Sitting of 12 May 1936

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords,],

Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Bill [Lords.].

Bills to be read a Second time.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Folkestone Pier and Lift Bill [Lords]
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Bill [Lords], As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Winchester Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (No. 2) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Committee on Group F of Private Bills do forthwith report the Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 2) Bill without amendment to the House, and that on
  178
  such Report being made, the said Bill stand re-committed to the Committee of Selection with an Instruction not to refer the said Bill to the Committee on Group F of Private Bills."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Mr. THORNE: May I ask the Chairman of Ways and Means the reason for recommitting this Bill? Does it mean that those who oppose the Bill have to go through the whole stage of the Bill again, and spend a lot of money?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): The reason is to be found on page 2 of the Votes; it is a Report by the Chairman of Ways and Means that the Committee on Group F of Private Bills found the Preamble of the Bill proved without having fully heard all the petitioners against the Bill. In those circumstances there seems to be no course open but in effect to declare the proceedings in Committee abortive, and refer the Bill again to a different Committee.
  Mr. THORNE: May I ask the Chairman of Ways and Means how it was that the Committee in question did not hear all the opposition of those entitled to oppose the Bill?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: That is a question which I think is not for me to answer.
  Mr. THORNE: It is a lot of waste of money.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee on Group F of Private Bills do forthwith report the Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 2) Bill without amendment to the House, and that on such Report being made, the said Bill stand re-committed to the Committee of Selection with an Instruction not to refer the said Bill to the Committee on Group F of Private Bills."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  BUCKHAVEN AND METHIL BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Buckhaven and Methil Burgh," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act of 1899) to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 20th May, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
  DARLINGTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Darlington Corporation (Transport, etc.) Act, 1925, elating to Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin Hudson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Gloucester," presented by Captain Austin Hudson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  MANDATED TERRITORIES.
  Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has had any consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions in order to ascertain their views regarding the future of the mandated territories; and, if not, whether he can give an assurance that before His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom make known their attitude on this question to any foreign Power all the Dominions Governments will be fully consulted?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 7th May. As regards the second part, he may be sure that the established principles regarding consultation with Dominion Governments on issues of foreign policy will be fully observed.
  Mr. SANDYS: Have any Dominion Governments communicated to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom their attitude as to the future of the mandated territories under their control?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I have received no such communication.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the communication received from the Union Government of South Africa with regard to the question of transferring the mandated territory of South-West Africa to another Power?
  Mr. MacDONALD: No communication has been received from His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa on this subject.
  Mr. MANDER: Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the pubic statements made by the South African Government showing that their policy is quite different from that of the British Government, and will he not take steps to try to reconcile the different points of view in the Empire on this question?
  Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large amount of foreign propaganda which is taking place here?

  AUSTRALIA (IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION).
  Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTHasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the number of British persons leaving Australia is still in excess of those entering Australia, and that the balance of Australian immigration and emigration is only maintained because of the excess of immigrants from South Europe; and whether any consideration has been given to the possibilities of persuading and arranging for British emigrants to take the place of those now going to Australia from South Europe?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: The statistics issued by the Commonwealth Government for the year 1935 indicate that the position as regards emigration from, and immigration into, Australia during that year was generally as described by my hon. Friend. The position of immigration into Australia is primarily a matter for the Commonwealth and State authorities. The aspects of the matter with which the United Kingdom Government are concerned are being carefully kept in

  181
  mind with a view to co-operation in the resumption of migration as soon as circumstances permit.
  Mr. DUCKWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability, in the interests of British oversea trade, and with a view to stimulating a little more feeling towards the motherland, that this stream of emigration may be brought about again through efforts between this Government and the Australian Government? It is extremely desirable.

  IRISH FREE STATE.
  Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he now contemplates setting on foot negotiations for the settlement, of all outstanding differences between this country and the Irish Free State?
  Mr. H. MacDONALD: I am keeping in mind the desirability of a settlement of outstanding differences between this country and the Irish Free State, but am not in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member on 25th February.
  Mr. LUNN: The right hon. Gentleman has been giving this answer ever since he became Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Is he not now taking some steps to try to secure an agreement between this country and the Irish Free State on all outstanding differences?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The answer which I have given on two occasions expresses my recognition of the desirability of a settlement of these differences, but I cannot add further to the rest of the answer I have given.
  Mr. ATTLEE: Can anything happen if this is merely going on in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? Is he not going to do something?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SANCTIONS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to receive a deputation from the Federation of British Importers from Italy, in order that the deputation may
    182
    submit to him their claims for consideration in respect of the losses they have suffered as a consequence of the imposition of sanctions?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): After careful consideration, His Majesty's Government have decided that compensation cannot be granted for losses attributable to the sanctions imposed against Italy. I am ready to consider any information or proposals which the Association of British Importers from Italy may care to put forward in writing, but, as at present advised, I do not think that a deputation would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. MANDER: Is there to be any compensation for the enormous loss of British prestige throughout the world on account of the sanctions policy?

    ARGENTINA (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of British capital invested in the Argentine; and what were the total dividends paid on these investments in 1935 or the latest year for which information is obtainable?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to the latest information available, the nominal value of British capital invested in the Argentine is estimated to amount to approximately £435,000,000, and the annual revenue from such investments, whether remitted to this country or not, to about £8,500,000.
    Sir A. KNOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion was remitted to this country last year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Not without notice.

    IMPORTED MEAT (LEVIES).
    Sir A. KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade what would be the revenue from a levy of ½d. per lb. on imports of chilled and frozen beef and frozen mutton and lamb from the Dominions and 2d. per lb. on similar imports from foreign countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: On the basis of the quantities imported during 1935, the yield of levies on the commodities and of the amounts stated in the question would have been about £11,250,000.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman calculated the amount that would have to be charged to the consumer?

    IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (APPLICATIONS).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in order to encourage new industries and increase employment, he is prepared to make direct application to the Imports Advisory Committee for an import duty on selected manufactures, as the present method cannot function in cases where no combined industry exists to make application;
    (2) whether he is prepared, when the rise in imports indicates and employment is affected, to make application direct to the Imports Advisory Committee without waiting for a combined application from the trade nearest affected, which may not be large and well-organised enough to readily make such application?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Under the Import Duties Act any recommendations regarding import duties that may be made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, fall to be considered by the Treasury in consultation with the Board of Trade and, in certain cases, with other Government Departments. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to make representations to the Committee with a view to their recommending additional duties. My hon. Friend is, however, mistaken in supposing that the Committee cannot, if necessary, initiate action without waiting for an application. Moreover, it is open to any manufacturer or trader to make representations to the Committee, who are always ready to give all the help they can in the preparation and presentation of cases.
    Mr. LYONS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the committee has, in fact, ever acted on its own initiative?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say without notice.
    Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND -TROYTE: Has my right hon. Friend ever recommended a reduction of duty to the Advisory Committee?

    POTATOES (PRICE, SCOTLAND).
    Captain RAMSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he
    184
    has by now had an opportunity of checking the figure of 120s. a ton as the price of Majestics in Scotland for the week ending 8th April; and, in view of the fact that there was a discrepancy of over £1 a ton on this point between his figures and those of the Potato Marketing Board, will he make a statement on the subject?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for affording me an opportunity of explaining the discrepancy to which he draws attention. The difference is due to the fact that while the figure of 90s. which he quoted in the Debate on 9th April was the growers' price, the price of 120s. quoted by me was the average wholesale price. I regret that the price of 120s. per ton was described as the price of Majesties, whereas it was in fact the average of three kinds of potatoes, including Majesties.
    Captain RAMSAY: May I ask my hon. Friend whether in future, on such an important point as the price of potatoes, on which the Debate depended, we may have reliable figures from the Board of Trade? Those figures were not only quoted, but figures were given to contradict the figures which I gave, and they bore no relation to the subject.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is it not a fact that the growers' dispute with the Government is on the difference between the growers' price and the retail price?

    TOBACCO (DUTY).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the difference in the rates of drawback on the re-export of Empire and foreign tobaccos, respectively, amounting to approximately ld. per lb. in favour of the foreign tobacco; that, after allowing for wastage, the drawback on foreign tobacco exceeds the duty paid; and whether he will take immediate steps to rectify the position by which foreign tobacco re-exported receives a subsidy from the taxpayer thereby injuring re-exports of Empire tobacco?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have noted the hon. Member's suggestions, but I have no reason to suppose that re-exports of Empire tobacco are being

    185
    materially injured by difference in the rates of drawback on Empire and non-Empire tobaccos.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the duty and the drawback on Empire tobacco balance, and can such a balance not be obtained with regard to foreign tobacco, and so save a loss to the Exchequer which is estimated at £200,000, especially in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has just increased the duty on tea?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to my information the hon. Member's suggestion is not entirely accurate.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONFERENCE.
    Mr. BENJAMIN SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the British Government have yet made replies to the questionnaire issued by the International Labour Office for the purposes of the International Maritime Conference, 1936; whether he will inform the House of the nature of those replies; and whether he took steps to consult the shipowners', officers', and seamen's organisations as to the nature of those replies?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government have not yet replied to the questionnaire, the points in which are still under consideration by the National Maritime Board. Officers of my Department are in touch with that body on these matters.
    Mr. SMITH: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the whole of the elements that make up the Maritime Board are being consulted?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I said the points were still under consideration by the National Maritime Board, and, of course, all the organisations represented on that board will be aware of what is taking place.
    Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House if and when he does receive the questionnaire?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper perhaps I can arrange to say when the announcement will be made.

    STEERING GEAR COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Mr. MUFFasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state when the final report of the Committee of Inquiry into the question of steering gear is likely to be issued?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The technical matters referred to in paragraph 35 of the report of the Steering Gear Committee are still under consideration, and it is accordingly not yet possible for me to say when the final report of the committee will be issued.

    COASTAL TRADE (FOREIGN-OWNED VESSELS).
    Mr. A. DUCKWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give figures of the tonnage of merchandise carried around the British coast by foreign-owned vessels during each of the last six years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the information desired is not available.

    SUBSIDISED SHIPS (CRESWS).
    Mr. KIRBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the practice of permitting vessels in the overseas trade to sail with only one officer in addition to the master imposes undue strain upon the two officers, who must take watches for more than 84 hours a week, apart from other supervisory duties; and whether he will take steps to ensure that at least subsidised ships of 2,750 tons shall carry a more adequate complement of officers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is a National Maritime Board agreement that foreign-going vessels of 2,750 tons gross and upwards trading outside Western European limits shall carry three certificated navigating officers in addition to the master. Owners seeking a subsidy must conform with this agreement in respect of the voyage concerned.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is the practice of some shipowners to pay off the major portion of a vessel's crew immediately upon arriving in port, leaving only a skeleton crew to perform the necessary work and even to transfer the ship from port to port; whether, in the case of tramp vessels, subsidy is payable during such days as the crew of the vessel is so

    187
    depleted; and whether he will decline to allow payment of subsidy for days other than those upon which a full complement is carried?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative so far as the port of loading or discharge of cargo is concerned. The duration of an eligible voyage is laid down in Cmd. Papers 4754 and 5082. I would refer the hon. Member in particular to Cmd. Paper 4754, paragraph 2 (c) on page 5. If the work done falls within the voyage as so defined, subsidy is payable. I am not aware of any grounds for modifying this basis of payment. The Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee will see that the conditions are not abused.
    Mr. SHINWELL: But when the articles are completed, which means that the bulk of the crew is discharged, is it not irregular to continue payment of the subsidy?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It all depends on the circumstances of the voyage. The definition of the voyage has been a matter of very great care.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Was not the subsidy intended to provide additional remuneration in connection with the voyages of the vessels concerned, and when the voyage is completed and the crew is discharged, surely the subsidy ought not to be paid?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole question is when the voyage is begun and completed, and that is provided for in the conditions laid down in the Command Paper I have quoted.
    Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Surely it is also provided that where a vessel is on a voyage it must carry a full complement of crew, and in the event of the crew being discharged the articles are ended? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to define what a voyage is?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could only read the extracts from the Command Paper which most people are capable of following.

    MANNING.
    Mr. MUFF (for Mr. WINDSOR)asked the President of the Board of
    188
    Trade when it is proposed to issue regulations regarding the manning the sea-going vessels in accordance with the recommendations of the merchant shipping Advisory committee?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on 6th May.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT, 1927.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the tendency that exists among sonic renters and exhibitors to ignore the requirements of Part I of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and what action he has taken to see that these provisions are carried out?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that it is alleged that the requirements of Part I of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, are not always observed, and I will certainly consider a prosecution in any case where satisfactory evidence is forthcoming.
    Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any investigations into these allegations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The subject has been examined.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the special attention of the committee which is sitting on the subject to these allegations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the most useful course is the announcement I have made that I will consider a prosecution in any case where satisfactory evidence is forthcoming.

    FIXED TRUSTS.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the result of his inquiries into fixed trusts?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to say when the Departmental Committee which I appointed on 2nd March will be ready to present their report.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    BOYS.
    Captain MACNAMARAasked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the widespread unemployment in the country and the shortage of satisfactory recruits for the Regular Army, he will consider raising boys' battalions or starting a boys' company at each depot?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): A scheme for absorbing more boys into the Army is at present under consideration, and I will bear my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to these boys that, in accordance with the Government's policy, they will not expected to fight?

    EQUIPMENT.
    Captain MACNAMARAasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will in future arrange to issue free to soldiers articles such as canes and padlocks, which they are at present virtually compelled to purchase themselves on joining?
    Mr. COOPER: The question of the provision at the public expense of these articles, and others which at present must be purchased by the soldier, is under consideration.

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the fact that the public assistance committee of the Durham County Council are being compelled to grant out relief to wives of soldiers under the age of 26 years serving with the colours, by reason of the fact that the Government do not grant any marriage allowance to these women; and whether he will take steps to have this state of affairs rectified?
    Mr. COOPER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley).
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer was unsatisfactory, and does he endorse the policy of sending the wives of soldiers to the public assistance committees for relief?
    Mr. COOPER: The policy has not changed since yesterday.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman endorse the policy, and, if not, will he take steps to change it?
    Mr. COOPER: That is no part of the policy.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it adds to the popularity of the Army that the wives of soldiers under 26 should have to go to the public assistance committees when their husbands are oversea.
    Mr. COOPER: The policy of the Army is at present to discourage young soldiers from marrying under the age of 26. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is quite possible to change that policy, but that has been the policy which has been followed for many years. It would not be correct to explain now the reasons for it.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for War whether the training grants to Territorial battalions have been increased this year or not?
    Mr. COOPER: The total grant allotted to the Territorial Army for training and instruction outside the camp period is the same in 1936 as in 1935, and I am satisfied that, unless there is an appreciable improvement in recruiting, this amount is adequate. The allotment of the grant between the various units in each command is a matter for the discretion of the general officers commanding-in-chief, and I am unable to say, without reference to commands, whether there are any variations in the sums allotted to individual Territorial battalions.
    Sir A. KNOX: As all the new benefits of the Territorial Army are for conditions of service only, would it not be wise to increase the training grant in order to show the country that the Government take a Territorial Army seriously?
    Mr. COOPER: The steps that have been taken this year will show that the Territorial Army is taken seriously, and if recruiting goes up to what we hope, it may be necessary to increase the training grant.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for War what is the

    191
    nominal established strength of the Territorial anti-aircraft force; and what are the present numbers recruited for the same?
    Mr. COOPER: The establishment of Air Defence troops of the Territorial Army is 630 officers, 16,309 other ranks. The strength on 1st May was 453 officers, 5,656 other ranks.
    Sir W. DAVISON: What steps are being taken to make good this serious deficiency, and are the local authorities giving every assistance, both in raising men and in providing facilities for training?
    Mr. COOPER: We are taking every step that we can think of in order to increase recruiting for the Territorials, and the majority of the local authorities, though not all, are helping.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for War the present number of recruits required by the Army; whether he is aware that many unemployed persons hesitate to volunteer for service in view of the fact that the lowest term of service for which they must contract is seven years; and whether he will consider the desirability of cutting such period down to two or three years in order to attract those who are uncertain about the advantages offered by an Army career?
    Mr. COOPER: Approximately 35,300 recruits are required during the whole of the current financial year to complete the Regular Army to establishment. As my hon. Friend will see from page 14 of the General Annual Report on the British Army for 1935, this number is about 10,000 more than has been taken in each of the past two years. I fully appreciate that the present terms of enlistment for the Infantry may not appear attractive to men who wish to serve for two or three years, but the difficulties which enlistment for the short period would present in regard to overseas drafting are very considerable.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Having regard to the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman is experiencing in recruiting, has he any measures in mind for improving the conditions of service, and will he
    192
    rely not only on cinema and other appeals for men to join the Army?
    Mr. COOPER: I have many such measures in mind, as the hon. Member will know if he has listened to my answers to previous questions to-day and on other occasions.

  SCOTLAND.

    FLOODS (KELVIN VALLEY).
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to say what steps he proposes to take to stop the periodical flooding of the Kelvin Valley and the consequent wastage of large tracts of first-class arable and building land?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): No, Sir. I am giving this my close attention, but I regret I am not yet in a position to intimate a decision.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman has personally inspected this scandalous state of affairs, can he do nothing to expedite a remedy for it?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am giving the matter serious consideration, and the difficulty of reconciling the interests of the taxpayers with the interests of those who would be the beneficiaries if action were taken is having attention.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to do something in this matter?
    Sir G. COLLINS: When I am in a position to make a statement I shall gladly do so, and will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

    MATERNAL MORTALITY.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make his promised statement regarding legislation for the purpose of reducing maternal mortality in Scotland?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I regret that I am unable to-day to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member's question on Wednesday last.
    Mr. MATHERS: If I put a question down next week, will the right hon. Gentleman then be in a position to reply?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject, at any rate before Whitsuntide.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will my right hon. Friend, in giving that reply, state exactly what was done in this matter by the Socialist Government between 1929 and 1931?

    PRISON OFFICER TRADESMEN (MACHINERY).
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the conditions under which prison officer tradesmen work with dangerous machinery in the workshops; whether a second officer is provided in each shop; and what are the rates of the Allowances of the trades officers of various classes?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Prison officer tradesmen act as supervisors, and, when required, as demonstrators under ordinary working conditions. The machinery is adequately guarded and is inspected by His Majesty's inspectors of factories. Two or more officers are Always employed in each workshop in which machinery is used. The allowances payable to trades officers range from 1s. 6d. to 6s. a week.
    Mr. MATHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is because of their skill that some of these men are kept on at very low Allowances, and, again because of their skill, are prevented from getting promotion which would bring an increase in their emoluments?
    Sir G. COLLINS: If my hon. Friend will communicate to me any particular cases he has in mind, I will gladly look into them.
    Mr. MATHERS: I will give the right hon. Gentleman particulars.

    SPECIAL AREAS (COMMISSIONER).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the reasons for the delay in announcing the successor to Sir Arthur Rose as Commissioner for Special Areas in Scotland; whether he is aware that delays in this matter may prejudice the people of Scotland as compared with the people in other Special Areas; And whether he is now in
    194
    a position to give the name and qualifications of the new Commissioner?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Active steps are being taken with a. view to the early appointment of a successor to Sir Arthur Rose, whose enforced resignation on grounds of health the House will regret, and for whose valuable work As Commissioner I should like to take the opportunity of expressing in the House the gratitude of His Majesty's Government. In the meantime arrangements are in force for carrying on the administrative work of the Commissioner's office. I am glad to add that Sir Arthur Rose will be Available for consultation pending the appointment of a successor.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to when we may usefully put a question which will extract from him the name of the successor to Sir Arthur Rose?
    Sir G. COLLINS: When I am in a position to give it, which I hope will be at an early date, I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ROYALTIES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary for Mines the total amount paid in royalties on coal raised in Great Britain for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on 31st March.
    Mr. DAY: Do the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred me include the working of freehold minerals by owners and proprietors?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I think the hon. Member had better look at the figures.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary for Mines the numbers of fatal and non-fatal accidents per 1,000 men employed in the chief coal-producing countries outside Great Britain during 1935, and the corresponding figures for British coalfields as a whole and for North and South Wales separately?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I regret that the information desired is not available except in respect of fatal accidents in the British coalfields referred to, the figures for which per 1,000 persons employed are: Great Britain 1.10, South Wales 1.22 and North Wales O.68. A statement giving the fatal and non-fatal accident rates in the principal coal-producing countries over a representative period and so far as possible on a comparable basis, is, however, being pre pared at the request of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines, and I will send a copy of it to my hon. Friend so soon as it is ready.

    SUNDAY WORK.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries wind coal on Sundays; and what steps he is taking to stop this and make Sunday a non-winding coal shift?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: As the hon. Member is aware, there is no provision in the Coal Mines Act to make Sunday working illegal, and for that reason my Department does not collect statistics of such working. I have, however, no reason to believe that coal winding is carried on on Sundays to any appreciable extent, except in Scotland.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. and gallant Member try to get information as to the amount of coal won on Sundays, so that we may have some idea of the extent of this practice?
    Captain RAMSAY: Will my hon. and gallant Friend get the statistics for Scotland?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I will try to find out whether it is practicable to get such statistics, but, as I say, there is no provision in the Act to make this Sunday working illegal.

    INSPECTIONS (WORKMEN'S REPRESENTATIVES).
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Secretary for Mines how many workmen's pit inspections have been made since March, 1935, and up to March, 1936; in which part of the country have these inspections been regularly carried out; and what steps, if any, he is prepared to take to encourage regular workmen's inspections in all pits?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The total number of inspections made by workmen's representatives during the 12 months ending 29th February, 1936, was 3,925. The districts reporting the number of such inspections were the largest Northern and the Cardiff and Forest of Dean Inspection Divisions, with 2,291 and 808 respectively. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that the attention of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal await their report.

  AFFORESTATION.

    DEER AND BLACKGAME.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether deer and blackgame have increased in the plantations under their charge; and, if so, what steps are taken to protect the trees?
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): Deer tend to invade many of the larger plantations and to increase rapidly as the young trees grow into the dense thicket stage. If the numbers are not controlled much damage is done not only to the plantations but to the farms, orchards and gardens in the neighbourhood. Roe deer, generally, and fallow deer, occasionally, are most troublesome in plantations. In order to keep the head of deer down to a point where they do no real damage it is necessary to shoot, departmentally and by arrangement with shooting tenants, and in some cases to snare. Blackgame also invade new plantations and sometimes do much damage to pine, larches and occasionally spruces. The numbers are controlled by shooting during the game season.
    Miss WILKINSON: Is it less painful to the deer to be shot departmentally?

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Sir CHARLES EDWARDS (for Mr. G. HALL)asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what progress, if any, has been made in acquiring land under the scheme to assist the Special Areas by planting 200,000 acres in and

    197
    near these areas; and will he give the area of land acquired, its cost per acre, and its location, for South Wales separately?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: Investigations of plantable land and negotiations for acquisition are proceeding, but no contract has yet been completed.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    VACANCIES (APPLICATIONS, POSTAGE).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement respecting the rate of postage on letters or postcards addressed by applicants for employment vacancies advertised in the Press?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): An application for employment sent through the post is subject to the same conditions as other correspondence; but, like certain other documents, if it is made on an appropriate printed form and placed in an unsealed envelope, it may be sent at the printed paper rate of ½d. for two ounces. The condition of an appropriate printed form is regarded as fulfilled if "Application for Employment" or some equivalent wording is printed or handstamped (in characters not resembling those of a typewriter) at the head of a plain sheet of paper. A postcard similarly headed would be passed. In addition, a sheet of paper or a card which has a cut-out printed heading completely adherent to it bearing the words "Application for Employment" would also be passed at the halfpenny rate.

    INSURANCE (DISABLED WORKMEN).
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Minister of Labour whether he will amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so that disabled workmen who are in receipt of light rate compensation may have the same privileges as disabled ex-service men who are in receipt of a disability pension, namely, that they need only prove the payment of 10 contributions instead of 30 in respect of the two years immediately preceding the date of the claiming for benefit?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): No, Sir; I could not undertake to introduce legislation for this purpose.
    Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many workmen who, through injury, are prevented from following their employment are penalised in regard to the number of stamps required, namely 30, for the two years immediately preceding their claim for benefit?
    Mr. BROWN: I could not accept that statement of the position.

    ASSISTANCE (DRAFT REGULATIONS).
    Sir C. EDWARDS (for Mr. G. HALL)asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state when the new draft regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board will be made available to the House?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I cannot add at the moment to the replies already given on this subject.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Could the Minister give an undertaking that the regulations will be issued to the House at least a week before they are discussed?
    Mr. BROWN: I have already said that they will be advertised.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Has not the Minister the capacity to think out these regulations? What is the reason for the delay?
    Mr. BROWN: I do not think I am called upon to answer that question.
    Mr. MUFF: Ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the precise terms of the agreement signed by the Emperor of Abyssinia before leaving French territory limiting his freedom of political action in Palestine?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I need hardly say that His Majesty's Government at no time contemplated asking the Emperor to sign any such agreement in return for the offer of passage in His Majesty's Ship "Enterprise" from Jibuti to Palestine. I have already explained that the offer of this passage was a mark of courtesy to the Emperor, and that it was made in accordance with the message which was conveyed to His Majesty's Minister in

    199
    Addis Ababa that His Majesty desired to proceed with his family to Palestine. His Majesty's Government were anxious to be of assistance to the Emperor, but the hon. Member must remember that His Majesty has renounced the direction of affairs, and it was in consequence not unreasonable to suggest that in these circumstances he should be expected not to participate in any way in the furtherance of hostilities.
    Mr. MANDER: Was it the French or the British Government which imposed those conditions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should not use the word "imposed." The British Government put themselves to considerable inconvenience to render that courtesy.
    Mr. MANDER: Does that mean that the Emperor is precluded from taking any political or diplomatic action on behalf of his country?
    The PRIME. MINISTER: I do not wish to define things any more closely than I have done.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the treatment is better or worse than was accorded by the Government of the Netherlands to the British soldiers who were forced into the Netherlands during the War?
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Does the Prime Minister recognise that renunciation of the direction of affairs does not involve renunciation of the throne, and that the Emperor was compelled by force of arms to renounce the direction of affairs; and whether, in those circumstances, the Emperor will be precluded from resuming the direction of affairs when he is able to do so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is an entirely different question, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state whether the Emperor of Abyssinia will be permitted freedom of transit and action in Member States of the League of Nations other than Italy; and whether he may proceed, in particular, to Geneva and London?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member may rest assured that any wishes
    200
    the Emperor may express concerning his future movements will be accorded most careful consideration.
    Mr. MANDER: Does that mean that, in accordance with the usual tradition of this country, a request from the Emperor to come here would not be refused?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather wait until the desire of the Emperor is ascertained.
    Mr. THORNE: Does the Prime Minister not think that if the Emperor ever does come here he will get a better reception than Mussolini?
    Mr. GARRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether the Ethiopian Emperor has made any application to the British Government regarding his future place of domicile; and what reply has been given?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. DAY: Has not the Emperor already bought a residence in London?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Miss RATHBONE: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are large sections of public opinion in this country who would warmly welcome the opportunity of showing honour to the head of, a State Member of the League of Nations who has actually fulfilled his obligations and kept his pledges?
    Mr. GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Imperial Ethiopian Minister in London is still recognised as the accredited representative of his country; and whether His Majesty's Government recognise the authority of the Ethiopian Ministers outside Addis Ababa from whom the London Minister derives his credentials?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the question, I would point out that the Minister derives his authority from the Emperor.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: How does it come about that the Prime Minister has

    201
    rejected the authority of the Emperor to interfere in his country's affairs, and permits that authority to his Minister?
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister has not rejected the authority of the Emperor, but that the Emperor has surrendered it?
    Mr. GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any instructions have been despatched to Sir Sydney Barton to guide him in his attitude to the Italian army of occupation; and, if so, whether these instructions involve tacit or implied recognition of Italian authority?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The instructions of Sir Sydney Barton are to proceed on the basis that there should be accorded to the Italian military authorities that recognition to which an army in military occupation of enemy territory is entitled under the principles of international law.

    STATIONERY OFFICE (TYPEWRITERS AND CALCULATING MACHINES).
    Mr. DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of typewriters and calculating machines that have been purchased by the Stationery Office for the two years ended at the last convenient date?
    Commander SOUTHBY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Stationery Office purchased 2,129 typewriters and 250 adding and calculating machines in the year ended 31st March, 1935, and 2,556 typewriters and 369 adding and calculating machines in the year ended 31st March, 1936.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that most of them are of foreign manufacture?
    Commander SOUTHBY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Mr. DAY: Are we to understand that it is impossible to obtain typewriters of British make that are useful for his office?
    Commander SOUTHBY: No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is not to understand anything of the sort.
    Mr. LYONS: Is it not a fact that every typewriter bought during that period has been British made?

    NATIONAL GALLERY (ATTENDANCE).
    Mr. LEWISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of persons admitted to the National Gallery during the past 12 months, before and after the normal closing hour, respectively, on those three days in the week on which the gallery has been kept open until 8 p.m.?
    Commander SOUTHBY: I have been asked to reply. The information desired by my hon. Friend is as follows: Number admitted before normal closing hour,274,064; number admitted after normal closing hour, 59,950.

    MALE SERVANT LICENCE DUTY.
    Mr. HANNAHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the East Sussex County Council have asked Ardingly College to pay menservants' tax for boys sent to join its domestic staff through the Ministry of Labour from the distressed areas; and whether, in view of the fact that hotel servants are admittedly exempt, he will take what steps are necessary to exempt school menservants also?
    Commander SOUTHBY: I have been asked to reply. The Male Servant Licence Duty is not, so far as England and Wales are concerned, an Imperial tax, but forms part of the receipts of the county councils and county borough councils. Proposals to vary the incidence of the duty can thus only be considered after consultation with these councils. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House of Commons on 11th June,1934, an opportunity of discussing the matter with them will occur in 1937, when certain financial arrangements between the councils and the Exchequer are due for revision.

    HOUSING (OVERCROWDING).
    Mr. JOELasked the Minister of Health whether any complaints have been received from local authorities that the standard of overcrowding under the Housing Act, 1935, is too low; and, if so, whether he will state the towns from which these complaints come?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is aware that in some quarters the standard is regarded as low but, as my hon. Friend knows, the standard is a penal standard and is therefore of necessity lower than, for example, the standard of accommodation adopted by local authorities for rehousing purposes. My right hon. Friend is unable to trace any official representations from local authorities on the subject.

    KENYA.
    Mr. CREECH JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the petition from the North Kavirondo Central Association, of Kenya Colony, requesting the appointment of a paramount chief over their tribe has been given favourable consideration; and, if not, what are the grounds for rejection of the request?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir. There was no reason to accept the petition. Paramount chiefs are not part of native institutions in Kenya as they are in some places. With the development of communications and local native councils the need for such an appointment has disappeared and a further appointment would not serve any useful purpose, nor would it carry any duties.
    Mr. PALING: Do I understand that no paramount chiefs are appointed by the tribes in Kenya?
    Mr. THOMAS: No; paramount chiefs usually take the position of representing their particular tribes. When the stage of development is reached in which there is a native council, there is no need for paramount chiefs, and no purpose would be served by their continuing.

    TRINIDAD (AGRICULTURAL TRAINING COLLEGE).
    Mr. BELLENGERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much money has been contributed by each of the West African Colonies to the funds
    of the Imperial Agricultural Training College, Trinidad, since its inception; and how many Africans from each of these colonies have been trained in the college?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The total contributions from the West African Governments, up to the year ending 31st August last, are as follow:

    £

    Nigeria

    …

    …

    10,800

    Gold Coast

    …

    …

    5,000

    Sierra Leone

    …

    …

    2,500

    There have been three African students from the Gold Coast who have attended post-graduate courses at the college during this period. The training of such students represents only a small part of the services for the maintenance of which the contributions are made.
    Mr. BELLENGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an adequate reason why the figure is so small?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is very difficult to give an adequate reason why, when opportunities are given, people do not take advantage of them. So far as I am concerned, at the office our policy is to encourage them as much as possible. The hon. Gentleman's question will give the necessary publicity to this matter.

    BILL PRESENTED.
      PROTECTION OF DOGS BILL.
      "to prohibit the vivisection of dogs," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Sir George Jones, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Groves; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 97.

Division No. 176.]

AYES.

[3.30 p.m.

Acland, R. T. D.(Barmneeaple)

Albery, I. J.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

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

Apsley, Lord

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Aske, Sir R. W.

Assheton, R.

Fildes, Sir H.

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

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

Flndlay, Sir E.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

Ganzonl, Sir J,

Orr-Ewlng, I. L.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Owen, Major G.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Gibson, C. G.

Peake, O.

Bernays, R. H.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Blair, Sir R.

Goldie, N. B.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Blindell, Sir J.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Petherick, M.

Boulton, W. W.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Granville, E. L.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Radford, E. A.

Brass, Sir W.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

Ramsbotham, H.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Grimston, R. V.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Lelth)

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Unlv's.)

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

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

Guy, J. C. M.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Bull, B. B.

Hanbury, Sir C.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Burghley, Lord

Hannah, I. C.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Remer, J. R.

Calne, G. R. Hall.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hartington, Marquess of

Ropner, Colonel L.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Harvey, G.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Carver, Major W. H.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Rowlands, G.

Cary, R. A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hepworth, J.

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Cautley, Sir H. S.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

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

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

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

Holmes, J. S.

Salmon, Sir I.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Salt, E. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

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

Horsbrugh, Florence

Sandys, E. D.

Channon, H.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Savery, Servington

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

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

Scott, Lord William

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Hunter, T.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Christie, J. A.

Jackson, Sir H.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Cobb, Sir C. S.

James, Wing-Commander A. W.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Joel, D. J. B.

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

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

Keeling, E. H.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

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

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

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

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smithers, Sir W.

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

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

Leckie, J. A.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

Lees-Jones, J.

Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Leigh, Sir J.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyldo)

Critchley, A.

Leighton, Major B. E. P

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

Croft, Brig. -Gen. Sir H. Page

Levy, T.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Crooke, J. S.

Lewis, O.

Stourton, Hon. J. J.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Liddall, W. S.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Cross, R. H.

Lindsay, K. M.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Crossley, A. C.

Liewetllin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Lloyd, G. W.

Sutcliffe, H.

Culverwell, C. T.

Lovat-Fraser, J, A.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Davles, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

Lyons, A. M.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Davison, Sir W. H.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

De Chair, S. S.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Touche, G. C.

De la Bère, R

M'Connell, Sir J.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Denville, Alfred

McCorquodale, M. S.

Tufnell, Lleut.-Com. R. L.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

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

Turton, R. H.

Donner, P. W.

MacDohald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)

Wallace, Captain Euan

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

Drewe, C.

McKle, J. H.

Warrender, Sir V.

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Mander, G. le M.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Duggan. H. J.

Mannlngham-Buller, Sir M.

White, H. Graham

Dunglass, Lord

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

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

Dunne, P. R. R.

Markham, S. F.

Williams, C, (Torquay)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Maxwell, S. A.

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

Ellis, Sir G.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel G.

Elliston, G. S.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Wragg, H.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.

Young, A. S. L. (Partlck)

Entwlstle, C. F.

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

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

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

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

Sir George Penny and Lieut. -Colonel

Everard, W. L.

Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Sir A. Lambert Ward.

206

207

NOES.

Adamson, W. M.

Hardle, G. D.

Parker, H. J. H.

Adams, D, (Consett)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

Holland, A.

Potts, J.

Ammon, C. G.

Hollins, A.

Price, M. P.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hopkin, D.

Richards, R (Wrexham)

Banfield, J. W.

Jagger, J.

Rowson, G.

Barr, J.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Sexton, T. M.

Batey, J.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Shinwell, E.

Bellenger, F.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Short, A.

Benson. G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Silkin, L.

Brooke, W.

Kelly, W. T.

Silverman, S. S.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S, Ayrshire)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Burke, W. A.

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cassells, T.

Lathan, G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Chater, D.

Leach, W.

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

Cluse, W. S.

Leonard, W.

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

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Leslie, J. R.

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

Cocks, F. S.

Logan, D. G.

Thorne, W.

Compton, J.

Linn, W.

Thurtle, E.

Daggar, G.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Tinker, J, J.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McGhee, H. G.

Viant, S. P.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

MacLaren, A.

Watkins, F. C.

Day, H.

Maclean, N.

Watson, W. McL.

Ede, J. C.

Malnwarlng, W. H.

Welsh, J. C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marklew, E.

Whiteley, W.

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

Marshall, F.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Gallacher, W.

Mathers, G.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gardner, B. W.

Montague, F.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Garro-Jones, G. M.

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

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Muff, G.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Groves, T. E.

Oliver, G. H.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Paling, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. John and Mr. Charleton.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Crown Lands Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the Bill be permitted to proceed."

2. "That, in the case of the North West Kent Joint Water Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.
  SEVERN BRIDGE BILL.
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  YORK GAS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, pursuant to the Order of the House this day; Report to lie on the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill re-committed to the Committee of Selection pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

  PILOTAGE AUTHORITIES (LIMITATION OF LIABILITY) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,

  East Lothian County Council Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

  South East Cornwall Water Board Bill,

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill, with Amendments.

  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Glasgow Corporation." [Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 to 1933, relating to the London and North Eastern Railway." [London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute a joint board comprising representatives of the Hammersmith Borough Council and the Corporations of Acton, Barnes and Richmond; to authorise the board to provide and maintain a crematorium; and for other purposes." [Mortlake Crematorium Bill [Lords.]

