Sitting of 22 July 1937

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

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935 (ORDERS).
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (CAPTAIN HOPE) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:—
I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1937, the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1937, and the Government of Burma (Adaptation of Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your House.
I will comply with your request.

MEMBER SWORN.
A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Aberystwyth Rural District Council Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bath Corporation Bill [Lords],
Poole Corporation Bill [Lords],
Taunton Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Liverpool United Hospital Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered: Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Aberdeen Corporation (Water Gas Electricity and Transport) Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Elgin and Lossiemouth Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ferguson Bequest Fund Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women Glasgow Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

COLONIAL STOCK ACTS, 1877 TO 1934.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I beg to move:
"That a Copy be presented of Treasury List of Stocks in respect of which the provisions of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, are for the time being complied with"
Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether this Motion is open to discussion; and if not, by what method can the House oppose it? Can it go through without the acquiescence of the House?
Mr. Speaker: It is not open to discussion now.
Mr. Garro Jones: Then I object.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that the number of able-bodied persons in receipt of relief taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board on the second appointed day from the area covered by the city of Stoke-on-Trent has fallen far short of expectations of the city

    2377
    council; and what action does he propose to take;
    (2) whether he has now given further consideration to the resolutions passed at the conference of distressed areas held in London on 11th June; and, if so, what action has been taken or is contemplated to be taken;
    (3) whether he is aware of the burden remaining on a small number of large industrial cities and county areas following the restricted interpretations placed upon Section 36 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934; whether he is aware that in the area of the city of Stoke-on-Trent out of 218 applications made to the Unemployment Assistance Board only 83 persons have been granted an allowance, leaving 135 persons who still have to continue to receive assistance from the local rate fund; and what action does he propose to take?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As I stated in my reply yesterday to questions by the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) I received a deputation on Tuesday last representing certain local authorities regarding the interpretation of Section 36 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934. These representations are receiving my consideration.
    Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive another deputation similar to that which he received the other day before the Adjournment?
    Mr. Brown: No, I think not. I received a large number of facts and figures, and I have to verify them, and it will possibly take more than a week to do so.
    6. Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to give any further information as to the number of new and reassessed cases due to receive from the Unemployment Assistance Board more than the corresponding rate of employment benefit, and the number due to receive not more than the corresponding rate of employment benefit?
    Mr. Brown: As I explained to the hon. Member on a previous occasion, this information is not available.
    Mr. White: Will any information on this matter be included in the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think it could be. It would be bringing in a formula which is not appropriate.
    Mr. Lawson: How is it that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the House this information though he can give such information sometimes when it is information which makes his own followers cheer?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I have been asked about the relation between one set of figures and another in regard to rates of benefit, and I am saying that that was the old method of calculation before the new Act.
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of single men and women who have received reductions since the operation of the new Unemployment Assistance Board scales; and the total amount of reduction in Glasgow?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that separate figures in respect of reductions in the allowances of single men and women and information regarding the total amount of reductions is not available. In the Board's administrative district of Glasgow I, there were 311 persons who were receiving on 25th June last less than they would have received under the Standstill arrangements and otherwise than on account of the applicant's personal earnings.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reports have been circulated in Glasgow to the effect that many unemployed people there are suffering reductions under these new scales of from 2s. to 7s. per week; is he aware that these reductions are increasing weekly; and is he further aware that these reductions and the decline of purchasing power create more unemployment in the city?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member puts to me a rumour. If he has any facts, I shall be glad to look at them. My information is twofold—first, that there have been under review 9,600 increases and 311 decreases.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there are people in Glasgow under these new scales receiving reductions of from 2s. to 7s. per week?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member must put a question of details like than on the Paper. He has asked me for some figures, and I have given them.
    Mr. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman said that I was repeating a rumour. Does he deny the statement that is circulated that these people are suffering from 2s. to 7s. per week reductions in Glasgow?
    Mr. Brown: I could not be expected to answer such a question by way of supplementary question and answer across the Floor, but if the hon. Member will put a question down in form, I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. A. Jenkins: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that it was impossible to give the figures asked for in the question?
    Mr. Brown: I said that the information asked for in the first part of the question was not available.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to supply the information?
    Mr. Brown: I am not sure that I can, but I will gladly do what I can.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour the aggregate amount by which unemployment scale rates have had to be increased in order to make rent adjustments, from the inception of the Unemployment Assistance Board and during the last convenient 12 months; and what has been the average increase in scale rates per applicant during the whole period?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available and cannot be obtained without undue labour.

    APPEALS.
    Mr. Whiteasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases at present awaiting decision by the Umpire and the numbers which have been waiting a decision for more than one month or two months, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: The number of cases awaiting decision by the Umpire at 17th July, 1937, was 309. Of these, 36 had been awaiting decision for more than one month, and two for more than two months respectively.

    COURT OF REFEREES, GREENOCK.
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has investigated the case reported to him regarding a chairman of a court of referees in Greenock who was alleged to be using the influence of his position to prevent an appeal to the Umpire by a claimant against a majority decision of his court; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret that the hon. Member was not in his seat last Thursday to put his original question. I have since received a communication from him which I am investigating.
    Mr. Gibson: If I give the right hon. Gentleman certain particulars will he consider them?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be very glad to have them. I have no information at all as a foundation for the original statement.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If the Minister finds that this statement is accurate, will he see that this chairman is removed from the court of referees?
    Mr. Brown: I shall not prejudge anything. I must wait until I get the evidence.
    Mr. Kirkwood: But if the Minister then finds that the statement is correct, will he have this chairman removed?

    TRAINING CENTRES.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour how many trainees are at present undergoing training at the various training centres; and whether there are any vacancies at these centres at present unfilled?
    Mr. E. Brown: The number of persons undergoing training at the various training centres on 15th July, 1937, was as follows:

    Government training centres

    4,367

    Instructional centres (including summer camps)

    4,821

    Domestic training centres

    777

    The instructional centres are practically full, but there are a number of vacancies in the training centres which I should be glad to see filled.
    Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that is being made at these centres?
    Mr. Brown: With the actual progress of the work, yes, but I should, of course, be glad to see many more applications for the training centres.
    Mr. Buchanan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in some way the training centres are not yet up to the standard required to induce people to go there?
    Mr. Brown: I would not say that of the Government training centres. I think they are absolutely first-class for the work.
    Brigadier-General Makinsasked the Minister of Labour how many vocational training centres are under his control; how many unemployed these centres are capable of training at a time; how many they are now training; and how many ex-soldiers are included in these numbers?
    Mr. Brown: My Department has 13 training centres, with training places equipped for 6,477 men. On 15th July, 4,367 men were in training. The number of ex-soldiers included is not immediately available, but I will ascertain it and communicate with the hon. Member. At the centre at Southampton opened last month specially for ex-soldiers there are 58 ex-soldiers in training.
    Mr. Whiteasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement with regard to the progress made by the Unemployment Assistance Board in carrying out Section 37 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, and, in particular, the number of training courses provided and the number who have attended them?
    Mr. Brown: The Board's general policy in the exercise of its functions under this Section has been to rely mainly on the training courses conducted or grant-aided by my Department with which the Board keep in close contact, both as regards the general organisation of the centres and the selection of persons to attend them. All these courses are available, not only to the applicants who were under the Board before the second appointed day, but also to those transferred on that day from the local authorities. In addition, the Board has recently made arrangements with the Central Association for Young Wayfarers' Hostels, for the training of young unemployed men who are in danger of becoming casual vagrants.
    2382
    Other special schemes are under consideration.
    Mr. White: Are we to understand that the Board no longer intend to pursue the policy entrusted to them under this Section of the Act?
    Mr. Brown: I would not say that. The hon. Member will understand that the position with regard to the opportunities of employment for men is very different now from what it was when the Act was passed, and it would, of course, be a work of supererogation to set up new training centres if the old centres are not full. The Board in this matter works in the closest co-operation with the Ministry.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Labour if he can state how many people are unemployed outside those that are recorded by the Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir; but I have no reason to suppose that the number is at all considerable.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that millions of people are not entitled to become insured, and would he be surprised to know that between 500,000 and 700,000 of them are out of employment?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asked me for the information which we have and which we can verify, and I have told him I have no reason to suppose that the number is at all considerable.
    Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to go into the Library and get all the information that is to be found about this matter in the books there?
    Mr. Brown: Not all the information that is in books is necessarily accurate.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unregistered unemployed in Scotland have considerably increased during the past two years?
    Mr. Brown: I know that there has been a great decrease in unemployment in Scotland.

    TRANSFEREES.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of young people who

    2383
    were transferred from Special Areas in 1936, and the number up to the latest date for this year?
    Mr. E. Brown: I will, if I may, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures for 1936 are three times those for 1933 and that the numbers are increasing, and will he say that that is a sign of prosperity from the point of view of the Special Areas?
    Mr. Brown: I could not give the total for 1933 without reference, but there was a large increase. The table for which the hon. Member has asked will show that the second part of his suggestion does not seem to be borne out. There does not appear to be any increase in the last six months.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the figure less this year than it was last year?
    Mr. Brown: On the last six months, if we can take that as an average, the actual total for 1936 was 10,400 and for the six months 5,044.

    Year.

    Men.

    Women.

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Total.

    1936

    6,199

    2,861

    3,345

    1,766

    14,171

    1937 (5 months)

    2,930

    1,178

    1,216

    864

    6,188

    9,129

    4,039

    4,561

    2,630

    20,359

    ASSISTANCE BOARD (REPORT).
    Mr. Dingle Footasked the Minister of Labour when the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board for 1936 is to be published; and whether the House of Commons will be given an opportunity of discussing this report before the end of the present Session?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am informed that I may expect to receive this report before the end of this week, and I hope that it may be possible for copies to be made available in the Vote Office on Monday next. The second part of the question is a matter which does not rest with me.
    Mr. Foot: Was it not understood at the time that the Unemployment Bill of 1934 was passing through this House that we
    Following is the table:
    The numbers of young people between the ages of 14–18 transferred from the Special Areas during 1936 and the six months ended June, 1937, are set out in the following table:

    Year

    Boys

    Girls.

    Total.

    1936

    6,047

    4,405

    10,452

    1937 (6 months)

    2,616

    2,428

    5,044

    8,663

    6,833

    15,496

    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour the number of young people up to the age of 21 years transferred from South Wales and Monmouthshire during 1936 and to the most recent date for the current year?
    Mr. E. Brown: I will, if I may, circulate a table giving the available figures.
    Following is the table:
    Figures are not available showing separately transfers of young people up to the age of 21 years but the following table shows the number of boys and girls aged 14 to 18 and the number of men and women over 18 transferred by the Department from South Wales and Monmouthshire during 1936, and the five months ending May, 1937:
    should have an opportunity each year of debating the annual report of the Unemployment Assistance Board? Was not that one of the few methods of Parliamentary control over the Board that was contemplated by the Act?
    Mr. Brown: The preparation of the report is not under my control.
    Mr. Paling: Is it not possible to get these reports issued earlier, because the House gets up in July and it becomes impossible to discuss even the last year's work?
    Mr. Brown: I will convey what has been said to the Unemployment Assistance Board.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report is very

    2385
    much later this year than last year, and that it is not published until the House is up?

    HUDDERSFIELD.
    Mr. Mabaneasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. J. Sanderson, 410, Bradford Road, Huddersfield, has been offering himself for employment for five years without success; that this man, although disabled by the loss of a leg during the War, is otherwise strong, healthy and capable of either light work or heavier work; whether he can say if any offers of employment have been made to this man during the last five years by the Employment Exchange and, if not, whether there are any special circumstances in this case?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am making inquiries about this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    KING'S ROLL.
    Mr. Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Labour whether the King's National Roll Council have yet considered the suggestion to include within the

    The numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Glasgow at the undermentioned dates were as follow:—

    Employment Exchange.

    24th June, 1935.

    22nd June, 1936.

    21st June, 1937.

    Wholly unemployed.

    Temporarily stopped.

    Total.

    Wholly unemployed.

    Temporarily stopped.

    Total.

    Wholly unemployed.

    Temporarily stopped.

    Total.

    Glasgow Central

    12,165

    443

    12,608

    11,239

    394

    11,633

    10,041

    273

    10,314

    Glasgow South Side.

    16,032

    610

    16,642

    14,520

    615

    15,135

    12,832

    478

    13,310

    Bridgeton

    …

    15,267

    810

    16,077

    13,582

    853

    14,435

    11,417

    546

    11,963

    Finnieston

    …

    4,863

    234

    5,097

    4,302

    37

    4,339

    3,440

    142

    3,582

    Govan

    …

    7,964

    251

    8,215

    6,827

    295

    7,122

    5,033

    300

    5,333

    Kinning Park

    …

    5,479

    121

    5,600

    4,575

    143

    4,718

    3,978

    85

    4,063

    Maryhill

    …

    6,563

    324

    6,887

    5,927

    220

    6,147

    5,396

    184

    5,580

    Parkhead

    …

    9,424

    921

    10,345

    8,583

    633

    9,216

    7,259

    487

    7,746

    Partick

    …

    6,774

    215

    6,989

    5,238

    148

    5,386

    3,866

    161

    4,027

    Springburn

    …

    8,795

    637

    9,432

    7,421

    521

    7,942

    7,142

    455

    7,597

    MINERS.
    Mr. Dunnasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed miners over the age of 45 years are in receipt of benefits at the Employment Exchanges, whether standard benefits or Unemployment Assistance Board payments; how many miners 45 years and over have been re-employed in the mining industry during the last 12 months; and whether
    scheme disabled ex-servicemen whose wounds were received on active service since the conclusion of the Great War; and whether any decision has been arrived at?
    Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. but the matter will be brought before the King's Roll National Council at their next meeting.

    GLASGOW.
    Mr. Neil Macleanasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed registered at each of the Employment Exchanges in Glasgow at the end of June, 1935. 1936, and 1937, respectively, differentiating between the wholly unemployed and the temporarily unemployed?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the totals?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, the totals are as follow: June, 1935, 97,892; June, 1936, 86,073; June, 1937, 73,515.
    Following is the reply:
    he has any proposals to make for the re-employment of such men in the near future?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret that statistics giving the information asked for in the first and second parts of the question are not available. With regard to the last part, I have no doubt that the increased activity in the coal mining industry has resulted in the re-employment of miners

    2387
    over the age of 45 as well as of younger men. I am anxious that the older unemployed men should have a chance of re-employment, and my Department will be glad, in co-operation with the employers and workpeople in the industry, to assist in any way it can towards their re-absorption.
    Mr. T. Smith: Is the Minister aware that there has not been any big increase in older men in the coal mining industry?
    Mr. Brown: My information is that in certain areas some older men have been employed.

    CATERING TRADE (LONDON).
    Mr. Kellyasked the Minister of Labour the number of men, women, boys, and girls placed in employment by the Denmark Street Exchange for work in hotels in London?
    Mr. E. Brown: The number of persons placed in employment in London and elsewhere by the Denmark Street Exchange since December, 1930, when the exchange was opened, to the end of 1936 is as follows: 71,150 men, 89,579 women, 19,266 boys and 8,126 girls. I regret that separate particulars relating to hotels in London are not available.
    Mr. Kelly: In view of the numbers placed, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what the conditions of work and wages are to which these people are sent?
    Mr. Brown: I am hoping to enter into discussions with the catering trade.

    JUVENILES (LONDON).
    Mr. Kellyasked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls placed in employment through the exchanges in London and the districts adjoining during 1936 and the first six months of 1937.
    Mr. E. Brown: I will circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the figures available.
    Following is the table:
    The numbers of boys and girls placed in employment by the Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in the London Division during 1936 and the first six months of 1937 are shown in the following table:
    2388

    —

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Total.

    1936

    83,030

    70,078

    153,108

    1937 (6 months)

    40,974

    33,245

    74,219

  HOUSING.

    RENTS.
    Mr. James Hallasked the Minister of Labour the average increase in the rent of controlled working-class houses and the average increase of rent of working-class houses which have been decontrolled.
    Mr. E. Brown: It is estimated that the average percentage increase, over the level of July, 1914, in the rents (including rates) of pre-War working-class dwellings taken into account in compiling the official cost-of-living index number is approximately 51 per cent. in the case of controlled dwellings, and approximately 85 per cent. in the case of decontrolled dwellings.
    Mr. J. Hallasked the Minister of Health the average rent of working-class houses constructed since 1931?
    The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not in a position to give the information asked for. A White Paper will, however, be available shortly, setting out the rents of houses belonging to local authorities. These rents in general reflect the various rent levels
    ordinarily prevailing respect of working-class houses in the areas concerned.

    RENT RESTRICTION ACT.
    Mr. J. Hallasked the Minister of Health the number of houses that have become decontrolled under the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts to the latest possible date?
    Sir K. Wood: I will send the hon. Member a Memorandum (Command 4208) showing the estimated numbers of controlled and decontrolled houses in the three classes "A," "B" and "C" in 1932, but I have no comprehensive information as to the number to-day. By the Act of 1933, Class "A" houses were decontrolled, Class "B" houses continued to become decontrolled on the landlord gaining possession, and Class "C" houses were excluded from the operation

    2389
    of the provisions relating to decontrol. The question will, no doubt, be considered by the Departmental Committee investigating the working of the Acts.
    Mr. Thorne: Would the Minister inform Members of the House how they can get the information to which he has referred?
    Sir K. Wood: It is in a Command Paper, which I shall be glad to send to the hon. Member.

    LEYTON.
    Mr. Grovesasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that four families who have lived in the same houses in High Road, Leytonstone, have to leave their homes because they have been decided by the officers of the Leyton Council to be not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation; whether he will make inquiries as to whether these houses are controlled and as to the state of these dwellings, inasmuch as one tenant was informed that a reason for the demolition order being issued was the lack of air space in the pantry; and whether he will urge upon the local authority, as the warrants for ejectment were issued on their application, to provide at least temporary accommodation rather than operate the ejectment orders issued by the court?
    Sir K. Wood: I gather that the houses in question are the subject of individual demolition orders. I have no other knowledge of the facts, nor any jurisdiction in the matter, since appeals against such orders lie to the county court. I will communicate with the Leyton Borough Council as to the desirability of providing accommodation for the displaced families.
    Mr. Groves: Does the right hon. Gentleman's information extend to the fact that the members of at least one of these families are old age pensioners, who have nothing more than their pensions upon which to live, and that they are very ill and will he, in view of that fact, use such human friendly pressure as he can to induce the Leyton Council to see that none of these people are turned into the street?
    Sir K. Wood: I have said that I would.
    Mr. Grovesasked the Minister of Health the number of houses inspected in the borough of Leyton for the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, and the number
    2390
    certified as not being in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation?
    Sir K. Wood: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:

    —

    1934.

    1935.

    1936.

    Number of houses inspected.

    3,958

    3,471

    3,640

    Number found not to be in all respects reasonable fit for human habitation.

    1,648

    1,718

    1,612

    HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Labour whether the committee considering holidays with pay for working people has adjourned; if so, when will it resume its investigations; how often will it meet thereafter; and does he anticipate that it will issue its report this year?
    Mr. E. Brown: The committee has adjourned until 5th October, when the taking of evidence will be continued. Thereafter the committee will, I understand, sit on two consecutive days every fortnight—an arrangement which, it is anticipated, will enable the committee to complete its labours at an early date.
    Mr. Strauss: In view of the great importance of this matter to most of the population of this country, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that adjournment too long and that the committee should meet more frequently in order to report much sooner?
    Mr. Brown: It was very important to get a committee which commanded general confidence, and, as the House knows, it is not always easy to get this voluntary service. In order to get the committee, I have had to arrange for an adjournment during August and September.
    Mr. Mender: Is it expected to get their report before the end of the present year?
    Mr. Brown: I can only say, at an early date.

    BACON (PRICE).
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Labour the average retail price of bacon at present ruling in this country, and the similar figures for the years 1928 and 1929 before the fall in prices began, and the figures for 1931 and 1932 when the price fall was at its lowest?
    Mr. E. Brown: The average retail price of bacon of the kinds most generally bought by working-class families, as shown by the information collected for the purpose of the official cost of living index number, was 1s. 2½d. per lb. at 1st July, 1937, as compared with 1s. 4d. at 1st July, 1928, 1s. 6d. at 1st July, 1929, 11d. at 1st July, 1931, and 10d. at 1st July, 1932.
    Mr. Muff: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where we can find the best bacon at 1s. 2½d. per 1b.?
    Mr. Brown: The answer depends entirely on where the hon. Member lives.
    Mr. Muff: In Yorkshire.
    Mr. Thorne: When the right hon. Gentleman gets home, will he ask his good wife whether she can get decent bacon at 1s. 2½d. per 1b.?

    HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS (INQUIRY).
    Mr. E. Dunnasked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to set up his family household budgetary inquiry; what will be its terms of reference and the personnel of the inquiry; and over what area is it proposed to operate?
    Mr. E. Brown: It is proposed that about 30,000 working-class households, distributed over all parts of Great Britain, shall be visited and invited to supply budgets, on forms to be provided, giving details of their expenditure in each of four separate weeks, in October, 1937, and in January, April, and July, 1938, respectively. It is hoped that at least 10,000 of these households will supply information in respect of October, 1937, and that the great majority of these will also furnish information for the three later weeks. The inquiry will be organised through the Employment Exchanges, and it is hoped to obtain the assistance of local committees and of a sufficient number of voluntary helpers, in each district, to
    2392
    undertake the work of visiting the households and collecting the budgets. The inquiry is primarily intended to furnish the data required for a revision of the basis of the official cost-of-living index figures, but it will also provide information required by the Health Departments in connection with questions relating to diet and nutrition. In view of the national importance of the inquiry, and of the great social value of the information to be obtained, I trust that the Department may rely on the co-operation of those who are asked to supply information or to assist in collecting the budgets.
    Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, when the new method of calculation is settled, to make corrections for previous years and publish them?
    Mr. Brown: Preparations are now being made for this exhaustive inquiry, and I am hoping to set the whole thing up in detail in the September number of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

    NIGHT BAKING.
    Mr. Banfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the report of the committee of inquiry into night baking; what is the reason for the delay in presenting the report; and what action he proposes to take on the matter?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): The report of this committee was only received on Tuesday of last week, and as the hon. Member will be aware, was presented to Parliament on the following Thursday. As regards the last part of the question, the committee, by a majority, have advised against any statutory prohibition of night baking. Shortly stated, their view is that while such prohibition would work inequitably among employers and inflict hardship in many cases including a number of bakeries where the work is carried on under the best conditions, it would fall far short of providing comprehensive and effective relief to the night baker from the serious social disadvantages under which he labours. The situation as presented in the report obviously demands a much more thorough examination than it has been possible to make within the very short

    2393
    time available, and I am not in a position at present to make any final announcement of the Government views on the main issue. It is clear however that in view of the nature of the report it would not in any case be possible for the Government to entertain any question of legislation on the subject during the present Session.
    At the end of their report the committee draw attention to the need for better organisation in this industry and suggest that some recognised body should be set up on which representatives of both sides of the trade might meet together to thrash out their difficulties and devise means for amelioration of conditions. The Government regard this suggestion as a very valuable one and are prepared to take action to give effect to it, and I am glad to state that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be willing to enter into negotiations with the representatives of the two sides for this purpose without delay. I feel confident that if some satisfactory joint machinery can be established we could look forward to a great improvement in the general conditions of the industry.
    Mr. Banfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this report has caused a tremendous amount of disappointment among both workmen and employers; and, in view of that, and of the fact that public opinion is also disappointed, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to go very seriously into the report and see whether something cannot be done to help these unfortunate people who are condemned to perpetual night work?
    Sir S. Hoare: I agree with the hon. Member that this is a very important report. Indeed, it is so important that the Government obviously cannot come to a decision in a few days. I can give the hon. Member an undertaking that we will give the report great attention, and when we have come to a decision in due course I will make an announcement in the House.

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REGISTER).
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the poll in recent by-elections averaged about 50 per cent. of the electorate, and that this
    2394
    was in part due to the contests beingfought on old and incomplete registers; and will he therefore take steps to enable a six-monthly instead of a yearly register to be compiled?
    Sir S. Hoare: I am not in a position to estimate the extent to which the size of the poll at by-elections is related to the age of the register, but there does not appear to me to be any justification for incurring the heavy expenditure which would be involved in the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Strauss: Does the Home Secretary consider it satisfactory or in the best interests of democracy that an individual moving into a constituency now will not be able to vote in that constituency for another year? Will he not take some steps to remedy that situation?
    Mr. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having the register issued a fortnight earlier, say on 1st October, instead of about the middle, as the municipal elections are always in November and it would greatly facilitate the conduct of them?
    Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, though offhand I cannot say whether it is practicable or not. As to the wider issue raised by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), my own view is that the expense would not be justified.
    Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from those responsible for running the recent by-elections as to the number of removals in those elections, particularly in those constituencies where there are heavy movements of the population round big towns?
    Sir S. Hoare: Probably I am just as much aware as any hon. Member of the great problem of removals, sitting as I do for a London constituency. At the same time, as at present advised I am not prepared to recommend so heavy an expenditure as would be involved.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that the register at one time was issued twice a year under the Parliament Act, but that the twice-a-year system was discarded upon the recommendation of the Geddes Committee as a matter of economy, and since we are now, as the Government always insist, in an era of prosperity, will

    2395
    not the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the register is published twice yearly again?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Has such a financial consideration to be taken into account when the question at issue is the virtual disfranchisement of a good many of the poorer-class citizens?
    Sir S. Hoare: I could not admit that there is such a disfranchisement. I am not prepared to admit that the issue of only one register a year does necessarily disfranchise people at all. It is really a question of judging whether the expense is or is not worth while, and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to say that it is.
    Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister going to reply to my supplementary question?
    Sir S. Hoare: I am afraid that I have forgotten what it was.
    Mr. Maclean: As the right hon. Gentleman himself took part in the discussions I should have thought he would have remembered it. Is it not the case that the twice-a-year register was abandoned on the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, on the score of economy, and since we are now in the era of prosperity which the right hon. Gentleman, among other Cabinet Ministers, talks about, will he now see to it that the Geddes recommendation is put aside and we return to the twice-a-year register as was laid down in the Parliament Act?
    Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I must still say that however prosperous we may be we have to take into account whether any particular item of expenditure is worth while, and as at present advised I am not convinced that it is so in this case. It runs into something like £500,000 a year.

    PASSPORTS (POLICE INQUIRIES).
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Home Secretary why delegates of the University Labour Federation returning to England, on 19th July, after attending the International Socialist Students' Conference in Paris, were asked by Criminal Investigation Department officers at Dover to give their names, their passport numbers, and their conference agenda?
    Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that during the Customs examination the attention of the police was called to the baggage of a number of young men as it contained quantities of printed and typewritten matter, some of which was in foreign languages. The object of the police examination was to assist the Customs authorities to ascertain that nothing was being imported the importation of which is prohibited. I understand that a copy of the agenda was offered to the police as evidence of its innocuous character. I am informed that the party was not delayed in transit.
    Mr. Strauss: Why should the Criminal Investigation Department officers ask for the names and passport numbers of these people and demand the agenda of the conference they had attended?
    Sir S. Hoare: I understand that what happened was this: the Customs authorities, in examining the baggage of these particular individuals, did find a lot of foreign literature and a lot of leaflets, and that being so they felt justified in making further inquiries. The inquiries which were subsequently made by the police showed that the leaflets were innocuous, and as a result those particular individuals were not delayed in their journey.
    Mr. Strauss: But why should they be asked to give their passport numbers and their names? Nobody else is asked to do so.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing fear that Socialists are selected for this treatment, and will he give the House an assurance that there is no differentiation of treatment against Socialists entering this country as compared with people holding other opinions?
    Sir S. Hoare: Certainly, I give that undertaking at once. What happened in the case of those individuals would happen in the case of any other individuals, whether Socialists, Conservatives or Communists.

    BRIBERY.
    Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the conviction, at Birmingham, on 12th July, of Mr. Colledge Persche, of the National Printing Ink Company, Limited,

    2397
    72–75, Turnmill Street, London, for attempted bribery and corruption of two employés of Boxfoldia, Limited, of Bournebrook, Birmingham, by the offer of 5 per cent. on all orders received, with an extra bonus at Christmas and a cheque for the summer holidays; that a fine of £15 was imposed; and whether he will consider the advisability of circularising magistrates with regard to the importance of enforcing rigorously the terms of the law with a view to stamping out the at present widespread occurrence of bribery in certain industries?
    Sir S. Hoare: My attention had not previously been drawn to the case to which the hon. Member refers. I share his view that it is important to check offences of this kind and I am not aware of any reason for thinking that there is any tendency to regard them lightly. It is, however, for the court to decide in its discretion what is the penalty appropriate to the circumstances of any individual case that may come before it, and I have no authority to issue advice to magistrates as to the way in which their discretion should be exercised.
    Mr. Mander: In view of the prevalence of this dishonest method of getting business in the printing and other trades, will my right hon. Friend do everything he properly can to secure the enforcement of the law?
    Sir S. Hoare: I think the hon. Member's question has already called attention to this matter, and my answer shows clearly what is my view.
    Mr. Thurtle: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to drive corruption out of the country's system?

    NATURALISATION (EMPLOYERS).
    Mr. F. O. Robertsasked the Home Secretary whether, before granting naturalisation to any person who is an employer of labour, steps are taken to ascertain whether such person is willing to conform to customary British standards of trading and employment; and, if not, whether this provision will be adopted in future?
    Sir S. Hoare: Before naturalisation is granted in any case full inquiries are made about the character and reputation
    2398
    of the applicant. If there is reason to doubt his commercial reputation or his character as an employer of labour this consideration is taken into account, together with all the other circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.
    Mr. Roberts: I will certainly do that.

    ACCIDENTS (FACTORIES).
    Mr. Shortasked the Home Secretary whether, since the chief factory inspector's report records a large increase in accidents among adults and young persons, he can state what remedial action he proposes to take between now and July, 1938, when the new Factory Act comes into operation?
    Sir S. Hoare: I much regret the increase in accidents during 1936 as compared with 1935, but, as the Chief Inspector points out in the introduction to his report, the increase in the number of accidents is partly due to increased employment, and statistics over a period of years show that the rate of accidents in proportion to the number of persons in employment is decreasing. I should like to take this further opportunity of emphasising that if any large reduction of accidents is to be obtained, it must be through the exercise of increased care by both employers and workpeople, and that this can best be secured through the development of safety organisations. As the hon. Member is aware, the Factory Department has made every effort in the past to promote such development and it will continue to do so.
    Mr. Thorne: Is not the Home Secretary aware that the Chief Inspector states that thousands of these accidents are preventible; and is he not aware also that a great many of the accidents occur through machinery not being properly protected?
    Sir S. Hoare: I accept it as perfectly true that a great many accidents, both in factories and on the roads, are preventible. If only employers and work-people would pay more attention to precautions there would be many fewer accidents. So far as the Factory Department of the Home Office are concerned, we will do everything in our power to reduce the number.

    FACTORY INSPECTORATE.
    Mr. Shortasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to increase the number of factory inspectors prior to the new Factory Act coming into operation; and, if so, by how many?
    Sir S. Hoare: A substantial increase of the factory inspectorate will, as I have already stated, be necessary in consequence of the Factories Bill, but I am not yet in a position to say when this increase will take place.

    MEETINGS, EAST LONDON (DISTURBANCES).
    Mr. Chaterasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at a trades union meeting held in Victoria Park, East London, on Sunday, 18th July, the police requested the closing of the meeting, which was subjected to continuous organised disorder by Fascists; and whether he is prepared to take steps to protect the rights of free speech?
    Sir S. Hoare: I have received a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis from which it appears that throughout the meeting referred to there was considerable heckling and shouting by political opponents. There was, however, no actual disorder, and I am informed that at no time did the police in attendance ask or even suggest that the meeting should be closed.
    Mr. Chater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the organised activity of Fascist interrupters at meetings in the East End of London the right of free speech there is rapidly becoming obsolete?
    Mr. Wise: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind hon. Members opposite of the old saying that when
    "The devil was sick, the devil a monk would be."
    Sir S. Hoare: There is much too much interruption of political meetings on both sides, and I hope the hon. Member's question will call attention to this fact and the need of each side giving the other a fair hearing.
    Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend realise that in the country as a whole many more meetings are broken up by supporters of the Left than by supporters of the Right?

    BUILDING SOCIETIES (LOANS).
    Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary whether he will give particulars supplied to him by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for the total amount that has been advanced on mortgage by building societies for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and whether he has any information in his possession that will show the average amount of interest charged on these loans?
    Sir S. Hoare: The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that the total amount advanced on mortgage by building societies during the year ended 31st January, 1937, was £140,310,068. The Registrar has no information as to the average rate of interest charged on the advances made during the year in question. From their advertisements it would appear that societies were ordinarily prepared to make new advances at an interest charge of 4½ per cent.
    Mr. Day: Are those reports received regularly every year?
    Sir S. Hoare: I am not quite sure to what the hon. Member refers. If he will send me further particulars, I will give him an answer.

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has particulars concerning the number of elementary education authorities who confine the appointment of headmasters and headmistresses exclusively to teachers within their own authority?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): No, Sir.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate his opinion regarding this matter to the various education authorities; and does he not feel that if the scope for selection were widened it would be beneficial to education as a whole?
    Mr. Lindsay: There could be arguments for and against on that point, but it is a matter for the local education authorities. Personally. I am in favour of greater mobility.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will not the hon. Member circulate that opinion?
    Mr. Lindsay: It is a question for the local authorities.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his Department has made inquiries in recent years concerning the method of appointing headmasters and headmistresses in elementary schools; whether it has ever made recommendations to elementary education authorities concerning such appointments; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of making such recommendations?
    Mr. Lindsay: No, Sir. The appointment of teachers in public elementary schools rests with the local education authorities and managers, and it is not the Board's policy to interfere with their discretion in this matter.

    NURSERY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of nursery schools now in existence in Wales and Monmouthshire; the number of children in average attendance; and the number of teachers employed?
    Mr. Lindsay: There are four recognised nursery schools in Wales and Monmouthshire, situated at Brynmawr, Merthyr Tydfil, Rhondda, and Swansea. These schools have accommodation for 360 children in all, and the total number of children in average attendance during the year ended 31st March, 1937, was 228. Eleven teachers are employed, together with a number of unqualified helpers. A proposal for a second nursery school at Rhondda has been approved in principle and a proposal for the provision of a nursery school at Cardiff is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Dayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of proposals at present before his Department for the purpose of opening nursery schools in England and Wales; and how many of these proposals are for open-air schools?
    Mr. Lindsay: Thirty-four proposals for opening nursery schools in England and Wales have been approved in principle by my Department and in a number of these cases final plans have been
    2402
    approved. Nine proposals are at present under consideration. In all these cases it is proposed that the buildings of the schools shall be constructed on open air lines.
    Mr. Day: Can the Minister say how many of these proposals he has had to refuse, and how many nursery schools are in being at the present time?
    Mr. Lindsay: That is quite a separate question.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman do all in his power to encourage these schools?
    Mr. Lindsay: The Board welcome the provision of these schools in any part of the country where conditions are suitable.

    BENEFICIAL EMPLOYMENT.
    Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he proposes to advise local education authorities as to the employments which shall be deemed to be beneficial under the provisions of the Education Act, 1936; and, if not, in what way uniformity of decision is to be arrived at on this question?
    Mr. Lindsay: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 15th July to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey), a copy of which I am sending him.

    INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS (SAFETY LECTURES).
    Mr. Shortasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware of the increasing number of accidents to young persons employed in factories; and whether in consultation with the Home Office he will arrange for lectures on safety-first principles to be given to children attending schools in industrial areas?
    Mr. Lindsay: I am not in possession of full information on this subject, but I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the matter.

    PLAY CENTRES.
    Mr. Bullasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, what steps his Department is taking to encourage the provision of play centres?
    Mr. Lindsay: In view of the educational value of the recreational and physical

    2403
    activities of play centres and in view of the dangers of the streets, my Department welcomes proposals for these centres under Section 22 of the Education Act, 1921, and is prepared to recognise them for grant at 50 per cent. when they fulfil the conditions of Article 38 of the Board's Special Services Regulations. Play centres depend for their usefulness on the supervision of skilled play leaders, and they are especially valuable where they provide for both summer and winter activities.

    PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Sir Hugh O'Neillasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the report of the Select Committee on the Procedure on Private Bills containing local legislation Clauses; and, if so, what action he intends to take with regard to its recommendations?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The report of the Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure is now being considered. I do not expect that I shall be in a position to make a statement on the recommendations before the end of the present Session.

    DEFENCE EXPENDITURE (PUBLICITY).
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister the present position with regard to the question of publicity of national defence expenditure, and the possibility of attaining general agreement on the draft convention on this subject drawn up by the competent sub-committee of the Disarmament Conference referred to in paragraph 19 of the statement relating to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, 1935–36?
    The Prime Minister: In accordance with the decision reached by the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference on 31st May last, the Governments which were or had been represented at the Conference were invited to inform the Secretariat of the League, before 1st September next, whether they are prepared, in principle, to accept a system of publicity based on the draft Convention referred to by the
    2404
    hon. Member. Until the replies have been received and considered it is difficult to estimate the possibility of attaining general agreement or; the draft Convention.
    Mr. Mander: Is not this one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission that the Government accept and on which they are anxious to secure agreement?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that we will accept the Convention if other Powers will do so.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (SUMMER ADJOURNMENT).
    Mr. Magnayasked the Prime Minister whether, in future years, he will endeavour to arrange that it shall be possible to adjourn the House at the end of June until September instead of the present practice?
    The Prime Minister: I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am afraid that the many practical difficulties which have hitherto stood in the way of any change from the present practice still exist.
    Mr. Magnay: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general feeling of the House is not to consider Members who go grousing on the moor in October but Members who grouse on the Floor here?
    Mr. Thorne: Is he also aware that lawyers stand in the way as well?

    REARMAMENT AND EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister which Department or committee is considering what measures should be taken to provide employment when the output of rearmament factories begins to be relaxed?
    The Prime Minister: The subject does not fall wholly within the purview of any single Department. Arrangements have been made for the question to be studied by officials of the Departments mainly concerned.
    Mr. Lawson: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there is some specific policy on the part of the Government to prepare measures such as he mentioned in the event of tension arising from rearmament?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I did not quite say that, because we have not quite come to that point. I said that the question was being studied and in the light of that study. and when it is completed, that point will have to be decided afterwards.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to institute arrangements whereby questions put down for written answers shall be answered by the Department concerned on a specified date if so indicated, unless reason can be shown that the information cannot he obtained by that date?
    The Prime Minister: I recently called the attention of Departments to the importance of ensuring that undue delay does not occur in the circulation of answers to questions for written reply, and I regard the existing arrangements as satisfactory. The House will, however, appreciate that it is not in all cases practicable to arrange for the preparation of the required answer in time for circulation on a specified day. To provide for this eventuality I have arranged that, if for any reason it is found impossible to circulate the answer within four days of the specified date, the hon. Member concerned should be notified that inquiries are being made and that the question has not been overlooked.
    Mr. Garro Jones: What is there in written answers which makes it impossible to give them on specified dates, whereas oral questions can be so answered?
    The Prime Minister: There is, of course, no definite distinction between them, but very frequently the questions put down for written answer require a great deal of investigation.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware of the delay which frequently occurs in giving replies to non-oral questions and which forces hon. Members to star the questions and overload the Question Paper?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I was not aware of that, but I think there has sometimes been undue delay. I think the new arrangement which I am making will correct it.
    Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider shortening the four days after which a question is to be overdue and notification is to be sent to a Member, because occasionally a Member puts down a question with a view to getting information before a particular debate, and if the answer is not likely to be to hand by that time it would be an act of courtesy to notify him of that fact?
    The Prime Minister: I could not undertake that Members should be notified in less than four days, which I think is a reasonable time.
    Mr. Benn: Is not this an innovation, and has not 24 hours' notice been satisfactory for oral questions?
    The Prime Minister: There have been improvements in lots of cases.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the heavy expenditure being incurred by the Air Ministry and the great importance of questions connected with air Defence, he will now make arrangements whereby the Secretary of State for Air shall be a Member of this House?
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which my predecessor gave to him on 15th March last, in reply to a similar question, to which I have nothing to add.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very strong feeling exists on all sides of the House about the great inconvenience to Members in not being able to put questions direct to the head of this great spending Department?
    Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that many hon. Members opposite attach so little importance to Defence that they are not prepared to do anything?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MILK (PASTEURISATION).
    Mr. Leachasked the Minister of Health in view of the many loopholes in the evidence adduced in support of allegations against raw milk in connection with outbreaks of scarlet fever and typhoid fever, before he sanctions any general claim for the compulsory

    2407
    pasteurisation of milk, whether he will have a searching inquiry made into the allegations made against raw milk?
    Sir K. Wood: I am not aware to which particular outbreaks of these diseases the hon. Member refers. I am satisfied that in all recent cases of this kind which have been investigated by my Department and in which the outbreak was traced to the consumption of raw milk, the evidence on this point was conclusive. The Cattle Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council which reported in 1934, reviewed the question of the danger of the spread of these diseases through the medium of milk, before they recommended compulsory pasteurisation in large towns, and I do not consider it necessary to institute any further inquiry into this question.
    Mr. Leach: Did the Minister not agree that it is better to have your milk clean and unpasteurised, with live bacilli, if there should be any, rather than pasteurised when the bacilli have been made corpses?
    Sir K. Wood: I will carefully ponder over that question.

