel of a bigger industry. During the last four years, we have been separating the agricultural industry into water-tight compartments. First, the House was called upon to consider the case of wheat and we passed a Measure giving £6,000,000 per annum in respect of that one commodity. Then a case made out for subsidising sugar—not agriculture but just sugar—and we gave £5,000,000 per annum for that purpose. Then someone else made out a case in respect of milk, and we gave the dairying industry some £2,500,000 or thereabouts That again is for one separate commodity. Then we are called
1324
upon to deal with the beef situation, and we set aside £3,000,000 per annum for that purpose. Every one of these branches of the industry has been made a separate economic proposition on the basis of the Government's policy. The old law of the balance in agriculture between one crop and another and one commodity and another, seems to have gone by the board.
To-day we are confronted with a Motion with which no hon. Member on these benches will disagree to the effect that the livestock side of the agricultural industry should be made paying and prosperous on conditions that would be acceptable, I think, not only to hon. Members on both sides here but to all concerned. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) wondered when the Government were going to do anything for agriculture. The hon. Member cannot have been noting the events of some years past, or he would have observed that agriculture has received more in instalments from the Government than all other industries and services put together. It may be that the position in agriculture warrants this. It may be that the lot of 200,000 agricultural labourers during the past 15 years justifies the Government in doing something extraordinary for that industry. But the more money we have handed over unconditionally to agriculture, the fewer workers have been employed on the land. The hon. Member for South Croydon rightly drew attention to the fact that in the past three years agriculture had lost approximately 80,000 employés, but whereas he declared that to be exclusively due to the Argentine trade agreement—
Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I did not put it as strongly as that. I said since the date of that agreement.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think there is a variation, but very little real difference between the two statements. The hon. Member knows that I do not wish to misrepresent him, and I take it that since the time of the Argentine Trade Agreement we have lost 80,000 workers on the land. Since 1920 or 1921 we have lost approximately 200,000. We have been losing them every year for the past 15 years. It is not so much a question of the trade agreement with the Argentine, as of a whole set of factors. The hon.

1325
Member did not deign to explain what he meant when he imported into his Motion the words "to restore that balance in agriculture." He carefully avoided telling us what he meant by restoring the balance.
We also are interested in restoring the balance in agriculture, and we want to know whether it is desired that this country should increase its production of beef by 10 per cent., or by 15 per cent., or is it desired that the production of beef should proceed side by side with the increase in the production of wheat, since we are giving the wheat producer a subsidy of £6,000,000 per? We ought to know what that nice balance is. No Minister has told us. When one is dealing with livestock only, it is difficult to view the industry as a whole and to ascertain what contribution agriculture as a whole has to make to our economy in this country. If the Government made up their minds that instead of the livestock branch of the industry producing 47 per cent. of our requirements it must in future produce 55 per cent. or 57½ per cent., or whatever percentage they decided upon, we should know exactly how that part of agriculture stood in relation to the rest. But as it is we are dealing with milk, with wheat, with livestock, but never with agriculture as a whole.
I return to the proposal of the hon. Member for South Croydon. I know that he is genuinely concerned about the points which he advanced. He wants a direct subsidy as the best, the easiest and the safest means of restoring prosperity to the livestock side of the industry. He wants a duty large enough to prevent the imported article entering the country, or large enough to enable British meat to be sold in place of imported meat. I know that he is a sound economist and I would ask him at what point does he expect the British consumer to transfer his custom from imported chilled or frozen meat to British meat. The margin at the moment is approximately 4¾d per lb. Are we to assume that if a duty is placed on imported chilled and frozen meat of say l¼d a lb., which reduces the margin to 3½d. a lb., many consumers will commence to eat British meat, or must we assume that the price of the English meat is to be increased slightly, but not quite so much as the duty imposed upon imported meat?
Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I thought I made it clear that if there is a duty of l¼d. on foreign meat and ½d. on Empire meat, the price would rise by ½d., which would bring us back nearly to the retail price at the time of the Ottawa Agreement, and that was the price level with which I thought the consumers ought to be satisfied.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: That is exactly my point. If we are to impose a duty of l¼d. on foreign meat and ¼d. on Empire meat, that will allow the English meat price to rise slightly, by ¼d. Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that more people will then commence to eat English meat at ½d. a lb. higher? If so, then he must look at the opposite side of the balance-sheet, because every ¼d. or ½ per lb. more you place upon the imported, cheaper quality meat, you are bound to cut off the lowest layer of consumers, so that the chances are that there will be fewer people consuming imported meat and slightly more, on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, consuming English produced meat, but on the whole, because there are fewer consumers of imported meat, a reduction in the number. If there is a reduction in the number of consumers of imported meat because the price is increased by 1¼d. per lb., the price will tend to decrease, and the margin will go off the duty to where it was before the duty, and it may conceivably be that the hon. Gentleman will find that the second state is actually worse than the first.
Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Much of the hon. Gentleman's argument is the obvious argument. Go back 10 years, when the consumption of meat per head was about 10 per cent. greater than it is now. The price level was far higher then, as a matter of fact, and if you get a continuance of the industrial revival, you will get an increased meat consumption that will look after itself.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten, what the Minister will tell him if he puts the question to him privately some time, that there has been a change in the taste of the people, who are not now consuming so much meat as they hitherto did. Our people are enjoying fruit and vegetables. They are not drinking much more milk, because of the farcical scheme referred to by the hon. Member, and unless one

1327
is very careful they will find that their second state is infinitely worse than their first state. In these days we are called upon, even by the hon. Member for South Croydon, instead of advertising, "A Guinness will do you good," to advertise on the hoardings, "Good old English beef will do you good." That is a good, sound proposition, but yesterday it was a case of advertising, "Drink more milk" and another day "Eat more British bacon." The people cannot eat more of everything unless you give the average worker more money with which to buy these commodities. The workers are being invited to drink more milk, but the hon. Member knows that the price of milk to-day is higher than it has been for decades. They cannot afford to buy more milk, and that is why the milk scheme has been termed farcical.
I should like to see our people not only drink more milk, eat more beef, and consume more bacon, but I should like to see them get hold of the money with which to purchase those commodities. But instead of that, at this moment, a duty is being imposed on imported foreign beef and veal, which means that we are transferring from the taxpayer on to the backs of those who consume imported beef and veal that id. per ¾b.per lb There is no escaping that. The foreign importer will not pay the ¾d. The home consumer will have to pay it, and instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer paying as hitherto direct from the Treasury so that the consumer of best quality English meat shall pay through his Income Tax what he did not pay through the butcher's shop, namely, an economic price for what he is consuming, we are planting that responsibility on the poor impoverished consumer, who cannot afford to buy the best meat. I do not include in the poor impoverished consumer the great restaurants and hotels, which purchase more imported meat perhaps than they do English meat.
If the hon. Member for South Croydon really wants to get a slight extension of consumption of British beef, I suggest that he should go to the Minister of Agriculture and have a gentle talk with him behind the Speaker's Chair, and that they should conspire together to make a savage attack, first on the Minister for War, then on the Minister for Air, and then on the First Lord of the Admiralty,
1328
for if they will give all our soldiers, sailors, and airmen English meat instead of imported meat, you will expand your consumption all right. We have in this country 1,500,000 people, to put it at a low point, who are unemployed and living on benefits rather than on wages, and we have lots of them working short time. Despite the temporary and to some extent artificial prosperity, there are millions of people whose incomes are so limited that they simply cannot afford to buy the things that are requisite in their homes.
Then there is this other thing of which we ought always to remind the Government. We do not object to the producer or the worker in any industry having a square deal. It is true that we are all consumers and that we are not all producers. While we put the consumers' point of view frequently on this side of the House, we do not forget that the producer is entitled to a square deal, but if we are persistently to pour millions upon millions of pounds into a privately owned and privately run industry, the inevitable consequence, sooner or later, as my right hon. Friend below the Gangway said, will be more and not less national control. If we are to decide what subsidies are required, we must have a costings system. There is no point in giving a person 45s. to produce a quarter of wheat if 28s. is enough. There is nothing equal about the acres, the fields, the counties, or the districts, and at least when the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with his long-term policy—and we are as anxious as I know he is to do our best for the industry—we shall want to know something about the conditions that are to be laid down and what guarantees the consumer and the taxpayer will have that the industry will be organised on the soundest and most efficient lines; and if we can secure safeguards such as we shall require, we shall not be hostile to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.
6.55 p.m.
Captain HEILGERS: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who has just sat down, said he would never object to the producer and the worker having a square deal, and I am exceedingly glad to know that the hon. Members opposite are going to regard the producer with a more favour-

1329
able eye than they have done in the past. He also said that it was no good asking the workers to buy more foodstuffs unless you gave them more to buy them with. I quite agree with that, but I would put this point to the hon. Member, that at any rate so far as agricultural workers are concerned we have succeeded in giving them considerably more with which to buy foodstuffs than they had when his own Government were in office, and that foodstuffs to-day are still cheaper than they were in 1930.
I welcome the speech of the Minister of Agriculture to-night in particular because he was clear and definite in all he said. I feel that this Motion is welcome. It asks for immediate assistance to be given, and that immediate assistance is going to be given. The question is whether that assistance will be effective. My right hon. Friend made rather a point that at present we were at a very bad time of year for judging the livestock position, and that is true, but even discounting that factor, I would put this to him, that the fall in beef prices in the course of the last three years has been considerable and that we cannot place too much reliance on the fact that prices are going up at the present moment, because even in spite of the continued fall, at this time of year at any rate there has always been a reaction, when the autumn glut became less acute.
The assistance which the Government are giving is generous, and I think it is probably as much as we can ask for from the taxpayer. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that I do not believe the amount of money which we are getting, the £5,000,000, is sufficient to make livestock production profitable in this country, and it seems to me that it is rather a pity to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. I believe it goes very near to providing what is necessary, and therefore it does seem unfortunate that it cannot go just a little bit farther. After all, beef production is not only a matter of providing foodstuffs for the community, but it is also a means of enriching the fertility of the soil. If the £5,000,000 represented the total of the Government assistance, I would say that it was inadequate, but, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is to be accompanied by quota regulation. I would say,
1330
quite frankly, that contrary, I think, to the opinion of a great many of my fellow farmers, I am a believer in quota regulation. I believe that quota regulation is one of the most effective forms of protection, if it is adequately applied.
Now we are going to have an Empire Meat Council and an International Meat Conference, and those two bodies have been told that for three years imports must not exceed the imports in recent years. I would like to ask the Minister what that means. Does it mean that you have to give sufficient rope to the conference before they hang themselves? Does it mean that that rope has got to be the three years during which we are asking them not to exceed the imports of recent levels? If so, if there is no further restriction in the next three years, I ask where is the market going to be for any increase in home production? There may not be any increase in home production, but if the Government believe that their policy is going to bring something better, then they must look for an increase in two years' time. The position is not like bacon. With bacon you get a pig shut out for every pig produced in this country. Under this scheme you will not get beef shut out. It seems to me that there will be at the end of two years or at any rate, before the end of three years, a considerable number of extra beasts coming on to the market and glutting an already overburdened market. I thought that the Minister dealt very well with the question of the standard price. I have always been a supporter of that. I do not believe, however, with the present rate of assistance, that it would be possible to have a deficiency payment. I regret that a standard price is impossible, particularly because the store producer would benefit more from a standard price than anyone else in the beef industry.
I would like to mention another matter. I am anxious about the power that is operated by the big meat-importing interests. Those interests are largely in the hands of foreign financiers. They control, roughly, 80 per cent. of Smithfield to-day, and although Smithfield is not the whole of England, it has a dominating influence on the rest of England, and if we have these financiers dominating the position in England and in beef in general, I cannot see that there is much likelihood of our own people, in spite of all the efforts of the Government, getting a fair deal.

1331
I suggest that control of Smithfield, control of our meat market, has got to be met, and met by challenging those interests. The way I should suggest would be by setting up a commission with price-fixing powers and powers of direction, much on the lines of the commission recommended by the Milk Reorganisation Commission. That alone will enable us to stand up to these interests, and unless we can, anything that is done will be more or less useless.
I would like to refer to the question of the Dominions. It is, I suppose, the one thing which has hampered the Government almost more than anything—the fact that their hands have been tied by the Ottawa Agreements and by the trade agreements. We are now in a position to deal with foreign countries. But we had no response to the appeals which the Government have repeatedly made for variation and reconsideration of the agreements from either foreign countries or the Dominions. If only the Dominions had shown more willingness to give us a gesture of encouragement, we should have had an easier task with foreign countries. The position to-day by which we give the Dominions Imperial equality, and they give us Imperial Preference, is a position that cannot go on, and they must recognise that, at any rate, as a quid pro quo to that situation the home producer must have the first place in the home market which he was guaranteed at Ottawa.
In conclusion, I would say that a great deal of cheap food comes into this country. It is the policy of the Government to allow the maximum amount of foodstuffs into this country consistent with a reasonable remuneration for the home producer. That means that the home producer is not always getting a square deal unless he is given compensation. I hear a great many objections made to subsidies. I hear them from the farmers themselves; they say that they do not want agriculture to be on the dole. But I submit they arc entitled to that compensation. We have heard from the late Minister of Agriculture that since 1934 the consumers of this country have benefited by the fall in prices to the extent of £150,000,000, while agricultural subsidies amount to something over £16,000,000. I submit that that is very small compensation for the enormous
1332
value of the cheap food which the consumer is able to get.
7.9 p.m.
Mr. RICHARDS: I think that we should be exceedingly fortunate in having this Debate were it only for the fact that it gave the new Minister an opportunity of revealing what is in his mind, but I could not help feeling, during the course of his speech, that although the voice was that of the new Minister, the thought, I am afraid, was that of the old Minister. I think that it will be very difficult, when we read the speech, to differentiate between what the new Minister, said and the old Minister thought. We are glad also to have this Debate, because it represents an attempt to deal with agriculture as one of the great industries of this country, and to some extent to co-relate it with the other industries. We owe a debt to the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) for pointing out that there are various elements in this problem which we in this House, in all parts, are inclined to forget. Attention has been drawn to-day chiefly to the problem of the producer, but it is well to be reminded that there is the consumer to be considered as well, and the fallacy of the policy so far has been that, as the right hon. Member suggested, we have forgotten the consumer almost completely in some of these subsidy schemes, with the result that eventually the consumer will turn round and rend the industry which, so far, is one of the favourites of the present Government.
No one can envy the task of the Minister who has to try to legislate in order to please all sections of this difficult and important industry. When all is said and done, it is not a single industry in the sense that the cotton, iron or coal industries are single industries. There are difficult problems of adjustment in all these industries, but they have much more in common. The coalfields of the country, differing as they do in their productivity and the conditions under which they work, have much more in common than have the various sections of agriculture. It is not a single homogeneous industry, and we are doing small justice to it in treating it as such. It is really a collection of industries, some parts of which are in violent conflict with other parts, and, whatever the Minister attempts to do, if he attempts to deal

1333
with this industry piecemeal, he is bound to find himself up against the rival claims of other parts of the industry.
For example, there is the inevitable conflict with which the House is very familiar between the raiser of stock and the feeder, and it seems to me that the Government have been almost entirely concerned with the feeder, the person who disposes of the product, and have almost completely lost sight of the serious claims which the raiser in the earlier process of rearing can make on the Ministry of Agriculture. This industry is a very complicated one, and anyone who knows the rearing parts of this country knows the great difficulties under which the rearers of livestock are attempting to work. There is the other difficulty which we are equally inclined to forget. We are attempting to restore the industry to a position which we think is comparable with its importance in the social economy of the country. But let us never forget that the basic fact of our agriculture is that the productivity of agriculture has always been, and is to-day lower than, the productivity of industry generally. To listen to the Debates in this House sometimes one would think that we had left agriculture in the lurch quite deliberately and for no sufficient reason. Whatever schemes we might introduce, we could never hope to keep and feed 45,000,000 people in this country if we entrusted it entirely to our own agriculture. Whatever we do for agriculture, we must remember that we are more dependent in some respects on foreign countries for the produce required for the large communities here than we are on the produce of our own agriculture.
There is a reference in the Motion to the possibility, which we all hope will never eventuate, of another war, and the importance of developing agriculture from the point of view of that dire possibility. Let me remind the House that the tremendous efforts that were made under the Food Production Act during the War resulted in increasing the amount of food production in this country by very little. The normal production of food in this country is about one-fifth of our requirements. As the result of the tremendous efforts that were made under that Act, we managed to reach the position in which we were able to produce
1334
nearly one-third of the amount of food required. It is a wrong policy to imagine that we can by any schemes make this country self-sufficient in food, either in war time or in peace time.
There is the other consideration that I have suggested. Censuses of production have been taken of all the industries in this country, and the basic fact about agriculture is that, taking a combination of capital and labour of the value of £100 from agriculture and industry, the return for industry is always greater than that for agriculture. We have managed to live in this country by stressing industry, for the simple reason that its productivity is greater than that of agriculture, and we have relied upon importation to a large extent for the food and the raw materials that are necessary in order to carry on industry. At the same time, there is no reason why agriculture should be neglected to the extent that it has been. We were sorry to hear of the serious decline in the number of agricultural labourers, but do not let us make any mistake about that. It may be that agriculture is improving, as I have no doubt it is, and that fewer men produce more than they did 10 or 20 years ago. A decline in the agricultural population, particularly of labourers, is not necessarily an index that agriculture is going back. It may be an indication of the improvement that has taken place. In spite of the fact that agriculture is improving in its productivity, it is the duty of every Government to see that the industry is placed in a position comparable to that of other industries in the sense that an adequate return to capital, and particularly to labour, shall be available in this most delectable of industries.
7.18 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that the Government were dealing with agriculture in a piecemeal fashion. He was answered by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), who pointed out that agriculture is not one industry, but a number of industries. It cannot, therefore, be dealt with by one measure, and there must be various measures to deal with the various branches. The hon. Member for Wrexham said that it was impossible to produce in this country all the food we require. Of course it is impossible, but

1335
surely we ought to produce as much as we can. In war time the more food we can produce, the more we shall economise shipping. We shall have to import not only foodstuffs, but raw materials. There is not the amount of merchant shipping that there was, and we have not the number of cruisers that we used to have. It is, therefore, of the greatest importance that we should produce as much food in this country as we can.
The Minister told us to-day that there were indications that the tide is turning, that the tide of prices is flowing the other way. I am bound to say that that is not in accordance with the information I have received from farmers in my constituency. One farmer sent me the average prices that he had received for best quality finished cattle in the third week in November during the last seven years. In 1930 it was 48s. 9d. per cwt., and this year it is 35s. 6d. Another man tells me that in 1933 he was getting 37s. 5½d. for best quality cattle, and this year 33s. 9¼d. or 38s. 9¼d. with the subsidy. With this continual fall in prices there is a continual rise in the cost of production. It all means that the Government have not been successful in achieving their declared object of obtaining a reasonable level of remuneration for the home producers. We, therefore, get the conditions which were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard). On those farms owned by the occupiers there is steady deterioration of everything on the farm—the buildings and gates falling into disrepair, hedges not kept up, and the condition of the land steadily getting worse. The farmer cannot make a living on present prices, and it is impossible to get the wages of the agricultural labourers to a satisfactory level. There is, as has been pointed out over and over again in the Debate, a continuous decline in the number of men employed on the land.
What are the Government going to do? We have had a sort of outline of it from the Minister. I very much doubt whether it will be adequate. He told us that we must not ask for too much, and that if we ask for a guaranteed price it will be asking too much. Without a standard or minimum price, however, beef production is a gamble with the dice loaded against the British farmer. I would like
1336
to ask again a question which I asked during the Debate on the 17th July to which I did not get an answer. It was in reference to the expression in the statement made by the Minister on the 6th July that the Government did not wish to encourage an artificial expansion of the livestock industry. What does that mean. At what point does production cease to be natural and become artificial? Does it mean that those people who have left the livestock industry and gone into milk, if they go back into livestock will be regarded as artificial expansion? In these days it is necessary to produce all that we can, and we ought not to discourage any form of development of this most important industry. We ought to allow it to develop as much as we can so that we may be as little dependent as possible on imports from overseas.
7.25 p.m.
Major BRAITHWAITE: I would like, on behalf of my farmer constituents, to congratulate the new Minister on his appointment, and to promise him support of the Measures which he will bring forward. I should also like to express to the late Minister grateful thanks for all that he has done for my constituents. I want to make two points. The first is that whatever subsidy is given to the meat producers it will, without a reorganisation of the marketing, be absolutely valueless. When the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) talked about cow meat in a rather joking way, he was touching one of the spots that have made the production of cattle on a profitable basis a real business proposition. I want to suggest that the Minister carefully considers preventing cows which have had more than four calves from competing in the market with real good meat. If he can do something to divide that section of meat from the good heifer meat for which our country is renowned, he will make substantial strides towards recovering the hold that English beef has had on the people. The possibility of making separate markets so that there may be a distinguishing line might be usefully explored. I have taken the trouble to go to other competing countries to see how beef is prepared for this market. In America, in particular, I have had the opportunity of seeing their vast abattoirs, and I tell the House frankly

1337
that unless something of this sort is done in Great Britain, we shall never be in a position to compete with the foreigners. They are in a position, with their volume of production and the mechanical arrangements they have for dealing with this class of industry, to beat us every time.
I would ask the Minister to consider the question of a meat quota Bill. It is a pity that shops supplying the British public should adhere to foreign meat. Every British shop ought to sell some British meat and there ought to be some substantial quota put on each shop so that it would have a responsibility to British agriculture as well as to foreign producers. The strong, vested interests in imported meat are driving a great many of our little shops out of business. While I agree that there is a great leeway to make up in the proper presentation to the public of British meat, I think that an encouragement to shopkeepers to let the housewife see what our own people can produce is eminently necessary.
We wait with the greatest possible interest the introduction of the Government's long-term policy for livestock. More than any other section of agriculture, livestock is the basis on which the industry was founded, and there can only be a prosperous future for it if livestock is made a profitable concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to show us when he introduces his Bill how this money is to be paid out. It is vitally necessary to get the average price up. If he can show us some way of spreading the money which the Government will give so that it will afford a better average figure, farmers will appreciate guidance of that sort, but the marketing and salesmanship of our own commodity are of primary importance to this part of agriculture.
Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House urges the Government to take immediate and effective measures in relation to the livestock industry in order to restore that balance in agriculture which is essential if it is to make its full contribution to the nation's food supply in time of peace and war and to assure a better standard of life to all engaged in the
1338
industry, and hopes that the Government's policy will be based upon the improvement in the quality of the products of the industry, the reduction in the costs of production and distribution, and the stimulation of demand."

EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF CERTAIN LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. JOHN: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made for the payment of the expenses incurred by members of urban district councils and rural district councils in attending outside their areas meetings of assessment and other committees in the discharge of their public duties."
The terms of this Motion are very limited. It does not raise the question of the payment of salaries to councillors. It may be suggested that that should form part of a general scheme of reform of local government. For example, it may be argued that the payment of salaries to councillors should be introduced only after a reduction of the number of councils or of council members, since presumably payment of salaries would mean that members would have more time to devote to the work and fewer would be required. The payment of salaries as distinct from expenses has not been discussed in this House in recent years, if at all. What has been discussed is the payment of expenses. It was very much debated at the time of the passing of the Local Government (England and Wales) A ct, 1929. Payment of councillors was recognised in the Local Government (Scotland) Act of the same year, and it was argued that there was no reason why the principle should not be extended to councils in England and Wales.
The position now is that expenses are allowed to members of county councils in England and Wales, but, unlike Scotland, those councils are not authorised to reimburse members for the loss of work or the cost of meals when away from home. Why there should be this differentiation as between England and Scotland it is difficult to understand, or why there should be a differentiation between members of county councils and members of urban and rural district councils. The argument has been put forward that county councils embrace more extensive

1339
areas, and that members are away from home longer and have greater distances to travel, but that is only a difference of degree and not of principle, and there is no reason why members of urban and rural district councils should not have the same rights in this matter as members of county councils. Indeed, there are three modern developments of local government which justify payment of members of urban and rural district councils. The first is the increasing concentration of great powers in the hands of fairly large authorities. Members of them have many more duties which call for their attention, both on committee and council work, and they spend more time away from their professions, trades or employment. It would be a sorry day if, through lack of personal means and the failure to get travelling and other expenses, councillors could no longer continue to exercise that constant surveillance over administration which has been a characteristic of British local government.
It is legal for county councils to pay expenses incurred in travelling to and from meetings of the council or incurred on behalf of the council, and that applies to full committee meetings and sub-committee meetings, but no provision is made for the payment of expenses to members of rural or urban district councils. The hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) has stated that the rural district councils are against it, but I think I am right in saying that the Urban District Councils' Association have not gone so far. It is time they decided against pressing for payment of all expenses, but I think that was prior to the right given to county councils by the Local Government Act, 1929, to extend district council areas.
Sir PERCY HURD: I was not referring to the urban councils, but the rural district councils. When this matter was under consideration about three years ago there was a postcard poll of the members throughout England and Wales, on the question whether they did or did not wish what the hon. Member now desires, and the result was a decisive "No."
Mr. JOHN: But the same argument applies to rural district councils as I was putting forward on behalf of urban district councils. During the last three years
1340
we have had experience of the county councils extending the areas of the local councils, and that brings increased duties. The third reason to justify payment of expenses is an increasing tendency on the part of the electorate to wish to have the advantage of the brains and energies of working men as councillors. I think all will agree that the day of the leisured class is long past in local as well as in Parliamentary government, and yet a large number of sound and useful men are deterred from undertaking public work by reason of the expenses they incur either directly or through absence from their employment. The Urban District Councils Association, although not going so far as this Motion, have at their annual conference repeatedly decided in favour of reasonable travelling expenses for their members who are appointed or nominated on assessment committees, on guardian committees, and other public or quasi-public bodies whose meetings are held outside the area of representation. The annual conference of the Urban District Councils Association expresses a large body of public opinion. I think there are close upon 800 urban district councils represented at this annual conference, not of one shade of political opinion but of every shade of political opinion, and they believe in the payment and reasonable travelling expenses, and I think frequent representations on the point have been made to the Ministry of Health. This Motion goes further than that, claiming not only travelling expenses but allowances for meals when away from home.
Take the case of assessment committees. The work of their members is as vitally important as the work of members of county councils, and yet there is difficulty, very often, in finding suitable men for this work. There is the question of colliery assessments. Prior to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, the ascertainment of the assessable values of coal measures and of collieries devolved upon experts, with varying results. I should not like to say there were chaotic conditions, but there were a great many anomalies and an absence of uniformity, and frequently this involved the local authorities in loss. Under the Act of 1925 county or central assessment committees were set up, the object being to bring about uniformity in assessments. Serving on a number of those assessment