  MEASUREMENT OF GAS.
  That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely, "That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider whether it is expedient and, if so, in what circumstances and subject to what conditions, to authorise the measurement of gas supplied by gas undertakers to consumers by means of meters so designed as to register in therms instead of in cubic feet."
  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]
  Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
  MORTLAKE CREMATORIUM BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Advisory committee.)
    There shall be an advisory committee consisting of eight persons appointed by the Secretary of State, being persons who appear to him to represent equally the interests of employers and workpeople; and it shall be the duty of this advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State generally as to the operation of this Act and, in particular, as to any complaints which may be received regarding the operation of any authorisation under this Act. —[Mr. Rhys Davies]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.42 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    During the War a great part of our factory legislation was set aside by the Defence of the Realm Regulations and there grew up, for the purpose of the production of munitions, a system whereby women and young persons, in violation of factory legislation, could work what is commonly known as the two-shift system, being so many hours between 6 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock at night. It was thought by those interested in factory legislation that that system would come to an end when the War itself ended, but it was continued, and in 1920 an Act was passed to make what was temporary into a permanent provision. It was provided, however, that the system should come to an end in five years, but each Government in succession has carried it forward under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, so that it has continued to this day. This Bill will make the two-shift system permanent not only for the next five years, but probably for the next quarter of a century.
    Before this Bill was presented there was a Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the two-shift system. There are a goodly number of employers and workpeople who do not like this system at all. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) rather challenges that with a very ominous smile. [Interruption] If the word "menacing"
    216
    is more appropriate, I will leave it at that. I am under the impression that she has championed the two-shift system before. It is no use hon. Members arguing in favour of it until they have tried it themselves in a factory. That is the test always—not whether we think the young people like it or not, but how we should like it if we were in their place. The Departmental Committee issued a unanimous report, but, as far as I know, the two Labour representatives signed it only on the definite understanding that this problem with which we are now dealing was included in the recommendation. The report says:
    "It would be advantageous if a standing advisory body could be constituted by the Secretary of State composed of leading representatives of employers and workers who could be consulted as occasion arose on questions of importance in connection with the application and the operation of the two-shift system."
    I admit that in Committee upstairs it would appear from the Amendment tabled that each application for an order under this scheme would have to come before the advisory committee. If the right hon. Gentleman, who is nearly as good a lawyer as I am, will bear with me, I think that I can prove to him that in future, if our new Clause be carried, it will not be necessary for the Home Office to submit each application for an order to the advisory committee.
    I pass to one or two arguments as to why an advisory committee should be set up, but, before doing so, I want to meet the plea of the Under-Secretary of State in Committee upstairs. He said that the Home Office were quite willing to set up an advisory committee, but they did not want the committee to be mentioned in an Act of Parliament. He said that that was new. Since we came back after the last General Election I have found a, splendid argument to combat that point of view. I was a Member of the Committee on the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill, and the first thing with which we were confronted was that the President of the Board of Trade was extaordinarily eloquent in proposing to insert in that Bill an advisory committee. If the advisory committees to which the hon. Gentleman objected had never before been mentioned in law, we have started a new chapter in legislation, and we have now an ex-

    217
    cellent precedent in the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill Where an advisory committee is Mentioned in the body of the Bill. I have been on several advisory committees. I sat for years on an advisory Committee of the Ministry of Health On the National Health Insurance Scheme, and I am under the impression that that august body is actually mentioned in the Act of Parliament. Therefore, the argument that the advisory committee is not mentioned in previous Acts of Parliament will not avail the Home Office to-day. Why does the right hon. Gentleman say, on the one hand, that he does not object to an advisory committee, but, oh the other hand, he objects to putting it into an Act of Parliament. He thinks that he can satisfy us by saying, "I will see that it is set up; but you must not put it into the Act of Parliament"? Let me tell him frankly that I believe there is a little element of the stubbornness of the Yorkshireman about him on this score. I am hoping that to-day we shall be able to mollify his attitude.
    We are very keen on the advisory committee because we are not sure—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be offended—that the present Government will do very much for the factory operatives of this country unless they are compelled by Statute so to do. His promise to set, up an advisory committee Merely comprised in a statement on the Floor Of the House of Commons Will not convince us that the present Government will implement the promise. If employers of capitalists on the Floor of the House got a promise from the Government upon anything; the Government would implement it, but we are speaking to-day in respect of thousands of women and young persons who have Very little influence,. if any, in the present Government: We are anxious, therefore, to put this provision in the Act. of Parliament, because we are satisfied that the Home Office secure excellent advice from people who are actually in contact with factory work. It would ill become me to bring any criticism against the factory inspectors, because I believe that they are the best body of inspectors employed by the State in this country. I have yet to learn that, when the employer and his workpeople come to the Horne office to seek air order, it is the duty of a factory inspect-
    218
    tor when inspecting the factory to decide as to whether the two-shift system should be introduced;
    The right hon. Gentleman really ought to admit our plea and insert the proposed new Clause in the Bill. I am sure that if it is necessary for a Government Department to be advised upon many problems by other boards, there is every reason why it should be advised by representatives of labour and employés on this fundamental issue of whether women and young persons should be employed between 6 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock at night. We.' are` definitely opposed to the introduction of the two-shift system. I could understand the introduction of the system to cope with prosperity where employers were incapable of meeting all the demands upon them by the markets of the world, but in adversity, when 2,000,000 people are out of work, what is the use of arguing that employers ought to work their women and young persons between 6 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock at night? Not only are we introducing this system into our legislation, and making it permanent for the next quarter of a century wrong, but if we are to have a two-shift system the Home Office ought to be ready and willing to accept our proposal to set up an advisory committee, so that the Department may be guided by the people Who are actually in daily contact with the factories.
    3.57 p.m.
    Mr. BROOKE: I would make a strong appeal to the Home Secretary to accept the proposed new Clause which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and that of myself. My hon. Friend has made out an overwhelming case for the Home Secretary to incorporate the Clause in the Bill. He stated clearly and truly that we on these benches are opposed to the two-shift system. On the Second Reading of the Bill we made our views clear, but nobody can deny that in the Committee stage upstairs we accepted the Bill as having been passed by a democratic majority of this House, and we sought every opportunity to improve the Bill and to criticise it in a constructive way. At the first meeting of the Standing Committee we proposed an Amendment which We are now seeking to incorporate in this Clause. The

    219
    Home Secretary on that occasion repeated the promise that he made on the Second Reading, that if the Bill became law he would set up a committee but said he did not want to incorporate it in the Bill itself. We are very anxious on this special point. Many of us on these benches have knowledge of thousands of women and young persons who will come within the provisions of the Bill. We therefore want a guarantee and safeguard for our people that such a committee will be set up, and the only satisfactory guarantee to us is that it should be included in the Bill.
    We are not asking the Home Secretary to set up a precedent. Many of these committees exist in Government Departments to-day, and hon. Members on these benches have served on such committees for many years and have rendered great and useful service in many directions. My hon. Friend mentioned that the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill incorporates an advisory committee to advise the Spindles Board. I understand that at the Ministry of Transport there is a similar committee which advises on traffic problems, and that in the Ministry of Health there is a committee to advise the Minister on housing. The committee that we suggest would not consider every single application from every employer who wished to operate the two-shift system. We realise that it would be quite impracticable for an advisory committee to do work of that kind. What we ask for is a committee representative of all the interests in industry, a committee representing the employers, the organised workpeople and the Factory Department of the Home Office.
    If the Home Secretary would set up such an advisory committee it would be of real service to him as the Minister who has to be responsible for the extension of the two-shift system in industry. If the two-shift system is to extend, as I believe it will, and is to become a permanent part of the industrial system, a great many problems of administration will arise, and it is of such problems that we believe the committee should keep an oversight. For instance, I believe that if it is made easier for the system to be applied, there would be a, rush of applications, from industries where it is at present in, operation. and
    220
    many applications for its extension in industries where at the moment it is not in operation. In cases like those the advisory committee could inquire why there should be a claim for the general extension of the system or why it should be introduced into any industry where it is not now operating. It would thus be of great use to the Home Secretary.
    There are many other matters that such a, committee would be able to consider. We have never yet had any reliable evidence as to the effect of the two-shift system on the health of women and young people. If the system is to be considerably extended one duty of this advisory committee would be to watch the effect on the health of young people of 16 and women. Particularly would the committee render useful service in watching the conditions which are imposed in different industries on the granting of permits to introduce the two-shift system. We have to be very jealous in granting these permits and very careful to see that the conditions laid down by the Home Office are rigorously upheld by the employers. The committee could consider the conditions which ought to be laid down, whether the conditions are stringent enough, whether they are too stringent, or whether new conditions ought to be imposed. There are many ways in which this committee could render useful service to the Home Secretary and to the people in the industries concerned. Those of us who oppose the system as a whole, and the people who are going to work under it, would feel a greater measure of confidence if we knew that there was a committee containing representatives of the workers watching the operation of the system in industry.
    4.6 p.m.
    Miss LLOYD GEORGE: As a member of the Departmental Committee whose duty it was to investigate this question of the two shift system I would like to say a word on this proposed new Clause. The Departmental Committee certainly took the view that it would be very useful to have a standing advisory committee to advise upon the working of the system, and hon. Members will see that we suggested that such a committee should be constituted by the Secretary of State. On the Second Reading of the Bill I myself strongly urged that provision for the committee should be included in the Bill.

    221
    The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said just now that he thought the Labour Members who served on the Departmental Committee gave their unanimous support to the report of that Committee only on the understanding that the advisory committee was to be made a statutory committee. I cannot help feeling that if either of the two representatives of Labour on the Departmental Committee had such a reservation in mind he would certainly have mentioned the fact in this House. I think that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) would have thought it necessary if he was going to make such a reservation, to have made that perfectly clear in his Second Reading speech. If my memory serves me aright he made no mention of the advisory committee at all. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member was not on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill. Otherwise he might have there made his position a little clearer.
    But I maintain that the position has been considerably altered since the Second Reading. The structure of the Bill has been altered, and in some very important particulars. First of all, one of the most important functions of the Standing Committee was to decide the method by which the consent of the workers was to be obtained. The Government accepted an Amendment of the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) that the method should be definitely incorporated in the Bill and that the consent of the workers should be obtained by secret ballot. That seems to alter the situation very considerably. It seems to me to be far the most vital matter which will have to be considered by the advisory committee. It covers a great deal, including the all-important question of wages and their adjustment to meet the shorter hours. All that will be a matter of negotiation before the application is made; and if the workers are not satisfied that the conditions laid down are reasonable they always have the option of voting against the working of the system which is provided for in the secret ballot.
    It seems to me that as long as that particular thing has been clearly established in the Bill it does not matter whether the advisory committee is statutory or not. The Home Secretary has given an undertaking that he, is going to
    222
    set up a committee. The hon. Member for Westhoughten says he does not believe that the Government are very much concerned with factory conditions. I myself do not take any better view of the Government, probably, than the hon. Gentleman, but I do think that it is a model of what even a bad Government can do if it only follows good guidance. I do not really think that there is anything very sinister behind the Home Secretary's attitude on this matter. He made it abundantly clear that there never was any desire on the part of the Home Office to exclude from the Bill anything which should properly be made a matter for legislative action. The hon. Member for Westhoughton said it was imperative to have the advisory committee included in the Bill so as to make sure of it, but if I remember aright he said that upstairs in the Standing Committee and in the same breath said that certain specific provisions in Acts of Parliament had been ignored by the present Government. Therefore I really think, looking at it from his point of view, that it does not really much matter whether the advisory committee is included in the Bill or not, for according to the hon. Member's statement he is not going to make sure of it either way.
    I am glad that the hon. Member made it clear this afternoon that he has retreated from the position he took up in the Standing Committee, that this advisory committee should concern itself with individual cases and orders that are brought before it. Obviously when you have 300 orders, perhaps, brought up in one year, the committee would have to sit, if not every day at least several times a week. The hon. Member said it was very important to have a statutory committee because there had been no evidence before the Departmental Committee that the two shift system was not detrimental in its effects on the health of the workers. As a matter of fact the evidence was directly to the contrary. There was no substantial evidence that the system was detrimental to the health of the workers. I mention that for this reason: I do not know exactly what constitution the hon. Member has in mind for this advisory committee. The hon. Member said that he wished the committee to be made up of representatives of the workers and employers. I do not know whether they could be any more

    223
    rightly able to decide upon this matter of the health of the workers than would a committee which included a doctor and a social worker who had made a study of the question all her life.
    I, myself, can see a great disadvantage in. making this suggested committee a. statutory committee. I think the hon. Member himself must also feel the disadvantage. He has mentioned his experience of advisory committees. I happen to be a member of two advisory committees, one a statutory committee and the other appointed by a Minister. The first was set up under the Housing Act of 1935. Its terms of reference limit it to definite functions, beyond which it cannot go. If in the course of time new and expected problems arise which could usefully be dealt with by that committee they are bound by Statute and they cannot deal with those new problems. The other body of which I am a member is an advisory committee appointed by the Postmaster-General. That was set up in 1921, but since then its function has been greatly enlarged and there are now practically no questions affecting the Post Office with which it cannot deal.
    In this Bill we are instituting a. new system in the industrial life of this country. As the system develops—as I feel sure it will—problems of all kinds that have never been visualised by anyone may arise, and they will not be covered by the suggested committee's terms of reference. If the committee's functions are laid down by Statute the committee will be entirely prevented from dealing with those new problems unless the Statute is altered. For these reasons I believe that a standing body appointed by the Secretary of State would be much more useful and would fulfil far more completely the functions which hon. Members desire to have fulfilled.
    4.15 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I am glad that this question should be thrashed out on the Floor of the House, and I realise that every point of view should be brought before us. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has given me on this occasion the character of a; very obstinate man, but I can assure him that the conclusion, that. I have reached is not the
    224
    result of blind obstinacy, but of the best study that I could give to. what is admittedly a rather difficult problem, It may be that, before the Debate on this new Clause concludes, fresh light may break upon me, and, if so, I am open to receive it. I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) whose approval of the attitude of the Government is the more encouraging, because it is administered. with such a discriminating judgment. She cannot be accused in this matter of offering a blind and possibly foolish support to the Government, having regard to the temptations which she may find in that quarter of the House to look into the shortcomings of my colleague and myself. Therefore, her support is specially to be welcomed.
    It is desirable that the House should. realise how this matter arises and, therefore, I may be excused if I state how I regard it. The first question is, did. the Departmental Committee contemplate and did it propose that there should be a statutory advisory committee? On the Second Reading more than one speech was made from the benches opposite which complained that the Bill as we had introduced it did not carry out the intentions of the Departmental Committee, among other things, because it contained no Clause which created an advisory committee. I am not quite sure whether that view is still persisted in, but, if it is, I should like to deal with it and dispose of it. There is no justification for saying that the Departmental Committee recommended. that a. Clause should be inserted in. the new legislation. to provide for an advisory, committee. There are two places, in the report of the committee, which was a unanimous report, which deal with the matter, the passage quoted by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, which is in the concluding portion of. the report, paragraph 13, and also an earlier and fuller passage, on page 30.
    As I pointed out on the Second Reading, nobody could read those paragraphs clearly without noting that the Departmental Committee, while it was suggesting certain amendments of the law, which we, have. endeavoured to include in this new added to that a. recommendation, which was, not itself a proposed amendment of the law, but was couched in terms which were a recommendation

    225
    to the executive and a recommendation which I stated on the Second Reading of the Bill I was most glad to accept and would undertake to carry out. The committee say, on page 30:
    "We desire, in conclusion, to offer a suggestion of a general character."
    That is, a suggestion of a general character.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the final paragraph which says:
    "A provision of a more positive character."
    Sir J. SIMON: I will do my best to read what is relative and complete, but let us begin at the beginning. The committee say:
    "We desire in conclusion to offer a suggestion of a general character. It appears to us certain that from time to time questions will arise in connection with the working of the shift system, on which the Home Office, as the Department responsible for the administration of the system, would find it advantageous to consult leading representatives of employers and workers, with a view to arriving at solutions which would be generally acceptable and so facilitating the smooth working of the system."
    Then they give as an illustration the suggestion that the Advisory Committee might help by advising as to the method by which the opinion of the workpeople should be obtained. That matter has now been put beyond doubt by a provision, inserted during the Committee stage upstairs, that that method shall be a secret ballot. What was the passage to which the hon. Member wished me to call attention?
    Mr. DAVIES: The last paragraph.
    Sir J. SIMON: This paragraph:
    "A provision of a more positive character, such as we suggest, which would secure for the Department representation of both points of view on any questions that may arise and would help to enlist the co-operation of both sides in the application and operation of the system, might, we think, be fruitful and replace with advantage the existing procedure of a joint representation."
    That passage, which the hon. Member thinks might assist us, follows an intermediate passage which says:
    "There is a provision in the, existing Statute which allows of joint representations being made to the Secretary of State by organisations representing a majority of the
    226
    employers and workers in an industry that Orders allowing the two shift system should not be made for that industry. No such representations have ever been made and the provision has remained inoperative."
    When one looks at paragraph 13, on page 32—I do not see how anyone could suggest that it was intended that the Secretary of State should propose, and that Parliament in this present month should define once and for all in the framework of the Bill, exactly what the functions of that Committee should be. The report further says:
    "It would he advantageous if a standing advisory body could be constituted by the Secretary of State, composed of leading representatives of employers and workers, who could be consulted as occasion arose on questions of importance in connection with the application and operation of the two shift system."
    As the hon. Lady opposite has pointed out, the hon. Member far Mansfield (Mr. Charles Brown), the only hon. Member who served on the Departmental Committee, drawn from the Benches opposite—
    Mr. KELLY: The hon. Lady was a Member, of the Committee, and she is on this side of the House.
    Sir J. SIMON: I meant the only hon. Member on the Departmental Committee drawn from the official Opposition. His speech on Second Reading will long be remembered for the way he "laid about" him and explained his own opinion, but he never for one moment suggested that anyone contemplated in the Departmental Committee that there should be a Clause in the Bill providing for an advisory committee. Although that is so, I can assure hon. Members opposite that if, any advantage would be gained by it, I. should not in the last mind proposing it—I do not want pedantically to follow the recommendations of the Committee—but the report of the Committee satisfies me that the wiser thing is for the advisory committee to be appointed in the way that such committees are usually appointed and to leave it to the Secretary of State for the time being to settle its functions and its composition. In that way we can be certain of getting a flexibility which we should never get if we endeavoured to define these matters here and now in this Bill.

    227
    Let us look at the proposed new Clause moved by the hon. Member. This is his second effort. He proposes that the advisory committee shall consist of eight persons, to represent equally the interest of the employers and the work-people. Unless I entirely misunderstand the Clause, that means that you cannot have more than eight. Incidentally, eight is an even number, so that if it should unfortunately happen that the four representatives of one party did not happen to agree with the four representatives of the other party, you would have a stalemate at once. No provision is made in the new Clause for an independent chairman. There is no provision for any representative from the Factory Department—I was glad to hear the hon. Member pay a very well-merited compliment to the inspectors of the Factory Department. No provision is made in the Clause for a woman representative, in terms, although this is largely a problem affecting women and girls. No provision is made in the Clause for anyone drawn from services specially concerned with health. I do not know whether four representatives of the work-people and four representatives of the employers would necessarily be specially skilled to determine the problem of whether the two-shift system is or is not bad for health. There was some extremely valuable medical evidence offered by certain witnesses to the Departmental Committee, and when the Committee had heard all the evidence they reported that they could not find any ground for believing that the two-shift system was bad for health.
    Under the new Clause there would be four representatives of the employers and four representatives of the workpeople, and it would be a committee which could not be added to or subtracted from. Is that the way that Parliament is to make provision for dealing with this problem? What is the committee to do? I listened with attention to the very persuasive speech of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Brooke), who described some of the things that the advisory committee might do, but he did not describe what this new Clause says they could do. The Clause says that this committee of four workpeople and four employers—I suppose some would have to be drawn
    228
    from Scotland, because the Bill will apply to Scotland, and some also, I hope, from Wales—must advise:
    "in particular, as to any complaints which may be received regarding the operation of any authorisation under this Act."
    Hitherto, complaints as regards the working of the Factory Acts have been attended to in the first instance by His Majesty's inspectors, under a very skilled Department at-the Home Office, and anyone who is in the least worth his salt as a Home Secretary or Under-Secretary himself takes a close interest in such cases that are brought to his notice. Let us assume that there is a complaint, a manifest, undeniable complaint, which justifies forthwith the cancellation by the Home Secretary of the authorisation that he has given. Such a case might arise, but the new Clause would prevent the Secretary of. State from dealing with a complaint of that sort until he had summoned this advisory committee of four representatives of the employers and four representatives of the workpeople, because according to the Clause he must be advised by the statutory committee:
    "as to any complaints which may be received regarding the operation of any authorisation."
    It is necessary in such cases to act quickly, but according to the new Clause the Secretary of State must not do that. He must allow the admitted evil to go on until he has called this advisory committee together to advise him. I think the whole thing is preposterous. Anyone who has read the new Clause will not be surprised at the hon. Member's declaration that, speaking for himself, he is opposed to the system. We must, however, frame our Bill not on the basis that we are opposed to a system which Parliament is prepared to approve, not that we are opposed to a system which has been in operation since 1920, and which every Government in turn has continued to authorise under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but we must give the system a proper basis on which to work, with proper safeguards. If I were an opponent of the whole system, then I might accept an advisory committee, composed of four representatives of the workpeople and four representatives of the employers, who might be expected in many cases to differ, with the result that the Secretary of State could not move hand or foot.
    Mr. KELLY: It does not say that.
    Mr. MARKLEW: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than that.
    Sir J. SIMON: If the hon. Member will look at the Clause he will see that. There is to be a committee which is to advise the Secretary of State in particular as to any complaints which may be received.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman must read the germane part of the Clause, which is:
    "…and it shall be the duty of this advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State generally as to the operation of this Act."
    He forgets to read that.
    Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps the House will allow me to read that part of the Clause again. It is as follows:
    "…and it shall be the duty of this advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State generally as to the operation of this Act and, in particular, as to any complaints which may be received regarding the operation of any authorisation under this Act."
    I can only submit that those words mean that the Secretary of State has a duty to refer to this body any complaint which may be received regarding the operation of any authorisation under this Act, and to ask for their advice upon it. I am saying that that completely upsets the whole of the administrative methods which are followed in this great Department which has been in the hands of so many Secretaries of State drawn from so many parties. There has never been a case in the whole history of the Factory Acts from beginning to end, where you will find a statutory advisory committee set up, in which Parliament has said that the work which an administrator has to do, advised by his own skilled advisers and helped by the factory inspectors, is only to be done after referring complaints to an advisory committee.
    The reason why I have made these observations—and I am sorry the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite should think they were unfairly made—is to bring to his mind and to the minds of other hon. Members this point, that you cannot put, into an Act of Parliament a precise definition of what an advisory committee is to do without crystallising and limiting its powers. My conception is quite different. My conception is that the Secretary of State will appoint an
    230
    advisory committee, in the way that I described on the Second Reading, and I. shall certainly take the opportunity of consulting with representatives of all the interests concerned. I should have thought such a committee would have been likely to consist partly of employers and partly of workpeople with an independent chairman, that it would have been a body to which from time to time the Secretary of State might have referred particular questions upon which he might feel that it would be helpful to have advice, that the committee would sometimes have made some original suggestions, that cases might have arisen where the Secretary of State would have added to the committee, in view of the trade involved or of the part of the country from which the problem came, members for that special purpose.
    None of those things could be done under this proposed new Clause. If you want to do that, you must authorise the carrying of a Bill which does not itself define the precise composition of the committee or its functions, and you must accept the assurance of the Home Office, which I gave at the first possible moment, that we would carry out the recommendation of the report and constitute an advisory committee accordingly. I will gladly listen to what other hon. Members; may have to say, because my mind is not in the least closed if I have made a mistake, but my belief is that if such a committee is to be properly worked, it will be better done by the system usually employed, the system which I described on the Second Reading of the Bill and in Committee upstairs, than if the House attempts to define statutorily what the committee is to do or how it is to be composed. I hope the House will confirm the view taken by the Committee upstairs, where the suggestion was not in the same form—indeed, I think it was in a better form than the, present proposal—and reject the proposal of the hon. Member.
    There is one last point. When this was suggested by the Departmental Committee, the principal difficulty which they had in mind—and it is a very real one—was this: How are you to ascertain fairly the opinion of the workpeople concerned I It is a very serious point, and hon. Members opposite, as well as hon. Members on this side, are quite right to look at it very closely. I have myself done a certain amount of work on it and tried

    231
    to understand it. It is Very important, if yon are to, establish this neat system permanently instead of continuing it year by year under an annual Act, that you should secure that it is carried out under proper conditions, which involve getting the real judgment of the workpeople. In Committee upstairs we inserted words which secured that it should be by secret ballot, and it was this very problem of what would be the best way of finding out what the Workpeople concerned really wished to do which was a reason, the first reason, perhaps the principal reason, why the Departmental Committee suggested the appointment of an advisory committee.
    That particular point has been disposed of, but there are plenty of other occasions upon which, I am sure, an advisory committee would be most helpful. I would myself, in the interests of the administration of this system, strongly urge hon. Members of this House who wish this system to be given a fair trial to realise that questions may arise which it is very difficult for any of us to define now, and it is much better that the advisory committee should be one which is really able to deal with each new problem of that sort when it arises: I must sincerely state to the House, because it is not a matter on which anybody need be obstitate—it does not matter to me—what is the view of those who advise me in the Department which the hon. Gentleman opposite has so highly praised, that it would be a much more efficient method if we did not attempt the difficult task of defining the terms of reference of this advisory committee in the Bill or of deciding What its composition should be, but that we should do what I am sure the Departmental Committee intended; namely, that it should be set up with a very much more flexible constitution than even the best drafted Clause could provide.
    I Understand that the hon. Member opposite, in putting this Clause forward, is ready to consider any necessary Amendments which would make it slightly more effectively framed, and I am not criticising his words because I think they are faulty, but because they bring to mind the real point, which is that is not a wise thing to try to define the constitution or the functions of this advisory committee in set terms at present, and for that reason I hope the
    232
    House will take the view of the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey, who was a member of the Departmental Committee, and reject this proposed new Clause.
    4.39 p.m.
    Mr. MARKLEW: I represent a constituency where a great number of women and young persons employed who in all probability inky be affected by this Bill if it becomes an Act. I regret very much indeed that I was unfortunate in not being able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading of the Bill, and also that I had no chance of expressing my opinions on this Bill when it was passing through Committee upstairs. However, I have been deeply concerned with these provisions, and with the absence of certain provisions which Members on this side are anxious to see incorporated in the Bill. I have read very carefully indeed the proposed new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and I must confess that its wording does not appear to me to be entirely satisfactory. Yet while I did sit and listen with great patience to the first part of the Minister's speech in dealing with the proposed new Clause, and, I may say with some measure of satisfaction, I listened at first with some trepidation, knowing the reputation of the Government and how very difficult it is sometimes to get agreements implemented that are not specifically laid down in a Bill.
    At the same time I admit that to some extent I was mollified and prepared in a measure to accept the promise that the right hon. Gentleman made, that he would himself set up this advisory committee, but I regret to say that when he came to discuss the terms of the proposed new Clause itself, his attitude so changed that it wrought a complete change in my own attitude of mind, and I felt that after all I could not allow the occasion to pass without drawing attention to the circumstance, at any rate, that the Secretary of State is not very favourably disposed towards the proposals of Members on this side of the House. We are conscious, of course, of our own deficiencies, we are conscious of our limitations, and we are sometimes rather bitterly conscious of the causes of those limitations and deficiencies. We regret that advantages possessed by hon. Mem-

    233
    bers opposite, including the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, are advantages which have not been our advantages, and consequently we expect, not suave scorn to be poured upon our efforts under the pretence of a desire to help, but that those who have great gifts, especially when they have had great advantages for the cultivation of those gifts, should prove the sincerity of their profession of a desire to help by some genuine effort to help, instead of by pouring scorn on the efforts of those less capable than themselves.
    At least there is no lack of honesty upon these benches, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared to meet us with the same honest and candid consideration of the proposed new Clause and had indicated his willingness to help us in the framing of a better Clause, I do not think he would have found us unwilling to have met him more than half way. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I spew in terms of some heat, because of the recollection of a past by no means free from painful experiences, and say that nothing is more calculated to foster and develop and call forth expressions of anger as a result of those painful experiences in the past than to be compelled to witness the spectacle of men who share the advantages which the Secretary of State shares, men who have great gifts, and who, instead of using them to elucidate points that ought to be familiar and capable of being dealt with so by himself, use their great gifts rather to belittle and make to appear insignificant and incapable hon. Members on this side who have not had the advantages which he has had.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am very sorry that any hon. Member should feel so, and if the hon. Member feels it sincerely I am sure he will allow me to say how ninth I regret it. But I am afraid he has not quite followed me. I do not take the view that if different words were employed, it would be a good thing to add this Clause to the Bill. I have tried to explain to the Douse why I take the view, which I think is widely shared, that it would be better not to have any such Clause inserted in the Bill, and that nobody at this stage could produce a Clause which defined exactly what the advisory committee should do or how it should be constituted. I regret that the
    234
    hon. Member opposite should have felt hurt at anything that I said.
    Mr. MARKLEW: I accept the Home Secretary's protestation that he has no desire to wound anybody's feelings or to treat with scorn their humble efforts to improve legislation. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman tried to show that the proposed new Clause had certain implications which he, with his legal mind, must have understood it did not really contain. It is true that the Clause relates to certain duties which might be performed satisfactorily by an advisory committee, but it by no means precludes the Secretary of State or the Department from carrying out their respective duties. Under the Clause the Secretary of State himself would nominate the Committee and, therefore, I cannot see the objection to it. There may be legal objections which do not present themselves to the ordinary lay mind. I listened to them, and I confess that they have no weight with an ordinary plain-thinking and perhaps, unfortunately, a plain-speaking person like myself. I hope the Committee will agree with the Clause.
    4.48 p.m.
    Mr. J. HALL: I find it difficult to appreciate the unwillingness of the Secretary of State to agree to the setting up of an advisory committee. As far as I can judge, an advisory committee is absolutely essential if you are to secure for the workers under a two-shift system what is called a fair crack of the whip. I do not think there is much likelihood of the workers being able to express themselves by means of a secret ballot. English industry is changing and the two-shift system in the future affecting new industries will bring tremendous difficulties for women and young girls. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) said that the Committee received evidence to the effect that the two-shift system would not have an evil effect on the health of girls and young women. I do not know whether the Committee had any evidence from North Wales, but in my judgment, after two years of experience, I think that a two-shift system will seriously affect the health of girls and young women. It has been in operation in places where people have been aggregated in large numbers, and girls and young women have had to go only short

    235
    distances to their work. It is an entirely different position in North Wales. The new industries are not being established in big industrial centres—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is dealing with an Amendment which comes later. This Clause deals with the setting up of an advisory committee.
    Mr. HALL: I was trying to deal with a question which would be dealt with by such an advisory committee, the conditions which would affect the health of the workpeople—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The advisory committee might have to deal with all sorts of subjects, and if we were to discuss them all we should take up more time than we ought to do on this Clause.
    Mr. HALL: I hope to deal with North Wales and the question of new industries later.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is an Amendment on Clause 1, page 2, to leave out lines 18 to 26, which deals with the point.
    Mr. HALL: I will await my opportunity on a later Amendment. I feel that an advisory committee should- be set up, because one of the difficulties in the past has been to get from the Home Office that attention to these labour matters which is desirable.
    4.53 p.m.
    Dr. HOWITT: The Departmental Committee were in favour of setting up a committee to advise the Home Office, and for some time I have not been able to understand why an advisory committee should not be in the Bill. Contrary to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Marklew) the speech of the Home Secretary has made it quite clear to me why it would be much better if the committee is not actually put into the Bill. It is obvious that the composition suggested in the Clause will not do, and that the Home Secretary should have power to alter the composition of the committee for the consideration of different questions as they crop up. I am sure the Opposition, like myself, want to safeguard the workers and to make a success of the double-shift system. I think they will be following their own wishes more completely if they withdraw the Clause
    236
    and constitute a committee which would have more power to watch over the welfare and health of the workers. I have seen no deleterious effects on the health of people who work under the double-shift system and, indeed, by having two shifts you make more certain that good conditions for the workers will prevail. I hope the Clause will not be pressed, because I do not think it is in the interest of the workers.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. KELLY: I am amazed at some of the statements of the Home Secretary. His argument against the Clause that it makes no mention of women, of Wales or of Scotland certainly shows the poverty of his arguments. If he desired to have Scottish representatives, they could be appointed, so also as regards Wales, and also as regards women. It is difficult to understand why he used such an argument unless he had no other against the proposal. He said that the proposal would prevent his Department acting quickly. I am delighted to hear that at last the Home Office is prepared to act quickly when dealing with labour matters. It will be a new departure. In the past, when we have pointed out that employers and great combines were operating the two-shift system illegally, we could not prevail on the Home Office to take action quickly. It was trade union action which compelled these people to cease operating the two-shift system which they had introduced illegally. I suggest that an advisory committee would be able to deal with complaints which may not be illegal, but which may be most disadvantageous to the people in the industry. If there is anything illegal being done, surely the Home Secretary is not going to consult an advisory committee. I hope he will take action at once whenever there is any illegality.
    Really I find it difficult to understand any of the points put forward by the Home Secretary. He said that there would be a difficulty as to the representation of particular trades. I notice that he did not appoint the Commission with any regard to particular trades, although he is proposing to shelter himself behind the signature of an hon. Member on this side of the House, a representative of the engineers union, who signed that report. The Home

    237
    Office is proposing to shelter themselves behind that signature. Those who have had experience of the two-shift system since its first operation in 1920 know that there are many things attaching to it which need investigation, but which might not be considered by the Home Office sufficient to justify them in cancelling these certificates. There are conditions which may require remedy from the point of view of the workpeople. Those are matters to be considered by an advisory committee. The suggestion of the Home Office is to bring the factory inspectors into the discussion as to whether or not certain conditions are unfavourable for the workpeople., If you are going to bring the factory inspectors into the discussion well and good, but once you bring civil servants into the field in connection with this matter we may have to attack or we may have to approve of whatever action they take.
    I am opposed to the two-shift system because I have seen it in operation and I have not known of any advantage in it to the workpeople. Many of us thought that we had at last got away from the 6 a.m. start, but under this system a 6 a.m. start can be made operative for young people at 16. As was so well pointed out by the hon. Member who submitted the proposed new Clause, we are asking young people to work under those conditions while we have some 2,000,000 unemployed in the country. We shall be cutting at the roots of family life in this country if we go back to a system which means hours of work starting at 6 o'clock in the morning and ending at 10 o'clock in the evening. We have the promise of the present occupant of the office of Home Secretary that an advisory committee may be set up but no reason has been advanced against a committee such as is proposed in the new Clause to advise the Home Secretary on these matters.
    The question of the secret ballot has been mentioned. I hope hon. Members realise what this secret ballot means. It is to be taken among the people who happen to be in a particular employment at a particular moment and they can decide that the two-shift system is to be operated in that particular establishment or department. Every one of those who vote in that way may be discharged from that employment but the system will still
    238
    be in operation for people who never had the chance of voting on the proposal. They will have to take the employment, because the Ministry of Labour will insist that unless they do so they will be robbed of benefit.
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think the hon. Member is now going rather wide of the proposed new Clause.
    Mr. KELLY: I hope not to go against your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am only pointing out one of the matters upon which such a committee might very well advise the Home Secretary. I wish to show the possibility of injustices being inflicted upon people. The Home Secretary has referred to certain things in regard to which he could not act until the advisory committee had reported if our proposal were accepted. But these are matters upon which the advice should be taken immediately. Apparently the Home Secretary refuses to accept his proposal merely because it is something new. I do not see why the House should not be prepared to adopt a proposal even though it is new. I hope the House will divide upon this question. I would like to see the House deciding to put into the Bill something which will alleviate any hardships and injustices inflicted upon boys and girls who are to be forced into these factories at 6 o'clock in the morning and may have to work until 10 o'clock at night without having those reasonable opportunities for education and recreation to which they are entitled.
    5.5 p.m.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Anyone who had not a real knowledge of the Bill and the proposed new Clause would imagine from the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) that, if we passed the Bill without the Clause, young people in this country would be compelled to work from 6 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night. Of course, nothing of the sort is proposed. If they start work at 6 o'clock in the morning they will be free for the afternoon and will be able to enjoy some daylight for their pleasure and their leisure in the winter months which is not possible at present. But I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into a discussion of the Bill or the two-shift system as a whole. I wish to confine my remarks to the proposed new

    239
    Clause. I wonder why those who put down the Clause did not adopt the wording of the Departmental Committee's report which suggested that an advisory body should be set up to advise the Horne Secretary
    "as occasion arose on questions of importance in connection with the application and operation of the system."
    I suppose hon. Members opposite did not think that that recommendation went far enough. The Clause seems to go a great deal further. We are told that it is not intended that any complaint which may he received shall go before the committee but that is the effect of the Clause as I read it. Any complaint must go to the committee and that would not be a workable arrangement, as I think hon. Members opposite themselves have agreed. The hon. Member for Rochdale suggested that under the Bill we were not to have any advisory committee. I do pot think that those who have heard this Debate or the discussions in Committee, if they spoke with care and thought, choosing their words, would say that there was not to be an advisory committee. We have had an assurance from the Home Secretary that there is to be an advisory committee and he has explained the reasons why, if this Clause were put into the Bill, it would not do what hon. Members want it to do.
    The Home Secretary has already pointed out the difficulties that would arise if you were to have representatives on such a body from different parts of the country. If the advisory body is to he a rigid statutory body consisting only of eight people who are to represent employers and employé I do not think it will he sufficient. That is not the type of committee we desire. The Home Secretary and also hon. Members opposite asked what was the use of talking about a representative from Scotland and a representative from Wales. If you are to have on this statutory body only four members representing the workpeople and four members representing the employers and if you have one from Scotland and one from Wales on each side that will only leave two on each side, How are you going to select two people capable of advising on all this wide variety of subjects? It will be necessary to have people who can deal with the
    240
    educational side and the health side as well as with the industrial side of the various questions which will arise.
    I feel that the proposed new Clause would not fulfil the purpose which we would all desire an advisory committee to fulfil as laid down in the Departmental Committee's report. If it is to be fixed at eight members and if it is to be confined to those who appear to represent employers and workpeople respectively, it will not be satisfactory. I would like to see on such a committee people who, for want of a better term, are called social workers and who have more to do with the regulation of these matters on the social side than in other respects—people such as those who gave evidence to the Departmental Committee who know the needs of the situation from different paints of view and who are acquainted with particular local interests and requirements. I think a rigid statutory committee of the kind proposed in the new Clause would not be a help but a, hindrance. If this scheme is to be worked at all, we all want to see it worked for the best and we want to get the best advice in working it. I know that a great many hon. Members opposite do not approve of the system at all and would vote against the Bill as a whole, as they did on the Second Reading, but if the Bill is to pass, and if the system which has been tried for many years is to become a permanent part of our industrial system, I am sure they will agree that we want it to be tried under the best possible conditions.
    I suggest that if they give further consideration to the wording of this Clause and to the inflexibility of the body which it proposes, they must recognise that it would not be the kind of body to give the Minister the best possible advice. Had they adopted the wording of the Departmental Committee it would have gone a long way with me but I submit to the House that a consideration of the actual wording of the Clause shows how difficult it would be to put into the Bill a. definition of a committee such as we want. When we have the assurance of the Home Secretary that there is to be an advisory body I do not see why we should adopt this proposal. We have embodied in this Bill practically all the suggestions of the Departmental Committee. We have gone further in some respects and have been more definite on certain points. If the

    241
    advisory committee has not been put into the Bill, I think it is desirable that it should be a flexible committee rather than a rigid statutory body. I want a committee which can look ahead and deal with difficulties that may arise in the future. I hope that the proposed new Clause will be withdrawn and that a better committee than that proposed will be set up for the benefit of all the people who are to work this system.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: The point which we have to consider is whether it would be better to set up an advisory committee under the Bill or whether these matters should be left to a voluntary committee. I am by no means impressed by the arguments which have been used against the wording of the Clause, and I thought the Home Secretary took a rather biased view of the question. He pointed out all the possible disadvantages of the Clause and said its drafting was restrictive from a legal point of view. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that this is not a matter on which we can get very heated. He said he has an open mind, and as long as it is not open at both ends, I do not mind very much. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if we could convince him that the best method would be to put a Clause of this nature in the Bill, he would have no difficulty in finding the right wording for it. It is quite true that this legislation has been carried on for a period of 16 years and that it has been renewed from year to year, but it has never been really acceptable to the trade unionists of this country. When the Labour Government was in office many of us were rather disappointed that they continued the Bill from year to year, and we were rather amused by the arguments which they used to persuade the House to allow the Bill to be carried on.
    Now, however, we have finished with the Measure as a temporary one and it is to be made a permanent part of the law. Now it is to be part and parcel of the law, there may, and I think there probably will, be an extension of the two-shift system to many trades and industries apart from those in which it is already in operation, and that being the case, I am satisfied in my own mind that an advisory committee is absolutely necessary. It is not so much a question of an advisory committee receiving complaints
    242
    on what is within the Act, but, in the words of this Clause,
    "complaints which may be received regarding the operation of any authorisation under this Act."
    This two-shift system has been in operation in certain trades and industries, and has been applied chiefly by firms already having the reputation of being pretty good employers. It is now proposed to widen the scope of this Measure. Let me in this connection refer to the baking industry, on which I am competent to speak. The development which is now taking place in the baking industry is that the small employers are being wiped out and the tendency is towards centralisation. You are beginning to get factory-made cakes which, incidentally, speaking as an expert, I would not recommend to any Member of this House. If that development continues there might be a two-shift system, and then there would be factories in which practically the whole of the employés would be women and girls. This Bill proposes to allow small children—I think I may call them—of 16 years of age to come under the operation of the two-shift system. They are to be allowed to work on the afternoon shift up till 10 o'clock at night.
    I am not at all sure whether we should not be well advised to have included in this Bill a Clause setting up this advisory committee for the purpose of inquiring into the operation of this Bill so far as it affects the well-being and the moral and social welfare of small children of 16 years of age who leave a factory at 10 o'clock at night and who, in many instances, have to spend half an hour, three-quarters of an hour, or an hour in getting home. If we are to have this Bill—and if the Government are determined to have it, they will have it, of course—our duty on this side is to try to safeguard as far as we can the interests of all concerned. I do not agree with some of my friends on this side of the House who necessarily think that the Secretary of State for the Home Department is less sympathetic on this matter than we are ourselves. I do not think anything of the kind. I have had experience of the Horne Office under many Governments and I say in all sincerity that the Home Office have always been willing and ready, irrespective of the Government in office, to listen to representations on matters of this sort.