    HONEY.
    Mr. F. O. Robertsasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that preparations of honey with other ingredients are still being sold in such a manner as to suggest that the purchaser is buying pure honey; and whether he will take steps to see that the use of the word "honey" shall only be used in connection with the sale of the pure product?
    Sir K. Wood: Representations have been made to me with regard to preparations of the kind referred to, and the matter has been discussed with a deputation from the British Bee-Keepers Association. I hope that it may be possible to introduce legislation relating to the composition and description of articles of food on the lines recommended by the Departmental Committee which has reported upon that subject, and which would include provisions dealing with the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Roberts: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already some power to put a stop to fraud of this description?
    Sir K. Wood: That may be so in certain cases where fraud can be proved. There are, however, some other considerations which I hope may be met in the way I have indicated.

    TYNESIDE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to visit Tyneside to discuss with representatives of local authorities the question of giving effect to the findings of the Royal Commission on unification before making any statement to this House; and whether he is aware that the delay in dealing with this report is causing great inconvenience to the authorities concerned?
    Sir K. Wood: I hope to be able in the course of the Recess to visit Tyneside, and the findings of the Royal Commission will no doubt be likely to come up for discussion at my meetings with representatives of the local authorities concerned. As regards the second half of the question, I am awaiting the views of the local authorities. I am afraid that it is inevitable that some time should be occupied in the consideration of these recommendations.
    Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate date when we shall have the report?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I am really waiting to hear from the local authorities on this matter. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I have no doubt, that the matter is engaging their attention, but the making of inquiries takes some time.
    Mr. Stewart: When may a reply from them be expected?
    Sir K. Wood: I will inquire.

    OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of a pension under the National Health Insurance Act and the Old Age Pensions Act who applied for relief to the public assistance committee, of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire during 1936, and the total amount of relief granted to pensioners by each of the two counties?
    Sir K. Wood: As the answer contains a statement of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT
    Following is the answer:
    Returns are made by public assistance authorities which show the numbers of old age pensioners and widow pensioners

    —

    Numbers of old age pensioners who were in receipt of poor relief on 1st January, 1937.

    Numbers of widows drawing widows, Orphans', and Old Age Contributory pensions Act, 1936, who were in receipt of poor relief on 1st January, 1937.

    County of Glamorgan (including the associated County Boroughs of Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil and Swansea).

    13,830

    7,425

    County of Monmouth (including the associated County Borough of Newport).

    4,206

    1,587

    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Health whether, in his investigations into the subject of nutrition, any effort has been made to ascertain whether the present scales of old age pensions are preventing the recipients from purchasing an adequate supply of foodstuffs; and to what extent malnutrition exists among these persons?
    Sir K. Wood: Special dietary surveys are being undertaken in certain areas which deal with working-class families, including the class of persons referred to. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.
    Miss Wilkinson: Does the Minister really consider it necessary to have an inquiry in order to discover whether any adult person can live on 10s. a week, with the terrific prices that are prevailing as a result of the policy of the Government?
    Sir K. Wood: Inquiries on this subject are proceeding. I would remind the hon. Member that it is the same sum that was paid during the period of other Governments.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the rents paid by aged persons who are in receipt of old age pensions; and whether, in cases where the total amount of pension is 10s. per week, local authorities allow any relief in rates?
    in receipt of poor relief on 1st January in each year. The following statement shows, for Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, the numbers of old age pensioners and widow pensioners who were in receipt of poor relief on 1st January, 1937. I regret that the information asked for in the last part of the question is not available in my Department.
    Sir K. Wood: I have no precise information on either of the points raised, but a number of local authorities have adopted rent rebate schemes under the Housing Acts, and many have built, or are building, small houses to let to aged persons at specially low rents. Local authorities have power, on application made by a ratepayer, to excuse rates on the ground of poverty.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the tabulating of the number of old age pensioners on a territorial or area basis, so that it can be ascertained what percentage of old age pensioners for each area claim and receive Poor Law relief?
    Sir K. Wood: The proposal would involve a duplication of the records relating to 1,880,000 old age pensioners, and I do not think the considerable expense and labour which that operation would entail would be justified.
    Mr. Tinker: If this question is to be regarded as a live question to a greater extent than has hitherto been the case, would it not be as well if we had correct information showing what localities are suffering the most?
    Sir K. Wood: I am afraid the expense would be too great.
    Mr. Tinker: You are evading the question by using the word "expense."

    SCRAP-IRON (COLLECTION).
    Sir N. Grattan-Doyleasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the need for scrap metal and of the indisposition of scrap merchants to collect it in small quantities from private individuals, he will recommend local government authorities to institute a system of collection from this source in their areas?
    Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject on 15th July, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (WOMEN).
    Mr. Mabaneasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider an amendment of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts to provide that a woman may draw a pension as an unmarried wife under the same conditions as women were allowed to receive separation allowances as unmarried wives of soldiers during the War?
    Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that I could not undertake to introduce amending legislation for this purpose.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUMMER RECESS).
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?
The Prime Minister: Monday: Supply, Committee (19th Allotted Day). The Mines Department Vote will be considered. Ways and Means, Committee.
Tuesday: Supply, Report (20th Allotted Day). A Debate will take place on the Co-ordination of Defence. Ways and Means, Report.
Wednesday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Second Reading. A Debate on the cost of living will take place.
Thursday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, remaining stages. Debates will take place on Dominion Affairs and on questions affecting the Post Office.
2412
At Ten o'clock on Monday and on Tuesday the Committee and Report stages respectively of all outstanding Supply Votes will be put from the Chair.
During the week any outstanding business will be dealt with, including Lords Amendments to the Factories Bill and to other Bills which have already been passed by this House.
If all necessary business has been disposed of, it is hoped to take the Motion for the Summer Adjournment on Friday, 30th July. The Adjournment Motion will contain the usual provision to empower Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course should appear necessary in the public interest.
The Government propose that the House shall reassemble on Thursday, 21st October. It is expected that Parliament will be prorogued on that day, and that His Majesty will open the new Session on Tuesday, 26th October.
Mr. Thurtle: On the point of calling the House together, if necessary, before the date appointed, may we take it that the procedure is for the Prime Minister to approach you, Mr. Speaker, in the matter, in order to make such an arrangement if necessary; or who is to indicate when it is necessary for Parliament to be called together before the prearranged time?
Mr. Speaker: Anybody can indicate that, but the terms of the Resolution are: if it is represented to me by the Government that public interest requires it and I am satisfied that it is in the public interest.
Sir Archibald Sinclair: Would the Prime Minister say at what time the House will adjourn on the Friday? Will it be at Four o'clock?
The Prime Minister: At Four o'clock.
Mr. Buchanan: May I give notice to you, Mr. Speaker, that, on the Motion for Adjournment on Friday week, I shall move as an Amendment to it that the House can be recalled by any 40 Members of the House making a requisition to you?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Waterford Corporation Bill,
Southampton Corporation Bill,
Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill, with Amendments.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  HERRING INDUSTRY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Grants in Aid of the general administrative and other expenses of the Herring Industry Board and of the Herring Marketing Fund."—[Note.—£17,000 has been voted on account.]
  3.49 P.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I think it is of interest that this Debate, although it takes place on the Scottish Estimates day, is in fact a United Kingdom Debate. The Herring Industry Board is a United Kingdom body, and, as was pointed out when the scheme was going through the House, although the headquarters of the industry are in Scotland, the Board itself covers the United Kingdom, and, as its activities cover the United Kingdom, any of its functions can be raised to-day. That is specially necessary in connection with the herring industry, because, although we have two Ministries, the Scottish Fishery Board and the English Department of Fisheries, the herring fishing is, as we all know, one fishing, and its problems cannot be considered separately for Scotland and for England. Consequently, the Minister, that is, the joint Minister, as the spokesman of the Board, has to justify the Estimates laid before the House.
  It appears that this will be the only occasion on which the great British industry of fishing can be discussed this Session. The herring and white fishing play an important part in the life of the nation. Last year the British Fisheries produced 1,000,000 tons of fish, valued at the ports of landing at £15,750,000. Of these herring were a small fraction. The weight was 278,000 tons and the value £2,405,000. The herring and white fishing industry are also closely bound up
  2450
  together and in discussing, as we shall do, the affairs of the herring industry we must not forget entirely that the white fishing industry is also going through a difficult time and is making very active efforts to reorganise itself, the result of which efforts will come before the House, I hope, next Session.
  But the economic importance of the fisheries is even greater in Scotland than in England. It is specially so in the case of the herring industry. The Board, accordingly, shows a reasonable division between Scotsmen and Englishmen for a United Kingdom body—six Scotsmen and three Englishmen. The most remarkable thing about the report is that it has been signed unanimously. It is signed by the Chairman, Sir Thomas Whitson, of Edinburgh, Mr. Adam Brown, of Fraserburgh, Mr. Gordon Davidson, of Glasgow, Mr. William Forman, of Peterhead, Mr. Mitchell, a curer, and also by Mr. Neil Mackay, who, though his activities are mostly in England, is interested in the large curing industry in Scotland also. It is all the more interesting since the report does not entirely flatter our Scottish pride, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Board and its members for the very frank way in which they have stated conclusions which are in many respects not flattering to those who come from North of the Tweed.
  The great industry of the herring fishing is the following of the shoals down the coast. We are fortunately placed, in that the track of the great shoals runs parallel to our east coast and, consequently, the fishers continually have the shoals before them as they pass down from Lerwick past Peterhead, past the Northumberland ports, right down to Yarmouth and Lowestoft and in some cases right down into the English Channel. The herring is a perishable fish and it is that perishable quality that has led to the great and important industry of herring curing. It is also that perishable quality that has led to certain incidents in the industry which have, perhaps, attracted more attention than they deserve in comparison with the importance of the industry itself. I refer to the temporary gluts which take place from time to time and on which the House feels very keenly that, having been once caught, any portion of the catch should be surrendered. It appears to some

  2451
  Members to be a paradox, an anomaly and even a crime.
  Let me explain how this glut arises. I have said that the essential feature of the herring industry is the track of the great shoals right down the east coast from the northern islands. It has another feature. As the shoals reach our coasts in the first instance, the fish are not of such good quality as they are later on, and the May and June herring are not of such good quality as those that are taken in the autumn catch. The early summer herring used to be caught in great numbers and were sold for the export trade. Our people, fastidious and well supplied with food, have always shown themselves very chary of anything in the way of cured herring taken from the earlier shoals.
  Mr. Boothby: Is it not a fact that the July Scotch herring is the cream of the whole?
  Mr. Elliot: I do not wish to go into detail. I am doing my best to keep to the 15 minutes to which Scottish Members desire that I should limit myself. I will not go into the particular quality of a particular catch taken off a particular constituency, but I think in general the summer herring are for the export trade and the difficulty has been that that portion of the trade has become more and more difficult in recent years. In the far distant ports, for instance Lerwick, and even ports relatively distant, such as Peterhead and Fraserburgh, which though very near important centres, such as Aberdeen, are at a greater distance from the more important centres of population in the South, these highly perishable fish are taken in great numbers. A glut arises and herring are rejected, not in the sense of being thrown away to preserve the price but simply because it is not physically possible to handle them and get them as fresh herring to any place where they can be eaten in time. In so far as the destruction of fish can be explained by merely physical reasons, that they could not be processed in time to be brought to a place where they could be eaten, I hope the Committee will accept that as a full explanation. What is resented is the case, if such cases exist, where fish fit for consumption, near a market, are destroyed wantonly, or merely for the purpose of keeping up the price.
  2452
  In the summer the fishing from Peterhead, Fraserburgh and other ports, such as Lerwick and Stornoway, inevitably leads to a certain number of gluts. I hope I can convince the Committee, from the examination that I have been able to give to the question, that these gluts arise from physical causes and that it will never be possible entirely to avoid gluts of herring when a large catch is landed at a distant port. Later on, during the curing season, it is seldom that any dumping takes place. As far as I am advised, if it takes place it is due to the fact that the staff and the plant are physically incapable of dealing with the whole catch, or that the herring reach port in such poor condition that they are not worth curing. No organisation can ever be maintained at a point where it will deal with very rarely recurring peak conditions and, if you were to retain the overhead charges of an organisation which could deal with the whole catch when every boat has come home fully loaded, you would be maintaining an overhead which would be itself a heavy burden on the industry.
  There are no doubt occasions upon which a dispute arises between the curers and the fishermen as to whether, when there is an exceptional catch, the curers can pay the price asked, for to deal with such a catch exceptionally expensive processing must be undertaken, and naturally at that point the curers want a reduction upon the price they have previously paid and the fishermen naturally object to that reduction. My information is that in such cases it is very seldom that a dispute arises, that in most cases the two get together, and by turning a blind eye to some regulation or other they come to an amicable arrangement. But I do not deny that there may be some cases in which an actual destruction of fish takes place under these conditions. They are, however, extremely rare. The whole of the dumping of fish, taken together, amounts to not 1 per cent. of the catch in the year, and 99 per cent. of the fish caught are, in fact, brought to shore and used as human food. That perhaps helps the Committee to put in better proportion an essential feature of fishing—the occasional dumping.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is the statement authentic that 99 per cent. of the catch

  2453
  is not destroyed and that only 1 per cent. is lost by being put into the sea again?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, I took great care to work out the facts. I am giving the figures for the year 1936 and those are the exact facts for that year. It was a fairly average year as these things go. With a full sense of responsibility I say that the average consumption of these fish caught around our shores is 99 per cent. of the fish caught; one fish out of 100 may be thrown away, but the remaining 99 are brought to shore and used for food.
  Mr. T. Johnston: That refers to herring?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, it refers to herring. The proportion of white fish is different, because white fish keep better. Let me give the House two figures. In 1913 the British catch was 588,000 tons and in 1936 278,000 tons. That is a measure of the enormous falling off in the take of this industry. I do not think that the falling off is due to a shortage of fish. The herring are there to be taken, but what I have already stated shows that what we are dealing with is not the fact that an odd fish, one out of 100, goes back to the sea, but the failure to take the 200,000 to 300,000 tons which could be taken if the industry was on the same scale as it was before the War. The difficulty, of course, arises very largely in the export market, and there again let us recall the difficulties of other sections of the fishing industry as well as those of the herring section. The herring is an export fish, the white fish industry is an import industry, and the interests of the two sections are divergent. At one moment our white fishermen come and say, "We wish you to cut down the German quota of fish landed in this country, for you are putting our people out of work;" and at the same moment the other fishermen say, "By hook or by crook you must succeed in getting our quota of fish into Germany extended, or we shall be out of work." Those are the difficulties of the post-war world. But they are the difficulties with which the Herring Board has to grapple.
  Let us remember these difficulties when we feel inclined, as some people or some Members of the Committee do, to raise our fists to high Heaven and call for the heads of nearly all those who sit on this
  2454
  side of the Committee. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) were in Russia to-day, he would be foremost in campaigns against wreckers. The problem before the Herring Board was a very difficult one. It called not only for energy and wise administration on the Board's part, but for the co-operation and sympathetic understanding of the industry. No doubt the two sides have honestly tried to carry out the trust imposed upon them. I cannot claim, and I do not think they claim, that every step they have taken has been the very best that could have been taken, but I would also say that the industry itself has from time to time not been blameless in its attitude towards the Board. It has been a little apt to consider the Board as a committee of archangels sent to lift it out of its troubles, and not as a number of very human men, most themselves engaged in the industry, bending their energies to deal with the extraordinarily difficult problem which I have detailed to the Committee.
  One of the main complaints made by the industry is that sufficient energy has not been displayed in recapturing the export markets. Take two of the great export markets, Soviet Russia and Germany. The characteristic of the purchases of Soviet Russia is that they are made by very hard-fisted buyers. In Russia you have the whole of that industry united in one single control of an ironclad character, and it is one of the hardest bargainers in the international trade. The quantities sold to Russia vary very much—from 12,000 barrels in 1930 to 105,000 barrels in 1935 and down to 20,000 barrels in 1936. The two last years, 1935 and 1936, exemplify the character of the Russian purchases, in that the 105,000 barrels were sold on contracts and for these the price was only 27s. or rather less; and in the case of the 20,000 barrels the Board refused or failed to negotiate a contract, and these herring were sold at the market price. When Soviet Russia had to pay the market price it paid 35s. a barrel for herring which the previous year it had bought at 27s. That explains the uneasiness of the Herring Board in coming into close bargaining with these extremely acute business men.
  It is easier to deal with the comparatively mild and unbusinesslike purchasers

  2455
  of Nazi Germany. They purchase herring in enormous quantities and they buy them at the market price. As against the Russian purchases of 20,000 barrels and 105,000 barrels and 70,000 barrels the German purchase has run pretty steadily to such figures as 406,000 barrels in 1932; 375,000 in 1933; 258,000 in 1934; 438,000 in 1935; and 417,000 in 1936. It is true to say that the Central European market is proving more easy to sell in than the Eastern market of European Russia; the middle of the Baltic is easier than the far end, because in addition to the German purchases there are the Polish purchases, which are very important. We sold to Poland in 1932, 238,000 barrels; 213,000 barrels in 1933; 246,000 barrels in 1934; 269,000 in 1935; and 309,000 barrels in 1936. It is impossible, of course, to leave out of account altogether the influence of trade agreements in these matters, and the trade agreements have helped, I think. But let us not deceive ourselves. There are signs of a strong effort being made by Germany to develop her own fishing and to catch her fish for herself. We have to watch these developments of fishing fleets in other countries.
  Mr. Johnston: Is it not the case, as stated in the Annual Report of the Fishery Board, on page 25, that all imports of fish to the German market are regulated by a committee just as the Russian market purchases are regulated, and that British exporters have the same difficulty with regard to price in Germany as in Russia?
  Mr. Thorne: Are the German fishermen entitled to fish in the same waters as our people from Scotland and England?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, certainly; these are international waters and anyone can fish in them. They are outside the three-miles limit. The herring shoals are out of sight of land very often.
  Mr. Macquisten: They are fishing in Loch Fyne sometimes.
  Mr. Elliot: There are very few Germans who fish in Loch Fyne.
  Mr. Johnston: What about the reference that I have mentioned?
  Mr. Elliot: Of course it is true that in both Russia and Germany the import trade is highly regulated, but I think that the figures I have given show that up to the present it has been possible to sell a very much larger number of herring to Germany, and, indeed, to Poland, than to Russia. The price has been much closer to the world price than the very closely negotiated price obtained for the relatively small number of herring which the Russian market was willing to take. If we can get an improvement of international conditions then no doubt a general improvement of this export trade can be expected. But the white fish industry and the herring industry are to some extent at loggerheads, and we must take both their difficulties into account when we call for the utmost efforts to be made to get our export trade going again and to get fish into these foreign markets. That does not leave out of account the question of the most efficient and the most economical production of the herring here at home.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of exports of herring, what about our trade with America? Is our export of herring to America increasing or decreasing?
  Mr. Elliot: The Board has published a very interesting table showing figures which include America. The figures of the American trade have recently been declining. I think that that is partly due to a falling off in the catch. There were 24,000 barrels exported in 1935, but the figure had come down to 18,000 barrels in 1936. There was some difficulty with the catch; there was not the same amount of herring available last year, but leaving the catch on the market resulted in a much higher price being paid for the fish. I do not wish to go into details; they are given at great length on page 16 of the report of the Herring Industry Board.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The great majority of those interested will read the report of these proceedings during the week-end.
  Mr. Elliot: I believe that the people engaged in this trade read anything that is connected with the prosperity of their industry very closely indeed.
  Mr. Kirkwood: There are hundreds of people who will never see this report.
  Mr. Elliot: What I am now saying will be of value to them and will excuse the

  2457
  trespass which I am making upon the time of the Committee. On the question of the production or economic catching of herring, the report of the Herring Industry Board is really of very great value indeed. They have compared the results achieved by the Northern and the Southern half of this industry, and even the most vehement of us who come from the North must admit that it makes very strange reading. On page 9, after reviewing the catchings, they say:
  "These figures show a difference in favour of the English vessels of 42 per cent. in the amount of crans per landing and over 34 per cent. in earnings per vessel."
  They go on to say:
  "Even if full allowance is made for the greater knowledge of the English fishermen of their home grounds it seems that this difference must be attributed in the main to general inefficiency due to the effect of autumn weather upon vessels and gear which had become inefficient owing to long continued lack of repair and maintenance, but if these disabilities were removed and the vessels and gear put into good order there is no reason why the Scottish earnings from week-day fishings should not be on a scale comparable with those of the English."
  It is true that the facts seem to show that the English system is, for some reason or other, better fitted to existing conditions than the Scottish system, and I have been asked what the difference is. The general reason I have been given is that the English fishing is conducted by much larger units than the Scottish fishing. I do not mean in larger boats, but in larger aggregations of boats. It is done by companies, and these companies are able to give better service and also—and this is very important—to stand the loss which occasionally arises from accidents due to storm or to stress of weather. The companies are able to stand the expenditure upon an individual boat much better than an individual whose whole capital is invested in the undertaking. This is a further rather unpalatable fact. The English boats keep at sea longer than the Scottish boats. The Scotsman, with his whole capital invested in one boat, when a storm begins to rise and the sky becomes overcast, not only risks his life, but his gear, and, therefore, makes for home. The Englishman, with the very much greater resources of a company behind him, is willing to take the risk, and very often successfully takes the risk, and thereafter he is on the spot to begin fishing again, whereas his Scottish colleague has run for port and has to make his way
  2458
  out again to the fishing ground. He meets, on his way out to the fishing ground, his English competitor coming in fully loaded to meet a short market.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this is a fair general picture of the position between the two countries? It does not seem to me to be quite a fair representation of the Scottish fisherman's job.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's very interesting survey, but is it not the fact that the value of this comparison is almost entirely set off by the fact that it does not take into account the comparative cost of running the two fleets, the English fleet being known to have larger overhead and other charges than the Scottish fleet.
  Mr. Macquisten: Is not the fish caught by the Scottish fishermen much fresher than that caught by the English fishermen? Is not Loch Fyne-caught fish landed beautifully fresh; and it is not much better than fish sold in London?
  Mr. Elliot: Loch Fyne is nearer Glasgow than the Dogger Bank is to London. You cannot get away from that fact. The Lower Clyde is very near to a great centre of population, but I do not wish to go into that point. Fish is certainly fresher if a man has been on the Bank all night and has risked the weather and then comes in with a cargo of fish, than is the case of fish caught by someone who has been hanging about. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) asked if that is a fair picture. It is just that danger which makes me unwilling to dogmatise. I think we should be rash in coming forthwith to a conclusion on this matter. I am only telling the House what has been told me. Moreover, a private individual who gives up his trade and independence to a large company will have the greatest difficulty in ever re-
  covering it again. We must be sure, before we urge people into a collective system, that they will get benefit from it.
  I would say in reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) that I do not think it can entirely be said that the extra takings of English vessels are offset by the extra costs. The board have a paragraph on the point. In paragraph 45 they say:
  "When statements on the above lines have appeared in the Press they have been met

  2459
  by the criticism that a comparison of gross earnings leads to fallacious conclusions and by the suggestion that the English owners of vessels and nets and the English crews are no better off in the long run for their longer and more intensive fishing because their extra earnings are all absorbed by"—
  I think that that was the hon. Member's point—
  "additional expenses."
  They give figures to show that that is not entirely borne out, at least by arithmetic, since they show that:
  "the English owner has more than two-and-a-half times as much money available to meet the costs of maintenance and repair of his vessel and nets, depreciation and overhead charges as had his Scottish competitor."
  I do not think that this discussion is yet settled, but in drawing attention to these comparative figures, the Board have performed a valuable service to the industry, and more particularly to those of us who are interested in the Scottish industry. Here is a point to which this House, the industry and the Herring Industry Board will need to devote attention. It is no use saying that we should get out of our difficulties by some grant, or subsidy or other. The difficulty lies far deeper. It has been suggested in a memorial put forward that a subsidy should be granted to the herring industry. That is a very curious remedy, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), who has so often, and quite rightly, inveighed against selling milk to Czechoslovakia at a price lower than that at which we can get it over here, would also comment on the fact if, by reason of a subsidy, we were selling to Continental nations, either to Russia or to Germany, herring at prices below those at which the poorer people in this country could get them.
  Mr. Boothby: There is this difference. The Germans and the Russians like raw salt herring and our people will not eat them.
  Mr. Elliot: I would not like to be given the task of justifying to an unemployed man in Bridgeton the selling of herring to Russia at half the price at which I was willing to sell it to him. It has often been suggested that in some way or other we should deal with the question of gluts by picking out the poorer classes of the community and making the herring available to them at cheaper prices.
  2460
  But we might run into very considerable difficulty. That seems to be getting pretty close to the old theory of relief in kind. We have to sell herring to people because they like herring, and not because we have got a lot of herring and want to get rid of it. There is nothing that the unemployed would resent more than feeling that they were the dumping ground for some surplus food product.
  Mr. Gallacher: You try it.
  Mr. Elliot: I can imagine the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) making a very effective speech on the subject.
  Mr. Thorne: That does not apply to feeding necessitous children.
  Mr. Elliot: You cannot feed necessitous children on raw salt herring. I can imagine nothing which would upset a child more.
  We must make every effort to develop the export market, but also I do not take the view of the memorialists, that the home market is saturated and cannot absorb more herring. I think there is every reason to think that it can absorb more herring. We are more likely to find an outlet there than before especially now that times are more prosperous and there is more employment about and more purchasing power in the hands of the people. The northern half of the industry is taking less fish and less money than the southern half, and the northern half is less highly organised than the southern half. Would the northern half be willing to work under the mere highly organised conditions of the south and take more fish and more money? The Board do not come to a conclusion on that point and I am disinclined to come to a conclusion on that point myself. I shall consider very carefully the further investigations of the Board, and I shall especially value the opinions of hon. and right hon. Members of this House.
  The fact is that the industry is undoubtedly still in a very serious position. At the same time, the position is not without hope. The value of herring landed in Great Britain went up from £1,519,000 in 1934, to £1,960,000 in 1935, and to £2,406,000 in 1936. Between 1934 and 1936 the increase was over £800,000, or 33 per cent. It is the same for the earnings of the average

  2461
  drifter, even for the Scottish drifter. In 1934 the average earnings were £915, and in 1936 they were £1,685. It, therefore, seems that the position, though difficult, has hopeful features in it, and it is clear that there is a living in the herring industry for many thousands of our own people. It is to the improvement of their position and to the extension of the industry that the Committee, Parliament and the Herring Board must bend all their efforts in the immediate future.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I move the reduction with a view to calling attention to the perilous plight of the herring industry in Scotland and the extraordinary document which has been issued by the Herring Industry Board. I have never read a more depressing White Paper. It goes to the length of discussing whether our great herring industry may some day be lost to us. It is a document the writers of which spend most of their time in trying to prove that nothing can be done for the industry. Every proposal that is put to them for aiding the industry in the difficult times through which it is passing is politely pushed aside for one reason or another. That attitude the right hon. Gentleman has endorsed this afternoon, with the exception of his closing sentences.
  What is the position in which we find ourselves? I spent some time yesterday in the Library looking through the census figures, and I noticed that in the county of Aberdeen the fishing population has fallen by one-third in the last 10 years. I looked at the report of the Ministry of Fisheries for June of this year and I saw that 70 trawlers were laid up in Aberdeen Harbour. We have it officially stated that the Buckie herring fleet is only now at one-half its pre-War strength and that it is disappearing at such a rate that in five years it will have disappeared altogether. One drifter goes every 10 days. Steam drifters are disappearing at the rate of 12½ per cent. per annum, and the value of the fishing fleet is falling by £68,000 per annum. What is the remedy? What are we told this afternoon? There are 58,000 workers employed in the industry either at sea or on shore. I am not sure whether that
  2462
  figure includes the workers employed in curing, but leaving aside the question of whether or not the curers are included, it is a fact that the men, women and children depending upon the industry number somewhere about 250,000 persons. Yet the Herring Fishery Board in regard to herring, which are our greatest catch, have nothing positive to offer, nothing immediate, nothing really hopeful to put before us.
  I want to devote myself this afternoon to constructive rather than destructive criticism. I have no reason to contradict what the right hon. Gentleman said about the personnel of the Herring Board. I know nothing about them personally. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has views on the personality of the Board and perhaps he will state them. It is not with the individuals that I am concerned. I want to see whether it is possible within what we call the capitalist method of production and distribution to find a better living for the people who are now engaged in this industry. If it is not possible to continue as we are doing, with competing sections operating for profit and all failing in the process, is it possible to suggest alternative methods?
  I have been at some pains to go into this matter. There are two markets for our herring, the home market and the foreign market. The home market is, roughly, one-third of the total. Obviously, the remedy that must be applied or sought for must be different. In regard to the home market the right hon. Gentleman has dismissed, with some rather injudicious phrases, the idea that we should supply any herring surplus to the normal quantities that the markets can take, cheaply to the needy and the poor who cannot purchase at present prices. He
  said it would be an insult to the poor—I did not take down his words exactly—to ask them to consume this food at lower prices. I dispute that entirely. It is no insult to the poor to consume cheaper milk either in schools or elsewhere. It is no insult to the poor to get reductions in house rents.
  It is a vital necessity both to consumers and producers that there should be as few barriers as possible between the worker who produces good food and the empty stomachs in our industrial areas. I have heard all sorts of fancy objections put up against a scheme of that kind. I am told

  2463
  that we cannot maintain a permanent system of distribution to deal with occasional surpluses or exceptional gluts. That is true, and nobody has ever proposed anything of the sort. Last Friday I met a number of directors of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, with their fishery buyers, and I have had a letter from them this morning confirming what was said to me last Friday. Here is the greatest trading organisation in Scotland—whether one likes co-operative societies or private traders does not matter—with agencies in every industrial town, and every industrial village in Scotland and the co-operative wholesale society directors—I can give the right hon. Gentleman the secretary's letter to me—declare that they are willing to place their great organisation at the disposal of the Secretary of State, to ask for no profit at all, in order to deal with this question of occasional surplus and to see to it that these surpluses reach the stomachs of the poor in the depressed areas at the minimum possible price. That is not an offer that can be derided. It is not an offer that the Secretary of State can turn aside with a joke about poor people, babies and toddlers eating salt herring.
  Here are masses of our people not getting enough to eat, here is probably the most nutritious fish in the market, as the herring certainly is when it is fresh, and here are the hungry and distressed fishing population. It is our duty to organise production and distribution in such a way that production shall not be for profit but for use, and we have the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society saying that they are willing to work a scheme without profit. I suggest to the Secretary of State that without further ado he should get one or two of the very able young civil servants on his staff, than whom there are none abler in Whitehall—they are not a band of no-men such as they collect at the Treasury; they are men with open and agile minds, willing to break new ground—and send them to negotiate with the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society and see what is in the proposal.
  Mr. Loftus: Is the proposal to distribute fresh herring during periods of glut or to salt and distribute them?
  Mr. Johnston: I am talking about fresh herring during periods of glut. I said
  2464
  that the herring when it is fresh is the most nutritious fish. The Secretary of State said that only 1 per cent. of our herring catch was thrown back into the sea in 1936. That may be true, but it does not face up to the fact that you are deliberately restricting your market. That is the policy of the Herring Industry Board. You are buying up trawlers and vessels and destroying vessels. You are limiting the output in every possible way, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that only 1 per cent. of the fish caught are destroyed that does not meet the whole difficulty. The point is that the fishing population is steadily on the decline and that you are throwing more and more upon the Poor Law and public assistance at a time when the people ought to eat more fish.
  I should like briefly to refer to the export market. I want to keep strictly to my time limit in order to set a good example to other hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman told us something about the Russian and German purchases. Here, again, he ought to send his ablest civil servants. I do beg of him not to accept these cast-iron, individualistic, nonsensical stories that are being handed out. I have been to the Russian buying organisation in London this week. I had a discussion with the officials, and I have the figures. I have the inside story of prices. I know what they are paying for their herring and I know what they are willing to negotiate upon. We sold to Russia last year 4,450 tons of fish. I cannot translate it into crans and barrels. They bought 10,330 tons from Holland and 6,280 tons from Norway. For the 6,280 tons from Norway they paid about 650,000 roubles less than they had to pay for our 4,450 tons. There is something to be looked into here, something to be examined. I have seen their papers and I am prepared to stand by these figures. You cannot develop a trade on those lines.
  What are the Russians prepared to do? If the right hon. Gentleman can organise something in the nature of a co-operative organisation among the fishermen and curers in Scotland, the Russians are willing to deal with them on this basis, that they will take at the normal market price whatever it is, a bigger proportion of the catch at that price than they bought last year. The right hon. Gentleman hardly did justice to the Russian market. It is

  2465
  true that they bought 20,000 barrels last year, but there have been years when they have bought 700,000 barrels, and 750,000 barrels.
  Mr. Macquisten: How long ago?
  Mr. Johnston: I think that was in 1911. This is a great market, an almost unlimited market. They are willing to take salted fish, the peasants like it, and they are willing to pay for it. In 1931 I was set the task in the Labour Government of trying to get trade going quickly, and I induced the Russian Government to give us £6,000,000 of orders for the engineering firms in this country, and I got credits extended to Russian trade. They are willing to take more barrels of any alleged surplus at a lower rate, which can be agreed upon. We have sold herring to Russia at 22s. 6d. a barrel, the price last year was 26s. It is always fluctuating. Why not give a firm deal to these people. They are not fools. If they can buy herring cheaper in Norway and Holland they will do so; but they are friendly disposed to us. Credits have been extended; and all the credits granted by the Government have not been eaten up. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will send one or two of his staff to discuss the matter with Mr. Bogomoloff, Mr. Pickman and Dr. Segal of the Russian delegation, and the appalling state of affairs on our Scottish coasts can be tackled. It can only be tackled by co-operation at both ends. Individualism must go. Waste within the industry must disappear. If the Government will examine the problem on these lines then the expectation printed in a Government document that "the day may come when we shall see the last of our herring industry," need no longer be printed in a Government publication.
  4.49 P.m.
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: I join with the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) in protesting against the pessimism in regard to the future which marks the report of the Herring Board, and also in emphasising the present depression in the industry. There is the formidable paragraph on page 6 of the report where they point out that:
  "When the proper deductions from the total revenue realised by the catchers are made for the value of herrings caught by trawlers, ring-netters and inshore fishermen the amount remaining is not sufficient for the
  2466
  maintenance of the main drifting fleet and their crews."
  It is from that that all the ills of the herring fishery flow, The unemployment figures in these ports are tremendous. In Wick it is 28 per cent., Peterhead 21 per cent., Buckie 20 per cent., Lerwick 20 per cent., and Stornoway 43·8 per cent. These percentages were for the period when the herring fishing season was getting into its stride—the end of June. A few months before they were much worse. At the beginning of July there was a total collapse of the industry in some places, and in Wick, one of the principal fishing ports in Scotland, there was one day when only three arrivals of herring fishing boats took place. What are the causes? The report points out a number of them. There is first the lack of resillience in the home market. I have always doubted whether the home market would fulfil the expectations which many hon. Members have expressed, and actually, in spite of all the efforts made by the Board, the consumption at home declined last year from 491,000 cran to 473,000 cran. Nevertheless, the Board point out that you cannot judge by one year's efforts, and it is reasonable to suppose that these efforts will show greater fruits in later years. They mean to continue them, and I wish them luck, but at the same time I hope they will consider new ideas such as that of working with the Co-operative Wholesale Society as suggested for by the right hon. Member for West Stirling. It was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman in a speech of a quarter of an hour to develop the ideas he has, but I hope the Secretary of State will go carefully into the prospect of developing the home market on the lines suggested by him.
  I was not cinvinced by what the Secretary of State said that the poor would regard it as an insult to have herring at a cheap price. We have a milk scheme to give people, who cannot afford to pay the ordinary prices of milk, cheap milk, and a potato scheme was tried in one depressed area. Why cannot we have a herring scheme? I do not suggest that the Government should rush into a great scheme embracing the whole country next week, but, at any rate, let us have an experimental scheme and it may be that something may come out of the proposal put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. Why cannot we have an experimental

  2467
  scheme on these lines in some great centre of population for the sale of herring at cheap prices to the unemployed, and to those who cannot afford to buy them at the ordinary market price? At any rate, I am sure that it is only on lines such as these that you will be able to develop the home market. I doubt very much whether it is capable of much development on normal lines. But far more important is the need for developing the foreign market. The Board point out in paragraph 83 that:
  "It is impossible to increase trade with certain countries because of the existence of import duties which when added to the cost of production, processing and transport make the price almost prohibitive to the local population."
  That, of course, is another illustration of the fact that the tariff as a bargaining weapon has completely failed to make room for our exports in foreign countries. The Board also point out the need for lower catching and curing costs. That is a fundamental question, whether you are going to sell in the home market or in the foreign market. High prices, the Board point out in paragraphs scattered all over their report, have proved an obstacle to them in developing the home and foreign markets. The Secretary of State referred to the development of fishing fleets by Germany. That, of course, is part of their policy of autarchy upon which they have embarked. Dr. Schacht declares that they have done so unwillingly and that they would much prefer to enter into a policy for the general lowering of trade barriers and a revival of overseas trade. In short, the main lesson to be drawn from the Herring Board's report is that no industry stands to gain more—both by a reduction of its costs and by entry into foreign markets—from a policy of economic disarmament and freer trade than the herring fishing industry, and I wish I could believe that there was any prospect of the Government throwing itself into this policy, to which they constantly pay lip-service, with that energy and resolution and even that measure of ruthlessness which it requires for success.
  Of course, of the foreign markets, Russia is the most important. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Russians were able to buy Dutch and Norwegian herring cheaper than Scottish herring. So can anybody else.
  2468
  They are not so valuable an article. Their price on the world market is lower than the price of Scottish herring. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should reorganise our fishing industry and assist in the development of its marketing organisation, but if he means that we are to recast our system in order to meet the views and convenience of the Russians I do not see why we should do that. It is only if he means that we should impart into our marketing arrangements the maximum degree of efficiency and deal with the Russians on level terms that I entirely agree.
  As a matter of fact, one of the difficulties of dealing with Russia has been that they drive too hard a bargain. It has more than once happened that when the Board has tried to make a bargain at a certain price the Russians have refused it and afterwards they have come back and bought herring at the very price at which they were first offered them by the Board some months earlier. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that we must put our own house in order, make ourselves as efficient as we can, but I would also say to the trading representatives of Russia to whose courtesy I should like to pay a tribute, or perhaps to say to their masters, that really in these troublous times in which we are living, when it is of vital importance that there should be friendship between the great Russian people and the people of these islands in the defence of great interests which we hold in common, it would be good policy if they would abandon their efforts to cut down the price of herring to the last shilling, and show their willingness to co-operate with us in restoring this industry which means so much to us in Scotland and to our people generally. They would be doing a good stroke of policy for Russia and for a better understanding between the two peoples.
  In their report the Herring Board also draw attention to another problem, and that is the recruitment of women workers. It is getting more difficult to get women workers into the industry. Much has been done to improve the conditions of their work and I hope more will be done in the future. One of the difficulties is the difficulty about the unemployment insurance regulations. The women workers feel that the regulations are not fair. I do not intend to speak further on that matter,

  2469
  because it is not really a matter for which the Secretary of State is responsible; but as it greatly affects the interests of the fishing industry, for whose welfare the right hon. Gentleman is so largely responsible, I ask him to consult his colleague the Minister of Labour on that point, which is brought to our attention in the report of the Board.
  Time does not permit me to follow the Secretary of State in detail into his analysis of the Board's statement about the comparative earnings of Scottish and English boats, but there are one or two remarks I would like to make on that, and I will do as the right hon. Gentleman so prudently did, and refrain from dogmatism. The Board's comments, and the comments made in certain letters and articles which appeared in the "Daily Mail" newspaper two or three weeks ago, seem to me to be unfair to the Scottish drifters and to show too little regard for the peculiarity of their circumstances. Scottish fishermen hold firmly to the system of individual and family ownership of their boats, or ownership by partners belonging to the local community. They would regard the prospects of company ownership with repugnance, for reasons connected with circumstances and traditions with which I fully sympathise. I would add that I do not believe that these English boats, which are supposed to be so successful, are all run by big companies.
  Mr. Loftus: Hear, hear.
  Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) supports me. Many of them are owned by families and by quite small partnerships. It would be interesting to know whether the big companies in England are any more successful than these small partnerships. Moreover, in paragraph 38 it is pointed out that when the Scottish fishing boats meet the English boats on level terms, they get as good earnings as the English do; there is a difference of only £100 less for the Scottish—and their season was shorter. Another point to be remembered about the English boats is that their debts are much higher than the debts of Scottish boats. The English communities are much more deeply in debt. Therefore, we ought to approach the subject with care, and I was delighted that the Secretary of State refused to dogmatise about it and that he
  2470
  is keeping an open mind; but I would certainly lay it down that an alteration in the Scottish system of boat ownership ought not to be a condition of help from the State in the re-organisation of the fishing fleet.
  What of future policy? First of all, it is vitally necessary to have new boats. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling pointed out, the boats are now rapidly going out of use. There must be help in renewing the fleet. Moreover, the continual contraction of the fishing fleet is very dangerous from the standpoint of National Defence, a subject on which I have spoken before and which I will not elaborate now. Nevertheless I suggest to the Secretary of State that he might tell us whether there is any prospect of a retaining fee being paid to the owners of drifters who are prepared to hold them at the service of the State in the event of war. The mere re-conditioning of old drifters will not help. New boats are necessary. They cost about £6,000 each, and substantial help is required.
  Secondly, a new sort of drifter is required. I have argued that for some years past, and I am glad to see that at last the Board are taking steps on these lines. Motor power will increasingly take the place of steam power, unless this new kind of steam drifter can be evolved. I hope that money will be available for experiments, and that a certain amount of priority will be given to them, even in these difficult times when so much of the Government's resources is being devoted to Defence expenditure. Thirdly, I venture to say that too many restrictions are being issued by the Herring Board. Pages of this report are devoted to a list of all the restrictions which have been put on the work of the industry. We need to increase production and thus ease the burden of overhead charges. I hope that some such scheme as working with the Co-operative Society, if it will indeed help to get rid of surpluses and expand the home market, will assist towards that end.
  In conclusion, I notice that the Board is to visit Scottish parts. I am sorry that Wick does not appear to be included in the itinerary, but I hope that that omission will yet be repaired. In my

  2471
  opinion, the Board ought not to return from Scotland, but ought to stay there, for that is its right place. One of the worst things in the report is to be found on page 2 where the address of the Board is given—184, Strand, London. The Board ought to be in Edinburgh, for this herring fishing industry is much more a Scottish interest than it is an English interest. The powers of the Board should be extended, for it can do little at the present time except restrict. In England, with all its great industries—in London, the hub of the world's commerce—the herring fishing industry may well seem insignificant and almost a superfluity, but it is indispensable to the economic life of Scotland. Let the Board throw off its pessimism and have faith in the future of the industry, and resolution to promote its revival.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. Harbord: Hon. Members are aware of the serious plight of the great herring industry. As is pointed out by the Board, that industry was placed in difficulties after the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, but those difficulties were overcome largely because of a greater demand from the Continent. Of recent years, however, a lesser demand has adversely affected the industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) said that Russia would be our good friend in the matter of buying herring, but my experience has been that the Russians try to cut down to the lowest possible figure the price they pay for our herring, which are of superior quality to the Norwegian herring. Incidentally, it must be remembered that the Norwegian fishermen catch the herring in the Fjords, which are quite near, and that they catch them in great volume, so that their catching costs are not as heavy as those which face our fishermen in the North Sea and elsewhere.
  I ask the Government to give extended powers to the Board. I do not complain of the Board, for I believe that its chairman and members, faced with a difficult task, have conscientiously tried to better the conditions of all classes who are engaged in the herring industry. In my opinion, the Scottish boats are not kept in such good state as English boats; the English boats are better preserved than the Scottish boats. While I do not say
  2472
  that a complete reconditioning scheme could be adopted in the case of the fishing boats, there are certain classes of boats which have been well kept and well maintained and which, by wise expenditure, could be fitted to continue fishing.
  I feel that the Government are unmindful of their obligations to the fishing industry. They have been most generous to the agricultural industry, giving it subsidies on meat, beet, wheat and beef, and excusal in the matter of rates, but when the suggestion is made that some subsidy should be given to the fishing community for purchasing new boats or reconditioning existing boats, every obstacle is placed in the way. During the Great War the fishing industry did great service to the country by minesweeping and mine-laying in all kinds of seas, in all conditions of rough weather, and with great loss of life. The work which those brave fellows did placed the Government under a great obligation to them. They helped to prevent the country from being starved into submission to its enemies. We need these fishermen as an auxiliary of our Navy.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) suggested that Germany would welcome arrangements which would promote freer trade, but I am doubtful whether that is so. By increased taxation of our imports they made it more difficult. Why are the Germans building their fishing fleet with such rapidity? It is because it will be an auxiliary of their navy and increase their armed strength. Russia is also building a fishing fleet. The difficulties which face our fishing industry are greater and harder than any which it has ever experienced before. The Government have not risen to the occasion. They have not sufficient faith in their own child, the Herring Industry Board. I urge them to give extended powers to that Board. The Government have such facilities of borrowing money at their disposal that they could scrap all the obsolete vessels at once and replace them by a smaller type of Diesel vessel, which as has been proved by recent experience, is more likely to be profitable and useful to the community. Such boats could be worked much more economically, thus puting the industry in a better condition to meet its competitors in foreign markets.