1341
committees are members of the working class, some of whom have to travel any, thing up to 28 or 30 miles to attend the meetings. In the county of Denbighshire the travelling expenses vary from 1s. 6d. up to 12s. 2d., and in addition to that expenditure there is the loss of a day's work. A number of the members of the assessment committees are unemployed, and it is impossible for them, without assistance from their friends, to find the money for the travelling expenses, though they have been appointed by their own authorities to do the work.
Take, also, the case of the assessment committee at Pontypridd, with which I am fairly well acquainted. It is true that the distances to be travelled there are not so great as in the case of a county, being at the outside between 12 and 15 miles. The committee consists of 25 members, a large majority of whom are miners' representatives. Among them are men who are unemployed, and have been unemployed for eight or nine years. There was an appeal in 1929; and another in 1932, to the Ministry of Health for the payment of travelling expenses and of expenses for meals when away from home. The Ministry granted the appeal, but since 1933 no payment has been made. There have been great difficulties, consequently, in getting a quorum on the committees. These men have to travel in order to make detailed investigations of buildings, and they have succeeded in bringing about a great deal of uniformity in assessments. How, in the name of reason, can it be expected that a man with a family to maintain, who is employed at 45s. or 50s. per week and who may have to lose half a day's work, or occasionally a full day's work, is able to spend money in train fares? How can it be expected that an unemployed man who is a member of a council can spend 2s. 6d., 5s., 7s. or 10s. in train fares, in order to do work on behalf of that public authority?
The work of the assessment committees has grown, and there is need for capable men to serve upon them. If payment is not forthcoming, the choice of appointment of the best men will be very limited, not because of lack of ability but because of poverty and of the inability to provide the expenses to attend assessment committee meetings. The same argument
1342
applies to public assistance committees, which are as important as any committees of local authorities. Because of the number of recipients of public assistance, the work of those committees is increasing. Members of county public assistance committees, who have to travel precisely the same distances to the meetings of those committees as they have to attend meetings of assessment committees, have to lose a day's work. It is frequently impossible for them to do so, and the result is that we receive complaints that it is often difficult to secure sufficient members to form a quorum at public assistance committees. The fate of the poor in this country has to depend either upon the relieving officer or upon other individuals who are less sympathetic. I believe that the poor of this country are entitled to proper treatment, and to be looked after by the representatives of the community. I believe that Democracy has a right to appoint people to look after the poor, but it is impossible for people who have been appointed in the derelict areas to do this work, because of poverty, unemployment and inability to provide the necessary expenses or to lose time from their work.
This Motion is not revolutionary, and it does not make any extreme demand. It simply asks for expenses, not within the area where the council work is done, although I am in favour of the payment of expenses for all council work, but where meetings are held outside the area of representation. Someone may say that county councillors are not paid, which is true, but if a county council has one assessment committee within its own area, and that is the rule, the county councillors are paid in those instances. If the county is divided, and you have East or West, North or South, the divisions make it impossible for the county councils to pay.
Mr. WISE: If council representatives go to the meetings of a catchment board, are they not entitled to their expenses?
Mr. JOHN: I am dealing now with the absence of power of the county councils to pay for the attendance of county councillors upon public assistance committees or assessment committees, unless the county council controls in its entirety that public assistance or assessment committee. County councillors are in the same position, in that respect, as mem-

1343
bers of urban or rural district councils, in regard to failure to obtain payment.
I make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary. This is not a revolutionary demand, but a reasonable one. It has been recognised before, and it is recognised at the present time. In connection with the Ministry of Labour, there is a court of referees and frequently, because of their experience, assessors appointed are members of local authorities, and when they lose time and pay expenses to go to the places where the court of referees is being held, they are paid out of the rates. If men fail to get expenses, it means that they are not given equal opportunity with others who can afford to do the work. It is not to the advantage of public work that, because of poverty, or inability to devote time from their business, profession, or labouring employment, representatives should take upon themselves these responsibilities. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Motion, which is reasonable and just. If he does so, I am certain, because of its reasonableness and justice, that members of urban and rural district councils will say that the Government have done at least one good thing.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. GIBBINS: I beg to second the Motion.
What surprises me, having had experience of county work, is the smallness of the request from the urban and rural districts. It is difficult to imagine anyone opposing so simple a Motion. Two reasons, at least justify its acceptance, the attempt to remove inequality between various sets of local government and, secondly, to remove inequalities of opportunity of service in the various districts. I do not think it is disputed that some councillors not only get payment of expenses but very often a second payment for their work outside the city; even inside the city, as chairman of a relief committee, I have had no difficulty, and no other member has had, of getting a conveyance at any time to pick me up and take me to the office where the job is done. A flat rate of pay is agreed upon by the council, and when a man goes to the other side of the district he gets payment decided upon by the council. How can we justify calling upon men and women in the urban and rural districts to undertake public work at the end of
1344
the week, when they have to use their own money? That demand should not be tolerated any longer.
As to inequality of opportunity for service, those who have the means to take up public work are fortunate in being able to do that valuable service, and it does not hurt them. In the next class you may get people who do not mind giving their time, service, and ability, but, when it comes to finding expenses, are rather damped in their enthusiasm for public work. When you come to the third class, there is a good deal of large-mindedness among the workers of this country, to serve and to give of their time. Not many of the working class are able to have their names on institutions because of large bequests, but they are willing to do what service they can within their limits. When they are chosen by a popular vote to do that work, they often find that it not only expensive but that it means a loss of wages.
I know councillors who are doing work like this in spite of the danger that even their job is at stake. To attend the meetings of a public authority they have to make arrangements for getting off, but they never know whether an excuse may be found against them and next week they may find themselves outside the job altogether. I suggest that this House should encourage the men and women who are doing this work. We are getting more women on our local authorities. They do public work and then go back and do their own work. They are quite willing to do so, but it means expensive fares for the wife of a man who is earning only a few pounds a week, and is an inequality which ought not to be allowed to continue. For those reasons although there are others—inequality between various districts and inequality of opportunity for service—I trust that the House will accept the Motion.
7.59 p.m.
Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I rise for the main purpose of trying to make as clear as I can what I believe to be the position of the Urban District Councils Association, of which I have had the privilege of being President for the last 10 or 12 years. The Mover of the Motion referred to the Urban District Councils Association, and I think that he specifically drew the attention of the

1345
House to the difference between the terms of the Motion and what the urban district councils, and particularly the Urban District Councils Association, have asked for. So far as I know, from the case (put forward by that Association and from letters from urban district councils in my division, all of whom have written to me about reasonable travelling expenses, in no case has the demand been put forward for, in the words of the Motion,
"payment of expenses of members,"
which I should imagine would cover, not only subsistence allowance, but compensation for loss of time. The case which the Urban District Councils Association has been putting forward for many weeks past, and which I had the privilege of voicing to, the Minister of Health or writing to him about, is a very reasonable one. One can make out an extraordinarily good case for the payment of reasonable travelling expenses, especially in the far-flung county divisions where undoubtedly serious anomalies do exist in regard to many of the meetings which may be called by a county council. I understand the County Councils Association can see that their members get paid, but in respect of the same meeting attended by members on behalf of local authorities those local authorities cannot see that their members are remunerated.
Mr. EDE indicated dissent.
Sir G. BOWYER: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) shakes his head. Perhaps he will correct me.
Mr. EDE: The county council can pay only if it is a committee that traverses the whole area of the county. If the county is divided into areas for assessment or guardian purposes, the county council cannot pay the expenses of members who attend the meetings.
Sir G. BOWYER: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, because I know what a vast experience he has had in local government. I do know, by the authority of the headquarters of the Urban District Councils Association, that anomalies exist in the counties and among local authorities. The plea that I have to make to the Parliamentary Secretary is that, whatever reply he may give to the Motion and the very eloquent speeches
1346
which have been made by the hon. Members who moved and seconded it, he will not forget the case that has been put forward for many weeks by the Urban District Councils Association, which limits the matter to the reasonable travelling expenses incurred by the members of urban district councils or rural district councils when attending meetings. I hope that the Minister of Health will carefully and sympathetically consider the case, and that when he has time to bring in legislation he will not forget the case which the Urban District Councils Association has put forward.
8.4 p.m.
Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I support the Motion as a member of the Urban District Councils National Executive. It is true, as the last speaker stated, that the Urban District Councils National Conference for the past three or four years, and possibly for a longer period, have had a resolution in front of them in favour of travelling expenses, and I hope that the appeal of the hon. Baronet to the Parliamentary Secretary will not fall on deaf ears. We have repeatedly, on behalf of the Urban District Councils Association, put questions across the Floor of the House to the Minister of Health asking that the urban district council representative at least should have travelling expenses.
Mr. DUNCAN: The Motion deals with travelling expenses outside their areas. Is the hon. Member suggesting that they should have expenses within their areas also?
Mr. GRIFFITHS: I want the hon. Member to wait and see. It is clear that the request is for travelling expenses outside their area. Many urban district councils in England and Wales have such limited areas that the travelling expenses inside the area would be only walking expenses. I know what I am talking about. I have gone through the infant school, the elementary school, the secondary school and now I suppose I am in another school. I have served for 27 years as an urban district councillor and have travelled the county of the West Riding as an urban councillor without receiving any expenses, either in respect of assessment committees or public assistance committees. I have travelled the county as a county councillor, and have been, paid my travelling expenses to the

1347
same spots to which a pal of mine, belonging to the same pit, has travelled and has not been able to have his expenses paid. That is an anomaly which ought to be recognised, and it ought to lead the Ministry of Health to accept the Motion.
The Motion may mean a little extension beyond what the President of the Urban District Councils Association stated, but it is only little. I do not think there are many Members of this House who in the last ten days, if they represent any urban districts, have not received letters from urban district councils in their divisions asking them to support the Motion. I hope that it will be supported overwhelmingly. Let me cite a different aspect of the case. We have many workmen in South Yorkshire who are working short time. A collier very often gets on his knees and asks Almighty God to send the coldest weather possible on this side of the grave, in order that more coal will need to be burned, and then he can get work. [Laughter.] Yes, it is true. Many men in my division have been working, on the average, four days a fortnight at the pits and others not more than six days a fortnight. A great number of miners in the West Riding are members of urban district councils, and many of them are on public assistance committees and assessment committees. Some of the men on the urban district councils in the West Riding have to travel 20 miles to an assessment committee, and be away all the day. They go on an omnibus at 9.30 a.m. and return at 4.30 or 5.0 p.m.
There is nothing extravagant or revolutionary in the Motion. It is very mild, as we might expect in the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John). I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say: "The expense is so-and-so." We are not asking that the expense should come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are only asking that the expense should be allowed to be paid by the local authorities who are represented by the members who attend the assessment committees and public assistance committees. A great deal of the time of the public assistance committees is taken up by inquiries into applications arising from industrial accidents. I have sat on these committees from 10 in the morning until 6.30 at night, and we have had from 10 to 20 men in a given area making
1348
application for public assistance in the very first week after they have met with an accident, proving that they needed some help from the public assistance committee because the money that they have earned in the past has not been sufficient to keep together the body and soul of the man, his wife and his children. I hope the Minister will agree to accept the Motion.
8.11 p.m.
Mr. WISE: It is impossible not to feel considerable sympathy with the object of the Motion, particularly as it was moved so extremely convincingly and so very moderately by the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John). All of us would agree that out-of-pocket expenses are a very serious item in the ordinary service of local government, and all of us, I think, would agree that it is entirely wrong that any particular man should be debarred from giving his service to the community because he cannot afford the necessary railway or omnibus fare in order to do his job. If the Motion had stopped there I think it would have commended itself to universal approval, but the Motion goes further. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) said, not quite convincingly, that it only went a little bit further. He was rather excusing the unwanted bantling by saying that it was only a little one. It goes rather further than we should be prepared to go at the moment.
The hon. Baronet the Member for North Buckinghamshire (Sir G. Bowyer) said that he understood the term "expenses" comprised such expenses as might be incurred through failure to pursue one's normal vocation when performing council work and I gathered that the hon. Member who moved the Motion agreed that that was really the object of the Motion. Again, we feel a good deal of sympathy for that suggestion, but it leads to a considerable series of difficulties if it is amplified. I know that difficulties can be always overcome, but I would remind the House what the difficulties are. First, there is the question of differing expenses. If expenses incurred through not pursuing one's vocation are to be taken into consideration, the man who is employed, say, in a factory at £4 a week, or a shopkeeper, are going to receive a different expense grant than the man who is unemployed. He is not out of pocket at all except in so far as he would

1349
have to pay his own fare, because he is not losing any of his unemployment pay.
Mr. GIBBINS: Is the hon. Member not aware that this proposal has already been put into practice in other directions?
Mr. WISE: The fact that it is the practice elsewhere does not necessarily indicate that it is a sound principle. I want to draw attention to the difficulties which may arise. If it is to be made universal, it would be perfectly easy to imagine the most extravagant differences. It would be perfectly easy—I am not putting this forward as a serious argument, but merely as an example of what might be said—to say that a company director was losing hundreds of pounds by performing his local government work, and should be compensated accordingly.
Mr. JOHN: Is the hon. Member aware that the payment of expenses is provided for in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and that a flat rate is already in operation?
Mr. WISE: Yes; the hon. Member said that in his opening speech. But there has been a difference between England and Scotland in other respects before now, and a thing is not necessarily sound because it is done in Scotland, even though we have only recently survived St. Andrew's night. The old principle of an unpaid local government and an unpaid juduciary is a very valuable one in this country. It has produced a higher standard of public service than any other system that has yet been devised, and the mere fact that men do make sacrifices to carry out their duty is, I think, probably valuable in itself. Any attempt to remove this principle we should ponder over extremely carefully. It may not be a very long step from compensation for loss of work to a regular salary for elected members of local authorities.
Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: That is what you get now.
Mr. WISE: It is perfectly true that Members of this House are paid a regular salary, but I am not at all sure that it is necessarily a particularly good thing. I have often been extremely grateful to see it, but I am not at all sure that in principle it is right. I would remind hon. Members, however, that that particular sum was granted,
1350
not with the idea of paying Members or of reimbursing them for giving up their time, but was granted actually, as was explained at the time it was done, to cover their expenses in their constituencies. That is the same principle which I think we might go on to apply to local government. No one can refrain from agreeing that local councillors are perfectly entitled to grants to cover their expenses in their constituencies. I think that their travelling expenses, and even the expenses of meals when they are away, are most reasonable things for which to ask, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me; but to go further would be, I think, to embark on rather a new line, particularly in view of the fact that my hon. Friend has reminded the House that the Urban District Councils Association is not overwhelmingly in favour of it.
Mr. GRIFFITHS: The vote was unanimous at Weston-super-Mare. I was there on the platform, in the last week in June.
Sir G. BOWYER: I do not want to correct or deny anything that the hon. Member opposite has said, but only to say, as I said before, that the request which is being put forward to-day, and which has been put forward for many weeks past, by the Urban District Councils Association, has been definitely limited to travelling expenses.
Mr. GRIFFITHS: It was agreed to unanimously.
Mr. WISE: Yes, and I think most of us are in agreement with the Urban District Councils Association that the claim for travelling expenses is most reasonable; but, as I have said, to go further would be to embark on something which may be dangerous, and any such proposal should be approached with very great caution. We are at the moment at a rather critical period of local government. The whole situation of elected local government in this country is being called in question from powerful sources outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] In the general conversation of a good many people. I would remind the House that the extremely low polls at council elections do indicate that to a great extent the people of this country are not as interested as they ought to be in their

1351
local government, particularly, of course, in rural and county areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "And in Parliamentary elections, too."] The polling in Parliamentary elections is not, as a matter of fact, extraordinarily small. The average poll at the last election was 70 per cent. throughout the country, and taking any ordinary Parliamentary register and allowing for those who have died since the register was compiled, for those who have gone abroad, and for those who are unable to vote for many reasons —for instance, because they are sick or because they are living too far away—to get more than an 80 per cent. poll in this country would require the unscrupulousness of someone like Dr. Goebbels in counting the votes. I do not believe it could be done.
The vote in Parliamentary elections is still high enough to show that there is a lively interest, but the voting in local elections is not. When you have polls as low as 17 per cent. in some parts of the country, it is rather an indication that the attitude of the people towards their local government is not all that it should be, and I do not think we ought, without the most extraordinary caution, to take any step that would worsen either the indifference or in some cases even hostility towards the system which all of us in this House, I think, wish to maintain. If the Mover of the Motion could be content—I do not say to-night—with taking one bite at the cherry, absorbing, say, half of it to begin with and postponing the rest, I think he would meet with a great deal of support, but in principle the whole idea of unrewarded service to the community, both on local authorities and here, is too valuable to jeopardise. The step is so short from recompense for loss of profits, as apart from direct out-of-pocket expenses, to a salary, that I honestly think the House would be well advised to show some caution, while feeling a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member's Motion.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. EDE: Unfortunately, I am old enough to have heard the speech to which we have just listened a great many times 40 years or so ago in debating societies when we were discussing the question of the payment of Members of this House. Every one of the evils that the hon.
1352
Member, in his native wisdom, sees round the corner was then foreseen if any Members of the House other than the few selected people who sit on the Front Government Bench received any payment at all in any guise and under any excuse. I had the privilege of travelling up from his constituency with the hon. Member on Saturday in a first-class carriage. I should not have been there but for the fact that someone else was paying for me. I do not know who was paying for the hon. Member, but the general conversation that we had was not on any very sordid matters, but mainly on matters of high policy, in which in several cases we almost reached an agreement that surprised both of us. These evils that Conservatism is always seeing just round the corner have never arisen when we have pursued a policy of common sense in endeavouring to meet from day to day the actual problems that confront us in government.
This Motion arises out of the actual problems that to-day confront us in county government areas. My local government experience is not in the districts from which have come my hon. Friends who have previously spoken in the Debate, but there is not a meeting of the Surrey Public Assistance Committee at which it is not reported that at some guardians meeting or other it has been impossible during the preceding month to get a quorum, although we have fixed the quorum at a far lower figure than when we took over the responsibility in 1930. The guardians area committees are constituted partly by members of the county council other than aldermen, partly by other persons nominated by the county council, and partly by representatives of the county district, non-county borough, urban, and rural councils, and those last representatives have to be members of the councils concerned. In the neighbourhood of London the majority of the local governing bodies, such as urban and borough councils, meet in the evening, because men who are perfectly willing to give up their evenings to the work are earning their livelihood in some way or other and are away from their homes during the day time. On the urban council of which I have been a member since 1908 we always give the job of being on the area guardians committee to two people who have just come on. They really think we are show-

1353
ing our confidence in them, but the fact is that no one who has had the job before will take it, They have to give at least one day a week—a whole day—to this task, and it is an exceedingly difficult and onerous one. It requires very considerable powers of discrimination. I have known occasions when people have sat from 10.30 to 6 o'clock and have remained behind for a couple of hours in the hope that the people outside would think they had already gone home, because they were by no means pleased with the assessments that had been made.
With regard to such work as that, the Local Government Act, 1929, made the position worse than it was under the old boards of guardians, because one of the effects of the Act—a desired effect—for which it was advocated by the party opposite, was that it would increase the areas of the guardians, and people who served on the old boards of guardians and then went to the newly-constituted guardians area committees generally found that they were administering an area at least twice as large as, and frequently far more than, the area that the old guardians had to administer. One of the desires was that these bodies, which had to exercise assessing duties, should bring to the task that amount of detachment which comes from living at some considerable distance from the applicants and from the local circumstances. There is a great tendency in some of these areas now, especially if the meeting place is changed from place to place within the area, for the committee to vary according to the place at which the meeting is held, so that what you actually get is the people of place A meeting to deal with the problems of place A, and the people at place B meeting to deal with its problems, and so on. Thus the whole purpose of the Act is defeated. When we come to the assessment committees, it is true that the urban and borough councils can appoint people who are not members of the body, but the same difficulty arises, that in a great many areas the people in the morning have to travel away from the place where the meeting is to be held. There is one assessment committee in Surrey which, starting in January, has to deal with 1,200 proposals with regard to one borough alone. I served on an assess-
1354
ment committee shortly after the passing of the Act of 1925 which had to deal with 1,500 proposals for the first new valuation list, and that meant attending day after day.
It is clear that, if the work is to be done effectively, you should have, as far as possible, the same committee meeting to do it. Unless you do that, all chance of uniformity or being able to recognise the salient points of the various cases vanishes. There, again, we increased the areas of the old guardians to create the new area assessment committees, and it is very undesirable that people meeting to consider the assessments should be merely the people from the immediate locality in which the meeting is held. It is very unfair to expect men, especially if you are going to get reasonably young men of alert mind who are earning their living in business, in addition to giving their time, to pay the very heavy cost of travelling, and the provision of a mid-day meal. I am not merely pleading for what is called the working man, but the young professional man who wants to give some of his time, energy and ability to this work, but finds it an impossible burden to do it as he would like. Some of these young men have said to me, "Much as we should like to continue on the council and do the work, we really cannot do it." It is a great loss to local government and to the men themselves that they should so suffer. As far as urban and rural councils are concerned, the Ministry itself has a complete safeguard. They audit the accounts, they can call for the vouchers and they can make the most complete investigation.
This is a small reform which the reforms of the last few years—on which none of us would wish to go back—instituted by the Act of 1929 have really made imperative if the work of local government is to be properly carried on in these areas. I believe that the demand does not merely come from those areas where the Labour party have a majority on the local councils. In Surrey we have no urban or borough council with a majority of that kind, and the demand is as insistent as it is in the divisions represented by my hon. Friends. I could never understand why, having given this thing to the county councils, it could not have been given in the case

1355
of the urban and the rural councils. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that a very short Measure, which, I am sure, would be an agreed Measure in this House, may be passed through Parliament so that we may be able to carry on these vast tracts of local government with the efficiency which will come from not having to pass over suitable men because, for reasons of finance, and no other reason, they have to decline.
8.40 p.m.
Sir JOHN TRAIN: Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I am old enough to have seen a great many alterations in local government, and, like him, I was for a great many years connected with local government work before I came to this House. I cannot say that the changes are all for the better. I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) for the modest way in which he proposed his Motion. He referred to the Scottish Local Government Act, 1929. There is a great diversity of opinion in Scotland about that Act, and I do not think that it would do his case a great deal of good were I to enumerate the difficulties which have arisen through that Act being put upon the Statute Book. There are Members in the House, I believe, who were engaged at one time as King's Counsellors in connection with cases in which expenses were being claimed under that Act, and it was not always very nice reading. [Interruption.] I am merely referring to what the hon. Member referred to—the Scottish Local Government Act, 1929. Difficulties are bound to arise as these various Acts get upon the Statute Book, and although this is a modest Motion, there are difficulties ahead.
In my opinion it is the thin end of the wedge and encourages that principle about which my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) spoke. It is slowly cutting out the old traditions of service given gratuitously. It is a very honourable and commendable thing for one to give service to local government. A great many of us have given of our spare time to this work. Although we have worked during the day a lot of the meetings were held at night and it did not cost us anything. We had to give our
1356
services during the day as well. The county councils pay expenses and for loss of working time, but the principle is now being recognised—it is partly being introduced here—of commercialising that service which was given so willingly and gratuitously in the past. If that principle is to be expanded and recognised, there is another side to the question. What is the service worth? What are to be the qualifications of those who are to receive money from public funds? Is there to be an examination similar to that in the Civil Service, or are we to take it for granted that any man who comes before the public and collects sufficient votes will be qualified to receive pay out of the public purse? What will his services be worth?
I do not know what position the Government intend to take up on this matter, but I hope that they will be careful because, as I have already said, it is the thin end of the wedge. I would support a large and comprehensive scheme. What is the qualification that would be considered sufficient to earn the money to be paid out of the public funds? This Motion deals with a small, simple request. It is very commendable in itself, but I would like to see the whole position examined. It is true, as has been said by the hon. Member for Smethwick, that there is not the interest taken in local government elections that ought to be taken. We cannot get more than 35 to 50 per cent. of the people to vote. It ought to be made more attractive, but you will not make it so by such a, small measure as is suggested in the Motion. Let. us have something large and comprehensive.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. SEXTON: I have been connected with assessment committees and urban district councils for many years. One of my first public appointments was as overseer of the parish in those old days now gone by, when we had the assessments to make. I found, on getting on to that assessment committee, that the representatives were all landowners and owners of large blocks of private property. They took great care that they were well represented on the committee. When the assessment committee work changed over and area work extended, the distances which members of the assessment committee had to travel practically prohibited any working man from

1357
being on the committee. In the district where I lived the assessment committee met on circuit, as it were. One of the places to which I had to travel was 16 miles away, and another meeting of the assessment committee was 30 miles away. I was fortunate for a time to be in a position to pay my own expenses. It meant a whole day away from home, with travelling expenses up to five or six shillings, and on top of that I had to pay for meals. One can see from that that a working man with no one like a trade union behind him is entirely cut out and has no possible chance of serving. If there is one committee in local council work upon which the workers ought to be represented, it is the assessment committee. I found many great anomalies in which people were assessing members of their own political party very lowly and assessing members of the opposite political party as high as they could.
The hon. Gentleman opposite suggested that if we pay members of local urban and rural councils they should have to undergo examination. I sat for no examination when I came to this House, and I do not know how many Members either on this side or opposite would be here if they had had to undergo an examination. Without having been examined, I am paid at the rate of £400 a year. [An HON. MEMBER "Shame"] The hon. Member may think that it is a shame, but my constituents do not think so. All we are asking in this Motion is that representatives on local councils should have some small measure of remuneration. I am not afraid that you are going to affect the character of the individual by offering him his expenses. In the case of the public assistance committee in my district the members of the district committees very often have to travel eight miles to the various centres, but when you come to the area committee there are some who have to travel 30 miles each way. I repeat that a working man who has not a trade union behind him—fortunately in Durham we have a trade union in the eastern part but not in the rural area—cannot stand the expense of having to travel 30 miles each way and pay his own expenses. I heartily support the Motion. The representation of this House has not suffered by the payment of Members, and I do not believe that the character and ability of rural and urban
1358
district councils would suffer if their representatives were allowed their expenses.
8.46 p.m.
Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am one of those Members referred to by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I was once a young professional man with extremely small means, so small indeed that sometimes I could hardly see them, and I was willing and desirous of taking some part in the public life of my country. When, having achieved middle age, I found myself in this House I realised how deficient I was in my knowledge of local government and local affairs because I had not been able, by reason of the expenses to which I should have been put in my young days, to take that part in local affairs which I desired to take. Knowing the experience of the hon. Member in public affairs and the work which he has so admirably done in the county of Surrey, I commend the observations he has made to the attention of the House, and all the more sympathetically because he has touched me on rather a sore spot. If we are to have real democracy, to which we have been paying a good deal of lip service for some time, we must be perfectly certain that we are going to encourage all those people who are willing to give of their leisure, their abilities, their time and industry, in the service of the State, and see that it is not made too difficult.
I have never believed, and I do not believe now, in payment for services rendered, but I do think that if you render services to the community in which you happen to live, or in the wider area which we call the nation, at least you ought not to be out of pocket by reason of undertaking them. May I be allowed to say that I have not discovered that this ideal has been altogether reached in the duty I endeavour to discharge in this House, but, at all events, in local government I feel that we very often miss the services of people with local experience, local knowledge and great ability by the fact that in addition to all the sacrifices which any form of public life in this country entails you are asking them, if they have to travel outside their own area, to put their hands in their pockets. I regard this Motion in a very narrow light. I do not regard it on the lines indicated by the last speaker,