    243
    I have some doubt as to the voluntary advisory committee, as to the powers it is to be given and the things it will be given to do. I have some doubts as to whether it will see this matter as I see it, that it is not only the strict letter of the law that requires attention, but rather all the effect which a Bill of this nature has on the lives of these very young children. I am very sorry that 16 years of age is in this Bill at all; I see no great necessity for it and I think 18 years of age would have been quite all right. I was not convinced by the arguments used by the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), who has spoken against this Clause. I regret very much indeed that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) is prevented by illness from being present, because we would have liked very much to have heard his views on this particular matter. It may be that the hon. Member for Mansfield was prepared to support this Measure, but I think we have a right to say that if he were here this afternoon he might be supporting us in setting up a statutory advisory committee under this Bill. We are just as much justified in believing he would take our point of view as hon. Members opposite are in believing he would take their point of view. In any case, during the discussions which have taken place on this Clause I feel that a, great deal of respect has been paid to the Departmental Committee. This is one of those remarkable occasions when all the recommendations of a Departmental Committee appear to coincide with the views of the Home Office and the Secretary of State.
    Sir J. SIMON: We adopted their views.
    Mr. BANFIELD: If that be the case, it is a compliment to the Departmental Committee. I am rather inclined to put it to the Secretary of State that the Departmental Committee was guided so carefully by those in charge that the views of the right hon. Gentleman were imperceptibly impressed upon the Committee. I do not know whether that is the case, because I did not serve upon the Committee, but I have known Departmental Committees to make excellent reports on various matters and Secretaries of State to say that it is im-
    244
    possible to accept their recommendations. Perhaps it is unfortunate for us on this side of the House that our own representative on the Committee saw eye to eye with the remainder of the members, but I do wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that because this report was unanimous he must not believe it really expresses the feelings of those of us who represent the workpeople in industry. We are compelled by the force of circumstances and by a Government majority to accept this Bill very unwillingly. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter again. He will get his majority on this Clause, but in view of what I have said this afternoon, I beg him to see whether there is not some way and some form of words which would satisfy us that these young people, particularly these girls of 16, are to be protected.
    A great deal has been said about the secret ballot. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) mentioned this in her speech, but unfortunately some of us who know the ins and out of industry, who represent work-people and who have negotiated with employers all our lives, know that work-people can be given secret ballots and that inevitably they will turn out the way the employers want. Perhaps that is because the workpeople have not the courage to stand up to the employers, but that is no reason why we should not protect them. After all, the vast majority of workmen have a great sense of loyalty towards the firm which employs them, and if the firm says it wants to have the two-shift system, even though the workpeople may not like it they feel a sense of loyalty to the firm and do not like to vote against it. We must take some steps to protect them. I am not now referring to the technical breaches of the law, for it is rather to deal with things which come outside technical breaches of the law that I would like this advisory committee to be set up. I hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give some assistance. Even if he will not accept this particular wording and method, I beg him to look into the matter and see whether it is possible for him to do something.
    5.27 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I rise with some hesitation to take part in this Debate, because I have not been in the

    245
    Chamber very long; but some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) rather inspire me to make a few comments I hope I shall not say anything which will take me beyond the rules of order, because I was not quite clear whether the hon. Member for Wednesbury made a Second Reading speech in opposition to the whole Bill or whether he was supporting the new Clause on the Order Paper, but I take it that he felt he could not support the new Clause without making some fairly wide references to the general subject-matter of the Bill. Honestly, I do not think any of the persons described in this Bill will feel any particular hardship if they work on a shift which starts at six o'clock in the morning and ends at two o'clock, with an hour's break, or if they start at one o'clock and finish at 10 o'clock, with a break. It does not seem to me that this is something which the hulk of them will regard as unduly oppressive. The argument for the setting up of a statutory committee is really based on the idea that these conditions of employment will be oppressive. I do not think most of us who have worked in factories would have regarded them as oppressive.
    Mr. KELLY: Did the hon. Member ever work in a factory?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I happened to be connected with one. In pre-War days, with a few exceptions, the normal starting hour was six o'clock in the morning and very often the employés did not finish until five o'clock in the afternoon, and sometimes it was half-past five, a very much longer period than we are inclined to think about in these days.
    Mr. KELLY: Girls did not work in factories in those days.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There were boys under 16 working in them.
    Mr. KELLY: Did they like that?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am merely saying what used to happen. It was not my experience that the apprentices in the place where I worked regarded themselves as unduly oppressed. On the other hand, I welcomed the reduction in hours which took place, generally speaking, during 1919 and 1920. I had an extensive opportunity of discussing and studying the economic effects of that reduction as
    246
    the honorary secretary of a committee of inquiry constituted both by the employers and by the trade unions concerned. It turned out that, broadly speaking, the change did not cause any economic disadvantages. When things bad shaken down, there was not much adverse effect on production, and in a great many cases none at all. This change will clearly have the effect of improving the efficiency of production and will make it much more possible for higher wages to be paid. That has to be borne in mind. If you operate your capital for twice as long—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I fail to connect the hon. Member's argument with the proposed new Clause.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I was afraid that the hon. Member would lead me astray. He used a, general criticism of the Bill as an argument for the setting up of a statutory committee. I agree with the Bishop who said that if Noah had had a committee he would never have built the Ark. If we surround the actions of a Minister with a series of statutory committees this will, in the long run, hamper his work very much, and make it difficult for him to act promptly. In the long run this committee would not facilitate things, but delay them. If a Minister decides from time to time that there are particular problems in connection with the administration of any Act, it would be helpful if he asked a committee to look into them, but if we appoint a committee of this kind, which is to have a roving commission and power to act on its own initiative, the Secretary of State will be hampered in his administration of the Bill. It is not necessary to have such a committee because there is a necessary check on a Minister in this House if he does anything stupid. We should do well to reject the proposed Clause and to trust the Secretary of State to see that whatever is necessary is done by him as an ordinary administrative duty.
    5.32 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I hope that the Home Secretary who said that he had an open mind on this question, will have been convinced by the arguments that have been advanced and will have found on reflection that he is able to accept the new Clause. I gather that he is anxious to have an advisory committee but that he is not prepared to put it in statutory form in the Bill. One of his

    247
    arguments against the proposed Clause was that the language was very loose. Surely he could have that amended in another place if he desired to have it. That argument was very weak. Another point in his argument was in regard to the proposed number of persons on this committee. Eight would be a maximum, and they would be drawn from the work-people and employers in equal numbers and from social workers and experts. There is no reason why they should be equally divisible, as was suggested by the Home Secretary. The imperative matter is that the Home Secretary and his Department should be convinced that the persons who have to work under this Bill have as humane treatment as possible.
    This Bill is creating a precedent and setting up a system which will continue in perpetuity and increase substantially as the years go by. We had a discussion yesterday about the setting up of light industries in the Special Areas. One can well see that young persons of 18 and over will be the type of worker to be engaged in ever increasing numbers in these light industries. With the application of new technique and inventions to industry young persons, and particularly girls, are being employed in ever increasing numbers, and the two-shift system is likely to be a permanent and growing feature of our industrial life. That being so, it is imperative that the Home Secretary should have at his disposal persons who could reflect the measure of ill or good that this new system might be doing. They would be able to report from time to time the ill effects of the system and would be in a position to advise how they should be removed.
    There will be no way of eliciting the necessary information and advice unless a statutory body is laid down in the Bill. There are a large number of people who are prepared to act philanthropically and to give their knowledge and advice whenever it is sought, but the Home Secretary will treat this matter very lightly if he leaves it to philanthropic ladies and gentlemen who may be specialists in sociology and other subjects. It is essential that these young persons should have built around them a defence—social defence works, call them what you will—but it is imperative that they should be
    248
    defended against any hardships that this system may impose on them. That defence can only be built by personalities with knowledge and experience, who are able to tender advice and to see whether the operation of the two-shift system is working harm on the juveniles who are employed.
    I should get out of order if I followed the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). I know what it is to start at five o'clock in the morning and to work underground as a lad for many hours, but I would not dare to make the confession, as the hon. Member did, that I liked it. I do not know whether he meant it when he stated that he revelled in going to the factory at six o'clock in the morning, but one often finds that when people are away from work they always talk about the good old times, while they are, at the same time, always struggling to run away from the horrible days of the past and using all the energy they have to impose the bad past on the present. We find these retrograde brains coming into the House in support of the present Government, and it makes me indignant when I hear people talk like that. If we are progressive we should realise that in this new age it is our duty to secure in legislation the maximum of humane treatment in industry. Much more consideration has been given to the machine than to the human being, because machinery obviously costs more. We ought, therefore, to take the opportunity of a Measure of this kind to set up a body of experienced persons to tender advice from time to time on the working of the two-shift system. I hope from what has been heard since the Home Secretary made his speech, particularly from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), who has so much knowledge of the two-shift system in industry, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the new Clause.
    5.42 p.m.
    Mr. CREECH JONES: We are all agreed that this Bill is likely to have a far-reaching effect on the young life of the nation. In many industrial centres it will affect the habits of the homes and the social life of the people. Consequently, it is important that there should be some permanent machinery which will watch the operation of the Measure. It is generally agreed on all sides that there

    249
    should be an advisory committee, but we on this side are pressing that the committee should be a statutory body within the Bill itself. We press for it because we want to feel confident that such a committee will be set up and that, once it has been set up, it will not be allowed to lapse at the discretion of any future Home Secretary. Questions relating to the health and welfare of the workers concerned, and the hours of employment, must be continually watched. We, therefore, want to have an assurance that a permanent committee will be set up continually to watch the operations of the
    Bill. There is no difference of opinion as to the scope and purposes of the committee. If the pedantic arguments of the Home Secretary are at all sound, he could secure Amendments to the new Clause in, another place. There is a case for a permanent standing committee, and because of the profound results that this Bill will have, that committee should be a statutory body.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 278.

    Division No. 177.]

    AYES.

    [5.45 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hardle, G. D.

    Parker, H. J. H.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Henderson, A. (Klngtwlnford)

    Parkinson, J. A.

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

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Potts, J.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Price, M. P.

    Attlee, Rt. Han. C. R.

    Holland, A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hollins, A.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Barr, J.

    Hopkin, D.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Batey, J.

    Jagger, J.

    Rowson, G.

    Benson, G.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Bromfleld, W.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Short, A.

    Brooke, W.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Slikin, L.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S, Ayrshire)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Burke, W. A.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cassells, T.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lathan, G.

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

    Chater, D.

    Leach, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Leonard, W.

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

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thorne, W.

    Compton, J.

    Logan, D. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Daggar, G,

    Lunn, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies. S. O. (Merthyr)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Day, H.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walker, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    MacLaren, A.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Maclean, N.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacNeill, Weir, L.

    Welsh, J. C.

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

    Marklew, E.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gallacher, W.

    Marshall, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mathers, G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Milner, Major J.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Glbbins, J.

    Montague, F.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Green, W. H. (Depttord)

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

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Muff, G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Groves, T. E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Mr. John and Mr. Whiteley.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Paling, W.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

    Blair, Sir R.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstapie)

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Bouiton, W. W

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

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

    Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

    Bracken, B.

    Channon, H.

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

    Brass, Sir W.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Apsley, Lord

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Choriton, A. E. L.

    Assheton, R.

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

    Christle, J. A.

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

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

    Clarke, F. E.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bull, B. B.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Cobb, Sir C. S.

    Balniel, Lord

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Col-fox, Major W. P.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Butler, R. A.

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

    Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

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

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

    Cartland, J, R. H.

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

    Belt, Sir A. L.

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.

    Cary, R. A.

    Courtauid, Major J. S.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Cautley, Sir H. S.

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Critchley, A.

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Crooke, J. S.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

    Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)

    Cross, R. H.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvs.)

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Klmball, L.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Klrkpatrick, W. M.

    Rowlands, G.

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Denvlile, Alfred

    Leckie, J. A.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Dodd, J. S.

    Lees-Jones, J

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Donner, P. W.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Salt, E. W.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

    Levy, T.

    Savery, Servington

    Drewe, C.

    Lewis, O.

    Scott, Lord William

    Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

    Liddall, W. S.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Selley, H. R.

    Duggan. H. J.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lyons, A. M.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Entwistle, C. F.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

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

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

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Evans, D, O. (Cardigan)

    Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Everard, W. L.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Flldes, Sir H.

    McKie, J. H.

    Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.

    Foot, D. M.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Spens, W. P.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Fremantie, Sir F. E.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

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

    Furness, S. N.

    Magnay, T.

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Storey, S.

    Ganzonl, Sir J.

    Mannlngham-Buller, Sir M.

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    George, Megan Lioyd (Anglesey)

    Markham, S. F.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Gibson, C. G.

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

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Gledhill, G.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Goldle, N. B.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Goodman, Col. A. W.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Moreing, A. C.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddPgbro, W.)

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

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Grimston, R. V.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Touche, G. C.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Nail, Sir J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

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

    Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Turton, R. H.

    Guy, J. C. M.

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

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Owen, Major G.

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Harmon, Sir P. J. H.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wells, S. R.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Petherick, M.

    White, H. Graham

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Pllkington, R.

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

    Hepworth. J.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Porritt, R. W.

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

    Holmes, J. S.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hopkinson, A.

    Radford, E. A.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Wragg, H.

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

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Hunter, T.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Captain Waterhouse.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Employment of women and young persons in shifts.)
    5.55 p.m.
    Mr. HOLLINS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "two in the afternoon," and to insert "twelve noon."
    252
    In moving this Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) and myself, I must express regret that all the Amendments which would have provided an opportunity of discussing the hours of labour except this one, which seeks to

    253
    make the finishing hour on Saturday noon instead of 2 p.m., have been ruled out. If it be true, as we on this side maintain, that an early start in the morning and a late finishing hour in the evening will have a deleterious effect on the health of the workers, of young persons in particular, there is all the more reason why the Home Office should consider seriously whether we ought not to be granted the concession sought in this Amendment. I feel quite sure that the best employers will welcome this Amendment, and that whether it he accepted or not it will operate in most cases, because experience has taught industrialists that there is a limit to endurance, and the many experiments tried in industry have shown that a long week-end granted to employés keeps them more fit to resume work on the Monday morning. From that point of view this Amendment would help at least to maintain, if not to increase, the output of a factory. When the long hours which used to be worked were gradually reduced from 60 hours a week to 50, and then to 48, output was still maintained, because the efficiency and the health of the workers were kept up—they were kept at the top of their form.
    I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), who stated on the Second Reading that the shift system affords more opportunity for leisure and recreation. I took the opportunity on Second Reading to quote from the evidence submitted to the committee of inquiry the evidence of two wit nesses who were employés under the system, and they reported that while they felt no ill-effects from it, the reason for that was that when working in the morning they went to bed early or rested during the afternoon. If that is the practice which is followed, where does the opportunity for gaining recreation come in? There is all the more reason for giving additional hours of leisure during the week-end, when recreation is provided for working-class people in particular, by curtailing the hours on Saturday from two in the afternoon until 12 noon. It is in general practice in most industries. Sometimes it is. 12 noon, or an earlier hour than that, on Saturday.
    I have had it from employers on very good authority that they prefer to close down entirely on Saturdays, because they can then clean up the week's work and make preparation and organisation for
    254
    commencing work on the following Monday. From the point of view of efficiency and organisation, employers would welcome the curtailing of the work on Saturday morning to 12 noon. Considering the monotony and the exactness required under the two-shift system, we think it will be absolutely necessary for the workers to be released at an earlier hour than 2 o'clock on Saturday afternoon, which is, moreover, an encroachment upon the workers' week-end, which has become a British institution. We look jealously on anything which would take that away or would lessen the opportunities of the workpeople to enjoy leisure and recreation during the weekend.
    I make a strong appeal to the Under-Secretary that he should consider this very important Amendment seriously. It would be appreciated by the operatives much more than a curtailment of hours in mid-week, because they look forward to Saturday for their release from the rigid discipline of the factory so that they can get away to the recreations to which they are justly entitled. We tried to secure this alteration in Committee but it was resisted, unfortunately. We have a complete case on grounds of efficiency and organisation, as well as the health of the workers, and I hope that the appeal which we are making will lead the Under-Secretary to accept the Amendment.
    6.3 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Bill is a kind of slippery slope. Instead of the usual 12 o'clock knocking-off time on Saturday, or one o'clock, we have now reached 2 o'clock. We are opening a fairly wide door, and that will inevitably lead to trade disputes. In places where the two-shift system is in operation, workpeople will be required to arrive at 6 o'clock in the morning and to work until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Some of the effects of the Bill have not been thought out. In the main industries of the country a 6 o'clock starting time is unreasonable. In the constituency which I represent, where a heavy industry makes nuts and bolts, and all sorts of things like that, 7 o'clock is the recognised starting time throughout the year. If a form of two-shift system is adopted, they will have to start work at

    255
    6 o'clock on Saturday and continue to work until 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
    In spite of anything we have said, the Government have made up their minds to retain the two-shift system, and the Bill will go through, but if it is necessary to have that system, surely employers might fall into line with the general shutting-down time of 12 o'clock on Saturday. That is not a great concession to ask for from those who will benefit from the two-shift system. Surely the employers are not going to thrust down the throats of the working people an extra two hours after Saturday noon. The tendency to-day is to do away altogether with working on Saturday. The heads of great firms with household reputations have talked to me on many occasions on this matter. They had persuaded themselves—I had not to persuade them—that it was not good business and was unprofitable to commence work on Saturday morning—most of them do not start until about 8 o'clock—and to work four hours. In the Bill, not only are young people to work under the disadvantages, which I am sure will be terrible, of the two-shift system, young girls having to work until 10 in the evening, but they will now have to work until 2 o'clock on Saturday.
    The Under-Secretary is new to the job, and his heart must be much tenderer than that of the Home Secretary. How does he think that young boys will be able to go and see West Bromwich Albion play if they are to be kept at work? It is a serious blow to lads who take a pride in their football to be kept at work until 2 o'clock and then have to get home and change. In the winter it will be dark before they get out. I hope the Under-Secretary will reconsider this matter. Employers who will work the two-shift system can well afford to make the concession. The best employers will do so. I do not see for the life of me the necessity to tie workers down from 6 till 2. When the Departmental Committee presented the report which had not to be altered by a full stop or even a semi-colon, apparently the Secretary of State said: "Yes, this is all right, I have not a word to say about it. Just adopt it." This House has the last word to say in that matter. I suggest that we might find a tiny fault in the report in respect of this very small matter, and that
    256
    the Under-Secretary can well afford to ask his right hon. Friend to make this small concession.
    6.10 p.m.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Some consideration ought to be given on Saturday morning to the early shift which has been working from 6 till 2 on the ordinary days of the week. The reasons given by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment are not merely those associated with leisure, but with recreation, which is usually taken on Saturday from mid-day. In my own experience in the engineering works in which I served my apprenticeship, there was a 12 o'clock break on Saturday with half-an-hour break after working from 6 in the morning. As a result of a little agitation, it was decided that a shorter Saturday was essential to retain morale and physique, particularly of the young employés. When we were given the advantage of an early stoppage at half-past nine on Saturday morning by this firm, known throughout the Kingdom, it gave us an opportunity of recreation at such sports as football and ice hockey, suitable to the north. It is essential that the younger persons should not be subject to an encroachment upon their Saturday afternoon, which will affect not only their interests but the interests of their families. Saturday afternoon is a busy shopping day for the ordinary working-class home. If one or two members of a family are working till 2 o'clock the domestic arrangements are upset in that home, and that affects the temper and ultimately, possibly, the health of the occupants.
    A few weeks ago I had the honour of presenting a shield at a football match between two schoolboy teams. The majority of those schoolboys were leaving school within the next six or 12 months. The shield that I handed was presented by an hon. Member of this House some years ago for the playing of those games. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) was also a Member of the Committee on this Bill and originally presented this shield—I wonder whether he will be very anxious in future, if when the shield is handed over, if it is said that so and so's division were outclassed by Walsall because they had better facilities for getting players as a result of the operation in one district of the two-shift system, which prevented even

    257
    the selection of the right teams in the Junior and upper sections in that district. I would ask the Under-Secretary, if he is empowered to express a judgment, that he should offer some little latitude, and even consider some compensation, to young persons who come under this Measure, not only for the convenience of the persons engaged in industry, but for the better content and happiness of the households of which they are members.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. WATKINS: I desire to add my voice to the pleas put forward by my hon. Friends. It seems almost unthinkable that, in 1936, the House of Commons should be discussing a Measure which will mean a lengthening of the working day for young people. When we get older, recreation is not such a necessity, but when boys and girls are free from their work in the factory or office it is vital that they should get some time in daylight for recreation, and that time is only available, especially in winter, if they can leave their office or workshop at a reasonable hour. It is said that constant dripping wears away the hardest stone. I would not liken the Under-Secretary to a stone, because he has been very kind to me on several occasions, but I am hoping that, if he hears the same story many times, he will realise that there is considerable weight behind it.
    I can speak on this matter from some experience. I worked for 30 years or more in an office where the Saturday closing hour was not the dreadful one of 2 o'clock, as in, this Bill, but 1 o'clock. Then, in response to trade union requests, the hour was altered to 12, and I can assure the Under-Secretary that hardly any change that took place in that important office gave so much satisfaction as the shortening of the Saturday working time by one hour. If the closing time is 1 o'clock, and still more so if it is 2 o'clock, by the time the worker has got home and had a meal and cleaned and dressed himself it is tea-time, and the afternoon is gone.
    We all value the week-end, and I hope the Under-Secretary will be prepared to make a change in the Bill that will extend the privilege of a reasonable weekend to the people covered by the Measure. Very many people nowadays do riot live next door to their work; they have to
    258
    spend some time in journeying, which eats into the available free time on the Saturday, and, if the Under-Secretary will make the hour 12 instead of 2, it will mean a great deal to the young people. Many employers, as has been already said, have cut out the Saturday turn of duty altogether. We are not asking for that. If it would be too big a change to make the hour 12 o'clock, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would meet us by making it 1 o'clock, but at any rate I would beg him not to allow the hour of 2 o'clock to remain in the Bill.
    6.18 p.m.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: In listening to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, one would think that the hours of 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. which are mentioned in the Bill were compulsory hours; but is it not the case that they are permissive, and that in no case, I suppose, will the young persons work from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.? I should have thought, for instance, that the young people whose case has been quoted, who, very rightly, want to get away to see football matches on Saturdays, will be able to get away, and that in none of these cases will work go on until 2 o'clock. I should think that the trade unions would be very careful to see to it that it does not. The point about which we want to be clear is that the hours mentioned in the Bill are permissive, and not compulsory.
    6.19 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Hon. Gentlemen opposite have put me, in a way, in rather a difficult position. If everything they have said to-day were correct, I must say I should feel that there was a strong case for meeting them, but as a matter of fact they have—I do not, of course, say deliberately, but under a misapprehension —made several statements to the House which do not give an altogether correct view of the situation. For example my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) has just made the very valuable point, which has not been mentioned on the other side, that these hours are permissive. They are the maximum hours. No longer hours can be worked than those which we are discussing at the moment. But there is nothing to prevent—
    Mr. WATKINS: Does not the maximum tend to become normal, and would not these hours be copied by all employers everywhere?
    Mr. LLOYD: That is not the case, because, under the present law, we could have 12-hour working, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. or from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Those are the periods mentioned in the Factory Acts, but hon. Members are well aware that, fortunately, those hours are not now worked, although I believe it is the unfortunate fact that in certain areas, where there is a great deal of work, some excessive hours are being worked. They are, however, permissible at present, and one of the advantages of the present Bill will be that they will definitely not be permissible in the case of any young person or woman to whom the Bill applies. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has really made out his case that the maximum permissible hours always become those which are in fact worked. At the present time the hours stated in the Bill, which hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to alter, are those mentioned in the Act which is extended from year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but it is not the practice to work those hours on a Saturday in all the cases in which authorisations have been given by my right hon. Friend, so that, even in the definite case with which we are dealing, the point made by hon. Gentlemen opposite really does not quite apply.
    I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen that not only is it not necessary, and will not, I think, be the case, that workers on the morning shift on Saturday will always be kept till 2 p.m., but there is the very important fact, which hon. Members opposite have not stressed, that in ordinary circumstances those workers have every other Saturday completely free from work, so that the maximum period up to 2 p.m. which we hope will not in every case be worked, can only occur on every other Saturday. If I might take the homely illustration, referred to by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), of the young man who wishes to go to see West Bromwich Albion, or, indeed, Aston Villa or any other local club, I would say that very likely in the Midlands these hours will not be worked up to, because I think that on the whole it is not the normal practice to do so in that part of
    260
    the country; and no doubt, therefore, that young man will be able to enjoy his recreation on a Saturday afternoon; but I would also point out that under the Bill any young person working under a two-shift system will not only be able in all probability to attend the home match, but will even have an advantage over people who in the ordinary way work every Saturday, in that he will have every other Saturday completely free, so that if on one of those Saturdays Aston Villa or West Bromwich Albion were playing away in another part of the country, he would be able to travel up with the team. I give that as an illustration to show that it is not all a question of disadvantage, but that there are substantial advantages as well.
    We have heard a great deal about the dreadful nature of this hour of 2 p.m. The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that we are leaving 12 o'clock and going to 2 o'clock, and that that is opening a very wide door. But, as I have pointed out, it is only doing that in regard to every other Saturday, whereas I feel bound to point out that, in the Bill introduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which even had the backing of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), the hours on Saturday were from 6 in the morning until 2 in the afternoon. I really think that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not treating us altogether candidly in this matter. I hope their feelings will not be wounded if I say, as I feel bound to say, that they are tending to show too much partisanship in regard to this Measure, without any regard to their own record on these matters in the past. Therefore, having cleared away some of the misconceptions and revealed the fact that hon. Gentlemen themselves have taken up a position very similar to this, except that it applied, not to every other Saturday, but to every Saturday, I feel that I could not be reasonably expected to make the alteration for which they ask.
    6.27 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I should require to see the document from which the hon. Gentleman has quoted before I accept what he tells the House about it. After his speech, one would almost imagine that the two-shift system was the best for everyone. If that be the case, why should we have a single-shift system at all? If this is such a splendid

    261
    arrangement for boys and girls and young women, Parliament ought to be passing a Bill to call upon everybody to work under the two-shift system. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) has said that the hours of 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays are, after all, permissive, but he will pardon my telling him that I have yet to find an employer who will not utilise and absorb all the permissive hours that are given to him under the law, except where the trade union is strong enough to prevent it. In this case, however, as we have pointed out many times, we are dealing with women and young persons, and young persons under 16 do not take part in trade union activities to the extent of governing their conditions of employment. What is the use, therefore, of talking about trade union activities in this connection?
    The Under-Secretary would have us believe that all is well under the two-shift system, that if we carry the wording of this Clause, and say that these women and young persons shall be employed up to 2 p.m. on Saturdays, employers will not avail themselves of that permission, but will still finish at noon. If that argument holds good, why cannot our Amendment be accepted If it be true that employers do not intend to utilise, and do not now utilise, all the hours up to 2 p.m., that they are all decent folk, that they all have the welfare of their em-
    ployés at heart and will close their factories at 12, why cannot the hon. Gentleman accept our Amendment He knows, however, as well as I do, and everyone who reads the excellent report of the Chief Inspector of Factories will know, that Parliament is never called upon at any time to pass legislation to meet the case of the decent employer.
    We have always to legislate for that minority of employers who will never do the right thing by their employés unless they are compelled. That is why we have tabled this Amendment. I am opposed to the two-shift system altogether. I suppose some Members will live long enough to see the vast majority of women and young persons employed under it. It is very sad that in 1936, for the first time probably in half a century, Parliament is going to give permission to employers to employ women and young persons up to two o'clock on Saturday. Let us make it clear that any one who votes against our Amendment is voting for the possibility of women arid young persons being employed on Saturday up to two o'clock, which is against the custom in nearly all the factories in the country at the moment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 103.

    Division No. 178.]

    AYES.

    [6.33 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

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

    Crooke, J. S.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Bull, B. B.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

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

    Burgln, Dr. E. L.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G

    Butler, R. A.

    Crossley, A. C.

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

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Apsley, Lord

    Cary, R. A.

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

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

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

    Cautley, Sir H. S.

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Denville, Alfred

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

    Dodd, J. S.

    Balnlel, Lord

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

    Donner, P. W.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Channon, H.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

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

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Drewe, C.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.

    Christie, J. A.

    Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Clarke, F. E.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Blrchall, Sir J. D.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Cobb, Sir C. S.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Bllndell, Sir J.

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

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

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

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

    Emery, J. F.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

    Entwistle, C. F.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

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

    Critchley, A.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Everard, W. L.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Fildes, Sir H.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Findlay, Sir E.

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

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Foot, D. M.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Savery, Servington

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Scott, Lord William

    Furness, S. N.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Selley, H. R.

    Ganzonl, Sir J.

    McKie, J. H.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maclay. Hon. J. P.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Gibson, C. G.

    Magnay, T.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Goldle, N. B.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Markham, S. F.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Grlmsion, R. V.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

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

    Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Spens, W. P.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

    Morelng, A. C.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Hannah, I. C.

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

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

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

    Storey, S.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Morrison, W. S. (Clrencester)

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Munro, P.

    Strauss, H, G. (Norwich)

    Hepworth, J.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

    Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Herbert, Major T. A. (Monmouth)

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Holdsworth, H.

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

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Owen, Major G.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Tate, Mavis C

    Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Peat, C. U.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Penny, Sir G.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

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

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Train, Sir J.

    Hunter, T.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

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

    Petherick, M.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Pilkington, R.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Turton, R. H.

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

    Porritt, R. W.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Jones, L. (Swansea, W.I

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvs.)

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Ratnbone, J. R. (Bodmln)

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    White, H. Graham

    Leckie, J. A.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Winterton, Rt. Hen. Earl

    Levy, T.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Lewis, O.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Llddall, W. S.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Wcodbridge)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Loftus, P. C.

    Rowlands, G.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel Sir E. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lyons, A. M.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

    Dr. Morris-Jones and Lieut.-Colonel

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Llewellin.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Gallacher, W.

    Lathan, G.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Leach, W.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Gibbins, J.

    Lee, F.

    Barr, J.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Leonard, W.

    Batey, J.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Bellenger, F.

    Groves, T. E.

    Logan, D. G.

    Benson, G.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Lunn, W.

    Bevan, A.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Bromfield, W.

    Hardle, G. D.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Brooke, W.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    McGhee, H. G,

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwlck)

    MacLaren, A.

    Burke, W. A,

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Maclean, N.

    Cassells, T.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    MacNeill, Weir, L.

    Chater, D.

    Holland, A.

    Marklew, E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hollins, A.

    Marshall, F.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Hopkin, D.

    Mathers, G.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jagger, J.

    Messer, F.

    Compton, J.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Milner, Major J.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    John, W.

    Montague. F.

    Daggar, G.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham N.)

    Davies. R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Muff, G.

    Ede, J. C.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Oliver, G. H.

    264

    265

    Paling, W.

    Short, A.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Parker, H. J. H.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Westwood, J.

    Potts, J.

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

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Price, M. P.

    Thorne, W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Thurtle, E.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Tinker, J. J.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Rowson, G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Shinwell, E.

    Walker, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. JAGGER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "an average of."
    The object of this Amendment is to prevent in any circumstances women and young persons being employed on the two-shift system for as long as 12 hours in a day in some cases and 10 hours in a day in all cases. The Bill certainly provides that the hours worked in a week cannot exceed 48 and the hours worked in two consecutive weeks cannot exceed 84, and it is reasonable to presume that in an ordinary working week nothing worse than the abominable conditions that were spoken of on the last Amendment are likely to happen, but in weeks where one or more holidays take place the position may easily be very different, and with a maximum of 48 hours in the August bank holiday week, it would be possible for an employer to work these women and young persons, if it was a five-day factory, 48 hours in four days, or 12 hours a day for every working day in that week. I am frankly putting the extreme number of hours which the worst employer could in the holiday week work his employés, but quite ordinarily it is possible under the Bill, by means of having a short working day, to have one or more days in the week where the hours may be 12.
    There are certain industries where it would be particularly advantageous to an unscrupulous employer to use the loopholes of the Act in its present form, notably the laundry industry, where the employer is not very particular how many hours he works his employés on Monday, or even on Tuesday morning, but he is very anxious to work them the maximum number of hours on Thursday, and particularly on Friday. We think that, to prevent the working of hours in excess of eight where women and young persons are working on the shift system, it is essential that the words, "an average of," should be taken out of the Clause. It would mean that at least no woman or young person could
    266
    work in one day longer than from six o'clock in the morning until two o'clock, or from two o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock at night. It is impossible in the Bill that they should start before six o'clock, or that they should finish after 10 o'clock, but between those hours, as the Bill now stands, it is possible for very long hours to be worked on one day. The advantage of the shift system to the employer is such that at least he ought to be compelled not to exceed the maximum of eight hours in any one day in respect of any person employed under the shift system.
    6.46 p.m.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The intention of leaving out these words is to deal mainly with occupations in which there are at certain times of the week rush periods, which entail abnormal hours of working. We, therefore, ask that the words should be deleted from the Clause, and I hope that the House will agree to that course.
    6.47 p.m.
    Mr. LLOYD: I really hope on this Amendment to be able to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Amendment is unnecessary. I will deal, first of all, with the question why the Amendment is not necessary for securing the purposes they wish to secure, because these dangers are already provided against under the existing provisions of the Bill, and, secondly, with the question why there is a good and positive reason for keeping the word "average" in the Bill. I quite appreciate the point of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) about the danger that there might be some unscrupulous employer causing long hours on particular days. It would be abusing the provisions of the Act if he were able to do it. That is one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. That cannot be done under the Bill as it stands at present. In each authorisation the Home Secretary lays down exactly the

    267
    hours of the shift for every day in the week, and this cannot be altered by an employer, even if he wants to alter it. They are the legal hours and cannot be exceeded.
    Mr. JAGGER: I do not want to leave it to any person to lay down hours which may be as bad as I have said.
    Mr. LLOYD: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we must look upon this matter as a practical one, and I assure him that there has never been a proposal made to the Home Office in all the years that this system has been in operation by any employer for a freak system of hours such as he suggests. I can certainly give him the assurance that, if such a freak proposal were made, it would not be entertained by the Department.
    Mr. JAGGER: Then why not accept the Amendment
    Mr. LLOYD: I will in a moment give the hon. Gentleman the reason why there are grave objections to the Amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman feels that if there was no work done on a particular day, the employer might add the hours of that day on to another day. It cannot happen because the Secretary of State lays down the hours that are to be worked on particular days, and the fact that there is a holiday on a particular day of work does not entitled an employer to add those hours to the next day. He has to work the hours laid down by the Secretary of State for that day. Those are the reasons why we cannot accept, and do not think that it is necessary to have, the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved. There is another reason why we feel that the word "average" should be retained. It often happens in a factory that the workers desire, for particular reasons, such as meal times and other reasons—and the House will appreciate the immense variety of individual circumstances existing all over the country—to have the afternoon shift longer than the morning shift. Sometimes shifts have been fixed from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. alternating weekly. This is a very complicated matter, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but that system has been
    268
    found to be convenient for the workers in certain factories, and although it comes within the average of eight hours, it could not be worked if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were accepted and a rigid limit of eight hours were imposed instead. Those are the practical reasons why we feel that we cannot accept the Amendment.
    6.53 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: My hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) has done good service by raising this technical problem of dividing up the hours. I would prefer to see his Amendment put into the Bill, but if the Under-Secretary of State can give a definite undertaking that none of the things which my hon. Friend has raised can possibly happen when the order is issued and the number of hours are stipulated for each day, I wonder whether my hon. Friend and the Seconder of the Amend-men will think it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.
    6.54 p.m.
    Mr. KELLY: I want to know something more about the average. Years ago we had such a word in agreements with regard to working conditions between employers and employed, and we found it necessary to strike it out. The eight hours may be extended to nine hours a day. It may be from 1 o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock at night, or the hours in the morning may be extended. For what period is the average to be taken? Does the Home Secretary intend to take it over a period of six months, 12 months, or a month? There is nothing here which states the period. In a seasonal trade, for instance, will the average be for some indefinite period. This is going to be a loophole for all the smart foremen and managers in the country who cause so much trouble in these days with regard to the conditions of work. The more one hears explanations of the provisions of this Bill, the more one is inclined to think that it has been promoted by the worst employers in the country.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 101.

    Division No. 179.]

    AYES.

    [6.55 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

    Flndlay, Sir E.

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

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Foot, D. M.

    Owen, Major G.

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

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Furness, S. N.

    Peat, C. U.

    Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. p. G.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Penny, Sir G.

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

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Apsley, Lord

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Petherick, M.

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

    Gibson, C. G.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Goldie, N. B.

    Plikington, R.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E,

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Porritt, R. W.

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

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Balnlel, Lord

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

    Radlord, E. A.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Blair, Sir R.

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bllndell, Sir J.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Harbord, A.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Reid, W. Allen (Derby)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Hepworth, J.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

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

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

    Holdsworth, H.

    Rowlands, G.

    Bull, B. B.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Hunter, T.

    Salt, E. W.

    Cary, R. A.

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

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Savery, Servington

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Scott, Lord William

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Selley, H. R.

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

    Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Channon, H.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Christle, J. A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Clarke, F. E.

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

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Leckie, J. A.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Cobb, Sir C. S.

    Lees- Jones, J.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Spender-Clay, Lt.-Ct. Rt. Hn. H. H.

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

    Levy, T.

    Spens, W. P.

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

    Lewis, O.

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

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

    Liddall, W. S.

    Storey, S.

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

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    Critchley, A.

    Lioyd, G. W.

    Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Crooke, J. S.

    Locker- Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Cross, R. H.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    M'Co nell, Sir J.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

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

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Train, Sir J.

    Denville, Alfred

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Dodd, J. S.

    McKie, J. H.

    Tufnell, Lieut. -Com. R. L.

    Donner, P. W.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Magnay, T.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Drewe, C.

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

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

    Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

    Markham, S. F.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Wells, S. R.

    Dunne, P. R. R.

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

    White, H. Graham

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Wlckham, Lt.-Col. E. T. H.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Ellis, Sir G.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel G.

    Emery, J. F.

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

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Entwistle, C. F.

    Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Erskine Hill A. G.

    Munro, P.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Nail, Sir J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

    Dr. Morris-Jones and Captain

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Nicolson, Hon. H, G.

    Waterhouse.

    270

    271

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Holland, A.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hollins, A.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Hopkin, D.

    Potts, J.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Jagger, J.

    Price, M. P.

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Bellenger, F.

    John, W.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benson, G.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Rowson, G.

    Bevan, A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphily)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Short, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Casselis, T.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Chater, D.

    Leach, W.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Leonard, W.

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

    Cocks, F. S.

    Logan, D. G.

    Thorne, W.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Lunn, W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Daggar, G.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, H.

    MacLaren, A.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Ede, J. C.

    Maclean, N.

    Walker, J.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    MacNeill, Weir, L.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Wander, G. le M.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Marklew, E.

    Westwood, J.

    Gibbins, J.

    Marshall, F.

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mathers, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Messer, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Milner, Major J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Montague, F.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Hardle, G. D.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tott nham. N.)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Muff, G.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Oliver, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.

    Hills, A. (Pontelract)

    Parker, H. J. H.