  2473
  That help is due to that brave class of men whose bravery, heroism and sacrifice in the service of their country during the Great War earned such praise from Earl Beatty and Viscount Jellicoe. I am one of those who have not lost faith in the home market. I think it could be better exploited, and that there could be a greater consumption of British herring in this country. I do not think a sufficiently long time has passed for us to be able to judge the value of the publicity campaign. I believe that that campaign will have good results, and will lead to a greater consumption of herring by our people. I do not know whether the question of selling herring to Canada has been given sufficient attention. I should have thought that by the establishment of agencies there and by the use of various types of refrigerating craft it would be possible to send herring to Canada at a time when they would be very acceptable there. It is on those lines that assistance can be given to the industry. I thank the Fishing Industry Board for what they have done. I think they ought to receive encouragement rather than blame and that they ought to be backed up with greater financial assistance.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: I sometimes wonder to myself whether a rigid time-limit in these Debates is a good thing. This is the first occasion on which the herring fishing industry, which is vital to my constituency, has been discussed for a long time; and probably it will be the last for a long time to come. I could not help being impressed by the effect of the time limit on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). All the way through, it seemed to me, he was on the brink of making an interesting speech; but just when he was coming to the point he would look at the clock and say, "I have not time to develop that point now."
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does the hon. Member mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not make an interesting speech?
  Mr. Boothby: At all events I am going to make an interesting speech. It took me 18½minutes to make it in my bedroom this morning, and it will probably take me 22 minutes here; but I ask the indulgence of the Committee, because of
  2474
  the importance of this subject to my constituents.
  Mr. Johnston: Will the hon. Member permit me to say that while he and every other hon. Member of the Committee has of course the right to speak, it should be recognised that the only possible way of allowing all those who wish to take part in the Debate to do so, is by agreement among hon. Members themselves? I would beg the hon. Member, who will have other opportunities of raising this matter, not to upset the arrangement.
  Mr. Boothby: As far as I am concerned there never was an arrangement. I do not know of any arrangement. I only say this, that the herring fishing industry is discussed here once a year at the most; and to limit hon. Members who represent herring fishing constituencies to a quarter of an hour is not a very good plan. This time-limit is bad all round from the Scottish point of view, because hon. Members speak with their eyes on the clock and are in consequence unable to develop coherent arguments. However, as I have never signed anything on the dotted line as regards any agreement of the kind, I am going to make my speech or die in the attempt.
  The first question for the Government to decide is whether or not this industry is worth preserving in the national interest. Germany, Holland and Norway have all subsidised their herring fishing fleets; and this is a matter to which the Government ought to give very serious consideration. I do not think that this or any other Government in this country can contemplate with equanimity the possible destruction of our herring fishing fleet. It was vital to our defence in the War. Like the right hon. Gentleman opposite I have already said so much on this subject that I need not repeat it, and tributes have been paid by high naval authorities to the usefulness of the fishing fleet in preserving the safety of the battle-fleet while it was in harbour. It is not so much the craft as the personnel of the fishing fleet that is of vital importance. The men are, as is generally admitted, magnificent seamen; and on any ground on which the matter may be considered, their services will be vital to the national safety should war ever come upon us again. The first request which I make to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that he should direct the attention

  2475
  of the Minister of Defence to this aspect of the question, and I am sure that if the Minister of Defence consults the Admiralty he will come to the conclusion that the preservation of the personnel of the fishing fleet, at least, is essential to the national safety.
  Now I come to the report. It has not been very well received. "Disappointing" is scarcely the word for it. It really is nothing more than a despairing wail, and contains no constructive suggestion of any kind. I have in my constituency an admirable local paper which is entirely non-political and takes no party view, the "Buchan Observer" published in Peterhead; and in a leading article in that paper this week I find these words:
  "Discouragement is writ all over the second Annual Report of the Board for which nobody in the industry or out of it appears to have a kind word to say. The Board has failed and the sooner this sad fact is acknowledged officially and acted upon, the better it will be for the industry and for the pocket of the taxpayers, because the simple truth is that the Board is not earning its keep."
  That is a comment by an impartial local newspaper representative of a town which is greatly interested in the conduct of the herring industry. I think it no exaggeration to say that the report has been a bitter disappointment to all those who entertained great hopes of the Board when it was first set up.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question which I put to him on Tuesday, said that the whole of this year's cure had been sold and appeared to derive great satisfaction from that fact. But, as he knows, to anyone who is not conversant with the facts of the industry that was a rather misleading reply. Of course, the cure up to date has been sold. It amounts to 194,762 barrels as against 268,873 barrels last year—an unusually poor fishing to date. As I said just now, in an interjection, the June and July herring which are caught off the coast of Scotland are regarded on the Continent as the cream of the year's catch. And as neither the Dutch nor the Icelandic fishings have then begun to come on the market, it is always easy to get rid of this early part of the year's catch. The difficulty comes later when the other big fishings come into the market and the autumn fishing cure has to be disposed of. I must also point out that there are
  2476
  160 fewer drifters engaged in the Scottish fishing this year; and that Stronsay and Wick have practically been eliminated from the summer fishing. I do not think, therefore, we can take any satisfaction out of the fact that these 190,000 odd barrels have been disposed of, at prices which are not particularly remunerative to the curers, if we take the average of the whole lot. It is to the difficulties which lie ahead that I would direct attention. The report states:
  "If our trade in pickled herring is to be developed and increased, the price of herring must be lower and in order that this may be achieved a reduction in the costs of production is essential.
  How are we to achieve that reduction? In pre-War days, we sold £1,000,000 worth of herring to Russia alone every year. We have now to deal with a very different, and a very difficult, situation. We are dealing with autarchic countries, with Germany and Russia, and with Poland which is also more or less an autarchic country. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland went rather far when he tried to persuade us that there was a throbbing urge among the leaders of Nazi Germany towards economic cooperation and a revival of Free Trade. I think Dr. Schacht holds very different views from those who are his masters at the present time, which makes his position doubly difficult. There is only one way of dealing with these countries as far as international trade is concerned, and that is by the establishment of strong centralised selling organisations on this side. To some extent, old-fashioned individualism has to give way when it come to trading with these autarchic countries overseas, where there is absolute Government control over all imports. "Single control of an ironclad character," was the phrase used by the Secretary of State in referring to these countries; and I suggest we require something of the kind upon this side if we are to sell our herring to them successfully.
  There should be established a central selling organisation with wide powers to buy and sell under the general direction of the Herring Industry Board, especially at the end of the season, after the million barrel cure has been reached, and when things become really difficult. I support what has been said to the effect that the Government will have to back up the

  2477
  Board in dealing with both Russia and Germany. I do not think that even the Board is powerful enough to deal with these great importing organisations in Germany and Russia which have behind them the whole weight and power of their Governments. It is necessary to bring political pressure to bear. If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite meant anything as far as Russia is concerned, he really suggested in polite language that we ought to put a political squeeze on the Russians to make them buy our herring, and I must say that I support him in that. After all, we have lent them £10,000,000 and some of that might well be spent on our herring, and we might suggest to them quite politely that unless they do spend some of it on herring we might be less solicitous in the future about the Ukraine than we would be in other circumstances. I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness was really driving at although he did not quite like to go so far.
  There is another point. I know that the Secretary of State is naturally a little touchy on the subject of bacon quotas. I have never been crazy about them myself, and I am informed by people of responsibility and knowledge in the herring trade, that the bacon quotas at present imposed upon Poland and Denmark and some of the Scandinavian and Baltic States are operating against our herring industry, and that if some modification of these quotas could be achieved, it would be very advantageous to the industry. I would, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to look into this matter very carefully, and see if something cannot be done.
  And while we are dealing with the international aspect of the industry I would again point out that the Fishery Board itself has urged that the cost of production should be reduced as far as possible. We are not coming here to ask for subsidies right, left and centre; but there is one subsidy which would be of immense value, and would not be costly. A subsidy on coal. That is a practical matter which the Herring Board might take into consideration. The price of fuel has risen very sharply in the last six months, and it affects the price of herring. It enters directly into the cost of production. The Government have a precedent in that connection. They have
  2478
  given a rebate on the oil fuel tax to all fishing fleets. Would it not be possible for them, in conjunction with the Herring Board to examine the proposition of a Government subsidy on coal supplied directly to the drifters of the fishing fleet? I know of no other method which would so quickly reduce the cost of production.
  I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling seems to be growing a little uneasy, but I think that, even under his arrangement, I have still a few minutes left; and I would like to refer to the home market. Here again the question of price is important and so is the question of transport. I wish to ask why the Herring Board has not got into touch with three organisations, namely, the railway companies, the cooperative societies—and in that connection I am in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman opposite—and, last but not least, the organisation of the Commissioner for the Special Areas. When the Secretary of State says that you cannot give herring to necessitous children, I want to know why. There is no more nutritious food in the world. The right hon. Gentleman is a doctor and he ought to know that, apart from milk, it would do these children more good than any other food. I think it extraordinary that there is no mention in the report of any effort by the Board to get into touch with the three organisations which could help most effectively in the distribution of herring in this country. They do not seem to have made any attempt to reduce transport charges. They have never tackled the railways, or the co-operative societies, or the Commissioner for the Special Areas. As I say, it is a sideline by comparison with the foreign market; but it is nevertheless important.
  To come back to the main issue, the consumption of raw salt herring is what the herring industry, in Scotland at any rate, is going in the end to stand or fall by; and that is, unfortunately perhaps, confined to a single area in Europe. It is most noticeable and interesting that the only valuable extensions of the market for raw salt herring during recent years have taken place in the United States of America and in Palestine, which are the two places to which these Northern and Central European populations have migrated on a large scale. Unless you tackle these markets, I do not think you

  2479
  will make a great extension of the market for salt herring elsewhere.
  With regard to the fleet itself, the Duncan Committee, upon the recommendation of which the Herring Board was set up, wrote:
  "To allow the fleet to continue to adjust itself by a process of attrition would be, in our judgment, a cruel and wasteful policy. … Orderly contraction of the fleet is imperative."
  I do not think the Board have quite carried out that recommendation. They have been too prone to allow the process of attrition to operate, in the cruellest possible way. They should be given powers, I submit to the right hon. Gentleman, to purchase obsolete drifters at a reasonable price, and to make reconditioning grants for a limited number of good drifters. I think the Treasury control over the Board at the present moment is too tight. It is indeed the only excuse for this miserable report that I can see; but there is no doubt that the Treasury did insist upon the last levy on the industry, which I understand the Herring Board were reluctant to impose, and they insisted also that any grants should be a first mortgage on the boats, taking priority even of the banks. That is too hard. My right hon. Friend had a tremendous success with the Treasury when he was Minister of Agriculture. He clawed millions and millions out of them then, and he has not been too bad since, so far as oats are concerned. Let him concentrate, so far as the Treasury is concerned, on herring for the next six months; and if he cannot get a direct subsidy, at any rate get them to ease up a hit; because the one excuse that the Board has got to offer for its present doleful report, is that the Treasury has been pretty stiff.
  Some hon. Members have made a good deal of the disparity—and the report also makes a good deal of it—between the earnings of the Scottish and the English drifters, amounting to over £1,000 per boat in the autumn season. The report says that the English crews on an average earned £47 7s. for 13 weeks' work in the autumn fishing last year, as against £21 6s. that the Scottish fisherman earned for his period of 8½ weeks. Whatever anyone may say, that disparity is much too great, and there must be some cause for it. I think it is due to some extent
  2480
  to Sunday fishing, but if the Scottish fishermen are determined not to fish on Sundays, that is their look-out. You cannot force people to fish on Sundays, and they must be prepared to accept the sacrifice involved. But there is something more than Sunday fishing in this. What is it? Is it that the whole system of share-ownership has failed? Is it, as the right hon. Member for West Stirling said, that individualism in this industry has got to go? It may be—I do not know—but the report says:
  "It would clearly be futile to put the vessels into good order and provide efficient nets and gear without at the same time making provision for maintaining them in that condition So far as co-operation is concerned there can be little doubt that the cause of some at least of the troubles of the Scottish steam drifting industry lies in the fact that the individuals or small groups of individuals who own the vessels and nets possess as a rule slender financial resources and are liable to become embarrassed by comparatively minor accidents and misfortunes, which would hardly affect organisations of greater magnitude and financial resources. There seems to be no reason for doubting that appreciable advantage would be gained by the adoption of some form of pooling of resources or co-operation."
  I agree with every word of that, but the incredible thing is that there is not one single constructive suggestion in the report as to what form of pooling or cooperation should be carried out. For my part, I think, quite frankly, that the time has come when some form of cooperative company-ownership will have to be tried in Scotland. I have here a draft scheme, which I propose to submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Had it not been for the right hon. Member for West Stirling, I had proposed to give the Committee a brief outline of the proposals which it contains, but I shall spare hon. Members that. I do ask my right hon. Friend to consider these proposals as a constructive effort to solve the problem. It is, roughly speaking, a scheme by which the Herring Board and the fishermen should join together in the co-operative ownership of a company to construct new vessels and to purchase supplies of fuel, nets, and other supplies through one central source, and thus derive the advantages which a large organisation must have as against small individual owners, so far as financial accommodation and all the rest of it are concerned. There is no element of compulsion about the scheme, and there is

  2481
  no obligation on fishermen to enter into it. There is no question of a fisherman who does not enter it being deprived of any of the advantages of Government policy. But it is a constructive effort to solve the problem presented by the present system of share-ownership in Scotland, and, as such, I suggest that it deserves the serious attention of my right hon. Friend.
  In conclusion, while I have nothing to say against the individual members of the Herring Board, I think that on the whole it is a mistake to have so many members of a Board with a direct trade bias. The present members of the Herring Board have too many axes to grind, not their own axes, but the axes of the interests which they represent. There are too many sectional interests in the industry to be conciliated; and, in the nature of things in this particular industry, those different sections of the industry are often opposed to one other. I think it is time for plain speaking, and I propose to speak quite plainly in these last few sentences. This difficulty might be overcome if there were really strong direction and control at the top; but there is no such direction at present, and the result is a kind of tug-of-war on the Board between the conflicting interests which the members represent, and which ends too often in paralysis and in failure to make constructive recommendations of any kind, lest they should offend or upset one particular section of the industry.
  You want somebody—and I really do believe this—who is prepared to cut through all the vested interests—and they are many and great—who can see the industry and visualise its problems as a whole, and who is not afraid, if necessary, to be ruthless. You want somebody like the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George); and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would not consider asking him to render a last and supreme service to his country by accepting the chairmanship of this Board. I used to think, in the old days, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland first went to the Ministry of Agriculture that he himself had some of these characteristics, that he was prepared to drive forward ruthlessly, and cleave his way through all vested interests. I have not altogether abandoned that hope; but I must say that recently,
  2482
  and especially in view of his apparent defence of this report—which he knows as well as I do is quite indefensible—that that hope has been fading a little. I believe, and apparently the present members of the Board do not, that this industry can be saved. It is capable of being saved, but it wants vigorous action, direction, drive, and courage, to do it. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to get a move on one way or another before it is too late; for the sands are running out.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will keep an open mind towards the suggestions which have been made to him. We who represent fishing constituencies have always been very much concerned that there is no Minister of Fisheries in Scotland. Why, I do not know, but the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) might be prepared to undertake the task. I hope the Secretary of State will recognise his prime and almost sole responsibility to this House for the fishing industry in Scotland. Indeed, it is in a most parlous plight. It is true that, so far as the constituency which I represent is concerned, the herring fishery plays only a small part in it, but almost the same problems which are bringing ruin on the herring industry are bringing ruin on the white fish industry at the same time. Costs are rising up to about 50 per cent., prices are falling, and railway rates are rising. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has kept the one simple fact in his mind that the price received for fish on the wholesale market last March was 25 per cent. below, and the retail price on the fishmonger's slab was 100 per cent. above, the corresponding pre-war price. That is the absolute root and centre of the problem. It is in the costs arising between the time when the fish leaves the ship and the time when it is sold to the public, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to tackle that problem, I venture to predict that we shall remain saddled with this serious fishery problem.
  I said that I hoped he would maintain an open mind, but I must say that I was not convinced that the right hon. Gentleman has shed all his prejudices. In years gone by he made very bold efforts to get away from party and political prejudice, but on this subject I am not so sure that he is not weary of well doing, because

  2483
  when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) suggested that Russia should be supplied with herring at a cheap price, he was afraid to make himself responsible for that, lest the people of this country should complain that herring were being sold in Russia at a cheaper price than that at which they were being sold to them. Then, when my right hon. Friend made a converse suggestion to the effect that herring should be distributed at a low price to the working people of this country, who cannot afford to pay the full price, the right hon. Gentleman thought it might affront them as being offered fish at too cheap a price. We know that in the law there is a form called the alternative and inconsistent defence, the simplest form of which is, "I did not hit the man, but if I did, he deserved it." That will not really go down, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take with great seriousness the suggestions which have been made, even if they cut across the principle that private profit is to be the dominating factor in the distribution of fish. We have had a suggestion made from the Front Bench here, which was supported very ably by the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). Why, therefore, cannot the right hon. Gentleman tackle this question of the distribution of herring and white fish at the same time? I am convinced that if he does that, he will put his finger upon the root cause of the difficulties of the fishing industry.
  Now I want to say a word or two about the relationship between the herring industry and the white fish industry. I was rather sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying they were at loggerheads. It is true that there is some small disagreement on details between the herring and the white fish industries, but there is no reason why there should be any serious rivalry between them. The quantity of herring caught by trawlers is small, and there is some good reason to think that the habits of herring caught by trawlers are of a distinctly different character. I myself have caught spawning herring on the bottom of an estuary or harbour 10 miles from the open sea, and there are places on the Welsh coast where you can catch herring in that
  2484
  way. I say therefore there is no reason for ill-feeling between the herring fishermen and the trawl fishermen, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not do anything to foster such a disagreement. He ought to try to foster harmony between them, but if he takes measures, in endeavouring to solve the problems of one, which irritate the other. such as prohibiting trawling for herring by British trawlers and allowing foreign trawlers to dominate the herring industry, it will only make for as between the two classes of fishermen.
  I must say a word on behalf of my own constituency. The position in Aberdeen, one of the largest fishing ports in the country, is deplorable. The decline in the income in the first six months of this year was at the rate of £180,000 per annum—a sum comparable to five or ten million pounds being lost in the City of London. What a howl there would be in the City of London, even from the hon. Member for East Aberdeen if there were such a loss. I venture to say that the wrath of the hon. Member would be equal to his wrath at the losses in the herring industry. Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to go to the root of this question, namely, marketing and distribution, preferably along the lines we have advocated, I am convinced that we shall never solve the problem.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Macquisten: I am inclined to agree that this is a colourless and broken-winded report. We do not think much of the Herring Board on the Clyde. I have a letter from the Clyde Fishermen's Association in which they say:
  "Our association feels strongly that the Board completely ignores us in all our representations and that they only pay attention to the representations of the Clyde Herring Merchants' Association, whose Secretary is also Secretary of the Clyde Area Committee of the Herring Industry Board. Except in regard to nets, the Board have absolutely ignored the interests of the Clyde fishermen. All their schemes have been to the exclusion of the fishing interests on the Clyde. Their schemes do not apply to any boats under 60 feet, and of course all the fishing skiffs on the Clyde are under 60 feet. The only representative for the West of Scotland on the Board is Mr. Gordon N. Davidson. He is a member of the Clyde Herring Merchants' Association. One would expect him to represent the fishermen on the Clyde, but at a conference at Edinburgh last year he made a statement that the herring caught by the ring net was inferior to the herring caught by the drifting net. All the Clyde fishermen are

  2485
  ring net fishermen, and it is the view of most people that ring net herring are of a better quality than the drift net herring. The Clyde fishermen feel very strongly that they have not been getting a square deal and the Executive Committee of the Clyde Fishermen's Association is very worried as to the position."
  That is their view, and, after all, these are the men on the spot; and I know that there are no finer fishermen and no finer herring caught than at Campbeltown. I can never understand why this delusion has got into the brains of both Front Benches that you can solve any real difficulties by appointing boards. You may have a number of very respectable and eminent citizens sitting thereon, but the real work is done by the officials whom they appoint; and whenever a new board, be it a marketing board or a herring board, begins, it does not get any of those clever young men that the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) spoke about. It takes in the failures and throw-outs of the commercial world to do the job for them. What good it is to take a number of these people to parasite on the industry is beyond me; but the theory that they can do good has spread over both parties and has fastened like a form of infantile paralysis on their imaginations. The Board themselves are a very respectable body of bourgeois citizens, but they are not full-time men. It is the permanent ones who really matter, and if they were men of real capacity and not in need of their salaries, they would tell the Board that really there was very little purpose to be served by its existence.
  I find the Board speaking in their report of the attempts they have made to improve kippers by having a close time for kippering; and they say they failed to achieve their object of preventing the sale of inferior kippers such as tend to prejudice the public taste. But the fish have been so bad since the War that the public taste for fish is dying back. I have a letter from a woman calling on God to bless me for taking up the matter of dyed kippers. She said she loved a good kipper or a good haddock, and she could not get them now. They were only fit to be tasted and then thrown out on to the dust heap, and her children said, "Don't buy any more fish, mother; it is no good." Fish is not good nowadays when it comes to be offered to the public. I do not know whether it is because of cold storage, or why it is. The hon.
  2486
  Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) said that although the price to the fishermen had not gone up, the retail price had gone up 100 per cent. The cost of distributing fish is phenomenal—all due to the various channels and hands through which it passes. It is losing its freshness the longer it takes to reach the customer. The suggestion that the fish might be distributed through the co-operatives societies might be worth trying if it will secure fresh fish at diminished distributive costs to the people. They might even get surplus fish for distribution at nominal prices to those on the unemployed register. Better do that than throw it back into the sea. I never blame the fishermen for doing so. They are like the captain of a ship who jettisons part of the cargo to save the ship and the rest of the cargo. If they were to land the surplus the whole market would be glutted and their living would be taken away.
  Why cannot these fish be pickled? The Minister for Defence should pickle an enormous stock of herring. During the War the people would have been very glad to get salt herring. Now, of course, they will not eat them. Why is there nothing in the report about the foul practice of dyeing kippers? I have been snowed under with letters since I introduced my Bill last Wednesday. All the writers pray that I may be successful. Some say they love a good kipper or Aberdeen haddock, but that the dyed variety gives them indigestion. Of course it does. The dye is a preservative. One man writes to me this horrible story:
  "Some time since, interested in my fellow man, I went through a factory where such wickedness was perpetrated. Amongst other things, I discovered that a consignment which had been deferred for a period, owing to the market being slow, that such herring being packed in wooden boxes after treatment, but in order to make sure that all was well, as a suspicion existed, on opening such boxes it was discovered the contents were providing food for maggots. The whole consignment had to be de-maggoted, redecorated with dye, and immediately sent to buyers for instant disposal."
  Is not that a horrible story? And no one knows how often it is happening. A Member of the House told me that after only a mouthful of dyed kipper in a British railway train he had indigestion. The dye serves to preserve it and the very thing that preserves it makes it indigestible. Here is a really constructive idea. It is not a red herring drawn across the

  2487
  trail; it is a real constructive proposal. The Board should take up the business of seeing that first-class kippering is engaged in. Several Members of the House have asked me where they can get a decent smoked kipper. They cannot find them. There are only a few people doing it now. A dyed kipper of course looks better than an honest kipper. Just as, according to Gresham's law, bad money drives out good, so bad kippers drive out good kippers. The dyed kipper is like the painted lady who may look better than the one who is not painted, but in my young days, before they all did, it was not considered so respectable. A young American friend of mine said to me the other day that if we liked to kipper in the way that the herring had been kippered which she had had for breakfast, the whole American people would be clamouring for our kippers. It is not everybody who will eat a salted herring like the Poles, but everybody will eat good kippers. They will keep for four or five days in ordinary temperature, and if kept in cold store for longer and shipped across the Atlantic, the whole American continent would leap for them. The kipperers that I know in Argyle are men who put their consciences into their jobs. They only kipper the best type of herring.
  I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should take this matter up and get the proposal that is in my Bill made law as soon as possible. Let him and the Herring Board have the kudos and the glory of putting an end to this miscreant's practice. Nobody defends it except the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law), and of course he has to, because Hull is the place where this wicked practice began. Let the Secretary of State put this matter right and he will have a colossal sale for herring—so great that the shopkeepers will be able to sell them much cheaper. There is the opening of the market for smoked herring lying at his feet, and it is the great remedy for much of the difficulty of the herring industry. I would not object to the surplus herring being given for distribution at the Employment Exchanges at nominal prices and at the public expense, though I was told in Campbeltown that they had sent boxes up to the unemployed in Glasgow and that the people did not even call for them. It was so long since they had tasted herring because the prices of the
  2488
  fishmongers were prohibitive. The Campbeltown fishermen are very generous, and any unemployed man who likes to go to the boats as they come in will get a string of herring as a gift.
  The Minister of Health has been very slack in this matter. I put it before him long ago, and just because the people apparently did not die when they eat a dyed kipper, he would not interfere. Popular prejudice, too, has to be overcome. I am not so sure that the right hon. Member for West Stirling is right when he holds that poor people would not resent herring being given to them. I know that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) once mentioned oatmeal, which is one of the best of foods. In fact, you could bring a whole population up on herring and oatmeal, as they used to do in the Highlands, and a splendid population it was before they took to tinned foods and white bread. The phrase "brought up on a herring" was often used of a man who had raised himself from poor circumstances, and it was thought to be a taunt instead of a compliment, as it really was. The harvest of the sea is infinite, and if it was properly reaped there are ample food supplies for all the people in this country. It should be the Minister's duty to see that they can access to it in spite of any vested interest in the distributive trades.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sorry that I was unable to be present to hear the opening speech of the Secretary of State, but there are one or two points to which I wish to draw attention. I want to add my word to those which have already expressed the disappointment which is felt among the fisherfolk with this report. When the Board was first proposed a rosy picture was painted of its prospective usefulness, with references to the necessity for creating new markets and extending others, advertising, and the rest of it, all expressed in such a fashion that the fisher-folk thought that at last there was hope of their industry gaining real advantage. They invested capital in boats and took such action as they thought would enable them to take advantage of the new facilities being offered. I have it direct from my constituency that they are thoroughly disappointed with what the Board have been able to do, and they ask that unless the Board can do something better

  2489
  than hitherto the Secretary of State will take other action to achieve the purpose we have in view.
  I want to support my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) in his plea that the Government should organise a selling agency. It is quite possible as a course of action, and might bring valuable results. I would remind the Under-Secretary that the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society were very successful not long ago in negotiating with Russia a trade agreement which enabled a very considerable quantity of herring to be sold to that country. If the Government would take a hand in this matter they might find that they would achieve far greater success than would appear from the action of the Herring Board. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) suggested a subsidy on coal, and I think the suggestion ought to be considered by the Secretary of State, but some of the boats are run on oil. The Government make a very large profit out of the duty on oil. I understand there is already some small rebate given on the oil used by the boats engaged in the herring fishery, and I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would state precisely what is the position in that matter. The cost of fuel is so large an item, particularly where a considerable voyage has to be undertaken, that if the Scottish Office could secure greater concessions in respect of coal and oil it would be of the very greatest value in enabling the herring fishing industry in Scotland to make progress. I do not propose to add anything to what I have said, because I do not want to take up more time.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Loftus: I gather that there is very great pressure of time, and I shall compress my remarks into the shortest possible space. I feel that I ought to apologise, as the representative of an English constituency, for rising at all in a Scottish Debate, but Lowestoft is the largest herring port in Great Britain, and the Lowestoft boats land double the quantity of herring landed at any other port in Great Britain, and that is my reason for intervening. Various remarks have been made about the discrepancy in the takings of the English and Scottish boats. That is a serious question and I should like to have had the time to go into it,
  2490
  but I would point out that in the case of the Scottish boats the fact that individual fishermen in the crew often own a certain number of the nets may possibly have some small effect on the position. Where individual members of a crew own some of the nets there may not be the same readiness to risk the nets in rough weather as there is where one owner or skipper owns all the nets. But there is a more important factor. In April, 1936, there were fishing from Lowestoft and Yarmouth 335 drifters the ownership of which was divided among 142 companies, but out of that number of drifters 117 owners or part owners had actually started going to sea as boys, and 51 skipper were actual owners or part owners of the boats they went out in. The strength of the organisation there lies in this: That behind these companies, whether they own two or three boats or more, there is a shore organisation. There is a general merchant who, possibly, finances a group of boats, perhaps two or three firms with a total of 40 or 50 boats. When it is known that the boats are coming back heavily laden with fish the shore organisation gets ready, and the moment the boat is at the dock the fish are unloaded and the boat gets out to sea again the same afternoon before the flag goes down. I think Scots boats fishing from Lowestoft or Yarmouth have not the advantage of such an organisation. They do not unload so quickly and the flag is down before they are ready to sail and they are prevented from going to sea that night.
  I would say a word about restrictions, because there have been very few restrictions on actual catches this year. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) talked about gluts, but let us distinguish between two kinds of glut. There is the glut such as we had in October, 1934, when the finest quality fish were being thrown back into the sea at Lowestoft and Yarmouth. In that case, I think, some organisation ought to have been and could have been introduced to deal with it. There was a different kind of glut a month or two ago. There we had the boats coming in to the Orkneys on a Friday night, in hot weather, with a glut of fish, and it was emptied back. I do not see how that fish could have been dealt with at the moment. It was a 200 miles run to the mainland. The boat would not reach the mainland until some time on Sunday, the weather was

  2491
  hot, and the fish could not be disposed of fresh. As to salting them, there simply was not the labour to deal with them. We must distinguish between a glut at a place like Lerwick and a glut where there are railway facilities such as there are at Yarmouth and Lowestoft. I suggest that the proper way to get fresh herring to the poorer classes is by a system which will deliver them at the door in ice. It was tried once in Cambridge and led to largely increased sales.
  The report of the Board is, to my mind pitched in far too pessimistic and gloomy a tone. Reading that report no hon. Member would get the impression that 1936 was the best fishing year since 1929. The report conveys the impression that those engaged in the industry just covered their expenses. In 1934 the takings of the English boats averaged £1,866, in 1935 £2,150, and in 1936 £2,824, an increase of £1,000 per boat in two years. I regret that the report presents things in much too pessimistic a tone.
  I have the time only to deal with one or two other points. I have heard complaints that the Herring Board fix the prices of the fish. It is right that they should do so. One of the objects of creating the Board was to safeguard the fishermen, and if that is to be done there must be minimum prices for the herring. As regards advertising, it is too early to say whether what has been done has been justified. I myself believe there is still a great possibility of development in the home market. Last year there were strikes at the two highest peaks of fishing, and fish were taken off the market at the main time when they were required. We must wait another year, at any rate, before we despair of increasing the home market.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) said the market above all others that is most valuable is the Russian market. That is an echo of the past. Before the War Russia used to take more than 1,000,000 barrels. Russia as it exists to-day—in area—used to take 800,000 barrels. Since the War Russia has never bought more than 105,000 barrels in one year. Last year Russia bought 20,000 barrels, Germany 417,000 barrels—as well as vast quantities of fresh herring—and Poland bought 300,000 barrels. Poland and Germany between
  2492
  them bought more than 700,000 barrels and Russia 20,000 barrels. With great markets like Germany, Poland and the Baltic States taking 700,000 or 800,000 barrels we cannot sacrifice everything for the Russian market. We should develop it and try to get it, but we must not try to get it by subsidising or lowering prices, because if we do that Germany and Poland will obviously insist upon having their herring at the same price. If there is any subsidising to be done, the proper person to subsidise is the home consumer. We should subsidise our own people first. We buy from Russia £1,000,000 of fish every year, tinned fish, partly from Japanese concessions worked by Russian labour. Last year, Russia bought from us about £30,000 of fish. Surely we can use the tariff weapon. Surely we can approach Russia and say that unless she buys more of our fish, we must put up rates against this flood of imports. It is a legitimate bargaining counter, and I hope that the Government will use it.
  The herring fleet to-day is not working at full capacity, but, looking at the figures of the last two or three years, I still believe there will be an increase in sales, and that in a very short time our people will be working at full capacity. Then will come the time when we want to replace defective vessels. A drifter to-day costs £7,500 new. The depreciation is too heavy for the small owner to bear, and I suggest that, when the time comes for replacement, the Board should have extended power and increased finance to give a grant of one-third, that is, £2,500, and let the owner of the boat which is to be scrapped replace the remaining two-thirds. That is an arrangement which may have to be considered in a year or two. I have spoken for 12 minutes. I promised that I would not take more than 12 minutes, although there is much more that I could say and that would occupy 15 or 20 minutes more. In view of the arrangement, I will sit down.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The Secretary of State for Scotland stated that the number of herring thrown back into the sea amounted to only 1 per cent. He knows that this matter has been pursued for years in this House, in season and out of season. On his own statement, the

  2493
  figure of the catch for 1936 was 285,000 tons; that means, again on his own statement that there were 2,850 tons thrown back into the sea. That means a tremendous loss of fish meals to the people. Reckoning at two herring to the pound, the number of herring destroyed in 1936 was 12,768,000. I want the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say a word on this matter when he replies.
  6.18 p.m.
  Sir Edmund Findlay: I am surprised that this Board can continue for another year with the task it was given, after the report it has made. It says that it was entrusted with the duty of restoring the industry, which was passing through a great crisis. It has done nothing whatsoever. This report states that it will do nothing to put the industry in a better position. In the Debate which we have had this afternoon I suggest we should have had the advantage of the presence of either the First Lord of the Admiralty or of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, because hon. Members know that, during the late War, 2,000 drifters were necessary for the Fleet. After the War, those drifters were eventually chartered. What will happen in the future? Do the Admiralty need drifters or do they not? Some Member of the Government ought to be in his place to-night to listen to the Debate, and to let us know whether they wish fishermen or whether they do not. It is a scandal that these men should have been led, to use a vulgarism, up the garden path for 10 years. They saved their country; they swept the seas of mines and they did all the Cinderella jobs which the Navy needed; and now nobody cares what happens to them. That is a point on which I would not like to divide the Committee, but it would be reasonable to ask for the adjournment of the Debate in order that a Member of the Government connected with Defence might be present to listen to it.
  Coming to the report, I will refer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) a few days ago as to whether the fishermen had lost confidence in the Board. The Minister replied that that was a matter of opinion, but he could give no answer. Every line in this report shows that the Board have lost confidence in the Scottish fishermen. A very serious alteration should be made. Hon. Members
  2494
  have only to read paragraph 25 which says:
  "Consequently an increase of output per unit of production is the one and only method from which material improvement can be expected."
  What was the action of the Board last year? To reduce the number of nets per boat. Does not that affect the catching power per boat? I ask the Government to come out into the open and admit that the steam drifter cannot possibly be an economic success unless it is allowed to fish with the maximum number of nets it can run. It is childish to suggest that you should decrease that number. The Government will not give public assistance or unemployment insurance, and yet they restrict the fishing power of the boats. Let the Government come out into the open and say that our markets are whatever they may be, that we can sell 10,000,000 cran of herring at such a price and can provide so many men with a decent living at that price, but do not let them put, as they have done before, restrictive boards in each port saying: "Cut your nets short so as to increase the price of herring." Let us catch as much herring as we can, and catch them with the fewest number of men so that each man in the industry can get a decent livelihood.
  The Government have had to admit, in regard to public assistance, when the girls who were gutting herring were not allowed unemployment insurance unless they got so many days' alternative employment, that employment does not exist. The Government have not admitted that herring fishing is a full-time employment, although no secondary employment exists. I strongly advise this Committee not to accept the report which, from first to last, suggests that the methods of our Scottish men must be changed. I can give a further quotation from paragraph 107:
  "The advantage taken of this scheme"—
  the reconditioning scheme—
  "was very small, probably because the English owners found themselves able to finance their repairs from their own resources."
  On the other hand:
  "The Scottish were, at the time, trying to persuade Ministers that financial assistance for the purpose should be provided by grants instead of by loans."