1359
who seemed to think that the word "expenses" was intended to cover something in the nature of payment for services rendered. I feel that some of the best services which are rendered to the people of this country are rendered by people who are willing to do it voluntarily and from a sense of self-sacrifice, but I sometimes think that what we are asking these people to do carries the range of self-sacrifice to an extent to which we ought not really to demand.
May I discuss the matter from a rather different point of view? I have repeatedly had the task, in another part of my daily life, of discussing and considering the duties which are performed by auditors who function under the Public Health Acts. I was rejoiced to hear the tribute paid to the work which these gentlemen do. I agree that there really is no danger if you are going to confine this to the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses paid by these individuals. I am certain that the House need have no difficulty or apprehension that there will be any sort of mischief so long as the auditors who function under the Public Health Acts are there to perform the duties which we all know they perform with assiduity and single-mindedness, although some hon. Members opposite may not always agree with the views of these gentlemen whom I have sometimes to support in another place.
I was interested to hear what was said about the necessity for an examination for the individuals who are to undertake these tasks. That is a very strange argument. I know of no better examination than to submit yourself to the judgment of the free people of this country in a popular election. I regard it as one of the best, the surest and probably the stiffest examination of a man's ability and capacity, and his single-mindedness of purpose. The examination business has been wholly overdone in this country, and I am not at all sure that it always produces the best men. I sometimes feel that you may introduce an individual into an association who is probably a book-worm and nothing else. Conceive the possibility of this House consisting of 615 book-worms! I sometimes feel depressed when I sit in the House and follow my usual occupation, which is that of a quiet and patient listener, but just imagine a Debate conducted by people
1360
who have no real touch with the world and with something which matters so much more than books—the real human interests which underly everything we are attempting to do, whether we believe in the doctrines of the Right or the doctrines of the Left. Therefore, when somebody says to me that individuals who are going to get, a recoupment of expenses which they have incurred in the discharge of public duties should undergo an examination, all I can say is that I am not only affrighted at the idea, but I am affronted at the idea.
What result do we achieve in the end? A small measure of justice, as long as it is confined to the proper and reasonable expenses incurred in the discharge of public duties. I am not sure that, again confined to those expenses, we could not have achieved a rather wider Motion in some aspects of the case, but as far as this question is concerned, again with the limitation which I venture to suggest is a fair one, I am not afraid as a democrat, as one who believes in free institutions and thinks that we may have the right and the opportunity here and now of encouraging people to come into local government, that we should pass a Motion of this sort, provided it does not extend to what I regard as something which is contrary to my whole instincts, namely, payment for services which so many people are ready and willing to give without payment, without fee, without reward, but from a sense of public duty. In those circumstances, I hope that it may be possible to achieve this evening a Motion in some form which will not be a matter for division between one side of the House and the other, but which will be a Motion that we can achieve by common accord.
8.57 p.m.
Sir F. ACLAND: In common with many hon. Members, I have had a certain amount of experience on the public bodies we are now discussing. I remember I was asked a few years ago, "Are you a councillor of any sort?" and I was rather pleased to be able to say, "Yes; district, county and privy." Since that time I have bad to diminish my work a little, and I am no longer a district councillor, but I was one long enough to get some acquaintance with the work which we are discussing this evening, whether it be the work which district councillors have to do on assessment com-

1361
mittees or on public assistance committees. I think all who have knowledge of such committees will agree that they do their work best when they are composed of people of different types and different classes. I do not wish to make any charge against one section more than another, but there is a certain tendency on those particular types of committee, a sort of corruption, a pulling of strings for one's friends of the same class, or, as one hon. Member said, of the same politics, although I have not come across that. There is, however, that danger on assessment committees and public assistance committees, unless there are on them people who, in a friendly way, are watching one another and seeing that no such regrettable tendencies arise.
But how in the world can people who are qualified to represent working-class people effectively and properly, just as any other class of people is represented, afford to go and sit on bodies outside their own immediate district if they do not get something in the way of the expenses to which they are put? I cannot see any answer to that, particularly when it is borne in mind that there is much to be said for a good deal of that work being done by people who are judging these matters as general principles and who are under no temptation to log-roll for one another or pull strings for people they happen to know. That would mean that these people would sometimes have to go considerable distances. As to what we may or may not agree upon to-night, I understand from the Debate that the District Councils' Association has asked for travelling expenses only. I think I could make an argument for something more, but we should have gone a considerable and useful way if we could get, as I think we could, an agreed measure that we would at any rate pay travelling expenses, leaving the other things for later on, when we realise, as we all should, that the world is not going to come to an end because travelling expenses are paid in these definite and reasonable cases. I hope the Minister will be able to indicate that he is willing to take some such step and that the Debate will therefore have had a good result.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. A. JENKINS: I would like, in a few words, to support the Motion which has been moved by the hon. Member for
1362
West Rhondda (Mr. John). I think all hon. Members must be pleased with the reception which the Motion has received. For a long time some hon. Members have had experience in local government bodies and have seen clearly the difficulties that arise, particularly in the case of the poorer members of the community, who are unable to take an active part in local government owing to the fact that they cannot pay their expenses. I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) refer to his own experiences as a young professional man, without very much financial support, having an ardent desire to take part in local government, but unable to do so because he could not afford it. There are many such cases, and there is not the slightest doubt that local government loses the services of very useful people owing to their being unable to attend because they have not the money to pay their expenses.
I have had perhaps the misfortune to be a member of a local government body where a number of the members was unemployed, and I have seen a number of those people come to the council offices one or two days in the week in an effort to take part in local government work as councillors, having to pay their train fares to the council office and then not having twopence with which to buy a bun for their mid-day meal. I feel it is all wrong to exclude a certain section of the community from taking part in local government work as is the case now. It is true that, as far as the county councils are concerned, the travelling expenses are paid. I think an hon. Member opposite went a little further than that, and said he would be prepared not only to meet the travelling expenses, but the amount necessary to provide subsistence as well during the time such people are engaged in council work. I too would go so far. I think that is very necessary if we are to give an opportunity to all sections of the community to take part in local government work.
We know that in many rural areas the county councils and district councils do not get the services of many of the rural workers. As a rule those councils are dominated by the better-off people. It may be that those people run the risk mentioned by the last speaker, as to the

1363
representatives of one section of the community attempting to serve the interests of that section. Personally I do not think that tendency is very pronounced in this country—I hope it is not—but there is that danger when only the representatives of one section of the community are on a council from which the representatives of other sections are excluded by their poverty. I think in the great majority of cases where members of local government bodies more or less represent the firms for which they work, there is no curtailment of their salaries or wages. Indeed their expenses are paid and there are instances within my knowledge of the payment, not only of their expenses in attending council meetings but of their election expenses as well. I have had experience of a number of cases of that kind.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to the difficulties experienced in Surrey in getting quorums at public assistance committee meetings. That difficulty is experienced all over the country and the County Councils Association, as the Minister knows, have since the passing of the recent Local Government Act made repeated applications to the Ministry asking them to authorise county councils to pay the travelling expenses incurred in attending guardians committee meetings. I have taken part in two or three deputations to the Minister of Health upon this question. We have pointed out that the system of guardians committees will break down unless these expenses are paid and I think that view is borne out by the experience of county councils from one end of the country to the other. There is the further difficulty that apart from the county councils members of urban district councils who sit on these committees are in precisely the same position. As the House is, apparently, in almost general agreement on this question I hope that the Motion will be accepted by the Minister.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. LEVY: I beg to move, in line 2, after "the," to insert "travelling."
I think it will be agreed that this Debate has reached a very high standard on both sides. I seldom find myself in agreement with hon. Members opposite, but to-day I feel there is a good deal to be said for the views which have been
1364
put forward not only from their side of the House but from this side also. I hope the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) will forgive me if I say that it is by the luck of the ballot that he has been enabled to move this Motion and that had one of the hon. Members on these benches been as lucky, a similar Motion might have been moved from this side.
I think it is true that voluntary service is the highest form of public service. In this country we have, approximately, 1,770 local authorities. Under the Local Government Act, 1929, travelling expenses are paid to local councillors in certain circumstances. It has been said, and I accept the figure, that there are 800 urban councils, which means that there must also be a very large number of rural councils, and we all know that the rural councils cover very large areas. I do not believe that salaries should be paid, and we have heard from the speeches on both sides that there is a difference of opinion as to whether expenses, in the broad sense, should be paid or not. I suggest that my Amendment to insert the word "travelling" may prove acceptable to hon. Members opposite and may enable us to avoid any division on this question and to arrive at a proper accord. If my Amendment were accepted the Motion would read:
That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made for the payment of the travelling expenses incurred by members of urban district councils and rural district councils.
etc., I agree that my proposal does not go all the way that the hon. Member opposite wishes to go, but I plead with the Minister to accept the Motion subject to that Amendment, and I think that in doing so I shall carry with me hon. Members on this side of the House. In my constituency, which is a very scattered county constituency, there are many rural and urban district councillors, and I know from experience how those ladies and gentlemen give their time to the public service. If that service requires them to travel considerable distances, it is not right, or fair, or proper, that over and above the other sacrifices which they have to make, they should be asked to defray out of their pockets travelling expenses necessitated by their public duties. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, if we cannot go all the way in this matter,

1365
let us as least go part of the way. Let it be said that we have done something, that these private Members' days do bear fruit, and that they are worth while. There have been on Fridays and Wednesdays Bills and Motions that have been of great importance. Some of the Bills that have been moved on Fridays and placed subsequently on the Statute Book have been some of the best legislation that this House has ever been called upon to pass. I plead with the Minister to accept my Amendment, and I plead with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion and to his hon. Friend on that side of the House not to make this matter controversial, but to accept the Amendment in the same spirit as that in which I have endeavoured to move it.
9.17 p.m.
Mr. ERSKINE HILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that, with the simple Amendment which we are proposing, we can get a degree of unanimity which will carry this thing without a Division. I looked at my paper this morning, my first impression on reading the Motion was that it was comparatively innocuous, but as I looked at it more closely the criticism occurred to me that it was a great deal too wide and that, apart from travelling expenses, there might be questions of payment in respect of lost time and so on. With that I did not agree, and therefore when the hon. Member who moved the Motion said that he did not want to raise questions of salaries, I found myself in entire agreement with him. When the hon. Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Gibbins) said he wanted to get payment for work done inside the committees, I did not agree with that, because I think it raises questions which, although there is a precedent in Scotland, have not proved satisfactory in that country for reasons to which I shall advert later.
We on this side stand with as much sympathy as hon. Members opposite for this principle, that all those who take part in the work, of local councils ought to be allowed to do so, as far as possible, free from one expenses which are incurred in the course of their work. I think we are all in entire agreement with that principle. The hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John), when he referred to Scotland, referred to the Local Government Act of 1929, under Section 17
1366
of which, I think it is, the county councils are given power to pay travelling expenses and also to pay for the time of work which is lost. The terms of the Statute are: "Time necessarily lost from ordinary employment." The Statute sets forth in the Fourth Schedule certain maximum rates at which that compensation, as I may call it, is to be paid. What has happened in the case of the Lanarkshire County Council? I want to be entirely fair, but I think it is the case that, after taking counsel's opinion, they laid it down that the maximum rates should be the normal rates, and, in fact, those were the rates which were paid to certain councillors. You have had cases like this: There is the case of a checkweighman who, on appointment to the county council, had a sub- or undercheckweighman appointed in. his place.
Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: All checkweighmen have sub-checkweighmen under them. They are only human beings and cannot work without a break.
Mr. ERSKINE HILL: I quite accept what the hon. Member says, but in this case, differing from what he says, the sub-checkweighmen did all the work and the member of the county council who was the checkweighman did no work at all for two years or so, and during all that time he was receiving as the normal rate the amount to which he was entitled under the Lanarkshire County Council rate.
Mr. CASSELLS: I think I know the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. Is it not the case in which the checkweighman was sent to prison for six months, due to falsification of receipts by himself?
Mr. ERSKINE HILL: Yes, that is one case, but I am referring also to other cases which were tried in court and where the facts were not disputed, and I am certain that hon. Members opposite do not approve of such action. Let me resume. The checkweighman applies for and gets a regular salary. It amounts to that, because he is employed for so many days a week. The rates paid, I think I am right in saying, were 15s. for a whole day and 7s. ed. for a half-day, and in fact the man does not need to take his ordinary employment at all, as he can be there as a salaried official. It is against that sort of thing that I think

1367
this House should set its face, and I do not think it right to say that the scheme has worked altogether without abuse in Scotland. In view of what the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) was saying, I think the fact to which I refer were tried out in certain cases taken by the Lord Advocate in Scotland against certain members of a county council, but the facts were undisputed, and the presiding Judge set forth that they were most improper facts. All that was left to the jury was the question whether there was or was not fraudulent intention, and by a majority the jury decided that there was no fraudulent intention.
Mr. G. HARDIE: There were three cases altogether, but there are hundreds of cases where the regulations have not been broken, and surely the hon. and learned Member does not mean that you should decide against them because one or two people are found to be doing wrong.
Mr. ERSKINE HILL: I quite appreciate that point. I might say that I was in the position of prosecuting counsel. I am simply disclosing facts which were proved in open court, and which I am entitled to set forth to the House for this purpose only—that the House should see in what way such provisions as those suggested might me abused.
Mr. HARDIE: Everything can be abused.
Mr. ERSKINE HILL: That may be, but this type of thing lends itself to abuse. I do not want to stress this point too hard. Any law is likely to be abused, but the actual working of this Act has not gone as smoothly as the hon. Member for West Rhondda suggested. I want to impress on the House bow strongly we feel that something should be done in the way of expenses, and with that I think the whole House will agree. The county council in England is paid expenses when the committee is one dealing with the whole county. I do not see why the urban and rural district councils should not have the same privilege. It would be a step in the right direction, and one with which hon. Members should be content, to grant travelling expenses. The terms of the Motion are extremely
1368
moderate in proposing to deal with expenses outside the normal working of the urban or rural district council. I should have had sympathy with the idea that expenses properly incurred in the course of the normal duties of these councils might well have been considered at the same time. But the Motion as it stands, coupled with the Amendment, is one which should have the support of the whole House.
9.29 p.m.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: When I heard about this Motion I did not know it was in such placid terms. The philosopher Plato said that wise men took an interest in politics to prevent themselves being ruled by fools. That is why I am in public life. But it is a great hardship that men who give up their time should also be out of pocket. In days gone by we used to have the country gentleman, a man of great leisure and anxious to fill his time, generally qualified for the Bar or with some knowledge of the law, who readily took up local affairs. But as the localities extended the supply of that class petered out, and had to be replaced by a different type of man. Taking an interest in public affairs requires a high standard of intelligence. It is only a percentage of the mass of mankind that is able to manage its own affairs. If these people who have this public spirit are to be out of pocket in addition to losing their time, the numbers of those who will devote themselves to public work will be very limited. In a town in my constituency one of the most intelligent men —an enthusiastic Labour man and a bitter opponent of my humble self, but in spite of that I regard him as intelligent—is a painter. I warned him the last time I met him that Hitler was once a household painter also, and of what he might come to. A man of that type is as good as any of us in local government.
I would go further than the Motion, and include travelling and hotel expenses. The area of my county is about 1,000,000 acres, and to attend the county council meeting in the case of the outer islands means three days. The mere boat fare is not enough in such a case. If the members were allowed hotel expenses it would mean that many suitable men—retired civil servants, policemen, postmen—whose pensions are just enough to keep them going, and who have not enough money

1369
to attend these meetings, would be able to give useful public service. I am entirely against their being remunerated, because I do not want to create a class of local politicians. I would like to see their election expenses paid, because it is a great hardship that a good man, perhaps of small means, may have to put his hand in his pocket and lose £50 or £60. The result of that is that you severely limit the choice of the electors. I hope to see this Motion carried without any opposition, though I think there should be one or two additions that would not lead to the subversion of public life or take away from those who are willing to serve their fellows.
9.33 p.m.
Mr. ADAMSON: I am not going to follow the hon. and learned Member in the wide terms in which he has referred to this Motion. I urge on the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) that he should not accept the Amendment, because it does not cover expenses to the extent that the Mover and Seconder indicated. The Motion refers to "expenses incurred," which could be construed to extend to all justifiable expenditure such as subsistence, in addition to travelling expenses, that men might have to incur when carrying out the duties of the council to which they belong outside their area. The Amendment is a limiting factor to the expenses that are likely to be incurred. For that reason I would ask that the Amendment should not be accepted. On the general principle of this Motion I am glad to notice that there is general agreement.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the Motion until we have disposed of the Amendment.
Mr. ADAMSON: The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) had wider scope in the speech which he made since the Amendment was moved.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member for Argyll related what he said to the Amendment and it was not in any way outside the Amendment. If the hon. Member wants to speak to the Motion he must wait until the Amendment has been disposed of.
Mr. ADAMSON: With regard to the Amendment, it is not desirable to dis-
1370
criminate between the rural and urban authorities and the county and borough councils. That discrimination is invidious when we take into account the type of representative who serves on the urban and rural councils. The responsibilities of those authorities are continually being increased by the Legislature, which enforces upon them additional duties, and it is not fair to discriminate as if the work of the urban and rural authorities were less necessary than that of boroughs and counties. They should be put on an equality with members of county and borough authorities. For these reasons I trust that my hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment.
9.38 p. m.
Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: In the discussion on this matter so far an important point has been missed, namely, what exactly do we mean by the words "travelling expenses"? Those of us who have experience of industry and commerce know that the term does not mean just railway fares, bus fares or even taxicab fares. It involves a great deal besides. The ordinary custom of the ordinary commercial traveller, for instance—I do not know how it is now because my travelling days are over—is that travelling expenses involve one being paid out-of-pocket fares, whether by railway or, as in zmy early days, by the hire of a horse and trap, but it also involves by custom a sum of 20s. a day for living expenses. I cannot say, if this Amendment were embodied subsequently in an Act of Parliament, whether the term "travelling expenses" would indicate anything beyond railway and other fares, and the use of a conveyance, as, for instance, a privately-owned motor-car, where, presumably, a strict interpretation of the term would mean the wear and tear of the car and the petrol and oil consumed; or whether it would embrace other subsidiary expenses necessarily incurred in the course of travelling.
To show the difficulty, suppose that a journey involved a longish railway journey taking several hours, and on the train on which a member of a local authority was travelling there happened to be a refreshment car. Suppose he, incurred expenditure on refreshments, could those be termed travelling expenses? So far as I am aware, there has been no ruling of any sort upon

1371
which we can depend to give us definitely the meaning of the words "travelling expenses." For that reason, I think that the Debate on this Amendment might very well proceed rather further so that hon. Members with legal knowledge could tell me whether I am mistaken or whether in this phrase there is not a very great ambiguity. It is an important matter, because I can give hon. Members an example of what may occur if the Amendment is passed. In this connection, I would draw attention to something that was said by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that there is special protection for the ratepayers in the case of urban and rural district councils which does not exist in the case of boroughs, inasmuch as the borough auditors are elected and are, generally speaking, incapable of carrying out their duties.
Mr. EDE: That relates only to some boroughs. All the more modern boroughs that are now created are only created subject to their agreeing to having their accounts audited by the Minister, but some of the older boroughs still have only the elected auditors for part of their accounts.
Mr. HOPKINSON: I am glad to have that correction. In the case of urban and rural district councils they have the Minister's own auditors. A case was brought to my attention recently to show that that is not really a protection for the ratepayers. An invitation was sent to an urban district council from a joint water board to inspect the waterworks on the hills—a very pleasant little Saturday afternoon picnic. What the opinion of the councillors in question upon the waterworks may be or what value that opinion is, I do not know. Nevertheless, the reservoirs are situated in a very pleasant spot. The invitation was accepted and the councillors, in due course, after some objection from two of them who were over-ruled by the rest, decided that it was highly necessary in the ratepayers' interest to travel to this particular spot in order to inspect the waterworks, which, by the way, had been in existence there for at least 50 years and had been inspected at regular intervals. The travelling expenses involved were simply the hire of a very comfortable motor coach. The subsidiary expenses,
1372
however, were considerably greater, and I was shown the bill. The councillors having reached this lonely spot on the hills and having made a thorough inspection, which took some time, it became necessary to have some refreshments, and, as it was getting on to four or five o'clock in the afternoon, tea was served.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Tea?
Mr. HOPKINSON: Yes, tea. If my hon. and learned Friend will wait a moment I will satisfy his requirements. I saw the bill for those teas, and they came to over 30s. per head. I inquired, "What does tea include," and I was told, "Tea includes alcohol and cigars." Even with that, to the ordinary type of person whom we get on our local authorities in industrial Lancashire, the idea of spending 30s. on a tea in their own private life would be beyond their imagination. That is an extreme case, but the point is that the expenditure was passed by the Ministry of Health auditors, and it seems to me that the ratepayers, if they are left to the tender mercies of the Ministry of Health auditors, can be jolly well robbed, as in the case in point.
Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: And the auditors can act the other way about and cut as clean as a Sheffield razor. I have had some of it.
Mr. HOPKINSON: I must admit there is a great deal in what the hon. Member says, because I remember that when I was a member of that particular local authority there was an invitation to a similar picnic, but on that occasion it was to the sewage works. We were all under the impression that the Joint Sewerage Board were going to pay the expenses, and that they would fall on neither ourselves nor our own ratepayers, and so I raised no objection and the invitation was accepted; but to our horror and dismay the bill was subsequently sent to us as individuals. I well remember making a special journey to the Ministry of Health, after their auditor had disallowed this expenditure, and making art appeal ad misericordiam, pointing out that we should not have gone to the picnic if we had thought we had to pay for ourselves, and I am pleased to say that I was successful in getting some allowance; but I would point out that we did not have tea at 30s. a head.

1373
The real point I want to bring before the House is the difficulty of getting a definition of "travelling expenses," which seems to be a task worthy of some of the legal talent which I see present on both sides of the House. Ought we not, before passing this Motion, to consider whether we should not limit the scope of the payment of travelling expenses, supposing this Amendment is adopted, having regard to the final words about assessment committees? I have had some experience, and it seems to me that an immense amount of the ratepayers' money, and an immense amount of the time of paid officials on local councils, particularly urban councils, is to a large extent really wasted. I am not suggesting that that occurs on councils where there is a predominance of members of the party opposite. I have always felt that if there is any waste, if there is any corruption, in local government that probably we are better off in the hands of members of the party opposite than in the hands of members of the party on this side; because, when all is said and done, their ideas of corruption are very small. So far as municipalities are concerned, though I have never served on a municipal council, I think we should all agree that if there is anything seriously wrong the amounts involved are bigger when it is a Conservative or Liberal council than when it is a Labour council. The will is there on both sides, but the greatness of the conception lies almost invariably with the Conservative or Liberal councils.
I do not want to detain the House longer that is absolutely necessary, but there does seem to be a most unusual amount of agreement on both sides, and that the one thing which divides us is the question of what the expenses are to be, whether we are to limit them drastically or to allow a certain amount of scope. I agree with what has been said by recent speakers on this side, that we cannot be too strict and must make some allowance. As one hon. Member has introduced Plato into this discussion, probably the same licence may be extended to me. He gave us certain views of Plato about politics, but omitted an underlying principle of Plato's political theory, which was that those who take part in politics must not only make no advantage out of it but must actually make a sacrifice for the privilege of taking part. I think hon.
1374
Members on both sides would agree that that idea is at the back of the minds of many of us. We do feel that, if taking part in public life, whether in municipal work or in the House of Commons, involves the sacrifice of time and money and of earning power, Plato was right and that real satisfaction in public life can follow only when some sacrifice is involved.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. E. DUNN: The speech of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has left me guessing whether he is supporting the Amendment or opposing it. Before he sat down I thought there was a good deal of general support for the Motion, but I find that an Amendment has been moved which limits the scope of the Motion, confining it entirely to travelling expenses. I want to approach the problem from the standpoint of some actual experiences. I do not want to chop logic with legal Members, because I feel that I am entitled to get right down to the practical question involved in this Amendment. I have spent some 25 years in public life, serving upon all kinds of local governing bodies. I served my apprenticeship on a parish council, and I look back to my service there with a good deal of pride. I passed from the parish council to a rural district council, and served quite a number of years there, and I do not regret the experience which I then gained. I passed from the rural district council to an urban district council, and from there to a county council, and now I have passed to this House.
I think those who have passed through all sections of local government are those who, perhaps, see the full implications of this Motion and the Amendment more clearly than those who have never spent a day in public life or served upon a local governing body, and quite a number of those who have taken part in this Debate have not, I should think, served upon any local councils. I have never regretted my experience of local government work. I think it is a service which in many respects is as valuable as any service which a Member of Parliament can render. One can do things on a local council, and one cannot do anything here. I take the view that the men and women who are serving on local govern-