    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "the," and to insert "a two-thirds."
    Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 provides that the Secretary of State may make arrangements to see that a secret ballot of the workpeople concerned shall be taken before the order is granted for a two-shift system to be operated in any factory or workshop. That was a concession which we secured in Committee and we were glad of it. We hope to carry the point a little further by suggesting that a simple majority of the workpeople is not sufficient for this purpose. This is not an ordinary election or ballot. Even with the best employer, if he wants the order, it will be very difficult for his workpeople to vote against his wishes, and therefore we think that a simple majority is not a sufficient expression of the wishes of the people concerned. Let the House imagine a factory, employing women and young persons, where the employer comes to the conclusion that it would be good business for him to secure the two-shift system. All that he need do is to tell his workpeople that unless he can get this order it is possible that he will have to close down his factory. When he
    272
    says that he will be speaking his own mind, but what is the position of a secret ballot of the workpeople concerned taken under conditions of that kind? No secret ballot in that case could ever be a picture of the mind of the workpeople, especially if it were a simple majority. The vast majority of employers do not want to take advantage of their work-people in this connection, but even the influence of the decent employer on the workpeople would be such that a simple majority would not be sufficient, and therefore we propose to make the majority one of two-thirds.
    7.10 p.m.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. I have been interested, listening to the hon. Member's speech, to realise that when the result of a ballot is known it will not be a picture of the workpeople's mind, but that somehow or other it will be a picture of their mind if there is a two-thirds majority. What is the difference?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: One-third.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Why should it be that more people in a factory should have to declare that they are working under a system which they do not like? Why should we say if it is a simple

    273
    majority that it is not a picture of the work-people's mind Why should the hon. Member think that the people who vote for one side must be giving their mind correctly and that the people who vote for the other side are doing it under duress? If half the people in a factory wish to work the two-shift system why should they not be able to have it? Why should not the people decide for themselves? One of the best parts of this Bill is that the workpeople themselves are getting a chance of deciding. I am anxious for a secret ballot, but I cannot see why the balance should be weighted in the way which has been suggested, and why, if more than half of the people in a factory wish to have the two-shift system, we should prevent them having it. I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted, so that the will of the workpeople can be known and so that they can decide whether or not they will have the two-shift system.
    7.12 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The hon. Lady argued well on her point and as democrats it is difficult for us to speak against a majority vote not being conclusive. But I would like the Noble Lady—
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Not yet.
    Mr. TINKER: It does not make much difference and you are just as much entitled to the Noble as other people are. The point we have in mind is the coercion of the bad employer. We have all gone through it, both in the mine and in the factory. We know that pressure can be exerted and that when an employer desires such a change he goes round to his workpeople and tries by persuasion to get them to see his point of view. That may have an effect on some, and we want to prevent that kind of pressure and to arrange for a substantial majority. We are asking that there shall be a clear and definite indication of the mind of the workpeople before a change is made. That is the only reason for this Amendment and I do not want it urged against me on a future occasion when I am supporting a bare majority.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. MAINWARING: The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) would perhaps be interested in having her attention drawn to the fact that there exists
    274
    in this country, in relation to trade union and friendly society activities, a good deal of legislation which insists on a two-thirds majority. If we were discussing any wide piece of that mass of legislation the hon. Lady would be opposing any change in such a majority proposed from these benches. There is no special virtue in either a simple or a two-thirds majority in itself. Both have their virtue in relation to given conditions. In certain circumstances even a trade union might voluntarily insist on a two-thirds majority. For example, my own organisation would insist on a certain percentage majority in order to arrive at certain decisions. Any percentage less would not be deemed to reflect the considered view of the membership. So it is in other directions. In this case the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is fully justified. It will in fact give the only fair opportunity of finding exactly what the majority of the workpeople really mean at a given time.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. LLOYD: Hon. Members in discussing the Amendment are carried away a considerable distance in their argument. We have had arguments to show that there is no special virtue in a bare majority and that there are circumstances in which it is much safer to have a two-thirds majority.
    Mr. MAINWARING: If the hon. Member is quoting me, will he quote me correctly? I said that there is no special virtue in a bare majority in itself, nor is there any special virtue in a, two-thirds majority in itself. Both receive their virtue, if any, under given conditions.
    Mr. LLOYD: I only wish to point out that people may have very different views about the circumstances. For example, it would appear to hon. Members opposite in a very different light if a proposal were brought forward that it would be necessary to have a two-thirds majority for turning out the Government. At the same time a very strong case could be put up for the status quo, and in support of the view that before you upset the existing position and make a change you should have something stronger than a bare majority. I merely give this argument as an example of how far we can get carried away once we depart from the principle

    275
    that a bare majority should be able to decide a question and should be valid, whether in this House or elsewhere. I feel that on the whole we ought not to abandon the principle of the bare majority.
    I do not want hon. Members opposite to think that I am not dealing with their Amendment on a serious basis. I appreciate the point made, that pressure may be brought to bear, but I would point out that there is nothing to prevent the workpeople being in constant communication with their trade unions in regard to this matter. There is nothing to prevent them from consulting their leaders. If there is pressure they can consult their organisation about it. In actual practice at the present time, although there has not been a secret ballot, and although it has been ascertainable by the employers which way the employés have voted, on many occasions in recent years they have voted against the proposal. We take the view that the secret ballot that has been put into the Bill at the suggestion of the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) is a perfect safeguard, and I think that her point is a just one, that there may be a number of workpeople who want this system. Why, then, should they be penalised by having to get a two-thirds majority for it, when already more
    than half the workpeople in the factory want this particular system? There has not been a sufficient case made out for the Amendment. The real motive of the Amendment springs from the fact that hon. Members opposite are suspicious of the system and hostile to it and are using their opportunity to put obstacles in the way of its operation. That is an unfair position for them to adopt. Let the system have a fair trial in those places where the workpeople by a majority desire it.
    Mr. OLIVER: As the hon. Member is so concerned about taking into account the wishes of the workpeople, will he say why it is that when two bodies of work-people wish to amalgamate into one trade union it is necessary by law to have a two-thirds majority, yet if the workpeople in a factory, under this Bill, desire to make a change, it can be done by a bare majority? Perhaps he will distinguish why a two-thirds majority is necessary in one case and only a bare majority in this case.
    Mr. LLOYD: I could not distinguish without knowing the circumstances.
    Question put, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 104.

    Division No. 180.]

    AYES.

    [7.21 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

    Cary, R. A.

    Dunglass, Lord

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

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Eastwood, J. F.

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

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Apsley, Lord

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

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

    Emery, J. F.

    Assheton, R.

    Channon, H.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Entwistle, C. F.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Christie, J. A.

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Clarke, F. E.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

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

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Balnlel, Lord

    Cobb, Sir C. S.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Foot, D. M.

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

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

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith S.)

    Furness, S. N.

    Blair, Sir R.

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

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Blindell, Sir J.

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

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Critchley, A.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Goldle, N. B.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Crossley, A. C.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

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

    Denville, Alfred

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Bull, B. B.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hacking. Rt. Hon. D. H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Dodd, J. S.

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Burgln, Dr. E. L.

    Donner, P. W.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Butler, R. A.

    Drewe, C.

    Harbord, A.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Dugdala. Major T. L.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Hepworth, J.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Herbert, Major J, A. (Monmouth)

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Munro, P.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Hopkinson, A.

    Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

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

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

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

    Spens, W. P.

    Hunter, T.

    Orr-Ewlng, I. L.

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

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

    Owen, Major G.

    Storey, S.

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Peat, C. U.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

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

    Penny, Sir G.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Petherick, M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Plckthorn, K. W. M.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Pilkington, R.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Levy, T.

    Radford, E. A.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Lewis, O.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Liddall, W. S.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Train, Sir J.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Wakefield. W. W.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

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

    Lyons, A. M.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Water-house, Captain C.

    M'Connell, J.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D, (L'derry)

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    White, H. Graham

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

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

    McKie, J. H.

    Rowlands, G.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Magnay, T.

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Wise, A. R.

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

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Ma kham, S. F.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Salt, E. W.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

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

    Savery, Servington

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Scott, Lord William

    Major George Davies and Mr. Cross.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

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

    Selley, H. R.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hardle, G. D.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Parker, H. J. H.

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

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Barr, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Potts, J.

    Bellenger, F.

    Holland, A.

    Price, M. P.

    Benson, G.

    Hollins, A.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Bevan, A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Bromfield, W.

    Jagger, J.

    Rowson, G.

    Brooke, W,

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Shinwell, E.

    Burke, W. A.

    John, W.

    Short, A.

    Cassells, T.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Chater, D.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lathan, G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leach, W.

    Thorne, W.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, E.

    Daggar, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Day. H.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Walkden, A. G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walker, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    MacLaren. A.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Maclean, N.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacNelll, Weir, L.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Westwood, J.

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Gibbins, J.

    Marklew, E.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Marshall, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A,

    Mathers, G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Griffiths G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Messer, F.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

    Milner, Major J.

    Groves, T. E.

    Montague, F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, G. H. (Anerdare)

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

    Mr. Paling and Mr. Whiteley.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Muff, G.

    7.30 p.m.
    Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 18 to 26.
    This Amendment would have the effect of cutting out entirely the proviso under which the consent of the employés need not be required before the two-shift system is adopted in the case of new factories. I suggest that this proviso violates the first principle of democratic control. With regard to any factory biult after this date, the democratic control over the two-shift system by the women who are going to suffer from it is completely cut out, and this is very serious at a time when we are scrapping and rebuilding factories, when we are moving factories, when factories disappear almost in a night and are replaced by others, because it simply renders a very large part of the Bill null and void. I also suggest that this provision makes a very unfair discrimination. If you have Mr. Jones, who has an old factory, he has to get the consent of his workpeople before he can introduce the two-shift system, but his competitor, Mr. Brown, may have just completed a new factory, and he need not ask his workpeople.
    Previously it could have been said that the saving effected by adopting the two-shift system would not be sufficient to justify moving into a new factory, but I am not so sure that that will be the case now, when factories are being put up at very low rates of interest and when, as a matter of fact, it may even mean a possible saving from heavy rates to move into a new district. This may be an extra inducement for people to move out of the heavily rated areas into the new areas, where we do not want them to go and where there will be the added inducement that they will not have to ask permission to get their workers on the two-shift system. There is a third matter, which is even more important, and that is that we are now at a new stage in the rearmament proposals of the Government. There will be enormous munition factories erected in the course of the next year or two, and the whole of these vast new industries in the new areas will not be subject to democratic control by the workers in them. This will be a special disadvantage for some of those girls who may be filling shells, or working on T.N.T. and those kinds of munition work which did the girls' health so much damage during the War. In this case
    280
    those girls who will most need protection in against the two-shift system will be the very people who will not have it.
    Finally, I would point out that there is no reason at all why this new set of workers should not have the same rights as the old. It is possible to say that they will know the terms on which they are engaged and that if they do not want to go to that work, they need not do so, but as more and more factories apply this system, that argument will not be valid; and there is the added fact that it will then be possible for the Employment Exchanges to refuse benefits to those who refuse to accept work under the two-shift system, so that you will have something like compulsion. I suggest that to leave this Clause as it stands proves the insincerity of the Government when they claim that the whole matter is being democratically controlled and that the workers have a voice in it. I suggest that hon. Members opposite who want to see this system put into operation with the least possible amount of friction would do well to support the Amendment.
    7.36 p.m.
    Mr. JAGGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    From the time when this Bill was introduced I have been much more concerned about protecting a different class of workers from the one to which the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has just referred. Every day we are getting foreign employers coming here and opening up businesses in the luxury trades, such as wireless, electrical fitments, and so on, which have absolutely no trade union organisation, and we are desirous that the workpeople in these works and factories shall at least have a voice in saying whether or not they are prepared to work under this two-shift system. I have not lost an hour's sleep about the Lancashire cotton trade operatives or the engineering operatives about whom the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is concerned, in regard to the operation of this Bill. We can look after ourselves, and we shall, but it is this new class of labourers which is being increasingly brought in for whom we are concerned. The only reason for bringing in this Bill is to enable this class of employer to exploit, principally, young persons, and we want every shred and shadow of protection that we can get for them. With

    281
    the labour exchanges stopping benefits immediately on refusal to take any employment, it is obvious that these women and young persons who are out of employment cannot refuse to go to the two-shift factories, however much they may object. We say that in the new factories as well as in the old the workpeople should be consulted before permission is given to adopt this system.
    7.38 p.m.
    Mr. J. HALL: This proviso to which we take exception cuts out completely the benefit of the secret ballot which was extolled by the Home Secretary earlier in the Debate, and it appears to me that it lobs the very people who most need the protection of the ballot given to them. Industry is changing, and the newer industries are developing in districts that are not thickly populated. The two-shift system, bad as it is, has up to the present operated in the thickly populated districts, where the hardships endured by the workers are considerably reduced. But take the position in North Wales, where you get new industries established. Under this Clause none of the workers in these industries will have the power, the right, or the privilege of being able to ballot on the question whether or not the two-shift system shall operate. It happens that in North Wales some of the girls and women have to travel several miles, because the bulk of them are recruited, not merely from great distances, but right away on the Welsh hills, and while firms have arranged for a number of coaches to travel out from Flint to Halkin and other places, it is a fact that quite a number of young girls of very tender age are walking across the Welsh hills between 4.30 and 5.30 in the morning and after midnight. In the summer time that may not be too bad, but they do it also in the winter, and simply because this type of industry is gradually building up factories away from what one might call the central industrial areas.
    The Government are saying in this Clause that the young girls and women who are to be called upon to work in these new factories, where the conditions are so much worse than they are in the big towns, shall have no right to any say whatever as to whether or not the two-shift system should operate. As a matter of fact, the two-shift system is operated
    282
    merely because it saves overhead charges. It is a cheap system of working. One industry with which I have had a considerable amount to do for a matter of about two years could have worked the one-shift system had it desired to do so, but it was much cheaper to work the two-shift system. It is only a question of economy. From my own viewpoint, it is a very harsh thing, to say the least of it, that young woman and girls should be forced to work under adverse and unfair conditions merely because it is cheaper to employ them on the two-shift system. You say in this Clause that where these industrial conditions are to be established in future, where the new industries are to be developed, in no circumstances will you permit the workers there to have any voice regarding the operation of the two-shift system. For these reasons I hope we may be able to carry this Amendment and get rid of this provision.
    7.42 p.m.
    Mr. KELLY: This Clause goes farther than was suggested by the last speaker, because it lays it down that the application may relate
    "to a factory or workshop which is about to be, or has recently been, newly established."
    These are terms which, in their interpretation, will bring in a great many people. In fact, I doubt very much whether they will not bring in those old-established firms which may be building new factories probably in the neighbourhood where they have been in operation for some considerable time. The Clause demands that these people shall give an undertaking that they will permanently adopt this system. The system is bad enough even when worked for only a brief period, but under this Clause you are asking for its permanent adoption, and it is an amazing thing that after all the efforts which have been made to give to young people the chance of continued education, we should have a Bill now before the House which asks for the permanent adoption of a system which will be ruinous to their education.
    Up to now we have heard from the Home Secretary of the secret ballot, but the Clause lays it down that the right hon. Gentleman shall decide the question without any consultation, without any such ballot, and indeed, without the consent of the workers. It takes away every-

    283
    thing that has been urged as a justification for the operation of the two-shift system. I am glad to think that in the engineering trade we shall be able to arrange it because of the strength of the union, but when one thinks of the many industries throughout the country I hope the House will be induced to do justice to itself and the country by accepting the Amendment.
    7.46 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The Under-Secretary will probably be able to defend the proviso, but on the last Amendment hon. Members opposite took pride in the fact that there was a secret ballot. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) took pride to herself that she had been the means of getting the secret ballot put in, in order to give an opportunity to the working people to have some control over their employment. If it was a good thing to put this in earlier in the Bill, why is it proposed to delete it here? If the Amendment is not accepted workpeople will not be able to speak for themselves. I realise the argument that the majority must count, and it is rather difficult for a politician who realises the strength of the arguments of his opponents, but, on this matter, I cannot see how the Government can defend themselves. Indeed, the fact that not one hon. Member opposite has got up to defend the proviso is a proof that the Government have a bad case.
    7.47 p.m.
    Mr. McGHEE: I want to put a question to the Under-Secretary of State. Suppose a firm decides to recapitalise, or that after a secret ballot has taken place it decides to close for a week and re-form itself into a company, would it be considered to be a newly-established factory? Can we have some assurance that when the Bill goes to another place words will be put in to make it certain that the Sub-section will not apply to a recapitalised or old established firm which opens up again under another name?
    7.48 p.m.
    Mr. SH0RT: We regard this Amendment as of vital importance and hope that the Under-Secretary, on behalf of the Government, will accept it. He has done nothing for us up to the moment, nor has he given us a satisfactory explana-
    284
    tion of the meaning of the words in the proviso. The fundamental basis of the two-shift system since 1920 has been the consent of the workers to the granting of an order and its application. The House has taken a most serious view in connection with the administration of this system and the granting of such applications. It has not been content to leave the granting of applications to officers of the State, but has decided that it must rest with the Secretary of State himself, all of it, however, contingent upon the workers deciding by their votes, properly taken under adequate supervision by inspectors of the Home Office, that they want the two-shift system. If the proviso applied to new factories the case would not be so strong, but it goes much further. It says that:
    "is satisfied that the application relates to a factory or workshop which is about to be, or has recently been, newly established."
    I want to know what is meant by the words "has recently been newly established." The Bill if it is passed is to become operative on 1st July, 1936. I want. the Under-Secretary of State to tell us how near to the first day of July, 1936, will a factory be considered to come within the words in the proviso "has recently been established." I am not certain that we can be satisfied with the opinion of the Under-Secretary on this matter. He has displayed great courtesy and charm, as he invariably does. The Opposition have displayed great charm and courtesy. Indeed last night we allowed the Home Office to get away with two Bills without any opposition at all. That should be put to our credit. I am only paying a tribute to the Under-Secretary which I thought would meet with warm approval by hon. Members in all parts of the House. But courtesy and charm are not sufficient. We want some legal definition of the words "has recently been newly established." In and around London new factories are coming into being, some already in the stage of being built, some of them just built, and some of them just beginning to produce. The building of others will start before 1st July, 1936; and I want to know which of these factories, at what date and time, will come within the scope of this proviso.
    This is vital. There is nothing in the Bill which says that owners of new fac-

    285
    tories have to give any notice that they are going to employ their people on a two-shift system. They will say "Here is a job for you; here are the terms. If you do not like them you can stop outside. If you do, you can come inside." And they can work the two-shift system just the same as an employer who has to have the secret ballot and obtain the consent of his workpeople. I do not want the Under-Secretary to think that he is going to get away with this easily. We have great respect for him, but this is a matter for the Secretary of State, or if the right hon. Gentleman cannot be present for the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. We have not seen the Solicitor-General since his appointment.
    Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: He was here five minutes ago.
    Mr. SHORT: We shall want a clear and definite statement as to what the proviso means, because it says:
    "the system of shifts is intended to be permanently adopted."
    That is, for all time, making a complete revolution in our industrial system. We are not going to be satisfied with any kind of talk on this matter. If the Under-Secretary of State cannot satisfy us I shall, Mr. Speaker, ask your permission to move to report Progress, in order that the House may have the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown or the Secretary of State himself, who although he speaks with some scorn of hon. Members on this side at any rate is a man of legal discernment. I pass on to point out that we are going to be involved in an enormous expenditure upon armaments. I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of that policy, but already it has been reflected in the attitude of industry. Already we see a wide extension of aircraft production. With an enormous expenditure of public money "in the offing" new factories will spring up for the production of munitions and every one of those new factories, subsidised to some extent by public money, will be able, by means of this proviso, to introduce the two-shift system, ignoring the will of the workers.
    We have had experience of this. Those of us who lived through the War period can recall the extension which took place then of factories for the production of
    286
    munitions. In a varied career I have had a long workshop experience. I was in a workshop during the War and I remember how new factories grew up like mushrooms, how new departments were created, distinct and separate from the original factories, and how women and girl workers were employed in great numbers. We remember how two-shift and three-shift systems were operated in those circumstances. With the prospects of a big loan and an expenditure running up to £300,000,000 on munitions and armaments, the same thing will occur again. We are not even certain, I am sorry to say, that we are not going to move into war itself. If we do, there will be an even greater extension of this sort of activity and more and more factories will be working on this system without the consent of the workers.
    This is a very important matter. [Laughter.] It is all right for hon. Members to laugh, but they do not work on the two-shift system. Many of them do not work at all and have never done so. They find it more convenient to earn their living in easier ways. Indeed I have always though myself that hard work is a slovenly way of getting a living. However, now that the Home Secretary is here—
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are working on the two-shift system.
    Mr. SHORT: I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague carried out that system on the Second Reading Debate and we welcomed the manner in which they did so then, but it does not appear to have operated so successfully to-night. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) explained to me the reason for the right hon. Gentleman's absence and I am not complaining. At the same time, we like to see him present to advise us upon these interesting and complicated matters and I hope that the Under-Secretary, if he replies, will address himself seriously to the points I have made. This proviso represents a complete departure from a practice which has operated for over 16 years, which has worked well and has caused no objection or complaint. We cannot see why there should be any deviation from that path of virtue as far as the two-shift system

    287
    is concerned. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to satisfy us on the interpretation of these words and tell us which factories are to come within the purview of this proviso.
    8.7 p.m.
    Mr. LLOYD: I appreciate the fact that, if one looks at this provision without having studied this matter, it is very natural to wonder why this exception should be made.
    Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that hon. Members on this side have not studied it?
    Mr. LLOYD: The hon. Lady really must fit the cap to herself.
    Mr. JAGGER: May I fit it to myself also?
    Mr. LLOYD: I was about to say that although I think a reasonable case could be made for that point of view, yet it is surprising that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) should at the conclusion of his speech say that the general system had worked well in the past even with regard to newly established factories, and that he had never heard any suggestion that it had worked badly, or that there had been any complaints.
    Mr. SHORT: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood my reference. I was referring to the fact that there was no complaint on the operation of the two-shift system, regarding the consent of the workers being obtained. I said that there had been no complaint over a period of 16 years and asked why should this variation now be made.
    Mr. LLOYD: I do not think there is any misunderstanding between us. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but the fact is that there has been complaint and there have been difficulties and those difficulties were brought before the Departmental Committee which investigated this matter. It is on the basis of a paragraph in the Committee's recommendations that this provision has been inserted in the Bill. Hon. Members have talked a great deal about exploitation and have referred to the fact that industries are
    288
    changing and that this provision is not applicable in the altered circumstances. I would remind them that the Departmental Committee not only received evidence from the interests concerned but had as one of its number the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) who is as fully conversant with industrial conditions, from the workers' point of view, as any hon. Member opposite and has particular experience of the hosiery industry, one of these new trades in which this system is rather prevalent. It is not likely that he, as a member of that Committee, would put forward a proposal which would lead to exploitation or would be unreasonable in itself.
    Mr. TINKER: Do not shelter behind that.
    Mr. LLOYD: The hon. Gentleman says I ought not to shelter behind the committee.
    Mr. TINKER: No. I say the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Brown) is not present, and I suggest it is rather hard that the hon. Gentleman should use his name in this way when he is not here to defend himself.
    Mr. LLOYD: I do not know whether the hon. Member heard the speech made by the hon. Member for Mansfield on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. TINKER: I did.
    Mr. LLOYD: He differed on very few points from the proposal that the Bill should go through. I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but I do not think there is any impropriety in following the definite statement which the hon. Member for Mansfield, as a member of the committee, with other people, signed, since it is upon the basis of that paragraph that we are proceeding. As there has been a great deal of misunderstanding I think I ought to read this passage from the report:
    "So far as regards factories newly established, the committee sees no advantage in retaining the procedure of a joint application. In some cases the factory and plant have to be planned in advance before work actually commences and workers are taken on. In these cases before granting an order the Department would have to be satisfied that the circumstances are such as to warrant the use of the two-shift system, and that adequate provision is made for

    289
    welfare, etc. But beyond this it does not seem possible or necessary for the Department to intervene."
    Then in the recommendations on page 31, hon. Members will see:
    "The provision that requires the consent of the majority of the workpeople concerned for introduction of the system should be retained except in the case of the establishment of new works, designed to be works in whole or in part on the two-shift system, as a permanent part of its organisation."
    This Departmental Committee which was charged with the duty of investigating the whole subject and of seeing whether any modification should be made in the system, a committee which had upon it representatives of all parties, went into all the evidence and recommended this procedure. That is why we have introduced it. May I go into more details and point out the practical difficulties which has caused this exception to me made. What would the position be if the proviso were deleted I think it can be said without exaggeration that a farcical situation would result. An employer could not get his factory going without an authorisation and he could not get an authorisation until there had been a ballot. Presumably he would have to resort to the artifice of taking on a certain number of workers, on the understanding that they would be wanted for the shift system when it was authorised. He would then have to wait, pending a ballot the result of which would he a foregone conclusion and the carrying out of the rest of the procedure. We have here a genuine difficulty, because, if you insist that there should be a ballot, even in such a case, the employer should get round the actual intention of that provision presumably by taking on only those who were prepared to work the system and then, after waiting a short time, taking a ballot on it. I do not think the House would think that a suitable or practical method of procedure.
    Surely the real question to be decided is whether or not a certain number of people are prepared to work this system. in the case of an existing factory, naturally you have to lay down the procedure that the views of the workers shall be ascertained as to whether they will change over to the new system or not, but in the case of a factory which does not exist, or is newly established, it seems reasonable to suppose that those
    290
    workers who are prepared to work on those conditions will signify their consent by doing so. That seems to us to be a very much more practical state of affairs. It is one of those difficulties of a purely practical nature which is best resolved in a plain and straightforward manner as we are doing in this House, rather than by doing what we might perhaps have done, that is to say, let the procedure go on and be a farce. It is much better to face the practical difficulties now. In conclusion I want to emphasize that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the works are newly established. I wish to assure the House that there is no sinister motive in this and no desire to evade the general provisions we have laid down. It is the most practical method of dealing with the question.
    Mr. SHORT: I rise to move the Adjournment of the House, because we are entirely dissatisfied—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
    Mr. BELLENGER: Before the Under-Secretary finishes with this matter, I would like to put a point to him. Does he not think that he is making a distinction between the old factories and the new factories to the disadvantage of the former, and does he think it is fair to the old factories that they should have to work under a system which does not operate in the case of the new factories?
    Mr. SH0RT: I would like, by leave of the House, to put a further question.
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In the circumstances the hon. Member cannot speak again.
    Mr. SHORT: Do I understand that I cannot move the Adjournment of the House, or move to report Progress?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Certainly not. The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
    8.18 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would give some reason for the existence of this proviso. It seems to me that there is something objectionable in the two-shift system being applied in the case of women and girls, and that

    291
    has been admitted by virtue of the fact that before it can be established in any factory the consent of the people concerned must be obtained by ballot, and the majority of them must agree to it. That being so, it passes my comprehension why in the case of new factories the Government should run away from the principle to which they themselves agree and have established in their own Bill. The Under-Secretary said it would be a difficult matter, when a new factory was being built, if the workpeople had to be set on before they knew whether there would be a two-shift system or not; but the new factories could be built in exactly the same circumstances as the factories which already exist. If the factories were built for a one-shift system, they would be in the same position as every other factory, there being no advantage and no disadvantage as against every other employer. If after the factory had been established on a one-shift system it was desired to introduce the two-shift system, that could be done with the consent of the workpeople. It appears to me that
    the new factories are to be in a very privileged position.
    8.19 p.m.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: I understood the Under-Secretary to say just now that it would be extremely inconvenient for a ballot to be held in the case of new factories, but I would point out that if the workpeople are to be taken on, they may have to perform certain operations about which they may know nothing at all. The new factory might have some entirely different processes, and the work-people would be placed in the position of being asked to go to work in it, possibly at their peril, without having an opportunity of saying whether they wish a two-shift system to operate or not. It seems to me it would be possible for machinery to be devised to get over all these difficulties without having such a proposal as we have now.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes,107.

    Division No. 181.]

    AYES.

    [8.20 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

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

    Gower, Sir R. V.

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

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

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

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

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

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Craven- Ellis, W.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Apsley, Lord

    Critchley, A.

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

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Croom-Johnson, R. p.

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cross, R. H.

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Balnlel, Lord

    Crowder, J, F. E.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Harbord, A.

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

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

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

    Hepworth, J.

    Bllndell, r J.

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Denville, Alfred

    Holmes, J. S.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Dodd, J. S.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Bracken, B.

    Donner, P. W.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Brass, Sir W.

    Drewe, C.

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

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

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

    Duggan, H. J.

    Hunter, T.

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

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W.

    Bull, B. B.

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Burghley. Lord

    Eastwood, J. F.

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

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Emery, J. F.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvs.)

    Butler, R. A.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kimball, L.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Entwistle, C. F.

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Everard, W. L.

    Lees-Jones, J.

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

    Flndlay, Sir E.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Christie, J. A.

    Furness, S. N.

    Levy, T.

    Clarke, F E.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Lewis, O.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Cobb, Sir C. S.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Gibson, C. G.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Pllkington, R.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Spens, W. P

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Radford, E A.

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

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

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalrn)

    McKie, J. H.

    Rankin, R.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Magnay, T.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

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

    Reid, W. Allen (Derby)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

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

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbrldge)

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Rowlands, G.

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

    Muirhead, Lt-Col. A. J.

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Munro, P.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Wells, S. R.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Salt, E. W.

    White, H. Graham

    O'Connor, sir Terence J.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

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

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

    Seely, Sir H. M.

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

    Orr-Ewlng, I. L.

    Selley, H. R.

    Windsor-Olive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Owen, Major G.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Wise, A. R.

    Palmer. G. E. H.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Peat, C. U.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Somerville, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and

    Petherick, M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Captain Waterhouse.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hardle, G. D.

    Parker, H. J. H.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Potts, J.

    Batey, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Price, M. P.

    Bellenger, F.

    Holland, A.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Benson, G.

    Hollins, A.

    Ritson, J.

    Bevan, A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Broad, F. A.

    Jagger, J.

    Rowson, G.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brooke, W.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Shinwell, E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Short. A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Cassells, T.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Chater D.

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lathan, G.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Leach, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Cripps, Hon. sir Stafford

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, W.

    Dagger, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Dalton, H.

    Logan, D. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Ede, J. C.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walker, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacLaren, A.

    Watkins, F. C.

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

    Maclean, N.

    Wotson, W. McL.

    Gallacher, W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Marklew, E.

    Westwood, J.

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Marshall, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Glbbins, J.

    Mathers, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Messer, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mllner, Major J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Montague, F.

    Woods, G. S. (Flnsbury)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

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

    Groves, T. E.

    Muff, G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Hr. Whiteley and Mr. John.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Paling, W.

    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. SHORT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, to leave out Sub-section (5).
    We consider this Amendment of equal importance to the last, and I would remind the Under-Secretary again, lest he
    294
    should have forgotten it in his enthusiasm, that he has not met the Opposition at all, and has not given us a single thing. He has closed his mind to all arguments and appeals, whether to the reason or to the emotions. Now we

    295
    have reached the end of this road of travail I am hopeful that we shall get some little reward for our efforts. This Sub-section enables the Secretary of State to delegate his duties to other persons, including the chief inspector of factories or the superintending inspector of factories. The Sub-section was really the result of an afterthought on the part of the Home Office. It was moved in Committee by the Under-Secretary who, at the time of its acceptance, disposed of another Clause in the Bill. The Subsection has relation to the procedure to be adopted in regard to orders. It was suddenly thought desirable to change the procedure which we have been operating for 16 years. It has been going on all that time, and then somebody suddenly had a brain-wave and suggested that the time had arrived for a change. In the report of the Committee, on page 24, we are told that the
    "procedure seems somewhat cumbrous—especially in the case of Orders required only for a temporary purpose—and may involve some delay in dealing with urgent applications; and now that the experimental period may be considered to have ended, we recommend that in these cases, at any rate, the permission to work the two-shift system might be granted locally by the appropriate official of the Factory Department (we suggest the superintending inspector) without reference to Whitehall."
    On what evidence was this case of the Committee based? I have read the report and the summary of the evidence, and I do not think any employers complained that the procedure was cumbrous, or that the workers did. The only people who seem to have expressed any opinion, though certainly without offering any evidence, as far as the summary of evidence indicates, were the factory inspectors. They expressed their opinions. What is the procedure? I cannot emphasise this point too much, for it is vital. The House demanded, and the Home Office acceded to the demand, that no Orders should be issued under the two shift-system unless they were signed by the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary. I think that is right.
    Mr. LLOYD indicated assent.
    Mr. SHORT: Why did we decide upon that practice? Because of the unsatisfactory conditions arising out of the operation of the Act of 1920; because hon.
    296
    Members on both sides of the House, anxious for the welfare of young people in particular, wanted to be satisfied that no two-shift Orders were issued without the most careful scrutiny and examination. Now we are told that the procedure is cumbrous and may, involve some delay. This is a new word to me, cumbrous. I never heard of it when I was at the Home Office. I never heard of any delay in the issuing of these Orders. This reference to "cumbrous" is a reflection on the Home Office such as I myself, with my experience, would never make. It is one of the most efficient Departments of the State, ever ready to respond to the appeals of wisdom and justice. I do not remember any complaints being made, or any questions being put in this House, charging the Home Secretary and his Department with delay in the issue of these two-shift Orders. I do not say there has not been one case of delay, I do not say there have been not two cases, but I do not recall, during the two and a-half years when the Labour Government were in office, that there were any complaints, and I certainly do not recall any question being put on the Floor of the House.
    I can quite understand that the officers of the State should want to acquire more power. We are always in danger of what is termed the bureaucracy in Whitehall. The Lord Chief Justice wrote a book about the growing dangers of the bureaucracy in Whitehall. I can understand the anxiety of inspectors to acquire greater powers, but if they are to be given greater powers it should only be after evidence which would justify the step. This is a responsibility of the Secretary of State, and we ought not to be parties to banding it over to the Chief Factory Inspector or the Superintending Inspector of Factories. Hitherto the practice has been this—that when an application for an Order has been made the factory inspector on the spot has made a careful investigation and has reported to the chief inspector in Whitehall, and after thorough examination the matter has been referred to the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary. We see no reason why that practice, which has worked so well, and has contributed in no small measure to harmony in the administration of the Act and, what is more important, and even vital, to harmony in this House as regards our attitude towards industrial legislation.

    297
    The Under-Secretary must not think that we want to waste our time firing political bullets every day at himself or the Secretary of State regarding the issue or refusal of Orders. Why does the Secretary of State want to delegate his authority to any superintending inspector of factories? I do not cast any reflection upon the character or the administrative qualities of the factory inspectors. I do not say that I know them all, but I know the majority of those who preside in the various Departments across the road, and I have met many of those who are in the country. I have the greatest respect for them, but this question is not to be decided by considerations of personal respect. We shall certainly want very satisfactory evidence indeed to justify this Sub-section. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary will meet us on this matter. I should like to have an opportunity of carrying away something to-night. I extended myself somewhat on a previous Amendment, and I did so also this one hoping that my hon. Friends and myself would not be turned away empty handed.
    If the Under-Secretary cannot meet us entirely I will make an offer to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] My hon. Friends say "No." Perhaps I had better wait and let somebody else do it. They say that a readiness to compromise is one of the main characteristics of Englishmen, and I was only anxious to get some proper reward for our efforts. My hon. Friends do not like me to make an offer but, all the same, I hope the Under-Secretary will meet us. I hope he will accept the Amendment or at least give us an assurance that in another place the Government will agree to the deletion of some words in order that we may achieve our object.
    It has been said that we are opposed to the two-shift system; we are, but we are not powerful enough to stop the passage of this Measure. Consequently, we must expect it to reach the Statute Look and be put into operation in our industrial life. Our Amendment is calculated to improve the Measure in its present form. We are anxious to maintain the policy of the issuing of orders, because it is justified by experience during the last 16 years. The Under-Secretary will have to make a better speech than he made on the last occasion,
    298
    one far more convincing, if he is to satisfy my hon. Friends and myself in this important matter.
    8.46 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It seems to us that the Amendment is in the best interests of those who are to be employed under the two-shift system. When the Under-Secretary was replying to a similar Amendment in the Committee, he said that the point the Departmental Committee had in mind was that, in rush jobs, in many industries, the need for piece-working might occur very suddenly and last only for a short time. We admit that that is likely to occur. That is the intention of the Clause which we are discussing. He immediately went on to say that these superintendent inspectors were to decide whether these arrangements were to be made, and that statement appears to be a contradiction. The Under-Secretary also said that there were only 11 in the whole country, each supervising a considerable area. They were men of very high standing in the Service. It is not clear what will happen in actual practice. If there are rush jobs in all parts of the country and only 11 superintending inspectors to deal with them, how is the machinery to be worked? If a rush job is wanted almost at once, will it not be a question of telegraphing to and fro, and the inspector, knowing nothing about the matter, having to give some decision almost in no time?
    There is no suggestion how long a permit will last after it has been granted. Permits are supposed to be purely temporary, but there is nothing to suggest how long their temporary nature will last, or whether permits may be continued. Are they for a week, or a month? Can there be a similar application after they have expired? The superintending inspectors will be put in an entirely different position from the ordinary factory inspector, and indeed, from their own original position. The inspector has, to a large extent, been looked upon as the friend of the employé but now he will be very much the friend of the person who wants to introduce the two-shift system in a hurry. He will be obliged to give his decision in a rush, knowing very little about the operation to be carried on.

    299
    A further consideration is that although the two-shift system is to be brought in, and although we have, under the old Factory Acts, provision for the medical inspection of workpeople entering industry, we are trying a new experiment with the young life, because there is no provision for a medical examination to see whether they are fit for their occupation.
    8.51 p.m.
    Mr. MUFF: I appeal to the Under-Secretary to meet us in this matter. I have had experience of the visits of these inspectors. I remember as a youngster 10 years of age, in one of the very factories we are talking about, that an inspector used to call and pay a sort of State visit. His visit was most perfunctory. I have no doubt that these great officers of the Crown, the superintendent inspectors, will be even more perfunctory in their visits, which they will pay at greater stated intervals, than even the ordinary inspectors. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to knock out this Sub-section. I believe that he is not altogether in love with it himself. I have a report of what he said in the Committee, that even the Home Office did not desire to force these recommendations upon the Committee. That was the opinion of the Home Office and also, I suggest, of the Under-Secretary. We do not wish to make it too easy in the West Riding of Yorkshire to institute the two-shift system. We do not like it and we do not want it. We are entitled to say that men, women and children—it is a question of women and children first, so far as women in the textile mills are concerned in the West Riding—should have all the protection that this House can give them.
    That is why we do not wish to leave dictatorial powers in the hands of a superintendent inspector. What will happen will be a telephone call by the office boy in the mill. It will be switched on to the manager, and then to the local inspector. The manager will state what concession is wanted and the concession will be granted without much inquiry into the facts of the situation. I am afraid that that is what will happen after the Act has been in operation a short time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) I would rather present a bouquet to the Under-Secretary, who
    300
    has a kind face, than throw a brick at him. I wish to make my appeal, and to tell him that the women and children in the West Riding do not want the two-shift system. I am an old factory worker who has had experience of factories. No doubt they are improved these days, and I am glad. It is due to more up-to-date factory supervision. I have very vivid recollections of the factories in those days, and also of the visits of the inspector, when we had to fence our machinery and do all sorts of things to come within the law, because of the perfunctory way in which the inspectors performed their work. I desire to reinforce the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, and I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to agree that this Sub-section shall come out of the Bill.
    8.56 p.m.
    Mr. LLOYD: I must say that it is very hard to listen to the appeals of hon. Gentlemen opposite and not make some response to them, but I would remind the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) that one of the reasons why I have not been able to make concessions this afternoon is that I made so many in Committee, and on this matter a very great concession indeed was made. Originally, Clause 3 provided that the Secretary of State could delegate any of his powers and duties under the Act to the Chief Inspector of Factories, and I think that even the hon. Gentleman will agree that the proposal we are now discussing is much more modest than that. Before I explain to the House the practical basis of this proposal, I should like to say that I was rather interested when the hon. Gentleman mentioned that he might have considered a compromise on this matter, but his hon. Friend would not let him go on. Although I cannot give any undertaking in the sense that he would like, I would remind him that up to the present time he has not produced any practical alternative. If, between now and the consideration of the matter in another place, he could make a suggestion of a practical kind, we should be very glad to consider it and see whether it would be possible to meet him in some way.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: While the Under-Secretary is appealing to my hon. Friend, might I ask him if he himself could not make a suggestion between now and the

    301
    time when the Bill is considered in another place?
    Mr. LLOYD: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, as the initiative has come from the other side, they should be the first to put forward a suggestion. That is as far as I can go this evening, and I do so in response to the appeals of hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I remind the House how this proposal arises? It simply comes from the businesslike consideration of the matter by the Departmental Committee. They found that there were a certain number of cases where the authorisation was wanted for a short period to meet, a temporary emergency, and was wanted quickly. Reference of these matters to the centre in Whitehall is bound to cause delay, a fact which was illustrated very well by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. C. Wilson) when he reminded the House of my statement in Committee that there were only 11 of these superintending inspectors in the whole country, who would under this provision be allowed to give an authorization—only, be it remembered, after a secret ballot and after all the procedure under the Act had been gone through. How, then, asked the hon. Member, could all this work be done by only 11 men? The proposal, however, is that it should be done by 11 men instead of by one man. I would give the hon. Member the assurance that under the Bill the period cannot exceed six months, which is a pretty severe limitation, but there are cases, of which I have details, though I will not worry the House with them,
    where, for instance, there is a rush order for export and this system is really necessary, and it is vital, if the contract is to be secured, that the authorisation should be given as quickly as possible. The Departmental Committee were moved by considerations of that kind to recommend this procedure, and that is why it was put in. I repeat, however, that, if hon. Members opposite can bring forward any alternative at another stage, we will consider it.
    9.1 p.m.
    Mr. KELLY: Under this proposal the factory inspector is being brought in to do work which he was never appointed to do. He was appointed to inspect factories and to inspect conditions, but now he is to be asked to decide between employers and employed as to the operations of the two-shift system. The Under-Secretary said that it may be required for a rush order for export, but I hope he will find some better reason than that. Industries like those which were mentioned during the Committee stage do not find themselves in the position that the hon. Gentleman has stated, and to place upon the factory inspector this responsibility of authorising the operation of the two-shift system is to bring him into the position of dealing with people who disagree with him, which is a wrong position for civil servants to have to occupy.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 108.