  2495
  This is the key note which shows me proof positive that the Herring Board are not interested in Scottish fishermen:
  "By the time a decision on this claim had been given, the season was too far advanced to enable repairs to be executed before the commencement of the fishing."
  Has the Minister ever suggested or given us any idea why the Herring Board were able to say that? I do not think he can do it, and I believe the Committee would be justified in dividing against the amount required to forward the interests of the Herring Board. I do not believe it is in the interests of the fishermen. I will not discuss the suggestion for pensions, because I may be considered biased, but they spent £55,000 on advertising. They say that their advertising will not be any good unless they increase that amount this year. I have seen no advertisement this year, and we are now at the end of July. I think the Minister might well explain this matter.
  Before the Vote is finally passed, let me remind hon. Members that one of the most difficult things with which the fishing industry in the North East of Scotland has to compete is the enormous rates they have to pay to keep their harbours going. Successive Governments have lent them money—I say, and I mean it, at exorbitant rates—to keep the harbours going, and the authorities are squeezing rates of 3s. 6d. or 3s. in the £ to repay those debts. If one of the Defence Ministers would tell me that the fishing industry is not of the least interest to the defence of this country, I would not mind going North and telling those people that they can never hope to get a further grant for their harbours. I hope we shall have an answer from the Minister putting some of these things right.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Law: I should not have ventured to intervene in this Debate but for the somewhat strong criticism which was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) of some of my worthy constituents. I hope very much that the Secretary of State will not pay too much attention to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend. He gave the Committee the idea that there was a widespread practice of adulterating a certain article of food—
  2496
  that the people in Hull and other ports were accustomed to dye herring instead of smoking them, in order to give the public the impression that they were ordinary smoked kippers. That, of course, is not the case at all. The dipping of herring is not an alternative to smoking. These herring are smoked as well as dipped. The reason why they are dipped is that, if they were smoked sufficiently long to give them the colour which the public demands, the richness and taste would be entirely dried out, and they would in fact be uneatable. My hon. and learned Friend is mistaken when he says that this dipping destroys the taste. If these herring were not dipped, but only smoked, they would in fact be entirely tasteless.
  Mr. Boothby: Why does my hon. Friend think that the public demand a particular colour? There is no reason to suppose that that is the case.
  Mr. Loftus: Is not the smoking period considerably shorter in the case of the dipped herring?
  Mr. Law: My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) asks me why I think the public demand herring of a certain colour. I do not profess to have an expert knowledge of what is in the public mind, but they certainly demand white bread, and this is pretty much on the same lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) suggests that, if the herring are dipped, they need not be smoked as long as they otherwise would be. That is just the point that I was trying to put to the Committee. If these herring were smoked sufficiently long to give them that colour, they would become perfectly tasteless and all the nourishment would go out of them. If my hon. Friend doubts that, I would refer him to the first report of the Sea Fish Commission, in which this subject was dealt with. The only alternative would be to prohibit not the colouring of these herring, but the kippering of this particular kind of herring, and that would create such a shortage that the price would go rocketing up so high that the demand would be killed, and probably it would never be possible to revive it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be very careful not to listen to the optimistic blandishments of the hon. Member for Camlachlie (Mr. Stephen), and that he

  2497
  will not pay too much attention to the violent attack made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire.
  There is one other point that I should like to put before the Committee. This afternoon there has been a great deal of criticism of the Herring Board, but, when one looks at the actual results which have been achieved since the Herring Board was set up, it does seem as though there has been a very distinct improvement. Looking at the figures for 1934 as compared with those for 1936, one sees a tremendous improvement. I only wish that there had been a similar improvement in the white fish industry. In the herring industry, which has such a Board, conditions have improved, though they may not have improved very far. The white fish industry has not had the advantage of the supervision of the Herring Board, and the position of the white fish industry to-day is very much worse than it was in 1936. That shows that there may be some advantages in control as compared with anarchy.
  6.36 p.m.
  Sir Douglas Thomson: A great deal of sympathy with the fishing industry has been expressed from all quarters of the House, and I would like to emphasise what has been said by many hon. Members with regard to the position, not only of the herring industry, but of the white fish industry. The white fish industry is absolutely destitute. These two branches of the industry hang together. I know that my right hon. Friend is in negotiation at the present time with regard to the steps to be taken in the case of the white fish industry, the position of which will be very serious if those steps are not taken rapidly. As the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) has said, in Aberdeen they lost £180,000 in 1936, and they cannot continue to bear a loss of that kind for more than a very short further period. Unless some statement is made—it cannot be made now until October—the industry will practically cease. The whole fishing industry is under a cloud—a financial cloud and also a cloud in the minds of the people. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) made rather a lame defence of the process of dyeing. 1 hope that some of his friends will come to Scotland and find out
  2498
  how it should be done. The whole of the white fishing fleet is in a very bad position. Large quantities of fish arrive from Bear Island. Whether they merit the description—
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Gordon Macdonald): I am afraid that on this Vote the white fish industry cannot be discussed.
  Sir D. Thomson: What is needed very urgently is a statement of policy from the Government, not only in regard to herring, but in regard to white fish, and my only point is that the two must go together. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) suggested that it would be a great advantage to recondition and renew a lot of the herring boats, but I cannot see that there is really much in that at the present time, because, unless money can be made out of the boats, there is no inducement to anyone to recondition or renew them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay) has pointed out, the position is a very serious one for the men in the industry. What inducement have they to go to sea at the present time, when masters, mates and senior people can only earn £2 10s. a week, out of which they have to buy their food? There is no possible inducement to either owners or men.
  The fishermen are in a far worse position than the oat growers. I am glad that the oat growers are receiving assistance, and I only wish that some of my hon. Friends here would turn their attention to the fishing industry as successfully as they have done in the case of oats. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen that there should be a separate Minister of Fisheries is one which I would ask the Committee to consider very seriously. The Minister of Agriculture has so much to do with agriculture that fishing comes a long way behind, while my right hon. Friend at the Scottish Office has also a multitude of claims upon his attention. If the hon. Member's suggestion were carried out, the fishermen and the fishing industry would feel that their interests were receiving attention. I am certain that the Secretary of State is doing everything that he can, but this industry, which in a time of prosperity is facing bankruptcy, surely merits special treatment.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think the whole Committee, and particularly those Members who represent fishing constituencies, are indebted to the Opposition for giving them the opportunity of discussing this Vote. I would like to express certain views which have been borne in upon me by my own experiences among the fishermen in East Fife, and, while we are all anxious to get on to the next subject, I trust that the Committee will give me their indulgence in intervening at this late hour. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), in a very interesting and somewhat challenging speech, urged the creation of a selling agency and the stiffening of the personnel of the Herring Board. He will agree that neither of these proposals is altogether original. He and I together—I remember my own contribution to that effort—were urging these very measures during the discussions on the formation of the Herring Board some years ago, and it was a considerable disappointment to me then that there was not incorporated in the charter of the Board the proposal of the Duncan Committee for an Export Selling Department. I would urge the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider that proposal. It is largely owing to the lack of that centralised selling organisation that we have so many troubles with overseas markets. With regard to the Board itself, one of the first speeches that I made in the House was a plea that the industry could only recover if it had at its centre men of first-class business ability. If they are impartial, so much the better. I am satisfied that such men are available and ready to serve as additional independent members of the Board, men of wide experience who would be an incalculable assistance to the industry.
  I do not suppose that many reports from an important Department of State have been received with such general indifference as this particular document has been, and I am bound to say that I agree very largely with the criticisms that have been made against it. It is one of the most dismal documents I have ever read. It is not only dismal; it is hopeless and, indeed misleading. I do not accept the conclusion which it draws about the future or even about the present; I reject utterly the underlying conception that there is no effective remedy
  2500
  for the troubles which afflict the industry at the present time: and I regard with great scepticism the comparison made of the returns of English and Scottish vessels. I could not help feeling, when I read the report, that whoever wrote it must have been badly in need of a holiday. Perhaps he was suffering from a fit of the blues. Whatever it is, I would urge him to go North, where the invigorating air will do him good. But I would advise him to travel incognito at the beginning, because I have an idea that his reception, not only at Peterhead but elsewhere too, might possibly be somewhat boisterous.
  He would discover a lot of interesting things. He would find certainly that the bulk of the herring boats are old, and many of them for practical purposes done. He would find, too, the extraordinary fact that something like half the herring fishermen in Scotland operate their vessels for less than six months of the year—a relic of pre-War prosperity which to me has always seemed quite incomprehensible, and which I believe accounts in very large measure for the depression in the industry there to-day. On the other hand, he would find more cheerful aspects. For instance, he would discover that, despite all the trouble, the love of independence is not yet dead among these fishermen. Individual enterprise is by no means at an end, and faith in the future is not at all dissipated. He would find that individual skippers and crews are still prosecuting a profitable trade; they certainly are on my part of the coast; others are busily engaged in building new vessels, and others again are venturing into new fields of catching and so on. In particular, I think the visitor would see proof positive that, as compared with the English boats, the Scottish drifters are not, as a class, the inefficient, ill-managed, stupidly run vessels that this report seems to suggest. The tables showing the respective catches and landings of the two types of boat are quite misleading. You cannot compare the net returns of the two types by trotting out only these statistics. For example, my information is that the English boats use more nets per boat. That, immediately increases their catch. There is no mention of that in the report. What, too, about Sunday landings? There is mention of week-end fishing, but I am not sure whether actual Sunday landings are taken into account. And there are other

  2501
  factors such as those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). When they are all taken into account, you still have not got the real test. The only effective test is that of net profit, and on that score the Scottish boats are not doing so very much worse than the English boats on the whole. I remember very well the Duncan Committee report on enormous debts and great financial difficulties among the English companies' boats. At one port the debt was £1,800 per vessel, and I know that was not a Scottish port. If the purpose of the comparison made in the present report has been to discredit the individualist character of the Scottish organisation, I think it has failed.
  I do not close my mind to the necessity for closer co-operation among herring fishermen—indeed I recognise its need in many directions—but I am not persuaded that any case has been made up for abandoning the independent personal character of the trade in our country. Different considerations arise when you pass from the production side to the disposal of the product, and I agree with a great deal that has been said on that matter to-day. Incidentally, I think some hon. Members have been a little hard on the Board with regard to the Russian contract. I do not think it is fair to lay the whole blame, or even the major part of it, at their door, for we know that the Board encountered great difficulties in obtaining agreement among the trade. Remember it has no power to sell over their heads: It has to get their consent for every contract, and they were exceedingly obstinate last year. The fact is that it was they, not the Board, who turned down the offer of purchase of 100,000 barrels from Russia. The Board failed to bring of the deal because of lack of unity and combined sense on the part of the trade itself, on the crucial matter of price.
  I am afraid that we are forgetting in this new age the first criterion of a prosperous herring industry, which is that the product must necessarily be sold cheap. It is quite hopeless to imagine that herring can be disposed of as a luxury product at a luxury price. That is nonsense. They can sell only as a very cheap article. The prices in my opinion are too high yet. They have got to be cut, and there is no where that I can see to cut them except in the cost
  2502
  of production. The most important element in the machine of production, or catching, is the vessel. It is stated in the Report that the vessels are old fashioned and out of date, and therefore over costly to run. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Herring Industry Board is so reluctant to recognise the obvious advantages of the motor type of vessel. There are some of these vessels in my constituency, and they are to be found in other ports. The owners of these new boats have figures to show which prove conclusively that the Diesel engine boat, at about half or one-third of the cost of a steam drifter, is able to provide much more money for the individual members of the crew. Why does not the Board adopt that system? Why cannot they make a big, bold advance, as an experiment if you like, in the building of Diesel engine boats? If that were done, you might cut down the cost of production and be able to sell herring at as low as 20s., or 15s., a cran, and we should win these foreign contracts, which are so desirable. Every other section of the shipping industry is doing it. Lloyds register yesterday announced the building last year of 1,500,000 tons of oil engine vessels. I beg my right hon. Friend to press that constructive suggestion upon the Board. It is essential to sell more herring, and it can only be done at a reduced price.
  6.53 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): My right hon. Friend has given an exhaustive analysis of the present position, and I think I should best meet the wishes of the Committee if I restricted myself closely to a few comments on the points that have been raised. I think the Committee would also wish me, in view of the important business that still lies before us, to be exceedingly short. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I do not enter into detailed replies to individual Members who have spaken.
  Mr. Boothby: I hope we are not going to carry this 10-minute rule too far. It is becoming absolutely farcical. No one is able to make a case from any part of the Committee, and now the Minister is making a reply. The whole thing should be brought to an end, but I think he should make a decent reply to the Debate.
  Mr. Johnston: Two Votes were put down to give all sorts of Members from Scotland an opportunity of stating their case. Hon. Members who desire to speak about housing yielded to the desire of the few Members who represent the herring fishery that herring should get a show on condition that the herring representatives would play the game.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he would not press it so far as to curtail, or to permit the Minister to curtail, the full reply to which we are entitled.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: The Minister certainly has to reply to a variety of points which have been put from all sides of the Committee. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that he ought to be given some latitude. We want a full reply. Further, I believe the Leader of the Opposition on this question should also receive a certain amount of latitude. It is folly to tie down those interested in this question to 10 or 15 minutes, because we want the case of Scotland stated as fully as that of any other part of the country.
  Mr. Wedderburn: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, and am anxious to do what will meet the convenience of most Members. There are a great many who wanted to have a Debate on housing, and we do not want to curtail that. Perhaps I shall be able to effect a compromise if I condense my answer into the shortest possible compass. Most hon. Members who have spoken have pointed out that the report does not produce a very great number of final conclusions. Practically all the speeches that have been made have been directed towards three lines of action, first, steps that can be taken to develop the home market, next, steps that may be taken to develop foreign markets, and, thirdly, what measures are necessary for assisting the re-organisation of the machinery of the herring industry itself. We are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) for the instructive character of his speech. He made one specific proposal about the home market, that the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society should, as he said it was prepared to do, purchase surpluses of herring catches so that, instead
  2504
  of the fish being dumped into the sea, they could distribute them at a cheap price, without any profit, to purchasers in the industrial districts. We are very grateful for any suggestion of this kind and the Board will most certainly be glad to avail themselves, if it should prove practicable, of the services of this or any other concern that can dispose of these surplus catches. I was asked by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) about figures. The figure that he gave, 285,000 tons, is the total of the United Kingdom catch, and that means about 5,800,000 cwts. The figure that my right hon. Friend gave was based on the total catch for Scotland, 2,700,000 cwts., of which 23,000 cwts. during 1936 had been returned to the sea. That is rather less than 1 per cent. of the total Scottish catch. Apart from that, elsewhere in Great Britain there was practically no herring thrown back into the sea. If you take the Great Britain catch as a whole the proportion is less than 0.5 per cent.
  Let me say a word about the general question of home consumption. The right hon. Gentleman opposite urged that we ought to try to find some means of bringing a greater quantity of herring to people in the industrial districts who need more food. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the nutritional value of herring.
  Sir E. Findlay: Has the hon. Gentleman made any suggestions to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence with regard to the food value of herring?
  Mr. Wedderburn: No, Sir, I do not think that the food value of herring is particularly a matter for the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I was saying that I agree about the nutritional value of herring and the desirability on that and other grounds of increasing our home consumption, and I am naturally very reluctant to say anything which might be interpreted as not wishing to encourage their consumption. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no useful purpose to be served by glossing over any difficulty or any fact which we do not like. On the contrary, the more readily we face these facts the more likely we are to discover how to overcome them. It is an undoubted fact that the herring among large sections of people in the industrial districts is not

  2505
  a popular article of diet. I remember rather more than a year ago that when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sir Godfrey Collins I had to take his place at a large educational conference and I took the opportunity of humbly suggesting that more should be done to encourage the cooking and eating of herring. I tried to give an eloquent account of the splendid quality of the men of our fishing fleet who were going through a very bad time. It was not a political meeting and there was no question of political controversy, but my remarks were received, I am sorry to say, with audible signs of dissent, and every speaker who followed severely criticised my suggestion that people should eat more herring.
  I do not know why herring are not more popular. I do not know enough about cooking, but I believe that cooking is one difficulty. They take a long time to cook, and also people do not think that they are good for children to eat because they have so many bones. If that is so, the best way of proceeding is to try to overcome that prejudice, and advertisement is one of the best ways of doing it. The right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) acknowledged the plea which is contained in the report, that although there was a slight decrease of home consumption last year compared with the year before, you cannot expect the effect of an advertising campaign to show itself and produce results in so short a period of time. The Board are to continue the advertising campaign for the current 12 months. They also point out with justice in their report that when supplies were short on account of the strikes which took place last year there were a great many complaints from fishmongers that they could not get the supplies they needed to satisfy their customers, and the Board seem inclined to think that the decline in consumption was largely accounted for by the fact that these two strikes occurred when herring were being caught in large quantities and fetching a good price. I hope that we shall all do our best to assist in removing any prejudice there is against the consumption of this fish, and in making to the Board any suggestion we can of attractive methods of advertisement.
  With regard to the foreign market, the right hon. Gentleman was also good enough to make constructive suggestions.
  2506
  He himself has been in touch with Russian trade representatives here, and I have no doubt that the Board will be very grateful for any assistance he can give them as intermediary or in any other way in enabling larger and more rapid contracts to be fixed. I am not sure he was right in thinking that the main thing was to do away with individualism and have a single selling organisation, because at the time when we sold most herring to Russia in 1911—something like 1,000,000 barrels; 10 times as much as in the best year since the War—there was no kind of collective organisation in Russia or Great Britain. We did not even have the Herring Board.
  On the subject of the reorganisation of the industry, the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) both asked that some assistance should be given for coal, and the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked also about oil. In the case of oil the position is exactly the same as with ocean-going ships. A vessel using oil is entitled to claim a rebate amounting to the whole of the tax. A good deal has been said on the question of reorganisation, whether you should proceed on the principle of leaving the industry in Scotland in the hands of large numbers of small owners or small groups of owners, or whether you should try to work out some amalgamation, either in the selling or the fishing side of the business, or both, and whether we in Scotland should approximate to the larger companies which prevail in England. My right hon. Friend began by saying that we had completely open minds on that particular point and that he would welcome any arguments which were put forward by hon. Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said, quite rightly, that we ought not to conclude from the comparative figures given in the report about the earnings of the Scottish and English boats that Scottish fishermen are all that much worse off. There are a great many countervailing factors. Scotsmen do not fish for such long periods or on Sundays and their expenses and overheads are smaller. Still, if we look at the net earnings alone we shall find on page 9 of the report that the average results for the East

  2507
  Anglian fishing in 1936 were for Scottish boats £447 and for English boats £1,272. The share of the crews in the Scottish boats was only £149 as against £477. I do not suggest that that represents a true picture, but I think that it is true on the whole to say that, while most of the English fishermen contrive to earn a reasonable wage, probably nearly half of the Scottish fishermen are not able to earn what anybody would regard as a living wage. There are undoubtedly great advantages in larger amalgamations which have greater financial resources behind them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), in a very interesting and useful speech, pointed out that the small amount of earnings in the Scottish boats was largely on account of the fact that fishermen who own their own tackle do not like to risk it when the weather is bad, whereas if the tackle
  is owned by somebody else and the loss does not fall on the fishermen, they will stay out and continue to fish in bad weather and save an enormous amount of time in going backwards and forwards so that their net earnings will be much greater. On the one hand, we shall all recognise that there are certain advantages in having larger organisations, while, on the other hand, I hope we shall all sympathise with the desire for independence which, I think, exists very strongly among the Scottish fishermen. If any plan is in future worked out for reorganising the industry on these lines, we shall all hope that it will be one which will preserve as much as possible the personal independence of the Scottish fishermen.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £34,900, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 164.

  Division No. 305.]

  AYES.

  [7.14 p.m.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Price, M. P.

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

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Ridley, G.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Riley, B.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hopkin, D.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Barr, J.

  Jagger, J.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Shinwell, E.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Silkin, L.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Chater, D.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Cove, W. G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Lathan, G.

  Stephen, C.

  Daggar, G.

  Lawson, J. J.

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

  Dalton, H.

  Leach, W.

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

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Leonard, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Thorne, W.

  Day, H.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Thurtle, E.

  Dobbie, W.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  MacLaren, A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Ede, J. C.

  Maclean, N.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Walker, J.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Foot, D. M.

  Marshall, F.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Frankel, D.

  Maxton, J.

  Westwood, J.

  Gallacher, W.

  Messer, F.

  White, H. Graham

  Gardner, B. W.

  Montague, F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Nathan, Colonel H. L.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Owen, Major G.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Paling, W.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Parker, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  Groves, T. E.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Hambro, A. V.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Brass, Sir W.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Harbord, A.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

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

  Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Remer, J. R.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Cary, R. A.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Rosbotham, Sir T.

  Channon, H.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Chorlton, A. E. L.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

  Hunter, T.

  Savery, Sir Servington

  Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

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

  Scott, Lord William

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Selley, H. R.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

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

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

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

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Crooke, J. S.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Levy, T.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Lewis, O.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Cross, R. H.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Spans, W. P.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

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

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  De Chair, S. S.

  Loftus, P. C.

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D

  Lyons, A. M.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Dodd, J. S.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Doland, G. F.

  MCorquodale, M. S.

  Train, Sir J.

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Macquisten, F. A.

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

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Markham, S. F.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Watt, G. S. H.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

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

  Furness, S. N.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Munro, P.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Withers, Sir J. J.

  Goldie, N. B.

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

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Peake, O.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Petherick, M.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grimston, R. V.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Mr. James Stuart and Captain Dugdale.

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. James Stuart (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,348,501, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland; including Grants, a Grant in Aid and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grant in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, Grants in Aid in respect of Benefits, etc., under the National Health Insurance Act; certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and other Services."
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Elliot: I understand that this Vote has been put down at the request of the Opposition for the purpose of hearing a report on housing and how far we are able to make a statement of progress since the last Debate. I very gladly take this opportunity of making a further statement. We have already had two Debates on housing this year, and this will be the third. It shows the intense interest of Scotland on the subject, and I heartily welcome that interest. Since our last Debate a month ago, it has become more and more obvious that the machine is overloaded. The Scottish building industry, of course, shows a very great output, but it is showing signs of a machine which is working under great strain. The output can be judged by the figures showing the value of the plans approved in the 10 largest burghs in Scotland, that is to

  2511
  say, covering half of the population of the country. The total value of the plans approved in the first five months of 1936 was £3,446,700, and for the first five months of 1937 it was £4,791,000. If one examines that increase in detail, the value of plans approved for dwelling houses has gone up from £1,844,000 to £2,237,000 which is about 21 per cent. Of course, a great deal of that rise is accounted for by an increase in building costs.
  On the other hand, the value of plans for factories and workshops has gone up from £158,000 to £574,000, or by 263 per cent. We do want more factories and new factories in Scotland. Nobody would seriously suggest that we should stop building factories. It is all the more a healthy sign since these factories do not include Government munition works, but factories and workshops for private enterprise of one kind or another in Scotland. Our country, whose industrial equipment is in some respects out of date, must welcome the appearance of new and up to date factories for the work of the country to be carried on. But labour engaged in factories and workshops cannot be used on housing, and I think that that is one of the reasons why we are not getting as many houses as we want.
  The problem is quite simple. There is, firstly, a shortage of men, and, secondly, to a smaller extent, there is a shortage of certain materials. Suggestions have been made that we should get rid of this along two lines. One line is the suggestion of control and the other is the suggestion of increasing supplies. From my point of view I frankly say that I prefer the method of increasing supplies. I do not think the methods of control will in fact secure what we have in mind, all the more so since, whenever we examine the suggestions for control, they nearly all come down to controlling the other fellow. Industrialists may be extremely anxious that the trade unions should be controlled, and the trade unions that the big business firms should be controlled. Men in Parliament may be extremely anxious that local authorities should be controlled, and local authorities that Parliament or the Minister should be controlled. We all desire that somebody else should be controlled, and I am sure that the danger of control would be the disappearance of the things we want, namely, the men and the
  2512
  materials which we wish to obtain for house building in Scotland.
  What are we doing to meet the situation? We have not been inactive since the subject was last debated. As I was able to inform the House on Tuesday, in answer to a question, we have recently been able to complete a most valuable agreement with the building industry in Scotland. It should have a far-reaching effect in housing progress because it provides machinery for the expansion of personnel, and also affords a ready means of discussing difficulties of organisation which may from time to time hamper progress. As the Committee will remember, it provides for a joint consultative committee being set up on which will serve representatives of the industry, both operatives and employers, and representatives of the Government Departments. We shall sit round the table and be able to raise and thrash out questions which might otherwise slow down the progress of housing. There will be no slowing down on account of our having correspondence with each other on the matter. I am convinced, after many years of experience, that if we once have separate committees writing letters to each other all progress is held up for several weeks and indeed for several months.
  The agreement deals with one very important point to which representatives of labour attach the very greatest importance, and that is the augmentation of the labour supply. The agreement provides for the relaxation of the present rules of the industry limiting the number of apprentices. The present proportion of apprentices is one for the first three journeymen and one for every four journeymen thereafter. That is to be increased by allowing apprentices to be engaged where necessary for additional labour at the rate of one apprentice for every three journeymen as a flat rate. That provision is coupled with proposals for overtime and for the referring of overtime to committees which can authorise it. Neither employers nor operatives regard overtime as a sound arrangement, but they have agreed that applications for the working of overtime shall receive sympathetic consideration, especially in view of their recognition of the necessity for securing better progress with the building of houses. The agreement starts off by a recognition of the fact that the present problem of housing in Scotland

  2513
  is one of urgency, and I attach more importance to that than to some of the other clauses in the agreement.
  I recognise the difficulty of the operatives in agreeing to increase the labour supply when there is stringency in the supply of bricks. Some local authorities have even decided to postpone further building. The increase in personnel will be gradual. It depends upon a close examination of the position in various districts. We are already taking steps to increase the supply of bricks, and that, together with the knowledge that the labour supply can be augmented, should have a steadying effect on the cost of house building. Much of the present increase in cost is due to the uncertainty in the minds of contractors as to their ability to complete contracts, and their uneasiness about the move in prices during the time that they are engaged on the contracts. The quicker we can get the houses built the finer will firms be able to quote, because with the production of houses spread over a year or two years, it would puzzle the wit of man to forecast the movement of prices of supplies for the next two years. I hope that we shall have results so that the local authorities' fears may also be removed. We want to steady prices as far as possible, and no doubt hon. Members opposite will have something to say on the subject.
  I should like to turn for a short time to a matter on which the House showed great interest in our last housing Debate, namely, rural housing. We are endeavouring to stimulate a greater growth of housing activities, following the publication of the report on rural housing. I hold in my hand a circular which was issued yesterday to all county councils, dealing with the recommendations in the report and dealing exhaustively with those recommendations that can be carried out administratively. I have done my utmost to accelerate the production of the circular, more particularly that it might be in the hands of hon. and right hon. Members for this Debate. I caused a copy to be posted to all the Scottish Members so that they would have it in their possession. I hope this will not be taken as a precedent, because I cannot undertake to post to hon. Members all the circulars that come from the
  2514
  Department. But in view of the special circumstances I thought that hon. Members would be glad to have this circular in their hands.
  It follows a meeting between officials of the Department of Health and representatives of the Association of County Councils. The association showed that they were most anxious to make progress and to co-operate with the Department in carrying out these administrative changes, and I should like to thank the representatives of the county councils for the helpful way in which they are approaching this problem, all the more so since some of the county councils felt a little sore about the terms of the report, and began by indicating that they wished to put in evidence to establish the fact that the strictures did not apply to them. I give full credit for the excellent work that some county councils have done. Take one example, East Lothian. East Lothian had certainly done a great deal of work and, naturally, they felt a little sore at the generalities in some of the statements in the report. At the same time none of us can deny that in general the picture given by the report brings out quite properly some of the very black spots in Scottish housing, and we all owe a great deal to any committee which fearlessly states its opinion, even if that opinion may be over-stated in certain respects.
  The Circular recommends in paragraph (1) a more adequate inspection of rural houses, and in paragraph (2) special surveys of houses for farm servants and crofters. Paragraph (3) deals with the annual inspection of one-fifth of the houses under a rental of £26 5s. in rural areas. Paragraph (4) deals with the engagement of adequate staffs to carry out these inspections. Paragraph (5) and the Appendix gives the standard of fitness, and on the back of the Circular is printed a model form. We have drawn up a new form of annual report to the Department, which is to be issued shortly. Paragraph (6) states that there will be sample inspections by the Department, in which we hope to act as colleagues, and not as critics of the inspections carried out by the local authorities. I am sure that it will be to the advantage of the local authorities to have assistance from the central Department in bringing about a uniform

  2515
  standard throughout the country. Paragraph (8) makes provision as to a survey of crofters' houses, in co-operation with the Highland county councils. Paragraph (9) deals with the demolition of unfit houses, and paragraph (10) with the improvement of defective houses and a new use of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. Paragraphs (11) to (15) deal with a review of the procedure under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, and paragraph (16) deals with the planning, design and lay-out of new houses, and expresses our hope that these will be an addition to and not a desecration of the beauty of the Scottish countryside.
  I hope very much that after this Circular we shall not be able with any justice to talk of waste of money under these Acts. I hope that the effect of the Circular will not be to delay housing by forms being sent from the council to the Department and back again from the Department to the council and therefore I have offered in the Circular to get into touch forthwith with the Association of County Councils with a view to expediting procedure and making sure that this accelerates and does not slow down the progress of rural housing. I hope that the Committee will agree that, as far as I can without legislation, I have implemented the pledge that I gave as soon as the Report on Rural Housing came out, that I would not regard it as a report to be pigeon-holed but as a report for action, and that action has been taken at the earliest possible moment.
  As regards the general position, we are taking emergency measures to deal with certain difficulties. I mentioned a month ago that the Commissioner for the Special Areas proposed to convene a meeting of local authorities in the Special Areas to consider the advisability of some auxiliary programme being carried out by a housing association, which would not lay any burden upon the rates of the local authorities concerned, but would offer an opportunity of trying out alternative methods under conditions more suitable than can be tried out in the ordinary building programmes of local authorities. That meeting was held on 12th July, and I am very glad to say that as a result the Commissioner feels certain of a sufficient degree of support from the local authorities to justify the promotion
  2516
  of the Association, and the necessary arrangements are now being made.
  Furthermore, I am able to announce that we have been successful in securing a chairman for the company. The chairman will be the present Commissioner for the Special Areas, Sir David Allan Hay. I should like to say that the present Commissioner has felt compelled, on account of pressure of business, to relinquish his appointment as Commissioner. When he accepted the post he made it clear that he could not promise to continue to serve after 31st March, 1937, when the Act expired, but with great public spirit, for which I wish to thank him, he agreed to remain in office until the preliminary work under the new Act could be set in train. It is with the greatest regret that the Government have now to accept his resignation. I think the Committee would like me to express to him the warm thanks of the Government for the invaluable work he has done as Commissioner. He undertook a very formidable task, and the manner in which he has discharged it has enhanced his already high reputation as a business man, possessed of great ability which he has always been ready to devote to the service of his country. He is continuing that service in an unpaid capacity as chairman of this special housing company, and I think that his experience as Commissioner will be of great assistance to us and to the Special Areas in the work which will have to be done.
  I am also in a position to announce the name of the new Commissioner, Lord Nigel Douglas Hamilton. It is very desirable that we should make use of our younger men, and although Lord Nigel is a young man, he is already well known for his public work both as a Commissioner of the Board of Control and as a member of the Corporation of Edinburgh, and in other spheres. I am sure that the Committee, and especially the Scottish Members, who know him and his work, will wish him well as a young man taking on a very difficult task and deserving the unanimous support of all of us, without any distinction of party. It is his desire as well as that of the Government that Sir David Allan Hay should take over the chairmanship of the new company. In that capacity he will come into contact with the problems that we are discussing to-night, in more ways than one.

  2517
  For instance, hon. Members for industrial Lanarkshire will know a little about the case of the Hamilton squatters. There, a considerable number of families occupied property which had been condemned and vacated by the tenants. The squatters numbered about 100 families, and they represented to the Department that their conditions were intolerable. The heads of the Department visited this property and were satisfied that the houses were, as one would expect, completely unfit for habitation. They had been compulsorily vacated, and hon. Members will know what that means in Scotland. They were occupied without any discipline or organisation by members of these families. There was serious danger of epidemic and general danger to the public health. The situation was scandalous, and, despite the fact that the squatters had illegally gone into these buildings and no doubt were themselves to blame for the position, we had to do something to deal with the problem as an emergency one.
  Through the good offices of the Commissioner I hope that a solution has been found. He has agreed to finance the Second Scottish Housing Company, which will be familiar to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy), in acquiring certain properties in Hamilton, old properties, and reconditioning them in order to make them suitable for occupation for a limited period. They cannot be made completely suitable for housing, but they will, I think, help us to put an end to this intolerable position. There was a meeting with the town council of Hamilton this week, when they agreed to co-operate, and accordingly the way is clear for the company to begin the work of reconditioning.
  An essential condition of this arrangement, which will not cost the town council anything, is that the town council should take all possible steps to prevent illegal occupation of condemned houses in the future, and to do this effectively the town council need the support of property owners to secure that evacuated property is not re-occupied. I should like to make a personal appeal to property owners to co-operate to the fullest extent with the town council. I want to make it abundantly clear that this action is taken to deal with the special difficulty in Hamilton and must not be regarded as lending any encouragement to the idea that any
  2518
  person can unlawfully occupy a condemned house and then expect to get a preference over other tenants for new houses. In some cases when you deal with one evil you bring in other evils worse than the one you are trying to remove, but I am sure hon. Members who are interested in these matters will realise the dangers of this course and will also realise that the scandal of the Hamilton squatters cannot be tolerated if our country is to hold up its head with any dignity at all and that some method had to be taken to deal with it. I hope this difficulty will not be followed by other and greater difficulties.
  In the present emergency we are examining possible alternative methods of construction. So far as labour is concerned, I have indicated the extent to which it will be possible to recruit new labour which can be absorbed in the industry, and any further acceleration of housebuilding must come from other methods of construction not yet explored. The main forms are houses of concrete construction and timber construction and the association which has been set up in the Special Areas will give an opportunity for experimenting in these new methods. In regard to wooden houses, we are in touch with representatives of certain special forms of construction.
  Let us have a look at the picture of the present housing situation and see whether we can form any estimate of the future course during the next six months. We have now the returns for the completion of houses in the first half of the year, which is the worst half, and for the purposes of the Debate I have asked local authorities how many houses they expect to finish in the second half of 1937. The number actually completed is 5,973. The houses which have yet to be completed are a matter of estimate. No one would like to tie himself to an iron-clad figure of how many houses will be finished by the end of the year. Anyone who has had the experience of trying to get into a house of his own knows the number of small incidents which are likely to arise to delay the final completion and occupation of the house, and, therefore, I give this figure with the utmost reserve. The estimate is 11,267, that is local authority houses, for the second half of 1937. If that is realised the total for the year will be 17,240 houses as against 16,044 for 1936.

  2519
  That is to say, there will be a slight increase over the figures for the previous year.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: Will these houses come under the 1935 Act or under the other Acts?
  Mr. Elliot: I cannot say. I am taking the gross output of the building trade. In many cases the local authority does not allocate the use of the houses until they are completed and they are deciding what tenants to put in. As to private enterprise 3,949 houses of five apartments and less were finished in the first half of 1937, and on that basis we estimate that the number of private enterprise houses of five apartments and less completed in 1937 may be about 8,500 as compared with 7,300 in 1936. There again, there is a slight increase over the previous year. We can now make a balance, which comes out at a rough total of some 25,000 houses of this size, that is to say, five apartments and less, the houses which are wanted to deal with the present situation. That, roughly speaking, is similar to the number completed in the last five years. In 1933 the number was 26,000, in 1934, 24,000, in 1935 25,000, in 1936 23,000—a very serious drop. In 1937, the estimate, which I give with the greatest reserve, is 25,000.
  Mr. Westwood: Is it not the fact that the houses to be completed in 1937 are houses for which the estimates were accepted by local authorities some time ago and before the big jump in prices? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what estimates have been accepted during the last three months as compared with the previous year?
  Mr. Elliot: The tenders for the houses which are now being completed were, of course, accepted a year or 18 months ago. As to the tenders which are now coming in, I cannot give figures for the last three months and I am coming to the next feature of the situation, which is the increasing lag between the number of houses approved and the number completed. I have taken out figures for 30th June, 1937. At that date 25,000 houses were under construction by local authorities and 13,000 contracted for. That is, there were 38,000 local authority houses on the stocks. We have completed them at the
  2520
  rate of 16,000 or 17,000 a year. That is not a desirable situation. It shows that the Scottish building industry has now on hand local authority work which cannot be accelerated by any increase in the subsidy, which cannot be in any way improved by any further financial terms being given, and we shall have this lag at the end of the next two years unless we can do something to accelerate progress. That is why I attach great importance to the building agreement I announced earlier and to other methods we can take of bringing in auxiliary teams to help us out of this difficult position.
  All these are symptoms, not only of the congestion in house building, but of increasing industrial activitiy. Hon. Members will agree that people are being drained away from housing activities to other activities. There are indications, which we all welcome, that industrial activity will increase, and that will increase the demands on building labour. About one-half of the bricklayers in Scotland are on local authority work, a much larger percentage than in England, and it means that that is the area of labour from which recruitment will inevitably flow for other building enterprises. I think it is important, therefore, that the plans which I have announced for labour augmentation and for local consultation should work smoothly and easily. It is suggested, quite rightly, that this joint consultative committee should be a moving committee, that it should not confine itself to sitting in Edinburgh hearing delegates and discussing matters, but should travel to areas where a shortage has taken place, meet the local representatives and do its best to clear up the situation. This will demand personal supervision if we are to get any real acceleration into building programmes in the immediate future.
  It is possible—I warn hon. Members—that things may get worse before they get better. We can all see a shortage of labour coming owing to industrial activities. It is an encouraging feature, and I am glad to be able to say, in talking about these problems, that the trouble arises from industrial activity in Scotland instead of arising from the depression. We are moving from a period of depression into a period of activity, and I am glad to have a different set of problems to grapple with from those with

  2521
  which my predecessors have had to grapple for so many years.
  Mr. Gallacher: We want to move out of slums.
  Mr. Elliot: We do; and we want to move out of a period of depression into a period of activity.
  Mr. Leonard: A period of explosions?
  Mr. Elliot: I made it clear that the factory figures I gave did not include Government munition factories, but were factories required by private enterprise in industrial activity which is very badly needed in Scotland. The increasing pressure on the building industry makes it absolutely necessary to plan our programme, and with that object I issued last week a circular to local authorities urging them to review their probable programmes for the next two years and try to plan, with adjoining authorities where necessary, so that the available supply of skilled labour shall be fully and continuously used without undue strain. I undertook that the Departments under my control should also be ready to assist individual authorities in planning their programmes. At the meeting with the Associations of Local Authorities it was agreed that a general order could not be applied over the whole country, but that joint consideration by departments and discussion with individual authorities would establish local orders of priority. I have done my best to review the problem before us and the progress which has been made during the last year. I hope the Committee will agree that we have not been asleep during that time. The whole of my administration and organisation has done its utmost to forward the rehousing of Scotland at as early a date as possible. There are obstacles in the way, but we are determined to carry through our housing policy as quickly as the obstacles will permit.
  7.59 P.m.
  Mr. T. Henderson: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
  The right hon. Gentleman is a little more optimistic than he was when discussing the question of the herring industry, but those who live in industrial areas are not quite so optimistic on this matter as the right hon. Gentleman. I agree
  2522
  that there are always conflicting interests and that industrials want some kind of special treatment. We object strongly, we think it is wrong for industrialists to combine to obtain a monopoly of essential commodities which will be beneficial to the welfare of the people. During the last two months I have heard in this House and outside a statement to the effect that the bricklayers' union has become a close corporation, and that by regulations and restrictions it has made it impossible for the supply to meet the demand by local authorities and other employers in the house-building line. For that reason, the bricklayers' union is condemned. Speaking as one who, for over 50 years, has been a member of a trade union which is part of the Building Trades Federation, I say that if that were true, then it would be our duty to condemn the bricklayers just as we condemn the industrialists. I appeal from this side of the Committee—and I hope the appeal will have some effect—to the bricklayers' union to ease down as much as it can the rules and restrictions that stand in the way of providing houses for the working classes. If the union's attitude is one that will prevent the working class from obtaining houses, which are the basis of good health, then it is more evil than the combination of industrialists. I hope an appeal from these benches will have some effect.
  I have had some experience of building estates in this country and I have noticed how, in my opinion, something more could be done in crises of this nature. After all, the new proposals and the appointment of a joint council will provide only a few apprentices, and it takes some time to learn the trade. My experience in the building industry has taught me that there is another source, and I intend to make some suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman. However, he said in his speech on 24th June that the negotiations for an arrangement with the bricklayers' union and other building trades were delicate and difficult, and I agree with him. If he will be good enough to have a conversation with me privately, I think I shall be able to satisfy him that there is another method, instead of the apprenticeship method, of helping along the building of houses for the working classes in Scotland.
  As I represent a Glasgow constituency, a city which is one of the blackest spots