1375
ing authorities are not only rendering admirable service but that, in the main, they are giving honest service to their day and generation. I support the Motion because it has been my lot to see men and women serve upon local bodies when they have not been in a position to afford the time or the expenses incurred.
As a member of the West aiding County Council, if I travel from my own district to Wakefield, I am entitled to charge travelling expenses. That, as most hon. Members know, is provided for in the Local Government Act. As a member of the county council, being also a member of an assessment committee which is not held at Wakefield—although I am placed upon the assessment committee of my district by the county council—if I travel outside my district to attend an assessment committee meeting, I am not entitled to charge to the council my expenses. Obviously that is wrong. If I am entitled to travel from the place in which I live to Wakefield to serve the county council, which is the major body, and to charge travelling expenses, I should be entitled, if that major body places me upon an assessment committee or upon a public assistance committee, to charge my expenses for travelling to my duties upon either the public assistance committee of my district or an assessment committee. That is how the matter affects me. The Motion refers only to members of urban or rural district councils travelling to districts outside, not within, their own districts. I know quite a number of people who serve urban or rural district councils. If I am entitled to charge travelling expenses to attend Wakefield as a member of the West Riding County Council, it seems illogical that, as a member of the urban district council, I should be denied the right of travelling expenses for attending meetings outside my district.
In spite of what was said by the hon. Gentleman just now, I take the view that the local government services of this country are, in the main, as pure as those of any other country. I do not appreciate the point of view that if somebody travels and charges 30s. for his fee—the hon. Member was good enough to pay a compliment to this side of the House by pointing out that if we wanted to take lessons in corruption in local government matters we had a great deal to
1376
Learn from the standard of corruption of the people who sit upon the benches opposite—
Mr. HOPKINSON: I tried to point out the generosity of mind on this side as opposed to the meanness of mind on that side.
Mr. DUNN: That was not how it rolled across to this side. It rolled across in this way: As far as we are concerned, and the political party to which we are attached outside, we, and our people in public life outside, are practically models of purity and virtue compared with the people on the opposite side.
Mr. HOPKINSON: I have been totally misinterpreted. I am afraid the responsibility is mine for not making myself clear, and I am glad of the opportunity to make myself clear to hon. Members. What I tried to indicate was that if you took any given council on which there was a Conservative majority and which had been corrupt, the extent of its corruption, other things being equal, was likely to be considerably larger in the sums involved, than a council in which hon. Members opposite were concerned.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I happen to be a member of a council and corruption has been occasionally rumoured, but in only one or two cases. There was an actual cash transaction on which was called the Moderate side, which consisted of going to buy some article from them at a very large price. The article was much more expensive than it would have been in a direct exchange of cash. In the main, my experience of municipal and county council life is that there is practically no corruption, whether the constitution be Liberal, Labour or Conservative, or anything else. There is really no corruption in our public life,
Mr. DUNN: That was what I was attempting to say. The standards of public decency of our local governing bodies is of a very high order indeed. I was drawing attention to the statement made by the hon. Member, and he has really proved his own words.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: The corruption of the best, that is of the Tories, is the worst.
Mr. DUNN: It is a matter of degree. I believe elementary and common justice

1377
to the people who are serving their day and generation is the point of this Motion. I have taken the trouble to test public opinion on this matter. I have mentioned it in speeches upon public platforms, and I have yet to find, particularly in my area, that the ratepayers think that their public representatives are being fairly dealt with in not being paid their expenses. The proposal of the Motion would not be costly, but would be equitable and fair, and I hope that it will pass through this House.
10.4 p.m.
Captain ALAN GRAHAM: I hope that the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) can see his way to accept this Amendment. By doing so, he will not merely facilitate the rendering of service to the community by all public-spirited sections of it, but he will also do away with the apprehension which exists on these benches that the Motion might be otherwise interpreted by some people as the thin end of the wedge of paying salaries to members of these councils. We all agree that it would be very repulsive to our ideas of democracy if class prejudice or the fact of a man being either rich or poor should act as a qualification or a disqualification for rendering public service on any of these councils. We surely have to decide, when we are considering the nature of a man whom we wish to perform this service, whether he is or is not likely to be a responsibly-minded person. By "responsibly-minded" I mean a person who is really capable of putting the interests of the community before his own concerns. It seems to me that if people are to be given salaries for performing public services then those public services will tend to attract to themselves the irresponsibly-minded man—the man who has made no success of any profession and who thinks that there is an opportunity of making something for himself by having a paid job, nominally or under the colour of performing public service.
Plato has been mentioned this evening, so I hope it will be in order to mention Athens. The decline of Athenian democracy is always said to have set in at the time when jurors began to be paid for their jury service, because it attracted irresponsibly-minded idlers in the city and encouraged litigation. I hope that will not encourage members of a certain pro-
1378
fession in this House to advocate salaries for members of these councils. Generally speaking, the tone of the public service of the Athenian democracy began to be lowered from that date. Athens is a long way from here in time and in geography, but there are many things in common between that democracy and our own, and if we seriously wish, in spite of the menaces against it from the right and from the extreme left, to maintain democracy in this country it is essential that we should try to preserve pure standards of public service.
I feel confident that we can easily rely on the public conscience to deal with those appalling examples of corruption in regard to teas and other matters which were mentioned by one hon. Member! Abuses such as those very soon correct themselves. By accepting the Amendment and the word "travelling," I think we could say quite safely that abuses would not be allowed. It would include those extra expenses that were mentioned by one speaker from the benches opposite, and at the same time it would allay apprehension on these benches, while achieving the just desires of hon. Members opposite.
10.8 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The Debate that was initiated by the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) has, I think, shown a very general consensus of opinion on all sides of the House, but the Motion as he put it on the Order Paper goes rather further than the actual proposals of the Urban District Councils Association, as was made clear by the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer) who, incidentally, has made repeated representations on this subject to my Department. The hon. Member for West Rhondda indicated, and several other speakers from that side of the House took a similar view, that he would not be averse to expenses being regarded in a rather wider way than mere travelling expenses. Indeed, some hon. Members suggested that there were no insuperable objections from the point of view of public policy in paying members of local councils engaged in the local government of this country sums to compensate at least for loss of profitable time. Since then an Amendment has been moved to limit the expenses to travelling expenses. Perhaps it would be for the convenience

1379
of the House if I intervened at this stage in order to indicate briefly—other hon. Members desire to speak—the view of the Department, and also try to clear up one or two points of misunderstanding about the present position and the reason for the present position.
I should like to start with the reason why in our opinion the wider meaning of the word "expenses" ought to be rejected. In the first place there has been, as far as we know, no demand on the part of representative bodies of local authorities for payment for broken time. One or two individual instances have come to our notice, but I think it is fair to say, taking the country at large, that there has been no real demand for this concession. The hon. Member for West Rhondda said that because of lack of means, because of poverty, there were large numbers of men in this country who were deterred from entering public life. He also said that the day of the leisured class is long past. I should be inclined, looking at the condition of local government, to agree with the second of those statements but not with the first. Certainly, there is no sign of any lack of candidates coming forward to fight seats on behalf of his party. I have taken the trouble to get out statistics of the numbers of candidates in the last two years who have fought borough council elections in November. The House and hon. Members opposite in particular, will be interested to hear the figures. In 1935 the number of Conservatives who fought was 821, and the number of Socialists 1,228. That does not show any lack of candidates. In 1936 the number of Conservatives who fought had dropped to 783, but the number of Socialists remained at 1,226. Therefore, I do not think there is any evidence of a serious lack of candidates.
Mr. BENSON: In the figures of Conservatives, does the hon. Member include Independents, or Conservatives who are fighting under the guise of Independents?
Mr. HUDSON: The same thing is true of the Liberals. The number of their candidates was 213 in 1935, and 199 in 1936. The main point of these figures is to show that there has been no real difficulty in getting candidates to fight these local elections.
Mr. KELLY: Has the hon. Member the figures for the elections for other councils?
Mr. HUDSON: I could not find those, but I have no doubt that the same conditions existed. I have an even stronger piece of evidence in the writings of a, gentleman whom hon. Members opposite still, I believe claim to belong to their party, and that is Sidney Webb, Lord Passfield. In his book on "Local Government in England," issued in 1922, he pays a very high tribute, quite rightly, to the part that has been taken in local government by members of the so-called working classes. [HON.MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He says this:
"Local government in its modern guise, with its new and larger aims and vaster problems, has come to attract, both as elected representatives and as officials, ever more and more of the ablest and best trained intellects, who find, in its service, whether paid or unpaid, an inspiration and a scope actually superior, in their own estimation, to that offered by the pursuit of pecuniary profit. In short, English local government, in 1832–1836 handed over, in effect, to an upper stratum of the middle class, has gradually become representative of all the best sections of English life."
I venture to think that that disposes of the argument that it is impossible under present conditions to find satisfactory candidates.
Mr. HARDIE: Why does not the hon. Gentleman quote Sidney Webb when he spoke from that Bench in this House?
Mr. HUDSON: I have no doubt that he would agree with what I am saying.
Mr. HARDIE: He would not.
Mr. HUDSON: Let me now turn to the question whether or not it is possible to agree with the narrower Motion if this Amendment meets with the approval of hon. Members opposite and is adopted. Several speakers in the Debate have asked why, if certain concessions were made in the case of county councils, similar concessions could not be made in the case of urban district councils. Before 1929, as hon. Members know, there was no power at all to pay even travelling expenses to any members of local authorities who travelled within the area of the particular body on which they sat, but it was a recognised procedure that, where they travelled outside the area of the body, they were regarded

1381
as doing an extraordinary duty, and then they could claim their travelling expenses. In 1929 this House decided that county councillors, in view of the additional work which was going to be placed upon them by the Local Government Act of that year, should be allowed to charge travelling expenses whether they were attending meetings of the council or whether they were attending the meetings of a committee, provided that that committee covered the whole of their area. That is the reason why, as hon. Members have said tonight, members of guardians' committees, because the guardians' committee does not cover the whole area of a county, are not entitled to be repaid their travelling expenses. It is clear, however, that an urban district council is a very much smaller body, covering a very much smaller area than a comity council, and the expenses are not so great—
Mr. JOHN: May I point out that the Motion applies to people travelling outside their district, not inside?
Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member will have patience, I shall come to that. I am endeavouring to explain how the present situation arose, and I am saying that county councillors, in view of the new and additional work imposed upon them in 1929, were given the right to recover their travelling expenses. But the same considerations do not apply to members of urban district councils, because clearly An urban district does not cover so large an area as a, county council.
Now we come to the question of assessment committees. I think this is where hon. Members are labouring under some misapprehension. They have said that a member of an urban district council attending an assessment committee is very much like a member of a county council attending a committee of the county council. That is not really the case. A member of an urban district council who also sits on the assessment committee is not on the Assessment committee carrying out the duties of the urban district council. He is carrying out his duties on the assessment committee, which is an ad hoc body, and therefore he is not in the same position as a member of a county council carrying out the duties of a committee of that
1382
council. That is really the reason why in 1925, when this matter was raised in Committee, Parliament refused to allow travelling expenses to members of urban district councils serving on assessment committees. However, there are at present—and since 1925 more have been set up—a number of joint boards covering the area, of several authorities, just as the assessment committee covers the area of more than one authority. Members of joint boards are allowed to recover travelling expenses, and we agree that it is very difficult to draw a line in practice between A joint board and an assessment committee.
I am inclined to agree with those who have suggested that the time has come to remove that anomaly. Clearly to do so would need legislation, and I cannot promise at present that such legislation will be introduced in the immediate future, but if the hon. Member feels that he is able to accept the Amendment limiting the Motion substantially to what the Urban District Councils Association has proposed, as mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer), I think I can promise that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the removal of this anomaly at the first opportunity that arises when next legislation has to be introduced altering the existing Rating Act. I hope the hon. Member will feel satisfied with that.
Mr. JOHN: Will that apply to guardians committees as well?
Mr. HUDSON: Yes.
Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Will it be possible to bring that legislation forward before the elections on 6th April next year?
Mr. HUDSON: I do not think that is possible in view of the congested state of Parliamentary business. All that I have promised is that we will give it sympathetic consideration next time the question arises of altering the Rating Act.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. LYONS: I hope, after what has been said by many Members, reinforced by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Mover of the Motion may see his way to accept the Amendment. May I say what is in the mind of many of us? We

1383
believe on this side of the House, as well as elsewhere, that public service should be open to all sorts of people without discrimination of any sort. I have never questioned that a man may be very active in party politics on either side and be just as good a citizen, if not better than a man who says, "I take no part whatever in active political life." I have yet to find that being concerned with party politics in a very active state is any interference at all with the ordinary conduct of decency in public affairs. It behoves us to do everything we can, particularly at this time when we see that other nations are not so keen on the preservation of democratic institutions as we are, to see that we maintain equality of opportunity without discrimination of any sort or kind in our public services. It is the proud boast of this country that we have been the nursery of democracy, and one of the reasons why we can say that we have brought democratic government, both local and national, on to a very high sphere is because we have accepted, without any discrimination at all, men in all walks of life and in whatever political party they desired to go, who were ready and eligible to take their share, one with the other, in some kind of responsibility in public service.
I hope that we shall see this remedy pushed forward without delay—that there shall be no attempt made to refuse travelling expenses to those who have to suffer expense in public life—in order that they will be able to come forward and take their share in the public service without any discrimination at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion—and I am sure that the House is grateful to him for the opportunity of being able to discuss it—will see his way to make this one Amendment to his proposal. Unless the word "expenses" has some definition in front of it, and unless there is some check in this Motion, we shall lose that general support which we all want to see given to a recommendation of this nature. We know the danger there is, if you make for any concession in public life, of criticism, and the best thing that we can do is to see that the word "travelling" is introduced to limit the expenses. I believe that the House would give unanimity to that proposal and that my hon. Friend, on behalf
1384
of the Department, will be anxious to accelerate some such arrangement whereby travelling expenses can be put at the disposal of people serving on public bodies rather than run any risk of keeping our public life confined to wealthy persons.
It was said by the Parliamentary Secretary that the figures in 1938 showed that a large number of persons offered themselves for services as Socialist candidates for local authorities. It was challenged by an hon. Gentleman opposite as a weak piece of evidence, but I think it is a very substantial piece of evidence. The best piece of evidence that we as guardians of free institutions desire, irrespective of what one individual or another thinks about that party putting forward this large number of candidates, is having suitable persons at disposal ready and willing to come forward to champion a policy which they think is right. I hope we shall see immediate action taken whereby nobody will have any foundation, through inability to pay necessary travelling expenses in the discharge of the work of a public office, for believing that he is suffering a kind of public disability. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment and limit the word "expenses" by the word "travelling," and secure not only complete agreement in the House but also the support of the Minister of Health in bringing forward legislation to remove a disability on some individuals who desire to serve on the public bodies of the country.
10.31 p.m.
Sir STAFFORD CR I PPS: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to alter slightly what he has said, because I am sure he does not want to mislead the House or the country. He has said that the Government will be prepared to deal with this matter when next they deal with rating. This has nothing to do with rating, and it has not been discussed or argued as a matter of rating. There is no likelihood of any Bill being brought forward to amend rating for a considerable number of years. It has been dealt with recently, and it is unlikely that any large measure will be brought forward within the next few years. This is a matter which can he dealt with in many of the different Bills dealing with local government. It can easily be dealt with in a short Bill of two or three Clauses

1385
which might very well go through on an agreed basis in a few hours absolutely unanimously. Everybody desires it as limited to travelling expenses. Why then should we wait for two or five years. It is surely a case where, as the House has shown itself unanimous, the Parliamentary Secretary might say, "We will take the first opportunity, whenever it may come, of putting right something which it is unanimously agreed should be put right." I am sure if the Parliamentary Secretary will say that, it will make it much easier for the hon. Member to accept the Amendment.
Mr. R. S. HUDSON: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for calling my attention to what, I admit, was a slip of the tongue. I used the words "Rating Act" because I was thinking of the Act of 1925, which set up the assessment committees, and under which they are not allowed to charge travelling expenses. What I should have said was that we will take a suitable opportunity of dealing with the matter. I do not know how that suitable opportunity will arise. It may arise in connection with another rating Act, but we will certainly take a suitable opportunity of dealing with it.
Mr. LYONS: May I ask whether we are to take it that the Minister accepts the principle enunciated by the hon. and learned Member?
Mr. HUDSON: I do not know what that principle was. I do not think that I can promise to bring in a special Act for this purpose, but when legislation is brought in we shall give sympathetic consideration to a Clause to this effect. I cannot promise that a special Act will be brought in.
Mr. JOHN: In view of the practically unanimous appeal from the other side of the House, and of the promise of the Parliamentary Secretary, though not very definite as far as time is concerned, I am prepared to accept the Amendment. It is not a question of coming here to talk; we want something done, and, having regard to the unanimous opinion of the House, I trust the Government will see that something is done in the near future.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. McKIE:I am sure the House will be delighted at the gracious way in which
1386
the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John), who initiated this very valuable Debate, has accepted the proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary. In initiating this Debate, the hon. Member has called the attention, not merely of this House, but of the country to a very important point at this time. I was delighted to hear the underlying theme of the speech of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), who said that we are essentially the guardians of freedom and of public liberty. Such a statement recalls very vividly to our minds what we must do if we are to be in truth the maintainers of this system which has served our country so well and which has made us the admiration—I might say the envy—of the other States of Europe and the rest of the world where they have anything approaching a Parliamentary system of government.
In the Motion as originally placed on the Order Paper, the Mover asked us to agree to the proposition that members of urban and rural district councils should have their expenses granted, but the hon. Gentleman has now accepted the adjectival qualification of "travelling." I am certain that in doing so he has not injured his Motion and has not in any way weakened the public sense of what is due to this most excellent body of men and women who proffer their services for the good of the community and the commonweal. A great many tributes have been paid to those ladies and gentlemen this evening, and I was glad to hear one hon. Member above the Gangway say that they were responsible in their humbler sphere—as compared with those who have the honour to be Members of the Legislature—for getting a great deal more done than we who have the honour of being Members of the House of Commons. Everything in this life is comparative, and I would not for one moment wish to deny the fact that members of local bodies, county councils, borough councils, urban district councils, and rural district councils, are responsible for getting perhaps a great deal done in a small way for the good of the community; but may I be allowed to say how essential it is for us to see that justice is done to these excellent people in the way of remunerating them, or at all events not penalising them, for the good that they do for the community. Perhaps members of these local bodies,

1387
thinking on the lines of the reasoning of the speech made by the hon. Member above the Gangway that they are responsible for doing more in their small way, are rather apt not to be conscious enough of the greater responsibilities that are laid upon Members of the House of Commons and to think that little is done as a result of hours and hours of speech in what they consider to be endless and very often fruitless debates and discussions.
The principle raised in this amended Motion goes to the very heart of the democratic institutions of Britain as we understand and know them. It goes back to the time before the outbreak of hostilities in the European War in August, 1914, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced, in 1911, the legislation necessary for the payment of Members of this House. I was not very old at that time, but I remember that there was an outburst of indignation in many circles at the acceptance by Parliament of the principle of payment of Members. It was then said—and many people to-day still think on the same lines—that the standard of membership would inevitably be lowered. We all know that the reverse has been the case. A great deal has been said to-night to the effect that nobody through lack of means should be prevented from proffering his services to the community, whether as a Member of Parliament or as a member of a local authority. Bearing in mind what was said in many quarters when the system was introduced, I have perhaps certain reservations on the general question of the payment of Members of Parliament, but I recognise that in the main it has worked well and I think the time has come when we ought to see that those ladies and gentlemen who are willing to act as members of local authorities are not penalised as a result of giving their time to the public service.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am rather interested to know how this is worked in Scotland.
Mr. McKIE: I do not think the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was in the House when the hon. Member for West Rhondda initiated this De-
1388
bate, but I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for West Rhondda lay so much stress upon the fact that members of local authorities in Scotland occupied a better position than members of similar bodies in England and Wales.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I hardly think that the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) can be accepted as an authority on Scotland. I was putting my question to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) as the representative of a Scottish division.
Mr. McKIE: It is very kind of my hon. Friend to put it in that way, but we are only entitled to take part in this Debate as a result of the good services of the hon. Member who is responsible for the Motion on the Paper and, as I say, I only wish that the hon. Member for Torquay had been here earlier. He dines very early and as a result he missed the valuable speech of the hon. Member who introduced the Motion and who made the point that members of local bodies in Scotland occupy a much better position than their less fortunate colleagues in England and Wales. I was speaking of the general principle of the payment of members of representative bodies, but I recognise that the Motion is a narrow one and deals only with members of urban and rural district councils. I only alluded to the payment of members of the legislature by way of illustration. In Scotland members of county councils are not only guaranteed their expenses, but, as I understand, a small remuneration is also made to them for the services which they place at the public's disposal.
Sir ROBERT TASKER: Are we to take it on the authority of the hon. Member that they are remunerated for their services?
Mr. McKIE: As far as I understand members of county councils in Scotland are not only given expenses, but also a small return for any losses they may incur in the discharge of their duties.
Mr. BARR: I think I may put it to my hon. Friend that they can be paid for loss of wages and time in county councils as well as expenses.
Mr. McKIE: That is what I was endeavouring to explain, and I thank my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this subject. Members of county councils

1389
in England and Wales also, I understand, receive expenses. Here in this Motion we are asked to assent to the same treatment regarding urban and rural district councils that is at present accorded to members of county councils. I am delighted to think that the House has so readily agreed to that and that it has also assented to the adjectival qualification of the word "travelling." At all events, very many beginnings are small beginnings, and I am sure the hon. Members above the Gangway, who have had the good grace to-night to accede to the general wishes of the House, will have no occasion whatever to regret their action, on which I heartily congratulate them once again.
Question, "That the word 'travelling' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to
Resolved,
"That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made for the payment of the travelling expenses incurred by members of urban district councils and rural district councils in attending outside their areas meetings of assessment and other committees in the discharge of their public duties."

SPECIAL AREAS (RECONSTRUCTION).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Sir G. Penny.]
10.48 p. m.
Mr. DAVID ADAMS: In accordance with notice given a week ago, I desire to raise, for the consideration of the House and of the Government, certain grievances with respect to the advances of money in the Special Areas for the purpose of assisting or establishing light industries. I raised the matter in the Debate on the Address, but, as the President of the Board of Education was in charge of the House at the time, I got no reply. In a recent Debate the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) raised the same subject, but again we bad no reply. There is, in my judgment, a growing amount of evidence that this very admirable Act, which, if properly administered, will go a long way towards assisting these areas, is not being utilised as it ought to be. I received a cutting from a prominent
1390
Newcastle business man this morning. It is from the "Newcastle Evening Chronicle," which is a strong supporter of the Government and a very reputable newspaper. The leading article is entitled, "What is wrong with Sara?" That, of course, refers to the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, Limited, which handles the finance for these areas. I would like to read, shortly, what this paper states, which is as follows:
"What is wrong with Sara? This organisation was set up owing to the difficulty of obtaining capital for the establishment of new, or the expansion of existing, industries in the Special Areas. But has it provided easier facilities than those already existing? The answer is No. Those who have made application—people in some cases owning sound established businesses—declare that Sara requires greater security for loans than the local banks. It seems a fair criticism, and demands a fair answer."
It added:
"At a time when we"—
that is the North of England—
"are encouraging new inventions in the north, Sara has turned down an application from an established firm on Tyneside, which requires capital to develop a simple, new and revolutionary invention. No reason is given to the applicant, but since the application was turned down great firms in various parts of the country have begun to use the product, and inquiries and orders have come from abroad."
That is evidence that cannot be brushed aside. It has come from a reputable newspaper, which is speaking for the time being the voice of the North of England. The question which I addressed to the Chancellor last week confirms the view that the Act has not been administered as it should have been. I inquired the total number of applications received by the Association to date, and the numbers of loans which had been granted. The total number was 3458, of which there were "out of order" 65, and "indeterminate" —whatever that may mean—104, leaving 189 genuine and admittedly good applications for loans. In spite of that large number, six months after the opportunity had been available to these firms, only 14 loans, for a total of £52,000, had been granted. It is clear, therefore, that something is seriously wrong with the administration of the Act. I asked a second question to the Chancellor:
"Whether he is aware that reputable companies situated in Special Areas and re-

1391
quiring loans for the expansion of their businesses, but which cannot raise sufficient guarantees in the usual way, are refused these facilities by the Special Areas Reconstruction Association unless they find substantial guarantees such as would be asked for by any ordinary finance house; and will he endeavour to remove this refusal to advance capital to such industries as being contrary to the spirit of the Special Areas (Reconstruction Agreement) Act, 1936?"
The Chancellor replied:
"I am informed that such guarantees are not required as a general rule, but that when circumstances make it necessary they may he asked for to ensure that the applicant has sufficient faith in the business proposed by him." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1936; col. 223, Vol. 318.]
Additional cover equal to that which the normal finance houses would expect is contrary to the Act. The Chancellor's statement that this Association is entitled to do this is the cause for the overwhelming number of refusals for the loans required. I must quote a little what the Chancellor's view on the situation has been, as expressed in this House. Speaking on the Special Areas in the Debate in Committee of Ways and Means on the Budget Statement, the Chancellor, referring to this scheme, stated that suggestions had been made by the Commissioner for the Special Areas in his various Reports, to the effect that the establishment of small businesses there was being hampered by the lack of necessary finance, and that special remedies or devices were required. Then he added:
"The purpose of this company will be to finance businesses where the risk is such as would not be undertaken at this stage by ordinary financial concerns." —[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 21st April, 1936; col. 52, Vol. 311.]
When the Chancellor reached the position of dealing with the Money Bill for the establishment of this company under the Act, he made this important statement:
"The whole object of the special treatment that we have been endeavouring to apply to the Special Areas is that we should not rely upon certainties…The only hope for these areas is that we should not be afraid to try anything which, on the face of it, appears to have even a small chance of turning out successful, because, if we fail in these experiments, no great harm is done…The purpose of this proposed company is not to do the same business as is now being done by ordinary financial institutions but it is to go beyond that. It is to take risks which the ordinary financial institution would not care to take in the course of ordinary business…
1392
It is possible—I think it is very likely—that we shall lose a certain amount of money…We are guaranteeing losses…in order to see whether, despite these losses, the company can be made a success." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1936; cols. 871–4, Vol. 311.]
The result of that was the passing by the House unanimously of the Special Areas Reconstruction (Agreement) Act of this year. The Act translates into law the pledges which the Chancellor gave to the House on the lines I have indicated:
"Whereas it is intended that a company shall be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1929, by the name of the Special Areas Reconstruction Association Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') with the object (among other objects) of providing as a temporary and special expedient means of affording financial facilities to persons setting up or carrying on business in the areas specified in the First Schedule to the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, who satisfy the company that, whilst having reasonable expectation of ultimate success on an economic basis, they are not for the time being in a position to obtain financial facilities from banks or financial institutions primarily engaged in providing financial facilities for long or medium periods."
It is clear from that Preamble that, contrary to the Act and the will of Parliament, the company is demanding cover and guarantees which are usually demanded from banking houses. I want to give a typical example which has come to my notice, and I am advised that it is one of many. I have been informed that it is so by hon. Members from the Special Areas. This was a new light industry, a small manufacturing business, established in. January of last year on the North-east coast. An application was made on the 7th July for a loan of £3,000 for the period under the Act, namely, five years, for the purpose of extending production and financing the business offered to them. The business had steadily improved, and most of the prominent stores in this country were stocked with the goods which it was producing. It had a rising and rapidly developing export business, not only in Europe, but in Africa, India and Australia. The business was upon a sound footing It had also, I might mention—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Question proposed,
"That this House do now adjourn." —[Sir G. Penny.]
Mr. ADAMS: As I was saying, they have a growing export business and, as would be expected of a sound firm in the North of England, they had taken a stand at the British Industries Fair to display their goods. They state that, if this finance is made available, in the course of a year or two they will be able to employ some hundreds of additional workers. In order to satisfy the loaning company a careful examination was made by the officials of the Tyneside Industrial Development Board, the chairman of which is Lord Ridley. The examination was apparently successful, because the area committee transmitted the report that this was a company to which a loan might legitimately be granted or at any rate one whose application ought to receive the necessary consideration. The area committee is presided over by a man of very considerable local and financial standing, Sir Arthur Lambert, who is the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Newcastle Corporation and an ex-Lord Mayor of the city. Everything that the financing company desired in the way of the conversion into shares of certain loan capital which had been advanced by the directors was assented to, everything was arranged except the loan. The directors, in harmony with the Act of Parliament, offered to the loaning company what is customary, and what ought to be customary, any security based upon the business itself, but this was refused, and a demand was made that the directors should guarantee the loan or, failing that, should obtain outside persons of substance to give joint and several guarantees, which, of course, is quite impossible.
If they had been able to find such guarantees obviously they would not have troubled to wait from July till November, but would have gone in July to their own bankers and obtained this loan. It was an ordinary banker's demand, and was one of the very reasons why this firm, with so many other firms, have been unable to raise the necessary capital. Many directors are prevented by their partnership agreements from entering into any such guarantee, their financial standing in
1394
some cases prevents them—there is a diversity of reasons. Anyhow, they were entitled, in my judgment, to rely upon the Act of Parliament. If the business was a sound one, was profitable and expanding, then, in my judgment, with all respect to the Treasury, the firm were entitled to the loan requested.
I would like briefly to quote from a letter on the subject which appeared in the "Times" last week, from a business man of Merthyr Tydvil who has made similar applications, and who emphasised his grievances. The House may agree with him that they ought to be remedied. He said:
It would seem to me, as one who has been interested in seeking financial assistance for a company with excellent prospects, but so far without success, that had the Government expended the £20,000 annually in payment of salaries and expenses to Government officials more might have been achieved in helping industries in these Special Areas. Had it been decided that the Government itself should make all inquiries and afterwards lend money directly to such companies, without the intervention of any third party, more benefit would have ensued. Moreover the Government in this event would have received from the borrowers the interest payable on the various advances, whereas under the present agreement no interest is payable by the finance company to the Government, and yet that company will receive the benefit of any interest which may be earned.
I am not interested in the comments which are made by this gentleman regarding the financial arrangements which the Government have made. I am anxious not to lodge a complaint against the Treasury but to have the grievances remedied which I have indicated to the House.
I would summarise my desires in the matter. I ask the Treasury to make inquiry into these grievances and to give rejected applicants an opportunity of re-submitting their schemes. If the various firms who have been rejected are entitled to an advance which the Government and Parliament have unanimously stated should be made to them, they should have an opportunity of obtaining such advance, and I ask the Government to insist upon the proper administration of the Act by this lending company. I am satisfied that scores, if not hundreds, of new industries can be started in the Special Areas. I can speak for a number upon the north-east coast, which would employ large numbers of our unemployed people.