    Division No. 182.]

    AYES.

    [9.3 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

    Burghley, Lord

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

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

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Butler, R. A.

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Davison, Sir W. H.

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

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Apsley, Lord

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Denville, Alfred

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Dodd, J. S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Donner, P. W.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Christie, J. A.

    Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Clarke, F. E.

    Drewe, C.

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

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Duggan, H. 1.

    Bilndell, Sir J.

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

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Bower, Comdr. . T.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Bracken, B.

    Critchley, A.

    Emery, J. F.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Croom-Johnson, R. p.

    Entwistle, C. F.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Cross, R. H.

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

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

    Crossley, A, C.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Bull, B. B.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Everard, W. L.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Foot, D. M.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Rowlands, G.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Furness, S. N.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Salt, E. W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Gibson, C. G.

    Magnay, T.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

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

    Selley, H. R.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Markham, S. F.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

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

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.

    Smiles, Lieut. Colonel Sir W. D.

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Guy, J. C. M.

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

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

    Spens, W. P.

    Hannah, I. C.

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

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Storey, S.

    Harbord, A.

    Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Strauss, E. A (Southwark, N.)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Hellgers, Captain F, F. A.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hepworth, J.

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Owen, Major G.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J,

    Peake, O.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Hopkinson, A.

    Peat, C. U.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Penny, Sir G.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

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

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Hunter, T.

    Petherick, M.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

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

    Porritt, R. W.

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

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Radford, E. A.

    Ward, Irene (Walisend)

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Kimball, L.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Wells, S. R.

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    White, H. Graham

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

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

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

    Rankin, R.

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

    Leckie, J. A.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wise, A. R.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Levy, T.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Lewis, O.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Liddail, W. S.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Commander Southby and Captain

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Waterhouse.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Markiew, E.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Marshall, F.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Groves, T. E.

    Messer, F.

    Barr, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Milner. Major J.

    Batey, J.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Montague, F.

    Bellenger, F.

    Hardie, G. D.

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

    Benson, G.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Muff, G.

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Paling, W.

    Bromfield, W

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Parker, H. J. H.

    Brooke, W.

    Holland, A.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Hollins, A.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Potts, J.

    Casselis, T.

    Jagger, J.

    Price, M. P.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Chater, D.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Ritson, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    John, W.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Rowson, G.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Daggar, G,

    Kelly, w. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Dalton, H.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Short. A.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Day, H.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)

    Leach. W.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Ede, J. C.

    Lee, F.

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

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Leonard, W.

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

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

    Logan, D. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Gallacher, W.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Thorne, W.

    Gardner, B. W.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Thurtle, E.

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Gibbins, J.

    MacLaren, A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Maclean, N.

    Walkden, A. G.

    304

    305

    Walker, J.

    Westwood, J.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Watson, W. McL.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Welsh, J. C.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Short title, construction, commencement, repeal and extent.)
    9.11 p.m.
    Mr. LLOYD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, to leave out "July," and to insert "January."
    The effect of this Amendment and the next is to postpone from July to January next the date of coming into operation of the Bill. It was introduced at the end of last year. It was then hoped that it would pass very early in the Session, and that it would be possible to bring it into operation on 1st July, but in view of the delay that has occurred it is not now practicable. It will be necessary, before the Bill can be worked, to set up the proposed advisory committee, to obtain and consider their advice on the kind of procedure to be adopted for consulting the workers and to prepare the draft special Order describing the procedure. The Order has to be issued in draft 40 days before it is made, and any written representations from any interested bodies must be taken into consideration. The House will probably agree that in these circumstances it would be better if the date of coming into operation were postponed.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: All I need say is that, if the hon. Gentleman proposed to put it off till January, 1957, I would support it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, leave out "thirty-six," and insert "thirty-seven."—[Mr. Lloyd.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." — [Commander Southby.]
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. KELLY: It is surprising that we should have a Measure of this kind calling upon young people to engage in work in a continuous shift for some eight hours, and for even longer periods, probably from 6 o'clock in the morning till 1 o'clock in the afternoon and from 1 o'clock in the afternoon in some cases till 10 o'clock. It is a sorry state that we have reached.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: On a point of Order. Has the Third Reading been moved?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): Yes. It was moved from the Treasury Bench.
    Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman was a, little premature, and I thought his slight error in proposing the Third Reading was obliterated by the fact that the Under-Secretary had two more Amendments to move.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Third Reading was moved, not by the Home Secretary but by a Minister on the Treasury Bench.
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was proposing to move—I do not know whether he actually moved—formally that the Bill be read the Third time. I desired myself, and arranged with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be convenient, to say a few words a little later, but if there is any informality, and my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will move the Third Reading.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no informality. The Third Reading has been moved. There is no need for a speech by the Mover. I called for the Third Reading, and the answer was given from the Government Bench, "Now." The Third Reading has been moved, and it is now being debated, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is in possession of the Floor of the House.
    Commander SOUTHBY (Lord of the Treasury): I formally moved that the Third Reading be taken now.
    Mr. KELLY: I was speaking of boys and girls at the age of 16 being forced into industry to work at these hours early in the morning, and, in the case of the second shift, late at night. The Bill provides special facilities for transport, and for health. I have tried to picture what will happen in the case of London with regard to those travelling facilities. How are the young people

    307
    from the South-East of London, if they work in the North-West of London, to reach their employment by 6 o'clock in the morning? There is nothing here which provides that the employment may be refused unless those facilities are at the disposal of these young people. Education authorities in the great cities of this country have spent considerable sums of money in setting up evening institutes and providing facilities for the extended education of young people. They are meeting with some success, after many years of effort, and now we are faced with the position that young people who might be desirous of attending the evening institutes will be kept at work during the hours that the institutes are open in the evening. It is asking far too much to expect these young persons who are at work from 6 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and those who are at work from 1 o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock at night, to attend these institutes.
    There is also the breaking up of the domestic circle through these young people having to go to work at hours different from the hours of other members of the family. It is surprising that we should be asked to support such a Bill, or even to permit such a Bill to be enforced in the industries of this country. Surely the industrial and commercial life of this country can be carried on without having to sacrifice our young people, as will be the case under these conditions. I am amazed that we should be called upon to deal with such a Measure, and it speaks ill for the captains of industry, if they are behind this Measure, asking for it to be operated to the detriment of the young life of this country.
    9.19 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: As one who has been through the whole proceedings on this Bill from the beginning, I wish to say a few words on the Third Reading. It is not very long ago since I joined with others interested in factory legislation in commemorating the end of the first century of progress in that form of legislation. I do not think I am wrong in saying to-night that the passing of this Bill is the first retrograde step taken for over a century in this country in our
    308
    factory laws. It is to the dishonour of the House of Commons that we are now, in the year 1936, calling upon young persons of 16 years of age to turn out to work at 6 o'clock in the morning or to work until 10 o'clock at night. What is the reason for such a Bill? It is a concession to the growing speed of modern machinery, and to those who believe that they cannot compete in the markets of the world with the commodities that their factories produce. We are to-day passing a Bill such as this when, in fact, a young girl in a factory in England can produce 50 times as much goods in the same number of hours as her grandmother could produce in the same factory. The Government are taking upon themselves a great responsibility in acceding to the demands of the god of profit.
    The Bill does one thing which annoys me beyond measure. In all occupations outside production there has been a growing tendency to limit the number of hours during which people work in banks, insurance offices, shops and in all commercial occupations—to start work at 9 o'clock in the morning and finish at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, while on Saturday offices in the great cities of this country close almost universally at noon. The Bill, however, permits the employment of girls and boys at 16 years of age up to 2 o'clock in factories on Saturday afternoons. The right hon. Gentleman has done one thing. We have worked hard at this Measure —and the right hon. Gentleman's Under-Secretary has been very industrious in this matter—and have succeeded in obtaining one very important concession. It is right that we should say this. We have secured that the ballot to be taken by the workpeople involved shall be held in secret. That is all to the good. We are, however, still afraid of one thing, that the granting of orders in certain emergencies may indeed bring about a state of affairs, as far as the workpeople are concerned, that may be very undesirable.
    The right hon. Gentleman is to set up an advisory committee. Now that we have failed to secure the inclusion of the advisory committee in the Bill, I appeal to him, in appointing the advisory committee, to have regard to one thing above all others. The people who are supposed to represent the workpeople should not

    309
    be some of those who say that they represent the social side of industry, but men and women who have actually experienced the difficulties of working in factories and workshops. I do not care how kindly disposed and well-intentioned anybody may be, he cannot understand what it means to have to work in a pit or a factory unless he has been there himself and has experienced the difficulties. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to bear that fact in mind.
    We have failed in one respect in this Bill, and I am very sorry. There was a recommendation of the Departmental Committee, upon which the Bill is based, that where a woman or young person declined to work on the two-shift system for reasons that were good in law, such person should not be deprived of unemployment benefit. We were told that if we inserted a provision of that kind in the Bill it would upset another Act of Parliament. There was great force in that, but I appeal to the Home Secretary finally on that score, that although we have not been able to insert that provision in the Bill he will try to see that no person who declines to work the two-shift system shall be deprived of his unemployment benefit because of that.
    9.25 p.m.
    Mr. MARSHALL: This Bill will be characterised by working people as the most reactionary piece of legislation introduced into this House for a large number of years. It has been stated that it will do young life irreparable harm, but I want to make a further charge against the Measure—that it will place a premium on cheap labour. That, to me, is one of its most serious aspects. We have about 2,000,000 people in this country unemployed. The most urgent thing that we want is work for them. Yet we have selected this time to extend the opportunities of employers to employ cheap labour. From that point of view I am justified in saying that it is a reactionary Measure. There is another point that we should emphasise. It is that possibly for the first time in industrial legislation we have drawn the Civil Service into industrial disputes. If one of the factory inspectors should put a firm from the one-shift to the two-shift system. there might be an industrial dispute about it. Disputes take place about matters of far less importance. We may have the position
    310
    in which a factory inspector will have given consent for a certain firm to employ women and young persons on the two-shift system, and there may be a strike against it, and the Government will then be in the position of taking a definite side in an industrial dispute. I hope the Home Secretary will see that in another place that Clause is eliminated.
    9.29 p.m.
    Sir J. SIMON: The vigour of speech of the hon. Gentleman makes me wonder whether the real situation of this legislation in relation to our existing law is even now appreciated, and I would like, before we part with it, briefly, and I hope uncontroversially, to state what that true position is. This Bill is not a Bill that establishes the two-shift system. It is not establishing any new departure at all, good or bad. The present situation is that year by year Parliament continues an Act passed in 1920 which made provision for the two-shift system. That has taken place in every Parliament and under every Government. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office they did it every year, and it is a complete confusion—which I am sure hon. Members opposite will do their best to remove from the minds of those they address—that this Bill is establishing the two-shift system. The difference between the law as it is operating now and as it will be after this Bill becomes law is this: Not that under the present law there is not a two-shift system and that this Bill establishes it to the prejudice of anybody, but that under the present law there are no provisions adequate to protect the people concerned, and that this Bill in a series of Clauses endeavours to lay down what that protection should he. There is nothing in the present law which provides for a, secret ballot. I am glad to hear with how much approval the hon. Member opposite referred to it. It was a. proposal put forward by the Government, and I am glad that it is so universally approved. It should be a secret ballot with which neither the trade unions nor anybody else can interfere, and it will be so long as I administer it. That was a flaw in the existing law, and I am glad that it is being put right.
    There is nothing in the present law providing that the Home Secretary, in making an Order for the operation of the two-shift system, must procure that proper conditions are laid down for the

    311
    welfare of the people concerned, and provision as to their being assisted to their work. Everything in the Bill now proposed for the protection of the work-people is new, but the two-shift system is not being established by the Bill. Reject this Bill, and you will have the two-shift system as you have had it without effective protest for 16 years, and you will not have any of the protection contained in the Bill. That is the real character of this legislation.
    While it is right and proper that we should discuss each provision candidly, and if necessary forcibly, I think it desirable that it should be understood once and for all that this is not a Bill which establishes a two-shift system, for the system has existed by Jaw for 16 years. It is a Bill which introduces a series of statutory conditions designed, with the help of all parties, for the purpose of protecting the workers. When with vigour and rhetoric I hear hon. Members opposite denounce this Bill as the first retrograde step for 100 years, I ask myself whether there was not a Departmental Committee on which the authorised spokesmen of labour were invited to nominate their representatives? Did they not nominate two distinguished representatives, who served on that Committee with all good faith; and did not those representatives agree with the other members of the Committee that the lines of this Bill were lines which they could approve?
    Mr. H0LLINS: Was it not a fact that, instead of their being nominees of the trade union movement, their names were submitted by the Home Office and were merely approved?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that it would be suggested that Mr. Arthur Shaw or the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) are not persons of the greatest authority on this subject. Therefore, it cannot be said on the Third Reading of the Bill that there has been some trick in regard to the appointment of members of the Departmental Committee. The committee was appointed from people who were drawn from all quarters, and they arrived at an absolutely unanimous conclusion. The offence that has been committed by the Home Secretary, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, is that he has introduced a Bill
    312
    in strict accordance with the unanimous recommendations of that Departmental Committee.
    There is another thing which should be put on record. These things are complicated, and some hon. Members opposite are masters of their subject, but anybody would suppose from some of the language that they have used—if we are not careful it may be used outside the House, but, of course, it will not be used when I have pointed out the mistake—that we are by this Bill inflicting upon unfortunate victims exceptionally long hours of labour in the interests of some select and favoured class of employers. Nothing of the sort is true. This is a Bill which provides, as the law for the last 16 years has provided, that under certain conditions the system of two shifts may be worked, one of which lies between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m., with an interval for meals, from Mondays to Fridays, and from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. or earlier on Saturday. I am not denying that those are considerable hours of labour, but I do not for one moment believe that the women who vote in favour of this system do not deeply appreciate the fact that it is a system which does give them, once they have completed their 'morning shift, a completely free time for the rest of the day, or if they are on the afternoon shift they have a free time until the afternoon.
    These shifts alternate weekly, and that means that in a fortnight the maximum hours that are authorised will be 11 eight-hour shifts, which is equivalent to 44 hours per week, inclusive of meal times. If we take out meal times, it is something like 41¼ hours per week. Is that putting on the Statute Book some extension of the authorised working week, or is it not, in fact, much shorter than the ordinary working week? In a non-textile factory today the law provides that such persons may work 60 hours in a week, exclusive of meal times. In a textile factory they may work 55½ hours a week, exclusive of meal times, and in busy times such hours are far from being unknown. Next year, I hope that we shall have a new Factory Bill and that we shall all co-operate to bring the factory laws up to date. Hon. Members will believe me when I say that there is no one more anxious to secure their friendly co-operation than I am, or more anxious to bring the factory laws up to date. In the meantime, do not let

    313
    us talk nonsense, especially nonsense to ignorant people. Do not let us tell them that this Bill is a retrograde step, in that it puts upon these people much more serious legal hours of work than the existing law allows, because it does nothing of the sort.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Unnatural hours.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member may be right, but what I am inviting him and his friends to co-operate with me in doing is to make it quite plain that there is no truth in the statement that the two-shift system is imposing upon people hours of work which are beyond those which are now provided for by law. Let us at least realise that it does nothing of the kind. I agree that there have been difficulties in regard to the Bill, and we are grateful to hon. Members opposite for whatever assistance they have been able to give in regard to Amendments.
    One point was raised by an hon. Member opposite with regard to new factories. Before the two-shift system is introduced into a factory which is an existing going concern, I agree that it is perfectly right that the workpeople should be consulted, but if you are dealing with a new factory, with new machinery, which may be installed for the purpose of working the two-shift system, machinery which is to be continuously run, it is, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, pointed out, extremely difficult to know how you are to consult the workpeople concerned. Are you to produce a sort of stage army of workpeople who, ex hypothesi, have not yet been employed, and get a vote from them in the name of those who are to be employed afterwards? If when a new factory is being erected at great expense and expensive machinery is being installed, you were to say to those who are the proprietors of that factory: "You must get a vote of the workpeople concerned before an authorised two-shift system may begin," you would be confronted with the difficulty as to who are the workpeople and how you are to find out who they are to be. If you attempted to get any vote under those circumstances it would be on an entirely fictitious basis. That is why the Departmental Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and Mr. Shaw said: "By all means have a plan by which you can consult the workpeople, but you cannot do it if you are setting up a new factory."
    314
    I think the right answer is that that situation undoubtedly means that there will be a very grave responsibility on the Secretary of State for the time being when he is making an order in regard to new works, because he will not have as much help as he would have in the case of an old works, and I shall not be at all surprised if in days to come hon. Members opposite, so long as they are in Opposition, put questions on this subject from time to time if and when they think the authorisation has been wrongly or foolishly operated.
    After all the hard work which we have done, I should like to acknowledge the welcome help which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has given throughout, especially when other business has kept me away. I am conscious that nobody could have done the work better, with more equable temper and more acceptably. No one is more happy in that knowledge than I am. I ackowledge his skill and help.
    Now that we have reached the end of our work on the Bill, I hope that all who have a special interest in the matter will see that this proposal is not a new proposal but a proposal under which existing conditions are given a fair trial. I do not suppose we have come to the end of this story, but we have thrashed this thing out with a great deal of care. The Home Office have no politics or sides to take in it whatever, and admittedly the factory inspectors of the Home Office are one of the most impartial and finest public services in the world. I have also the knowledge behind me that those who advise me believe that this Bill is one which will make for the improvement of industrial conditions. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of anyone that we should refuse to impose these statutory protections, which do not now exist, in order to resume the hand-to-mouth habit of passing, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, these provisions every year. Therefore, after all this controversy—more controversy, I think, than might have been expected, having regard to the composition and the unanimous view of the Departmental Committee—I invite the House to approve this Bill, and I hope that those who have felt obliged, with so much vigour, though with unfailing good temper, to criticise certain features of the Bill will none the less recognise that in parting with it we

    315
    are parting with it with an earnest desire to serve the general interests of all concerned and to promote good industrial legislation.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 111.

    Division No. 183.]

    AYES.

    [9.48 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

    Everard, W. L.

    Owen, Major G.

    Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)

    Foot, D. M.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

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

    Furness, S. N.

    Peake, O.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Ganzonl, Sir J.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

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

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Apsley, Lord

    Gibson, C. G.

    Petherick, M.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Assheton, R.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Radford, E. A.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

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

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

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

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

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

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Rankin, R.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Harbord, A.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Hepworth, J.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

    Bracken, B.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ross Taylor. W. (Woodbridge)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Rowlands, G.

    Bull, B. B.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Burghley, Lord

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

    Salt, E. W.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Hunter, T.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Cary, R. A.

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

    Selley, H. R.

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

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

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Christie, J. A.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Kimball, L.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

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

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

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

    Leckie, J. A.

    Spens, W. P.

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Levy, T.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Lewis, O.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Critchley, A.

    Llddall, W. S.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Cross, R. H.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lovat-Fraser, J, A.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Culverwcll, C. T.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

    McKie, J. H.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Magnay, T.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Denville, Alfred

    Mander, G. le M.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Dodd, J. S.

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

    Waterhouse, Captain C

    Donner, P. W.

    Markham, S. F.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Wells, S. R.

    Drewe, C.

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

    White, H. Graham

    Duggan, H. J.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

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

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.

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

    Eastwood, J. F.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H,

    Wise, A. R.

    Ellis, Sir G.

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

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Emery, J. F.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Muirhead, Lt-Col. A. J

    Entwistle, C. F.

    Nall, Sir J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Ersklne Hill, A. G.

    Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

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

    Ward and Commander Southby.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Bellenger, F.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Adamson, W. M.

    Benson, G.

    Burke, W. A.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Bevan, A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Broad, F. A.

    Chater, D.

    Barr, J.

    Bromfield, W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Batey, J.

    Brooke, W.

    Compton, J.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    John, W.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Daggar, G.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Dalton, H.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Ritson, J.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Rowson, G.

    Day, H.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lathan, G.

    Shinwell, E.

    Ede, J. C.

    Leach, W.

    Short, A.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedweilty)

    Lee, F.

    Simpson, F. B.

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

    Leonard, W.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Gallacher, W.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Logan, D. G.

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

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Lunn, W.

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

    Gibbins, J.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    McLaren, A.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Maclean, N.

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Malnwaring, W. H.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Groves, T. E.

    Marklew, E.

    Walker, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Marshall, F.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hall, J. H. (Whltechapel)

    Messer, F.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Hardle, G. D.

    Milner, Major J.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Montague, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Muff, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Holland, A.

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Hollins, A.

    Parker, H. J. H.

    Woods, G. S, (Finsbury)

    Hopkin, D.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Jagger, J.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Potts, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Price, M. P.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  SPECIAL AREAS RECONSTRUCTION (AGREEMENT) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. BATEY: Before the Bill passes, I want to express my disappointment with it so far as the distressed areas are concerned. If this is all that the Government are going to do for the distressed areas, the outlook is extremely black. Within the last two years they have taken three steps which have raised hopes in the Special Areas only for them to be disappointed on every occasion. Two years ago they appointed four Commissioners to make reports, and it was believed that the Government really intended to do something for the Special Areas. They received the reports, but did nothing except appoint a Commissioner, who has been in existence for 15 months, and we are no better off to-day than when he was appointed. What does the Chancellor expect from this Bill? When the Commissioner was appointed a sum of £2,000,000 was voted for the distressed areas, but only £330,000 has so
  318
  far been spent. We complained that a sum of £2,000,000 was of no use, but it has not been spent and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along with a proposal for another £1,000,000 which, I believe, will not be spent either. Last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer made remarks which staggered some of us. In one speech he said:
  "Here the public have to supply the money, the public will run considerable risks for practically no reward, and you may be quite certain that they are not going to run these risks indefinitely unless the prospects of the work to be done by this company become much more rosy than I reckon them to be at this stage."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 11th May, 1936; col. 71, Vol. 312.]
  In those remarks there is not much hope for the distressed areas. We are justified in assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself does not expect the reconstruction company to be a success. But that was not the worst thing he said last night. In another speech he said:
  "The operations of the company, as I conceive them, are not likely ever to be on a gigantic scale. The thing is an ex-periment for small businesses and I am not expecting that the Bill, even if it is as successful as the most sanguine anticipate it will be, is going to set the Thames on fire or provide any great revolution in the affairs of the depressed areas."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 11th May, 1936; col. 55, Vol. 312.]
  What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect from the Bill? He says

  319
  that it is not going to create a revolution in the distressed areas. Is it then only shop-window dressing? Is it only going to do what the Government have done before—raise hopes in these areas and then dash them to the ground? We want a revolution in the distressed areas. Unemployment, we are told, is going down throughout the country, but that is not true so far as the distressed areas are concerned. In the Spennymoor Exchange there has been an increase in the number of unemployed by 381 as compared with April of last year. The prosperity of the country has not touched these areas and, therefore, we want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this is the Government's last word on this matter and how long they propose to wait to see whether this experiment is to succeed. Are they going to sit down quietly and wait for six months, or 12 months, or two years before they do anything else for the distressed areas?
  Nothing that the Government have done so far has touched the fringe of the problem in these areas. During the General Election we were told that a trading estate was to be started and that £100,000 had been earmarked for the purpose. It is still in the air. The Commissioner made this statement during the Election, and I believe that when this last experiment has been in operation for one or two years we shall be no better off. In my opinion, you will not really help the distressed areas until you are prepared to find the money to restore the basic industry in the areas—the coal industry. Unless you are prepared to find the money to do that, nothing that you are proposing to do will help them, and 12 months after this Bill has been passed we shall be in the same condition as we are to-day. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to realise that in these areas this is a human problem. The people are gradually going down. They expect the Government to do something for them, but all the Government can do is to raise their hopes and then dash them to the ground. We are no better off now than when the Government took office.
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I understand that on the Third Reading of a
  320
  Bill we are reduced to discussing what is in the Bill and not what is outside it. That makes it easy to deliver a short speech. Quite frankly, there is not a tremendous amount in the Bill, and in fairness to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has never pretended that there was very much in it. As I have said before, the most misleading thing about the Measure is its Title. If you are going to give out to the world that this is your programme for the Special Areas reconstruction, people will be disappointed. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that he is trying to fulfil a particular recommendation of the Commission, a recommendation which I and other people have asked should be adopted, and, therefore, it would be ungracious if I were to attempt to belittle the experiment which is being made. If this were the Government's whole programme it would be ludicrous and would merit every word which the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) could use against it. But it is only one item and it is as such that I consider it. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone too far in decrying the value of his own experiment. It is possible to make an experiment fail by saying how little you think of it. All the speeches on this Bill have had a tendency towards making people think that this is going to be a risky experiment, and to cause them to ask themselves whether it is worth while risking the money. I do not want that to be the final impression.
  The Bill is not intended to help the heavy industries. The hon. Member was right in saying that they are the essentials of the problem, through which, alone, the depressed areas can be restored, but the object of the Bill is, within certain limited lines, to supply not a substitute for those industries but some kind of help which will give a little more resilience in these areas so that they will not depend altogether on one thing. Considering the bad reputation that has been acquired, it will be difficult to make this a success, but although I have been critical of some points in the Bill, and of the efforts of the Government for the depressed areas as a whole, I do not want any single effort they can make to fall short or fail through lack of any help that I can give. I think we ought to

  321
  accept these little experiments if we can get no more, and try to make them a success. I wish the Bill success within the limited area which alone it can help.
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: As the previous speaker has said, we cannot on the Third Reading go outside the four corners of the Bill and discuss genera] policy, but I have always taken the view that, in the long run, the distressed areas problem can only be solved by the general trade and financial policy of the country and not by special localised efforts. This Bill is a Trade Facilities Bill in miniature. It has the same general idea that people who cannot get credit otherwise—generally for good reasons—should be enabled to get it with the assistance of the Government. It is, to some extent, a device for giving credit to people who ought not to have it. Generally speaking, if people want credit and have a good case they can get it to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think that is so in general. Never since 1895 or 1896 have interest rates been as low as they now are, nor has there been such a quantity of money on time deposits in the banks, indicating credit that is not functioning properly in the banking system.
  It is obviously also true that a, certain number of people who are just starting may have certain difficulties. Nevertheless this is a proposal to grant credit to people who would not get it from those whose ordinary business is to grant credit It is a device to direct credit by the State through the intermediary of a company which does not yet exist It is a first experiment in nationalised banking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Apparently, hon. Members opposite had not thought of that before, and when they hear it they can only make a noise. The Bill consists of six long sentences, two of which begin with "if" and another with "in the event of." The schedule is a contract between the Treasury and a company that does not yet exist, but it is obvious that the company is fundamentally controlled in its general policy. It is difficult to see how much the Treasury is liable to lose in the event of anything going wrong, because the phraseology, being Parliamentary, is obscure. It appears, however, that the Treasury is not going to carry the whole baby but the greater part of it. I do not
  322
  know whether any means test is to be applied, but I take it that it is a case of "to those who have nothing shall some thing be added."
  Mr. MAGNAY: The hon. Member says that those who can satisfy the bankers that they are entitled to credit will get credit. Is that not a means test?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not say anything about the bankers. I spoke about obtaining credit, and bankers are not the only people who give credit. People in a small way do not get credit in the first place from the banks. I hope I am not unduly narrow-minded in the view which I take of this proposal—though I sometimes feel that I am becoming narrow-minded, so many proposals are coming along which I do not like. However, if it is desired to have an experiment, the cost involved is only the equivalent of the cost of two months of collective lunacy in the form of special precautions in the Mediteranean, and if we can chuck money away in that direction, perhaps we can spend some in trying to please the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).
  Mr. BATEY: It does not please me.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: If it were £2,000,000 it would probably please the hon. Member more. His trouble is that it is not enough. My own impression, however, is that the general conception behind the Bill is bad. As I say, I do not mind occasional laboratory experiments. I know that very often nine-tenths of what you are looking for is not there or, if it is, you do not recognise it, but that is what is called research, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer likes to make a little economic research well and good. I shall be surprised if it produces any satisfactory results, but I have not the heart to vote against the Bill. I protest, however, against the idea that it is the function of the State to do all these jobs, and I sometimes think that if we had done less than we have done to solve the unemployment problem it might be nearer solution at the present time.
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. JOHN: We have now reached the final stage of this Bill and there was no need for the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) to express

  323
  any sorrow at the fact that the Government had not done anything for the unemployed.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not say anything which could possibly bear that construction.
  Mr. JOHN: I understood the hon. Member to say that it should not be the policy of the Government to do anything for the unemployed.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I must protest. I said clearly—and I had in mind this country and other countries as well—that if, in some directions we had done less, we might perhaps have really done more for a solution of the problem.
  HON. MEMBERS: What does that mean?
  Mr. JOHN: In any case the hon. Member can rest satisfied that the Government of which he is a supporter has done nothing for the unemployed, and this Bill will do nothing. In fact, all the discussions that have taken place right through the various stages of this Bill have led me to the conclusion that the best thing about the Bill is its Title. It has an excellent Title which contains the word "reconstruction." On looking at the Title, before listening to the discussion, one would think that at long last the Government were attempting to fulfil their promises to the unemployed, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), and that they were now going to reconstruct and, if not build anew, at least attempt to lay down an industrial structure destined to provide work for the unemployed in the distressed areas and to give them an opportunity of reconstructing their own lives and their homes.
  After reading the Bill and listening to the discussion, one is bound to come to the conclusion that there is nothing in this Bill which will satisfy the longing that is in the hearts of the people living in the depressed areas. The Bill will not provide work for the people in those areas, and it will not give them an opportunity of having a brighter outlook on life. It simply means that they are again to be disappointed in looking to the Government for any easing of the burden and solution of the problem which is causing them suffering at the present
  324
  time. Even the Chancellor himself has said that the Bill is not going to put the Thames on fire or cause a revolution so far as the affairs of the depressed areas are concerned. He said it is purely an experiment. It seems to me that so far as the National Government are concerned the word "experiment" is a blessed word in connection with the depressed areas. When the last Bill was introduced by the late Minister of Labour, who is now President of the Board of Education, he said that it was to be an experiment. This again is to be an experiment, and from all the experiments of the National Government in the distressed areas all that has been produced is a change in name. First they were known as depressed areas, then distressed areas and now they are Special Areas.
  This problem has been agitating the minds of the unemployed and the local authorities in the depressed areas for many years. It has faced the Government for many years, and all the Government have done has been to experiment. In the name of justice and common sense the time has passed for experimenting upon the lives of the people in the depressed areas. The time has now arrived for the Government to do something tangible for those areas. I contend that so far as this Bill is concerned the Government are not doing anything tangible for them. Eighteen months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the conditions of the depressed areas were such as to call for special treatment and that it was essential for something rapid, something direct., or, he said, if you like, some unorthodox method to be adopted. It may be that this Bill contains very unorthodox methods so far as the policy of the Government is concerned, but they are very heterodox so far as the financial question is concerned —so heterodox that after hours of discussion last night I do not think anybody clearly understood what is the financial policy in the Bill. But even if the financial arrangement contained in the Bill is unorthodox in that sense, it cannot be argued that it, is a rapid measure or that it is a direct measure to deal with the problem.
  After 18 months of solid thinking and diligent effort on the part of the Government to get a direct: and rapid method, they have produced this puny Measure in

  325
  order to meet one of the gravest problems any Government has had to face. How will this Bill meet the problem? The chancellor has said that it is not intended to solve it. It is simply going to meet conditions that are in certain areas. Last night the right hon. Gentleman remarked that South Wales was not the only depressed area, meaning, I presume, that i f it does not touch South Wales the Bill may be of advantage to some other areas. I hope that he is right. We are riot concerned to oppose the Bill if it would ease the burden in any other part of the country. What are the conditions of the depressed areas to which this Bill will apply? They can be divided into two categories. There are the varied industry areas, where there are idle factories, and the one industry areas, where there is not room for buildings to be erected and where the Chancellor suggested that it was intended to clear away the rubbish heaps in order to get sites for factories. That has not been done yet. It may be possible for the Bill to be of slight advantage to the varied industry areas, but it will not touch the fringe of the problem of the one industry areas. Those areas are suffering the worst, and if there is to be an attempt to solve the problem of the depressed areas it has to be a solution of the problem of the hardest hit areas.
  The company which is to be formed may attract £1,000,000 capital. After receiving that money what is to happen It is to wait until a certain number of applicants come forward for loans in order to start certain new industries in the depressed areas. The company will be like Micawber, except that, instead of waiting for something to turn up, it will wait for someone to turn up; and while they are waiting there will be millions of people in the distressed areas languishing in poverty and want. Are these people to wait again until such time as sufficient applications have come forward? If they do come forward, what sort of industries are they going to establish? There is no indication in the Bill or the Chancellor's speeches. If there are a number of people waiting ready and anxious to invest their money in the depressed areas, we ought to be able to get the information as to the nature of the industries. How many factories are to be built, and how many people are to be employed? What kind of varied
  326
  industries will be established in the vicinity of, say, the depressed areas in South Wales? Unless there is to be some information on these lines. it means that these people have again to wait for years in order to ascertain whether it is possible for some new industries to come into these areas.
  We are not opposing the Bill, but we are conscious that it is not going to touch the problem. The Government have either ignored the depressed areas or have failed to understand the magnitude of the problem. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) said that this was not the Government's whole plan. Our complaint is that it is not part of a general policy. If it were a part of a well thought out plan we should welcome it with pleasure. It is simply one item taken from the recommendations of the Commissioner but the Commissioner said quite clearly that it was impossible to solve the problem of the special areas by one method and that other recommendations had to be taken into consideration. The Commissioner recommended that there should be a raising of the school-leaving age, that there should be a lowering of the age for retiring from industry, that there should be an increase in pensions, that the scientific treatment of coal ought to be taken up. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) said the other night that one of the advantages of having small industries in close conjunction with the depressed areas would be that they would act as a feeder to the established industries. What is the established industry in the distressed areas? The coal industry, and the best feeder for the coal mines would be the scientific treatment of coal, the extraction of oil and chemicals from coal. What about easing the burden of the rates?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. JOHN: I wanted only to mention some of the recommendations of the commissioner in passing. If this Bill were a part of a general programme on the part of the Government we could look forward to the future with some measure of hope so far as the depressed areas are concerned. We shall not ask the Government to withdraw the Bill, but to intro, duce very quickly a sequence of other measures in a policy for the depressed

  327
  areas. The Government must be told that the patience of the depressed areas is gradually coming to an end. The people there are getting sick and tired of the conditions under which they live, and it would be to the advantage of the Government and the country generally if this problem were seriously and honestly dealt with in order to give the people there an opportunity again to earn a decent and an honest livelihood.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. ASSHETON: I had not intended to intervene to-night, but some of the remarks which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) made rather encouraged me to put forward my views. I think he was over-critical of this Bill. We ought to appreciate the efforts which are being made to deal with the problem, even though the effort we are now discussing may be only a small one. I have had some considerable experience in raising money for businesses, and I know how difficult it is to raise money for small or medium-sized businesses. It is easy to get £1,000,000; pretty easy to get £500,000; not so difficult to get £250,000; but when you come down to £50,000 or £10,000 the difficulties are very great.
  The reasons are that the expenses incidental to raising money are very much the same whether the amount is great or small. If you want to advertise a prospectus in the Press and pay all the expenses incidental to raising money on the Stock Exchange, you probably find that you have an advertising bill from the newspapers for something 'between £5,000 and £6,000, and that fees and underwriting commissions run into £2,000 or £3,000. It is quite impossible, therefore, for small businesses to get money with ease. It has been suggested by my hon. Friends that it is easy to obtain money from the banks because bankers find difficulty at the present time in making use of their funds. That may well be so, but it is not the business of bankers to find money for businesses. The business of bankers is to find working capital for some businesses and to find such money as is required from time to time on short term. If the Bill draws the attention of financial interests to this problem it may have good
  328
  results, in that more companies may be formed to deal with this form of credit.
  It is easy to criticise the Bill. I found difficulty in understanding paragraph 4 of the Schedule. Criticisms are easy to make, but we have to remember that here is a Bill introduced by the Government with the very definite object of filling a gap in our financial system. It may be that private enterprise ought to have filled this gap: I sincerely hope that private enterprise will take note of what this Bill is doing and will, in its own interests, do something more to fill a gap which clearly exists in our financial system. I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading, and I thank the Government for what they have done to draw attention to the matter.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. MAINWARING: In welcoming or not welcoming the Bill which the House is now asked to give a Third Reading, one would be entitled to judge the proposals from the standpoint of what is contained in it, and whether, as a result, one might expect from the Government any other proposals to deal with the problems towards the solution of which this Bill affects to move. From the initials of the title of the Bill, S.A.R.A., I very much fear that, like another historic personage with a very similar name, it will remain barren to a very old age. I doubt very much whether the Front Bench will ever be able to fructify the Bill. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) suggests that this is not the Government programme but a request by the Commissioner. One is entitled to ask whether the Government are correctly interpreting what the Bill proposes to do. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams)—I do not know whether he thought his suggestion was humorous—said that in a minature way this was a trade facilities Measure. He forgot to add "without the facilities."
  The Commissioner said that in his experience of attempting to deal with difficulties in the depressed areas, certain people found difficulty in obtaining the necessary capital. That was his suggestion. If the Government have adopted it as an instruction, how have they endeavoured to interpret it? Let us see how it has been interpreted, even as