  2523
  in Scotland from the point of view of the housing of the workers, I feel that I am entitled to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the position there. The Glasgow Corporation was determined to build houses, under a 10 years scheme which would persuade the building trade workers to come into the industry because of the long period of employment that would follow. The Corporation also thought that it would be able to get the Scottish Office and the right hon. Gentleman to be more generous in their treatment of the applications of the local authority for carrying through the scheme by direct labour. It is a peculiar thing that the working-class building scheme in the City of Glasgow is the only one in Scotland that has kept to scheduled time. Building has been continuous, and there has not been the slightest trouble. It is being carried through by direct labour, and so far it has been kept up to date. I am referring to the Bellahouston scheme.
  A great many schemes in Glasgow have been at a standstill because it was not possible to find men to do the work. The bricklayers are the people who are standing in the way, and if that difficulty could be overcome, the other difficulties would be met. In the case of plasterers, there are alternative methods of doing the work. I do not like those alternatives, but the working class must have houses. The position in Glasgow is exceptionally bad. A start was made with the 10 years plan. The Glasgow Corporation has the best intentions in the world, and was very anxious to build houses for the working class. It found that from May, 1936, to June, 1937, it was able to complete, not 7,000 houses as planned, but 2,025. From June of this year to the end of May, 1938, it proposes to build 4,935 houses. Sites have been prepared for approximately 18,000 houses.
  But the corporation is rather troubled. In his speech on 24th June, the right hon. Gentleman used a very unfortunate word. He spoke about the scramble for the £60. He said that of the £100 increase on each house,£40 went in wages and the increased price of materials, and that there was a scramble for £60. Hon. Members know that the Scottish people, theoretically at any rate, are very thrifty, and when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of a £60 scramble, there are "wigs on the green." People
  2524
  want to know where it goes. I am reminded of an old Scottish custom. When a Scottish couple gets married, a crowd of children gathers at the door, and calls out, "Hard up," expecting some money to be scattered for which they can scramble. According to the right hon. Gentleman, £60 is being poured out in this case. He does not know where it is going, and people are becoming anxious. There is a great deal of hilarity among the children when they scramble for the money, but there is no hilarity in the housing committees of the local authorities when they hear about the £60. It means that on the 4,953 houses that the Glasgow Corporation is undertaking, it is paying £297,180 to be scrambled for.
  Mr. Elliot: I do not think the hon. Member is doing me justice. Surely, I said that the scramble is being caused by the local authorities.
  Mr. Henderson: I beg to differ. They object to the increased price.
  Mr. Elliot: Exactly.
  Mr. Henderson: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to stop this increased price, because the working classes for whom the houses are to be provided are so poor that they cannot possibly afford to pay in rates the money that is to be scrambled for by the contractors. There is no merriment in the housing committees.
  Mr. Elliot: I wish the hon. Member would stop using that unfortunate word. There is no merriment going on anywhere about this matter.
  Mr. Henderson: I am not responsible for it. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible. He used the word "scramble."
  Mr. Elliot: When I use a word to describe a very serious situation—a word without a fraction of merriment in it—it seems to me arbitrary that anybody should take a reference to housing costs as being funny. I do not think it is funny; nor does any hon. Member on this side of the Committee.
  Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman described it as a scramble. I spoke of the merriment caused by an old Scottish custom, but there is no merriment caused in the housing committees by this particular scramble.
  Mr. Elliot: I agree.
  Mr. Henderson: What are the facts? On 4,953 houses, £60 a house represents a total of £297,180, and it means that 743 working-class houses will not be built. They will have gone in the scramble. That is a very serious thing. If one takes the 18,000 houses which the City of Glasgow Corporation intends to build, there are being wasted in the scramble no less than 3,748 working-class houses. That cannot be justified.
  Mr. Elliot: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Henderson: I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to do to stop that. I would like now to refer to the prices. Taking the figures of the Glasgow Corporation's costing department, from February, 1936, up to the present time the price of timber has increased by 40 per cent. or 50 per cent., lead by 33 per cent., bricks by 50 per cent., steel by 60 per cent., cast-iron goods by 80 per cent., and slates by 5 per cent. Another important material which is used in house-building is cement. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in the case of cement there is a monopoly, and that 94 per cent. of the total amount of cement produced in this country is produced under one federation of producers, and that they have increased their export trade every year. They are selling cement abroad at less than 30s. a ton and they are taking from the local authorities and other users of cement in this country no less than 40s. a ton. I would have no argument at all if the export trade did not pay them, but it does pay them substantial profits. Yet they charge 40s. a ton in the home market. Nor is that all for they make an excessive charge for transit.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into these prices. Is there no method of control? I know that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) tried to get something done in the Finance Bill to deal with this matter, but he did not succeed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to do something effective to stop any further increase, if he cannot get a reduction, in the price of building materials. Local authorities who, perhaps, have very poor communities, cannot be expected to go on spending more
  2526
  and more on materials, knowing that it means an increased burden of rates and that the rates are already too high for the working-class people who have to pay them. I would be obliged, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what steps, if any, he is prepared to take to remedy this evil.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Foot: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson). I have differed from the Secretary of State on a large number of questions but I am certain there is no one in this House more anxious than he is to raise the housing standards of Scotland and I was grateful to him for the speech which he made on this subject during the Adjournment Debate on 10th June last. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that bad as the housing conditions in rural Scotland may be, in the big cities where human beings are piled one on top of another in great tenements, there are conditions of sanitation which even the rural districts cannot equal. We have just heard something about the conditions in Glasgow. I wish to add that anyone who represents Dundee must also have the question of housing constantly in mind.
  In the last month, to give a typical experience, I visited two one-roomed houses in Dundee. The rooms were quite small and each room housed seven people—a father, mother and growing family in each case. These were not condemned houses and it was impossible in the ordinary way for the tenants to get any of the new houses which are being erected by the corporation. The only way in which that could be done would be by making an exchange with a family in a slum house who had become entitled to a house built under the 1930 Act. I understand that in Dundee there is no prospect of houses under the 1935 Act being immediately available for the relief of overcrowding and that they are not likely to be available for two or three years. The cases which I have mentioned are not extreme cases but are typical of a very large number and when one comes across such cases, where parents have growing families and are anxious to get better conditions not only for the sake of the increased comfort but for the sake of mere decency. It is very hard to have to have to tell them that no houses will

  2527
  be available for the relief of those conditions until a time when probably they will no longer be interested, because their families will have grown up and left home.
  My experience and I think it has also been the experience of my colleague in the representation of Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) is that in the last few years there has been a growing feeling there on the subject of housing. When I was first elected for Dundee in 1931 it was a comparatively rare event for people to make representations about their houses. Now I scarcely ever go there without hearing complaints from people about the conditions of their houses or about the general overcrowding. I think that is largely the result of the activity of the local authorities. The very fact that we have managed to produce a large number of houses, principally under the 1930 Act, has created greater discontent with their conditions among those who have been left behind in the older house property. Clearly there is a slowing up in the rate of housing. The right hon. Gentleman was able to give us a total figure of 25,000 houses which it was hoped to complete within a year but he warned us that that was only an estimate and that it was not possible to promise that all those houses would be ready for occupation at the end of the year.
  The figures in the report of the Department of Health show that there was last year an appreciable falling-off. For 1936 as compared with 1935 there was a drop from 25,392 to 23,372. In answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) the Secretary of State informed us that no fewer than 15 local authorities were postponing developments or wanted to reduce the number of houses which they originally proposed to build. The reasons are well-known and are clearly set out in the report. This is due to the rise in prices which, in turn, is partly due to the fact that local authorities are building larger houses, but still more is due to the rise in the price of building materials. Whatever the reason, nobody can dispute the fact that the cost is increasing. A good deal was said on the subject the other day at the Convention of Royal Burghs. The Commissioner for Brechin said that in the beginning of December, 1936, contracts were entered into for the erection of a certain number of houses at an average price
  2528
  of £409 per house. In January of this year another scheme was contracted for, the average price being £423 per house, and in the beginning of March this year in a third scheme the average cost per house amounted to £533. The Commissioner for Dundee said:
  "Our experience in building schemes recently has brought out a figure which shows that our latest contract has gone up by 23 per cent."
  I wrote to Dundee for confirmation of that figure and I am informed that during the present year the price of timber in Dundee has gone up by 70 per cent. and the price of bricks by 20 per cent. and the cost of houses—not comparing larger houses with smaller houses but comparing houses which are similar in every way—has increased during the last nine months by a percentage of between 23 and 25. Though the slowing up may be partly due to shortage of labour—and we are glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take steps to remedy that—it is due still more to the steady rise in prices which has been going on and which, as far as I can see, is likely to intensify during the next few months.
  The last speaker referred to the question of monopolies. I am not going to follow him into that, but if there is substance in what he said, I am sure that this House would never refuse to the right hon. Gentleman any powers that he might need to deal with inflated prices occasioned by monopolies in building materials. The point that I want to make is that when you have this steady rise in the price of building, the whole of the increased cost is thrown on to the shoulders of the local authorities. It would not be in order to suggest any amendment of the law in this Debate, but I think I should be in order in drawing attention to a resolution that was passed recently by the Convention of Royal Burghs, which reads:
  "That for the purpose of relieving overcrowding, the subsidy paid under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, is inadequate, and that it be remitted to the annual Conference to take all necessary steps with a view to securing an increased subsidy such as would enable local authorities to provide suitable houses at reasonable rents."
  I hope the Secretary of State has paid due regard to that resolution, It was, I think, rather unfortunate that the Government did not accept, a year or two ago,

  2529
  a suggestion that was put forward by those of us who sit in this part of the Committee for a more elastic housing subsidy. When we were dealing with the 1933 Act, the Act under which the Government reduced the housing subsidy from £9 to £3, we proposed that, instead of doing that, we should have a subsidy that would vary, according to different circumstances or the needs of different localities, between £3 and £9. I do not want to go back on the Debates that took place on that Bill and on the Bill of 1935, but I think we are justified in pointing out that it might be very useful at present if our suggestion had been adopted at that time.
  The Government have sought power under Section 30, Sub-section (2), of the Act of 1935 to provide a higher subsidy in respect of houses in a redevelopment area. Of course, there is a certain condition that has to be fulfilled. The cost has to be more than £10 per house for a period of 40 years. I am looking into this report to see what is being done about redevelopment areas, and I see that already two redevelopment schemes have been approved, and I understand that other authorities are considering similar schemes. Would it be too early for the Under-Secretary of State to tell us whether it will be possible, in the schemes that have already been approved, to use the power to give a higher subsidy for houses that are included in a redevelopment area? If that were done, if the machinery contained in that Sub-section were used, I think it might be a considerable encouragement to local authorities which have not yet adopted that part of the Act to consider using the machinery for redevelopment; and I hope it will be used, because I believe that it is along the lines contained in Section 30 of the 1935 Act that we may be able to deal most satisfactorily in the long run with housing conditions in many of our large cities.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Leonard: I did not really intend to take part in this housing discussion, but there has been through all the speeches such a continual recurrence of the questions of labour and costs that it occurred to me that it would be desirable to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State, and through him of the Department, to a part of the report that has been issued by the Scientific and Indus-
  2530
  trial Research Department. There is a part of that report dealing with building research, and as I put about half-a-dozen points on the last occasion on which I spoke, and none of them were answered, perhaps the Under-Secretary will pay attention to what I am saying to-night. This report makes reference to the large amount of stone that is at present in buildings being demolished and is capable of being re-used. My own personal observation in Glasgow and other cities leads me to believe that there is a very large number of old buildings built with stone which are now being demolished, and, as far as I can see, the material from them is only going to bottom roads. This report says:
  "With the more durable stones, there is good reason to think that, provided the weathered surfaces and a reasonable thickness of the underlying stone are rejected, the old stone, as regards durability, is as good as new. Examination of the stone from Waterloo Bridge showed that this applied in that case; equally specimens of Portland stone taken from St. Paul's Cathedral proved, on laboratory investigation, to be equivalent to the best of the quarry samples available except for the surface portions."
  It is well known that we have machinery at the present time with which we can resurface stone very speedily, and if it were possible expeditiously and economically to draw to a given centre much of that stone, it is possible that it would be in some small measure capable of reducing building costs at least in some parts of the country. According to the report of the Ministry of Labour, I notice that in the return for last month there are no fewer than 1,204 unemployed masons. Up to the present time no reference has been made in the Debate to any tradesmen other than bricklayers, who, I admit, in the main are required, and will be required, for all internal construction, but there is no, reason why, in Scotland especially, the stone of the type of building that has long been associated with that country should not be used to a greater extent than at the present time. I have taken part in discussions with masons themselves, and representatives of the masons in Scotland have been very insistent upon the assertion that building in stone, if attended to with proper regard to continuity of employment in this work, can be made to approximate, if not equal, costs in so far as brick itself is concerned. Therefore, I suggest that

  2531
  that line might not be lost sight of and that perhaps, in so far as costs are concerned and with regard to the essential conditions of labour, something may be done in that direction.
  I want to make only one other reference, which is also in regard to costs. I do not know whether or not the information is available, but in this report of the Ministry of Labour I have paid a little attention to the brickmaking industry. I have found that the total number of workpeople employed in making bricks was 12,391. The method of compilation of the statistics made me doubt whether that was the total of insured persons engaged in this employment, but I am informed by a Member who knows brickmaking reasonably well that that would be the total. I find that the number of workpeople in Scotland engaged on brickmaking is only 159. It appears to me that if Scottish requirements in bricks make it necessary to transport them from England, it will increase costs, and I am therefore wondering whether the Department has information at its disposal whether the potentialities for brickmaking in Scotland have been exhausted. If not, it might be possible to have brickfields situated close to desirable clay if it exists. It appears to me that only 159 out of 12,000 workpeople is a very small proportion so far as Scotland is concerned.
  I would like to make a reference to two points which I raised before. I have been advised by letter on one, but not on the other. In the Department's report there is a reference to home visitation and child welfare schemes, in which it is stated that the chief purpose of the visits is to enable the house visitor to advise the mother in matters affecting her own health, individual care, domestic hygiene and home management. I have endeavoured to get from the Department some indication of what they are doing to follow up the circular sent to all authorities in Scotland prior to the maternity Act being passed. The Department drew the attention of local authorities to the fact that domestic helps were essential if the new maternity machinery came into operation. There is no reason why we should spend money in sending visitors to homes in which childbirth is expected to give guidance with regard to
  2532
  home management when the person who has to manage the home and do the work is not capable of doing it. Therefore, I press again for an answer as to what is being done to urge local authorities to prepare for and supply domestic helps in order to attend homes of a working class character, especially in view of the fact that the personnel of midwives in the future will be different from what it was in the past, when they were able to give domestic help in addition to their other technical qualifications.
  I would like to ask the Department to pay attention, through the medium of their inspectors, to the question of maternity homes. This was a matter I endeavoured to bring to the attention of the Department before, but since then I have received, in the form of an answer to a question, details of the number of maternity homes registered and functioning in Scotland. Under the Maternity Homes Act it is possible for a maternity home to have only one qualified person, and that person may be the superintendent herself. All the other nurses associated with her may not be qualified. I am now informed that the total number of maternity homes registered by local authorities in February, 1937, is 146. The total number of nurses employed in the homes is 747. The number of nurses who neither have the Central Medical Board qualification nor are registered in the general part of the Registry of Nurses, number 107. That is to say, one in seven have no qualification or have inadequate qualification. While I admit that if they were spread out in the ratio of one to seven, there would not be much to say about the matter, I hope the inspector will examine the possibility of some maternity homes being run with the superintendent as the only qualified person. If there is not a proper proportion of qualified nurses, I hope the Department will take the matter up and endeavour to rectify it.
  8.41 p.m.
  Captain W. T. Shaw: I do not want to deal with the question of the housing, but with the question of general health. In the report of the Department of Health it is said that the people who are unemployed and the families of the unemployed do not suffer any more from malnutrition than the families of many people who are

  2533
  employed in the industrial belts of Scotland. I was surprised to read that, but man does not live by bread alone, and no doubt unemployment has a very deleterious effect on the general health of the people. I was interested to see from the report that men do not suffer so much as the women from unemployment. There is no getting away from the fact that unemployment is a primary cause of bad health, and we are anxious to see it removed. In the part of the country I represent, they are suffering from what I may describe as an Asiatic plague. It affects the small burghs in my constituency and it has been a very serious menace to the health of the City of Dundee, which is so well represented in this House. It takes the form of an uncontrolled flow of jute manufactures from Calcutta which is cutting into the employment of Dundee and the small burghs of my constituency. If the standard of health is to be maintained in that district, something should be done in the near future to restrict this importation. I hope that the Secretary of State will use his great influence to stir up the Government on this question so that something can be done in the near future.
  In a White Paper dated yesterday I was interested to see that the Secretary of State is using great pressure, and will use greater pressure, to get a move on to deal with housing conditions in the rural districts of Scotland. I think that that is very essential, for the housing conditions in many parts of rural Scotland are very unsatisfactory. I hope that this additional pressure which is indicated in this Paper may have that effect. It is well that it should be known that the proprietors, many of whom are suffering from shortage of finance, can get 90 per cent. of the money they have to spend to bring these working-class houses into a proper state of repair. I wish that this Paper had said what interest was to be charged to the landlord, and I should be pleased if the Under-Secretary could give me that information.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Westwood: As pointed out by the Secretary of State for Scotland, this is the third Debate we have had on housing, and we on this side of the Committee make no apology, despite what was said by the previous speaker, for having chosen housing on a second day given
  2534
  to Scottish Estimates. In reviewing what has been done since the last Debate the Secretary of State made special reference to the possibility of getting more houses by an augmentation of the supply of labour, the relaxation of the apprenticeship rule in the building industry and the working of overtime, and he also made a special reference to an auxuliary programme of housing. I shall try to deal with all those points, particularly from the administrative point of view, as it affects Scottish local authorities. What I am going to say has special reference to the work to be done in the auxiliary programme of housing. This, I understand, is to be concentrated upon the Special Areas, so as to enable them to carry through schemes which would not be carried through by the local authorities themselves. To make a success of even an attempt to deal with housing it will be necessary in some of these areas—because there are rural areas within Special Area districts—to do something respecting the problem of water supplies. In the last Debate I made special reference to the inadequate sum provided in the Estimates, a sum of £36,000, for assisting the provision of water supplies in rural areas, and I quoted from a memorial prepared by the Association of County Councils to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I will take a little of the time at my disposal in further quoting from that memorial.
  "Large sums from Government sources have been promised and are in course of being expended on water supply and drainage works in distressed areas in Scotland. That is effecting suitably the double purpose of providing labour for the unemployed and securing the execution of urgently necessary public works."
  The memorial went on:
  "Scottish areas which have not been scheduled as distressed areas may not have as many unemployed, but equally with the distressed areas they have their problems incidental to water supply and drainage which, without further Government aid, seem practically insoluble."
  The County Councils Association urge that the Secretary of State should take the question of water supply and drainage in rural areas into his serious consideration with a view to Government aid being made available towards the cost of suitable schemes in areas not scheduled as distressed areas. The fact that this year only £36,000 is provided, as against £70,000 last year, would in itself justify

  2535
  not only Members on this side but hon. Members opposite who represent rural areas, going into the Division Lobby to-night to protest against the inadequacy of that sum. Houses cannot be built unless there is an adequate water supply.
  We make no apology to the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw) for stressing the necessity for housing at every available opportunity, because we are convinced of the necessity for real eneregy and initiative in dealing with housing both in the rural and urban areas. If we did not know it from our own personal experience the report of the Department would justify our protest against the inaction of the Secretary of State for Scotland in some cases and the ineffectiveness of his action in other cases. I will quote from page 24 of the report of the Department of Health:
  "One common stair in a tenement gives access to 20 back-to-back houses, each of one apartment. Sixty-eight persons live in these 20 houses. Broken plaster, worn and uneven floors, woodwork round windows in disrepair, doors in need of repair, inadequate cupboards, no larder accommodation, recess bed spaces, bug infestation and dampness are found in all these cases."
  Let me quote from another report:
  "A four storey tenement contains 16 houses with access by a common entrance, thence by stairs to the flats above, and thence by common lobbies to the houses. The defects consist of broken wall paper, worn floors … and sagged ceilings. … One of the tenants complained that the bugs dropped into the food. The wife of another tenant gave birth to a child in a bed which the district nurse stated was literally moving with bugs."
  This is not a report of housing conditions in some foreign country. This is a report of housing conditions which exist in Scotland in the twentieth century, when we are said to belong to a Christian nation and said to be civilised.
  Mr. Guy: Do not those instances suggest inactivity on the part of the local authorities rather than of the Scottish Office?
  Mr. Westwood: I admit that in some cases it does, but these particular cases the places have in the main been controlled by men, and women sometimes, of the same political complexion as those who sit on the other side. Consequently, the responsibility must be borne by those who have had administrative opportunities and have not discharged them up to the present time.
  Sir Henry Fildes: Are they in Glasgow?
  Mr. Westwood: I cannot say where they are, because the report does not state the exact locality. I am quoting from the report of the Department. The shortage of building labour and the augmentation of that labour were referred to by the Secretary of State. Not only is there a shortage of labour, mainly of bricklayers, but the arrangements so far suggested have been altogether inadequate. There is also the problem dealt with by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson). There has been unjustifiable delay in dealing with internal disputes in the trade. On 27th April, I think it was, by a question I put in the House I gave notice, first, to the Secretary of State for Scotland and then, because the question was transferred, to the Ministry of Labour, of a dispute that was taking place between joiners and plasterers as to the fixing of a plaster board. I knew it was taking place, because I was connected with administration in Scotland. A strike was allowed to go on for almost five weeks, with housing held up in many parts of Scotland, because of the inaction either of the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Ministry of Labour. If a dispute was pending between two sections of the building industry and likely to affect housing, all speed should have been used by both the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Labour to bring the two sides together, and avoid at least five weeks of unnecessary loss of time in the building of working-class houses.
  The effect on the building of houses was even more serious than that. In many instances, men who were engaged on municipal housing were transferred to the building of cinemas and other classes of work. Speaking from practical experience of the administrative side of the matter, I can say that we actually lost eight or nine weeks of building time. As we were building at the rate of one house per day, we actually lost approximately 60 houses for the working class, in an area where houses are desperately needed. My complaint is not only that there is a shortage of labour but that there has been ineffectiveness in dealing with the labour problem to which I have referred. This is a dispute between sections of my own class, and I am not going to be any more critical of them than I would

  2537
  be in the case of a dispute between employers.
  Mr. Buchanan: The Trades Union Congress would have settled that dispute in five minutes.
  Mr. Westwood: It affected the class to which I belong and which are suffering, although it did not affect them, so far as one hour, or even one farthing of the cost of the building, was concerned.
  Now a word about the failure to deal with the rise in costs. We are now beginning to experience the tragic effect of the rise in the cost and the refusal on the part of the Government to provide an adequate subsidy. In the last Debate I submitted figures to prove that the costs, between estimates, with only a four months' interval, had increased by £48, £75 and £56 for three, four and five-apartment houses respectively. The Under-Secretary then told us that the rise was not general, but applied to certain areas, mainly the industrial areas of Scotland. Since then I have put questions to the Secretary of State and I have had replies which prove that we were not getting a statement of fact from the Under-Secretary. I do not mean that he consciously tried to mislead us but he did so unconsciously by the statement he made.
  What do we find? It is within the knowledge of the Committee, as a result of the questions which I put, that there are 20 authorities who have stopped building—15 was the number given but I can add five more. These include Tayport and others which have discussed the question of building and decided to stop, and St. Andrews, which accepted the advice of its medical officer of health not to go in for building these houses because of the rise in cost and the inadequate subsidy. Since that time, Fifeshire and Dunbartonshire have decided not to proceed, according to the reports in the Press. That makes 20 authorities that have had to stop building because of the increase in cost and the refusal of the Government to increase the subsidy.
  These authorities vary from a county like Kinross to an industrial county like Lanarkshire, or from the place like Fort-rose in the North to Stranraer in the South. We have also small places like Kinross and large areas like Lanarkshire.
  2538
  We have counties like Peebles and others who I have no doubt will decide not to proceed and counties like Fife which cannot proceed because of the rise in costs and refusal of the Government to increase the subsidy. My time is practically finished. I shall try loyally to abide by the 15-minutes rule. In conclusion, I want to comment that we are spending millions of pounds upon schools, the treatment of defectives, hospitals and general medical service. It was estimated by the Department that £19,500,000 was being spent per year upon health services in Scotland in the fight against disease. The necessity for that expenditure is intensified and magnified by the housing conditions of the people, as is proved by the report of the Department and by our own observers.
  I believe all parties in the House now admit that Scottish housing is a disgrace to civilisation and a blot upon the face of Scotland. I have not time to say all that I intended to say about it. The primary aim of a health policy should be to promote the fitness of the people, and that can best be done by ascertaining that every family is provided with a decent house at a rent that they can reasonably be expected to pay. Because the Government have miserably failed to deal with the rise in the cost of house-building and to provide adequately increased housing grants to assist local authorities to give effect to that aim, we shall take the only constitutional course open to us to-night of going into the Lobby to vote against the Government, and as a protest at their ineptitude in dealing with the first problem of the rise in costs and their refusal to provide adequate subsidies to enable us to complete our work of housing the working class of Scotland.
  9.3 P.m.
  Sir H. Fildes: I wish to raise one or two points that have arisen in the course of the Debate. The Mover of the Amendment referred to higher prices, and instanced cement. He pointed out that the export trade in cement was catered for at lower prices than our own market. That can be explained in a certain measure by the fact that cement in bulk is very heavy and that the freight charged to carry it abroad is also very heavy. There are tariffs to overcome in the export market. Those facts account in a measure for the difference between the export price

  2539
  of cement and the price for home consumption. I am surprised at the emphasis upon the increased cost. We were told that in some cases it would amount to £27, £40 or £45 per house, but a healthy community or corporation can borrow money at something like 3½ per cent. On £40, how much does the interest cost in a year? Only a comparatively few shillings, which will make very little effect upon the rent that has to be charged.
  Certainly materials have increased in price, but I have in my constituency lead mines that have been closed because the price of lead has dropped to something like or £7 or £8 a ton, an entirely uneconomic price, and, owing to the closing of these mines, between 100 and 200 people have been thrown out of work. I welcome the return of prices that will enable lead miners and others to get an economic return for their labour, and, when the total of these increases only represents a comparatively negligible amount reckoned as interest on the capital involved, I cannot see any reason why decent citizens should be denied housing owing to such a small difference in interest charges.
  I agree with everything that has been said here to-night about the dreadful conditions that obtain in many parts of Scotland. There are cases in my own constituency where the state of affairs is a positive disgrace. But what is it that is standing in the way? Everyone here to-night is talking as though it was an increase of £20 or £30 that was standing in the way, but I cannot subscribe to that idea. If it be the case, I would ask, where is the courage and the discernment of those authorities in Scotland who are responsible for the provision of houses for the people? In Dumfriesshire we have spent very large sums of money in providing ample supplies of water in the rural areas, but all this is to go for nothing, and, because of an increase of a few shillings in costs, people are to be continued in conditions which in many cases are disgraceful. If that be the case, it is a rebuke to the Scottish Office and a rebuke to all the burghs and county councils of Scotland that an increase of a few shillings is preventing and delaying the solution of a national problem. Sir Edward Younger, who, when his health was better, was one of the pioneers of housing in Scotland, struggled long and
  2540
  hard, and I had looked forward, in view of the promises which were made in regard to the housing programme, to seeing an inroad made on the dreadful conditions that obtain. We have done quite well in some areas, but others have failed most lamentably.
  I hope that all those here who are concerned with authorities responsible for housing will emphasise the fact that the increase in capital or interest charges is a very trivial thing. It is due partly to a rise in wages, a very proper thing, with which no one quarrels. The hon. Member who has just spoken told us of the lamentable instance in which two trade unions took seven or eight weeks to settle a dispute, and he suggested that the Minister of Labour should have sent someone down to settle a childish dispute between two responsible bodies of men. I think that that is ridiculous. There is another point. Trade union regulations might well be made more elastic. I do not know if hon. Members are aware of it, but it is a fact that it is against trade union regulations for one trade only so work overtime. It is a regulation that, when one trade is working overtime, all the trades on the job must be paid overtime. That is a rather surprising thing to me, and, indeed it is rather ridiculous—
  Mr. Davidson: While most of us regret internal disputes between trade unions on certain questions of demarcation, may I be allowed to point out that the reason for those disputes is not so much the actual piece of work that is being done at the time, but the fact that the allowing of the principle has been used in the past by employers for their own ends. A question of principle is involved.
  Sir H. Fildes: However that may be, we are informed that in this case housing was delayed for seven or eight weeks before a settlement was arrived at. I am not belittling the difficulties of trade union leaders in struggling to obtain and maintain reasonable rates of wages, but the hon. Member blamed the Government because the Ministry of Labour and the Scottish Office did not send down to a body of men who struggled and disputed and held up housing for six or seven weeks over some trivial matter which common sense would have settled

  2541
  in five minutes. I have in mind a case in which it was very important that some concrete floors should be put in speedily, and the men in that trade were asked to work overtime; but the trade union regulation was that all the other people who were working on the job must work overtime also, though there was nothing for them to do, and consequently overtime—
  The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid I cannot allow this to be developed, because the Government are not responsible for the trade unions.
  Sir H. Fildes: The question was raised on the other side, so perhaps I may be forgiven for having alluded to it. I conclude by saying that I believe it to be absolutely imperative that something should be done with regard to housing. I have heard no insuperable difficulty mentioned here to-night that need stand in the way of bringing about better housing conditions in Scotland. The increase in costs is negligle. Vast sums have been spent in various counties on the provision of better water supplies, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take his courage in both hands and, if the local authorities and county councils will not take steps to provide this very necessary accommodation, that he himself will take steps, either by legislation or under the powers which he already possesses, to see that these conditions are remedied.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I wish to put in a few words for my own little corner in Scotland, but, before doing so, I should like to register at least a mild protest that we are tied down to 15 minutes for the discussion of matters which affect thousands of people in Scotland. On the last occasion on which I had the privilege of addressing the Secretary of State for Scotland on the troubles and grievances of the Western Isles, I also had the major privilege of seeing him sound asleep on the bench opposite at about two o'clock in the morning. That was when we were discussing the Special Areas Amendment Bill. Unfortunately I got nothing whatever for the Western Isles out of that discussion. I am going to deal less at first with housing than with the more general question of health. One of the items in the
  2542
  Vote is the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, and I wish to draw attention to the difficulty of people in the more outlandish places who have to travel long distances to isolated cases. For the doctors and nurses of this Service, the highest praise is not too high. They are battling with a difficult problem in difficult places, very often in difficult weather, and I must pay a tribute to the very splendid service and work that they give. But I have to draw attention to some of the difficulties which prevent them giving the best service.
  One difficulty is transport. It has a very definite bearing upon the health of the communities in these places and it adds to the difficulty of serving the people as they should be served. I know of cases of a doctor having to hire a car from a village half an hour or an hour away from his home, having to travel a long distance to a landing place which is simply a cliff edge, then across by a ferry, which is not a very safe ferry, for a 10 minutes crossing to an island of Bernera in Lewis where he takes another car since there happens to be one on the island, and then has to travel more miles to get to the patient. Imagine a doctor or nurse called in the early hours of the morning in such circumstances. The Secretary of State must be aware of many such cases, but nothing has been done since he and his predecessors took office in the National Governments, to improve the lot of these doctors and nurses in the Western Isles. Obviously the equipment is not always there for the doctor and nurse to use, and often the patient has to be carried the same distance or further than the doctor travels. There are cases where they have to be carried from the far end of Harris (sometimes across hills) down to the roads, if you can call some of them roads, along to Stornoway, to get to the only hospitals which have proper equipment and accommodation. The question of roads cannot be over emphasised. It has to be raised also in connection with the passage of little children to and from school. I object to children having to go as much as three miles, in some cases more, to school in the winter time, sometimes drenched with the rain. The paths over which they have to walk are hardly more than cart tracks. Often they take short cuts over streams through barbed wire fences and things of that kind.

  2543
  Another development which would greatly assist doctors and nurses, whose work is difficult enough already, would be the extension and improvement of the telephone service in the islands. There is no reason why they should not have automatic exchanges. You may have the case of a nurse having to attend a patient in such a condition that she is not prepared to cope with it. She prefers to have a doctor, and she has to call up a local sub-postmaster at any hour of the night. We recently had a case where the postmaster refused to get up to go to the sub-office telephone. After two or three hours of pressure and persistence, his wife I believe, was finally persuaded to get out of bed and oblige the nurse in her difficulty by permitting her to telephone to Stornoway in order that a doctor might take an hour's journey to the patient. Nurses and doctors should not be dependent upon a telephone service of that kind. It is a matter into which the Secretary of State might well look. It is often difficult for us to divide the right hon. Gentleman into his eight or nine different capacities. He is much more than a Jekyll and Hyde. When we have to deal with health, transport, agriculture or fisheries we are up against the Secretary of State all the time. I sympathise with him, but we have to make this claim upon an eighth of the Secretary of State's attention on the question of improving the telephone service in order to assist the medical service and others.
  Another question that is fundamental to sanitation is that of water supply. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are rural areas which cannot raise sufficient money locally to pay for and maintain a water supply service. At the same time he knows that such services are fundamentally necessary to the health of the people. What is he going to do about it? It is no use saying it is impossible because the local people cannot pay for them. If they are fundamental necessities they have to be paid for by someone. The State has no right to neglect the problem any longer or to shelter itself behind committees that are "investigating the matter." I have been told several times that "the matter is under careful review." We are not asking for "careful reviews" any more. The Secretary of State knows the facts or should know them. We do not expect him to be the
  2544
  sort of genius who has "an infinite capacity for taking pains." It is only a matter of picking the brains of those who know all the facts. These things have been investigated time after time. The question of water supplies is fundamental and I appeal to him to get on with the job. We are dependent in many places on shallow supplies which it is complained are used by cattle as well as human beings; and some of them are not fit for cattle. People have to travel miles some times to get water and take it home in buckets. The water supply must be made plentiful, pure and within a reasonable distance of communities and I hope that the Secretary of State will give the matter his attention now instead of hiding behind inquiries or alleged inquiries. I often find it hard to believe these matters are under review at all.
  There is no such thing as communal sanitation in the Western Isles outside Stornoway and perhaps two other towns. That is a disgraceful thing to have to say about any part of Britain. We know that Secretaries of State have been in the habit of going on unofficial cruises to some of the islands in the summer time. They have a look round and it takes them about three days. I wish that I could do the Western Isles thoroughly in a period of three days. The Secretary of State may be able to do so. He does not give such quick results. There is need of decent roads and footpaths for small communities. The Secretary of State should also give his serious consideration to the development of the air service for ambulance purposes in the Western Isles. That should be encouraged. He should get into touch with the people responsible and try to encourage this development of an air medical service.
  We have some very bad housing in the Western Isles. There are still many houses of the old stone and thatch variety. In the old days the roof was more important in connection with fertilisation of the ground than as a roof. The soot from the fires in the middle of the house gathered in the thatch and was taken off and put on the land in order to fertilise it. One old gentleman was asked if he had a water supply in his house. He replied sarcastically "Yes, go and look at the house, you will see it coming through the roof." There are still in remoter parts hundreds of these

  2545
  houses, ill ventilated, dark and many of them insanitary. They are disappearing. however, to the lament of the sentimental. But a good many still stand; some lean and some are staggering in every sense of the word. They have had their day and this is not their day, and it is time the Secretary of State inquired into the problems of the people who are still left in these houses. Fortunately these houses are going out and we have now houses which have been built with Government assistance and others. You would expect that everybody would have rushed to secure one of these houses but, unfortunately, there are criticisms which must be made of these as well. I am prepared to sing their praises as far as sanitation, ventilation and so on are concerned, but there are criticisms which apply to them, too. First, there is a dreary uniformity.
  I heard a story of one old chap who tried six "different" houses in a village before he got the one he was looking for. They are exactly alike; no imagination has been shown and they have no architectural beauty. The lack of water supply applies in these new houses built with Government assistance to the specification of the Department of Agriculture. There is no lavatory, no thought of a bathroom and no internal water supply. It is a disgraceful thing that such houses should be built with Government assistance and yet have no proper water supply and sanitary conveniences.
  A year or two ago, the assessors of county councils in the north of Scotland suddenly discovered that it was possible to assess the tenants more highly than they had been assessed. In Lewis, at Sandwick Park, people who went into houses under an impression which was broadcast by the Government are now registered as owners and occupiers. But the Secretary of State knows that these people will never be owners of any of these properties. They cannot let their houses to any other person except virtually with the permission of the Secretary of State. These people will never be owners. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) agrees with me because he has the same complaint in his own constituency. I am surprised that we have heard nothing from Members from the Highlands, because it is a thing that is going on all over the Highlands.
  2546
  The Secretary of State has given me most unsatisfactory answers to questions on the assessment business. Last week he told me that he had nothing whatever to add to these answers. Are these county councils and their assessors in order and within their legal rights in raising at this time the assessments of these houses and assessing these people as owners and occupiers? If not, what action is to be taken by the Secretary of State? If they are within their legal rights, why have they neglected their duty in not having done this several years ago? Can it be wondered that we say that they appear to be breaking the law now or have been ignoring it in the past? We must really have some definite lines to go upon. Are the county councils within their rights in doing this now? If they are, I can understand it; but they must have been wrong in not doing it in the past. If they are wrong in doing it now, we demand that some action should be taken against them to redress this injustice. I do not want to pursue this question further, but it is a most important point, and it is a barrier and a discouragement to re-housing in the Islands of Scotland. Many people are threatening that, if these assessments are raised, they will go back to the old "black" houses. They are under bond and contract, and we know the difficulties there. But all the same, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that this is a discouraging thing. It is going on now and the Secretary of State for the Dominions will know perfectly well that it is going on in his constituency also, and I hope that he will fight it or endeavour, in his persuasive way, to get his right hon. Friend to do something about it.
  I should like to have some definite ruling on this matter, because decisions are conflicting, and some are bound, therefore, to be unjust. Nobody is certain of the position, and we want some definite rulings from the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate, or from both. I will not pursue the question further now. We know to-day, as I have proved in this House, that within the conditions and stipulations of the Minister of Labour under the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, the Islands of Scotland and a large part of the Highlands are a distressed area in every sense of the term; even within the stipulations which he himself has laid

  2547
  down, namely, the serious and long unemployment, and the failure of staple industries—we have proved all these things. They are reduced now—I do not say all parts, as some areas are still fairly prosperous—but the people are reduced, especially in the Islands, bluntly to the dole standard of living. Some are becoming reconciled to it, which is the most demoralising thing of all. We expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to be awake on this occasion. Last time I appealed to him he made it an occasion to be asleep when we were all awake. He has no excuse this time. Because the Islands, like himself, have been so inactive for so long, are they to continue for ever in that state? Is that the attitude? He is going to be surprised unless something is done by the agitation which will be produced, and which I will do all in my power to produce and which my hon. Friends can produce in this House, if necessary, to shame him to action. He should be surprised at the public indignation that will drive him from office unless he does something now or at least in the near future to mitigate the conditions in the Western Isles.
  9.39 P.m.
  Mr. Buchanan: I agree in the main with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), who in a very graphic way described many of the housing conditions in Scotland. There are many other issues which we could raise—education, health insurance, prisons, and the rest. When we consider the Scottish Estimates, which are the basis of about a score of very important matters, it is always very difficult to choose the particular subject for discussion.
  I wish to raise one or two smaller points regarding administration in Scotland, the first of which is the matter which I raised some years ago, and I now ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to look at it anew. As hon. Members well know, there is machinery for appeals in connection with widows' and old age contributory pensions. I have nothing to say against the inspectors of the Department of Health, most of whom I have found very decent and always ready to help. Frequently these appeals are disallowed by the Department of Health and they go to an arbitrator, who is generally the sheriff, as in the case of Lord
  2548
  Kinross and various others. When a widow applying for a widow's pension, goes before the sheriff we find that the Department of Health is represented by a legal gentleman who knows the Act from beginning to end, while the poor applicant is not represented in any way at all. It is hardly a fair battle, even at times when these people have some representation because the lawyer appearing for the Department, being constantly in attendance, has a unique knowledge of the Act. But it is much worse when widows, as I have seen them in the City of Glasgow and in the West of Scotland and in Lanarkshire, have no assistance at all. Frequently they are ill-equipped with knowledge, and they have to face a lawyer who has a tremendous capacity in dealing with these cases.
  It is time that the Scottish Department of Health at least considered the advisability of an applicant appealing for a pension before the Appeal Board having the right of legal representation. As the Lord Advocate knows, the practice in the Criminal Court is that each person is entitled to a form of legal assistance, and the appeal in respect of a widow's
  pension is no less important. At least a widow who is possibly in a defenceless state ought to have some right of legal and other assistance to help to equip her in the presentation of her case.
  The second point I wish to raise is in regard to the method of the Department of Health in dealing with appeals in connection with public assistance. I raised this point the last time I spoke, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will look at it again. I am coming across, not many, but a number of cases where sick persons, on becoming chargeable to the Poor Law have the amount of assistance actually reduced. It is not unfair to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at least to see that, when a man becomes sick, his already low standard of unemployment benefit should not be reduced. Under the regulations the cost of free meals is not chargeable as income; when local authorities supply children with meals at school they are not taken into account as part of the income, but in regard to the Poor Law they assess free meals as part of the income. The Scottish Department of Health ought to ask the local representatives throughout Scotland at least to bring themselves into line with the regulations that this House