1395
We want capital to flow to these Special Areas and our unemployed to be employed once again. We have faith that, just as the great Armstrong firm began in a blacksmith's shop as a small light industry and, in a lifetime, became one of the greatest arsenals and armament firms of the globe, so, from the opportunity which might be afforded by the advance of this small capital, limited as it is to £10,000 under any head, might be the beginning of great industries for the Special Areas.
11.4 p.m.
Mr. F. ANDERSON: I, like my hon. Friend, have experience of what we call S.A.R.A. I will try to relate my experience as shortly as I can. I have had the pleasure of introducing three or four people to S.A.R.A. with the object of their starting new industries. I would put it to the Treasury that we must bear in mind that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that this Act was being brought into being for the purpose of helping industries that could not get assistance through the ordinary channels. My experience so far has been that on each occasion, on each of the applications, the statement has been made: "We cannot be the predominating partner under any arrangement." If that is to be the case all the way through it is going to defeat the very objects of the Act from the beginning. That is not hearsay. I heard it said. Consequently, I ask, how far has the Special Areas Reconstruction Association freedom of action, apart from other financial houses. If it has not freedom of action, the position is going to be that people who have good sound propositions will be turned down.
In regard to one proposition it would involve from 600 to 800 men inside two years. Therefore, I would point out to the Ministry of Labour that this is a very serious matter from the standpoint of employment. As far as I can see, the Special Areas Reconstruction Association has not, as yet, got the atmosphere of the Special Areas, namely, a desire that men should be put into employment. That atmosphere should permeate the association to a greater extent, because if the commodity which the association has to sell is capital, they should sell it in the way that was meant when the Act was passed.
1396
There should be a different type of examination. I have a list of 21 questions that have to be answered by applicants who desire to set up new industries. When those questions are answered, so far as my own area is concerned, they have to go through the district board at Newcastle, and from the district board at Newcastle to London. I understand that if London does not like the proposals contained in the forms, they come back again to Newcastle. The whole of the time these people are waiting and wanting to know what is occurring as far as their applications are concerned. There must be a speeding up of these applications. They cannot go on taking weeks and weeks before an actual response is made, and the people know whether they are turned down or not. That is not fair to the applicants. At least something of a special character should be done to see that any applications that are made shall, say, in a month's time—I think that should be sufficient—be decided. It should be possible to say to these people: "You can expect a reply of some character inside a month's time." But in some cases, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 weeks have elapsed and there has been no satisfaction as yet. If that is going to be the case, while we have hundreds of men walking the streets, what encouragement is there for some of us who have done our best and have used every ounce of energy we possess to get new industries into our areas, and to use the Act for all it is worth? When we find that these delays are taking place in this manner, it calls for inquiry, first, as to the delay, and second, as to the general principles that are being laid down in regard to the supply of finance, especially for new industries. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be good enough, I should like him to say what can be done to speed up the proposals now in hand, and what can be done to try and lay some foundation line as to how the capital can be found for firms applying in respect of new industries.
11.15 p.m.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The hon. Members who have raised this question to-night have not criticised the Act which gave birth to the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, but they have directed their criticism to the administration under that Act. In considering

1397
the question I feel that we should have regard to the purposes for which the Association was created. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear that this was not expected to be a remedy for all the ills of the Special Areas, but was a response to a particular request made by the Commissioner in relation to the financing of smaller industries. I should like to say a word or two about what has been happening since the Act was passed.
The period of formation of the company has been gone through. The company was incorporated in the middle of June, and a central board and three area boards were chosen; and I should like to pay a tribute to the public-spirited services which the gentlemen who have joined these boards are giving. I do not know if the House realises that, with the exception of the managing director and a few salaried officials, all members of these boards are giving their services voluntarily for this object. I am sure it will be the desire in all quarters of the House that a tribute should be paid to those who have agreed to serve on these boards in a voluntary capacity. The boards had to be formed, and offices had to be established. A central office has been established in London, and branch offices in Glasgow, Cardiff, and Newcastle-on-Tyne. At each of these places there is a paid secretary.
As the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) said, there was a considerable number of applications; the exact figure to date is 371. A number of these were outside the scope of the company, and some of them were really letters written under a misunderstanding as to what the company was able to do. These, therefore, had to be laid aside, but serious consideration has been given and is being given to the applications which remain. The hon. Member asked a question only recently as to the number of applications which had been approved in principle and the advances which had been approved in principle. Since he asked that question, there have been further developments, and I find that to-day the figures show that 20 loans have been approved in principle, for a sum of £103,300. The hon. Member will see, therefore, that things are moving on even now. I am not quite sure when he asked the question, but it is only a matter of days, and even in that time
1398
things have been moving on; and the management of the association have been proceeding with their work and examining the applications which are before them. The Act lays it down, and I should like to reiterate this, that the facilities are to be accorded to those who satisfy the company that, while having reasonable expectations of ultimate success on an economic basis, they are not for the time being in a position to obtain financial facilities from banks or financial institutions.
It is the first part of that provision on which I should like to lay stress—"having reasonable expectations of ultimate success on an economic basis." It would be no use for the association to finance enterprises which were likely to result in failure and at the end of a year or two years add to the depression. We are all agreed on that point. It is important that the association, in considering applications laid before it, should have regard to this proviso that there should be good prospects of ultimate economic success. The other proviso, which also is of importance, is that they are not for the time being in a position to obtain facilities from banks or financial institutions. The association is dealing, not with Government money, but with privately subscribed money, and although established under Government auspices and receiving Government assistance, it has also certain responsibilities to its shareholders.
The hon. Member for Consett raised a point as regards endeavours on the part of the association to secure personal guarantees in certain cases. As the Chancellor informed him, guarantees of the kind that he has in mind are not required as a general rule but in certain cases the association may feel that it has no option but to ask for the personal guarantee of the applicants in order that they may indicate that they have sufficient faith in the business and its chances of success. But it is not the general rule to ask for such a personal guarantee. Even when a personal guarantee is asked for, in order that the applicant should come within the scope of the association, the business must be such that the giving of the personal guarantee would not enable the applicant to obtain financial assistance elsewhere. The provision that the applicant was unable to get financial assistance elsewhere would still hold good.

1399
The Government cannot undertake to interfere in the day-to-day administration of the association as regards the handling of individual cases, but if the hon. Member has certain particular cases in mind and cares to submit them privately to me, I shall have inquiries made from the association in order to ascertain in what circumstances the association has found it necessary to ask for a personal guarantee. At the same time, having entrusted the work to the association, it would not be possible for the Government to take up each individual case.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) speaks of delay. The company has not, in fact, been going for very long. Incorporation took place in June, but office accommodation had to be taken and applications sifted out.
Mr. ANDERSON: It is after they have gone through the reports that the delay arises between Newcastle and London.
Lieut.-Colonel COLVI LLE: I was speaking of the general work of the company. Having regard to the period in which it has been in operation I feel that they cannot be unduly criticised for slowness in operation. It is too early yet to pass judgment on the activities of the company. It is quite proper that we should discuss it in the House to-night and everyone should know that the House is interested in seeing that the intentions that were expressed at the time the Act was passed should be carried out. It is rather early yet to attempt to pass judgment on the activities of the association. They are proceeding with their work on the lines laid down in the Act, and, as I have indicated already, loans to the extent of £103,000 have been approved in principle.
As the House is aware, there is a provision for making a contribution from Government funds to the administrative expenses of the association. I find that it will probably be necessary to make
1400
such a contribution to expenses in the current Financial Year. This will involve bringing a Supplementary Estimate to the House in February, which must be taken before the end of March. That will give us an opportunity in the House of Commons of discussing the administration of the association and its activities, and I suggest that after the short discussion we have had and after the undertaking I have given to look into the particular point made by the hon. Member we should now leave the subject. When the opportunity for a fuller discussion arises on the Vote for administrative purposes we can again consider the activities of the association.
Mr. ANDERSON: In the meantime will the Financial Secretary look into the cases which take eight and ten weeks upon which to get a decision? These men are standing idle waiting to get on with the job.
Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot admit that there has been laxity. The number of applications before the committee are considerable and they are examining them now. I am quite willing to take an interest in the work of the association, but I reiterate that the Government cannot interfere in individual cases.
Mr. D. ADAMS: Does not the Financial Secretary agree that the particular case I have raised, a sound business and the financing company demanding substantial guarantees, is ordinary banking practice?
Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think that the soundness of the business is a matter which will have to be looked into much more closely.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  ELECTRICITY ANSWERS
  ELECTRICITY ANSWERS
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
TRANSPORT.
  CO-ORDINATION, SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE.
  CO-ORDINATION, SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, FRANCE, GERMANY AND UNITED STATES.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, FRANCE, GERMANY AND UNITED STATES.
PALESTINE.
  POLISH IMMIGRATION.
  POLISH IMMIGRATION.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IMPORTS).
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IMPORTS).
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION COURTS (FINES).
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION COURTS (FINES).
  MOTORING OFFENCE, TOWCESTER.
  MOTORING OFFENCE, TOWCESTER.
  FOREIGN CURRENCIES (SPECULATION).
  FOREIGN CURRENCIES (SPECULATION).
  MILK REORGANISATION COMMISSION.
  MILK REORGANISATION COMMISSION.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (DOMINIONS).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (DOMINIONS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  DONCASTER DISTRICT.
  DONCASTER DISTRICT.
  BENEFIT (E. SHELDRAKE, STRATFORD).
  BENEFIT (E. SHELDRAKE, STRATFORD).
  DUKINFIELD.
  DUKINFIELD.
  AFFORESTATION (STATISTICS).
  AFFORESTATION (STATISTICS).
  ANCIENT BUILDINGS PRESERVATION.
  ANCIENT BUILDINGS PRESERVATION.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE AERODROMES.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE AERODROMES.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (WOMEN EMPLOYEES).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (WOMEN EMPLOYEES).
  KENYA.
  KENYA.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF MUNITIONS TO SPAIN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE IN SCOTLAND.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL rose to call attention to the rapid disappearance of domestic architecture in Scotland of historic and æsthetic interest to the country, and to urge His Majesty's Government to take all practical steps to ensure the preservation of this national heritage without delay; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the matter which forms the subject of this Motion is regarded by the National Trust for Scotland, and by a number of other people who are very much disturbed by what is going on, as one of great urgency and importance. Scotland is fairly well endowed with the more important ancient buildings, many of them in ruins, but for the most part now well tended and guarded against further spoliation or decay. Scotland also has a number of very beautiful and very interesting country houses containing great stores and treasures of furniture and works of art, the preservation of which, as of similar houses in England, is no doubt a matter of national importance. But it is not the castles and abbeys, nor is it the great country houses, that, I had in mind when I put down this Motion. What I wish to call your Lordships' attention to, and the attention of the Government, is the grave and pressing danger which threatens the few remaining examples of bygone domestic architecture of the humbler sort that still remain in Scotland. No observant person who has gone about in Scotland can, I think, fail to have been struck by the scarcity of those villages which owe any picturesqueness and charm they possess to the houses themselves as apart
526
from their surroundings or their setting. That is very far from being the case in England, where villages containing a great number of most charming old houses are to be met with in many parts of the country.
I have often been puzzled to account for the more rapid disappearance of the older houses in Scotland than in England, and I believe that the explanation may be found in a difference between the rating systems of the two countries. At any rate, that is one of the principal reasons. I am fortified in that opinion by a letter which I read not long ago in the Scotsman from no less a legal authority than Lord Salvesen. Your Lordships know that in England the rates are paid by the occupier and, generally speaking, no rates are levied on an empty house. In Scotland the rates have to be paid—at any rate the owner's share of the rates has to be paid—whether the house is occupied or not, so long as it is habitable. My fellow-countrymen do not like paying rates on property which is bringing in no return, and there has been a natural tendency to render an empty house uninhabitable, usually by taking off the roof, and thus to avoid the payment of rates. That is the first thing the factor suggests on such occasions, and it has been very extensively done. But whatever the reason may be, I submit that the great scarcity of such houses in Scotland gives that country a special claim to have the few that remain preserved. The National Trust for Scotland has recently been enabled to have a list made of the houses of this kind which still remain and which are thought to be worthy of preservation. That is a very valuable first step towards their preservation, and I hope that the fullest use may be made of it. I notice, however, that the noble Lord (Lord Derwent) who also has a Notice on the Paper dealing with this same subject desires to make that point, and I will therefore not detain the House by arguing it now.
These houses seem up to now to have been "nobody's child." The Government seem to consider the affair a matter for the local authority, and the local authority has many other things on which to spend the ratepayers' money, with the result that these houses

527
are left to their fate. The urgency of the matter arises from three main causes, of which the widening of streets and roads is one. It is, of course, inevitable that a certain number of old houses shall disappear in that process along with others, but one does hope that when, as must very often be the case, there is an interesting old house on one side of the road and a new and uninteresting one on the opposite side, preference will be given to the older house. That is by no means always done. The practical suggestion that I would make is that no house which appears on the list of which I have spoken shall be demolished for such a reason unless the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the first Commissioner of Works, or whatever Minister may, be ready to constitute himself their guardian, is satisfied that this is inevitable and that a necessary public improvement cannot otherwise be carried out.
The other great danger which threatens these houses at the present moment arises from recent housing legislation. Parliament has of late paid great attention to housing and has rightly and wisely encouraged the clearing away of slums and the provision of better houses. The activity to which local authorities have been stimulated and the powers with which they have been armed are necessarily dangerous to houses of which I am speaking. That danger is made much more imminent, and much more grave, by the conditions which attach to the grant of housing subsidies. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, grants and loans are made under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts for the improvement of houses, mostly cottages, which will be occupied by agricultural workers or persons in a similar position, and much excellent work has been done during the ten years those Acts have been in force, in that way. There has to-day been published a, Report made to the Minister of Health by the Central Housing Advisory Committee, of which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester is Chairman, and the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is a member. I had hoped that Lord Crawford would have been here now, but, unfortunately, the early meeting of the House has made it rather difficult for him. However, I
528
hope he will be here before the discussion terminates.
This Report, which I got this morning, is a most interesting publication, and shows what can be achieved under the Acts I have mentioned and at very moderate cost. The Report contains pictures which are reminiscent of the advertisements one sees of patent pills and hair restorers. They show the patient before and after treatment. It is a most excellent official publication, and I hope it will have a very wide circulation. I may say that the cost is only sixpence. Unfortunately, the advantages of those Acts do not extend to towns and cities. In urban districts no housing subsidy is paid except for a new house. Nothing is paid for the reconditioning of an old one. I need not point out to your Lordships how greatly such a regulation increases the probability of an old house being destroyed. The full subsidy can be drawn if the old house is pulled down and a new one built in its place, but nothing will be paid for the reconditioning of the old house. There is no doubt, I think, that many of these houses in Scotland are perfectly capable of being put into condition to meet modern requirements. They are well and solidly built. They have stout walls that have stood the storms of Scotland for centuries. They need modern equipment and sanitation, and given that I am sure they will long outlive the flimsy structures to-day being run up all over the country. In the larger towns and cities of Scotland many of these houses were formerly the residences of well-to-do people. In Edinburgh, in particular, many of them were the town houses of Lords and Lairds before the railways took them and their womenfolk to London.
Apart from their archæological and architectural interest, these houses still retain much of their old-world gracious charm, and we should be distinctly the poorer for their loss. Their recondition as I have already said, is far from being impossible, provided that it can be financed and the whole cost does not fall upon the local authority or the owner. The ideal way of doing what I think ought to be done regarding these houses would be for a sufficient sum of money to be placed at the disposal of some public body—the National Trust seems to be indicated for the purpose—to be used in reconditioning such houses as might be considered suitable for that treatment.

529
The money would be well used, and it would bring in some return, as the houses would be in useful occupation. I hope the Government will give very careful consideration to the possibility of dealing with the matter on those lines; but, whatever the decision on that point may be, I do most strongly urge that the conditions attaching to the grant of housing subsidies shall be reconsidered.
I will give your Lordships an example of what is happening, and what will continue to happen, under the present regulations. The City of Edinburgh is considering an extensive scheme for improving housing conditions in the Canongate and its immediate neighbourhood. The Corporation is naturally most anxious to preserve the historic atmosphere of its famous street. It is equally anxious to see its people properly housed. Those desires are not incompatible. The houses themselves, I believe, could without great difficulty be put into a condition which would make them comply with the requirements of the Ministry of Health, and it is right to say that I understand that the officials of the Ministry have shown themselves most willing to help over this matter. But the Corporation have been told—and here I am quoting from the actual communication which was made to the Town Clerk of Edinburgh—that:
"If the proposals for reconstruction involve making use of any part of the existing buildings, subsidy under the Housing Acts of 1930–35 could not competently be paid to the Corporation for the work."
And in case that might not have been sufficiently definite, the i's were dotted and the t's crossed by the following communication received subsequently:
"Even if the façade only were used in the provision of the new houses, Exchequer subsidies could not be paid in respect of such houses."
So nothing short of complete demolition will serve if any assistance is to come from the State.
Surely that is obviously wrong. Here is a great public body, the heir to a priceless heritage from the past, who wish to secure the health and comfort of their people, and who wish to hand on to their successors the treasures they have inherited. I cannot believe that what I have quoted represents the considered policy of His Majesty's Ministers on a matter of this sort. It must be, I think,
530
that something has crept into an Act of Parliament which was never meant to be there, or it may be that the trouble is caused by the regulations which have been framed under the various Acts of Parliament by the Departments which administer them. If that is the cause of the trouble, it ought not to be difficult to have the regulations altered. If the law is at fault I submit that it ought to be amended. We are not asking that these houses shall be preserved as dead empty things, simply as museum pieces; we are asking that they should be enabled to go on living a useful life, rejuvenated and refreshed from the public purse. The subsidy can be claimed if an old house is pulled down and a new one built in its place. It need not cost the Exchequer a penny more if the grant is used for reconditioning the old house. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF BUTE: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord in the matter that he has brought forward this afternoon. In the first place I would like to assure those noble Lords whose homes may be in the South, and therefore who may not have an equal opportunity of following the course of events in Scotland, that it is difficult to understand the great destruction of ancient buildings that has gone on in Scotland during the last few years. Nothing like it, I think, has taken place in England and, as far as I know England, I feel safe in saying that nothing like it ever will take place. And yet, as the noble Lord said, these old houses in Scotland are more solidly built, have certainly an equal window space, and are as roomy as their counterparts in the South. This destruction has been done in a wholesale way and without any regard whatever to architecture, or history, or workmanship.
I believe that in the town of Dundee there is not now a single really old house left, not even one as an historical mark of life in times gone by in this ancient burgh. I believe the oldest houses now left are two or three of the Georgian period. Even one of Adam's masterpieces, which used to be called the Old Town House, has been wantonly destroyed. It was in good repair and was used, in fact, as the Town Hall, and yet it was simply pulled down against the known desires of the Office of Works, apparently in lack of any definite action

531
on the part of that Office. In other places, such as Stirling and Falkland, where the old Royal Palace stands, and I believe one or two other places, the inhabitants, having got a foretaste of the havoc awaiting them, have formed some sort of association or society to preserve their ancient town and save their homes.
I believe I am not exaggerating—and I shall be only too pleased if it can be shown that I am—when I say that in the City of Edinburgh, which used to be one so rich in interesting buildings, dirty though they were, the Office of Works has only scheduled one house, the Cannon Ball House, next to the Castle. It is true that the Office of Works has in hand another building called Abbey Strand. This building can scarcely be said to be undergoing restoration. It stands directly opposite Holyrood Palace and a small part, it is true, has been restored, but by far the greater part of the building appears to be merely being fitted up with a view to obtaining the greatest possible rent. This property was bought by the late Lord Rosebery with a view to improving the amenities of Holyrood Palace, and the present noble Earl presented it to the Crown. To treat it as a commercial asset does appear to me a careless way not only to treat a gift but to treat the memory of the late noble Earl, whose desire in acquiring the property and whose wishes in regard to it are well known.
I own that this last point may perhaps not be one directly connected with the matter under discussion, and I certainly do not wish any noble Lord to get up after this and complain that I have made an attack on the Office of Works. I wish to do nothing of the sort. I am bound to refer to the Office of Works and to the Ancient Monuments Department, but I believe that the whole blame rests with the Government. The restoration of these old buildings cannot interfere with the new housing proposals, and the Ministry of Health, having seen the devastation which has been occasioned, is now, I am glad to see, doing what it can at all events to delay the pulling down of interesting buildings. In doing this the Ministry of Health is only doing what the Ancient Monuments Department should have done years ago. The reason for the inability on the part of the Ancient Monuments Department is, I believe, this, that some rule or order has
532
been made whereby no building may be scheduled unless the funds for its immediate repair are available. The Government very simply withholds the funds, so that the Department in this way is relegated to the pointing of old monastic ruins and the measuring up of stone circles.
The people of Scotland have been miserably misled. Some of your Lordships may think I use too strong an expression, but I cannot feel so. I submit that if a Government sets up in Edinburgh a Department whose sole and avowed object is the preservation of ancient buildings and deliberately prevents that Department from functioning in the manner in which it is advertised to function, then no expression is too strong to describe the manner in which Scotland has been treated. The position therefore is that with the exception of Edinburgh, which I believe has the power but has never put it forward, local authorities and civic bodies hold they have no power to rate for the purposes of reconditioning. Therefore they simply pull the places down. The Ancient Monuments Department is prevented from taking action and has to stand by silently watching the disappearance of the very buildings that it is supposed to safeguard. The public does its best to save at all events seine of the national heirlooms, either by individual effort or by subscribing to one of those societies whose object this particularly is. No doubt the public will continue to do all in its power but, with taxation at the level which it has now reached, it is impossible to expect to be able to keep an equal pace with this surge of destruction.
The excuse so often and so speciously heard that the cost of reconditioning of an old building is greater than the cost of its demolition and the building of another in its place is, I feel, quite unfounded. I agree that in some cases the cost will be greater, but in other cases the cost, of necessity, must be less. But in any case these old buildings, whether a cottage or a mansion, when they were were built not as the very cheapest thing obtainable. They were built as the best thing that could be got, and they were built with the object of providing a home. They have stood a very long time, and they will stand a very long time vet, which is more than can be said of most of the houses that are now being put up in