  329
  recently as last evening, by the Financial Secretary. In opposing an Amendment he emphasised the fact that it should be none of our business, and particularly of this Bill, to provide easier credit facilities for the men who are courageous enough to attempt to find a solution of this problem than are available to other people. He said that the individual who comes to this association for loans is, in the eyes of the normal and orthodox organisation, not creditworthy, and that, if the Amendment in question were put into the Bill, it would confer upon this non-creditworthy individual a lower rate of interest than other people could have.
  The Financial Secretary last night objected to giving to men who are dealing with a special difficulty special terms for dealing with it. Previously he had said that the individual entering a depressed area with a view to starting a new industry would be a very courageous individual; he would be embarking upon a very bold adventure; and then the Financial Secretary confused the first individual, who had thus adventured into the troubled world of a depressed area, with the Association itself, which does not adventure at all. The Special Areas Reconstruction Association is a very well-blessed Association. The Bill provides that its shareholders shall have 3½ and 3 per cent. interest on the money they subscribe. The Association will also receive handsome contributions from the Treasury towards its reserves. Thirdly, it is guaranteed as to any loss of capital up to a given percentage; and, fourthly, it is guaranteed also that its administrative costs will be found. The Association adventures nothing; it is the individuals who come to it for loans who are adventurous, and for them there is no assistance, except that the Financial Secretary held out to them last night a wonderful vision for the future, if the company is prosperous.
  It is no wonder that the Government agreed to give to this company, which must find 32 per cent. for its shareholders, its administrative costs, because one can imagine the rate of interest that it would have to charge its borrowers if it had to pay 3½ per cent. to its own shareholders, plus its own administrative costs, plus providing for its reserves, plus the condition upon the borrowers to repay the capital as well as the interest upon it. One can imagine the burden upon the
  330
  poor clients, even with all the assistance that the Government are giving. Therefore, the Financial Secretary suggested that, if the company is prosperous—if it can exact from the first range of clients a sufficiently high rate of interest, and secure the return of the borrowed capital in a sufficiently short time—if it is prosperous to that degree, there is a possibility that the second, third, fourth and fifth ranges of clients may have the benefit of a lower rate of interest. In other words, if the depressed areas can remove their own depression, there is the hope that someone will get money at a cheaper rate.
  That is the way the Government attempt to solve the problem. There is nothing in the Bill, and we should be justified to the hilt in voting against it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you going to vote against it?"] I am prepared to vote against it. You are simply playing with the problem. I only wish that Members could be compelled to live in a distressed area for a month. Then they would know what to do about it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening admitted that the Bill does not touch the distressed areas. It is an experiment in a very limited degree. That is no contribution at all. I should like to see the next 12 months rapidly pass by and let everyone realise that there is nothing in it now and there never has been. The unemployment problem is a problem of the depressed areas. The Minister of Labour may be satisfied to some extent by the reduction in the unemployment figures as recorded to-day, but that does not affect the depressed areas. The Rhondda has not yet seen the bottom of the depression. There has not been a suspension yet in the Rhondda of the continued increase in depression which began in 1921, and for how many more years we are going to be compelled to experience an increase of this condition of affairs we do not know. No one need wonder that we carefully analyse the propositions contained in the Bill. In them we see not a vestige of hope for our people. There is not a word in the Bill which offers the slightest possibility of anyone coming into our area and starting anything in the nature of a new industry.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. BAXTER: I had not intended to intervene in the Debate, but inadvertently

  331
  I found myself in the seat usually occupied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and it is difficult, occupying such a seat, not to take part in the Debate. To keep up the traditions of the right hon. Gentleman, I find myself with a desire to pay a genuine tribute to the Government. I have listened with some astonishment to the criticisms of the Bill. It is exactly what the Chancellor represented it to be, not the only thing the Government are to do, not a vast expensive scheme, but a genuine constructive experiment which should have the blessing of everyone in the House. The idea was suggested to him by the Commissioner for the depressed areas, Mr. Malcolm Stewart, and was founded upon his vast experience, and the Bill represents the Chancellor's willingness to carry out the Commissioner's idea.
  It would really seem sometimes that, much as hon. Members opposite desire the welfare of the people of the depressed areas, they live in terror that something that the Government might do would help them. More than once they have talked about the vested interests of the capital class. They sometimes give the impression of regarding the unemployed as their vested interest, for whom nothing must be done by this side of the House. This Bill is a modest one, but firms which could not otherwise get started will begin to get the capital they require. From small beginnings, firms may develop into great concerns. To condemn the Bill and to belittle its possibilities by criticism is to have a very wrong conception of the whole thing. I consider that the Measure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought forward, and which has been criticised so much but with so little effect, ought to have the blessing and the enthusiastic support of every Member of this House.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I wish to say a few words about the Bill from a totally different point of view from any that has yet been expressed. I do not doubt the absolute sincerity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the purpose of the Bill, but the House ought to be warned about a Bill of this description. Ever since I came into the
  332
  House I have consistently opposed every kind of subsidy and grant to private enterprise. I am a believer in private enterprise, but it is an absolutely wrong principle that the House of Commons should call upon its Members to vote sums of money in order to assist private enter-price. I have stated time after time in this House that there is no justification for private enterprise unless it can stand upon its own feet, and that is the word of warning I want to issue about this Bill when we are voting the money of our constituents in order to try—and I agree on this point—to help matters in the distressed areas. But it may be that losses will be thrown upon the State. We ought to have that particular point of view in mind.
  It is very difficult indeed for people who believe in private enterprise to come cap in hand to the House of Commons in order that private enterprise should be assisted. There ought to be ways and means of raising money by private enterprise through its own resources rather than having to come to the House of Commons and ask for assistance. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what they are there for."] Let them answer for themselves; they are of age. What will happen if there should be huge losses to be borne by the State as the result of this Bill? You absolutely invite criticism of this kind of Bill, and further, you invite the State to take over many of these businesses as the logical conclusion of those losses. I warn the House, and those who believe in capitalism, of the danger, as we have done during the last three or four years when private enterprise has had to come cap in hand and ask for help from the resources of the State. That is the word of warning I want to issue to the House. It would be well if the people interested in finance found ways and means of financing their own enterprises, instead of playing into the hands of hon. Members above the Gangway.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. MAGNAY: I want to say a word or two to bring the House back to realities. Some of us have been told that we ought to live in the depressed areas. I have lived in one 40 years. That is why I am here. I have lived among the people all that time, and they know me. It is true that this Bill is in a way a small thing, but its potentialities

  333
  are immense. May I give you my own experiences 1 I have tried sometimes to get orders for my constituency on Tyne-side. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not expect this Bill to set the Thames on fire he used the wrong name. It is to set the Tyne busy. It is not the Thames that I am concerned about, or that this House should be concerned about, but the Tyne and the Tees and the North country generally. Many are called distressed, but few are chosen Special Areas. We from the Special Areas lament the fact that we are so. We do not want any favours. We are not used to them. All we ask is fair play. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) talks as one of the old, rigid, hard, Manchester school about private industry requiring help. We young Liberals 30 years ago deliberately cut ourselves away from that.
  This Bill is another example of social service. I referred to my own experience regarding attempts at beginning businesses at Tyneside. I have had people coming there with sound, new industries. I have taken them to the managers of the chief banks in Newcastle. They have said it was a good business, but there were no balance sheets for three years to show as a tangible thing that could be seen in black and white. When I went to the Commissioner with these schemes—I will not divulge them, because when this Bill has gone through the probability is that I will get them—and propounded such a scheme as this Bill does, he said that he was sorry he had not the power to do it. Now he has asked for that power, and this Bill is to implement what he desires. As one who has lived in the depressed areas I hope this Bill will be the forerunner of better days. If we get the new Cunarder, if Sir John Jarvis gets Jarrow going, if we get these trading estates on Tyneside, we shall not want favours.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. GALLACHER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer by the introduction of this Bill seems to have caused great division in the depressed area occupied by the Liberal party. The representative of the Liberal party who spoke last objected to the Bill on the ground that it subsidised private enterprise. Private enterprise, he said, had always stood on its own
  334
  feet. That's not true. Private enterprise never at any time stood on its own feet. Private enterprise has always ridden on the backs of the working classes. The point about the Bill is that it represents an economic anomaly. Private enterprise in this country is developing on the lines of big business. The big businesses have wiped out the small businesses, and the big businesses have produced the derelict areas. Instead of tackling big businesses in order to overcome their destructive effects, as expressed in the distressed areas, we are back at the beginning again. We are seeking to build up small businesses. Whether we like it or not, we may have thrown over the Manchester school, but we are going beyond the Manchester school. We are back at the beginning again. Big business will destroy small business in the future, as it has destroyed it in the past.
  If small businesses are to be set up they will have to be businesses that are of a progressive character, in the sense of being businesses that will stand and be able to face the possibility of continuous development. They will have to be businesses that will meet the urgent needs of the people in the distressed areas or the people in the country generally. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question arising out of a remark made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who expressed the view that so many things were happening in the House that he did not like, that he was beginning to get the idea that he was narrow-minded. The hon. Member's ideas are very slow of development. I am certain that the rest of the House had that idea long ago. The hon. Member said that this Bill would allow people to get money for the starting of businesses when they could not get it by ordinary methods from the ordinary financiers. If that be so, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be prepared through this Bill to assist a really progressive enterprise, one that is bound to advance, one that will meet the urgent need of the people in the distressed areas and of the people of the country generally, and that is a Communist printing press and publishing house in these areas.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. LEWIS: The very fact that to-day we speak of certain areas of the country as being depressed areas is of itself a striking tribute to the work that has been done by the National Government, because under the last Labour Government the whole country was a depressed area. It is only by contrast with the ever-widening circle of prosperity in the country as a whole that we now see certain areas still depressed. That is very comforting for the country generally, but it is not much comfort to those who live in the depressed areas. I agree with what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) said as to the ultimate remedy being a general improvement in the trade and industry of the country. At the same time I feel bound to sympathise with the pleas that are made by hon. Members representing depressed areas for special consideration for those areas.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer offers this Bill as one attempt to assist those areas. He does not make extravagant claims for it. It is pointed out that there is no one general remedy, but if we apply many small remedies, the cumulative effect may produce what we desire. In Committee I ventured to criticise certain obscure passages in the Bill and to suggest that the control over the expansion of the company should be left to the House of Commons, and not with the Treasury. My object in speaking to-night is to make it clear that, despite those criticisms of detail, I support the general principle of the Bill. I do so with my eyes open. I have no doubt myself that there will be losses under the Bill, but I think the country will not be unduly critical of such losses provided that the successes greatly outweigh the failures. I am glad the Chancellor has brought the Bill in, and I wish him luck with it.
  11.2 p.m.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Such criticism of the Bill as has been expressed in the course of the Debate has not been of such a serious character as to require much reply from me, but at the same time I should not like to be thought discourteous in not making some reply to the speeches to which we have listened, and for that reason I wish to say a few words.
  336
  First, I would like to thank those of my hon. Friends who have expressed their support of the Bill. My bon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Assheton) made a speech which was, I think, an extremely valuable one, for he showed us exactly what the difficulties are in the way of finding what is called finance for small industries. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) for their support, and I must, not omit the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. K. Griffith), who made a speech which showed, I thought, a very fair and reasonable outlook and an understanding of the scope and also the limitations of the Bill. With regard to the criticisms of the party opposite, they were really devoted more to what is not in the Bill than to what it actually contains, but if they will allow me to say so, they suffer from the defect of always overstating their case.
  Mr. BATEY: We come from the depressed areas.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What is the use of their repeating that we have done nothing for the unemployed? Only in the papers this morning they might have read that the numbers of the unemployed have again been reduced by a further 50,000, while the numbers of persons in employment have reached a new high record. What is the problem which we have to consider? The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) says that the reason for the condition of the special areas is that they were dependent upon certain big businesses, certain heavy industries, and, like the hard-boiled Tory that he really is, he has no idea of doing anything but to revert to the old orignal plans, and to say, "Spend money again in setting up the old industries." The coal industry in some parts of Durham has come to an end because the pits are exhausted, and no amount of money is going to put coal back again into the ground. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. John) urged that there should be more scientific research as to improving the uses of coal. I certainly am not going to decry the fullest scientific research, but I must point out that the results of scientific research into that question have been to show that less and less coal is needed to produce the same results in

  337
  both the electricity and the gas industries. It is well known that the amount of coal required to do the work which used to be done has been considerably reduced by discoveries and inventions. I accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Spennymoor that the difficulty is caused by the failure of the big industries upon which these areas have been almost exclusively dependent in the past. Surely the hon. Member will agree that in addition to doing anything you can to assist these big industries, the best thing is to try to bring new industries into the district. His attitude is not a helpful one. He says that it is not the slightest use bringing new industries into these areas.
  Mr. BAT EY: I did not say that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood the hon. Member and also the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) who said that there was not a line or a word in the Bill which would be of any use to the depressed areas. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. John) said that it was not going to provide work for the unemployed. If you condemn the whole thing from the beginning it is not going to do much good. The more you condemn it the less likely is it to be of any good.
  Mr. MAINWARING: I said that there is not a word or line likely to assist our areas. It is not that we do not want new industries, but because there is no promise in the Bill of new industries coming to these areas.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Spennymoor began by saying that the Government had continually raised hopes in the special areas and then disappointed them, and in the rest of his speech complained that I had not sufficiently raised the hopes of the special areas, because I did not give a more exaggerated idea of the benefits which would come out of the Bill. I have tried to preserve a happy mean on this occasion. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough suggested that I had gone too far in the other direction and had not said enough about its possibilities. We are continually told that the Government are resenting the Bill as a solution of the problem of the special areas. That is not the intention or the purpose of the
  338
  Government in this Bill. It is an attempt to meet one particular point which has been put up to us, and that is the difficulty of finding finance for new small industries in these areas.
  The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) belongs to the old individualistic school and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) declares that I have brought division into the Liberal party. The hon. Member for West Fife is in the happy position of belonging to the only party in which there cannot be any divisions. I am not one who wishes to say anything in derogation of private enterprise. I am a. believer in private enterprise, but I am not quite so extreme as the hon. Member. Among other amusements of my leisure hours is horticulture, and I know how it is possible to start in a greenhouse, plants which afterwards can be planted out in the kitchen garden to produce useful and nutritious food because it has been possible to give them a little start. That is a parallel with this case. As one of my hon. Friends said, if this experiment proves conclusively that, by taking some risks, which are sufficient to prevent the ordinary sources of finance from operating in these eases, it is possible to do some good; if by our example we can show that those risks are capable of being overcome and that there is a real field for this financial work, without incurring undue losses, then I am sure private enterprise will not be slow to follow our example and this small experiment may lead to something far bigger—big enough even to meet the ideas of the hon. Member for Spennymoor of what I ought to do. It is not put forward as a solution of the problem. As the Special Commissioner truly said, there is no one measure which can solve the problem. It can only be solved by a number of measures, addressed to different sections of the problem. This is one of them, and I hope the House will now be ready to give the Bill the Third Reading.

  SPECIAL AREAS RECONSTRUCTION (AGREEMENT) BILL.
    CIVIL LIST BILL.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

  IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).
  11.13 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin)I beg to move,
  "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 8) Order, 1936, dated the fifteenth clay of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."
  In accordance with our usual practice, I propose to make a short introductory statement covering the three Orders on the Paper, and hon. Members can, if they wish, put questions to me on any of the Orders, while it will, of course, be open to the House to divide on each Order. These Orders relate to hair combs, to certain chemicals, notably sodium bichromate, and metal capsules. Order No. 9, dealing with chemicals, will probably be disposed of very readily. Orders Nos. 8 and 10 are relatively simple. As regards hair combs, the proposal is that an additional duty of 8s. per gross should be put on as an alternative to the recent duty of 20 per cent. The new duty is directed mainly against Japanese competition. The average declared value of the imports was something like 20s, and the average declared value of the imports from Japan in February, 1936, was only Os. 10d, a gross, and the quantity of imports from Japan increased from nothing at all in 1930 to 126,000 gross in 1935. Japan indeed was sending to this country more than half the total imports of hair combs. The British manufacturers have given the Committee assurances that increased prices to wholesalers should involve no change in the existing low retail prices to the consumer, and the English manufacturers have pointed out that a higher output may even enable the price to be lowered. I should imagine that, there is very little in regard to that Order dealing with combs which would require discussion.
  Mr. LOGAN: Would the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House what is the price of British combs compared with the 6s. 10d. and 8s. a gross?
  Dr. BURGIN: The value is about 17s. 6d., or something of that order. I
  340
  do not wish to mislead the House in that, because it is difficult to give an average price over a large range of articles. Suffice it to say that 6s. 10d. a gross is only about a third of the value per gross of the British combs. No. 10 Order deals with metal capsules used for sealing bottles and jars. There was a duty of 20 per cent. and for this 20 per cent. a combined duty is now made up of an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent. plus 1s. 8d. per 1,000 capsules. The Order took effect on 2nd May. The imports have increased from 42,000,000 to 86,000,000. The United Kingdom producers were not able to take full advantage of reduced imports. Prices of foreign capsules in the home markets are much higher than those at which these foreign capsules are exported to the United Kingdom, because of deliberate under-selling by foreign producers, which is a severe handicap to United Kingdom producers. The home industry has a strong claim for further protection, and the Import Duties Advisory Committee are of opinion that any rise in price which might follow the increase in duty should have a negligible effect on the consuming industries, by far the largest industry being the wine and spirit trade, which could be counted as a luxury trade.
  That leaves No. 9 Order, and if I rightly understand the wish of hon. Members, it would be that on No. 9 Order I should give a little more information. This Order deals with sodium bichromate and potassium bichromate. These are substances which are used in the chrome tanning of skin which is a more rapid process than the vegetable tanning of skin. They are used largely for light leathers, box and willow calf, and only to a small extent for sole leather. These goods were formerly charged only with the general ad valorem duty and the proposal is that sodium bichromate should be charged with a rate of duty of 8s. per hundredweight and that potassium bichromate should be charged 10s. per hundredweight. The home and the export trade in these commodities is, in a large measure, subjected to control by an international cartel, and that control has been exercised in a reasonable manner and orderly marketing has been possible. The agreement is only a short-term one, running from year to year, and in the Committee's opinion the United Kingdom market is relatively

  341
  unprotected, and there is a good deal of insecurity. This lack of protection has exposed the British manufacturer to competition from independent foreign producers who, by undercutting, have increased their trade in this country.
  The home manufacturers have given a. very elaborate assurance as to prices. I want the House to pay particular attention to the terms of the assurance as to prices, which in a moment I will read. The home production is carried on at a number of places, chiefly Glasgow, near Bolton, and County Durham. The production capacity is ample for home and export requirements, and the number of workpeople is something like 600. The imports have came in largely from Russia and Japan. The price assurance which I am anxious to give to the House is this: The large firms of manufacturers of these substances have given the assurance that they will not increase the present prices of either of these chemicals except in so far as increases are justified by an alteration, extending over a period of a month or more in any of the raw materials, that is chrome ironstone, alkali and coal, and an alteration of wages. They have given an undertaking that they will reduce the prices of these chemicals to the extent justified by a reduction in costs of production resulting from any of the same causes. There is thus a very satisfactory assurance given to the Import Duties Advisory Committee with regard to the prices charged to the consuming interests. The Russian and Japanese producers are outside the international cartel. Sodium bichromate has been coming in from Russia—2,500 cwts. in 1932 and 10 times as much in 1935. The increase in three years of Russian exports of this chemical which is used as a raw material in the tanning industry has been multiplied by 10. The details of imports from Japan show that the quantities have multiplied by two in 1935 as compared with 1934. So that we have the curious spectacle of Russia and Japan, the two producing countries outside the cartel, multiplying their exports to this country very largely in the years that have followed 1932. This is a trade that can perfectly well be supplied from within our own boundary, and price undertakings have been given. I think, the House will therefore have no hesita-
  342
  tion in approving this Order, which I believe is the substantive order of these three. The other Orders are relatively small.
  11.24 p.m.
  Mr. BENSON: I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any evidence that Russia has been attempting seriously to cut prices, or whether the fact that Russia has extended her imports so tremendously has enabled her to reduce prices so that the prices of the cartel are higher than are warranted?
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. LOGAN: I wish to say a word about the Import Duty on combs. A duty of 8s. per gross on top of the present price of 6s. 10d. will make the price of the imported Japanese article 14s. 10d. per gross, as against 17s. 6d. for the English article. As one who had to handle these goods some years ago I should say that the English combs, costing 17s. 6d. per gross, would be reckoned as costing ls. 6d. a dozen and would be sold in shops which do a big sale at 2d. each or in smaller shops at 2½d. What is the position with regard to the Japanese article—not that I say that it ought to be brought in at a price which does not allow the worker here to get a living wage, but one must consider the effect of this protection upon people who live in a poor neighbourhood like my own? These combs are being broken every week; they do not last very long. Under ordinary business conditions Japanese combs bought at 6s. 10c1. per gross would be put into stock as costing 7s. ld., equivalent to roughly ½d. per comb, and the retail price in the shops would be ld. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has had any experience of marking up stock, or whether he has ever got as low as marking up combs. I have had to stock combs and I should certainly mark up those combs at 7s. per gross. With the addition of the import duty the price of the Japanese combs will be brought up to near the English price of 17s. 6d. per gross. Then it may be that a trader will not stock the two classes of combs. When there is only a difference of 2s. per gross the English article may be pushed out of the road and the 14s. 10d. line take its place. In that case what protection will there be for many of the small industries up and down the country?

  343
  I look upon the invasion of cheap Japanese goods as being of no benefit to the workers of this country. If a commodity which is in everyday demand is to be brought in at a profit that makes it more beneficial to the manufacturer to import combs rather than to make others, many small makers of combs will go out of business, or will use their warehouses to store Japanese goods instead of making combs. A good deal of business is done in the making of combs, and I want every opportunity for our workers to gain a fair livelihood. It would not be fair to allow these goods to come into the market unless there were some guarantee that the British goods would not be raised in price and that the manufacturers would not drop the home commodity in order to put the Japanese article on the market at a higher price.
  11.31 p.m.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: May I put a question about Order Number 9? Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what the percentage of the Specific Duty is upon the C.I.F. cost?
  Dr. BURGIN: It is 29 per cent.
  Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: On a point of Order. I understood, Mr. Speaker, that you put Order Number 8. Are we discussing all three Orders together?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That point was raised at the beginning of the discussion.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Has there been any objection from the textile interests to these Orders? One or two sentences occur in this Order that many of my textile friends would challenge. It is always interesting to see the phraseology of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. This is one sentence, speaking of the cartel:
  "We have no reason to doubt that that control, which regulates prices at levels of which substantial sections of the consumers would complain…"
  "Substantial" may mean anything. The Colour Users' Association do me the honour of sending me their report every year, and I have never yet seen a report that did not complain of the prices since the cartel arrangement. The Order goes on to say:
  344
  "The United Kingdom market is relatively unprotected."
  I do not know how that can be true. Anybody who knows the workings of that cartel knows that it is better than any protection that can be given.
  I should appreciate it if some of these Orders could be put on to the programme of business of this House for a reasonable hour, when we should be able to debate them seriously. I know the difficulties of the Patronage Secretary in arranging business, but these Orders affect thousands of traders, and we should be glad to give more time to them than can be given after 11 o'clock at night. We all go into the Lobbies to vote on the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, but there is a general shout if anybody gets up to speak after 11 o'clock. I know that the Patronage Secretary is not responsible for these Orders being put on after 11, but it is not fair to him or to the House to do so, and an earlier hour should be given to the study of the Orders.
  Mr. EDE: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that 126,000 gross of these combs were imported into this country during last year?
  Dr. BURGIN: From Japan.
  Mr. EDE: Over 18,000.000.
  11.35 p.m.
  Dr. BURGIN: The total import of combs from foreign countries is 200,000 gross, and Japan, which exported none at all to this country in 1930, had, by five years of intensive under-cutting, won an entry here to the extent of 126,926 gross out of the total of 200,000 gross.
  Apart from the questions with regard to Order No. 8, which deals with combs, the questions that have been put to me have been, as I expected, directed to Order No 9, which deals with the textile trade. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) will, of course, understand that, although more than half our total import of combs comes from Japan, there are considerable imports from Germany, France and other countries, but the average declared value of Japanese combs is well under one-third of the value of the German combs, and we have to legislate for the whole of the imports that come in. It will interest the hon. Member to know that these combs are sold in the multiple

  345
  stores at 2d. to 3d.—I am not dealing with the 1d. ones at all—and that the British manufacturers sell their infinitely better combs at the same price and have given an undertaking that that price shall not be raised. On the contrary, with the production of a greater number to take the place of these foreign imports, which we intend to exclude by this duty, there is a reasonable hope of their price coming down. The Committee, who have received these assurances, are satisfied that the production capacity of the industry in this country is great enough to enable it to expand and that this is a type of trade which it can well supply; and there is every confidence that this duty, high and therefore prohibitive for most countries, and difficult so far as Japan is concerned, materially reducing the profit that a merchant might be tempted to obtain by selling cheaper combs imported from Japan, will induce a considerably greater consumption of British combs; and I think the arguments used in that regard by the Import Duties Advisory Committee are likely to commend themselves to the House.
  With regard to Order No. 9, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) asks whether it is not possible that Russia's ability to send to this country at low prices does not really show that the local price is too high; and the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) says: "What do you mean by saying that this country is relatively unprotected? Look at the Cartel." It is because the international Cartel does not include Russia and Japan, who are independent producers working outside the Cartel and have chosen, in order to gain an entry into this market, systematically to undercut, that the exports from Russia have increased so very largely. It is not because Russia has been demonstrating that the British prices are too high; it is because Russia has been systematically under-selling in order to gain a place in the market that this duty has become necessary. I do not accept the hon. Member's inference that the British makers of these substances are charging too high a price: I do not think that is borne out at all. The materials used in the textile trade cost approximately £10,000,000 a year, the gross output of the textile trade is about £30,000,000 a year and the total value to the finishing trade of bichromate of sodium and
  346
  potassium amounts to £37,000, so that on a cost of £10,000,000, producing a finished result of £30,000,000 the cost price of the chemicals is £37,000. It is obvious that the effect of the new duty on these substances coming in from two countries whose exports we desire to see diminished will not be any serious handicap to our industry.
  The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) asks if there was any opposition. Yes, there was. Was there any large body of consumers who did not object? Yes, there was. The opposition before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, based on allegations that the price of British bichromate had been too high came from certain users of these materials in the textile industry. The United Tanners' Federation did not oppose. They were satisfied with the declaration made by the bichromate manufacturers, but the Allied Association of Bleachers intimated that they were unwilling, on grounds of principle, to co-operate. The manufacturers undertake to communicate grounds for proposing any increase in price and the declaration that has been obtained by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, as a condition of making these recommendations, is in the terms that I have read out, that the prices of sodium and potassium bichromate shall not be raised except to the extent to which raw materials or wages render the cost of manufacture greater and, on the contrary, if the cost of materials or wages falls, the price will be correspondingly reduced. I think that undertaking is of a kind that has commended itself to the House before and is in terms which should be accepted again. [Interruption.]I am not quite sure of that off-hand, but application should be made to the import Duties Advisory Committee if in the opinion of consumers the terms of the undertaking have not been properly kept. I have not given any thought to the hon. Member's last question. I may perhaps reflect on that and write to him. It may well be that, if this comes under the general category of dyestuffs, the greater will include the less but, dealing with the Order by itself, the promise given to the consuming interests is satisfactory and, if it works unfairly, further application should be made to the body that has made the recommendation.
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I would add my protest to that of the hon. Member with regard to the absurdity of these very important new taxation proposals being always discussed at 11 o'clock. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to co-operate with the Board of Trade in trying to arrange for a more reasonable time for these discussions. Otherwise, while we are apparently on occasion after occasion almost docile in the brevity with which we tackle this question after 11 o'clock, the House must face the taking of other measures to force the Government to provide adequate time for the consideration of these important questions. There is very great substance in the references of the hon. Member for South, Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) to the wording of these reports. 'Who is there that can imagine from reading the actual report in regard to Order No. 9 that the true facts were as given by the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to a question? One could not possibly imagine from the report itself that there had been such a very important body of opposition from great sections of the textile industry. That again indicates the injustice of the present procedure. It is intolerable that such large and heavily increased taxation should be placed on industry without adequate information being before the House as to the real position. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary may well say, "I have given the information in reply to questions," but the House is entitled to have that information on paper before it considers the Order, so as to be able to give a sound judgment as to whether the tax is right or wrong. Hon. Members who made that point are completely justified. Nothing is more vicious than taxing the citizens of one particular country in order to maintain the price level of an international cartel.
  That is really the object of this Order. The Parliamentary Secretary has been perfectly frank about it. That applies in regard to other commodities, which are the subject of recommendations, at various times, of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. We are being asked to-night to give approval to the taxation of British subjects, including important users of this commodity as a raw material, in order to keep up the general price level of an international cartel and for the distribution of profits to inter-
  348
  national shareholders. When these questions are raised we always have the assurance that prices will not be increased to the consumer, but the fact is that, as the result of the procedure of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, you are taxing the people to-day in this country, and are raising additional revenue of over £70,000,000 more than in 1931. That means that Import Duties Revenue is being collected apparently under the Import Duties Act, and under increased customs of every kind, and you have, in fact, the goods still coming in. You are getting the revenue, and the people who use the goods are paying the taxation. You are taxing them the whole time, both in regard to finished articles and raw materials, and, therefore, the argument that has been put forward is like a receptacle that will not hold water, you are up against the old dilemma—which the tariff reformer never could answer—that, if you are to get revenue, you are bound to let goods in, and if you keep goods out, there will not be any revenue. If you talk about taxing the foreigner in this connection, you must have a new and more direct tax than you have under the procedure of your latest Import Duties Act.
  I will not say anything about the Order dealing with combs, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) has spoken on the subject, but on the point made with regard to capsules, the House should not ride away with the idea that it is going to affect only the wine and spirit trade. That is quite untrue. I can speak with considerable experience of the matter. The duty will affect the price of capsules on almost every class of bottle and food preparations. If the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, let me tell him that there is an increasing tendency in many trades to drop other forms of cover for these containers, to drop corks and other things and to turn to capsules. If his Department does not know that fact, it ought to know it. The people in the trade know it. This particular duty will put up all these costs. For that reason we are opposed to the action which the Government are asking the House to approve. I beg the Patronage Secretary, in view of the feeling in the House, to see that we get a better time in future for the discussion of these questions.
  Resolved,
  "That the Additional import Duties (No. 8) Order, 1936, dated the fifteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 9) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-
  second day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-second day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes; 51.

  Division No. 184.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

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

  Emery, J. F.

  Petherick, M.

  Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.

  Entwistle, C. F.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Apsley, Lord

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Radford, E. A.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Furness, S. N.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Rankin, R.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

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

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Remer, J. R.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Hannah, I. C.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

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

  Harbord, A.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Bernays, R. H.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Salt, E. W.

  Blindell, Sir J.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Scott, Lord William

  Boulton, W. W.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Bracken, B.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

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

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

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Bull, B. B.

  Hunter, T.

  Spens, W. P.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W.

  Stourton, Hon. J. J.

  Burghley, Lord

  Keeling, E. H.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Butler, R. A.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Sutcilffe, H.

  Cary, R. A.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

  Liddall, W. S.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Lieweliln, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Thomson, sir J. D. W.

  Channon, H.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Chapman, A, (Ruthergien)

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Christle, J. A.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  McKie, J. H.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

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

  Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

  Magnay, T.

  Ward, Irene (Walisend)

  Craven-Ellis, W.

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

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Cross, R. H.

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

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

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

  Culverwell, C. T.

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Morrison. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Wise, A. R.

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Nail, Sir J.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Duggan, H. J.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Nicoison, Hon. H. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Sir George Penny and Mr. James

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Peake, O.

  Stuart.

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Price, M. P.

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

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

  Ritson, J.

  Barr, J.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Benson, G.

  Griffith, J. (Llaneily)

  Rowson, G.

  Bevan, A.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Bromfield, W.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Burke, W. A.

  Henderson, T, (Tradeston)

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Compton, J.

  Holdsworth, H.

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

  Daggar, G.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dalton, H.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Tinker, J. J.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Watson, W. McL.

  Ede, J. C.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Logan, D. G.

  White, H. Graham

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  MacLaren, A.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Marklew, E

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gibbins, J.

  Potts, J.

  Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.

  Resolved,
  "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 10) Order, 1936, dated the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Two Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

  COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS IN MINES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS IN MINES).
  MAGISTRATES (STATUTORY RULES).
  MAGISTRATES (STATUTORY RULES).
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  TRAMP SHIPPING SUBSIDY.
  TRAMP SHIPPING SUBSIDY.
  GRAIN CARGOES STOWAGE.
  GRAIN CARGOES STOWAGE.
  ANGLO-SWEDISH LOAD-LINE AGREEMENT.
  ANGLO-SWEDISH LOAD-LINE AGREEMENT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (T. RENNISON).
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (T. RENNISON).
  BRITISH ARMY (MEAT SUPPLY).
  BRITISH ARMY (MEAT SUPPLY).
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS, LONDON.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS, LONDON.
  AFFORESTATION (DEER).
  AFFORESTATION (DEER).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MORTLAKE CREMATORIUM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH EAST CORNWALL WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HIS MAJESTY THE LATE KING OF EGYPT: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King:
"I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address. I join most sincerely in your expression of deep regret at the melancholy tidings of the death of my illustrious friend His Majesty the King of Egypt, and I shall without fail communicate to King Farouk your message of profound sympathy with His Majesty, Her Majesty Queen Nazli and the Royal Family and with the Government and People of Egypt in the loss which they have sustained."

MILITARY MANŒUVRES: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to the House a further Message from the King:
"I have received your Address praying that I will make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which
900
was presented to your Lordships' House on the 11th day of February last. I will comply with your advice."

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (STOCKTON-ON-TEES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (EALING AND SHEPHERD'S BUSH RAILWAY EXTENSION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (LONDON TRANSPORT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
COINAGE OFFENCES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIDPORT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (PAYING PATIENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EAST LOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendment proposed by the Select Committee made.

SUGAR INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ON SLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Staff, expenses, and procedure, of Commission.
(6) The Commission may hold such inquiries as they consider necessary or desirable for the discharge of their functions under this Act; and if the Minister is satisfied that for the purposes of an inquiry into any definite matter it is necessary so to do, he may by order, specifying the matter to be inquired into, direct that in respect of any meeting of the Commission at which not less than three of the
902
commissioners are present for the purpose of inquiring into that matter, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 (other than paragraph (a) of Section two thereof), shall apply to the Commission as if they were a tribunal established in manner provided by that Act and as if that Act had been applied to them in the manner thereby provided.
LORD ROCHE LORD ROCHE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after the second "necessary" and insert "to appoint a special tribunal he shall have the power of a Secretary of State under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921." The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I desire to make it clear to your Lordships that this Amendment does not affect the substance or the business of the Bill. It is an Amendment to a machinery clause. On the substance of the Bill I desire to express no view. I live in an agricultural county where some beet sugar is grown and it certainly employs people. My only complaint is that that interesting bird the partridge does not like sugar beet as much as he likes the crops which preceded it.
With regard to this clause, if your Lordships would turn to subsection (6), on page 3, you will find that provision is made for certain inquiries, and, over the page, you will see an allusion to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. That is an Act under which an inquiry is at this moment proceeding. It is an Act which gives to a Tribunal very wide and extensive powers; in effect it makes the President of the Tribunal equivalent in power to a High Court Judge in this country or a Court of Session Judge in Scotland. It gives him the widest power of administering the oath, of compelling evidence, the production of bankers books and everything of that sort. It gives him everything except the power of committal for contempt of court. That is done, and may be done, on the Resolution of both Houses of Parliament in a matter of urgent public importance, and upon an Order of the Secretary of State. This subsection enables the Minister to do those things without any vote of either House of Parliament, leaving out the words "in a matter of urgent public importance." What is perhaps more important, if your Lordships will turn over the page to the

903
words "other than paragraph (a) of Section two thereof," you will see words which look innocent but which amount to this. Under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act itself the inquiry must be held in public unless it is detrimental that any part of it should be heard in public; then there may be closed doors. This Bill omits altogether the provision about inquiries in public, therefore they may be held in private. The inquiry may be held without any vote of either House of Parliament, and it may be held for any purpose as the Minister thinks fit.
I submit that that is not right. If the Minister wishes to hold an important inquiry then he can ask for no more than that, and that is what this Amendment gives him. He would then be put in the same position as the Secretary of State under the original Act. That is what this Amendment does. If, on the other hand, the Minister wants merely some machinery for other and less import inquiries, then he ought to seek it in some other way than this. There are precedents, I believe, by which, under Local Government Acts, inquiries may be held under some other Acts. I cannot help thinking that those who framed this Bill, quite inadvertently no doubt, have taken much greater powers than are needed, and have assumed for the Minister inquisitorial powers which they neither intended nor desired. If that is the true state of the facts, and they would like a better machinery, it can be provided quite simply in the words of the Bill itself for conducting the ordinary inquiries at the Department. If they were to say that they desired that that should be done, and that they would bring this matter up on Report with provisions to that effect, then, speaking for myself, I should be quite satisfied, but if it is desired to take and persist in these wide powers of holding secret inquiries then I object. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, leave out from ("necessary") to the end of the subsection and insert ("to appoint a special tribunal he shall have the power of a Secretary of State under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921)."—(Lord Roche.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARE): My Lords, it is quite true,
904
as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, said, that this is only a matter of machinery, but I think all of us will agree with him that it is a most important piece of machinery. In working out this new technique of endeavouring to control certain sections of industry it is important, while taking powers that are necessary and adequate for making any schemes we may set up effective, that we nevertheless do not take powers that are unnecessarily severe. I take it that the two points that are really in the noble and learned Lord's mind are these. The first is that it is wrong to entrust the Sugar Commission with powers that are really equivalent to the powers of a High Court Judge; that that is a step so serious that it should not be taken except by direction of Parliament in each particular case. The second point is that under the machinery he proposes all proceedings should be held in public unless the public interest should dictate otherwise.
LORD ROCHE: Under the proceedings ordered by the Act.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes; whereas in the procedure that is proposed here that provision is omitted. Taking the first point, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act does not confer all the powers of a High Court Judge. It confers only such powers as compelling the attendance of witnesses, the production of documents and the administration of oaths or affirmations. The power of enforcing obedience is not given. That, under the Act, can only be given by reporting a defaulter to the High Court, and it is then for the High Court itself to determine whether, and if so how, he is to be punished. The application of this Act is, I think, not a new one. It has been applied repeatedly before. It has been applied, for example, to inquiries held by the Coal Mines (Reorganisation) Commission, by Section 12 of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; to inquiries under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930; to inquiries by the Agricultural Marketing (Reorganisation) Commission under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931—your Lordships will notice that all these are of comparatively recent dates—to inquiries held under the Wheat Act of 1932; and to inquiries held by the Sea Fish Commission under the Sea Fishing Industry Act, 1933. Your Lordships will agree