  2549
  passed, and, in assessing Poor Law relief, the cost of meals to children ought to be exempted from income on that account. May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the persons who decide the cases of appeal? I have gone into a large number of these appeals and rarely, if ever, have I found the Department of Health interfering with the decision of the local authorities. I would like to be told exactly the persons who give the decisions in these cases and will the right hon. Gentleman tell me, further, in what way do they investigate the cases apart from the bald written statement made by the applicant making the appeal? I should be very grateful for a reply, because at the present time I am finding a very unsatisfactory position arising in regard to this matter.
  I should like to turn to the question of housing in my native city of Glasgow, with special reference to my own division. Last Tuesday I put a question with regard to housing in Glasgow. I am not going into the question whether the Glasgow Corporation are right or wrong, but I see before me poor people who are herded together in a way that would be a disgrace to beasts. Whether the fault rests with the city council or the Government, I know not, but whoever is to blame, there are the facts. It is a shocking state of affairs. I find from the reply to my question last Tuesday that over 1,700 houses in my division are condemned as unfit for human habitation. That figure relates to this year. In 12 months the number has only been reduced by 27. At that rate of progress poor people will be condemned to live in those houses for at least 50 years. At that rate at the end of 10 years there will be 270 fewer unfit houses, and at the end of 20 years, 540. If we reckon the average family at about five, it means that many thousands of people are living in these places. It is a shocking and indefensible state of things. I care not who is to blame, but what I am concerned about is that we are living in an age when no human being can defend such a state of things.
  I asked the right hon. Gentleman how many applications have been made for houses in Glasgow and the reply was that last year there were over 60,000 applications and this year there have been nearly 8,000 more people wanting
  2550
  houses. Far from there being a solution, the position is becoming worse. A year ago we were building 2,800 houses in Glasgow and this year almost a similar number. The figures are that on 30th June, 1936, there were under construction 2,437 houses for overcrowding and slum clearance and for ordinary purposes, without State assistance, 259, a total of 2,687. This year at the same period there were in course of construction for overcrowding and slum clearance 2,637 and under construction for ordinary purposes 202, a total of 2,839, as against 2,687 last year. There is practically no change.
  Mr. Maclean: Might the hon. Member not ask the Secretary of State to reconcile the figures that he gave to the hon. Member on that occasion and the figures he gave to the Committee earlier this evening?
  Mr. Buchanan: I am only taking the figures that are published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. T. Henderson: The fact is that the year for computation in Glasgow ended in June, and the Corporation say that they have prepared and under construction for this year 1937–38, 4,953 houses.
  Mr. Buchanan: The date given in the answer which I received is up to 30th June, which is after your date. The figures for under construction and not started show an increase. Every kind of house is included, with and without State assistance. There is an increase in those prepared for but not begun. Last year the figure was 1,416 and this year 2,080. Take my division alone. There are 1,700 houses unfit for human habitation. As regards overcrowding, the position is appalling. If I were selfish I should almost welcome some local authorities stopping building houses, because then one would expect there would be more available labour for other places. My division might then get a little more housing, but I hope the problem will not be solved by my place being played off against some other place. Each place requires human consideration.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us about an increase in building labour. I suppose that is all to the good, but is there no other way, without attacking trade union conditions and standards, to

  2551
  get at this problem? I cannot defend the present conditions. Who could defend six people living in a single apartment in my division? This sort of thing seems to go on for ever. In housing we seem to make little progress compared with the progress made in ordinary commercial building. I often wonder why in Scotland, when we are engaged in a fairly big housing scheme, that we do not use the tubular scaffolding which is so excellent in commercial building. It is easy to handle. Why is it that the bricklayer cannot be under cover? Could not something be done to enable the bricklayer to keep on with his work, without having to give up in wet weather? Surely, this is a problem that we could conquer. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) about stone. Why not adopt stone in order to give us something more in the nature of housing? Trade is a little better, and every time that trade improves the demand for houses becomes more clamant. Cannot something be done to ease this terribly growing problem in Glasgow and elsewhere? It is a matter which brooks no delay. It may be that the difficulties are great, but I am certain that in these days an enlightened community will not tolerate its continuance. It is costly in rates and in health, and I trust that the Secretary of State will turn his attention to it with as much capacity, understanding and courage as he can possibly put into it.
  We are often told that we must defend ourselves against a foreign invader, but I have often felt that people who are living under these conditions have very little to defend. If this is all that modern civilisation can provide for them, then I could not make an appeal to them to defend these terrible conditions. Most of our burdens have to be carried by these people. They have to join the Army and go into the trenches and fight. I doubt whether they come back to anything which is much better than the trenches. When they are in the trenches they only see other men suffer as well as themselves but when they come back to the slums of Glasgow they see not only men but women and children suffering. When children are brought into the world in such conditions as these we are condemning them from the first day of their birth to a shocking and disgraceful life. It is
  2552
  not fair to us, and it certainly is not fair to the children.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Guy: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) when he stresses the urgency and gravity of the housing problem in Scotland. In my own division in Edinburgh the conditions are very much the same as they are in Gorbals. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) rather suggested that the Secretary of State was not alive to the gravity of this problem, but the Committee will remember that shortly after he took office the right hon. Gentleman challenged local authorities and urged them to face the problem and accelerate their programmes. The local authorities gave two excuses, shortage of labour and shortage of certain materials, bricks and timber in particular. The Secretary of State with much ingenuity and earnestness has endeavoured to remove as rapidly as possible these two excuses behind which local authorities and urban areas have been definitely sheltering. So long as these two excuses remained unremoved local authorities would have slowed up their programmes. Therefore, I specially welcome the suggestion for alternative types of construction.
  It is said that there will be an inquiry and experiments by the new company under the direction of the Commissioner for the Special Areas in concrete and timber construction. I am not an expert in these matters. I understand that at the present moment there is a definite shortage in timber, but I do know that an experiment was made in concrete houses in Edinburgh in 1925, they were called the poured or corolite concrete houses. They were built at a time of a temporary shortage in bricks. I have seen these houses and have asked the tenants what they think of them from the point of view of warmth in winter and weather proofness, and the reports I have received which have been confirmed by the Department of Health, are that although the design may be rather ugly they are a perfectly satisfactory type. In my opinion the whole value of these houses, whether they are of concrete or timber or any other kind, is not that they would displace in normal times ordinary construction but that at the present moment, when there is a shortage of bricklayers and bricks, they would be a most valuable

  2553
  help to the programme which local authorities have in hand.
  The Secretary of State gave the estimated total of new houses to be built by local authorities in 1037 as 17,000. I doubt very much whether that total will be completed. If 15,000 or even 14,000 houses are completed, local authorities will be doing very well, but if they apply their energy to the alternative types of construction, to which the Secretary of State is urging them, I see no reason why in 12 months' time we should not have a total not of 14,000 but of 20,000 houses, and perhaps 25,000 houses. The hon. Member for Gorbals referred to the number of condemned houses in his division. In Edinburgh we have to total of condemned and overcrowded houses which, at the present rate of progress, will take 30 to 35 years to eliminate. Are we to accept that state of affairs? The Committee will agree that it may be impossible, in the present circumstances of shortage of labour and shortage of materials, to eliminate slums and overcrowded houses in the short space of some three or four years, but I see no reason why the problem should not be largely removed within five or 10 years. It is not a question of trying to allocate blame to local authorities or to the Department of Health or to any individual; it is rather a question of trying to get better cooperation between the central Department and local authorities. I believe local authorities are anxious to play their part if adequate facilities are given, and I hope the Secretary of State will continue to give them every encouragement in their efforts.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I want to try to get the Secretary of State to organise Scotland and to see that we get the houses which are required. I am perfectly satisfied. after all the years I have been here and all the speeches I have made to all manner of Governments, that every hon. Member is in favour of what we are asking. The conditions of housing in Scotland are a standing disgrace. Hon. Members opposite are moved by sympathy and by humanitarian ideas in this matter, but with us it is a question of stern reality. We were born and bred and lived in those terrible housing conditions. Some of us reared our families in those conditions, and we were glad to
  2554
  get away from them. Memory has a tendency to make fanatics of us all. With regard to the increase in the price of houses, my information is that in London a similar house has been increased in price by £80, and because of the increase house building is being stopped all over the country. That was the reply given just now by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Those who have been privileged to listen to the Debate to-night must understand from it the terrible conditions of housing that prevail in Scotland. The shortage of houses is absolutely appalling. With all due respect to every other constituency, there is in no part of the British Isles a constituency which compares with the Clydebank in overcrowding. In the Clydebank we cannot get houses built; everything is held up, largely because of the price. There is no shortage of skilled labour. There is no shortage of material. The material is being used elsewhere. I cannot agree that because the price has increased house-building must be stopped. Have we ever heard of the building of a battleship being stopped because the price of material had increased? Have we ever heard of the making of a gun being stopped because the price had increased? It is true that in a case of that kind the Government make inquiries and probably make a protest against the increase. They have done that time and again, but stop the programme—no, Sir! In no case has that been done.
  We are engaged in a most serious war against the housing conditions of our country. It is a real war. A shortage of houses is our real enemy. There is a shortage of places for the people to sleep in. We are told that the Government are determined, if necessary, to spend £1, 500,000,000 on Defence. But here is our real enemy. The Prime Minister is concerned—and I support him—about raising the physical standard of the people of the country. How can one raise the physical standard of children who have been brought up in circumstances such as are familiar to every hon. Member who comes from the West of Scotland—indeed to every hon. Member who comes from any big industrial centre in this country?
  Another feature which makes the problem more difficult is that during our life-

  2555
  time there has been produced a new race in this country. The standard of life in Great Britain has gone up by 100 per cent. Our people are better educated, they have increased wages, they dress better, they go to cinemas, picture galleries and museums, and all those things have a tendency to raise the standard of life of the people. We have done our utmost to raise the standard of life, and one of the results of its being raised has been to make people more conscious than were their fathers and mothers of the terrible conditions in which they live. Therefore, there is being bred discontent of a character which is a menace to the welfare of the country. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will bear that in mind.
  It is not as though we had not got positive proof that from a commercial point of view the building of houses for our people is a paying proposition. On the borders of my constituency there is the Knightswood housing scheme. There Glasgow has housed more people than there are in the town of Perth, and from the health point of view it has proved to be a commercial proposition. What could be more glorious than to spend money in order to wipe away the terrible picture portrayed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) tonight? We have the power to do that. There never were men and women more capable of dealing with the problems confronting them than are the men and women of to-day.
  They have taken people from the tenements to Knightswood—taken them out to nature—and the result has been a decrease in the death rate. It is true that epidemics may come to that part of Glasgow as to other parts, but because the children there have better sleeping accommodation and get fresh air, they are better able to resist them. The result is that it has paid Glasgow to undertake that scheme. As far as police are concerned, with a population as big as that of Perth, there is only one policeman. The Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of the conditions that prevail there at the moment. Surely, we could have a gigantic scheme of that nature throughout Scotland. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made some arrangement with the trade unions and with the building industry, employers as well as workmen. That is
  2556
  very good, but I beg him not to allow anything to stand in the way of a vast continuous programme of house building. Augustus Caesar boasted that he found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble. I believe that was an exaggeration, but I want the Secretary of State for Scotland to be able to boast, when he finishes, that he found Scotland a land of slums and left it a land of happy homes. If he does that, all Scotland will bless him.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Maclean: I was about to compliment the First Lord of the Admiralty on his extreme modesty. Instead of taking his usual seat on the Government Front Bench I noticed that he retired to the second bench and I though that was an indication both of his interest in Scottish matters and of his desire not to intrude in the Debate. The Secretary of State in his review of circumstances in Scotland, referred to a circular which he has issued and which purports, at all events, to deal with rural housing in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) criticised the work which has been done there and did so very effectively, but if anything is done as a result of this circular, I am sure that nobody will be better pleased than not only my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles, but also the Members for other constituencies, which are situated in the large towns.
  Since I first became a Member of this House I have seen the issue of many circulars on the subject of housing from both the English Ministry of Health and the Scottish Department of Health. We have had Circular after Circular, and Housing Act after Housing Act. We have had subsidies granted, subsidies reduced, subsidies abolished, subsidies reintroduced and subsidies increased. But with all these attempts by various Governments since 1918 the housing problem in this country has in my opinion, as far as the population living in the older parts of our towns is concerned, become accentuated. The position is worse now than it was in 1918. The Secretary of State says that there is a shortage of labour and he is trying to remedy that shortage by arranging for consultation between the employers, the employés and the Department, with a view to arranging for the introduction of more apprentices into certain trades in the building in-

  2557
  dustry. Does that mean that if the Government and the two other parties mainly interested come to an agreement for an increased number of apprentices in those trades, the people of Scotland will have to wait until those apprentices become journeymen and in their turn train other apprentices, and so on, before we get the housing accommodation which is required to-day? Optimism is always breathed by the representatives of the Government when they tell us at that Box about the intentions of the Government. Year after year report follows report, but the conditions of the people of the country have not improved in the degree which is necessary to keep pace with the advance of the world.
  The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke of the conditions in his area. The conditions in my area as regards the slum districts are just as bad. So are the conditions in Maryhill, in Clydebank, in Greenock and even in Edinburgh. Along the "Royal Mile" where their Majesties the King and Queen passed only a week ago, if you go down some of the closes and wynds and pends, you will find slums that are a disgrace to any country calling itself Christian or civilised. Year after year the same story has to be repeated from that Box. My constituency is probably not as bad as that of the hon. Member for Gorbals. When I came into this House in 1918 about two-thirds of the constituency of Govan, industrial as it was considered to be, was farmland—there were six or seven farms there—but all that land is now taken up by housing schemes undertaken by the Corporation of Glasgow. Gorbals is a closed area, with no open space that can be taken in for building extensions, and Maryhill and Tradeston are in practically the same condition. Members for those divisions and for divisions like them have to go down week after week into their constituencies and have their constituents coming to them and pleading with them to do everything they can to find them housing accommodation so that they can get cut of the horrible slums in which they are at present compelled to live.
  I wonder that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has Kelvingrove Park in his own constituency, and with two or three of the well-to-do houses in Sandy-ford, but also with a slum portion down
  2558
  in the dockland of Glasgow, with William Street, Piccadilly Street, and streets of that character in his division—I wonder that he comes to this House to hold out such high hopes of what the Circular that he read to us to-night will do for rural housing in Scotland. I wonder how he can be under the impression evidently that what he is arranging with regard to the committee between employers and employés in the building industry will solve the housing problem in his own division and in mine. He will waken with a rude shock from that very rosy-tinted dream that he is dreaming, and I hope he will do, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and put some vigour into this campaign. The hon. Member said, quite truly, that when you want to build a fleet you do not worry about the increased prices of the ships that are to be built, and you do not worry how prices go up when you want Government work done of any other sort.
  There is no real shortage of labour in the building industry. Go over any part of London to-day, and you will find huge skyscrapers of luxurious flats being built, rented at from £100 upwards. There is plenty of labour for them and for luxury cinemas, but there is not plenty of labour for workers' houses. The Government say they have a reconstruction policy. Had they not better commence with it? If there are too many workers in one area to suit the Government when they want Government work done, do they not transfer the workers from that area to the place where they want more of them? If that can be done in the case of Government work, if the Government can see to it that their work is not slowed down for lack of workers, why, in heaven's name, do they not do the same thing when it comes to building workers' houses and clearing out the slums?
  Mr. Gallacher: The Minister is asleep.
  Mr. Maclean: The Secretary of State for Scotland is never wider awake than when his eyes are closed. He is taking in all that is being said. If he will act on what is being said he will be more active. His eyes will then be open and his feet will come off the table. I want to appeal to him as the representative of the Government and as an individual, who in the past has been put forward by the Press and by Members of his party and by

  2559
  people in various walks of life as one of the live wires in the Cabinet, to justify that compliment and to put up a fight for Scottish housing. He will find that he has the Scottish people behind him in anything he demands and insists on being done, because even those who are in comfortable homes in Glasgow, Edinburgh and every part of Scotland desire to see every other individual in a comfortable home. They desire to see the slums wiped out of existence—and put out of existence in a different way from that in which they abolished slums in Dundee.
  I ask the Secretary of State what he intends to do. He was very generous to Scottish Members to-day. He sent us a Circular about rural housing and was quite enthusiastic about it. He explained it by running over the paragraphs and told us what it meant to the rural workers. We were, however, told the same thing about the industrial constituencies. In every Housing Act that has been passed by the House the same promises were held out to us. I hope that the Secretary of State, during the three months that he is away, during the period when he is going round the Western Isles in the fishery cruiser, will, with the fresh air about him and the breezes of the Western Isles, get some of the imagination that the Western Isles are supposed to bring to people, and will come back to the mainland determined that, with all the Acts and the powers that he possesses, he will do everything he can for housing. I hope that he will speed up the local authorities who are expected to destroy the shoddy building of a hundred years in the course of a few years. Let him come back and put some breeze into his housing programme and behind the local authorities exert some influence over the employers and employés in the building industry, and erect in Scotland houses for the people, comfortable homes in which a generation can arise that will not merely bless him, but will be his greatest monument to the work he has done as Secretary of State.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Wedderburn: I was certainly in agreement with the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Westwood) when he claimed that he need not apologise for raising yet one more Debate on the subject of Scottish housing. When a man is in good health his friends do not inquire after him very often, but
  2560
  if he is going through a serious illness they naturally desire to have frequent statements about his condition. So it is now with Scottish housing, which is going through a very critical period, and hon. Members are entitled to be kept constantly and well informed on the subject. When we last discussed this matter, on 24th June, we scarcely had time to deal with it as thoroughly as it deserved, and my right hon. Friend was not in a position to give the definite information which he had hoped to be able to give on that day on the results of the negotiations with the building industry which had then been proceeding for some six months. To-night hon. Gentlemen have again returned to the same charges and raised the same questions which we discussed three weeks ago. They have asked us what we are going to do to bring down the cost of building, what we are going to do to improve the supply of labour, to control the rise in the price of materials—to check all those factors which have caused this marked, and we hope temporary, increase in building costs in the industrial parts of Scotland. I think it is highly important that we should be well aware of those things which have caused this increase in the price of houses and I ask the Committee to allow me to give a thorough explanation of that rise.
  The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs said that I had misled him last month when I said that the rise in prices had not been uniform, but only applied to its greatest extent in certain places, and he quoted a number of authorities which had been prevented from proceeding with housing programmes on account of this rise in building costs. If I misled the hon. Gentleman it must have been because I expressed myself badly, because nothing which he said was inconsistent with what I intended to say, which was that the big rise in costs had only taken place in the industrial belt, in those counties running across the centre of Scotland where the greater part of our population is congregated. All those authorities which the hon. Member quoted this afternoon in Fife, in Peebles and elsewhere are, of course, in those areas in respect of which I did say that the increase in building costs had been most heavy.
  Mr. Westwood: Are Montrose and Stranraer in that area?
  Mr. Wedderburn: I think it is important that we should get a correct view, and I have had prepared a table of costs in various burghs and counties in different parts of Scotland showing the comparative increases in prices in respect of three-roomed houses between the first quarter of 1936, that is more than a year ago, and the second quarter of the present year, in which we are now. Some of them are very high, some of them are not so high. I take Annan Burgh in Dumfriesshire. The cost in the first quarter of 1936 was £404, and at the present time it has risen to £412. That is an increase of only £8, although, of course, the cost in 1936 was slightly above the average for that moment. Take the Burgh of Forfar; for the first quarter of 1936, the cost of a three-roomed house was £317. To-day it is £341; an increase of only £24.
  Mr. Westwood: Did the hon. Gentleman say that that was the Burgh of Falkirk?
  Mr. Wedderburn: No, Forfar. In Hawick in the county of Roxburghshire, a year ago the price of a three-roomed house was £318 and it is now £372, an increase of £54. In the County of Aberdeen, the price has risen from £422 to £457, an increase of £35. Let me take one or two larger increases. In Westlothian it has risen from £297 to £417, an increase of £120; in Glasgow, from £287 to £381, an increase of £94; in Johnstone a very big rise from £424 to £568, an increase of £144.
  Mr. Dunn: In order that we might properly understand this matter would the Under-Secretary tell us the superficial area of these houses instead of merely stating that they are three-roomed houses?
  Mr. Wedderburn: I have not the superficial area but the houses are all the same. They are local authority houses as approved by the Department of Health, and the area is slightly larger than the area of the corresponding houses in England. That is not the point; I am taking these figures simply to illustrate the diversity of the increases which have taken place.
  Mr. Mathers: Is the hon. Gentleman comparing like with like?
  Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, Sir. I have also the figures for the four-roomed
  2562
  houses, but I do not wish to delay the Committee by reading them. My only purpose is to illustrate their diversity, and the figures are widely different from each other, showing that the increase is lot uniform to all parts of Scotland.
  Mr. Maclean: Since the hon. Gentleman is not giving us all the figures, would he circulate them, so that Scottish Members may have them?
  Mr. Wedderburn: If they are of interest to any hon. Member I will certainly do so. I am not giving the figures for their own sake but to illustrate the argument which I am about to develop. The average increase for all parts of Scotland in respect of three-roomed houses, over the period I am taking, was £111. How much of that increase is due to a rise in the price of materials and wages? The Committee have already been informed that the average figure is, as nearly as it can be calculated, £40. In those parts of Scotland and in nearly the whole of England where there is not great congestion of building work, the cost of houses on the average has increased by approximately £40 or £50, just about the amount of the increase in the price of labour and of materials, while in those parts of Scotland where there is congestion and this terrible pressure upon the work of the industry, the average cost of a three-roomed house has risen over £100, so that we have a difference of more than £60 to account for.
  First of all, comes the cost of materials. Some hon. Members have quoted figures which they have obtained from various sources suggesting that these increases are higher than they ought to be. In a period when we are recovering from deep industrial depression, it is natural and normal that there should be some increase in the price of commodities and in the amount of wages. An hon. Member mentioned timber. The price of timber, of course, since about 1929 or 1930 has been depressed to an altogether abnormal extent, and the rise which has taken place in the price of timber, although on a percentage basis it seems high, has not yet brought it back to the level at which it stood before 1929. We are, of course, keeping a very close watch on the prices of these materials, and I am not going into the merits of all of them, but am merely putting the

  2563
  general point that, at a period like this, it is natural to expect some rise in the price of commodities and some rise in the cost of wages. As I have already explained, in England and in those parts of Scotland where there is not heavy pressure on the building industry, the cost of housing has only increased by the amount which is due to this rise in the price of materials and wages, that is to say, about £40 or £50.
  Before I pass from materials and wages to the remainder, which is by far the more important part that we have to consider, I want to refer to the observation of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) about bricks. He gave some figures of the number of workmen employed in brickworks in Scotland. I have not with me any information on that point, and I cannot make any comment about the hon. Member's figures of the number of men engaged in the manufacture of bricks in Scotland or in England; but I have for some time been closely concerned with the production of bricks, and I can give the hon. Member the figures for the total production of bricks in Scotland. Last year we could produce, I think, about 550,000,000 bricks in Scotland alone. This summer we were rather concerned about the shortage of bricks, and we had a conference with brick manufacturers on 7th June. representing to them the need for greatly increasing their output. We found that a large number of new brickworks are being erected and old ones extended, and it is estimated that by the end of the present year the output in Scotland alone will have increased by a further 80,000,000 bricks, which will be sufficient to prevent any shortage in the meantime. We have represented to the brick manufacturers that next year, when we hope we shall have got more labour and when there will be more building in various kinds of categories, that quantity will not be sufficient, and that we think there ought to be a further increase of production next year; but so far as we are aware there is no danger of our having to import any more bricks from England, and I do not think that, so far as we can see at present, the shortage in Scotland is likely to be acute.
  I come now to by far the most important part of this rise in building prices
  2564
  which we are considering—not the £40 which is due to the rise in the price of materials and to increased wages, but the remaining £60 or £70 which is not accounted for by either of these two factors. Obviously there must be some local reason for it, because there is no difference in the organisation of labour and of capital between, let us say, Forfar and Kirkcaldy, or between London and Glasgow, which would account for so great a disparity. There must be some peculiar local reason which has caused this exceptional rise in the Scottish industrial districts, and I do not think we need go very far to seek it. Suppose that a building firm is offered a new contract. Suppose that the price of building has gone up by £40. Suppose that the firm will be able to execute the work in six months with a sufficient supply of labour. There is then no reason, of course, why the firm should quote a higher increase than But suppose that the firm knows that it will not be able to get sufficient labour to complete the contract in six months. Suppose that it knows that the contract will probably take 18 months or two years, during which time its overhead costs will be maintained at the same level. That will naturally increase the charge very much, and, added to that, there is the uncertainty of what may happen to prices in the meantime. When you have building firms which cannot even compete with the work that they have in hand at the moment and, beyond that, have a large number of houses which they have contracted to carry out at a certain price but have not begun, when they are now asked to undertake still further work, it is not astonishing that they are quoting prices which will cover the risk of taking a very long time to complete or failing to carry out their contract.
  Mr. Westwood: Am I to understand that the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the vocal authorities are not to proceed any further with taking any estimates for any of their other schemes because of the schemes already in hand?
  Mr. Wedderburn: No, I am merely dealing at the moment with the reasons for this large increase in price and, when we remember the figures that my right hon. Friend has given, I do not think

  2565
  we can be surprised. There are 25,000 houses now under construction but not yet completed and 13,000 houses contracted for at a price already fixed but not yet begun. That is far more than we have ever had before, but it is not for that reason a matter for satisfaction, because it is due not to a greater amount of building but to slower building. What it means is that, at the present rate of building, these 25,000 houses now being constructed, and the further 13,000 which have not yet been begun though the contracts have been signed, will take another 24 months from now to build unless our rate of building can be accelerated. In these circumstances can we wonder, the building trade in industrial parts of Scotland being overburdened like this, knowing that anything further that is undertaken may never be completed at all, or at least that any further contracts may take years to finish, not knowing what will happen to their costs, that the price of building should have risen by some £60 or £70 per house above the figure that we ought to expect from the rise in price of materials?
  Mr. Gallacher: It is a terrible argument that the hon. Gentleman is using. The worse the service, the higher the cost.
  Mr. Wedderburn: I do not see the relevance of the interruption.
  Mr. Gallacher: You say that, if houses can be built in six months, that is good service. If they cannot be built for 18 months, which is bad service, the builder is entitled to another £70.
  Mr. Wedderburn: If you begin them now and finish them in six months it costs less than if you begin now and cannot finish them for two years. The hon. Member has misunderstood the argument. What I wished to establish first was the reason for this increase in cost. What we now have to consider is the remedy. How are we to deal with that shortage? It is obvious that an increased subsidy would do nothing whatever to accelerate the completion of the 25,000 houses now under construction or to hasten the commencement of the 13,000 contracted for but not yet begun. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) spoke of alternative methods of construction. We are certainly anxious to pursue any alternative method which may hold out hope of being useful, but at present I should certainly not be justified in telling
  2566
  the Committee that any alternative method of construction that we are at present examining is likely to be anything more than a mitigation of our difficulties. It certainly will not remove them altogether. It has also been suggested that we might put a prohibition on luxury building so as to release a larger amount of labour for the essential work of slum clearance. That is a thing which, if we had to do it, we should only do with great reluctance. Hon. Gentlemen may remember that the Government in 1921, when a similar difficulty existed, gave power to the local authorities to stop luxury building. That power was never used. There was never any case in which a local authority thought it right and justified to make use of that power.
  Mr. Buchanan: Glasgow Corporation did it. They were turned down and appealed to the sheriff.
  Mr. Wedderburn: Anyhow, it was never put into force. When you have a general expansion of commerce and housing there is a great deal of other building beside housing which must be done. When you have a slum clearance scheme you have to build new schools for the children. Why should you not build a new cinema for their entertainment? I think the public would regard it as rather a poor solution if at a time when we still had more than 200,000 persons unemployed in Scotland we were to attempt to deal with the problem by cutting down the amount of available work.
  At the same time, a certain balance must be preserved. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) told us that while there were big housing schemes under construction in his constituency with only four of five bricklayers employed on them he knew large cinemas which had a dozen or 15 workers employed on them. That could not be looked on by anybody as a right balance and it is the duty of all those concerned in the building industry and local authorities to keep a watch on that state of affairs.
  Mr. Davidson: And the Government.
  Mr. Wedderburn: Certainly, that goes without saying. We have now been conscious of this difficulty most acutely ever since November. My right hon. Friend has been applying his mind to it

  2567
  ever since then, and after studying it all these months I can see no other solution than that we have been pursuing—that is, to do all we can to get an increase in the available amount of labour. That is the root cause of all this difficulty. My right hon. Friend explained the agreement which has been reached to take on one apprentice to every three journeymen instead of one to every four journeymen in those areas where the necessity for additional labour is established. The question of whether the necessity does exist will be decided by the local committees of the joint building council. At the same time there is the agreement about overtime, which will mean a further increase in the amount of work which can be got through. It takes a long time to take on the necessary labour and train it. No one could expect to get everything we want at once and I do not think that this present increase will be sufficient to supply all we want next year. The trade has agreed to establish a Joint Consultative Committee which will constantly keep under review the need of the industry for more labour.
  I have purposely emphasised our difficulty because I am sure that when you are faced with a difficulty of this kind the right thing to do is to explain it frankly so that the country and particularly all those concerned in the work of housing may be able to see what is the best means of overcoming it. I have said nothing at all to-night about the progress which we have made in the last four years, because I think that the Committee are already well aware of the extent of that progress. If you compare our present rate of slum clearance with the rate for any year previous to 1933, it is exceedingly satisfactory, but if you compare it with the needs of our country, it is not at all satisfactory.
  Mr. Buchanan: That does not apply to Glasgow.
  Mr. Wedderburn: It might in terms of slum clearance, though perhaps not in regard to working-class houses in general. It is unsatisfactory because it is not sufficient to remove slums, let alone over-crowding, within a reasonable period of time. Hon. Members may recall that in 1933, when we began our slum clearance
  2568
  campaign, it was hoped that both in England and in Scotland slums would all be removed in five years, that is, by the end of 1938. Since then we have removed 43,000 slums in Scotland, a far higher rate—five or six times higher—than anything ever done before. Yet if you add on to those houses which are already scheduled as unfit, those which ought to be scheduled and would be scheduled if there was any immediate prospect of replacing them, the Department of Health estimate is that there are probably still another 50,000 houses to be removed, and we are now half way through 1937. I am speaking of slums alone, apart from overcrowding.
  Mr. Buchanan: You have only cleared 27 in my division in a year.
  Mr. Wedderburn: We certainly shall not remove them by the end of 1938. Shall we remove them in another five years after that? That entirely depends upon the additional provisions for increasing the supply of labour which we are able to make now. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) said a good deal about the building unions. I should like to say that we are grateful for the spirit in which the building unions have carried on these negotiations. I do not complain of the delay, although it is very often galling to us. The unions are bound to be very cautious in the interests of their own members and to examine very carefully the future prospects of employment in the industry, so that the future cessation of building may not throw the people out of work who are now being taken on. Although the constant delays which go on from time to time are often discouraging, neither my right hon. Friend nor I have ever thought of complaining, or would ever be justified in complaining of them.
  I would only say, not by any means to trade unions alone, but also to the employers and to everybody else concerned in the production of houses, that they should reflect that while these delays go on, or if any delay goes on in future in the working of the joint Consultative Committee, thousands of people in Scotland will have to go on living month after month in conditions of the most hideous squalor from which they can never escape. I am confident that if not only those engaged in the building trade, but the local authorities and ourselves

  2569
  bear that consideration in mind, we shall be able, without prejudice to the future prospects of employment in the building industry, to raise our rate of production to the height which is necessary to fulfil the needs of the country.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,348,401, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 170.

  Division No. 306.]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p.m.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Price, M. P.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hollins, A.

  Ridley, G.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Jagger, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Barr, J.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  John, W.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Shinwell, E.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Burke, W. A.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Chater, D.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Stephen, C.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirkwood, D.

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Lathan, G.

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

  Daggar, G.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dalton, H.

  Leach, W.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Leonard, W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Dobbie, W.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Walker, J.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Maclean, N.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Ede, J. C.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Maxton, J.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Frankel, D.

  Messer, F.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Gallacher, W.

  Montague, F.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Parker, J.

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  NOES.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

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

  Dodd, J. S.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Donner, P. W.

  Holmes, J. S.

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

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Dower, Major A. V. G.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Eastwood, J. F.

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

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Elliston, Capt. G. S

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

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

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

  Bull, B. B.

  Errington, E.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Butler, R. A.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Lewis, O.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Everard, W. L.

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Locker-Lampoon, Comdr. O. S.

  Channon, H.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

  Furness, S. N.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

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

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

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

  Gower, Sir R. V.

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

  Cox, H. B. T.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Grimston, R. V.

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

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.

  Cross, R. H.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Guy, J. C. M.

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

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Hannah, I. C.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Harbord, A.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Dawson, Sir P.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Munro, P.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

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

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Petherick, M.

  Savery, Sir Servington

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Scott, Lord William

  Watt, G. S. H.

  Pilkington, R.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Wise, A. R.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

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

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Remer, J. R.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Colonel Kerr.

  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. Blathers rose—
  It being after Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Shanklin and Ventnor Gas Company and the Sandown Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 22nd day of June and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Worksop Gas Company, which was presented on the 28th day of June and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Ormskirk District Gas Company, which was presented on the 29th day of June and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]
  The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

  SPAIN (BRITISH SHIPPING).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Stuart.]
  11.11 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: We have very few opportunities of going more into detail than we can do at Question Time on certain issues, and it is on a very important question that I wish to detain the House to-night, As hon. Members are aware, after the fall of Bilbao many refugees fled to Santander. On the way to Santander they were bombed and machine-gunned in the way that women and children have been bombed and machine-gunned in the war that is going on in Spain. When these women and children—non-combatants—arrived at Santander, they sought to be evacuated, and accordingly the Basque Government chartered or secured ships for the purposes of evacuating those non-combatants.
  The attitude that has been taken up by the Admiralty is this. They say that we are not entitled to send our warships into territorial waters; but the Government have always said that they are prepared to evacuate refugees. The Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said so on 22nd June and on 1st July, and they omitted any reference to territorial waters in their answers, and spoke of evacuating refugees in case of bombardments. On 1st July, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said:
  "His Majesty's naval authorities are being requested to provide naval protection for the "Habana" to proceed from Bordeaux to Santander."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 1st July, 1937; col. 2157, Vol. 325.]
  There is no question of any three-mile limit there. On 22nd June, the Prime Minister, when asked a question on this matter, said:
  "His Majesty's Government will be prepared to continue protection by British warships to ships carrying Basque women and children to France."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1937; col. 1025, Vol. 325.]

  2573
  He went on to give certain conditions to be fulfilled, those conditions referring to genuine non-combatancy. Lately that pledge appears to have been broken and the ships which have attempted to reach Santander have been interfered with. They are not attacked inside territorial waters. The First Lord of the Admiralty will correct me if I am wrong, but I am informed that no Spanish insurgent warships enter territorial waters, because if they do they come into danger from the shore batteries. There has been no evidence in any answer which we have had to the many questions that have been put to the First Lord that Spanish insurgent warships have ever been inside territorial waters. All they do is to lie outside territorial waters and have heavy-range guns to fire at our ships in territorial waters.
  Then the Admiralty take up this attitude. They say that what they mean by protecting our ships from attack on the high seas is that if either party is in territorial waters when one of our ships is in territorial waters, although she is attacked from the high seas—because they are attacked from the high seas—the Admiralty gives no orders to interfere. What has happened in the case of several ships—the "Molton" was one of them—is that an insurgent cruiser outside territorial waters, almost alongside of British ships, fires into territorial waters and when our ship comes out on to the high seas, having gone in empty to fetch refugees—having committed that offence—she has not the right to be protected by British warships. Not only so, but they do not even signal. In the case of the "Molton" I was told by the First Lord that they made no signal, and we have the shameful spectacle of ships engaged in a humanitarian enterprise not only not protected from attack on the high seas but led away and captured by rebels or pirates—because the attacking ships have no belligerent status—under the eyes of the British Fleet.
  That is the situation. It is not a question of Azana versus Franco. It is a question of sheer humanity. These refugees who are being evacuated may be Basques or they may belong to some other party, but they are being evacuated on grounds of humanity. There is no question of contraband. These ships are acting under charter for the sole purpose of evacuating these people. The First Lord made play with the fact that shots
  2574
  were fired across their bows. I do not know but perhaps some hon. Members who are sailors can tell me whether, at seven miles, it is an absolute certainty. that you are going to fire across the bows of a ship or whether, as in the case of the last ship the shots go through the rigging. In those circumstances the First Lord withholds protection and permits British ships to be captured and carried away on the high seas. At first, I thought there must be some mistake about this, and I persisted in my Supplementary Questions upon it; but now it appears to be the accepted policy of the Admiralty that these things should happen. I wish to hear the First Lord's reply, and I do not wish to indulge in rhetoric, though some of us feel very deeply about this matter. The First Lord is a travelled man. I wonder whether he has ever been to the stockyards of Chicago. There—within the territorial limits—he will see those dreadful areas of lime-washed avenues. At the entrances are men engaged in non-intervention. Their task is to see that none of the terrified creatures escape from the shambles.
  11.17 p.m.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have never been to the stockyards of Chicago, and if I were in Chicago I should certainly avoid such an unpleasant visit. Nor do I think anybody who attempted to interfere with the business going on there, unpleasant as it may be, and revolting as its appearance may be to those who go out of their way to study it, would be justified in so interfering. I think that part of the misapprehension and misunderstanding which has existed between the two sides of the House since this unfortunate business in Spain has been going on, arises from the fact that hon. Members opposite have refused to see the difference between a rebellion, a riot or a revolution and a civil war. It is very difficult to say where one stops and the other begins. It is very difficult in this country to say when spring ends and summer begins, but they are two different things. By every definition of civil war known to me, what is going on in Spain at the present time is civil war.
  The position of a foreign Power in regard to a civil war is far more difficult than it is with regard to an international

  2575
  war, because there are far fewer precedents and rules to go upon and, equally a division of opinion may arise in neutral countries as to which side is in the right and which is in the wrong. His Majesty's Government have, from the first, as far as this civil war in Spain is concerned, based themselves upon the principle of neutrality, or non-intervention. For myself, I see very little difference between the two words, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) condemned non-intervention in round terms, but insisted on neutrality as one alternative to it. However, I have not had the advantage of any information from him or anybody else as to the difference between the two terms. It is very difficult to apply this principle of neutrality or non-intervention. I am not going into the rights or wrongs of the dispute. It is not my business in my position to do so and it does not arise out of anything which the right hon. Gentleman has said. We are agreed, so far as this discussion is concerned, that we are trying to follow a policy of non-intervention or neutrality. The problem is, how are you to apply this principle to the very difficult situation now existing on the north coast of Spain? There you have certain towns in the possession of one side which are being attacked, beleagured, and besieged by another. We wish to maintain, so far as possible, the attitude in which we shall be held to assist militarily neither one side nor the other. It is difficult to draw the line between humanitarianism and military assistance. It is very easy, on the other hand, to make high-sounding speeches about the suffering that is going on in Spain, but everybody who studies the problem knows that it is not inflicted principally upon combatants but nearly always more on non-combatants, on the women and children. It is very easy to say that humanitarianism demands that we should feed women and children who are suffering, but when a town is beleagured, besieged, help given to a beleaguered garrison either in the way of importing food or in the way of diminishing the demand for food—and that is taking away the women and children—is military assistance.
  Let us beware of incurring the accusation, that is too often thrown at this country, of cant and humbug. When we say
  2576
  that it is a monstrous thing to starve women and children, we must remember, and let the right hon. Gentleman, who played a noble part in the late War for 41 years, remember, that we did everything in our power to starve the women and children of Germany, and if we had then been approached by the United States with a demand that we should allow food to go in to the population, on the ground of humanitarianism should we have refused so reasonable a request? Let the right hon. Gentleman put that question to himself.
  What is the role of the British Navy? We have taken a very definite line from the beginning of this controversy. We have said that we will protect British ships, ships flying the British flag, on the high seas. We have refused to recognise the right of any belligerents. We have recognised no belligerents. We have refused to recognise the right either of the Spanish Government or of the insurgent party to interfere with ships flying the British flag on the high seas, but we must draw the line somewhere, and we have drawn the line at territorial waters. From the point of view of sea power, it is very important that that line should be definite and understood, and that there should be no infringement of the principle which regards territorial waters as part of the country to which they belong. We say that, when ships go inside territorial waters, they forfeit the right to protection, in the same way that a private citizen, if he goes into Spain, does not expect, when he knows that there is a civil war being carried on, to be protected by the British Army.
  Unfortunately, tragically, many British subjects have lost their lives in this war. In normal circumstances, if a British subject were shot in Spain. we should ask what had happened to him, but in certain circumstances we know that people who have gone into Spain and have volunteered to take part in the civil war, have done so on their own risk, in support of their own principles, and knowing full well that they have forfeited the right to expect the great influence of the British Empire to be exercised on their behalf.
  Is there a great difference between a British subject who, because of his ideals, principles and beliefs, has gone into Spain and fought on one side or another,