533
their stead. So now, as the result of this process of excuse and equivocation, there is now comparatively little left to be saved. I do not think it could be argued that it is not through the sudden somewhat hurried action on the part of the Ministry of Health, combined with almost total inaction on the part of the Ancient Monuments Department, just at the very time when that Department's help was most urgently needed and expected, that this irreparable loss has occurred.
I hope, therefore, that the Government may see its way to do something adequate to put right this great loss which has come about. I can see no way myself, I admit, except by a grant of financial aid, and I suggest that perhaps this help might be given to the National Trust; in the first place bemuse of the apparent inclination on the part of the Office of Works to treat some of these old buildings in a commercial way rather than as subjects for restoration, and secondly, because the lists of ancient buildings issued from time to time by the Ancient Monuments Department contain only comparatively few of that domestic type of building which forms the subject of this evening's debate. But whatever may be done I hope it may be done without delay, because the tide of destruction rolls on.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I also wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I do not know very well what is going on in the rest of Scotland and in Edinburgh with regard to these houses, but I do know something of what is going on in the West of Scotland, and particularly in my own County of Ayr, and ought perhaps to restrict myself to that. I think what is going on there is deplorable, and I dare say the same kind of thing is going on in other parts of Scotland. The Ayrshire County Council, along with other county councils of Scotland, has to carry out its housing schemes on the lines of economy and efficiency and with the aid of Government grants, and is supervised to that extent by the Government. It is the duty of that admirable body of men, the county council officials, to advise committees of county councils in Ayrshire and elsewhere on matters concerning housing, and they are not to blame if their advice sometimes clashes with the ideas of the National Trust. They do their duty in
534
putting forward their measures with efficiency and economy, and they have no room perhaps for sentiment in doing so, but they are not to blame on that account. Those who are to blame are, I think, the members of committees of county councils who have not yet been educated up to the importance of the tradition and sentiment which animate Scotland to-day.
I am sure the noble Lord who moved the Motion will agree with me in that, and I think also he will agree that the officials of the county councils are not to blame in this matter. Those of your Lordships who have had to do with local government know quite well that most county councillors are all out for economy in public work, and for obvious reasons they are very loath to advocate economy in anything which has to do with the Social Services. To my mind there should be more economy in the Social Services of this country to-day. I do not know where we are going to stop in the matter of Social Services. We are going so fast in this direction that nobody knows what is going to happen. But, as I have said, county councillors, at any rate, do not like to advocate economy in the Social Services, and they are ready at any moment to seize on an opportunity of reducing expenditure upon things outside these Services like housing schemes and schemes of that kind.
There is a deplorable tendency in Ayrshire, at any rate, and I presume the same thing happens in other parts of Scotland, not only to do away with these old houses which are of interest to the County of Ayr especially, but also to sweep away whole villages and bring them into the nearest housing scheme of some burgh or town nearby. There have been three occasions recently in Ayrshire where three villages were scheduled under demolition orders and the people in those villages were to be rehoused in the nearest housing scheme. The tendency is to denude the countryside of all its charming old villages, and to bring the inhabitants of those villages to the nearest towns, thus swelling the populations of those towns. That seems to me to be a very deplorable tendency, and I am glad to say that in two of the cases to which I have referred, owing to petitions by the inhabitants, the schemes

535
were turned down and the houses were re-erected in the villages. I am merely pointing out the tendency of modern local government.
But there are also in Ayrshire as well as in other parts of the country many old houses which come under the ban of the authorities and are swept away, and police stations and other buildings put in their place. My own County of Ayr, as your Lordships know, is the birthplace of the Scottish bard, Burns. It is the Mecca of Scotsmen from all parts of the world. They come there in their thousands every year, and it seems to me rather short-sighted on the part of county authorities, not only in Ayr but in other counties, to do away with these charming old houses which have so much attraction for those thousands who spend their money in the country. I think it is a great pity that something is not done by the Government to stop the demolition of these old places in the country which constitute one of its greatest charms. These old houses are the charm of the Scottish countryside just as in England they are the charm of your country. I hope the noble Lord who replies will give us some hope that something will be done.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I desire to support this Motion. In doing so I approach it from a different angle from that which has been adopted by previous speakers; but I agree that the time has come when this subject should receive the serious attention of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, spoke, if I understood him correctly, of having a list of houses. I think that is the true line of approach to this subject, and I would start with this proposal, that before any building can be preserved it should be classified as worth preserving and, contrariwise, that a building which is not so classified is not likely to be preserved.
The business of making representations or recommendations for the preservation of all kinds of structures is in the hands of the Historical Monuments Commissions, whose Reports are themselves historical monuments of well-informed, accurate and most sympathetic scholarship. But the Commissions are themselves limited by their terms of reference to houses in existence at any particular period. For example, in the case of Scotland
536
anything later than the Act of Union of 1707 lies outside its purview. I believe that anything later than 1700 lies outside the purview of the Commission for England, but I believe—I am not quite sure about this—that in Wales there is no limit. This means that domestic architecture, which is the peculiar glory of our country, is to a large extent excluded from the survey of the Commission. I suggest an amendment to the Commission's terms of reference as the absolutely indispensable condition of any effective action for the preservation of all buildings which ought to be preserved. There should be no time limit whatever. If a new bridge, for example, opened only the other day, strikes the Commissioners as a work of exceptional merit, they should have power to schedule that bridge.
I cannot too strongly emphasise the point that the whole prospect of saving our gems of domestic architecture depends upon the Commission. To get up a local petition when a charming old house has been purchased by a company which proposes to pull it down and erect a super-cinema is to put the cart before the horse. The first thing to do is to schedule the charming old house and make it impossible for it to be destroyed without official approval. That official approval will be granted in far too many cases goes without saying, judging from pact experience. I myself feel no great confidence in any authority, national or local. How can I, when I live under a Government which has destroyed Regent Street and a County Council which has destroyed Waterloo Bridge? It is, I fear, impossible to guard against the Philistinism of public opinion. The only thing we can do is to make it reasonably certain that such scholarly and cultured opinion as exists shall be heard. The, time limit imposed on the Historical Monuments Commission makes it absolutely certain that such opinion shall not be heard. In my view the time limit should be removed and the terms of reference extended to give them power to deal with all classes of buildings that ought to be preserved.
A building can indeed be preserved as an ancient monument even if it is not scheduled as worthy of preservation by the Historical Monuments Commission. It can be either acquired or protected by the Commissioners of Works or by a

537
local authority. There is thus a loophole. Parliament, however, in its wisdom has been careful to stop it in a large measure in the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913. That Act defies the powers of both the central and local authorities and is at special pains in Sections 8 and 12 to except from their application
"any structure which is occupied as a dwelling house by any person other than a person employed as a caretaker thereof or his family."
This exception has met with a great deal of disapproval. The Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee, for example, have disapproved of it. In their Report issued in 1921 they state that:
"…the British distinction between monuments in use and those no longer used is not recognised [on the Continent] and we are of opinion that on logical and practical grounds the advantage is with the Continental conception."
I venture, therefore, to submit that Sections 8 and 12 of the Act of 1913 should be repealed or greatly modified.
It is a fair presumption that when there is legislation to protect ancient and beautiful buildings, and when certain buildings are specifically excluded from its scope, those buildings are earmarked for destruction. I know it is said that all these matters are dealt with, or can be dealt with, under the Town and Country Planning Act and the Housing Acts. But this is not enough. The business of town and country planning committees is to do what little they can to check the badness of new building, and this job will take up so much of their time that there will be nothing left over for the consideration of the goodness of old building. We must not consider the provisions of an Act of Parliament in vacuo. We have to ask ourselves how those provisions actually operate. What is going on now is the reversal of the great movement which a hundred years ago packed our population tightly around the sources of power. Modern methods of power distribution and of transport have released the old tension and our people are spreading themselves over the countryside. The habitable area around the centres has been enormously increased and the business of planning committees is to try to control the flood of new houses while it is spreading.
Suppose that an old farmhouse, which should be preserved, lies in the way of
538
the flood, the planning committee—concerned, as they properly are, with the provision of service roads and the maintenance of a decent minimum of houses to the acre—will not lift a finger to spare it. Suppose, on the contrary, that the building is safe from demolition unless special powers are secured to destroy it, then the planning committee, taking the line of least resistance, will discover that it constitutes an admirable nodal point for their plan and can be made to serve an excellent public function. The present is always arrogant and insists that its own needs shall not be obstructed, and, when urged to think of the future, retorts that the future can take care of itself. The answer to this sort of argument is, I take it, that a country as tenacious of its traditions as ours has no right to asume that the future will not share its feelings. We say now that the nineteenth century spoilt our towns. Let us at least make sonic effort to see to it that our descendants do not say that the twentieth century spoilt our countryside.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I think that those of us who hail from Scotland are in deep debt to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, for bringing this subject before the House. Scotland is a small country with a comparatively small population and there is consequently not so much wealth as there is in the southern part of the Kingdom. That is really why the situation in Scotland is a great deal worse than it is in England, although I feel that, if things are allowed to drift as they are now drifting, those in England will experience the same trouble and difficulty as we are now experiencing in Scotland. There is no question, either, that the activity of the housing legislation has aggravated this question of old buildings. On the other hand, we cannot help but admire the public-spirited action of those who, like the noble Marquess who spoke after Lord Hamilton, give of their time and treasure to the maintenance of that which is worthy to be kept. I am sure that the noble Marquess would like to see much more kept than he individually is able to keep.
It seems to me that the best way in which to remedy the situation is for His Majesty's Government to give extended powers, both under the Ancient Monuments Act and also to the Office of Works, to do more than they are allowed

539
to do, and also for the Treasury to be generous to those two Departments. As I understand the position, the Ancient Monuments Department cannot touch any building which is actually inhabited. The building has to go to rack and ruin, or the roof has to be off, or something like that, before the Department can schedule it under the Act of 1913. I happen to be the owner of one of those scheduled ancient monuments, and I cannot speak too highly of the splendid work which the Department has done in keeping old monuments and restoring them to almost perfect condition—as ruins. The case that I have in mind has been treated splendidly, and the only curious thing about it was that three years after the Ancient Monuments Act was passed in 1913, when nobody was allowed to do any building at all under the Ministry of Munitions Orders, I received notice "to forthwith repair the said monument." But they do not act in that way now, and there is many an ancient monument in Scotland which still has a roof on and ought to be preserved. If the Government could see their way to extending the powers of the Ancient Monuments Act, a great deal could be done at any rate in the way of scheduling the buildings, even though the Department did not forthwith repair them if there were no money available.
The great trouble to-day is that these ancient houses or valuable historic houses cannot be scheduled and are therefore at the mercy of the local authority, who have no money for such a purpose. I cannot say too much in praise of the splendid work which the Office of Works have done within their powers, but there again, they require extended powers and extended grants to enable them to carry out that section of their work with which we are intimately concerned this afternoon. Of course it may be said that we in Scotland do not show enough interest in these matters. It is very easy to talk about things and to show your interest in talk, but if you have not the means wherewith to carry your talk into action it does not exactly manifest the same interest as if you had, and you cannot do things if you have not the wherewithal to do them. The means which some of us used to have for this sort of work have now absolutely disappeared owing to the demands of the Department of Health and the local authorities under the Housing Acts.
540
More especially is that the case for those of us who live in the country and have town conditions imposed upon rural areas which are quite impossible to carry out. That is one of the reasons why those old houses in the country are liable to go into disrepair and eventually to fall down because there is no money left with which to keep them in order.
I should like to plead with the Government to extend the powers of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act to the built-up areas. I cannot quite see why that Act, with its system of grants, could not be extended to the towns. That would be of enormous help to preserving small cottages which are worth maintaining, if there were a grant for putting them into proper order, but at present there is no grant for putting them in order and it is only the grant that enables an owner to do it in the country. Surely the same thing ought to apply to the small houses or cottages in built-up areas. In this matter I would claim the interest of noble Lords who are interested south of the Border, because if this state of things is allowed to continue, without a doubt they will find themselves faced with the same situation as that with which we in Scotland are faced. It is therefore to the interest of all your Lordships, and, in fact, of all the citizens in our country who have any interest in the past and who wish to preserve what is good, that they should take an active interest in this matter before it is too late.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the situation to-clay is very serious and the noble Lords who have addressed the House have not in the least exaggerated the position. Old houses with distinctive character are being swept away, not by the hundred only but almost by the thousand, and with these houses we are losing our Scottish history. The noble Marquess, Lord Bute, did not in the least exaggerate the position when he said that a process of devastation is going on. My noble friend near me described how in the West whole villages are scheduled for destruction. Where a house cannot be reconditioned and made into a wholesome, sanitary building, it has got to go, but seine of the destruction which is going on now is not only needless but it is wasteful as well, because a great number of these houses are perfectly capable of being repaired and put into

541
a thoroughly good condition. As things stand, however, the Housing Acts place a premium on demolition. I do not know whether Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, whose speech I am sorry to say I did not hear, quoted the letter from the Town Clerk of Edinburgh.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: Yes, I did.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In that letter, a very striking letter, the Town Clerk complained about this very point, and he added that if there is a beautiful facade no grant would be made if the feature were incorporated in the reconstructed building. The building would therefore be lost. That is not only wrong but fantastic. I recently noticed when visiting Paris that the whole frontage of a house in the historic square called the Place Vendome is being retained while the fabric behind is being reconstructed. The French value the place as an artistic entity, but if we did such a thing in Scotland the Treasury would say: "Oh, if you use a stone of the old building, no money from us." It is a most wasteful and extravagant procedure, because Lord Glasgow was very right when he referred to the commercial value of these buildings. He ought to know, because he says he represents the Mecca of Scotsmen. I should not contest that description beyond saying that there is an East as well as a West of Scotland, and we know that in Scotland there are people able sufficiently to appreciate the commercial value of a beautiful town or beautiful street. It is inconceivable that public opinion would allow shopkeepers in Edinburgh or St. Andrews, or anywhere else, to erect over their shops what are called fascias, several feet high, which advertise boots, or perfumes or other commodities.
Now these old buildings which are so easily condemned can in many cases be repaired and made into perfectly substantial dwelling houses. The repair of an old building through reconditioning is an art in itself, an art which was revived by Sir Robert Lorimer, and is now being carried on in Scotland by students of his scientific treatment. But may I say this, that reconditioning of old buildings requires a particular training, and it is the habit of the medical officer of health or the local surveyor to condemn a building as being unfit for reconditioning. With
542
all due deference to those gentlemen they have not been trained as architects, and unless you have been trained in the art of architecture and the science of building it is no good pronouncing an opinion upon whether walls can be reconditioned or not. Moreover, these gentlemen are much too occupied on other things to give their attention to this problem, on the technical side of which immense progress is being made. In England whole villages have been reconditioned and made into thoroughly satisfactory dwelling houses. Incidentally, the new houses are not always in themselves ideal either. These old houses, with stone walls two feet thick, are cool in summer and cosy in the winter, whereas many of the modern houses with which I am acquainted are very rickety affairs, and I suspect that in twenty years or twenty-five years are condemned to pretty rapid decay. Another condition which I hope the Treasury Bench will take note of is this, that when an old house in Scotland is condemned you are very often condemning a building which is a freehold building, owned by the occupier, or where a small feu duty of a shilling or sixpence a year is being paid. If they are turned out and the family are put into a new house they will have to pay a very largely increased rent. It too often happens that in those circumstances the rent is paid, but nutrition suffers. Upon the whole, I suspect that good nutrition is more important than the correct ratio of window to floor area.
Every noble Lord who has addressed the House has emphasised one or other aspect of the same argument, that old Scotland is vanishing before our eyes, and I am very glad that Lord Amulree referred to the small domestic architecture in Scotland. Not to the grand buildings. We have very few of them in Scotland. It is not sufficiently recognised that the greatness of Scotland has been due largely to urban growth, and it was in these small townships that much of the greatness of our country was bred and born. It is of importance that these smaller dwelling houses should be maintained. I suppose everybody recognises how great and urgent are the difficulties with which local authorities are faced, but Scotland as a whole is not yet fully alive to the danger of the situation. Here and there one section or another is doing its best—

543
the Ancient Monuments Board, the Historical Commission—but it is no good relying upon them. I am a member of the English Commission. I have been Chairman of it for twenty years, I believe, but it is going to be 110 years before we get round England, and unless the personnel of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historical Commission are trebled or quadrupled it is no good expecting them to make any adequate schedule of the buildings that we want to preserve. I may mention the National Trust. In seven years they have made a great impression in Scotland. If I may I will mention one particular burgh, the Royal Burgh of Stirling, which a few years ago rather unexpectedly took drastic action to preserve one very valuable and interesting section of frontage.
Broadly speaking, the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, is quite right in saying that we are drifting in the matter. Very much greater activity is needed. I think the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, was perhaps a little severe on the Office of Works when he said that they seemed to limit their efforts to re-pointing and looking after the gardens. Their powers are very limited indeed, but I do not hesitate to say that the best advocates and supporters of an active policy for the preservation of ancient monuments and buildings, whether secular or religious, in Scotland, are to be found in the Office of Works, the office of which Department is at Westminster. Their control and conservation of old buildings is a great example to us, and for their skill and for their initiative I cannot speak too high praise. But they cannot intervene in regard to small dwellings. It is outwith their reference, outwith their Act of Parliament. They have no right to do it—they cannot do it—and I dare say in some ways it is just as well that they should be kept above the area of controversy in which they would be submerged were they empowered to say: "You may do this" or "You may not do that" to a building in which a family is residing.
I hope that the debate which your Lordships have had to-day, in which we are united in deploring the existing dangers, will have its repercussions on the Treasury Bench and will have its echo in Scotland. For we who speak to-day are speaking with the knowledge that all over Scotland the state of things
544
of to-day is causing a most profound anxiety, because Scotland itself is killing its old honoured traditions, and doing it itself. I appeal to the Government very earnestly to make an active and, if possible, an immediate investigation into this subject and later on to inform the House of the purport of their inquiries in order that, if necessary, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, may refer to the matter again.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House cannot fail to have been impressed by the very powerful plea which has been made both by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion and by all the other noble Lords from Scotland who have followed him. I would like to begin by saying that the Government are in complete sympathy with the general aims expressed in this Motion. The Government recognise that it is most desirable that there should be no wanton destruction of buildings of historic and architectural interest in Scotland, and accordingly they welcome the activities of such bodies as the National Trust for Scotland, the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland, and others in trying to preserve interesting specimens of Scottish architecture. I should like to pay a special tribute to the public spirit which has been shown by the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, in purchasing and reconditioning, at his own expense, buildings which would otherwise have been destroyed, for which purpose, I understand, he has employed an architect who is an expert on that question.
It is perhaps desirable in the first place to clear up one or two apparent misunderstandings of the Housing Acts. The demolition of unfit houses is not an innovation of the Housing Act of 1935, the chef purpose of which was to deal with overcrowding. It is true that during the last four or five years the Government's campaign to end the slums has led to an increasing number of demolitions, but the power to demolish unfit houses has been on the Statute Book since 1890. My second point is that it is not essential for a local authority to demolish an unfit house in order to earn Exchequer grant for re-housing its occupants. It is always open to a local authority to accept from the owner an undertaking that the house will not be

545
used for human habitation until the local authority cancel the undertaking, which presumably would be done; and even where a demolition order has been made the owner may, with the approval of the Department, reconstruct the house instead of pulling it down.
It may also be useful if I refer to what local authorities can do under their existing powers in the way of preservation. Assistance under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts can be given for the reconstruction of houses occupied by agricultural workers and persons of a like economic condition and there must be many houses in small burghs and villages which would be eligible for assistance under the Acts. Where an owner is unable or unwilling to take advantage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, the Housing Act of last year enabled the local authority to acquire and reconstruct the property themselves with the aid of the Exchequer grant. Further, local authorities have ample powers to acquire and reconstruct any houses which are used or can be used for housing the working classes, and for this purpose they may draw upon any surplus which they may have in the pool of Exchequer and rate contributions which the new Act provides for.
In addition the Housing Acts give the Department special powers to ensure that in their housing operations local authorities will have due regard to the desirability of preserving works of architectural, historic or artistic interest, and the Department are prepared to use these powers wherever the circumstances would justify them in doing so. I should also mention that the Housing Act of last year provided specially for the appointment by local authorities of local committees with representatives of architectural and other artistic interests to advise them on artistic questions connected with their housing work. I presume it was those committees and the uses for which they might be employed to which the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, referred in his interesting speech. The Government are confident that the appointment of committees of this kind will be most useful to local authorities, and in co-operation with local authorities they will see that the most is made of this power.
I now turn to the main suggestion which was put forward both this afternoon by
546
the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and in the course of a deputation from the National Trust of Scotland which visited the Scottish Office recently. That of course is the suggestion that the Government should, in one form or another, give a grant for the preservation of houses of architectural or historic interest. The Secretary of State and the First Commissioner have considered very carefully the more limited proposal that Exchequer grant should be given for the preservation of selected houses. At the present time when there are so many other claims on the Exchequer, it is difficult to hold out much hope of a Government grant, and naturally, before coming to a final decision, the Government desire to have some idea of the extent of the problem, the cost involved, and the probable support from local or voluntary sources. For this purpose they have suggested that the National Trust should endeavour to obtain the necessary information in consultation with the English National Trust. In the meantime, both the Department of Health and the Office of Works are doing what they can to secure that buildings worthy of preservation are not destroyed. By arrangement with the National Trust the Department of Health have been furnished with a list of buildings of historic or architectural interest in certain districts of Scotland and they have written to each local authority concerned drawing their attention to any buildings in their area and asking to be informed of any proposals for demolishing them.
It has also been arranged that, where necessary, officers of the Office of Works will inspect the buildings and advise the Department in connection with the exercise of their powers to preserve buildings of architectural, historic or artistic merit. A further and more comprehensive list is being prepared, I understand, by the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, and the Secretary of State will of course welcome any further information which will enable the Department to bring to the notice of local authorities any valuable buildings in their areas. I understand that the National Trust for Scotland propose to launch an appeal for funds to help them in the work of preservation. I know something of the excellent work which the Trust have already done and I wish to associate myself with the appeal to all Scotsmen to give some contribution to

547
enable the efforts of the Trust to be continued and extended. In conclusion, I should like to emphasise the importance of local effort in this work of preservation. There must be few towns or villages in Scotland which have not some building of historic or artistic interest and I cannot think that either the local authorities or the local inhabitants as a whole are not willing to make some contribution to the preservation of the distinctive features of their district.
There are no papers which I can produce on this subject, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is even more aware than I am of all the correspondence which has passed between the Scottish Office and the National Trust and other individuals in this matter. But I will give him and the other noble Lords who have spoken this undertaking, that I will personally make it my duty to report to the Secretary of State for Scotland the very strong tone that has prevailed in this debate and the completely unanimous feeling of your Lordships' House that something should be done in this case for Scotland.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord who has just spoken will be disappointed if I say I did not derive a great deal of comfort from his reply except from his last few words, for which I thank him. His speech as a whole was really rather barren of comfort. I cannot, for instance, be much comforted by the assurance that the law is such that a local authority need not be compelled to pull down an old house if it is not inhabited. Why should it, unless it is likely to fall on the head of some passer-by? I did find part of the noble Lord's statement somewhat at variance with the passage which I have quoted already today, and to which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has also referred, in the letter from the Town Clerk of Edinburgh. I will not trouble your Lordships with it again, but I would ask the noble Lord, when he reads the report of this discussion, to try and reconcile what he has said with what is contained in that letter. I thank the House for the support which my Motion has received, and with your Lordships' permission I would withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PRESERVATION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT had the following Notice on the Paper:—To move to resolve, That in view of the grave and constant danger of the removal or damage of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century buildings in Great Britain which cannot be included in the country-house category, but which may be of permanent artistic interest, His Majesty's Government should lose no time in making steps to have a complete census made of all buildings constructed between the years 1700 and 1830, with a view to the eventual handing over to H.M. Office of Works for protection of all those that may be decided to be of sufficient importance.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I consider myself very fortunate to have been preceded by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, though I very much regret that he has considered it advisable to withdraw his Motion. Lord Hamilton has opened the battle in this struggle on which we have both decided to embark, and on which it is disgraceful that we should be obliged to embark, in order to stem the tide of careless destruction that is daily menacing the architectural beauties of our country. If there is one anomaly which is greater than that of two Liberals rising to their feet to plead for State support against the blindness or cupidity of individual owners, it is the anomaly which consists in inhabiting a century where knowledge of all sorts is widely disseminated and easy of access, and at the same time of being obliged to assume the part of someone crying in the wilderness. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has concentrated, with a most comprehensible nationalism, on the land of his origin. Your Lordships will observe that with the impertinence which Scotsmen would doubtless consider typical of a Sassenach, but which, in view of the parlous state of Scotland as described this afternoon, I no longer consider an impertinence, I presume, in the terms of my Motion, to include Scotland in the scheme I am advocating. I am not able to quote examples for Scotland within the period I have chosen, but this gap has been extremely well filled by the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, who spoke of an Adam house which had been destroyed. The noble Marquess thus confirmed my

549
suspicion, which was already a strong one, that the hand of the vandal is as heavy on that side of the border as it is on this.
It is, alas! a question of quoting examples, not only recent ones, but ones which have already become classics. Before doing this, however, I should like to sketch the situation as I see it at present in regard to the houses I have singled out—houses constructed between 1700 and 1830, dates which I will explain in a moment. I am not thinking at all of the gentleman's mansion or country house, both because they are more in the public eye than the ones I am thinking of and also because the National Trust has the intention of bringing in a Bill shortly which will enable your Lordships to have that matter amplified on that occasion. I want to convince your Lordships that the danger I speak of really exists. There are, of course, various reasons underlying it. My opinion—and I find it is shared by many, including some who are concerned directly with ancient buildings—is that while anyone possessed of real knowledge and taste appreciates eighteenth-century buildings at their proper value, the man in the street in England does not instinctively think of them as being, as it were, genuine antiques. Many of them are still inhabited, and he usually considers such houses as being merely dwellings a few years older than his own.
The result of this is that any building enterprise or corporation or town or county council—most of which latter are in any case, as the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, has already said, not exactly renowned for their artistic knowledge; and, after all, that is not what they are chosen for—find no obstacles in their way when they come up against an eighteenth-century house in one of the so-called development schemes (though as to the result of many of these developments, probably the less said the better). They simply look at it as the general public does as being a large-windowed house of more or less recent date, and away it goes, and of ten only when it is gone, or half-gone, does the outcry begin. And that brings me to the kernel of my argument. In all these matters there is one cardinal defect. The only official body that as long as an eighteenth century building is unoccupied is entitled, without having to enter into possession,
550
legally to prevent damage to it or demolition of it, is His Majesty's Office of Works. There is no restriction imposed on them as to dates; once they have scheduled a building it is safe.
It will then naturally be asked: Why does this destruction continue? The answer to that question is a double one. The greater part of the Office of Works' time has been and still is taken up with examining cases of buildings or monuments that go back to earlier times, as will be seen from their list of scheduled buildings. These are very numerous, and it is therefore only fair to say that, however great the Commissioners' desire may be to occupy themselves with this question, the administrative difficulties in the way, arising from lack of time and probably also from lack of finance, are considerable. But in addition to this the three other bodies that in theory are interested in this matter, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Royal Commissions for the Preservation of Historical Monuments, and the National Trust are each prevented from playing a useful part. None of them have any official advisory capacity so that they are not consulted as a matter of course by the Office of Works. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the National Trust certainly have it in their power to recommend for scheduling buildings of any date, but the former's work ranges over a very wide area and there can be no certitude that they will select eighteenth-century buildings for special notice, while the National Trust, though it owns a few houses, is primarily concerned with land and with views over the countryside.
As for the Royal Commissions, there the situation is even worse, for by an incomprehensible discrimination, out of the three that exist to deal with Great Britain only that which deals with Wales has no date limit attached to its work. The one which deals with England has no power to take note of buildings after the year 1714 and that which is concerned with Scotland goes no further than the Act of Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has said. I think I need say no more than this to prove to your Lordships to what extent eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century buildings are left out in the cold.
As a result what do we find? Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to cite a