905
that there are very considerable precedents for this.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I deal with this matter at some length, but I think it is important. The real answer to both Lord Roche's points lies in the nature of the functions entrusted to the Commission under the Bill. The Commission is charged with the duties of
"keeping under review the growing of sugar beet and the manufacture, refining, marketing and consumption of sugar in the United Kingdom, and of advising and assisting the Minister and the Treasury in such matters relating to the sugar industry as he or they may require of them ".
They have a great number of specific duties conferred upon them by the Bill, such as the determination of the terms and conditions of purchase of sugar beet, the annual approval of arrangements for the production and marketing of sugar, and the approval of sugar refining agreements.
With regard to Lord Roche's point about the privacy of the procedure, the section to which the noble and learned Lord refers deals with matters of public interest in relation to which it may or may not be desirable for proceedings to be made public. In this case the bulk of the inquiries for gathering information by the Commission will not be dealing with matters of exclusive public interest. The Commission will be taking evidence from private companies, companies that might very well be most unwilling to give information unless the proceedings are held in camera. For these reasons I would ask the noble and learned Lord not to press the point. I can assure him that the Government throughout have had his considerations very much in mind. It is their view that if we are to make this machinery effective and carry out these inquiries with full justice to private interests it is necessary to maintain the present form of the inquiries.
LORD MAUGHAM: My noble friend who has been supporting the clause by a reference to certain previous Acts cannot be completely aware, I think, of the contents of those Acts. One to which he referred was the Wheat Act of 1932. It so happens that I have that Act in my hand. It is not accurate to say that the clause to which this Amendment is moved is in pari materia with what was contained in the Wheat Act. What was done there was something different and, I
906
think your Lordships will see, something much less objectionable than that which is proposed now. By Clause 12 (1) of the Wheat Act, the Minister was permitted to make, regulations for, amongst other things, applying the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, which is an Act giving all sorts of powers to Tribunals, to the Committee to be appointed under Section 2 (3) of the Wheat Act as if the Committee were a Tribunal established in manner provided by that Act. So far so good, but then the Act provided something which is very germane to the present question.
By Section 18 it was provided that:
"All orders, regulations and by-laws made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days…resolves that the Order, regulation or by-law be annulled, it shall forthwith be void."
If the Government will insert something of that sort in the present Bill the objections to it—I do not know what view my noble and learned friend Lord Roche will take—would, so far as I am concerned, be removed. The objection which I can see is that, without the authority of Parliament and without any information to the public, in what I think may be not unfairly described as a hole-and-corner way, a tribunal may be set up with powers not quite so extensive indeed as those of the High Court but still very extensive—with powers, for instance, to administer oaths and summon witnesses to their great inconvenience, and in fact to compel answers to questions and thus to interfere with the liberty of the subject, a thing which in my judgment ought not to be sanctioned by this House unless some knowledge is given to the members of the Legislature before they come into force. If Section 18 of the Wheat Act, 1932, or some reasonable modification of it, were incorporated in the present Bill I think the objection would largely be met.
LORD ROCHE: In response to the invitation extended to me may I say that if the noble Earl will put into the Bill on Report the same provision as there is in the Wheat Act I should be abundantly content, but I am bound to tell him that it is entirely different from this clause. It applies all the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act except that it makes the

907
Commission the Tribunal. That I conceive is a fair offer, because it is appealing to his own precedent and asking him to adopt it.
LORD HASTINGS: I think the noble and learned Lord is entitled to the gratitude of the House for drawing attention to this matter. I am bound to say, however, that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, had the same not altogether satisfactory experience which has fallen to many of us of what happens on Report, he would not be quite so willing to withdraw the Amendment now. The noble and learned Lord has put before the Committee in a most lucid manner exactly what is intended to be done by the clause which is under discussion. It would be quite out of place for me even to endeavour to elaborate what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, but I should like to say a word or two if I may upon the answer given by the noble Earl. The noble Earl's answer to my mind did not in any way meet the point which had been raised by Lord Roche. It was the kind of formal answer which one would expect to get from an overweening bureaucracy which was reaching out for as much power as it could possibly get. My lack of sympathy for that kind of answer has been voiced more than once in this House, and I voice it again now.
The attempt which is made in this Bill is to give to the Minister power which at the present moment is only vested in a Secretary of State. The safeguard by which a Secretary of State, as has been pointed out by Lord Roche, must move Parliament before he can obtain the authority which he desires, is sought to be shortheaded by this Bill. The noble Earl gives as a reason for that proposal a certain number of precedents. I am painfully aware that those precedents which he gave are correct, but two wrongs never make a right, and the fact that Parliament has in error permitted this kind of thing to slip through in the past is surely all the more reason why your Lordships should prevent it from again slipping through in the future. From the point of view of the beet sugar industry, is it not wise to keep a sense of proportion? This is, after all, nothing more nor less than a trade inquiry. Is it necessary to set up all this machinery for holding what is nothing but a trade inquiry? I hope that
908
your Lordships are not going to have anything of the kind. There are quite enough Jacks-in-office at present for us not to want any more, and that is the intention of this Bill. Now that it has been exposed by the noble and learned Lord I cannot see how any noble Lord in this House can wish to support it, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take his Amendment to a Division.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord spoke of a sense of proportion. I hope that the framers of this Bill have shown a great deal more sense of proportion than has the noble Lord. If it is really to be suggested that Parliament is going to give these enormous Exchequer subsidies to different sections of our industries and then take no adequate powers whatever to see that those subsidies are to be rightly and properly administered, then, if the noble Lord attempts to persuade Parliament not to ask for adequate powers, I think he will find that he has taken on a very heavy responsibility and the effect may well be to the great disadvantage of those industries which he is expressing his desire to help. If I might deal with the point which is now before your Lordships, the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, which is that we should consider bringing this Bill into conformity with, for instance, the Wheat Act between now and Report, I most willingly give him that undertaking.
LORD ROCHE: Might I just understand what the undertaking is? I did not quite catch what the noble Earl said.
EARL DE LA WARR: I speak with some diffidence here, because I am speaking as a layman to a lawyer on a question of law, but I should like to say that I will most certainly ask my noble friend to give this whole matter his consideration with a view to incorporating what I think was his proposal—that we should incorporate the words from Section 18 of the Wheat Act, which virtually make the order an affirmative order. Do I misunderstand the noble and learned Lord?
LORD ROCHE: Section 18 of the Wheat Act, as I read it, enables the Minister to do what the Secretary of State can do but also enables him to

909
make his Committee or Commissioners a Tribunal. Otherwise he has to comply with the Act. That is what the Wheat Act does. They could not make rules which did not comply with the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and if they did, the rules in my humble opinion would be ultra vires. If the noble Lord wants the inquiries, he does not require this sledge hammer. I submit that the proper course is to make milder provisions—for instance, that the Commission should have power to summon witnesses—and put them into the Bill itself.
EARL DE LA WARR: I cannot go further than to give the noble and learned Lord the undertaking to go into this question between now and Report. It is a complicated legal matter and it would be most unwise for any of us to try to draft a new clause on our feet. In saying that, however, may I assure the noble and learned Lord that it is a genuine undertaking.
LORD HASTINGS: If the noble and learned Lord makes it quite clear to the House, that he is going to reserve to himself the full right to put down this same Amendment again, then I think perhaps it would be courteous to give an opportunity to the Ministry of Agriculture to redraft that proposal, if they feel disposed to make any change at all. On that condition, although I am in no way entitled to advise or anything of that kind, I would personally refrain from pressing the noble and learned Lord to go to a Division.
LORD ROCHE: I am extremely obliged because, to be quite frank, I did not know what my proper course or my rights were. I should be very glad—while making it perfectly plain that I reserve my rights in that regard—to leave the matter as suggested.
EARL DE LA WARR: A perfectly normal course would be for His Majesty's Government to consider the matter and enter into discussions with the noble and learned Lord, if he would be willing, and then they would be perfectly free to take what action they thought fit.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and I agreed to.
Clause 5:
Functions of Corporation as to purchase of home-grown beet.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall be the duty of the Corporation to enter into contracts for the purchase by the Corporation of home-grown beet upon such terms and conditions as may be determined by an agreement made, after consultation with the Commission, between the Corporation and a Sugar Beet Marketing Board, or, where there is no such board, any body which in the opinion of the Commission is substantially representative of: the growers of home-grown beet or, where there is no such agreement, upon such terms and conditions as may be determined by an order made by the Commission:
Provided that, with a view to securing that the quantity of sugar manufactured by the Corporation in Great Britain from home-grown beet received by it in every year will be, as nearly as may be, the standard quantity, the Commission shall for every year determine the acreage of land in respect of the produce of which such contracts as aforesaid may be entered into by the Corporation for delivery in that year, and the Corporation shall not enter into such contracts in respect of beet grown for delivery in that year on more than that acreage.
(2) With a view to securing that the acreage in respect of which such contracts as aforesaid may be entered into by the Corporation for delivery in any year is not exceeded, provision for the determination from time to time of the quantity of home-grown beet that may be acquired from any person by the Corporation shall be made with the approval of the Commission; and such provision as aforesaid shall be made either by a scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 to 1933, limiting the quantity of home-grown beet that may be sold by any person to the Corporation, or by arrange-merits made by the Corporation limiting the quantity of home-grown beet that may be purchased by the Corporation from any person.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Lord said: Mine is also an attempt to knock another shackle off the fetters that are going to surround the liberties of the subject. I wish I thought I could do it with the same authority as the legal profession properly can. It might be convenient if I dealt with all my Amendments relating to Clause 5. The first seeks to do away with the restriction on acreage and therefore the restriction on output, and the whole of the case for not putting this limitation on production was far more ably and convincingly put by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, than I could hope

911
to put it, during the debate on the Second Reading.
What is the position? We are told that there shall be a fixed subsidy; no more than that shall be spent. I gather there may even be economies. I am not asking for a penny more of public money to be spent on the beet sugar industry; therefore I take it that the question of Privilege, amongst other things, does not arise. In any case I am really anxious that no more money should be spent on the beet sugar industry. All I am asking for is that there should not be a permanent limitation of production and a restriction on cropping against the farmer. In other words, I want to see both the total restriction of acreage, which it is proposed should be enforced through the Sugar Commission, and the basic acreage per farm done away with. To my mind, to take that second point first, it is an absurdity that there should be attached to an individual grower what amounts to a monopoly; as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was very quick to point out on Second Reading, the same kind of monopoly that the brewer may have on his licensed public-house. The brewers go on for ever. Farmers and farms are constantly changing, and it does not in the least follow that because a farmer may have a good title to sow fifty acres of sugar beet in the year 1936, when possibly his family is at its prime of capacity, he will have the same capacity to sow fifty acres in 1946, but so far as you can see from the Bill, having once established a right to a given acreage he will always, subject to the Sugar Commission, retain that right for ever.
Here, again, may I cite the Wheat Act? As your Lordships are aware there is a definite limit to the amount of money that goes out in subsidies on the growing of wheat, and if farmers like to grow more wheat than last year they know well that they will receive a lower price per quarter for it and yet they have so decided, and the history of wheat growing since the Wheat Act is that the acreage of wheat has very much gone up. It has fluctuated considerably from year to year, and with it the price per quarter has fluctuated by a narrow margin—a few shillings per quarter. I submit that exactly the same thing would happen in the case of sugar beet. Whereas the proposed subsidy will result to the
912
farmers this year in a price of 4s. 9d. per cwt, it may well, if the Amendment be accepted, result in a price of 4s. 8d. or 4s. 7d. or 4s. 6d. in succeeding years, but that is not going to kill the sugar-beet industry. It is not going to prevent a man, who finds that it is the best way of resting his land, from growing sugar beet, merely because he will get a smaller price per cwt. for his sugar beet.
As I have said, Lord Hastings has already developed on Second Reading lines the arguments against restriction, but there was one point which I believe was not mentioned. Under the structure of the Bill it is highly improbable, and indeed almost impossible, that additional sugar factories should be set up. If there are not additional sugar factories the transport from distant places to existing sugar factories will decide to a large extent how much sugar beet is grown, and it is highly unlikely that there will be any large increase in the acreage put down to sugar beet. I do not think, therefore, there is anything to be frightened of in that respect. One other point. In the long run the Sugar Commission, which has already nineteen separate functions, will have to decide every single year, successively, what will be the acreage allowed for sugar beet growing in this country. Further, I think I am right in saying that the Sugar Beet Commission will have to decide the basic acreage per farmer. Is it right that we should place in the hands of the Board such a very onerous, difficult and technical duty, for no apparent gain that I can find whatsoever.
What I have said so far refers to my first Amendment to Clause 5. As to the second Amendment—to insert a new proviso—that deals only with the small holder, or the man at any rate who is prepared to grow less than one acre of sugar beet on his farm. I speak with a great deal of feeling about small holders. They are a body whom I think we all on both sides of the House are most anxious to encourage. They are a body which the Government themselves take steps to encourage, and which the county councils have also encouraged to a large extent. There are a considerable number of beet growers who are already small holders, but when I was speaking on the Second Reading—I am not sure that the noble

913
Earl quite appreciated this—I was referring then more to such persons who want to become small holders and growers of sugar beet. You are inviting people in hundreds to go on the land as small holders. When they have got there you tell them: You must not grow hops, you must not grow potatoes, or you will have to pay a fine of £5 per acre, and now you must not grow sugar beet. Very soon they will not be allowed to grow geraniums.
How are you going to encourage small holders if you restrict them in that way? Is it not wise to use our soil to the best advantage? Is it not necessary that we should get our men, who are competent but unemployed, at work on the land, where they can produce wealth? Surely, the arguments for striking out the small holder from this opportunity are not worth while. On the other hand, the concession which I am asking the Government to give me on this Amendment is so triflingly small, as compared with the additional acreage, that it cannot affect the whole structure of the Bill. If you take a thousand small holders with one acre each it would not have much effect on the sugar beet industry, and for that reason I do not think the Government should resist the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 6, leave out lines 29 to 38.—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I find myself in great difficulty in dealing with this important series of Amendments put down by Lord Phillimore. The Committee will remember, perhaps, that on the Second Reading I ventured to develop strong arguments against the whole principle of the limitation of production, but that I felt myself compelled, by reason of the structure of the Bill, to admit the necessity of such limitation, although I was in principle very strongly opposed to it, and I ventured to put it to the House that the structure of the Bill was wrong. I am glad to see that, speaking with much greater authority, Lord Bledisloe drew attention to the alternative, the alternative being to have no subsidy and to eliminate the Excise. I know that that is not a practical proposition to suggest now, on the Committee stage of the Bill, but it is enough to remind your Lordships and the country
914
that the effective subsidy in this first year—and that is confirmed by the noble Earl—will be no more than 4s. 9d. per cwt., and the Excise 4s. 7d. It does seem, therefore, unfortunate, to put it no more strongly, that a Bill creating machinery of the magnitude which is set up by this Bill should form an Act of Parliament for the sake of 2d. I saw Lord Rhayader smile. He would not admit that the difference is only 2d. If time and place were appropriate I should be prepared to argue it with him, but not now. I have found myself, as I have said, in the great difficulty of having to swallow principle or vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, which I am very un-desirous of doing, and perhaps now, though trying to avoid a Second Beading speech, I might give one or two reasons why the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, are in fact incontrovertible and yet are most difficult of acceptance.
The Bill as drawn provides for a limitation of subsidy, and simultaneously a limitation of tonnage upon which that subsidy shall be paid, and it is of course perfectly clear that if the tonnage were to increase and the subsidy did not increase, each ton would receive a smaller subsidy than is proposed in the Bill. As my noble friend pointed out, that is the same principle as is applied to the Wheat Act, but the restriction of production which is applied in this Bill and not in the Wheat Act has not in fact militated against the success of the Wheat Act. My noble friend went on to say that, in so far as his later Amendments are concerned, the withdrawal of limitation from growers of less than one acre would be likely to affect the scheme to-as small an extent as has been the case in the Wheat Act. It is a fact that sugar beet growing is a highly developed industry in certain parts of the Fens which have become more and more settled by small holding communities, and it is, I think, quite certain that if no limitation were imposed upon the growing of sugar beet by those communities, the tonnage produced would be vastly larger than is anticipated by my noble friend, and that consequently the value of the subsidy to previous growers would be watered down to a figure which would make sugar beet growing no longer a practical proposition.

915
That brings us up against a very big social question. Small holders have now in many of the lighter Fen areas only two alternative crops. One is potatoes and the other is sugar beet. We have to bear in mind that potatoes are now grown upon restricted acreage and that the small holder has not the alternative of going back to potato growing, be is faced with sugar beet as practically the only crop which he can profitably grow. Now if you limit production in the way that the Bill does limit it, and absolutely forbid, as you do, the small holder to develop sugar beet cultivation, you instantly put a complete stop to the increase of small holdings. That is where the big social question comes in. The case that I am making is perfectly well known to the Ministry of Agriculture, because I know of at least one county small holding committee which has, and quite properly, already given facts and figures to the Ministry of Agriculture in connection with this Bill. But you will not be able to have it both ways. You either have to insist upon the Bill as it stands, and with it limit the expansion of small holdings, or you have to admit unlimited production for holders of under one acre of land and admit of the expansion of small holdings.
I have felt when considering this matter that it is really not the business of a Back Bencher to outline and lay down a policy for the Government. If the Government realise that the policy embodied in this Bill must militate against any big scheme of land settlement which they chance to have in mind, and decide that the policy of the Bill is the one they are going to stick to, then it is the Government's responsibility and not ours. At the moment I think all that I can possibly do is to take the Bill as it stands, apply it to the interests of the sugar beet growers as they are, and come to the inevitable conclusion that it is impossible to allow of the inclusion of the unlimited small holder, if I may use that term, because the detriment to the existing grower would be too great. It goes very much against the grain to have to come to that conclusion, and it is an argument, I think, stronger than any other that could be adduced, that really the structure of the Bill is wrong. It ought to have been approached from a different angle. But, things being what
916
they are, it would be extraordinarily difficult to insist upon the inclusion of these Amendments in the Bill without really destroying the industry for those who now live by it, and therefore I am bound, I repeat, most reluctantly to come to the conclusion that the Amendments, though drawn with the best intentions, are not altogether practicable.
I would like very much if I could to leave some loophole in the Bill for the expansion of the sugar beet and the sugar industry which I think will be necessary when the whole relation of agriculture to defence comes into perspective, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader himself, whose courteous appreciation of my poor efforts is always very much greater than those efforts could possibly deserve, might perhaps be inclined to view with less antagonism—I will not put it any stronger than that—an attempt to provide for the foodstuffs of the people, as I feel that a Bill of this character really ought to provide. But I will not attempt to commit the noble Lord to any opinions of any kind. I apologise for having held the Committee so long on this subject, but there is some excuse, for really it is at the bottom of the Bill. This question of the limitation of production is the most important point in the whole Bill. I said on the Second Reading that I regard it as a cardinal sin to limit production while there still remains a market, and I do so regard it, but the Government compel me, much against my will, to take the narrow view and to protect the interests of the sugar beet grower, when I know that the broad view is the right one, and that the small holder is the man who ought to be first considered. I shall be most interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say about this particular point, and I would like to reserve judgment as to what we finally do upon the basis of his speech. If that speech gives me the opportunity of forming a different view while this debate proceeds, I shall be only too delighted to be able to do so.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I feel bound, coming from the West of England as I do, and particularly in view of the apparent mental tangle in which my noble friend finds himself, hailing from the East of England, to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, goes into the Lobby on this Amendment I for my part,

917
not only as representing myself, but a very large number of fellow sugar producers in the West of England, will most certainly support him. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has pointed out, we in this House are in considerable difficulties in dealing with the important matter of principle as to whether this subsidy is really necessary, at any rate under existing conditions. If only Excise could be dealt with on an equitable basis it would be a different matter. I may say quite frankly that we in the West of England have for at least ten years been looking forward to the prospects of a factory being established within our area. We grow beet quite successfully, at any rate on our lighter or not too heavy soils—beating in mind that our beet is of a very high quality and that we have learnt by experience how best to grow it—and we do feel that the time has arrived when we are entitled to have a factory established, particularly when the Government make it part of their business to safeguard the production of sugar in this country. We feel we are entitled to have a factory, or at least not to have to pay such heavy transport charges as we shall have to pay if this Bill becomes law for the transport of our sugar beets to a distant factory in some other part of England.
I feel very strongly that it is a little bit unfair to us who farm to the best of our power, and achieve good cultivation, incidentally, by the adoption of this crop on our farms in the West of England, that this proviso will in fact have the effect of limiting the beet factories already in existence and thereby place us under a very severe handicap which we would not have to face if private enterprise were given the free play which it enjoyed in less socialistic days. This handicap possibly, and I think probably, would have been overcome in the early future as the result of individual enterprise. I for my part shall support the noble Lord if he thinks it worth while to go into the Lobby.
EARL DE LA WARR: This Amendment strikes at the root principle of the Bill, but before dealing with the specific points in the Amendment I would like to make it quite clear that we are not discussing the question of restriction of production. We are discussing the question of the limitation of Government
918
assistance, and if those who are responsible for the beet sugar industry care to say to-morrow that in their view it is such an economic industry that they can carry on without Government assistance, and that the extra tonnage will not cost the taxpayer any money, there would be no question whatever of limiting their acreage. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has really replied to the demand for this Amendment, and said exactly what I would have said. I do not think it would be proper for me on the Committee stage, in dealing with a specific Amendment, to discuss the whole question of whether the Bill ought to have been fundamentally redrafted. I consider there are extraordinarily good reasons why that should not be done, but I shall not weary your Lordships with these reasons at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, has said that he does not want an increased subsidy, but how are you going to get that increased acreage without increasing the subsidy or doing, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said—namely, so radically decreasing the per capita subsidy that it becomes virtually valueless?
LORD PHILLIMORE: As in the Wheat Act.
EARL DE LA WARR: Why, the noble Lord asks, do you not do as in the Wheat Act? The Wheat Act was a very much simpler proposition. The Wheat Act dealt simply with the question of subsidy, but here you are dealing with a commodity assisted in two ways—by subsidy and by duty preference. That is why this Amendment is really dealing with a point of privilege, because for every extra ton of beet that is grown, even though no additional subsidy is paid, there is to be an increased duty preference, and to that extent it is going to result in a heavy loss to the Exchequer. I have worked it out rather hurriedly, and I shall not answer for the figure to a penny, but if the noble Lord will assume that ten tons of beet are grown to the acre, I think he will find that in duty preference alone an extra acre of sugar beet will cost the Exchequer something like £7. Therefore you are up against this point: unless you are going to increase the assistance you must maintain the limitation of acreage and quantity grown.

919
The noble Lord who moved this Amendment referred to the following Amendment in the same speech, and therefore, if noble Lords will permit me, I shall deal with the next Amendment also. His point—and it is a point that it is extraordinarily difficult not to sympathise with—is that here we are, we want to see small holdings increased in this country: beet sugar is essentially a small holder's crop, and therefore it is most desirable that the small holder growing less than one acre should be excepted from the limitation. But if the small holder growing an acre or less thereby comes into cultivation, that means that somebody else has got to go out of cultivation unless you cut at the whole principle of the Bill. I suggested to the noble Lord on the Second Reading that by far the best way of dealing with this question would be to leave it to the Sugar Commission. We all recognise that it is desirable that small holders should be admitted to the production of sugar beet as far as possible, but there is a very clear principle at stake. Having admitted that it is desirable that something should be done, we have got to decide whether we are going to deal with it from Whitehall or Parliament, or set up a responsible body within the structure of self-government in the industry, and say: "It is for you to settle these matters of detail." I think this is the main question of principle which divides this side of the House from the other. Whereas they would try to reconstruct industry according to set formulas laid down in Whitehall, we say we are going to provide the machinery of self-government whereby the industry will be able to solve these problems for itself. That is really the principle which is at stake in the second Amendment. For that reason I suggest to your Lordships that you should not pass the Amendment and I hope the noble Lord will not move it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: There are really, of course, two Amendments. The first one deals with the general question of restriction, and the second one with the very small holders, the people for whom I only ask leave to grow half an acre of sugar beet a year. I am disappointed to find that, at any rate in the second case, the noble Earl can do nothing better than refer me to the Sugar Commission, whose hands will be already tied. I know they will not be tied in so many
920
words, but they will be tied by the whole structure of this Bill, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has pointed out, leaves a good deal to be desired. I am not sure that it is any use dividing the Committee on this question, but I do beg everybody on this side of the House, at any rate, to consider whether there are going to be any crops left which anybody engaged in agriculture will be allowed to grow.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Provisions as to the making, approval, and revocation, of licensing schemes.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section and for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection the necessary majorities of registered refiners are—

(a) the registered refiners who, in the opinion of the Minister, are capable of producing more than one-half of the quantity of refined sugar that all the registered refiners are capable of producing;

(b) more than one-half of the number of registered refiners.

LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), to substitute "two-thirds" for "one-half". The noble Lord said: This is a totally different subject. I do not know whether I am right in supposing that this is the first Bill which has passed or which may pass your Lordships' House that says, in so many words, that it intends its provisos to work notwithstanding any rule of law relating to agreement in restraint of trade. I must say that to see those words used in a Bill of this nature gave me rather a shock, and when I went on to find that it was proposed in certain circumstances to force on the whole of the sugar refining industry an agreement by which their freedom of trade would be restricted, and that the only proviso for their safeguard demanded a bare majority of votes of the members of the registered sugar refiners, then I really did think that the noble Earl was on his way to that dictatorship which we are all expecting him to assume. Surely, if you are going to cramp an industry within so narrow a framework as that, it is right that you should have at any rate a substantial majority of the trade to agree

921
with you before they submit to it. One small disgruntled sugar refiner may turn the scale against half the wiser heads of the trade, and the whole of this enormous industry may be confined within the limits proposed for it in this Bill. I am not going to make a long speech. The subject has been before your Lordships in other cases, but I submit that it is only reasonable to say that at least three-quarters of the licensed sugar refiners should vote in favour of these proposals before they are sanctioned on either basis.
Amendment moved—
Clause 21, page 23, line 35, leave out ("one-half") and insert ("two-thirds").—(Lord Phillimore.)
EARL DE LA WARR: As I gathered, the effect of this Amendment would be to require a two-thirds majority of the registered refiners instead of a 50 per cent. approval. No doubt the object of the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, is to bring this Bill into conformity with the Marketing Acts, which lay down the need for a two-thirds majority before a marketing scheme can come into effective operation. But I do not think that the noble Lord, on further examination, would be prepared to contend that a refiners' licensing scheme is completely analogous to a marketing scheme. Actually, the licensing scheme will be prepared not by an interested body of producers but by an independent body, the Sugar Commission, and, further, the safeguards provided for interested parties are very much greater in the case of procedure for the approval of a licensing scheme than they are under the Marketing Acts.
There is, I think, another point, and one of some importance, and it is this. Those who will be called upon to vote for these schemes will be business firms of very considerable standing, and it can be presumed that they will understand what they are voting for; whereas it is necessary to be particularly careful in the case of farmers, who are very numerous and spread all about the country and have some difficulty in really keeping in touch with what is happening. In such a state of affairs as that there is a great obligation on us to ensure that a scheme is not carried just by a bare majority consisting possibly of considerable numbers who do not really understand the scheme. But there is no danger of that
922
in regard to the provisions of this Bill. There is a further proposal contained in the noble Lord's Amendment, and that is that there should be the same two-thirds majority required for the revocation of the scheme. That, I think the noble Lord would agree, would take it completely out of touch and contact with the Marketing Acts where 50 per cent. is sufficient for a revocation. Therefore, whilst on the one hand increasing the protection to registered refiners, the noble Lord, on the other hand, is proposing to decrease that protection. I would point out to the noble Lord that under this scheme—I do not lay too much stress on this—it is not sufficient for outside bodies to discuss the matter and settle it. The whole of this scheme in fact has been very carefully discussed with interested parties who will be most affected by it. I would, therefore, ask your Lordships not to agree to the Amendment of the noble, Lord.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Penalties for false statements.
25.—(1) If for the purpose of obtaining any payment by way of assistance, supplementary payment, apportionment of supplementary payment, or allowance, either for himself or for any other person any person makes any untrue statement or untrue representation, he shall he guilty of an offence under this Act and shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and imprisonment, unless he proves that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the statement or representation was untrue.
LORD MAUGHAM LORD MAUGHAM moved, in sub-section (1), after the second "person," to insert "knowingly or recklessly." The noble and learned Lord said: I hope not to occupy your Lordships very long in explaining the reasons for what I regard as a somewhat important Amendment. Clause 25 of this Bill provides for what appears to me to be a new crime. There are to be a number of statements made by farmers who require payment and allowances of various kinds, and the clause provides that if the farmer makes an untrue statement, which to a lawyer means a statement that is not accurate, whether

923
he has made this statement innocently or otherwise, he is to be guilty of an offence and to be liable to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both, unless he proves—the onus being thrown on him—that he did not know—then come very remarkable words:
"and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the statement or representation was untrue."
That is a wide departure from the practice of the Legislature with regard to statements, returns, and other documents which have to be signed by various citizens.
It amounts to this, that if, by lack of some inquiry or by lack of being able to understand the forms which are sent out by officials, a man has made a statement which turns out to be not true, he is liable to fine and imprisonment. It is not the course which the Legislature has generally adopted. I hope your Lordships are accustomed to use reasonable diligence in making Income Tax returns. You get a form which is known as Form 12. It lies on the tables of many of us. It is a document I think of some 16 pages or thereabouts, including in the middle a lot of small-print statements of instruction or assistance for the purpose of filling up the form. I do not know if your Lordships have ever been able to read to the end of that form, but if you have you will find on the last page, and at the bottom of the last page, a little paragraph beginning with the word "Penalty," and if you read it you will see that this is the way in which the Legislature has dealt with the matter for a hundred years. You will find that if the Income Tax payer or a person who desires any abatement makes a misstatement, he is liable on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months with hard labour. But the condition of his being so liable is that he has knowingly made a false statement or a false representation. That is the form which has almost uniformly been adopted by the Legislature in cases of this kind.
If you are going to accuse a man of having committed a crime it is for the Crown in the normal way to prove the case. It is in my submission ridiculous, and if there is any precedent it is following an unsound precedent, to impose on him the obligation of showing that he did not know, and that he could not
924
with reasonable diligence have ascertained, the untruth of the statement. Reasonable diligence is a thing which, if used, will enable a man to discover everything. I do not know how the Courts are going to deal with an unfortunate man who has not been able to understand a form sent out by some Commissioners or other people engaged in working this measure, when he comes forward and says that he really could not read to the end of that particular form or that he did not understand it or that he made some statement or other by pure error—because errors are excluded by this clause. I would add that if your Lordships engage, happily or unhappily, in the cultivation of sugar beet you will all be-asked to sign forms which have been made out by bailiffs or people of that kind, and you will be probably quite unable to take the time necessary to satisfy yourselves—even with "reasonable diligence," to use the words in the Bill-that the statements made on your behalf are true. Everybody knows that you have to rely on servants, officials, employees in matters of this sort, and this Bill will make you liable, I am afraid, to a fine not exceeding £50 for each offence and imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months if you rely on the inaccurate information of some third party.
Every Amendment so far has referred to the Wheat Act. The Wheat Act is a very good example of how this ought to be done. As late as the year 1932 the Legislature in dealing with penalties dealt with them in this way. Section 16 (1) provides that if any person "with intent to deceive "—you see in the present Bill that the words "intent to deceive" come out—and (mark what follows) "knowingly makes any false statement"—"knowingly" has been taken out—or "withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person any such certificate, receipt or other document or any payment," then is he liable to fine or imprisonment or both. That, I venture to think, is the proper way in which a clause of this kind should be drafted. To refer to another matter, with which many of your Lordships may be concerned—namely, the issuing of a prospectus for the purpose of a company inviting subscriptions—the matter is there made perfectly clear. Section 227 of the Act of

925
1918 provides that a director or any other person is liable with regard to his statement in the prospectus or other document or account if he wilfully makes a statement false in any material particular knowing it to be false. That again is a good example of the way in which the Legislature ought to deal with false statements which are of the nature of the false statements considered in Clause 25.
When I ask myself why the British farmer should be singled out for the creation of an offence—and I venture to think a new offence—I really am at a loss to find an answer. I do not know that farmers are a class particularly liable to make false statements, nor do I know that the growing of sugar beet is particularly demoralising to the character. I should have thought that if anybody was a person who could fairly claim the sympathy of this House it was the farmer who is engaged in endeavouring to make a difficult living under very arduous circumstances, beset with all sorts of restrictions, and constantly bombarded with forms which he has great difficulty in filling up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 10, after the second ("person") insert ("knowingly or recklessly").—(Lord Maugham.)
LORD ATKIN: I should like to say a word or two on this Amendment, because I have come here specially with reference to it, having no great knowledge of—I do not say interest in—sugar beet. This is a matter which far transcends in importance any question about sugar or sugar beet production, because it is, I venture to say, a very serious invasion of a thoroughly well known principle of the Criminal Law which has existed as long as the English Criminal Law—that is, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the alleged offender committed the crime. This is not the first time that it has become an offence to obtain money from the Government or from any other person by making a false statement. It is one of the commonest offences known to the law, obtaining money by false pretences, and in all cases it is for the prosecution to prove that the man made the false pretence knowing that it was false and with intent to deceive. Now why should any difference be made, and why should the onus of proof
926
be thrown in these particular cases upon the person who makes the report?
I can quite conceive that it is very convenient for persons who have to pay money to be able to hold in terrorem over those who make these statements that unless their statement is absolutely correct they will go to prison. That is what it really comes to, because for the first time—I think it is for the first time, though the noble Earl may be able to show some precedents in some of the similar Acts; if so, they are very bad precedents—the onus is upon the defendant to show not only that he did not know the statement was untrue, but also that he could not with due diligence have discovered that it was untrue. I venture to say that that is a most improper burden to put upon anybody accused of a criminal offence. Have any of your Lordships come across pig-headed farmers who believe in what they say without there being due grounds for their belief? As long as they honestly believe in what they say they are not going to make inquiries into whether it is true. They go by their thoroughly well formed but no doubt wrong opinions and are justified in doing so. The essence of crime consists in honesty or dishonesty, and this provision will expose a man to fine and imprisonment although he is really as honest as the day. It concerns, moreover, a class of people who have quite enough difficulty in filling up forms already and might quite easily make a mistake. This is a very serious and important principle, and I hope the Government will sec their way to accept the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: We are discussing, as those noble Lords who are supporting this Amendment have said, a very important principle, and a principle which, I say very clearly and very strongly, His Majesty's Government would be just as anxious, and are just as anxious, to defend as anybody else in your Lordships' House. This principle is that the onus of proving the guilt of a person charged with an offence should rest with the prosecution. But I think that your Lordships would fully admit another principle, and that is that it is necessary to sec that, where offences are created by a Statute, the language employed is not such as to add to the proper burden of the prosecution such extra weight as may render that Statute in

927
effective. This Amendment is, in the view of His Majesty's Government, a drafting Amendment, because we consider that the point is dealt with in the wording of the proposed clause. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has complained considerably that one who is not connected with the Ministry of Agriculture should be answering in your Lordships' House on behalf of agriculture, but I can assure him that I would far rather discuss agricultural questions with him, after ten years during which I had never been near the Ministry of Agriculture, than I would discuss legal questions with a Lord of Appeal. If asked what is worse than one Lord of Appeal, I should say three Lords of Appeal.
As I am advised, however, under the clause as presented to the House the prosecution will have to prove, first, that the defendant made a statement that was untrue. But they will have to do more than that. If your Lordships will turn to the wording of the clause, you will see that they will also have to prove that he did so for the purpose of obtaining a payment either for himself or for some other person. This, of course, involves proving that the untrue statement or representation was made on purpose—that is, knowingly. Not only so, but the wording also makes it necessary to prove the actual purpose for which the statement or representation was made. The full onus of proof will therefore be on the prosecution under the clause as drawn, notwithstanding that the word "knowingly" does not occur in it. I see noble and learned Lords who are much more fitted to discuss matters of law than myself shaking their heads, and I can therefore only say that that is the view of His Majesty's Government and their legal advisers. But if noble Lords are not satisfied with that, I am perfectly prepared to undertake to discuss these matters with my colleagues and with noble and learned Lords in order to see whether before the next stage we cannot arrive at some agreement on this difficult point. I can assure noble and learned Lords that on the principles we are in complete agreement, and that nothing is further from the desire of His Majesty's Government than "knowingly" to destroy this great
928
principle that it is for the prosecution to prove that a man is guilty.
LORD MAUGHAM: If I may tell the Minister of Agriculture where he is quite wrong, it is that he has not observed the last three lines of this subsection. A person is held to have made an untrue statement and to be liable to a fine unless he proves that he could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the statement was untrue. That differentiates this clause entirely from all the clauses to which I have shortly referred the Committee and a great many more, and it is for that reason that the clause should be altered—unless His Majesty's Government are creating a new crime.
EARL DE LA WARR: If I might answer that specific point: the contention which I have had made to me is that the process is, as I have said, firstly, that the man should be proved to be guilty; secondly, that he should be proved to have made the statement on purpose; and then in the last three lines of the clause he is given the further concession that, even if those two points are proved, he has the right to come back and endeavour to make his point that he did it not knowing. But I bow to noble and learned Lords, and willingly undertake on behalf of His Majesty's Government to discuss this point before the next stage.
LORD HASTINGS: I trust that the noble and learned Lords who have been good enough to take the interest that they have taken in the protection of the farmer against what I have previously described as an overweening bureaucracy, will not give way. After all, common justice should not be made the subject of discussion between the Ministry and even the most distinguished Law Lords outside this House. When the Ministry in their Bill have desired that a certain phraseology should persist, it is on the floor of this House that that phraseology should be either accepted or rejected. There is another and a purely technical reason why this Amendment should be insisted upon, and that is that we shall, many of us, for various reasons require a Report stage, and there will be no Report stage if no Amendment is now pressed upon the Committee. That is not an argument, naturally, which would weigh with your Lordships in comparison with the infinitely weightier ones which have been advanced, but at the

929
same time, the practice of politics being what it is, we cannot entirely afford to ignore it. I hope very much that, only in the interests of justice, the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken to this Amendment will proceed to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend who has just sat down is quite right: unless some Amendment is put in at this stage there will be no Report stage. That means that this matter, in which your Lordships are practically at one with the noble and learned Lord in thinking that something will have to be done, will be left over to the Third Reading. Those of us who have sat in this House for a long time know how difficult it is to amend a Bill properly on Third Reading. By the Rules of the House Notice must be given of an Amendment on Third Reading; it cannot be moved in the course of the debate in any form whatever, because that would be contrary to the Rules, and you are therefore very much hampered in arriving at a reasonable solution. I hope that in the circumstances the Government will consent to put this Amendment into the Bill; then there will be a Report stage and they will be in a position to adjust it as they think best. That is much the best plan.
EARL DE LA WARR: After that appeal, I do not see how I can do otherwise than accept the proposal, but I would say this. I have on behalf of His Majesty's Government given two definite assurances The first is that we are in complete agreement on principle. There is no question of bargaining, because we are in agreement on principle. Secondly, I have given a definite undertaking to discuss this matter, and when I say discuss it I mean a bona fide discussion, with a real desire to arrive at agreement. Therefore I venture once more to appeal to your Lordships to allow this Amendment to go. I would not think of dividing the Committee. If I may take your Lordships into the confidence of the Government I would say that this Bill is already very much overdue. At the moment a very great deal of business is being carried on, and contracts are being made on trust. I have not put this to your Lordships before, because I did not think it would be a proper suggestion to make, but now that a question of time has arisen I would point out that this would mean another
930
day, and intervening days, and returning the Bill to the House of Commons, and further time wasted. There is no question of dividing the Committee, but still I appeal to the Committee to accept my suggestion.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I venture to endorse the appeal of the noble Marquess? I have stood in exactly the same position as the noble Earl stands in to-day. You have a most distinguished legal authority in this House pointing out that a particular clause is contrary to the principles oil British law, and it is perfectly clear that if the words which Lord Maugham proposes are inserted they will not only do justice but be in accord with the principles of British Law. There is only one other point which I wish to make. A statement may be untrue, that is, inaccurate, and at the same time infer no guilty intention on the part of the person who makes it. That being so, I venture to support the appeal of the noble Marquess, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is quite obvious what the Committee desires, and therefore I will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAUGHAM: My second Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 16, leave out from ("imprisonment") to end of the subsection.—(Lord Maugham.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I must make it quite clear in regard to this Amendment and the previous one that the Government are not accepting the Amendments, but merely agreeing to their insertion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

MEASUREMENT OF GAS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved to resolve, That is is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider whether it is expedient, and if so in what circumstances and subject to what conditions, to authorise the measurement of gas supplied