  2577
  is there a great difference between those who have done that expecting no protection, and British ships which are chartered by the Basque Government and are paid large sums of money in order to go in and assist the Spanish Government in the war they are carrying on against the insurgents?
  Make no doubt about it, these ships, every one of them, are performing invaluable services to the Spanish Government. They are volunteers as much as any of those volunteers from Italy, Germany, Great Britain and France who are alleged to be fighting on either side. They are taking part in the war, and can they really expect that the British Navy will see them safe to harbour? If the British Navy agreed to do that, how could we know that their demands would end there? How could we know that they would not say, "We have arrived at harbour. We are being shelled from outside territorial waters while we are disembarking our cargo. Should that be interfered with? Are we not on the foreshore? In this country the foreshore belongs to nobody. It is no man's land, and we are entitled to protection of the British Navy while we are on the foreshore of Spain." Where is it to end? Are we to send an Army corps with them to see that their cargo reaches its destination?
  I cannot see any logic or any principle in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He says that it is an unpleasant position and has emphasised and drawn all the rhetorical and sentimental value he can out of the unpleasant position in which His Majesty's ships are put by being compelled to witness the capture of British ships in territorial waters. What is the alternative? What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest? That has always been the trouble with the Opposition on this subject. There can be no alternative that he can suggest—
  Mr. Benn: Common humanity.
  Mr. Cooper: That is the most useless suggestion I have ever heard. Common humanity in this case would mean firing on the Spanish ship, entering into the war, and risking the lives of British sailors for a cause which not one man in this country off those benches thinks worth
  2578
  fighting for. "Saving women and children" blurts the right hon. Member. The same demand might have been put up by some enthusiastic pro-German in the United States in the War, insisting on the United States carrying supplies to Germany, when we were blockading that country, and saving the women and children.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes.
  Mr. Cooper: The right hon. Member really wants us to enter into the war in Spain, to risk the lives of British sailors, for the cause of the Spanish Government, in order to help them to rid the beleaguered cities of some of the mouths which are waiting to be fed. It is easy to make demands on sentiment. It is so easy, when we know, as we all do, how fearful the sufferings are which are now being inflicted on the unhappy population of Spain; sufferings which are equally great upon both sides; sufferings which have been felt as much by those who are opposed to the Spanish Government as by those who are at present supporting it. It is easy to say to us "Why should not we do anything to help?" The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we cannot do anything to help them, we cannot adopt any different policy to that which we are adopting without engaging in a small form of war. And if we started what would be the reaction of the other countries? What would they say? I would remind him also, when he talks about English merchant ships, from purely humanitarian motives, running the blockade—these British ships which are being enormously paid by the Basque Government—that not a single merchantman has suffered a single casualty; whereas already the British Navy has suffered. British sailors have been killed in this ugly business. So long as I am in control of the Admiralty I am determined that not another British sailor shall fall in a cause that is not worth fighting for.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

DEFENCE.
  FLEET AIR ARM.
  FLEET AIR ARM.
  ARMS MANUFACTURE (NATIONALISATION).
  ARMS MANUFACTURE (NATIONALISATION).
  TIMBER PRODUCTION, WALES.
  TIMBER PRODUCTION, WALES.
  KING'S NATIONAL ROLL (SHADOW FACTORIES).
  KING'S NATIONAL ROLL (SHADOW FACTORIES).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FATALITIES, COMPENSATION).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FATALITIES, COMPENSATION).
  AVIATION (AIRPORT, NOTTINGHAM).
  AVIATION (AIRPORT, NOTTINGHAM).
  MATERNITY SERVICES, CARMARTHEN.
  MATERNITY SERVICES, CARMARTHEN.
  HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES (NURSING STAFFS).
  HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES (NURSING STAFFS).
  TUBERCULOSIS (STATISTICS).
  TUBERCULOSIS (STATISTICS).
  PARATYPHOLD FEVER, LIVERPOOL.
  PARATYPHOLD FEVER, LIVERPOOL.
  TYPHOID OUTBREAK, BOURNEMOUTH.
  TYPHOID OUTBREAK, BOURNEMOUTH.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  HOUSING ACT, 1935 (FLATS).
  HOUSING ACT, 1935 (FLATS).
  SCRAP IRON (COLLECTION).
  SCRAP IRON (COLLECTION).
  CIVIL SERVICE (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  CIVIL SERVICE (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  LIQUOR LICENCES.
  LIQUOR LICENCES.
  REGISTERED CLUBS (DUTY).
  REGISTERED CLUBS (DUTY).
  SPIRITS (MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS).
  SPIRITS (MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS).
  BOARD OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (STAFF).
  BOARD OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (STAFF).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.
  BREWERS (STATISTICS).
  BREWERS (STATISTICS).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.
  ROOFING SLATES (IMPORT DUTY).
  ROOFING SLATES (IMPORT DUTY).
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.
  ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.
  STEAMSHIP "BARRHILL (FIRE).
  STEAMSHIP "BARRHILL (FIRE).
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  JAPAN AND CHINA.
  JAPAN AND CHINA.
SCOTLAND.
  HERRING INDUSTRY.
  HERRING INDUSTRY.
  PRISONER'S SENTENCE (THOMAS RICHARDSON).
  PRISONER'S SENTENCE (THOMAS RICHARDSON).
  NEW INDUSTRIES, GREENOCK.
  NEW INDUSTRIES, GREENOCK.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
AGRICULTURE.
  SUGAR-BEET.
  SUGAR-BEET.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS (SALE).
  BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS (SALE).
  LAND DRAINAGE (WITHAM).
  LAND DRAINAGE (WITHAM).
  CATTLE FOODS (HERRING MEAL).
  CATTLE FOODS (HERRING MEAL).
  MILK SUPPLY, HOLIDAY RESORTS.
  MILK SUPPLY, HOLIDAY RESORTS.
  MILK SCHEMES (FACTORY WORKERS).
  MILK SCHEMES (FACTORY WORKERS).
  FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CANNING, WALES.
  FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CANNING, WALES.
EDUCATION.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS, WALES.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS, WALES.
  FREE MEALS FOR SCHOOLCHILDREN.
  FREE MEALS FOR SCHOOLCHILDREN.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  MINERS (STATISTICS).
  MINERS (STATISTICS).
  OIL EXTRACTION.
  OIL EXTRACTION.
  TAFF MERTHYR COLLIERY, SOUTH WALES.
  TAFF MERTHYR COLLIERY, SOUTH WALES.
  ROYAL NAVY (CADETS, DARTMOUTH).
  ROYAL NAVY (CADETS, DARTMOUTH).
  LIMESTONE QUARRIES, WALES.
  LIMESTONE QUARRIES, WALES.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT AND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (ADMINISTRATION COST).
  BENEFIT AND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (ADMINISTRATION COST).
  NORMANTON, CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT.
  NORMANTON, CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT.
  FERNDALE, PORTH, TONYPANDY AND TREORCHY.
  FERNDALE, PORTH, TONYPANDY AND TREORCHY.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (INSURANCE).
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (INSURANCE).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (TRAINING COURSES).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (TRAINING COURSES).
  SEPARATED WIVES (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).
  SEPARATED WIVES (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).
BRITISH ARMY.
  OUT-STATION OFFICES (RECRUITMENT).
  OUT-STATION OFFICES (RECRUITMENT).
  NATIONAL CADET ASSOCIATION MEDAL.
  NATIONAL CADET ASSOCIATION MEDAL.
  OFFICERS (PAY AND PENSIONS).
  OFFICERS (PAY AND PENSIONS).
  TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (CIVIL POLICE).
  TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (CIVIL POLICE).
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  HONG KONG (Mr. JOHN D. SCOTT).
  HONG KONG (Mr. JOHN D. SCOTT).
  SOUTH AFRICA (LAND POLICY).
  SOUTH AFRICA (LAND POLICY).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, LIVERPOOL.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, LIVERPOOL.
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (LIGHTS).
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (LIGHTS).
  SELBY BY-PASS SCHEME.
  SELBY BY-PASS SCHEME.
  ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (CAPTAL).
  ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (CAPTAL).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (OFFICES).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (OFFICES).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
WATFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON NAVAL TREATY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ABERDEEN CORPORATION (WATER, GAS, ELECTRICITY AND TRANSPORT) ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
ELGIN AND LOSSIEMOUTH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMA- TION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PAISLEY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the
826
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (BRIDLINGTON) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (GUILDFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MON- MOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE DIS- TRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (SELBY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (SOUTH EAST ESSEX JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (TYNEMOUTH) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

COLLECTING CHARITIES (REGULA- TION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the better regulation of collections for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes from house to house, or in any place of entertainment or refreshment; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

FACTORIES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Overcrowding]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, although this Amendment seems to be of a formidable length, it is in fact only drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out from ("that") to the end of line 35 and insert ("if the chief inspector is satisfied that owing to the special conditions under which the work is carried on in any workroom in which explosive materials are manufactured or handled, the application of the provisions of this subsection to that workroom would be inappropriate or unnecessary, he may by certificate except the workroom from those provisions subject to any conditions specified in the certificate.
"(3) As respects any room used as a workroom at the date of the passing of this Act the last foregoing subsection shall, for the period of five years after that date and, if before the expiration of that period effective and suitable mechanical ventilation has been provided in the room, for a further period of five years, have effect as if for the reference therein to four hundred cubic feet there were substituted a reference to two hundred and fifty cubic feet:
"Provided that this subsection shall cease to apply to the room—

(a) if the room passes into the occupation of any person other than the person who was the occupier thereof at the passing of this Act, or his successor in the same business; or

(b) if, during the first of the said periods, the inspector for the district requires the provision of effective and suitable mechanical ventilation in the room and default is made in complying with the requirement; or

(c) if, during the second of the said periods or in a case where it has been provided in pursuance of the inspector's requirement during either of those periods, the effective and suitable mechanical ventilation provided in the room ceases to be maintained.")—(The Earl of Minister.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Temperature]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, after ("by") insert ("the last foregoing").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I accept that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the next is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("(2) hereof").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Hoists and lifts]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 38, after ("(7)") insert ("inclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Chains, ropes and lifting tackle]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to ("unless") in line 9 and insert ("be taken into use in any factory for the first time in that factory").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Cranes and other lifting machines]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 23, leave out from ("shall") to ("unless") in line 24 and insert ("be taken into use in any factory for the first time in that factory").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Steam boilers]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 39, leave out from ("shall"} to ("until") in line 40 and insert ("be

829
taken into use in any factory for the first time in that factory")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, this also is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 41, leave out ("preceding") and insert ("foregoing").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32:
Exceptions as to steam boilers, steam receivers and containers, and air receivers.
32. The chief inspector may by certificate except from any of the provisions of the last three preceding sections of this Act any class or type of steam boiler, steam receiver steam container or air receiver to which he is satisfied that such provision cannot reasonably be applied. Any such exception may be unqualified or may be subject to such conditions as may be contained in the certificate.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to leave out Clause 32 and insert the following new clause:
Exceptions as to steam boilers, steam receivers, and containers, and air receivers.
".The Secretary of State may by order except from any of the provisions of the last, three preceding sections of this Act any class or type of steam boiler, steam receiver, steam container or air receiver, to which he is satisfied that such provision cannot be applied."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I can explain the object of this Amendment in a very few words. It is to insert a new clause in place of Clause 32. The three preceding clauses—Clauses 29, 30 and 31—lay down certain minimum requirements which must be fulfilled by tubes and boilers concerned with providing either air or steam power, in order to safeguard the workers employed thereon. They further lay down that an inspector shall from time to time go round to see that these requirements are in fact fulfilled by the employers who use this sort of machinery. The danger of Clause 32 is that it appears to threaten to remove the safeguards that have been laid down in the preceding clauses. It allows exemptions on a certificate granted by the Chief Inspector of Factories, and the only criterion laid down for the Chief Inspector
830
to use when he has to decide whether or not to grant such a certificate is the reasonableness of the demand for any alteration that ought to be made to bring the machinery up to date. If he thinks the demand is unreasonable, and if he thinks it is reasonable to grant a certificate, then he does, and I suggest that some definition ought to be given on which the Chief Inspector can work, because it leaves far too much responsibility and discretion to the technicians who are concerned with the administration of this Act.
A further difficulty is this. According to the present procedure the Chief Inspector can grant a certificate, and then of course complaint can be made that certain boilers and so forth have been exempted; but that is unsatisfactory, and it would be much better if a complaint could be levelled, and public opinion could make itself felt, before the damage had been done. That is why this Amendment, this alternative procedure, is suggested, whereby no exemptions would be granted without an order made by the Secretary of State, and of course application for such order could be discussed before it was given. With these very few words I beg to move that this clause be here inserted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 32 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to transfer the power of granting these exemptions from the Chief Inspector to the Secretary of State, and I think this would be less appropriate, and not really necessary for the protection of the employees. I understand that the Amendment was suggested by a trade union representative who was apparently afraid that the Chief Inspector might grant I exemptions of a very wide scope, but what is in fact contemplated is that there will be some types of vessel falling within the definition of steam boiler, etc., but to which on technical grounds it would not be possible to apply the detailed requirements of these clauses in full. For instance, there may be some small types of vessel to which all the fittings mentioned in the clause could not be applied, or on which perhaps all the details of the examinations laid down for ordinary

831
cases could not be carried out—for example, steam tubes in bakers' ovens and small steam vulcanisers where the quantity of water may be so small that the whole of it is converted into steam, and a water gauge would be useless. The matter is thus a highly technical one. We suggest that it is therefore more appropriate that the procedure for exemption should be by certificate of the Chief Inspector, rather than by an order of the Secretary of State as proposed in the Amendment, and I hope that in view of this explanation the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for making it perfectly clear that as a general rule boilers and tubes used for this purpose will conform to the conditions laid down in the preceding clauses, and that exemptions will only be granted in exceptional cases. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34:
Means of escape in case of fire.
(14) In the application of this section to the administrative county of London—
(b) any factory or part thereof forming part of a building from all parts of which means of escape in case of fire are provided in accordance with the requirements of Part VIII of the London Building Act, 1930, shall be entitled to receive from the London County Council a certificate for the purposes of this section, and pending the receipt of the certificate, no offence shall be deemed to be committed by reason of the use of the factory while no certificate under this section is in force with respect thereto.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, these three Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 11, after ("use") insert ("as a factory")
Page 35, line 3, leave out ("are") and insert ("have been")
Page 35, line 5, after ("1930") insert ("and are maintained").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of paragraph (b) in subsection (14), to insert:
832
"Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any such factory or part thereof if, since the means of escape were provided, any action has been taken of which notice would, if this section had been in force and a certificate had been granted thereunder, have been required to be given to the council."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these words are inserted at this stage of the Bill to meet the requirements of the London County Council. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42:
Washing facilities.
42.—(1) There shall be provided and maintained for the use of employed persons adequate and suitable facilities for washing which shall be conveniently accessible am] shall be kept in a clean and orderly condition.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt any class or description of factory from the requirements of this section where he is satisfied that having regard to the special conditions under which work is carried on in that class or description of factory, compliance therewith would be unreasonable, and the superintending inspector for the division may by certificate exempt, subject to any conditions specified in the certificate, a factory from the requirements of this section where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the factory, compliance therewith would be unreasonable.
(4) This section shall come into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine:
Provided that, as respects persons employed in any process in which lead, arsenic or any other poisonous substance is used, or any process prescribed by the Secretary of State, being a process liable to cause dermatitis or any-other infection of the skin, this section shall come into operation at the commencement of this Act.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), after "which," to insert "shall include soap and clean towels or other suitable means of cleaning or drying, and the facilities." The noble Earl said: My Lords, it will be recollected that at a previous stage of this Bill you had a very careful discussion upon the new clause which was inserted. We have examined it carefully in the light of the criticisms which fell from noble Lords during the discussions which took place on that occasion, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be advisable to insert the specific requirements on the question of soap and clean

833
towels. I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 24, after ("which") insert ("shall include soap and clean towels or other suitable means of cleaning or drying, and the facilities").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the exemption of factories from any of the requirements of this section in cases where by reason of the difficulty of obtaining an adequate supply of water, or the fact that accommodation is restricted and adequate and suitable washing facilities are otherwise conveniently available, or such other special circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, the application of the requirement would in his opinion be unreasonable."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is also one which I move as a result of examination after the discussion which we had on the earlier stage of the Bill. You will observe that under this Amendment exemptions can only be provided for by regulations. The proposals would have to be published in draft and the regulations laid before Parliament, and there would be full opportunities for discussion. The general power for a superintending inspector to grant exemptions would, under the Amendment, be dropped. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (4), to substitute "nineteen hundred and thirty-eight" for "nineteen hundred and thirty-nine." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi I beg to move his Amendment, which reduces the length of time by the end of which washing facilities must be installed. I suggest to the House that in a matter of this kind, which is of essential importance to the health of people engaged in these factories, two years is an excessive length of time to give in which to instal mere washing accommodation. It seems to me that one year would be more than ample, and in a matter of this seriousness,
834
where the health of the people is so deeply concerned, I hope your Lordships and the Government may see fit to reduce this length of time.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 2, leave out ("thirty-nine") and insert ("thirty-eight").—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment would be to bring the clause as to washing facilities into operation in July of next year instead of in July, 1939. I have gone into the whole question since it was raised on the Committee stage, and I regret that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. I do not think it is generally realised that the fitting up of these elaborate washing facilities in a large number of factories all over the country would take a very considerable time. The question of drainage and water supplies has also to be considered. There may be a very large amount of structural alteration required in some of these factories, and in a small town where at present there might be a large number of factories with no washing facilities, it would, I think, be undesirable to shorten the period during which these facilities may be installed. The expenditure and the requirements will be very high, and it is desired to give the factory owners every opportunity of carefully considering the cheapest but the best way in which the facilities can be installed. We discussed this Amendment at great length on a previous occasion and from the information which I have had given to me I am quite certain that the period which the noble Lord proposes is too short. The result of the Amendment would be such that in many cases the requirements could not be complied with by the factories concerned in the time available.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot really follow the noble Earl, but I shall not press the Amendment. The probability is that large factories, where it would take considerable time to instal these facilities, already have them. It is to provide for the smaller factories that my Amendment is moved, and I cannot think it would take two years.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in the proviso in subsection (4), to leave

835
out "infection" and insert "affection." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is really to correct a mistake in the drafting. I have discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, who is unable to be in his place to-day, and he informs me that the alteration of this word meets the point that he made on an earlier occasion.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 7, leave out ("infection") and insert ("affection").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43:
Accommodation for clothing.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulalations exempt any class or description of factory from the requirements of this section where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special conditions under which work is carried on in that class or description of factory, compliance therewith would be unreasonable, and the superintending inspector for the division may by certificate exempt, subject to any conditions specified in the certificate, a factory from the requirements of this section where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the factory, compliance therewith would be unreasonable.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the exemption of factories from any of the requirements of this section in cases where by reason of such special circumstances as may be specified in the regulations the application of the requirement would in his opinion be unreasonable."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this subsection is practically drafting. It brings the clause into line with the exemptions which were granted in the previous clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 21, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Welfare regulations]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have two drafting Amendments here.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 29, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of them")
Page 41, line 33, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of them").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 53:
Underground rooms.
53.—(1) No work shall be carried on in any underground room (not being an underground room used only for the purpose of storage or for some purposes excepted by order of the Secretary of State) which is certified by the inspector for the district to be unsuitable for the purpose as regards construction, height, light or ventilation, or on any hygienic ground, or on the ground that adequate means of escape in case of fire are not provided:
Provided that, where the inspector certifies as unsuitable any room which is in actual use, he shall suspend the operation of the certificate for such period as he considers reasonable with a view to enabling the occupier to render the room suitable or to obtain other premises.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "State" and insert "unless it is certified by the inspector for the district to be suitable for the purpose on hygienic grounds, and in particular as regards construction, light, ventilation, and adequate means of escape in case of fire." The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that when I moved this Amendment in Committee it received very considerable support, and the Government promised to give it their serious consideration. The matter really seems to be one in which some of us prefer an active principle in the control of these underground work-places and, though the Government have exactly the same object in view, that is, to prevent their use except when they are entirely satisfactory from a hygienic point of view, they seem to have preferred a rather more negative method. We prefer that no underground rooms should be used without having a certificate from an inspector.
It has been objected that the system which we suggest was, in point of fact, used in the case of underground bakehouses, and that it has had the result of allowing those bakehouses to continue which in many cases we should have wished closed. But there is a very considerable difference, because the bakehouses were left in the hands of the local authority. Under my Amendment they would be directly under the Ministry. We hoped the Government would themselves table an Amendment in this sense at this

837
stage of the Bill, and I cannot help thinking that our plan is the better one. If one has, at the very beginning, a high standard for these underground workshops, I cannot see that the granting of a certificate can possibly result in the certification of premises which at a later stage one might wish to close, though that I believe is the defence for this particular method.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 33, leave out from ("State") to the end of line 42, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, we have, since the Committee stage, considered the whole question of this Amendment. I shall ask your Lordships to adhere to the clause as it stands, because I think it is really more effective for securing improvement in underground rooms than the procedure of positive certificates. I am advised that the issue: of these positive certificates by inspectors tends to tie the hands of the staff in future in raising standards. When a favourable certificate has been issued it is difficult to turn round and withdraw it unless the conditions in the room have appreciably changed for the worse; whereas, under the scheme proposed in the Bill, the inspector can at any time certify the room as unsuitable if it is not brought into conformity with the improved standards. I regret, therefore, that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 54 [Basement bakehouses]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 13, after ("period") insert ("being").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, after Clause 54, to insert the following new clause:
Prohibition of night work in bakehouses.
".—(1) Subject to such exceptions as may be allowed by special order made by the Secretary of State, no person shall be employed in the manufacture of bread or flour confectionery, or in any other process ordinarily carried on in a bakehouse, between the hours of eleven in the evening and five in the morning.
(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of any body representative of the
838
employers or workers in the baking industry in any district, by special order prohibit any person who carries on within the district the manufacture of bread or flour confectionery, or any such process as aforesaid, whether he does or does not employ any other persons in his business, from being himself engaged in the manufacture or process between the hours of eleven in the evening and five in the morning.
(3) This section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine:
Provided that if a joint application is made to the Secretary of State by any body or bodies representative of the employers and of the workers in the industry in any district the Secretary of State may, by special order, direct that this section shall come into operation in that district at such earlier date as may be fixed by the order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the Report on this question of night baking, perhaps there is some declaration that the Government would like to make. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 54 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to make a statement on the question of this clause. The Report of the Committee was only received on Tuesday of last week and, as the noble Lord will be aware, it was presented to Parliament on the following Thursday. The Committee by a majority have advised against any statutory prohibition of night baking. Shortly stated, their view is that while such prohibition would work inequitably among employers and inflict hardship in many cases, including a number of bakeries where the work is carried on under the best conditions, it would not provide any comprehensive or effective relief to the night baker from the serious social disadvantages under which he labours. The situation as presented in the Report obviously demands a much more thorough examination than it has been possible to make within the very short time available, and I am not in a position at present to make any final announcement of the Government views on the main issue. It is clear however that in view of the nature of the Report it would not in any case be possible for the Government to entertain any question of legislation on the subject during the present Session.

839
At the end of their Report the Committee draw attention to the need for better organisation in this industry and suggest that some recognised body should be set up on which representatives of both sides of the trade might meet together to thrash out their difficulties and devise means for amelioration of conditions. The Government regard this suggestion as a very valuable one and are prepared to take action to give effect to it, and I am glad to state that my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour will be willing to enter into negotiations with the representatives of the two sides for this purpose without delay. I feel confident that if some satisfactory joint machinery could be established we could look forward to a great improvement in the general conditions of the industry.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, when this matter came before the Committee I expressed regret that the Report of the Departmental Committee had not been presented to Parliament, and that we were unable to form an opinion on this matter without the help that was anticipated from that Committee. Now, very belatedly, the Report has come forward, and we have been able to read the recommendations of the Committee. I do not think it possible to quarrel with the decision of the Government not to proceed with legislation at this stage of the Bill, with this Report so recently presented and in view of the fact that the Majority of the Committee are against legislation of the kind that has hitherto been proposed. At the same time I hope this Report will not be regarded as the last word. As a rule, when the members of an expert Departmental Committee are nominated and hear the parties, take evidence, and form a judgment, public opinion is ready to accept their decision as having been arrived at after a full examination of the case, and as being probably correct. But in this matter there have been two Committees, one a few years ago, one now, and both of them, as it happens, presided over by distinguished Scottish Law Lords. The first Committee reported in favour of legislation for the stoppage of night baking. The second Committee has reported against it, but this Second Committee's recommendation is not unanimous, and the member who represented
840
the Labour point of view has appended a Minority Report in the opposite sense to that of the Majority.
We should be somewhat influenced by the fact that the Committee quote a number of other countries in which the legislation that is now desired is in fact in operation. Night hours are prohibited for baking in Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Sweden. In these circumstances, it does not appear that there is anything in the nature of things which makes it impossible to have similar legislation in this country. Further, the International Labour Office at its Conference has, by a large majority, resolved in favour of the principle of this legislation. In this country the co-operative societies, which cater for an enormous population of bread consumers, are in the main in favour of the proposals which have been made. It appears that new methods of wrapping loaves of bread give the bread an additional six hours of freshness, and the benefit of these six hours might very well be given to the baker in order to relieve the hard conditions to which he is subjected. The Committee also dispose of one argument against this reform in that they make it clear that it would not be likely to lead to any increase of price to the public, as has frequently been alleged, or any material disadvantage of any kind.
The number of men affected is nearly 10,000, and, as the Committee agree, the social effects are most detrimental. Their lives are most seriously affected. They can have practically no family life at all. They have to work, not like people who work in shifts, alternately one week at night and the next week in the day; they have to work every night of the week except one, all through the year and every year, during the whole of their working lives. In these circumstances the industrial conditions imposed on them are very hard. This is one of the matters in which human factors and economic factors are, to some extent, in conflict. Very often the human factor has to give way to the economic, and sometimes the economic ought to give way to the human. I have no doubt that in this country, as in other countries, if legislation of this kind were adopted it would be found it could conform to the conditions without any inconvenience or loss to the employers or the public. I trust that when this matter

841
comes to be more fully considered by the Government, even if they cannot act at this stage, they will not regard the issue as a closed question, but will consider further whether legislation of a more comprehensive kind than that proposed by the Committee cannot be adopted.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 61 [Prohibition of importation and sale of articles made with prohibited materials]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved.—
Page 52, line 35, after ("employed") insert ("and any such Order in Council may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Power to direct formal investigation of accidents and cases of disease]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, my Amendment is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 36, leave out ("of") and insert ("into").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70:
General conditions as to hours of employment of women and young persons.
70. Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to overtime and to the special exceptions allowed under this Part of this Act, the hours worked, the period of employment, and the intervals for meals and rest, for every woman or young person employed in a factory shall conform to the following conditions, namely:—
(c) a woman or young person shall not be employed continuously for a spell of more than four and a half hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal or rest, so, however, that where an interval of not less than ten minutes is allowed in the course of a spell, the spell may be increased to five hours;
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 19, leave out from ("Act") to ("the") in line 20.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out "and a half." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been something in the nature of a disappointment to us at this stage. We had hoped that in Committee the Government had practically accepted it, and it is rather a blow to find that it has not been put forward by them at this stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("and a half").—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord should have been under the misapprehension that my noble friend Lord De La Warr gave an undertaking that he was prepared to accept such an Amendment on the Committee stage of the Bill. I have nothing further to add to the speech I made on a previous occasion, and I regret it is not possible for the Government to accept this Amendment, I hope therefore the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
CLAUSE 71 [Reduction of weekly hours of work of young persons under sixteen]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 25, leave out from ("regulations") to the end of line 33 and insert ("make such modifications of this Part of this Act, and make such provision as to the period of employment of such young persons and the intervals allowed to them for meals and rest, as appear or appears to him to be necessary or expedient for regulating the arrangement of the hours to be worked by such young persons").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL moved to insert:
"(5) As from the expiration of a period of three years after the commencement of this Act this section shall apply as if in subsection (1) and subsection (2) (a) for the references to forty-four hours there were substituted references to forty hours, and in subsection (2) and subsection (4) for the references to forty-eight hours there were substituted references to forty-four hours."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment raises a point of considerable substance that was fully discussed on the Committee stage. In

843
brief, the Amendment relates only to children of the age of fourteen and fifteen, and it is desired to relieve them from what we regard as the excessively long hours of work allowed to them under this Bill. I stated the case as fully as I could on the Committee stage, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships by repeating those arguments. This Amendment differs from the Amendment moved on the Committee stage because the provision now intended would come into operation only after a period of three years, and it is hoped that the Government may have been able to enter into consultations in order if possible to arrive at an agreement if this very moderate reform should be acceptable after a period. It was in order to enable them to do that and to inform the House of the conclusion to which they had arrived that I have put down this Amendment, which is also endorsed by other members of your Lordships' House. I now beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Samuel.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the noble Viscount has correctly stated what the effect of the Amendment would be—namely, that three years after the commencement of the Act the maximum weekly hours for young persons under sixteen would be reduced to forty, while forty-four would be the maximum in lieu of forty-eight in the exempted trades. In coming to the decision that we did at an earlier stage of this Bill to substitute forty-four hours for young persons instead of forty-eight, we had to take into account the needs of industry at the present day, and again, in discussing and considering this Amendment I think we must also take into the account the needs of industry in regard to this proposal also. We do come reluctantly to the conclusion that it would be impossible to go further at the present time.
As regards the future, our hope, and indeed our expectation, is that it would be possible at no very distant future to make a further advance, but we do not think that it would be wise for Parliament to commit itself now to a further reduction which would come into force automatically at the end of the period
844
of three years, and which, when that time arrives, might not be then appropriate in all cases in the particular circumstances then existing. Our view is that the proper way of dealing with this matter is to consider the question of further reduction in the light of the valuable experience which we shall gain during the next few years when industry has adjusted itself to the reduced hours which are laid down in this Bill. I hope that the experience will be so favourable that it will then be possible to make a further advance with the assent and co-operation of the employers in industry. I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. It was discussed at some length during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I trust, in view of the answers that were given then and the one I have given to-day, that the noble Viscount will now withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to say on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches that we regret very much that it has been impossible for the Government to accept the proposal that was made on Committee stage with the very considerable concession that has been added by the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches at this stage. It would seem fairly reasonable to suppose that within three years industry might make the necessary adjustments. I should like to say that if the noble Viscount carries his Amendment to a Division he will find support from these Benches.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I, too, hope that the noble Viscount will divide your Lordships on this point. I do not want to repeat what the noble Viscount has said or the few remarks your Lordships have been good enough to allow me to make on, I think, two previous stages of the Bill; but I should like to point out that, as far as I have been able to observe, His Majesty's Government have not established, or, I think, sought to establish at any stage of this Bill, that there is anything inexpedient or vicious in the principle of a forty-hour week for young persons under sixteen. We have been told that there will be a certain amount of reorganisation, and that there will obviously be a certain amount of difficulty, in introducing this reform. I did hope that His Majesty's Government might have felt that that difficulty had been met by the form in which the noble

845
Viscount has now moved the Amendment. I trust that some of your Lordships will be ready to vote for the principle that at any rate within three years forty hours is long enough for young persons of fourteen and fifteen to work.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment. I listened to what the noble Earl has just said, and I fully endorse his remarks from a practical point of view. I think that the way the employers have met the various measures and ameliorations—and very great ameliorations—which are contained in this Bill shows that they are not unsympathetic towards improvement in the conditions of the workmen and of the younger people whom they employ. I venture to urge that it is not fair to place upon the factories something that is to take place three years hence when conditions may have altered considerably. I hope that if this Amendment is pressed to a Division, your Lordships will support the Government, in the full belief that the Government have this in hand and that they will discuss it with the employers in the hope that arrangements can be made whereby in time these hours may be reduced. I venture to urge, therefore, that the Government will stand fast on this Amendment and, if necessary, let it go to a Division.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I should like, too, to add my voice in expressing disappointment that the Government have not seen their way to accept this Amendment. I do not want to repeat what I have previously said at various stages of this Bill, but there is widespread anxiety, expressed not many days ago in The Times, at the hours young people have to work. I recognise the force that may lay in one of the arguments addressed to us on the last occasion when we discussed this matter—namely, that if the change was made at once it might interfere with team work. But surely three years is sufficient in which to make the adjustments necessary to enable these young persons to work slightly shorter hours.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I recognise that the Minister in charge of the Bill has given us a sympathetic reply; nevertheless it is a very direct negative. I understand that some noble Lords would wish to record in the Division that they attach great importance to this matter and, therefore, I regret that I cannot see my way to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS.

Mersey, V.

Clwyd, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Samuel, V.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Rowallan, L.

Faringdon, L.

Snell, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Holden, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ask with, L.

NOT CONTENTS.

Halifax, V. (L. President.)

Wicklow, E.

Heneage, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Jessel, L.

Elibank, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Lawrence, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Greenwood, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Swinton, V.

Redesdale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Trenchard, V.

Rennell, L.

Feversham, E.

Saltoun, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Sempill, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Bayford, L.

Sherborne, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bingley, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Midleton, E.

Cranworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Minto, E.

Doverdale, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strickland, L.

Munster, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Teynham, L.

Plymouth, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Wolverton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Hastings, L.

Wyfold, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 72 [Notice fixing hours of employment]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 35, leave out ("Section seventy") and insert ("the foregoing provisions of this Part").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Overtime employment of women and young persons over sixteen]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 43, after ("women") insert ("or for women employed in any specified process").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Restriction of employment inside and outside factory on same day]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 22, leave out ("him or her") and insert ("her or him").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Exceptions as to the preserving of fish, fruit and vegetables]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 37, after ("not") insert ("except in so far as regulations made under this section so require").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97:
Exception relating to male young persons employed in bakehouses.
97. The period of employment in the case of a male young person who has attained the age of sixteen may begin at five o'clock in the morning in that part of a bakehouse in which the process of bread baking is carried on.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 97. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause reproduces part of Section 38 of the Act of 1901. The Government feel that the clause is
848
not justified in present circumstances and I therefore propose to your Lordships that it should be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 97.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Certificate of fitness for employment of young persons]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert the following new subsections:
"(5) Where the examining surgeon so directs in the certificate, any such condition as aforesaid shall, so far as relates to the employment in respect of which the certificate was issued or other employment in a factory in the occupation of the same occupier, continue to have effect after the young person has attained the age of sixteen; but unless such a direction is made, the condition shall cease to have effect when the young person attains the age of sixteen, and shall in any case cease to have effect when the young person attains the age of eighteen.
(6) Where a certificate under this section is subject to a condition requiring re-examination after an interval specified in the certificate, the examining surgeon on such re-examination may vary the certificate or may revoke the certificate as from such date as he may direct; and, if the certificate of a young person is revoked before he attains the age of sixteen, he shall not remain in any employment to which the certificate relates, and subsection (1) of this section shall thereafter have effect as if no certificate had been issued in respect of that young person."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment and of the consequential Amendments to this clause standing on the Paper in my name is to enlarge somewhat the circumstances in which the examining surgeon may direct that conditions attached to a certificate of fitness shall continue to be binding after the young person has attained the age of sixteen. I may point out to your Lordships that there is a misprint on the Amendment paper. The word "conditions" in the second line should be "condition."
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 3, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 5, after ("refused") insert ("or revoked").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 8, after ("refusal") insert ("or revocation").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out lines 9 to 27.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Tenement factories]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER had on the Paper four Amendments to this clause. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of these Amendments is to make a slight adjustment in the respective responsibilities of the owner of a tenement factory and of the tenement occupiers and also to give power to modify the provisions of the clause by special regulations. The matter is somewhat complicated and I would ask your Lordships to allow me to leave the matter with that statement, unless any noble Lord requires a fuller explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 17, leave out from the second ("fire") to ("and") in line 19.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 22, leave out from ("III") to the end of line 23.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 5, at end insert:
("(b) the owner of the tenement factory shall be responsible, instead of the occupier, for any contravention in rooms occupied by not more than one tenant of the provisions of Part I with respect to cleanliness, overcrowding, temperature, ventilation and lighting, or the provisions of Part IV with respect to removal of dust or fumes, where the contravention arises from a failure to carry out any necessary structural work or any defect in any machinery, plant or fixtures belonging to him, and shall only be so responsible for any contravention of the provisions of Part II with respect to safety provisions in case of fire or the provisions of Part III, where the contravention arises
850
from any such failure or defect as aforesaid; and").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 19, at end insert:
("(3) The Secretary of State may by special regulations modify the provisions of this section in their application to any class or description of tenement factory, and those provisions shall also be subject to any regulations made under any enactment repealed by this Act.").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 105:
Application of Act to electrical transformer and converter stations.
105. The application of this Act to electrical transformer or converter stations in which no person is regularly employed shall be subject to such exemptions and modifications as the Secretary of State may by regulations direct.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 105 and insert the following new clause:
"Application of Act to electrical stations.
105.—(1) The provisions of this Act shall apply to any premises in which persons are regularly employed in or in connection with the processes or operations of generating, transforming or converting, or of switching, controlling or otherwise regulating, electrical energy for supply by way of trade, or for supply for the purposes of any transport undertaking or other industrial or commercial undertaking or of any public building or public institution, or for supply to streets or other public places, as if the premises were a factory and the employer of any person employed in the premises in or in connection with any such process or operation were the occupier of a factory.
(2) The provisions of this Act hereinafter in this subsection mentioned shall apply to any other premises in which any such processes or operations as aforesaid are carried on or performed for such supply as aforesaid, being premises large enough to admit the entrance of a person after the machinery or plant therein is in position, as if the premises were a factory and the employer of any person employed in the premises in or in connection with any such process or operation were the occupier of a factory, that is to say:—

(a) the provisions of Part IV with respect to special regulations for safety and health;

(b) Part V;

(c) the provisions of Part XI with respect to powers and duties of inspectors and regulations and orders of the Secretary of State;

(d) Part XII;

(e) Part XIII;

(f) Part XIV.