551
few details concerning the very beautiful Assembly Rooms at Bath, built by the younger Wood, which, apart from their beauty, are an integral part of our social history and a commemoration of one of its most brilliant periods. This building was only scheduled by the Office of Works in May of this year. The lateness of this date can, I am sure, be explained by the scandalous danger which no one could imagine would arise in the case of so famous an edifice. It had, incredibly enough, been allowed to pass into private hands, and had been turned by its owner partly into a cinema and partly into shops, and had, in other words, been allowed to fall into a complete state of decay. Only when it was bought as late as 1934 by an anonymous private person and handed over to the National Trust, who in their turn requested the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings to negotiate with the Bath Corporation with a view to fixing its use as a public building, did the Bath Corporation, after much haggling as to repairs, decide to do what it ought years ago to have done. My Lords, how can such things be?
This is the same spirit that has let three-quarters of the Adelphi disappear (and, incidentally, a resident in the remaining quarter informs me that there is no guarantee that it will be allowed to remain standing); the same spirit that desecrated Carlton House Terrace with the Pinchin Johnson Building (and what I do not hesitate to call the scandal of Carlton House Terrace—Crown Lands property, my Lords—was only prevented going further by the personal indignation and intervention of His late Majesty King George V.); the same spirit which is going to sweep away the admirable house at the corner of Abingdon Street, opposite the entrance of your Lordships' House—and I say this with all respect to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury; for I have the temerity to consider that a great mistake has been made in that matter—the same spirit that allows that charming corner of London, Soho Square and its surroundings, to lose one by one its eighteenth-century houses, including, incidentally, I think, Hazlitt's famous house, with its beautiful pine panelling and another lovely ceilinged one that was illustrated in last Sunday's Sunday Times; the same that swept away the Quadrant of Regent Street, and that is
552
engaged at the moment in turning out the tenants of Carlton Chambers in Lower Regent Street with a view to removing one of the last remaining vestiges of a noble thoroughfare; the game that has made vanish almost in a night the famous Cocoatree Club in St. James's Street, the haunt of Walpole, Fox, and Byron, with its enchanting interior decorations.
As for Regency architecture as a whole, which the dates in my Motion ire specially chosen to include, this seems to incur special hatred. Whole terraces have been removed at Brighton, and there is no certainty at all that the Brighton Corporation may not suddenly decide to remove the Pavilion. If the Crown Commissioners are as ruthless over their London property, why should the provinces not follow suit? And if it is a question of eighteenth-century buildings that are definitely menaced, I could tell your Lordships of the Assembly Rooms at Derby and at Epsom, of Radnor House at Twickenham, in which Her Majesty Queen Mary has taken a special interest, of charming riverside houses at Mortlake; and, as a pinnacle all these wickednesses, I could mention to your Lordships that, if rumour does not lie, there is a scheme on foot to transfer the Chelsea Pensioners to Windsor Castle and to develop the site on which their present admirable home stands together with some of the well-known gardens behind it. There need be no end to the list, but I beg your Lordships not to tremble: I am obliged to make one.
I cannot do more than this in the limited time allotted to me to make your Lordships blood boil or your flesh creep, whichever reaction I am lucky enough to be able to produce, though I dare not hope for either. I have no hesitation in saying that the eighteenth century and the Regency time are, in my opinion, and in the opinion of hundreds, the most glorious architectural periods in our history, in which architects and decorators flourished who were the equal in taste, in inventiveness, in largeness of view, of any that Continental history can show. And having up till now had the privilege of enjoying these beauties we are doing nothing to ensure that that privilege shall be handed on to our successors. Instead of that we are replacing these buildings with others of which it may be said that

553
for every one that is dignified, well constructed and impressive, there are ten others that are shoddy, jerry-built and an agony to the eye.
But I do not wish to exaggerate. I am quite aware of the technical difficulties attendant on any remedy of this evil, and it is for that reason that all I am suggesting to-day is that His Majesty's Government should make a beginning at least and should destroy the possibility of vandalism taking place owing to official and public ignorance of its existence. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has slightly stolen my thunder on this point, for which I forgive him amply in view of the enthusiasm and sympathy I hope I am showing for this cause. I am simply suggesting that the Government shall, as soon as possible, by whatever means it thinks fit, arrange for a complete list to be made of the eighteenth-century buildings existing in Great Britain. I am quite aware that this will be a lengthy and possibly a costly business, but it cries out to be done. Personally, I think that it could quite well be carried out on a regional basis—and here the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, has given me some encouragement—by instructing either county councils and town councils or archæological societies, or both, to send in returns of all such buildings in each county. If inquiries are made, I think His Majesty's Goverment will find that the Surrey County Council certainly adumbrated such a scheme not long ago. Whether it came to fruition or not I am not certain.
I am quite aware also that neither the Royal Commissions on Historical Monuments nor the Office of Works could undertake the task in both cases without a special grant from the Treasury and a considerable extension of their staffs, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and in the case of the former without an extension of the date up to which they are legally entitled to deal with historical buildings. If His Majesty's Government were willing to do this in the case of either of these bodies it would be an ideal solution, although I do not dare to hope for it. It is for that reason, principally, that I make the tentative suggestion about the regional plan. But my role in this matter is certainly not to put forward a definite scheme. That is the part of His Majesty's
554
Government; and may I say that never have I so much longed for the tongues of angels, for an infinite persuasiveness, so that I might make it abundantly clear that now is the time for this to be done. In another few years it may be too late. It seems to me that any Government worthy of the name owes it to us and to those who come after us to put an end to what is going on, this wanton wickedness, this destruction that is breaking the hearts of all those who care for England's inheritance of beauty.
I would like to say one word more, if I may, on the conclusion of my Motion. I have suggested that such buildings as are worth preserving—and I consider naturally that whatever body is set up or entitled to make this list, or census, should equally be empowered to decide what is worth keeping, since there is rubbish in the architecture of all centuries—should eventually be handed over to the Office of Works for protection. In suggesting this I am only following up an impression which I received in making my inquiries that the Office of Works would like to have the eventual care of them. As, however, there are very definite complications already existing either in spite of or by reason of these provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act of 1931, when it is a question of the Office of Works having to deal with occupied houses, I do not in the least presume to suggest that this shall definitely be done. In view of the conspicuous success of the National Trust in dealing with occupied properties, like the West Wycombe Estate, it might possibly be arranged for the National Trust to take over occupied houses and for the unoccupied ones to be left to the Office of Works. I am sure the noble Earl who will answer for His Majesty's Government will be able to give me information on this subject. At all events, if this census is made, by whatever means, the Office of Works will no longer have any excuse for not scheduling at least the unoccupied ones. They are quite numerous enough. My personal contention would be that even in the case of occupied houses their owners should be prevented from behaving exactly as they choose about them, since the results of that are in many cases before us to-day.
All such details, however, are for His Majesty's Government to decide. What I claim this afternoon is simply that a method must be found whereby it is impossible

555
for fine eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century buildings to disappear before attention is drawn to them. At present, to sum up, the situation is exactly that described last week by a well-known weekly review:
"The enthusiasm excited in our rulers by an eighteenth-century house or a green tree in the middle of London can be compared only to the emotion which a sportsman feels at the sight of a gaudy cock-pheasant or twelve-point stag. 'What a beauty—I'll bring him down!'"
This sporting comparison will doubtless appeal to many of your Lordships unless you feel, as I do, so bitterly about this matter that even an ironic humour seems to be out of place. In any case I cannot believe that His Majesty's Government will find it amusing to have reproaches of this sort appearing in print, but it is because they are at present abundantly justified that I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved to resolve, That in view of the grave and constant danger of the removal or damage of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century buildings in Great Britain which cannot be included in the country-house category, but which may be of permanent artistic interest, His Majesty's Government should lose no time in taking steps to have a complete census made of all buildings constructed between the years 1700 and 1830, with a view to the eventual handing over to H.M. Office of Works for protection of all those that may be decided to be of sufficient importance.—(Lord Derwent.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I should like to ask a question of the noble Lord who has brought forward this matter, because at present it is to me a little difficult to understand his Motion and what he says. In the Motion on the Paper the words at the beginning are:
" … in view of the grave and constant danger of the removal or damage of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century buildings in Great Britain which cannot be included in the country house category,"
but the noble Lord told us in his speech that he did not wish to include houses of that category. The Notice on the Paper, however, goes on to say:
"His Majesty's Government should lose no time in taking steps to have a complete census made of all buildings."
If that is the case, country houses must be included. Personally I think that
556
all buildings of interest should be included.
The noble Lord referred to the activities of the Surrey County Council and told us that a list had been prepared for them. That is so, and I do not think that it involved any great expense. The archæological society for the county, with which I have some connection, was able to render assistance, and as there are archæological societies I think in every county, I have no doubt that if their services were solicited they would be willing to help the county council without any charge, or at any rate only a very small charge if one were made at all. I do not think that the list would be expensive to prepare. The Surrey survey goes much further than that advocated by the noble Lord because it includes all buildings without any time limit. It is absolutely comprehensive. It was prepared by a committee largely composed of representatives of the archæological society and the Ancient Monuments Committee of the County. I think that is the proper body and I am sure that if the Office of Works apply to the various societies interested in the matter there will be no difficulty in enlisting their services. The more comprehensive the list, of course, the more valuable it would be.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to add one or two words from another point of view. In destroying these houses we are really destroying the capital of this country. It is not an answer to say that old houses are destroyed in order that dwellers in slums may be housed elsewhere. We are destroying these houses for no reason at all, except to put up what the noble Earl opposite called fascias. We all deplore what is going on low in Spain, where apparently both sides are destroying some of the architectural capital of that country, some of the things which most attract people to Spain. But they are doing it at a time of conflict and they are under a certain amount of pressure, I presume, which compels them to do what they are doing. In this country that is not the case. We have sufficient funds to carry on and we are not in any way forced to do what we do.

557
My own feeling is that the course of events which has led to the destruction of houses is very largely due to devolution. We have devolved great power upon local authorities who cannot be expected to have the same taste and technical knowledge as the Central Government. Thus we have lost control over, and largely lost interest in, what has been done in the provinces. I should like to see some form of control maintained at, Westminster, where I know quite well there is excellent knowledge, interest and technical staff, before any provincial building of any interest could be destroyed. I do not think that any debate of this nature ought to be closed without some word of recognition of and gratitude for the great work of the late Lord Curzon. I feel that perhaps the noble Marquess opposite, of whose good work we have heard, may be a worthy successor to him. Those of your Lordships who recollect what Lord Curzon did at Bodiam and at various other places all over the country will hope that he may have successors who will carry on the torch when the Government of the day are not able to do so.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I should be sorry that the Motion which my noble friend has brought forward should not receive a certain amount of support from this House. Such support has always been given, and I do not suppose for a moment that it is necessary, because the Motion will probably be received in a friendly spirit everywhere. In listening to the discussion to-day I learned something which I did not know before and which must militate very considerably against the preservation of old buildings in this country, and I should like to know, in the reply from the Government Benches, whether it might not be possible to give us some little hope of modification. That is that, if a building is to be pulled down and rebuilt and there would have been a Government grant in other respects, that grant cannot be given unless the façade is pulled down. I was astonished to hear this because I have lived so much of my life in other countries, where the preservation of ancient buildings is a matter of very serious interest.
For instance, I am part owner and administrator of a house in Rome in a
558
very interesting Renaissance street, and the Governorate of Rome, which has recently succeeded the old Municipality, has recently passed a resolution to the effect that people may do at the back of their houses whatever happens to suit them but that no façade in that street, in which almost every house has a history, is to be altered in any respect. In the little city of Vicenza alone, which is extraordinarily interesting as marking the transition from the old Venetian—what I may call the Byzantine-Gothic-Venetian—manner to the manner of the Palladio, they have scheduled 200 houses as never to be altered. It seems to me that to put you under a penalty here for not pulling down an old facade when you have with difficulty obtained permission to change a house is one of the most extraordinary and devastating regulations I have ever heard of. I should like to think that there might be some little gleam of hope given us that this provision may be reconsidered.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to say just one word as an admirer of post-1700 architecture in this country; but I hope your Lordships will not think that the proposal of the noble Lord opposite is quite so simple as he indicated. A list of all buildings between 1700 and 1830 is really no use for architectural or æsthetic purposes. The building may be built in 1750 or in 1820 and yet have been completely stripped in front and/or completely stripped in the interior. In other words, all the character and distinction with which that period is associated may have gone. We are all familiar with terraces of houses which we know to have been built in 1720, 1740 or 1760 which are no more interesting than houses that were built in 1930. A list, therefore, is no good; it must be a survey. A survey is the only thing that really counts in describing architecture. A bare list is what you find in the Post Office Guide: that is no use at all.
What I want to point out is that a survey is a very technical thing. I speak with knowledge of the staff which is surveying all the old buildings considered worthy of preservation before the year 1700, and I can assure your Lordships—I have watched those people at work ever since that Commission was formed, which I suppose is well over thirty years ago—that it is a highly technical and a

559
highly professional job, and it is no good saying off-hand: "Oh, well, let the town councils make the returns." It really will not do. You would get very misleading documents. Very valuable houses would be left out and houses which are of no mortal interest would be put in. I do not know what line the First Commissioner of Works is likely to take, but I would at least make this suggestion to him: that if he is prepared largely to increase the personnel and the machinery of those who are now engaged in making these schedules of old and historic buildings, would it not be well to strengthen them so that they can keep a little more abreast of their work before 1700 rather than give to them a whole new class and type of work of post-1700?
So far as England is concerned we are dreadfully behindhand with the work of surveying ancient monuments before the Act of Union. A county may take three or even four volumes. It may take two or three years or longer for one single county to complete. The schedule of Westminster Abbey is a great, thick volume which took fifteen months to prepare. The scale of this obligation is therefore tremendous, and if the First Commissioner is feeling in a sympathetic humour, it is worth considering whether it would not be more helpful to expedite the work on the earlier period, in which old monuments are much more scarce and probably much more valuable in consequence, than to throw upon these bodies later on duties in dealing with buildings which are certainly not of the same historic importance.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I need hardly say that no one who holds the position of First Commissioner of Works can have listened to the two debates on these Motions this afternoon without certainly being moved. I hope that my noble friend the Earl of Crawford, who was once my predecessor in that office, will not be too alarmed at that statement. I must agree with him that this Motion covers an extraordinarily wide field, perhaps one a good deal wider than the noble Lord who moved it quite realised. The noble Lord suggested that we should make a list of all buildings of the eighteenth century. He will realise that that means dwelling-houses of every character, including back-to-back houses
560
in some parts of England which I am quite certain that every one of us will desire to have destroyed at the earliest possible moment. But it would also include places such as business premises, public and municipal buildings, courts of justice, market halls, grammar schools, almshouses and ecclesiastical buildings of all sorts and kinds, in addition to farms and farm buildings in country districts.
My noble friend Lord Crawford said quite truly that the Royal Commissions on historical monuments have already gat their hands more than full in making schedules of historic buildings. I agree with him that a simple list of buildings of any date is of practically no value at all. I must admit that I have not seen the list which has been prepared by the Surrey County Council, and therefore I do not know how far a value could be put on the list of houses and buildings which they have made. As a general rule, however, a survey is really necessary in deciding whether a building should be scheduled, not only as regards its external architecture but also, very often, as regards its internal fittings. That is, of course, a very lengthy proceeding and, as Lord Crawford has pointed out, one that requires skill and knowledge. The result of it is that the Royal Commissions on historic buildings, of which there are three, as Lord Amulree has pointed out, have so far only produced reports of seven counties in England. That is to say, they have two volumes for Buckinghamshire, four for Essex, and varying numbers for the others. There is one volume each for seven counties in Wales, and volumes for ten counties in Scotland. You will see that the work is going on, but, as I think, all too slowly, and if we are going to cover even Great Britain with schedules of value in regard to buildings prior to 1700, then we shall really have to go ahead a good deal faster than in the past.
My difficulty is the difficulty which Lord Bute quoted in another connection. He said it was extraordinarily difficult in these days of high taxation to raise money for such purposes. I wonder what he and others would say if I suggested that taxation should be put up in order to do these and other things. We all have our special desires, on which we would like to see money spent, but let us realise

561
that the public purse is not like the widow's cruse, unfailing. Money has to be produced from somewhere, and that somewhere is the taxpayer's pocket, and the more we spend money on doing this and other things the less money will my noble friend Lord Bute be able to collect for the things which are so near his own heart's desire. There is a further difficulty in regard to the Motion on the Paper which I think the noble Lord does not quite realise. Under the Act, if my Department takes over any building for preservation, the public, except in a few cases where it is otherwise specially provided, have always been given the right of access. If that is done on a wholesale scale in the case of occupied houses a good many occupiers are likely to object, and in some cases demand compensation, and so we should be getting ourselves into great difficulties if the Office of Works began to take over buildings in that way.
As regards some of the remarks made in the earlier debate, some of which were more of an archæological interest than of building interest, which my noble friend dealt with more particularly, it is not only a question of money—I am sure the noble Marquess will agree with sue in this—but there is a case that he and I know of in Edinburgh, where an offer was made to the City Council to restore Tailors Hall Buildings. They are buildings of great attraction, which I myself went to see when I was in Edinburgh this autumn, but in spite of the offer made to them that these buildings should be restored, I undertand that the authorities have decided to abolish them for a street widening. Personally, I regret it, and I considered whether I should not schedule those buildings and make a preservation order. That, however, means that you have to come to Parliament and obtain a confirmation of your Order, and I am one of those who believe that persuasion is better than compulsion, particularly when you want to get other things as well. So I had to leave it alone.
On the other hand, where you can rouse public interest enormous things can be done. Stirling was quoted by Lord Crawford as a case in point. Stirling put up a new building and rehousing scheme, and submitted it to my Department. We did not like it, and we made suggestions as to what should be done.
562
The result was that we managed to persuade them to appoint an architect highly skilled in the preservation of buildings and town planning, and I think everyone will agree who has seen the scheme that Stirling has not only preserved buildings of great architectural and historic interest, but has made herself a place which many will visit with pleasure and with great profit for many years to come.
It is quite true that when you destroy ancient buildings you also, as Lord Mersey said, destroy the capital of the country. But the real way, I suggest, of getting that capital preserved is to educate the public and also the local authorities. This work can be done extremely well by local authorities, who know where to look for these buildings far better than my Office does, and I am one of those who prefer that there should be decentralisation rather than the reverse, which I think tends to bureaucracy and to a lesser interest, perhaps, being paid by those who live in the locality. I admit that probably the experts are mostly centred in London, but that is not to say that there are not experts throughout the country, and I am one of those who are anxious to enlist their sympathies and assistance. I am bound to admit that destruction is going on, and is going on very rapidly; but the answer I think is not more Government control, more bureaucracy and more centralisation; it is to get the local authorities to realise the treasures which lie in their hands, and to see that they are preserved, so that when they make their schemes for rehousing and the like those treasures shall remain and be more easily and better seen than in ancient days.
Lord Rennell raised a point as to the preservation of ancient buildings rather than their reconstruction. That I admit is, perhaps, a gap in the last Housing Act—that there was no actual grant made for reconditioning a house instead of rebuilding it. But there is this to be said on the other side, that the actual grant per capita comes to more under the present grant than under the old. Therefore it is quite true, as Lord Strathcona pointed out, that the local authorities have really more money now for reconditioning than in old days. In the country districts they are even better off, because, as several noble Lords pointed out,

563
the Report issued by the Central Housing Advisory Committee in England shows what can be done with old houses in the country districts. Sometimes I think difficulties have occurred—I have had occasion to prove it on my own property where I have wanted to make improvements and have been prevented by the by-laws from doing what was really good—owing to the views taken by local officials. I think there are cases where local authorities have got to learn more than they know now, so that if they are going to preserve ancient buildings they must not be too severe in the housing conditions that they impose. I am not going to suggest that people should be asked to live in houses which are unhealthy, but I think you have only to look at this Report to see how things can be done.
I am afraid I am somewhat wandering away from the terms of the Motion, but I hope I have indicated that the Office of Works are just as keen in preserving ancient buildings as anybody else. All we feel is that the better method of doing it is by arousing local interest, and I feel certain that, with the great knowledge which the noble Lord showed on this subject in the speech which he made in your Lordships' House to-day, he has done a great deal to arouse that local interest and to see that the buildings which both he and I value should be preserved in the future.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I say in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that if my Motion admits a possibility of country-houses being included, although I was not primarily thinking of them, this may have seemed carelessness on my part, but it was in fact done on purpose, seeing that if by any chance the National Trust Bill does not go through, they would need all the protection they could get, and therefore might be scheduled by the Office of Works in the meantime. I am gratified at the reception that His Majesty's Government have given to my Motion, because whatever I may have said in the course of my speech about the action and assistance of local bodies, I am of the firm opinion that that would be an admirable way to set about increasing the interest taken in, and the care taken of, these ancient buildings. Although the noble Viscount below me was good enough to support me in bringing this matter forward,
564
I regret I do not agree with him on that particular point. I think that whatever ignorance these local bodies may show, they are certainly capable of doing a great deal of good in this direction. I hope that the Office of Works will act promptly and with the greatest rapidity, and will introduce some measure which will enable them to undertake this work which I have so much at heart. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MALTA.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That this House deplores delay in implementing obligations to respect representative institutions in Malta, and regrets the too elastic interpretation given to the Malta (Letters Patent) Act, 1936, which only gives power to revoke and amend Letters Patent, but does not specify, as is necessary in law, any power to withdraw representative institutions or to issue enactments irreconcilable with the Common Law of the Empire.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, within forty-eight hours I am leaving for Malta, where warlike preparations are feverish and an epidemic of plague after months has not been stamped out. I feel the responsibility of rising temporarily on the Opposition side of the House, notwithstanding that many of my friends hold the view that, because of the difficulties under which His Majesty's Government are labouring at present, it is not helpful to criticise His Majesty's Ministers. Nevertheless, I feel it a duty to differ from the view that criticism may not perhaps save us from the fate that has brought down other kingdoms by the spread of an ostrich-like mentality. I hope I shall persuade the majority of this House that a greater measure of recognition and respect for pledges given to maintain representative institutions in Malta would be more conducive to the defence of that fortress than an announcement that a new Constitution has been given to Malta when this has not been done. What has been done under the Malta (Letters Patent) Act of this year is to destroy altogether even the semblance of representative institutions in Malta.
Before proceeding further may I be allowed to congratulate His Majesty's Government on having finally and courageously done what is necessary—almost accomplished what is immediately achievable to eliminate a third foreign language from the education of the Maltese people, a policy which the pro-British and loyal section of politicians in Malta has worked for during the last fifty years. Napoleon achieved the elimination of trilingual education in a week. His Majesty's Government have no doubt also deserved our congratulations on the effective steps that have been taken since last year in placing Malta approximately in a condition of defence. But to assert that the creation of an Executive Council is a new Constitution can be disproved so easily that I feel confident this House will agree with me in deploring that assertion, which is a substitution for fact.
I have had the honour of being Governor of Norfolk Island, and the attempt to govern it without the advice of an Executive Council made it imperative that I should seek and obtain permission to hand over the government to the Commonwealth of Australia. Attempts to govern without an Executive Council bring about the demoralisation of the Civil Service because of the difficulty or impossibility of maintaining discipline by enforcing Colonial regulations. I have also had the honour, as Governor of the Federation of the Leeward Islands in the Caribbean Sea, of being responsible for governing the Virgin Islands with an Executive Council. It was necessary to charter a Royal Mail steamer on personal responsibility to get an Executive Council there at all to deal with a case of loss of life because a Government doctor had attempted to extort a fee before attending to the case. Same think that an Executive Council is absolutely necessary in a Crown Colony of the most severe type, such as Norfolk Island or the Virgin Islands, and to assert that a new Constitution has been granted to Malta because an Executive Council has been set up after three years of the equivalent of Martial Law is not correct.
In the Executive Council of the Virgin Islands, where there was not a single white resident, I, as Governor, had no responsibility and no power to
566
put in or put out any of the members of that Council. The new Executive Council in Malta contains some official members and some unofficial members all nominated by the Governor or by the Secretary of State, liable to immediate termination of their period of office, appointed only for three years, and in no way elected. I ask your Lordships to agree with me that that is a complete denial of the covenanted pledges to maintain responsible institutions in Malta. Incidentally one of those selected is the Leader of the Labour Party. He is not there because a system of election has been established, but he does represent the only Party in Malta which, in the opinion of the Maltese, is in any way represented. Coming from the pro-Italian section of the Nationalist Party, after that Party had decided not to accept office in the new Executive Council, there is one who has left that Party and has been entirely repudiated by that Party and who, while remaining in the Executive Council, has declared he is as determined as ever to uphold the Italian language against the policy of His Majesty's Government. That is no form of representation.
Another of those selected from the Nationalist Party has also been repudiated by that Party. One, who once belonged to the Constitutional Party, withdrew from being a candidate of that Party when the Pastoral was issued threatening the penalty of mortal sin on those who voted either for the Constitutional Party or for the Labour Party. That is not a representation of those Roman Catholics in Malta who rely on the safeguards of religious toleration for not being debarred from any office on account of religious tenets. That is a feature of the Constitution which has just been suppressed, and only in part recognised, which would appear to be binding on any Governor who took office under that Constitution. In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will agree that what has taken place in Malta is a withdrawal to the level of the Constitution of the Virgin Islands, where in my time there were not half-a-dozen white visitors.
A greater departure from the law of England—the Common Law that applies to the Colonies—is to be found in the method in which the Letters Patent of this year are being interpreted. The