931
by gas undertakers to consumers by means of meters so designed as to register in therms instead of in cubic feet.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a rather complicated situation has arisen in regard to the question of the measuring of gas supplied by gas undertakers to consumers. At the present moment the meters used register in cubic feet the amount of gas consumed. Last session the South Metropolitan Gas Company promoted a Bill to enable meters to be designed so as to register in terms of therms instead of in cubic feet. After a considerable amount of discussion the Bill was dropped last year, but it was re-introduced in the present Session. I understand that the Government saw a very considerable objection to the proposal put forward by the company, and gave their views, not by Counsel, before the Select Committee of the House of Lords presided over by Lord Cozens-Hardy. In spite of the Opposition of the Board of Trade and of the London County Council, who I think were represented by Counsel, the Committee decided, after a long and patient hearing, in favour of the proposals submitted in the Bill. As I understand it the Board of Trade still maintain their objection to a proposal of this kind being introduced in a Private Bill, but they have intimated to me that they are prepared to allow the whole question to be considered, with a view to its being the subject of public legislation, provided that the case put forward by the company can be proved.
The House of Lords is naturally and rightly very careful when it is proposed by the Government, or anyone else, to override a decision of a Select Committee of this House who have very patiently and carefully heard a case and decided thereon. But of course it is obvious that Parliament can at any stage of a Bill take any action it considers right, and it is open to any Member of Parliament, including, of course, the responsible Minister, to persuade the House of the correctness of his point of view. A suggestion has been put forward, which I think this Motion embodies, and which it seems to me is one which, from the point of view of all parties concerned, would tend to a satisfactory solution. It is proposed that a Joint Select Committee should be set up and the terms of reference are those which appear in my Motion on the Paper.
There is only one other point to which I would refer. Of course the company might be placed at a certain disadvantage if the Committee find in favour of their proposal and then time is not available for public legislation during the Session. They would gain their case, but in practice they would lose, because if the Bill were dropped they would have to wait for public legislation to be undertaken. Therefore, I understand that the Government would be willing to withdraw their opposition to this Bill, if the promoters agree to drop it should the Government be able to introduce and pass a Public Bill this Session. If there should not be time for such a Bill it is agreed, and I think it would be fair, that the Bill which will be before this House tomorrow should be allowed to go forward, and subsequently it will embody such decisions as may be arrived at by the Select Committee should a Public Bill not be produced this Session. By this means, if the company are able to persuade Parliament of the desirability of their case, they will not lose should a Public Bill not be introduced this Session. In these circumstances I understand that the Government offer no objection to the Bill being read a third time to-morrow.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider whether it is expedient, and if so in what circumstances and subject to what conditions, to authorise the measurement of gas supplied by gas undertakers to consumers by means of meters so designed as to register in therms instead of in cubic feet.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I do not want to keep you from a much more important discussion, but I feel that this is a matter of some importance. I would like to remind you of the history of this Motion. What happened was that I and four other noble Lords sat for two days listening to the ablest Counsel of the Parliamentary Bar discussing this matter. We came to certain very definite conclusions. We were unanimous, and there was no question in my view that our decision was a perfectly right one. Then we were informed that the Board of Trade intended to oppose this Bill on Third Beading. I was quite content with that situation, because I had no doubt that if the Board of Trade

933
did oppose our conclusions on the Third Reading your Lordships would pay no attention to that. Yesterday I received a letter telling me that the Board of Trade had decided not to oppose the Bill on Third Reading, but that a compromise, so-called, had been arrived at. Why was it arrived at? Well, it was arrived at partly because the Board of Trade did not want to have to oppose a Bill which had been passed by your Lordships' Committee, and partly, so far as I can make out, because the threat was employed that if this compromise was not arrived at the Whips would be put on in another place, and the Bill would be thrown out by the well-regimented squadrons over there.
I make this protest because I feel that it is a gross bit of blackmail, and I regard it as a gross denial of your Lordships' rights. I also regard it as reducing the whole system of Committees in this House to a farce. If a Government Department takes it into its head to make a threat of that kind and to say: "Very well, do it if you like, but you will lose the whole Bill, because we will put the Whips on in another place," then where are you going to stop? Why should you ever have a Committee at all? I say this quite frankly, because I feel a sense of grievance, and a man with a sense of grievance perhaps never speaks too clearly. We sat two days on a Gas Committee—not a very amusing entertainment—very little "wine, woman and song" about that. We did it with the aid of the best Counsel with one object only, to help your Lordships, and we did it to the best of our ability. If, at the end of all that, simply because a Government Department takes it into its head that this matter is of importance, all our efforts are to be wasted and the whole costly farce is to be gone through again, I say to your Lordships that you are likely to find it extremely difficult to ask at any rate the younger members of your Lordships' House to have any part in your Committees again, because if we are only going to be rubber stamps we would rather be absent. With that protest, I sit down.
LOUD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend who has spoken with his usual eloquence, did not give me notice that he was going to raise this subject to-day, or I should have been prepared with a defence of the Department which I have the honour to represent in your
934
Lordships' House. I can assure him that I personally was quite unaware that any threat had been made to defeat the Bill by the nefarious process of putting the Whips on in another place. If he will take it from me, I will convey what he has said to the Department, and I hope he will take it that I have said sufficient on this subject for the moment. I really rose to say that, as the Lord Chairman has stated, the difficulties raised with regard to this Bill have been carefully reconsidered and, on behalf of the Board of Trade, I welcome this proposal for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament
"to consider whether it is expedient, and if so in what circumstances and subject to what conditions, to authorise the measurement of gas supplied by gas undertakers to consumers by means of meters so designed as to register in therms instead of in cubic feet."
Of course, the Government raise no objection to the Third Reading of this Bill to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think I must say one word with reference to the speech of the noble Marques. I have no acquaintance with the circumstances to which he refers, but I am bound to say I have the greatest sympathy with him in his protest. What appears to have happened is that, whereas your Lordships' House had sent a Bill to a Private Bill Committee and that Committee had arrived at certain conclusions, the emissaries of a Government Department came and said: "Unless this decision is reversed we shall use the mechanical majority of the Government in order to overbear you." In other words, the action of your Lordships' House, either by its Committee or as the House itself, is to be overthrown by the orders of the representative of a Government Department. That, of course, is an intolerable position. I speak with the greater emphasis because this is not the first time it has occurred. On the last occasion on which it occurred the matter did come under my own notice, and I said what I think any of your Lordships would have said under the circumstances. I said that nothing would induce me to give way for a single second in deference to a mere direction from a Government Department. One of the Houses of Parliament to be overridden merely because the President of the Board of Trade or

935
his emissary thought that we ought to give way, and said: "If you do not give way the House of Commons"—probably a weary House of Commons—"under the orders of its Whips will override you"—that is an impossible position, and I sympathise very much with the noble Marquess in the protest that he has made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to desire their concurrence.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
Order of the Day read for resuming the debate on the Motion of Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, moved on Thursday last, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to any preparations for proposals to the League of Nations for a thorough revision of the system of collective security in view of recent experiences.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, resumes this debate may I perhaps ask the Government, as it is now rather late and a great many noble Lords have come down specially for this debate, whether it will be possible for them again to continue the debate on another day, perhaps on Thursday; and may I plead that on that Thursday the day will be kept clear of sugar, cotton and gas?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, that is a very reasonable request, and we propose to meet your Lordships' convenience by continuing the debate on Thursday. I can promise that cotton shall be cleared out of the way on that day, and that we will take the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill next Tuesday. I fancy that gas has exhausted itself. I cannot give an absolute undertaking about sugar, but we will keep the day as clear as we possibly can.
EARL PEEL: Why has cotton always to give way to gas and to sugar?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Because it is so important that it ought to have a day to itself, which it would not have had on Thursday.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Sugar is by far the most important. I should be glad of an assurance about sugar.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, possibly my noble friend will, before the end of this evening, be able to give a more direct assurance to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. At any rate I think I had perhaps better employ the time which still remains to us this evening in making the observations that I desire to make to your Lordships on this subject, which I think, with my noble friend, is certainly one of the most important subjects which this House could possibly have to consider. We began the debate the other day and four speeches were delivered. Except the speech of my noble friend Lord Snell, I think all proceeded on this broad thesis, that collective security had failed and that it must be abandoned. That it has failed in the case of Abyssinia is so far unhappily true; that is to say, it has not succeeded; but I personally am altogether unconvinced that it would be right to abandon this great effort, the greatest effort that has ever been made in the history of civilisation to substitute for war some more reasonable method of settling international differences.
The three speeches which were made against collective security disagreed considerably amongst themselves. There was my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who maintained the thesis that he has continually maintained on the subject; he was in favour of the total abolition of anything that savoured of the use of force by international bodies, because he was against the use of force altogether in international matters. I hope I am not misstating him, but he regarded the use of force as useless and pernicious. My noble friend Lord Lothian, whose absence to-day we all deplore, particularly for the reason that has caused it, took a less drastic view. He wanted indeed to abolish Article 16, that is true, but as I understand both from what he said in this House and what he has said in his letters to The Times, he does propose to maintain the use of force to this extent that he proposes to have what he calls "regional security," but which used to be called more clearly, "a defensive alliance," with France, confined—though I am not quite sure on that point—to her western borders. The view of my noble friend Lord Rennell, whom I am glad to see here and with whom I disagree very little, if at all, was not the abolition of collec

937
tive security, but, if I am not misinterpreting him, he thought—and there is a good deal to be said for that view—that the obligation to exert force ought to be confined to European disputes.
I should be the last to deny that a very grave international disaster has occurred. It is unnecessary to emphasise it now, because, however much we may disagree as to what ought to have been done, we are all agreed, without exception, as to the very grave events which have taken place. Nobody put it more strongly than my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, and I need not repeat it. We all profoundly sympathise with the Emperor of Ethiopia. We all regret the events which have driven him from his Throne, at any rate temporarily, and we all deeply deplore the action and the policy of the Italian Government. But I venture to hope we shall not, nevertheless, exaggerate the general result that has been produced on the policy of collective action. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby did not deal much with the general case. I think he regards it as so clear that the conception of sanctions is wrong, that it is not necessary to argue very much about what has happened, because it is quite in accordance with what he expected and therefore he thinks it is unnecessary to dwell on the failure that has taken place. My noble friend Lord Lothian took a totally different view. His view was that force was right. He rejected altogether the conception of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. He said force was essential, but he thought it had been shown conclusively, by what had occurred not only in Abyssinia but elsewhere, that the conception of collective action in order to repress aggression—in order, that is, to make peace sure—was a hopeless conception and must be abandoned.
He based himself in the first place on his recollection: of conversations which he said took place during the Peace Conference between Mr. Lloyd George and, I suppose, myself and General Smuts. I do not want in his absence to make any criticism of him. Therefore, I shall merely say it is a rather inconvenient plan to base any considerable argument on private conversations which took place nearly twenty years ago. Though I do happen by chance to remember the incident to which he referred, I cannot say that I agree with the colour that he
938
gave to the discussion. As I remember, after the matter had been before the Commission of the Conference for some little time—I do not remember how long—I received, and I suppose General Smuts received, a message suggesting that the whole conception of a League of Nations as we understood it was wrong, and that the proper plan would be merely to have some general affirmation of the principles of peace, and leave it at that. Indeed, in my recollection, the kind of suggestion that was made was that we should revert to the Holy Alliance—the true Holy Alliance—to the proposals made by Alexander I after the Napoleonic Wars, which, as your Lordships will remember, were simply an affirmation that it was desirable that international relations should be conducted on the principles of Christian morality. A very large number of countries signed that declaration. I believe we did not, but almost all the other countries did, and of course it never produced the very slightest effect of any sort or kind. I think my view, as far as I remember it, was very clear. If we were merely to do that kind of thing, it really was not worth while putting provisions of that description into the Treaty, and it was on those grounds that we represented to Mr. Lloyd George that that would not be a desirable course.
I do not remember any conversation with him. It may have taken place—my memory is not so trustworthy as to enable me to say confidently that no such conversation took place; but I am sure there was no insistence on this view. The reason, of course, is quite obvious. The proposals we went to Paris to submit to the Conference had formed the subject of most elaborate consideration in this country. They began with a paper which was submitted to the Foreign Secretary and, I think, circulated to the Cabinet as early as the autumn of 1916. That paper was considered. A very important Committee was appointed to discuss it and investigate it, presided over by the late Lord Phillimore and on it sat three very eminent civil servants, members of the Foreign Office, and two or three—I forget now which—gentlemen who had made it their business to study International Law and international history. They reported as far as this provision. Article 16, which was then part of the

939
proposals submitted to them, was concerned, as far as I remember, without dissension in favour of it. It then went to the Cabinet and was considered by them. It went to the War Cabinet, the large War Cabinet on which the Dominions sat. It was considered by them and approved by them. General Smuts was much attracted by the suggestion, and he brought out a very brilliant pamphlet in which he elaborated the proposals and added certain proposals of his own. That pamphlet earned the enthusiastic approval of Mr. Lloyd George. I am sure he will remember, because he was very much struck by it, as indeed everyone was. It was again considered by the Cabinet. There was, I remember, a Cabinet Committee on the subject, and so on, and it was part of the instructions to the delegates who attended the Conference to accept the suggestion which we understood was going to be made by the President of the United States.
Therefore it is not at all likely that Mr. Lloyd George, having considered this matter with great care as Prime Minister of the Cabinet for two years, should suddenly, in obedience to suggestions which may have been made to him by my noble friend, his secretary, or someone else, throw the whole thing over and have an entirely different plan. He may have said, "I hope you will consider this alternative plan." I do not think he did more than that. I am sorry to trouble your Lordships' with these recollections, but since the matter has been raised it-is right to mention how it stands. I may add this in one sentence, that since that time the question of the Covenant of the League of Nations has repeatedly been under the consideration of successive British Governments. They have consistently supported it, and used the most emphatic language in connection with it. It has, of course, also been supported and endorsed by very numerous international statements, among them the statements made during the Conference of Locarno, and very often during the discussions at Geneva, so that I think, if we are to consider merely the question of authority, which I certainly should not have pressed at all, that against the rather casual suggestions made, if they were made, by Mr. Lloyd George, there is a very much larger weight of authority on the other side.
940
My noble friend went on to refer to one or two other cases besides the Abyssinian case. There was the case of the Far East, and there was the case of the Disarmament Conference. May I just say a word or two about each of them? As far as the Far East is concerned my noble friend said that the ordinary threats—I have the phrase here if it is necessary to use it—were used with regard to Japan. I happened to be the representative of the British Government during the earlier part of that discussion. No threats were used to Japan at all. On the contrary, there were two or three meetings of the Council, and at most of them the conclusions were accepted by Japan. At only one of them, I think, was the Japanese representative unable to assent. That was because there was some question of a time limit to which he felt he could not agree. But, broadly speaking, during all that period, the case was this: Here has been an unfortunate clash of arms in Manchuria; no doubt it can be put right in the ordinary way in which such clashes have been put right before. We relied on Japan and her opponents—China, of course—to collaborate in putting the thing right. The discussions proceeded during two meetings of the Council at Geneva, and a very long meeting, which lasted four or five weeks, at Paris. Conciliation, mediation, and every phase of the kind you may like to use was carried to its most extreme point, but no question of threat of any sort or kind arose.
At the end, with the assent of Japan and the collaboration of Japan, it was agreed to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to see what could be done. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lord Lytton, with four colleagues drawn one from each of the principal Powers, went to the place, and, with the collaboration and assistance of a Japanese representative, investigated the whole thing, examined a great number of witnesses and so on, and did everything they could think of by way of conciliation and discussion. Finally, they made a Report of an extremely valuable kind in which certain proposals were made. I ought to add that nothing resulted. When the conclusions of the Lytton Commission were adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations, Japan announced her withdrawal from the League. All

941
that I would say is that so far from that being an argument against the use of sanctions, it seems to me a very conclusive instance—no single instance can be absolutely conclusive but a very powerful argument—to show that mere discussion, mere conciliation, unless it is backed somehow or in some way with some form of force, of coercion, will not be sufficient to stop aggression of that description. That seems to me to be the only conclusion you can draw from the history of the Far Eastern case.
It is perfectly true that I thought—I am sorry to be so egotistic; it does not matter a straw what I thought—but many people in this country thought it would have been desirable, with the assistance of the United States—it could not have been attained without—to have tried some form of coercion. I need not go into all that, because in point of fact that was not done, and the conclusion, therefore, that I draw is that the conception, if my noble friend will forgive me, that you can do a great deal by sitting round a table and discussing is really not in accordance with the fact when you have to deal with a determined aggression. No amount of discussion round a table stopped Japan, and no amount of discussion round a table would have stopped Mussolini.
The next instance that my noble friend gave was disarmament. I do not really know why he thought the failure of the Disarmament Conference had anything to do with Article 16 or Article 10. Disarmament at least was not a part of the League machinery. The Conference no doubt was called at the instance of the League, but it was an ordinary International Conference and nothing else, and it discussed, unfortunately unsuccessfully, these very difficult topics of international disarmament. It failed, not, I think, as my noble friend said, because there was some difficulty about granting to Germany complete equality, but broadly—and this was the real difficulty which ran through the whole Conference and which I think British Governments have never adequately faced—because, in order to obtain international reduction and limitation of armaments, you must satisfy those countries which are at present highly armed that they will be safe in reducing their armaments, and the only way of doing that is to assure them that the international guarantee that is offered to them
942
is a real, serious, effective guarantee. I believe that was the real reason of the failure of the Disarmament Conference.
I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby hates these Disarmament Conferences and thinks they are entirely mistaken. I have never been able quite to follow what his reason for that opinion is. In his view, I suppose, it is really touching the accursed thing armaments. It assumes that some kind of armaments may be necessary, and that you are going to try to reduce them. That is not the view he thinks ought to be, adopted. But if the Disarmament Conference has any bearing on the present controversy it is that there, again, unless you are prepared to offer to the nations at this minute some real guarantee by collective security, you cannot make any serious advance in the direction of international peace. I do not want to dwell on these things, but it is important that we should know where we are and what the difficulty is that we have come up against before we attempt to apply a remedy.
I do not want to dwell upon the cases—perhaps they have been dwelt on too much—in which the action of the League was completely successful, but do not let us forget them. There were more, but I merely mention three which were very clear. There was the Serbian invasion of Albania, which was stopped by League action and stopped because it became known that the League, it necessary, would take coercive action. The result—I know the danger of saying these things, but it is essential to say them—was a great slump of the Serbian credit, and I have not the slightest doubt that that was one of the main causes of the complete settlement of that affair with absolute agreement by both parties. No further disturbance has ever taken place between those two countries.
There was the Bulgarian case, where Greece appeared to be about to invade Bulgaria. In the same way intervention by the League ended the matter. It was certainly true, and I believe it was known to both parties, that the Powers were considering what coercive action should be applied if peace was not made. Peace was made. Finally, there was the case of Corfu, where Italy, with a very real and genuine grievance against Greece, attempted to seize Corfu and did indeed occupy Corfu for a short time. In con

943
sequence of the action of the League after rather heated debates the attempt by Italy to seize Corfu was abandoned. I am myself absolutely confident that but for the League and the possibility of coercive action by the League Corfu would be to-day an Italian island. All these things must be considered. It is quite true that they were all cases where the League was able to exert overwhelming force. In the case of Italy, for reasons I need not go into, she was quite unready to take military action at that time and the other cases were of small Powers which could be dealt with effectively. But these cases show that it is not true to say that force, sanctions, coercion are not useful in preserving peace.
We hear a great deal about the present failure, and it has been a failure. The force was not adequate to stop aggression. But I do not myself admit that no advance has been made. I think it was a great thing that we should have got fifty nations to agree on a common resolution and on common action and that, in spite of great damage—they must have lost a lot of money—they have not weakened in their economic action but have, in point of fact, maintained it. I think that is so far encouraging. I do not think it shows that coercion is impossible. It shows that you have got to be very clear as to what you want and very clear in recommending it to your colleagues in the League. My own belief is that if we had been clear and had recommended much more strong action it would have been equally accepted. But may I interpose this observation? The conception was that you should have small sanctions gradually increasing if they were ineffective until you got so great a pressure on Italy that it would be impossible for her to go on. It began very well. For two months, September and October, the proceedings were initiated with great smoothness and with great success. I may mention—I do not think it will be denied by anybody—that the position of this country never stood higher than during those months. It was universally looked up to by every country in Europe. The smaller countries said: "We have got leaders in this matter, we trust them, we are going to follow them, we are going to run risks"—because there were risks, and not merely economic risks, for no small
944
country likes to offend a great country like Italy.
They did it, and then came that terribly disastrous mistake, as I think, the Hoare-Laval Agreement. Its immediate effect was crushing. It discouraged every single one of the small countries. They said: "After all, England is not in earnest. We always feared there might be some difficulty of that kind." America, which had shown signs of being ready to co-operate to some extent in the efforts we were making, withdrew instantly and has never advanced. Italy, which had been extremely anxious, according to such information as reaches me, up till then, said: "They will never touch us, evidently. We can go on to do anything we like. We can proceed to the extreme and use every weapon however horrible that science gives us, and force these people to submit as soon as possible." That, as I read it, is what happened and I think it was a most unhappy disaster.
But is it not rather unreasonable to expect unbroken success in the immense experiment we are engaged in? What is it we are trying to do? It is to substitute for war some better system of settling international disputes. It is a tremendous job, reversing the history of many centuries, taking from countries the right to go to war in their own causes, and substituting for it the acceptance of an international authority. I think it would be absolutely incredible that an operation of that kind should meet with no set-back in the course of its establishment. I cannot admit that it has had more than a set-back. If I am not wearying your Lordships I should just like to refer to the alternative suggestion by the two noble Lords, and I hope they will let me assure them that I speak with no want of respect. On the contrary I think they have put their case admirably. What do they say? My noble friend Lord Ponsonby says, in effect, sweep away the whole Covenant of the League of Nations.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:
Article 16.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I thought rather more, but my noble friend says not. He said, if I understood him—I am sorry if I misunderstood—that the Articles to which he attached importance were Articles 3 and 4. I am not dealing

945
how with questions of Mandates and things of that kind, but what he thought was that for peace making the thing to do was to bring the nations together to talk round a table. That experiment was tried in the Far East and in Ethiopia, because the British Government did everything they could to induce Italy and Abyssinia to meet and talk the matter over at a round table, with the advantage that it was a table at which all other countries would be represented. Italy refused. It was because of that refusal, and because she insisted on making war without leaving an interval in which the matter could be considered, that the whole trouble arose. My noble friend the Marquess of Lothian said he was in favour of delay because delay meant an opportunity for discussion as to what were the real grievances between the two countries. With all deference to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, and with a great deal of sympathy for the underlying ideas he represents, I cannot believe that in the present condition of the world it is really a possible policy to say that we will have no force at all, that we will disband our Army and abolish our Fleet, and that we will rely entirely on talking at a round table. I cannot think that that is right.
I refer for a moment only to his other thesis; that one of the things you should discuss round the table is the reconsideration of all the treaties which bind all the nations together, believing—quite inaccurately, if I may venture to say so—that the grievance of the Italians in this matter was some old musty treaty. Nothing of the kind. The treaties they have broken have all been made within the last twenty years, and I cannot believe that a general throwing into the melting-pot of the whole of the arrangements by which Europe at present exists, the whole of the arrangements by which the boundaries of the various States are framed, and a general rediscussion of them every two or three years, would do anything towards the maintenance of peace. The Covenant goes quite far enough when it says that, when any one objects to a particular arrangement and thinks it is no longer right, that matter should be considered in very much the way which my noble friend suggests.
My noble friend Lord Lothian does not go quite so far. He proposes in regard
946
to the League, as I have said, the abolition of force, and in effect, as I think he would find when he tried to propose it to any international body, the abolition of the League of Nations altogether, and the substitution for it of a defensive alliance with France and the reinstatement—as he said, not in this House, but in another public statement—of the balance of power by increasing the power of Germany so that she would be more on a level with France. That is returning to 1913; it is nothing else. I cannot for a moment believe that that policy is going to succeed. Why should it? It did not succeed in 1913; and according to him, the difficulty which then faced Sir Edward Grey (as he then was) was that he could not get the discussion going to nip the difficulty in the bud—as my noble friend very properly said—and to go straight down to the dispute between Austria and Serbia. The thing which happened then would happen again; I can see nothing to prevent it. We should have the same dispute, and one country joining in after another because they could not afford to let the balance of power—use that phrase as much as you like—be disturbed, until we had the necessity, under which we felt ourselves then, to intervene also. I cannot feel that that situation really holds out the slightest hope of any permanent peace.
Your Lordships will say: "Well, it is easy enough to criticise what other people have proposed; have you any suggestions to make?" My Lords, I have, and I must make them, as briefly as I can. In the first place, I hope my noble friends will not misunderstand me if I say that the two most important things in the conduct of foreign affairs are courage and tenacity. Vacillation, timidity—those are the things which produce war and produce disaster. We have started on this great experiment; I ask your Lordships to say that, because it has not succeeded in one case, that is not sufficient reason for abandoning it. Of course I am delighted to see that apparently they are going to continue sanctions for the time being, but I do not wish to go too much into the details of the present case. I ask your Lordships to support the League, broadly. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby in saying that there were signs, at any rate up to last summer, that though the Government were nominally in favour

947
of the League, they were not so wholeheartedly, and that they entered on this very dangerous and difficult enterprise without counting the cost sufficiently, without having done all that was in their power during their ten years of office to increase the authority and prestige of the League. When it came to be tested in this great way, they did not make it clear, as they ought to have made it clear, that they were going to rely on the League and enforce the system of the League. As my noble friend very properly said, if they had made that clear at Stresa there would have been far more chance of a successful issue from this difficulty.
All I say, therefore, is: Let us proceed with this effort, the only effort that has ever had any prospect of success, that I can see, in the maintenance of peace. There are one or two other things we must do. I am not going to elaborate them now, but we must consider whether the means in the Covenant as it now stands, not only for stopping war when it has broken out but also for preventing the outbreak of war, are sufficient. I will go farther. I am attracted by the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Rennell that it may be right and proper to make more precise and more definite the exact cases in which we, and not we only but all the Members of the League, agree to intervene. I will not go into the details of that suggestion, because I am sure my noble friend will agree with me that this is a matter for great caution and great delicacy and that to say too much would only do more harm than good. Finally, we must press again, for this is the only positive security we can ever get, for some measure of international reduction and limitation of armaments
That is the policy which I venture to recommend to your Lordships. It is, I say quite clearly and plainly, a policy not of whittling away the League, but of strengthening it and making it more effective; least of all is it a policy of abandoning the League. To my mind, when you come to examine these proposals made here or elsewhere, you will find that in effect nothing can be done, or has even been suggested, except something in the nature of collective security under some such system as the League. The machinery of it has not worked badly. You must either have that system or go back to the old system of 1913.
948
I do not believe there is any alternative. I do not believe—I say so with regret—that any provisions merely for talking round a table are of any use. We have seen the Kellogg-Briand Pact, stating the most admirable principles that could be stated. It is most valuable as a statement of principle, but as a practical peace-keeping measure it has had, I am sorry to say, little if any effect.
To my mind that is the case which your Lordships and the people of this country have to decide: either we go back to 1913 or we go forward with this great experiment. I do not know whether the experiment will ultimately succeed or not; no one can tell that. All I can say is that I have not read or heard of any suggestion which seems to me to have a better promise of success. I cannot doubt that if we return to 1913 the same results that took place then will take place again, and the consequences will be even more terrible than they were then. I cannot abandon my hope that possibly, if we show great courage and resolution, if we are prepared to run risks—yes, to run risks—and give a real lead to the world in this great enterprise, it may succeed. I certainly am not prepared, because of one failure, which is not yet complete, to abandon all hope of it, and timidly, as it seems to me—not to my noble friend, because he has always taken a different view—to fly from the difficulty that has met us and abandon the fairest hope of this sort that has ever been accorded to mankind.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE, who had given notice of a Question to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will undertake that in future the representatives of this country shall be chosen from professional diplomatists or other persons specially qualified by expert knowledge of the law and custom of foreign nations, said: My Lords, everyone has listened to my noble friend Lord Cecil with sympathy, but he has not made any concrete proposal, except to go on as we have been going, and the way we have been going in recent years has been disastrous to the League of Nations. I venture to make a definite proposal to your Lordships, to which I hope your Lordships will agree, for I can build up a case in a few moments which shows that some such reform is really needed if we are not going

949
to drift into war, as we have so nearly done in the past few months. The Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper gives you the purpose which I have in mind in bringing this matter before you. If I may use the language with which I am most familiar, and regard the League of Nations as a ship, I should say, and I think the noble Viscount will agree, that the ship has struck a rock and is nearly sinking.
LORD STRABOLGI: Badly navigated.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Why is the ship nearly sinking? Is it because it is badly constructed? There is a great deal in that. I agree with Lord Lothian and Lord Ponsonby that if you regard it as an armed merchantman you had better scrap the arms and navigate the ship without them. The reason why the ship is nearly sinking is that the ship is manned almost exclusively by landsmen—men who have no knowledge of the affairs that they are trying to conduct. It really is not a false parallel, because the League of Nations has often been referred to by supporters, of which I am one, as a High Court of Nations. What do you want to compose a High Court? You want men, with judicial minds; men who want to weigh the evidence before they act; men who will not act as your Lordships will remember was the case in the trial of the Knave of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, which I have recently been reading, and which reminded me exactly of recent proceedings of the League, or of those who compose it. Your Lordships will remember that someone said: "Consider your verdict," but they had not heard the evidence. "No, no!" said the Queen, "sentence first, verdict afterwards." So it has been in the last few months.
I will try to show that the personnel of the League is so ill-equipped for its job, and so lacking in judicial sense, that it has taken wrong decisions again and again. It is ill-suited to consider the problems which lie ahead. Let us think of the first case—the imposition of partial sanctions. When that was first proposed I was at pains to ask those whom I thought would know about it—some members of the House who had made a special study of blockade: and the difficulties inherent in it—and I did not find one single man who did not tell me that this proposal was bound to fail. I consulted
950
also people on the Continent, and they all told me the same thing. I suppose that if men with judicial minds had been on the League of Nations they never could have imposed sanctions, because they must have known that they were bound to fail, as they have failed. That is why I venture to bring this question before this House, not because it was my idea, but because I was compelled to come to that conclusion from the opinions of those who were best able to judge.
Take the very vital cases now of the Red Cross and gas. These raise an important question. Are we going to pro scribe Italy for ever as a nation which has done so wicked a thing? There are two sides to that question. The one is that Italy set out to destroy the Abyssinian forces with the use of gas; that that was their intention, and they carried it out with great skill; that is how they won the war. On the other hand the Italian case as stated, and as I under stand it, is that it formed no part of their campaign to employ gas, and they did not employ it until, in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, it was the only way in which to stop the atrocities committed by their enemies. When disasters occurred to the Italians it was found that not only were dreadful tortures committed on living people, both combatants and non-combatants, but also that the armed forces opposed to the Italians were using in almost every case soft-nosed bullets. All of us who have been at different wars will know that it is a more cruel thing to employ soft-nosed bullets than it is to employ gas. I have a soft-nosed bullet in my pocket which I picked out from my gun case before I came here, and it reminded me of the kind of wound that these bullets make in the animals that we shoot. There may be a very little hole in front, but I have frequently seen on the other side a hole as big as both palms. That is more cruel than gas, and if the Italian statement be proved gas was only used as a reprisal. When some of the worst things done by the enemy were given up the Italians stopped using gas, the use of which made in fact very little difference, if the statement is true.
I suppose Lord Cecil would say without doubt, because he has said so in this House, that there is no doubt at all that the Italians did employ mustard gas deliberately, and had it in mind at the start, and that that is the way in which

951
they won the war. The Italian case is the exact opposite—namely, that gas was only used by way of reprisal, and I hope it be true; as I am told, that they are more anxious than any nation to join with others in putting an end to poison gas. Which statement is true?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My noble friend does not deny that they imported, I do not know how many, tons of mustard gas through the Suez Canal. What did they want it for?
LORD MOTTISTONE: I was explaining, when the noble Viscount was having his interesting discussion with Lord Rennell, that they only used it for reprisals after the Abyssinians committed those awful atrocities—cutting off both hands of hundreds of people, combatants and non-combatants, white and black impartially, and employing soft-nosed bullets, It is wicked to leave it to a few excited people with no legal training and no knowledge of great affairs, who perhaps have flown over in a hurry from the capital of their country in order to make impassioned speeches and then fly back again the same evening. You want a cool impartial judgment by people accustomed to weigh evidence. That has not been the case, and it causes bitter anger on the part of impartial people, Italians and Germans, with whom we are now having disputes, because they say their case never gets a hearing. Why does it not get a hearing? Because the ship is being run by landsmen with no experience.
Take another case, that of Germany and the Rhineland. Here indeed is a most extraordinary case. The French case was that the Germans had broken the Treaty which they had signed, and therefore they could undoubtedly be condemned. The German case was that the treaty was non-existent because the offensive and defensive alliance with Soviet Russia rendered it null and void, and they were compelled in the interests of their own safety to take the action that they did. Who was right and who was wrong in this matter? Surely some High Court should consider it. It is an affair of fact which could be ascertained. But in this case the excitable gentlemen I referred to, who attend the League of Nations on our behalf, did a still more extraordinary thing. First of all they said: "Germany is at fault; she is
952
rightly to be condemned." Then in the next breath they said: "We refer the question of whether she is right or wrong to an impartial legal tribunal." Well, could folly further go? And when you add to that, that at this same moment the excitable gentlemen turned round to Italy, whom they had condemned as being unfit for the society of decent men, and said, "Will you kindly help us to police the Rhineland?" could folly further go? I make no apology for dwelling upon these facts, unpleasant though they be, bringing the League of Nations into disrepute, because I think they ought to be faced, and if a remedy can be found that remedy should be applied.
We come finally to the question of the future. Shall sanctions be continued? Is it really wise to remit that question to a body of persons with no claim to the judicial mind? On the one hand it is said—the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said—that we ought to go on with them because they very nearly succeeded. On the contrary, they never had the remotest chance of success, as then applied. All who understood the facts of the case knew that they could not succeed, and said so. If that was so then, when Italy was faced with a million well-armed men with modern rifles, and a very real risk of disaster from the big force opposed to them, how could sanctions succeed now, when the task of Italy is made so infinitely easier by the collapse of practically all resistance? That is the case as it presents itself to me. But of course it is conceivable that some fact that nobody here knows may make it possible to get some advantage from the continuance of sanctions. Then let trained legal minds, if you can get them, but above all, men of judicial temper, consider that question before you commit yourselves to the rather extraordinary proceeding which, I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, is probably not within the four corners of the Covenant itself, and certainly may have disastrous results for the future prospects of peace in Europe and the world, without the remotest chance of its having any effect at all upon the future issue, except to anger Italy and to make her less reasonable.
That that has been the effect so far nobody disputes. Why should it not be the same again? Then what is going to happen to the Abyssinians themselves if

953
you continue sanctions and so weaken Italy that she cannot continue the work of restoring order in Abyssinia? "Ah," you say, "you must not mind about that. We are going to end war for ever; we are going to show that aggression does not pay." But we ought to think rather less of our own souls, and rather more of the souls and bodies of the people who are going to be affected; and I do not think anybody in this House will deny that if by any chance we so cripple Italy that she cannot continue to do anything at all in Abyssinia, the chaos that would ensue, the murders, the rapine, the looting would be one of the most horrible things in the history of mankind. Short of the amusing suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—namely, that the only way would be to give a Mandate to Germany and let her expand there-short of that, which would hardly commend itself to your Lordships, there is no choice in Abyssinia now but between Italy and chaos. You must face that, and not go mouthing platitudes about collective security. You must face the world as it is.
I hope I have not detained your Lordships too long, but I do feel strongly on this matter. The: present people who have represented us at Geneva, with the best intentions, and those also who have represented most of the other nations—I understand that twenty-two nations have Foreign Secretaries there—being so ill-equipped for the job, have kept on making a bad shot, and I plead that in future the Government should send men such as I describe. It is difficult to define them, but we know the kind of man. To name two in this House, a man like Lord Ullswater or a man like Lord Hardinge—different in many ways but certainly-possessed of the judicial temper and having wide knowledge. Let us send them; they have no reason to get excited, far from it. I name two, but in your Lordships' House there are many men of that kind. The more often you can find a man really trained in the law of this and other countries, Roman Law and our own law, the better. Let us get people with the judicial mind. The place for the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain is in the Foreign Office in London, and nowhere else, and our representative should be a man who has nothing to do but to bend a judicial mind to these problems on which hang peace and war and
954
very likely the future destinies of mankind.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I have listened, as we all have, with the closest attention to all that has been said last week and to-day in your Lordships' House regarding the League of Nations. Much has been stated in support of that institution, but your Lordships will surely agree that the case is weak. It rests partly upon half-articulate hopes and, for the rest, upon self-deception. Of substantial achievement in world affairs there is unfortunately no hint. I submit that your Lordships should at least give a lead in bringing the policy of His Majesty's Government back to the realities of Europe. The time for chasing shadows is past. It is emphatically not our duty to reform the world. It is, on the other hand, our duty to solve in a just and strong way our own problems of country and Empire. Indeed many, in view of our own pressing necessities, are convinced that it might have been better had the League of Nations never existed. The foreign policy pursued by our successive Governments in the last fifteen years whilst that policy has been overshadowed by the League has tragically lacked fine ideas, great initiative and decisive action. It has kept us at peace, but it is not a peace with honour. I could add my reflections as to how that peace might be described, but I forbear.
Were we not unfortunately heavily committed in an international sense I would most strongly urge that your Lordships press on His Majesty's Government the desirability of leaving the League forthwith. As heavy commitments presumably make this impossible, there are two practical courses open for us to follow. Either we may try to persuade all other nations to secede from the League, a course which the smaller will probably not like to follow, even though they do not pay their due subscriptions, or we must arrange that Germany, France, Italy and Russia should join with us forthwith in council and conference to secure the peace of Europe that has been endangered by the futilities of the past incompetent years.
I do not want to suggest to your Lordships that the League has done no useful work whatever. The various Committees that have been set up to deal with matters such as drugs and the white

955
slave traffic have no doubt done valuable work, but the League has completely failed in its main purpose. War threatens almost everywhere, and the rule of law is openly and defiantly flouted. I beg therefore to make the tangible and practical suggestion that the five great Powers that sway the fate of Europe should meet without delay and measure their differences and their respective objects and policies, lest perhaps our whole civilisation flounders in one awful storm whilst the League of Nations is scanning the horizon for a cloud.
I am very conscious of the privilege which falls to me to-day of addressing your Lordships for the first time. I had hoped to make my maiden speech on the subject of aviation, so important from every angle, while that was being debated. Lord Ponsonby did at least touch on this subject last week, when he stated that the Lord Bishop of Durham had all the qualities that would enable him to become an Air Marshal. I wonder if the suggestion came after a discussion with the noble Viscount who controls the destinies of the Royal Air Force with such distinction?
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT MONSELL): My Lords. I understand that it is the wish of the House that this debate should be continued on Thursday and that it should be the first Order of the day. That will be done.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is it intended to sit late on Thursday, might I ask the noble Viscount, or is it hoped to get through all the business to enable us to rise for dinner?
VISCOUNT MONSELL: I think it might be necessary to sit a little later on Thursday, but that will be left to the will of the House at the time.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Coventry Corporation.
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Buckingham's Charity (Dunstable) Scheme Confirmation.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Folkestone Pier and Lift.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

DOVER, CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the Committee having found that the Petitioners had no locus standi before them: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on Wednesday, the 12th of February and Thursday, the 30th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons, That they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said Bill, do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships, as proposed by this House.
CLERGY PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1936.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
UNION OF BENEFICES (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1936.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
CLERGY PENSIONS (WIDOWS AND DEPENDANTS) MEASURE, 1936.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
CATHEDRALS (HOUSES OF RESIDENCE) MEASURE, 1936.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (POWERS) MEASURE, 1936.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
Sixty-fourth Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, 1936:
Sixty-fifth Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Union of Benefices (Amendment) Measure, 1936:
Sixty-sixth Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Clergy Pensions (Widows and Dependants) Measure, 1936:
Sixty-seventh Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Cathedrals (Houses of Residence) Measure, 1936:
Sixty-eighth Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Powers) Measure, 1936:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.