567
Letters Patent Act of this year gave power to the Crown to amend the then existing Letters Patent and to repeal them altogether. That Letters Patent Act also repealed certain clauses of the Malta Constitution Act of 1932—not all the clauses. The Preamble remains, the Title remains, also the assertion of the legal fact, which is most important—namely, that once a Constitution has been granted to any Colony, or even promised, it cannot be withdrawn without an Act of Parliament, if it specifically, in operative words—words admitted by the highest Courts of Law to be operative—does give power to the King to legislate by Letters Patent and Orders in Council. According to precedent, and following the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Common Law of England does apply to the Colonies and entitles any British subject to decline to pay taxes unless the imposition thereof is supported by a representative asembly. Moreover, the precedents are to the effect that the mere granting of power to the King to legislate by Orders in Council does not carry authority to delegate that authority unless the authority to delegate that power is inserted in an Act of the Imperial Parliament. Nothing of this appears in the Letters Patent Act of this year. There is no transfer to the King; no granting of power to the King to legislate for a Colony not acquired by conquest from the Maltese, or of power to delegate such authority.
Allow me to put briefly before your Lordships the history of the grant of rower to the Crown to legislate for Malta by Orders in Council. The first Act of this Parliament passed for that purpose was enacted in 1801, when an Act was passed for Malta, and Malta alone, giving power to the King to legislate by Order in Council and Letters Patent. That Act also asserted that Malta is part of Europe. That Act was repealed in 1872 by one of the periodical Statute Laws Revision Acts, but it was there stated specifically that the clause which declared Malta part of Europe was not repealed. Later on, in 1876, in the Customs Consolidation Act, the same declaration was made that Malta is part of Europe. In 1848 a Constitution was granted to Malta, a Constitution of a very severe type, with a permanent official majority. When that was granted the Act of 1801 was "spent," in the
568
terms of the Act itself, inasmuch as the Act provided that the power to legislate should not extend after events that happened six weeks after the first meeting of Parliament after 1814.
The Act of 1843 provided that the King could legislate by Letters Patent and Order in Council for the Falkland Islands, for settlement on the Coast of Africa and for territories adjacent to the Coast of Africa, and it is only by an Interpretation that Malta could, under that Act, be the subject of legislation by Order in Council and Letters Patent. But no authority derived from this Imperial Parliament can be traced for legislating for Malta by Letters Patent. From the very beginning of the association of Malta with England the people if Malta have repeatedly claimed by reputations and petitions at least that measure of representative government which had been granted by a former Norman King, Roger of Sicily, which save a very restricted measure, of representation, but there was a representative institution. Now many of my friends say that it is imprudent under present conditions to have a system of election in Malta that might, by external influence and bribery, bring about the equivalent of a plebiscite which might be embarrassing to international situations. I have said nothing in this House either to-day or in the past criticising the suspension of all responsible Government in Malta under present conditions. What I have been asking, and what I ask to-day in the interests of defence of the fortress, is that the present Executive Council should not contain any unofficial members who are not elected in some way or another, even if they are elected by groups—that is to say, to represent the nobility as under the old Constitution, or to represent the Chamber of Commerce, or the graduates of the University, or the landowners.
It is quite easy to copy the Constitution of King Roger the Norman and to establish some imitation, be it only a mere simulacrum, of representative institutions upon which it can be said that the promises made to the Maltese and the obligations derived from International Law had been carried out, in view of the fact that the Maltese had established an elected assembly as the governing force of the Island, as was the case when the French

569
were defeated, the Maltese being the principal co-belligerents with England and Portugal in driving out Napoleon Bonaparte from that Island. I have not asked for more than can be granted without danger and with advantage for the present, but I can assure your Lordships' House that there is nobody in Malta who does not feel deeply humiliated by its being said that the present selections of unofficial members of the Executive Council are representatives of all Parties in Malta. Such representation can only derive from some system of election. How can a Governor just arrived know who does or does not represent a Party? He has to ask his private secretaries and entourage. He meets few people. It is most dangerous for the prestige of the Government. Mistakes are always made; they are unavoidable; but if those mistakes are the result of election there is an answer. What is more, the Imperial Government and the King's representative in Malta has an opportunity, as a result of election, to know who the real leaders of the country are, and he would be safe from picking up individuals who have lost all credit and all representation and have been turned out of their Parties.
That is the crying need of Malta at present in the interests of the fortress. After the Constitution of 1848, which could only be legalised by admitting that the Maltese had a right to accept or reject the Constitution, the acceptance thereof brought it within the Common Law of England which no doubt was a proper legal proposition. The only other legal argument is that the Falkland Islands Act and the African Settlements Act could be extended to Malta by interpretation, because Malta is near Africa. After that we had the British Settlements Act, passed in 1860, which bears upon the question whether, when the King has power to legislate by Letters Patent, he has or has not power to delegate the Royal Prerogative. Then we come to the De La Warr Constitution of 1887. It was decided to grant that Constitution and to recognise the status of equality of the Maltese nation, which had been admitted time after time by such authorities as Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonies, by speeches in this House, and by the Royal Commission whose Report was accepted by Parliament. The De La Warr
570
Constitution was proclaimed in 1887 to give the most ample form of Crown Colony Constitution that could be drafted without establishing responsible Government, but it is obvious from the drafting of the Act and the words used therein that the Law Officers of the Crown then realised that, as the Act of 1801 was spent, they had to have a new Act, which was passed in the same year, 1887. The Constitution was granted in December; the British Settlements Act was passed earlier in the year.
That Act, according to the Preamble, only applied to unoccupied land without a Legislature where British settlers might wish to establish themselves. No clause of the Act could be applied to Malta under the Preamble if reconcilable with the operative words of the law. It could not apply to Malta even under a clause that contains glaring contradictions and mixes up what is a "possession" and what is a "settlement." That clause, it might be argued, according to one interpretation, which is obviously erroneous, brings under the Act all British Possessions outside the United Kingdom. The glaring contradictions in that Act were the subject of a strenuous debate in the House of Commons where it was abundantly demonstrated that the Act contained contradictions extending to an irreconcilable degree. The Secretary of State, then Sir Henry Holland, would accept no amendment and no argument. He would give no elucidation of the glaring contradictions beyond bringing forward an opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on a narrow issue which referred in particular to New Guinea, and the Secretary of State said that in view of that opinion the Bill of 1887 did little that was new and he would not enter into any further discussion as to the contradictions therein which members of the House of Commons showed to be so glaring as to be destructive of a part of the Act.
Under that Act of 1887 Malta, being out of the United Kingdom, was to be treated as something adjacent to Africa, and unfortunately Malta has been repeatedly thought of as African for various purposes. For hundreds of years in the Middle Ages Malta was treated ecclesiastically as African, and subjected as such to the Archbishopric of Palermo. To the struggle as to

571
whether Malta should be treated as African or European is due the present legal muddle, which can only be solved before the Privy Council. Be that as it may, the British Settlements Act, 1887, is the only foundation in law for Letters Patent enacting the Constitution of 1887 under a statute, but in so far as that Constitution was accepted by the people of Malta it is good at Common Law. A sufficient title would be an Act of Parliament that lays down clearly what it means and is not contradicted by decisions accepted by Mr. Secretary Ormsby-Gore in the House of Commons: these decisions must be repeated on again going to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I have endeavoured to obtain the best legal advice available in England on these legal difficulties, and the conclusion is that the best course is to go to Malta, refuse to pay taxes, and start over again on a specific case in order to protect the rights of the people of Malta, and thereby assist materially His Majesty's Government in a desire to act legally and justly.
Your Lordships may remember that when the Malta (Letters Patent) Act of 1936 was before your Lordships' House an offer was made so to draft the Bill as to get over the legal difficulty, but not a single Amendment was allowed to be made, not a comma or contradiction could be changed. The draftsmen were very capable in not going beyond the instructions given and they avoided attacking the English Common Law in a manner that would have affected adversely Southern Rhodesia and other parts of the Empire. All this has taken place for Malta at a time when a very liberal Constitution was being granted to India based on a promise contained only in the Preamble of an Indian Bill. We all know that the Preamble is not an operative part of an Act of Parliament. We know also that an Act which makes any change in the Common Law must be explicit in the text as well as in the Preamble in declaring what it is doing. I would point out that what is being done in Malta is unjust to neutrals in politics and the loyal majority, when selecting persons to be selected from various Parties, even from the pro-Italian Party. Wrong has been done by selecting members of those Parties who have been repudiated by their Party organisations or who previously resigned from their Party. The selection has been
572
accompanied by the gift of a salary, and social position, and then saying that they represent something they had left behind. Thus they represent nothing but themselves or that great body which in every country is eager under any circumstances to accept pay, promotion and social prestige at the sacrifice of principle.
It is sought by the Bureaucracy to show that under present conditions in Malta everybody wants Crown Colony Government, and that nobody wants any form of representative government by election. Can any of your Lordships believe that? It is evident that under the system of Bureaucracy which now is omnipotent in Malta no-one dare tell high officials that they are wrong and that the majority desires any other system. Let us take as a test of where the majority lies the popularity of the various organs of the Press. The section of the Press that is pro-British demands the restoration of some form—even an attenuated form—of representation for the sake of showing that the present Government is keeping promises. It will be found that the newspapers that demand representation are patronised to an extent greater than all the other sections of the Press put together. People in Malta do not like paying for anything of which they do not approve and the people of Malta seldom buy newspapers unless those organs represent their opinions. To say that all the people of Malta prefer Crown Colony Government of a severe type and do not want any form of election is a very deplorable way of not adopting a practical solution and meeting the situation. But little is required; namely, let us either re-establish some form of representative institutions or let us abolish a nominated element in the Executive Council that may represent nobody. The system now adopted merely results in testing by trial and error what is the price at which members of a Party may change sides. The use of that test to our rivals may be to establish a sort of tariff that will be very useful in future emergencies to such as nay want to gain over against England a large number of those who may be scheduled as subject to similar influences.
But there is a worse result of this system. Your Lordships will see at once that if persons are promoted to paid office, or are to have salaries, as members of the Executive Council, that come in

573
monthly—an ambition that is common with all nationalities round the Mediterranean, including France and Italy—it will follow that if such "loaves and fishes" are given to any who change their politics, the preferment must be given in disregard of justice to those who deserve better treatment. There may be ten applicants for an office when only one can get it, and the other nine are added to the dissatisfied. If any are dissatisfied because they deserved better than the recipient but did not get the post, then every time there is any appointment, additional enemies of the Government are created of a most dangerous description. That process augments the dissatisfied from year to year, and disaffection accumulates to a degree which is detrimental to the safety of the fortress, because it is based on injustice. By the present system great power for psychological suggestion is inevitably vested in that small section of the Bureaucracy who are immediately round the Governor and organised to support, each other. No Governor, however industrious and experienced he may be, even if he has been for several years in office overseas, has worked very hard, read many newspapers and studied all he could, can possibly with efficiency or conscientiousness ascertain "who is who" without the advice of private secretaries and an entourage. The only remedy for that psychological dilemma is to have some form of group election.
This use of patronage in Malta for the purpose of completing the Executive Council has gone so far that one of the newly-elected members of the Executive Council held a public political meeting, while he still kept on as a member of the Executive Council and was still clinging to the perquisites of office. He has before this been turned out of Ministerial office by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, now Lord Swinton, for non-co-operation—which is obviously, the Colonial Office word for "disloyalty." This same newly-selected Councillor at a public meeting declared his continued allegiance to the policy that the Italian language should have and regain its old position in Malta. He went further, and informed the public meeting that he was accused of being a candidate for a Judgeship and in reply thereto he was pleased to say that for "the present" he was not. That sort of public display by an Executive Councillor
574
demoralises those aspirants to office in Malta who have real claims based on long service, and who perhaps are and have been absolutely neutral in politics. These arguments are unanswerable, and are put before your Lordships with circumspection and with a full sense of responsibility.
Without any risk of the imputation of exaggeration it may be said that I have worked the whole of my life for the upholding of Imperial interests, and of Imperial sentiments and of Imperial power in Malta. No one, perhaps, has so much to lose if there were to be a separation of Malta from the Empire. I have not hesitated at any personal risk in the direction of augmenting the union with England. Notwithstanding the want of sympathy which is to be expected by all who criticise the shortcoming of any bureaucracy it at times becomes a duty to ask that officials should defend themselves from the imputation of blunders I am, in conclusion, clearly of opinion, from long experience as one who has spent a whole life in the working and the study of constitutions and the drafting thereof, that on legal grounds the Malta (Letters Patent) Act, 1832, is spent and is being wrongly used to proclaim law. The Letters Patent of 1821 have been completely repealed; there is nothing left to amend, not even the Title, not even the Preamble. On the other hand, the Malta Constitution Act, 1932, has not been repealed; it is still open to amendment. The skeleton is there. A few clauses have been repealed, and the important operative clauses are gone, but that skeleton is hanging in the cupboard of the Colonial Office. It is shaking there as evidence that the Common Law has not been repealed. It is there to proclaim the findings of English tribunals on the rule of English Common Law applicable to the Colonies. What remains upholds the contention that once a constitution has been granted, no taxation can be levied without the concurrence of some form of representative assembly. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House deplores delay in implementing obligations to respect representative institutions in Malta, and regrets the too elastic interpretation given to the Malta (Letters Patent) Act, 1936, which only gives power to revoke and amend Letters Patent, but

575
does not specify, as is necessary in law, any power to withdraw representative institutions or to issue enactments irreconcilable with the Common Law of the Empire.—(Lord Strickland.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I think we should all desire to congratulate the Opposition on a new acquisition, and we should also desire to congratulate the noble Lord on his new place on their Front Bench. We have all listened to a long and interesting history of the government of Malta, and certainly I, and I am sure all your Lordships, have learned a great deal of that history. There was, however, one item in that history which has been omitted, and that is the fact that this question, a very important question, which has been put before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, has been before your Lordships a number of times before and has been very thoroughly discussed. The whole question of whether in fact His Majesty's Government are under any formal obligation to maintain representative institutions in Malta has been discussed in itself. It was discussed at length on a Motion by Lord Strickland in July, 1935; it was again discussed during the debate on the Second Reading of the Malta (Letters Patent) Bill this year—a Bill, now an Act of Parliament, to which the noble Lord has referred. On both those occasions the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, expressed the opinion, and backed it by argument, that there is nowhere an intrinsic obligation on His Majesty's Government to maintain those representative institutions.
But I want to make it clear, and I should like to make this quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, who is, I know, most anxious on this point, that while His Majesty's Government do not recognise that they are under any formal obligation in this respect, they nevertheless do not regard the present Constitution as anything other than an interim measure, and it is our most earnest hope that in the course of time, as and when circumstances permit, some more liberal form of Constitution compatible with the admittedly high level of development and culture of the Maltese people may be evolved. The intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the future Constitution in Malta were very
576
clearly stated during the debate on the Bill of this year, both in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons, and they were again stressed by the governor of Malta in his Address on the proclamation of the present Constitution. Therefore, His Majesty's Government can, I think, justly claim that there is no justification for an accusation of delay in introducing a more liberal form of Constitution.
There is a further point that the noble Lord has raised, and that is on the question of the interpretation of the Act of 1936. We are again quite unable to agree that we have been guilty of the breaches that are suggested in the noble Lord's Motion, and in his speech. It was just because the Letters Patent of 1921 did not contain a power of revocation or amendment that the right of His Majesty in Council to legislate for the Island was restricted, and that power has definitely now been conferred on His Majesty in Council by the Malta (Letters Patent) Act of 1936. The noble Lord has suggested that that was not made clear in the discussion on that Bill. I have looked very carefully through the whole debates and I find that both in another place and in this House the speeches made by Ministers in charge made that point most abundantly clear. I have here the words of Lord Plymouth, then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. He said:
"There was a wide area over which the Crown reserved no power to legislate, and, in particular, it reserved no power to revoke the Constitution as a whole. It is primarily in order to remove this limitation that this Bill is brought forward."
I contend that nothing could have made the intention of His Majesty's Government more clear than that.
LORD STRICKLAND: Intentions are of no weight at law. It is only what is said.
EARL DE LA WARR: The words of the Act of Parliament were quite definite, but it is the business of the Minister in presenting a Bill to Parliament to make it clear to those who are not able to interpret the Bill before them. The Government, therefore, take the very definite view that there has ben restored to His Majesty in Council complete freedom with regard to revision, and that therefore the revocation of the 1921 Letters Patent was in strict accordance with the provisions of the Act. My

577
answer has not been a very long one, but I think the noble Lord will feel that it has been clear and definite, and that it will therefore make it possible for him not to press this matter. If he does, of course His Majesty's Government will have to oppose it.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to reply to the statements and opinions of the noble Earl who has just sat down. The noble Earl referred to the declarations made in the House of Commons.
EARL DE LA WARR: And in this House.
LORD STRICKLAND: In both Houses. It is glaring that the declarations made by Mr. Secretary Ormsby-Gore in the House of Commons were very different from the declarations made in this House by the Earl of Plymouth and guardedly referred to to-day by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Colonial Department. The declarations made to-day in this House are quite consistent with all the declarations and opinions previously made here, but they are not consistent with the declarations made and opinions expressed on both sides of the House in another place. Moreover, the declarations were made without quoting the legal authority on which they may rest. Law Officers in both Houses were challenged time after time to stand up and say if they could pronounce one word in support of the Bill that is now the Malta (Letters Patent) Act of 1936. No Law Officer would take the risk of imperilling his professional reputation by defending that Bill. There is then a studied omission of the operative words which are necessary in every such Bill. I wish to offer congratulations and to express thanks to the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, inasmuch as in the House of Commons he carefully refrained from repudiating the binding promises and assurances to the people of Malta which have been admitted and repeated for 136 years, and were never contradicted before this Session. They have never been held void or contradicted by any Law Officers of the Crown. No Law Officer has put n different interpretation to the Maltese position under International Law and natural law as acquired by conquest from the French, because every Law Officer knows that it cannot be done. He knows what the decision
578
would be if the matter were again brought before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
It is undeniable that Mr. Ormsby-Gore said explicitly in the House of Commons that His Majesty's Government had deliberately decided to put an end to "one-man government in Malta." Nevertheless, after he had said that—which of course meant something very different to the Executive Council of to-day—it happened that a Despatch did come to Malta reasserting the attitude of the Department before Mr. Ormsby-Gore took charge thereof. Notwithstanding the declarations by Mr. Ormsby-Gore and his admission of the decisions of English tribunals there came from the Colonial Office a Despatch to Malta which astonished everyone in the Island, reasserting the Departmental view held and expressed by Lord Plymouth before Mr. Ormsby-Gore came into office—namely, that there were no promises binding on His Majesty to uphold representative institutions. During the vacation it may have happened that the rubber stamp of the Secretary of State, affixed instead of a signature, may have been wielded by others; perhaps it was a mistake that Mr. Ormsby-Gore's view was contradicted then as now. I am unable to accept any of the legal points of view which are relied upon for saying that these promises and rights under the law of nations are non-existent. If the noble Earl had come here armed with the opinion of His Majesty's Law Officers of the Crown, and if he had laid it on the table, I should have been silent until there had been an opportunity to read and study that responsible opinion on points of law.
There is a precedent when Lord Knutsford was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and when he was put in a position in which he had no answer to the argument that the Act of 1887 required elucidation. He then produced the opinion of the then Law Officers, and suggested that that opinion applied. It did not apply beyond New Guinea, but that is the way he answered. Here to-day we have nothing of the sort. No Law Officer's opinion is quoted, rightly or wrongly. We have to note a studied abstention on the part of all the Law Officers in either House from staking their professional reputation on such

579
contentions, and with all the responsibility of a member of the English Bar I am entitled to offer an interpretation as to that abstention. A member of the English Bar ought under no circumstances to express an opinion on a point of law in a House of Parliament which he does not believe in. We have had a notable precedent when Lord Hailsham was Attorney-General. That noble and learned Viscount, who adorns the highest legal office in the Realm, when in the House of Commons gave advice to the then Ministers on an illegal action of the then Governor after careful consideration. That advice put right the error of the Governor of Malta, who had acted wrongly, and a Bill wrongly assented to had therefore to be disallowed. Now it seems equally impossible for any Law Officer to give an opinion against the Common Law and to agree with these views and opinions which we have heard suggested to-day against the rights of the people of Malta. I put it to your Lordships that in view of the impossibility of bringing forward the opinion of the Law Officers, I have proved my argument, and I am unable to withdraw the Motion that stands in my name.
On Question, Motion negatived.

FIREARMS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time I shall not have to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. This Bill is purely a consolidation measure and, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, will in due course go to the Committee on Consolidation Bills. Its purpose is to consolidate four Acts of Parliament relating to the manufacture, sale, purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition—namely, the Firearms Act, 1920, the Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Act, 1933, the Firearms Act, 1934, and the Firearms (Amendment) Act, 1936. The Acts of 1934 and 1936 effected various amendments in the Act of 1920. As a result the law has become complicated and it is difficult for the trade to understand it or for the police to administer it. A Departmental Committee of 1934 on the classification and definition
580
of a firearm recommended that some measure such as this should be introduced, and in introducing the Firearms (Amendment) Act, 1936, promises were made, both here and in another place, that a Consolidation Act would follow. I therefore confidently recommend this Bill to your Lordships in the belief that it will help those who have to deal with the purchase of firearms and the administration of the laws relating to firearms and ammunition.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

GENEVA CONVENTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill is necessary to give effect to certain provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1929. This Convention consisted altogether of thirty-nine Articles, but this Bill deals with only one of them—namely, Article 28. Your Lordships may be aware that the first Geneva Convention, which was for the purpose of protecting the medical services and the sick and wounded in time of war, was held in Geneva in 1864. It originated with Dr. Dunant, a Swiss doctor. His efforts led to the first Convention. Amongst other things which this Convention decided was that some easily recognisable mark was necessary to distinguish the wounded and the medical Services of the armed forces, and the red cross on a white ground was chosen for this purpose. That was done primarily as, a compliment to the Swiss nation whose distinguished subject had originated the whole idea. The Swiss arms, as your Lordships are aware, consist of a silver or white cross on a red ground, whereas the mark of the ambulance is the red cross on a white ground.
There was a further International Conference held at Geneva in 1906. It was felt that the Red Cross emblem was being rued in circumstances other than those provided for in the Convention, and it was thought necessary to limit its use by law. An Article was therefore embodied in the Geneva Convention under

581
which the signatory Governments undertook to pass legislation to prevent the use of the emblem or of the words "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross" for purposes other than those contemplated by the Convention. So far as this country is concerned, effect was given to this Article by the Geneva Convention Act, 1911, which prohibited the use of the heraldic emblem of the Red Cross or the words "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross" without the authority of the Army Council. In 1929 a further International Conference was held at Geneva to consider the revision of the Convention, and some time was spent on the particular Article of the Convention with which we are concerned in this Bill.
It was felt that the Red Cross emblem needed further protection, and it was specially suggested by the Swiss delegate that the Swiss arms were sometimes used for trade purposes and Swiss national sentiment was deeply offended. It was felt therefore, both in the interests of the Red Cross and of Switzerland, that something must be done to meet the position. Accordingly the revised Convention signed in 1929 contained provisions prohibiting the use not only of imitations of the Red Cross, but also of the Swiss arms and imitations of those arms, as the Convention puts it:
"by private individuals or associations, firms or companies … whether as trade marks or as parts of such marks, or for a purpose contrary to commercial honesty or in circumstances capable of wounding Swiss national sentiment."
This country ratified the Convention on June 23, 1931, and assumed the obligation to give effect to Article 28 on December 23, 1936.
The Bill is short and simple. Clause 1 provides that no one may use for the purpose of his trade or business or for any other purpose the Swiss arms and imitations of those arms, imitations of the Red Cross emblem and any words closely resembling the words "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross" without the permission of the Board of Trade. There is a valuable provision in subsection (3), the effect of which is to permit anyone who was lawfully using the Swiss arms or an imitation thereof prior to the coming into force of the Convention, namely, the 23rd December, 1931, to continue to use the design in question. This follows a reservation made by the United
582
Kingdom at the time of signature of the Convention. A similar reservation was made by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Irish Free State, India and Japan. There is little else in the Bill calling for comment. There is a safeguard in Clause 1 (5) against vexatious prosecutions, in that proceedings can only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney-General in England or Northern Ireland. Clause 2 has been inserted at the request of the Commonwealth Government to empower Australia, if she wishes, to legislate comprehensively as regards her obligations under both the 1906 and the 1929 Conventions. Clause 3, which makes provision for extending the Bill to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Newfoundland or the Colonies if required, is in the usual form. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CLEARING OFFICE (ITALY) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1936.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Order varies the Clearing Office (Italy) Order, 1936, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, on July 10 last. I will explain briefly to your Lordships what the Order means. During the period March to November, 1935—that is, before Italian imports into the United Kingdom were prohibited under sanctions—the payment of trade debts between Italy and the United Kingdom, as also of certain freights, was regulated by an agreement which did not involve any compulsion on United Kingdom debtors to make payment to any central account here. The agreement worked unsatisfactorily, so that debts amounting to about £1,750,000 accumulated in Italy. On November 18, 1935, a Controller of Anglo-Italian Debts was appointed under a sanctions Order in Council, to whom debts for Italian goods were payable compulsorily. By that means, some £600,000 was collected up to July 15, 1936, when sanctions were raised, and was applied to reduce the volume of the debts due to the United Kingdom.
When sanction's were raised it was decided to set up an Anglo-Italian Clearing Office, payment to which by United Kingdom

583
debtors would be compulsory. The Clearing Office was duly set up, but His Majesty's Government decided that the sterling it received should be placed to a reserve fund pending the conclusion of negotiations with the Italian Government as to the method of its disposal. These arrangements were established by the Clearing Office (Italy) Order, 1936, made on July 10 and approved by your Lordships' House on July 28. The negotiations with the Italian Government had to be suspended towards the end of July because it was not possible to agree on the provision to be made for the liquidation of the commercial arrears due to the United Kingdom. The negotiations were resumed later in September, and an Agreement was signed on November 6. The text of the Agreement is printed as a Schedule to the Order of which I now ask your Lordships' approval.
The main provision of the new Agreement is that the sterling collected by the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office in London is to be distributed as follows:—18 per cent. for the transfer of commercial arrears under the agreement of 1935; 9 per cent. for the transfer of other commercial arrears; 3 per cent. for the transfer of financial remittances, including interest, rents and dividends; and 70 per cent. for current trade debts. Of the sums already collected by the Clearing Office and placed in the reserve fund, 50 per cent. is be allocated between the first three heads I have mentioned and 50 per cent. is to be allocated to current trade debts. Paragraph 3 of the new Order accordingly provides that the Clearing Office shall no longer place its sterling receipts to the reserve fund, but shall distribute them in accordance with the new Agreement. This paragraph also enables the sums already in the reserve fund to be distributed on the agreed basis which I have explained. Paragraph 1 of the new Order exempts from the original Order debts falling due on or after November 16, 1936, in respect of certain transactions which it has been
584
agreed shall be excluded from the clearing. The remaining provisions of the Agreement do not require any variation of the Order made on July 10, 1936. In accordance with Section 4 of the Debts Gearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, this new Order must be approved by each House of Parliament within twenty-eight days from the date of the making of the Order, which period, I understand, expires on Tuesday next. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether he can make any statement about business to-morrow.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, it is proposed that we should meet at three o'clock tomorrow, when the first business will be the Committee stage of the Judiciary (Safeguarding) Bill standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. The second business will be the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Bill, and I give notice that I shall move the suspension of the necessary Standing Orders to enable us to take that Bill through all its stages tomorrow.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.