(3) The Secretary of State may by special regulations apply any of the provisions of this Act mentioned in the last foregoing subsection to any machinery or plant used elsewhere than in premises mentioned in that subsection or in subsection (1) hereof, being machinery or plant used in the aforesaid processes or operations and for such supply as aforesaid, as if the machinery or plant were machinery or plant in a factory, and the employer of any person employed in connection with any such use of the machinery or plant were the occupier of a factory.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not, except in so far as the Secretary of State may by special regulations direct, apply to any premises where the aforesaid processes or operations are only carried on or performed for the immediate purpose of working an electric motor or working any apparatus which consumes electrical energy for lighting, heating, transmitting or receiving messages or communications, or other purposes.
(5) For the purposes of the definition in Section one hundred and fifty-three of this Act of the expression 'factory,' electrical energy shall not be deemed to be an article, but save as aforesaid nothing in this section shall affect the application of this Act to factories within the meaning of that definition."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, at an earlier stage of the Bill. The Government, as I promised on that occasion, have been in consultation with the Electricity Commissioners and we have also consulted representatives of the employers and the staff in the electrical supply industry. I understand that the scheme of the new clause is regarded by them as an improvement, and I hope that it will be generally accepted as a solution of this very difficult problem. I may add that the new clause has the support of the Electricity Commissioners and other branches of the electricity world.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 105 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Particulars of work and wages to be given to piece-workers]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 29, leave out second ("on") and insert ("in").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Powers of inspectors]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 5, after ("district") insert ("may be issued for a limited period or without limit of period and").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 130:
Provisions as to county and district councils.
(5) For the purpose of their duties under this Act a county council and a district council and their officers shall, without prejudice to their other powers, have all such powers of entry, inspection, taking legal proceedings, or otherwise, as an inspector has, and accordingly in relation to their said duties the provisions of this Act as to furnishing means required by an inspector, and delaying or obstructing an inspector, shall be construed as including references to such officers; but no such powers of entry or inspection shall be exercised except by officers of the council authorised by them in writing in that behalf, either generally or specially.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert "and any such officer shall if so required produce his authority to the occupier or other person holding a responsible position of management at the factory." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is usual in such cases to provide for the production of an authority if so required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 131 [Provisions as to regulations and orders of Secretary of State]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("may be made for a limited period or without limit of period and").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 [Fine for offence by parent]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, these are two drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 112, line 7, leave out ("in any factory")
Page 112, line 7 at end insert ("in any factory").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 153:
Interpretation of expression "factory."
153.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the expression "factory" means any premises in which, or within the close or curtilage or precincts of which, persons are employed in manual labour in any process for or incidental to any of the following purposes, namely:—

(a) the making of any article or of part of any article; or

(b) the altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning, or washing, or the breaking up or demolition of any article; or

(c) the adapting for sale of any article; being premises in which, or within the close or curtilage or precincts of which, the work is carried on by way of trade or for purposes of gain and to or over which 1he employer of the persons employed therein has the right of access or control:

(ix) any premises in which the making, adaptation or repair of dresses, scenery or properties is carried on incidentally to the production by way of trade or for purposes of gain, of cinematograph films or theatrical performances;
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after "premises," where the word first occurs, to insert "other than shops as defined in the Shops Act, 1912." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already once postponed this Amendment to suit your Lordships' convenience, and therefore I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I deal with the matter at some length. Under the Factories Act, 1901, "factories" and "workshops" were defined separately, but under this Bill, they are amalgamated for the purpose of definition. The definition is set out in Clause 153, and this definition goes far beyond that applicable to a "non-textile factory" or "workshop" under the 1901 Act, in that the words "cleaning, or washing or the breaking up or demolition of any article" have been added. This extension of the meaning of the expression "factory" is causing considerable alarm to a large number of owners and occupiers of retail shops; in particular, to the owners and occupiers of butchers' shops. In many retail shops there is a good deal
854
of washing, or breaking up, or demolition of articles carried on by way of trade or for the purposes of gain. For example, the filleting of fish in a fishmonger's is "breaking up or demolition," and the cutting up of cloth in a draper's shop or the sewing of various ornaments on ladies' hats in a milliner's is "ornamenting" or "finishing."
I understand that in a communication addressed to Members of Parliament by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office in response to representations made by those Members as to the possibility of the Factories Bill applying to shops, the Minister has stated that the present Factory Acts are not applied to shops merely because a shop assistant in the course of his or her work incidentally performs a certain amount of manual labour, and that decisions of the Court indicate that one should have regard to the extent to which employment or manual labour is carried out and the substantial purpose for which the place is used. I understand further that the Department states that the Factories Act, 1901, already applied to premises in which manual labour is exercised or is incidental to the purpose, among other things, of adapting an article for sale, and therefore it is stated that the Bill is not introducing any novel principle in this matter. I think that that is a fallacy and for the following reason.
I lay stress on the point that the words in this Bill go considerably beyond the words in the existing law in that they specifically include the "breaking up or demolition of any article," which words do not appear in previous Acts. It may be true that decisions of the Courts indicate that one should have regard to the extent to which employment in manual labour is carried on and the substantial purpose for which the place is used. Now, however, in view of the addition of the words "breaking up or demolition" to the definition clause, it has been suggested that the Courts will be obliged to have regard to the extent to which this breaking up or demolition is carried out and the substantial purpose for which the place is used. The ordinary retail butcher's premises are not premises in which articles are only exposed for sale and in which the whole transaction consists of the taking up of an article and the wrapping up and handing of it to a customer. The ordinary butcher's shop

855
is a place in which there are normally a number of carcasses of beef, mutton or lamb, and pork, and these carcasses are broken up in that from time to time joints are cut out of them. I am told that quite 50 per cent, of the time of those engaged in retail butchers' shops is devoted to the breaking up of carcasses and the adapting of carcasses for sale to the public in the form of joints or cuts of meat.
In these circumstances, therefore, it is feared that the expression "factory" in this Bill does go beyond the existing law, and as far as a butcher's shop is concerned, at all events, it would be possible to argue in the Courts that the Factories Act applied to butchers' premises. The objection to such an occurrence is obvious. Many of these butchers' shops are comparatively small rooms, and under the Public Health (Meat) Regulations, 1924, they are required, amongst other things, to cause the ceilings of such rooms to be cleansed or purified as often as may be necessary to keep them in a proper state. The reason for that is obvious—namely, that butchers have a habit of hanging carcasses on rails running round the walls. If they were required to register as factories, they would find themselves confronted with a conflict between the requirements of the Public Health (Meat) Regulations, the Shops Acts, and the Factories Acts. Another reason why it is suggested that it should be made perfectly clear in a Statute what owners or occupiers of premises come within the definition of "factory" is that in Clause 115 of the present Bill
"every person shall, within one month after he begins to occupy, or use any premises as, a factory, serve on the inspector for the district a written notice … and if he fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or one pound for each day since the expiration of the month aforesaid, whichever is the greater."
I do not anticipate that the Courts will be asked to determine whether every shop in the country is a factory, and I do not suggest that the Home Office have any present intention of requiring the registration of retail premises as factories. What has to be borne in mind is that other Governments may have other views as to their powers under the various Statutes, and may desire to seek to extend the powers of bureaucracy to
856
butchers' premises and other retail premises by taking the ordinary meaning of the words set forth in the Statute and by reason thereof requiring the registration of these premises as factories. It therefore follows that the unfortunate trader in question is on the horns of a dilemma, since if he does not register within one month under Clause 15, he is liable to heavy penalties, and if he does register he is subject to onerous restrictions. For these reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line* 17, after ("premises") insert ("other than shops as defined in the Shops Act, 1912").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bertie has given your Lordships an excellent typewritten speech, which he has read without any blemish at all! Perhaps I might remind my noble friend that this matter was raised on the Committee stage and on the Report stage in another place. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a very clear indication of what actually an Amendment such as this would do. In the first place, let me tell my noble friend that if he went into a florist's shop and got some young lady there to make him up a buttonhole of flowers—
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not wear them.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: —that would not be a factory within the meaning of the Act. Again, if the noble Viscount walked into a draper's establishment to get one of the attendants there to sew "buttons on to his clothes—
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: —that incidental operation would not make a shop into a factory. The Amendment is admittedly a very complicated one, but I am advised that if we accepted it we should deprive a number of workers of the protection of the Factories Acts which they at present enjoy. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will see his way to withdraw this Amendment, and discuss any other matters which he may fear I have failed to answer with I me after this business is over.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I think my noble friend has failed to answer many of the matters which I brought forward, but I do not wish to trouble your Lordships by pressing the Amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (i).—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment should read "the work carried on in any factory," and I beg to move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 10, at end insert ("the work carried on in any factory").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 11, leave out ("the work carried on in").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 39, after ("production") insert ("exhibition or presentation").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of subsection (1) (ix), to insert "not being a stage or dressing room or other part of a theatre in which only occasional adaptations or repairs are made." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as at present worded this paragraph is rather vague and confused. If it is interpreted literally, as it must be, it would make every theatre in the country "a factory," and apparently that is not the intention of the Government, but if it is not their intention why cannot their intention be made clear? It would seem that they only wish to apply the Bill to workrooms, whether outside a theatre or within it, where theatrical dresses, scenery or properties are made or repaired. I think your Lordships will
858
agree with me that the definition they use is very much wider. The point was raised during the Committee stage in another place, and Mr. Lloyd, for the Home Office, merely indicated that it was not their intention to administer such a provision in a vexatious way. Whatever the intention of the present Home Office, however, we have no guarantee that some future disagreeable Home Secretary may not desire to behave in a vexatious way, and make full use of the powers which the Bill gives him. I agree that at present a gentleman's agreement is observed, but I can see no valid reason why it should not be incorporated in an Act when the opportunity presents itself, as it does in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 41, at end, insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, it is not the intention of the Government to bring under this Bill a stage or dressing room in which only occasional adaptations or repairs are made. If my noble friend can see his way to move the Amendment as it stands with the exception of the words "or other part" it would make that intention clear, and I should be prepared to accept the Amendment in that form.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl and I accept half a loaf as better than no bread. I will withdraw my original Amendment and move it in the form suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 41, at end, insert ("not being a stage or dressing room of a theatre in which only occasional adaptations or repairs are made.")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 154:
General interpretation.
"Building operation" means the construction, structural alteration or repair of a building (including re-pointing, re-decoration and external cleaning of the structure), the demolition of a building, and the preparation for, and laying the foundation of, an intended building, but does not include any operation which is a work of engineering construction within the meaning of this Act:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in the definition of "building operation," to leave out "or" ["alteration or repair"] and to insert "or maintenance" after "repair." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these two Amendments are proposed in order to remove doubts as to whether the terms of the Bill would be quite wide enough to enable us to ratify, if it were decided to do so, a draft International Labour Convention which has just been adopted at Geneva in regard to the safety of workers in the building industry.
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 3, leave out ("or") and after ("repair") insert ("or maintenance").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPER- ANNUATION BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

AGRICULTURE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Supplementary provisions as to contents of the Land Fertility Scheme.
3.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act as to the contents of the Land Fertility Scheme, the scheme may—
(h) provide for the making of arrangements for promoting research, investigation and instruction as to the use of lime and of basic slag as a means of promoting the fertility of the soil, and for the financing of such arrangements by means of sums to be collected from approved suppliers who are producers of lime or basic slag and from persons receiving contributions under this Part of this Act, respectively, not exceeding twopence for every ton of lime or basic slag in respect of which such a contribution is paid;
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in paragraph (h) of subsection (1), after "slag", where the word first occurs, to insert "and of their value compared with other fertilisers". The noble Lord said: This small Amendment has the praiseworthy intention of saving the Government money. I think myself that the Government have made out a good case for limiting their assistance at the present stage to the two fertilisers which they have accepted, lime and basic slag, but I feel they would not wish for lime and slag to be used when in fact they were not going to do as much good as another fertiliser, and when three-quarters of the amount of another fertiliser would do more good than putting on more slag for the sake of getting back a quarter of the price. I feel that the Government should gratefully accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, after ("slag") insert ("and of their value compared with other fertilisers").—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): I am afraid it is impossible for me to accept the Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the reason that I give. It is that in the Bill as it now stands the assistance to occupiers of land is limited in Part I to lime and basic slag. The insertion of the words of the Amendment would limit the generality of the clause, and further it would, I think, be undesirable because those words would suggest to the producers of lime, who will be finding part of the money, that their money is being spent on research and investigation and instruction in connection with other fertilisers in which they are not directly interested. I hope that after that explanation the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I certainly shall not press my Amendment, but I am very doubtful of the strength of the argument the noble Earl has used.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Subsidy payments in respect of and under oats or barley.
6.—(1) If, in the case of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-seven or any of the following four years, the United Kingdom price per

861
hundredweight of home-grown oats harvested in that year falls short of eight shillings by five pence or more, then, subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, the appropriate Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make to the person who, at the beginning of the fourth day of June in that, year, was the occupier of any farm in the United Kingdom comprising land then under oats or land then under barley, a payment (hereafter in this Act referred to as a "subsidy payment") at the rate of an amount equal to six times the difference between the said price and eight shillings, or at the rate of one pound (whichever rate is the less), for each acre of that land which at the beginning of the said day was under oats or under barley, as the case may be:
(2) If the qualifying acreage of land under oats or under barley in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-eight or any of the following three years exceeds the standard acreage, the rate at which any subsidy payment may be made in respect of any land by reason of its having been under oats or under barley, as the case may be, in that year shall, subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, be a rate bearing to the rate determined by the preceding subsection the same proportion as the standard acreage bears to the qualifying acreage of land under oats or under barley, as the case may be, in that year; and if the rate determined by the preceding provisions of this subsection is not an exact multiple of a penny, the odd fraction of a penny shall be disregarded.
In this subsection the expression "the standard acreage," in relation to oats or in relation to barley, means such acreage as the Ministers may by order declare to be the number of acres arrived at by multiplying by eleven-tenths the qualifying acreage of land under oats or under barley, as the case may be, in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-seven.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), where the words first occur, to leave out "United Kingdom." The noble Lord said: The present Amendment really entails a great many of the Amendments down on the Paper in my name. I wish to take out "United Kingdom" where they first occur in this particular section and three times in the succeeding subsections, and also to take out paragraph 3 of the First Schedule. The effect of these Amendments will be to enact that in the place of the Ministry striking an average price for the whole area of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, a separate average is struck for Scotland, for England and for Northern Ireland, to decide whether the growers in those separate areas are to receive any subsidy under this Bill or not. I am informed that for a very large number of years the price of oats in Scotland has been on the average 10d. per cwt. less than the
862
average in England, and although when this matter was discussed in another place it was shown that in spite of that fact the average for Scotland during the past few years was the same as the average for the whole area—that is the average struck as it would be under this Bill—the reason for that is that, while the average price in England is higher than in Scotland, yet the price in Northern Ireland brought down the average of the whole area to the same as the average in Scotland.
Scotland does deserve a certain amount of special consideration in this Bill, because large parts of Scotland do not grow wheat and have a very poor chance of earning the wheat subsidy. I think that the area of Northern Ireland is too small to make a proper makeweight to bring the average of the whole down to the average of Scotland. It would be a much better proceeding to let each country earn its average on its own standard. To put it in a way with which we are all familiar, let every tub stand on its own bottom. I think that is a very sound principle. There is one point I would put forward to appeal to noble Lords living south of the Tweed who suffer from this misfortune. I have heard noble Lords ask why the payment of the subsidy should be deferred as late as April, seeing that in England there is no reason why the subsidy should not be paid at a much earlier date. The reason is that in Scotland the prices are not struck by the Sheriffs of the counties until February and sometimes as late as April, and therefore it is not easy to arrive at an average for Scotland until that time. So there is just this possibility, that if every country is put on its own average the English growers would be able to receive their money a little sooner.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("United Kingdom").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD HASTINGS: I would like to support this Amendment. I have expressed the opinion, an opinion which I still hold, that there would be, at any rate for a very long period of time, no subsidy payable upon English-grown oats at all. It is conceivable that a subsidy might be payable upon Scottish oats if they were reduced to the average which apparently applies to oats grown in that country, and in that country alone. I

863
believe it is true that normally the average price of oats in Scotland is substantially lower than the price in England. If that fact can be substantiated, which I believe it can, it seems to be an act of justice that the growers in Scotland, who are intended definitely to be benefited by this Bill, should be given the opportunity of receiving such benefit without being subject to the prices obtained for the better oats grown by better farmers who live in England.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is quite right in saying that the average price for oats in Scotland is usually lower than the average price in England and Wales. Lord Saltoun was also correct when he said that the average price in Northern Ireland is lower than in Scotland. But weighted figures for the United Kingdom taken as a whole would, I think, compare equitably with the weighted figures for Scotland alone. May I elaborate this? The standard price of 8s. was fixed in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole, and the logical consequence of having three separate average prices would be to have three separate standard prices. There would also be no justification in having separate average prices for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. If separate market prices in different parts of the country are to be taken into account there is no particular virtue in determining the areas by political boundaries, seeing that prices vary in different markets in each country; for example, the price of oats in Aberdeen is always lower than the price of oats in Edinburgh or Glasgow.
If the subsidy scheme had been in operation during the last three years the rate of subsidy payment in Scotland would have been the same, with a separate average price for Scotland, as it would have been with the United Kingdom average price. The subsidy payment in England and Wales would have been very much less, and in Northern Ireland it would have been very much more. It is thought by those who reside in England that this would give rise to great dissatisfaction and complaint. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has quoted certain figures. I would point out that the average price of oats in Scotland during the three years 1934 to 1936 was 6s. 2d., 5s. 3d. and 7s. 1d. respectively, and the estimated
864
weighted average price for the United Kingdom for those same years was 6s. 2d., 5s. 5d. and 7s. The noble Lord was correct in the answer that he gave to his own Amendment when he said that the three-year average of the Scottish price is exactly the same as the estimated average for the United Kingdom, and the figure was 6s. 2d. Over that period the subsidy paid would have been 11s. per acre in each instance, whether under the procedure proposed in the Bill or whether it had been assessed with reference to Scotland alone. Therefore, the Scottish grower need have no apprehension that the use of a United Kingdom average price will work out inequitably.
LORD SALTOUN: I do not wish to press this Amendment, but there are two things I would like to point out. One is that the period the noble Earl gave is much too short to get a rule in agricultural matters, and the difference of 10d. a cwt. which our oats suffer in value as compared with England is an average established over a very long period. The other point is that, if it makes no difference to Scotland, there is no reason why the way I suggest should not be adopted. But there is a reason why it should be adopted, because at the present moment not only is the higher price of oats in England being used to deprive the Scottish and the Irish farmer of the subsidy which they think is due, but with Machiavellian cunning the Government is putting Scotland in the position, by her comparatively higher price of oats, of helping to deprive Northern Ireland, a country for which we have the warmest feelings, of its proper benefit.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), after "year," to insert "or in Scotland at the beginning of the twenty-eighth day of May." The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment, and when I first came into the House this afternoon I was emboldened to hope that the noble Earl would accept it, as he has a precisely similar Amendment down in respect to Northern Ireland after Clause 13. The position in Scotland is that it is almost universal that the day of entry and way-going for farm tenancy is May 28—that is, seven days before June 4 as mentioned in the Bill. In Scotland the law is that

865
the crop belongs to the man who sows it, and the clear intention of this Bill is to pay the subsidy to the man who grows the crop. The subsidy is to be paid in respect of the crop. When a man leaves a farm in Scotland he may, or he may not, sell his crop to the incoming tenant. If he does not sell his crop to the incoming tenant, he has to arrange for the reaping of the crop himself, and, within certain legal limits, he has to arrange for its disposal. Of course, in the large majority of cases the outgoing tenant actually sells his crop to the incoming tenant.
Let us consider what is happening under this Bill. The man who grows oats on his land takes those oats to market, sells them, and receives the market price for them. He also receives the subsidy payable in respect of that oat crop. When a tenant leaves his farm on May 28, if he does not sell his crop to the incoming tenant, he has to sell it himself and he gets, as he would have got had he remained on the farm, the market price of the oats. But under this Bill his successor gets the subsidy in respect of these oats. Supposing he sells his crop to the incoming tenant, what does he sell? He sells his crop in the ground, and that will be valued and the price will be fixed by the Sheriff in the ensuing March. The incoming tenant will then pay to him the price of those oats, but the incoming tenant will not pay over to him the price of the subsidy because the outgoing tenant was never entitled to the subsidy. The subsidy does not operate until June 4, and how can any law compel a man to buy what belongs to him from a man to whom it does not belong? I could say a very great deal on this subject. It is a very important point, and it is one that is a perfectly simple matter of accounting. I am in hope that I can persuade the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and I merely beg to move and see what is the result.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, after ("year") insert ("or in Scotland at the beginning of the twenty-eighth day of May").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): The noble Lord is moving an Amendment similar to the one to be moved on Clause 32. In the first
866
place I should like to point out that he is under a misconception in thinking he is moving something similar to the Amendment which is to be moved after Clause 13 by my noble friend Lord Feversham, which is simply being done for the purpose of making these conditions conform with the existing state of affairs in Northern Ireland where the annual agricultural return is rendered on the 1st day of June. I understand that the noble Lord is anxious to see that the tenant leaving his farm on May 28 in any subsidy year is fairly dealt with. The Amendment would, as the noble Lord has shown, have the effect that any subsidy accruing on crops of oats or barley harvested in that year would be payable to the outgoing tenant, but that would give rise to another difficulty. As was stated by my noble friend Lord Feversham on Second Reading, the farmers will, in 1938 and subsequent years, make their claims at the same time as they render their agricultural returns, which include statements of the acreage under oats or barley. Further, as provided by Clause 7 (1) of the Bill, growers of oats or barley who are also growers of wheat will have to choose at that time whether they elect to avail themselves of the subsidy on oats or barley or to receive such payments as may be due in respect of wheat.
The agricultural returns are made on June 4 throughout Great Britain, as they have been for many years, and there is no suggestion to alter this date. It is not suggested by the noble Lord that the agricultural return in Scotland should in future be made on May 28 in order to coincide with the making of a claim by the outgoing tenant. There are, of course, grave objections to such a course. There has been, for a long time, continuity in this respect, and we do not want to alter that continuity. It is also desirable to avoid duplication, as might happen if you had not the same date as in England. If this Amendment were accepted, the position would be that the outgoing tenant on May 28 would hold the right to the subsidy, while it would lie with another person to make and to substantiate the claim. With which of these would it lie to carry out the conditions of the subsidy as laid down in the Bill? I regret that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment. But I would suggest to the noble Lord that in the majority of cases of

867
change of tenancy, it would and should be feasible, without amendment of the Bill, to provide for the subsidy payment to be dealt with by the valuator charged with the duty of fixing the payment to be made by the incoming to the outgoing tenant. And in the cases where the crop is not disposed of by the outgoing to the incoming tenant, the matter might be settled by agreement between the parties. In conclusion, perhaps I may add that no representations have been received by the Secretary of State from the organised agricultural community of Scotland, although they have discussed with him other points in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I was rather interested to hear the explanation of the noble Lord who has replied on behalf of Scotland, but it does not get over all the difficulties by any means. There are people even in Scotland who do not always agree with their successors in their farms, and it is not always easy to get a valuator agreeable to both the outgoing and the incoming tenant. That is the first drag on the argument which the noble Lord has put forward. There is a more difficult argument still. I believe there are in England as well as in some cases in Scotland people who pay what is known as "backhanded rent." Under that system the new tenant does not pay rent at all until a year after he comes in. He pays the valuation as agreed between him and the outgoing tenant to the outgoing tenant. In the case of "back-handed rent," the man who goes out is still paying rent for the farm for a year after he goes out, and it is a nice point as to what would happen in that case if this provision was read as it actually stands in Clause 6.
The question is, then, whether it should not be paid to the man who has actually gone out, because he is still paying rent although he is not actually occupying the farm. I do not think that case is met at all. Quite frankly I do not think that this is going to be workable in Scotland. May 28 is grounded in the custom of the country, even almost more so than the law, and the man who has sown it is the owner of the crop. That is definite and cannot be got over, and why there should be an objection to paying the subsidy to the owner of the crop I cannot understand. No argument is required as to
868
why the grower should receive the subsidy which the Bill says is to be paid to the grower of the crops. That question has not been answered, or at all events I am not satisfied with my noble friend's reply.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not like to interfere with what appears to be a purely Scottish argument especially as some of the language is rather new to me. The word "valuator" is new to me, and "back-handed rent" is new to me, but it occurs to me that the May 28 tenancies in Scotland are absolutely on all fours with the March 25 tenancies in England, and England raises no objection to the Bill. I cannot see why Scotland should raise an objection simply because they have May 28.
LORD SALTOUN: I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will frankly acknowledge that I put my case to him quite fully yesterday when we discussed this matter. I rather admire the answer which the noble Lord (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal) has given me. Unless I knew pretty well what I was talking about I think his answer would have gravelled me, but it really is no answer at all, and for this reason. In the first place he suggests that until June 4 arrives we cannot tell whether the subsidy is going to be given under the Wheat Act or under the Oats Act. If you put in May 28 you will know on May 28; it will be decided then. That is going to be the testing day, not June 4. It is suggested by the noble Lord that an agreement might be arrived at between the parties. That is quite obviously wrong and illusory, for this reason. According to the Bill before your Lordships, that subsidy does not vest until June 4, and then it vests in the man who is the occupier of the farm in which the oat-sown lands are comprised, and his ownership is further attested by the entry in the Scottish Valuation Roll which the man is bound by law to make. The only person under the clause as it is now before your Lordships who is entitled to that subsidy at all is the incoming tenant and nobody else whether he buys the crops or whether he does not.
It has been suggested to me—I think it was suggested by the noble Earl in private conversation—that this Amendment might lead to difficulties because you would have the "cropping" entry

869
sent up by one person on June 4 and the claim would come in from another person in respect of his occupation on May 28. That might possibly lead to difficulty in England, but to those of your Lordships who have no knowledge of affairs in Scotland I would like to explain that that cannot lead to any misunderstanding in Scotland, because every occupier of every holding in Scotland has every year to make a return to the Government of his holding and the fact that he is the occupier of it. There could be practically no difficulty for any Government official in ascertaining perfectly correctly that such-and-such a man was the occupier on May 28, and if the return were made by another man who is the occupier in the new Valuation Roll on June 4, it would be known that he was not the proper person to receive the subsidy.
There is one further small point. I do not like to talk highfalutin stuff but it does seem to me to be an important point. We are told that under this Bill the subsidy is going to be given to the growers of oats and that a subsidy may be given to the growers of barley. The legal grower of this barley in Scotland or of these oats is the outgoing tenant. I know Parliament can do anything it likes. It can pass an Act to give money to anybody; it can pass an Act to give money to me or to anybody else; but in practice we know that that is not the case. There is a principle governing these things, and if June 4 is going to be left in the Bill it means that in certain cases this subsidy is going to be given, not to the grower, but to somebody who has had nothing to do with growing the crop at all. I think that is such a bad moral principle—this carelessness in the distribution of public money—that for that reason alone I will press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I was to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for giving me notice of his Amendment before it appeared at a very late hour on the Order Paper this morning. I am very grateful to him for having given me the opportunity of discussing the point of substance that does arise out of the Amendment. My noble friend Lord Strathcona has given a reply to the noble Lord on behalf of the Scottish Office. I would like to say this, that it is obvious
870
that some date must be selected in order to operate this Part of the Bill, and for England, both from the administrative point of view and from the point of view of the convenience of the farmer himself, the most suitable date is that upon which the farmer makes his agricultural return, which has been established as June 4 since the Act of 1925 was passed. The point that arises out of the noble Lord's Amendment is whether it would be possible so to change that date as not to render it too inconvenient from the administrative point of view and from that of the individual farmer, and so as to coincide with the traditional system of a change of tenancy taking place on May 28. Your Lordships will appreciate that the Government Departments concerned have not had a very long time to reflect upon this very important point, and I would say that they would be pleased to consider this matter between now and the Report stage if the noble Lord would agree to that being done.
LORD SALTOUN: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his assurance, but I would like to tell him that I have to be sitting on a Commission next week, and I anticipate for the next three weeks also, so that I cannot attend to the matter myself. If, however, he will take up the matter with my noble friend, I shall be very grateful. I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I feel that I should apologise to the House for having put down this all-inclusive Amendment which does a good deal more than I wish to do. The reason is that I was very greatly pressed yesterday and it was impossible with the short notice the Government gave us of the Committee stage to draft an Amendment in exactly the way I should wish to draft it. The noble Earl said with perfect truth on Tuesday, that it was not desirable to encourage the over-production of oats. If we took this subsection out of the Bill we should take oats out of the Bill and I do not wish to do that. I want to make that quite clear. What I propose to do now is to explain the position as well as I can and then not to press the Amendment at this stage, but to redraft it in a form which would

871
really represent what I desire, without taking oats out of the Bill. I would like now to develop the argument that I have in mind.
I have told the noble Earl, as I have told his predecessors very often in this House, that there is and must always remain a fundamental objection to the restriction of production. By the reference in subsection (2) of Clause 6 at line 34 to the words "standard acreage" and by the words over the page further extending the definition of that, and again by what appears in subsection (4) and also in the Schedules, this Bill will quite definitely restrict production both of oats and of barley. The noble Earl said in his Second Reading speech that it would be undesirable to aim at restoring the acreage of oats and barley to anything like pre-War figures, in view of the smaller demand owing to the decline in the number of horses and in the consumption of beer. We know very well that the importation of foreign oats into this country is a trifling quantity, and to encourage the greater production of oats would eventually have the effect of so reducing the price of that crop to existing growers that they themselves would suffer a diminution in price to such an extent that they would be probably unable to grow oats at all.
I give the noble Earl his point about oats, but he went on, as I have already said, to decry any return to pre-War acreage of barley because of the reduction in the consumption of beer. That led to certain pleasantries and I was content to leave it at that. But the noble Earl knows as well as I do—and having figures at his disposal more readily than I have he will know it even better—that the importation of barley amounts to scores of thousands of tons every year, and that that importation, vast as it has been over a term of years, is ever increasing. That importation of barley is not only to a certain extent an importation of malting barley but the great bulk of it is an importation of feeding barley which competes directly with feeding barley grown by the barley growers throughout England. Incidentally, I think it would be well here to impress upon the noble Earl, and upon your Lordships, the fact that the quantity of barley grown at home for malting is very much less than it used to be for the reasons
872
given in the Second Reading speech by the noble Earl, and that consequently a great quantity of the barley grown in the hope that it may be bought for malting has more often than not to be sold as grinding barley.
The noble Earl committed himself to the statement that it was not desirable to increase the production of barley. So long as our importations remain at their present colossal figure it really is quite impossible for the noble Earl or for anyone else to maintain that particular thesis. It is immensely to the advantage of this country that a greater quantity of barley should now be grown, because by so doing you are providing a relief to shipping in times of emergency, and you are making certain of animal feeding stuffs, which are only one degree less important than human foodstuffs for the perfectly simple reason that animal foodstuffs are eventually converted into human foodstuffs. I would ask the noble Earl to reconsider what he said in that particular regard. It cannot be held out to be undesirable to increase the production of British barley however you approach the matter. I have always objected, and I shall continue to object, to restriction of production unless such good reasons can be proposed as can be proposed in the case of oats. I have proved, I think successfully, that there is no possibility of an over-production of barley at the present time.
The noble Earl may say, and I think must say, that the reason for imposing a standard acreage in this Bill is the fact that, unless there was a standard acreage, there would be no limit to the liability which the State would assume in respect of the assistance—I will not call it the subsidy—that conceivably in certain circumstances might become payable. That would be a perfectly sound argument if the noble Earl was able to point out the likelihood of anything like a full acreage of barley applying for the assistance to which I have referred. When we discussed the matter on Second Reading the noble Earl invited me to enlarge my vision so that it might embrace those barley growers in the remoter parts of the kingdom who were unable to grow wheat and who were reduced to the growing only of oats and barley for their living.
Suppose I give him this point for the moment, what is the effect? The effect is acknowledged on the part of the noble Earl that only those growers who are unable to grow wheat will be the growers who can conceivably apply for this particular assistance, and they in their turn will be a mere fractional proportion of the total number of barley growers. It is a fact that the assistance to be given to barley growers cannot apply until the price of oats drops to 5d. less than 8s. per cwt. For that to happen it will mean that the barley grower himself is going to receive something less than 15s. a sack, a sack containing two cwts.; sixteen stones go to the sack of barley. Not only is that the case and not only will that have the effect of making it quite certain that the assistance given to any barley grower would be only a matter of a very few shillings, but it is also a fact that unless the farmer is growing more than four times as much barley as wheat it cannot pay him to apply for the assistance to the barley crop. That will have the effect at once, together with the arguments I have already advanced, of reducing the number of barley growers who can conceivably apply for assistance to that fractional proportion of the whole which is represented by those growers of whom the noble Earl spoke in his Second Reading speech.
We are therefore in this position. We are perfectly certain that it is unwise, in spite of anything that any Minister on any Government Bench may say, to limit the production of barley and not to endeavour to return as far as we can to a pre-War acreage. That, I think, is unarguable. We also have the fact that in no conceivable circumstance can there be any risk to the Exchequer by reason of the number of barley growers who can apply for the assistance which this Bill proposes to give them. It must be fundamentally unsound to insert into an Act of Parliament words definitely restricting the home production of British produce If words could be found which would limit the sum payable by the Exchequer, I should be perfectly content, but to say that Parliament in its wisdom does not desire to increase the production of barley is not right. Bearing also in mind that there are vast areas of this country which are better suited to the growth of that crop than of any other crop, it is not right to put into an Act of Parliament
874
words which restrict production, which has not now reached the maximum extent necessary for the proper cultivation of the soil and which will in no way clash with the proper requirements of the Exchequer.
I greatly hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept the principle of this Amendment. I have already told him that I do not propose to press this Amendment now, because, owing to my own default, I was unable to draw it in exactly the terms in which it ought to have been drawn. But I am prepared to do so by the Report stage. I do not want to cut out oats, and oats must be left in, but if the noble Earl could give me any encouragement, I should be only too glad to accept words convenient to himself and the Government which would eliminate barley from this, as I maintain, improper restriction of its production. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I understand that my noble friend means to move an Amendment to this present Amendment at a later stage—
LORD HASTINGS: On Report; that is right.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: —so as not to bring his point to bear upon the production of oats. I have listened with interest to the general argument that has been propounded by Lord Hastings: that the Bill is going to limit the production of barley unduly. The noble Lord referred to a statement which I made in my Second Reading speech. May I again reiterate that the intention of the Government with regard to this Part of the Bill is to prevent a further decline in the arable area and to stabilise by certain price guarantees the production of cereals, including barley, at a reasonable level? There are in different parts of the country, as I intimated to the noble Lord on the last stage of the Bill, many who obtain little or no benefit from the Wheat Act. The noble Lord has now said that the occupiers of farms who are going to benefit from these proposals are a small fraction of the total number of barley producers, because the proposals will apply only to those parts of the country that cannot, owing to climatic conditions, grow wheat. That is not exactly the position, because there are large tracts of

875
land, of which I myself have a portion, where they grow wheat but not in quantities comparable to their production of the other two cereal crops—barley and oats. It would be quite improper for those farmers who had a small acreage under wheat not to get the benefit of the larger crop under barley and oats. I can quote to the noble Lord numbers of instances in my own recollection where the farmer is growing perhaps only one-fifth or one-sixth wheat out of his total wheat, barley and oats acreage. It would then pay that man to go for the barley and oats subsidy under this Bill rather than the wheat deficiency payments under the Wheat Act of 1932. So I would suggest to the noble Lord that the small fraction to which he has referred is not nearly as small as he has made out.
The noble Lord has truly said to the Committee that we import a quantity of barley into this country. I have the figures before me, and they are as follows. In the year 1934 we imported 15,476,000 cwt.; in 1935 we imported 17,097,000 cwt.; and in 1936 we imported 18,332,000 cwt. The figure as far back as 1925 was still 15,000,000 cwt. Those figures show that there has been some increase in the importation of barley. That is no doubt due to the great increase that there has been under the Pig Scheme in the number of pigs in the country. The noble Lord, again, referred to the question of those farmers who rely upon the price of feeding barley, as there is a high percentage of barley that either is not cultivated for malting or does not go as malting barley for brewing purposes. The percentage of malting barley—that is, of the total production of barley—is 60 per cent., and I understand, if my recollection is right, that the Brewers' Society agreed to take about 70 per cent. of the barley produced in this country. There is no doubt that these proposals will benefit a large number of persons whom the noble Lord has not taken into consideration, for the reasons I have given. I shall be very pleased to see the way in which the noble Lord drafts his Amendment at the next stage.
LORD HASTINGS: I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl for what he has said, but I shall be still more obliged to him if he will—as I am quite certain
876
he will—read what I said when it is published to-morrow morning. There are certain points he missed. I do not blame him for doing so; it is not very easy for the Government to appreciate every point at a moment's notice; but he has missed certain points and rather stressed one or two which seem to have but slight reference to the whole subject. I must of necessity withdraw my Amendment now, but I would very much like an opportunity of conferring with the noble Earl myself before I put on the Paper a draft that would implement what I really wish to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Amendment in my name is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, after ("the") insert ("appropriate").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Subsidy payments and wheat deficiency payments to be alternative.
7.—(1) Where, in the case of any farm which at the beginning of the fourth day of June in any year comprised any land under oats or land under barley, there was at any time during the first eight months of that year comprised in that farm any land under wheat, the appropriate Minister shall not be authorised to make any subsidy payments in respect of any of the said land by reason of its having been under oats or under barley, as the case may be, in that year, unless the person who at the beginning of the said day was the occupier of that farm has, within such period in that year as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Ministers, elected, by notice given to the appropriate Minister in such manner as may be so prescribed, to avail himself of this Part of this Act in respect of that farm for that year.
(2) If, in respect of any farm, any person elects in accordance with this section to avail himself of this Part of this Act for any year, no deficiency payments shall be payable under the Wheat Act, 1932, in respect of any wheat harvested in that year and grown on land which at any time during the first eight months of that year was comprised in that farm.
The power conferred on the Wheat Commission by Section five of the said Act to make byelaws for giving effect to the provisions of that Act, shall include a power to make bye-laws for giving effect to the provisions of this subsection.
(3) With respect to the year nineteen hundred and thirty-seven and each of the following four years, the appropriate Minister shall, as soon as may be after the end of the period

877
in that year prescribed by regulations under this section, cause to be prepared, and to be sent to the Wheat Commission, a list specifying, in relation to England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, the farms in respect of which persons have elected in accordance with this section to avail themselves of this Part of this Act for that year, and the persons respectively who have so elected.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out Clause 7. The noble Lord said: This clause, as can well be believed, is really a source of substantial grievance in Eastern England. The Government have determined that an individual who has profited by the Wheat Act shall not also be permitted to profit by the assistance now to be offered to the oat and barley grower. Of course there is substantial reason for that. It is not difficult to see that an argument can be advanced in favour of distributing as widely as possible over the country such assistance as Parliament can give. So far, so good, but in a later part of this Bill there is provided that which wheat growers have urged for a long period, an extension of the quantity of wheat to qualify for assistance. If there is one thing more important than another in agriculture it is to avoid the forcing of one form of production on farmers whose land is better suited to another form, and although I must be, and I naturally am, heartily in favour of the increased quota which will be eligible for assistance under the Wheat Act, I am exceedingly nervous that that which is to be attempted under Part I of the Bill, and that which is to be given under the extension of the quota, will have a contrary effect to that which is intended, unless the large-scale barley grower can be induced to remain in that particular form of production.
This Clause 7 definitely says to the barley grower on those wide areas of England which are so well suited to this crop: "You grow wheat." Looking at the matter from the standpoint of the landowner I feel very nervous. The proper balancing of agriculture is a matter to which all of us who have regard to those matters must give the greatest attention. We all of us know what has happened by the subsidisation of one form of production to the neglect of others. Take my own county. Not so many years ago dairying was a rarity; to-day we are one of the first dairying counties in England. Somebody else must have suffered from the fact; unquestionably
878
they have. The same sort of thing has, of course, happened with regard to other forms of assistance, and it is going to happen now. Clause 7 is thoroughly bad from the standpoint of any individual who wishes to rebalance agriculture and prevent the cultivation of the wrong sort of crop.
That is the real argument. I cannot argue, and I would not argue, for any extension of the quantity of wheat available for assistance. I would not wish to argue against assistance being granted to the oat grower in Scotland or the barley grower in the less favoured parts of England, but what I am really frightened of is what I have already said, and that is why I have moved to leave out Clause 7. I would not like this Bill to pass into law without a word of warning having been uttered that the policy is wrong. However essential it may be from the financial standpoint, from the agricultural standpoint it is wholly wrong. Its effects will be seen at a later stage when further measures of fertilisation will be required by reason of the effects of the Government's present policy. The Government will see ultimately the consequences of their neglect to-day, and when that moment comes I shall have the thankless task of telling them, "I told you so." I wish to avoid that platitude by telling them now. That is why I move the deletion of this clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord has expressed this view on several occasions in this House. He does so because he comes from the Eastern part of this country, and he therefore expresses the common attitude adopted by those agriculturists who reside around him. One of the main objects of this Part of the Bill is to provide, as I have said, an assurance against low prices for those growers of barley and oats, particularly in Scotland and Wales and the North-West of England—Cumberland and Westmorland—who, owing to climatic conditions, cannot grow wheat at all or cannot get a satisfactory crop of wheat. I would suggest that the cereal policy of the Government must be regarded as a whole. In the Eastern Counties farmers are already obtaining considerable assistance under the Wheat Act, not to mention the Sugar Beet Subsidy, and the Bill will render

879
that assistance still more valuable through the extension of the limit in the anticipated supply under Clause 13. I should point out to the noble Lord that, so far from the proposed subsidy being of no value to barley growers, it is estimated that in this year 1937 probably 300,000 acres of barley in England and Wales would be eligible, out of a probable total barley acreage of between 800,000 and 850,000 acres. That is, I think, a much larger acreage than the noble Lord contemplates.
It is of the utmost importance that, both against the possibility of a time of emergency and for good farm management, the Government should render assistance to those forms of cereal production upon which the farmer must rely to some considerable extent for feeding stuffs. I would not contend with the noble Lord upon that ground, but the burden of his argument is that the Government are not doing sufficient for the producer who, owing to the nature of the soil that he farms, is unable to produce, to any extent, any other crop than barley. I would again ask the noble Lord to review this portion of the Bill comprehensively and to see that, whereas the farmers of his part of the country have very greatly benefited from legislation passed during the last few years, there are other parts of the country which, as the noble Lord truly said, have not had equal benefits. This Bill is to give them that assistance which others have been able to enjoy in the production of wheat. It may be said by the noble Lord that we do not go far enough, but I think your Lordships will generally agree that this is a very advanced step, inasmuch as it will bring assistance in the form of a guarantee to those persons in Scotland and in the North-West of England that have not had the advantage of the assistance under the Wheat Act before.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment too far. This is a fundamental question that goes to the root of the Bill. I generally appreciate what the noble Lord has said, but this Bill is limited in its scope and extent, and my right honourable friend, in introducing the Bill in another place, made that declaration. It is to be hoped that if the present price of cereals is maintained as it has been during the course of the last few months, the pro-
880
ducer will not suffer a heavy loss by the production of cereals and oats, and that therefore he will get his return more through the world market price than through any provision in this Bill. I hope that this statement that I have made will to some extent reinforce that made on the Second Reading.
LORD HASTINGS: I regret to say it, but I am left wholly without any satisfaction by the noble Earl's reply. In the first place, I would like to make it perfectly clear that when I addressed the House on the subject of the unbalancing of agriculture, I was in no sense representing the East Anglian view; I was representing the view of every practical agriculturist throughout the length and breadth of England and, I doubt not, of Scotland also. When I expressed regret that the large-scale barley grower should under this Bill receive no assistance I certainly was expressing a view not necessarily East Anglian, but a view which is shared along the coast of England from the North-East to the South. The noble Earl has held out the prospect of improvement being brought to the barley grower by reason of an improved world market, but the figures with which he substantiated my own remarks in respect of importations make it surely as clear as anything could be that the British barley grower is swamped by the unlimited importations which are coming into this country, and that, if his land is to be kept in proper cultivation, he is most urgently in need of a reasonable degree of protection and support.
The noble Earl referred to the benefits that were to be received, and have been received, under the Wheat Act. To-day wheat in the open market is selling at 44s. a quarter, and the Wheat Act is not going to bring any greater benefit at the present moment to the wheat grower than the market itself will give him. Then the noble Earl quoted some rather remarkable figures in respect of the anticipated number of barley growers who would stand to benefit under the Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Acres.
LORD HASTINGS: I apologise for the error, I should have said acres, though the acreage is of course represented in terms of barley growers. The noble Earl appears to forget that before any barley grower can apply—I do not say be eligible for but apply—for this assistance, which I

881
think is so wrongly called a subsidy, his barley has to drop to a price which is 5d. less than 8s. per cwt. on the price of oats. His barley would be at a sore price indeed before he became desirous of claiming this assistance, and when he claims it it will be limited to £1 an acre. I do not want to depreciate anything that the Government are doing in this Bill—I am as grateful as anybody else—but I object fundamentally to its being put into this Bill that here is a subsidy for barley growers. There is nothing of the kind. I said on the Second Reading that all the barley grower will get out of this Bill is the sand thrown into his eyes, and I reiterate that statement. I do not propose to challenge a Division on this clause. I do not think I should, because I should really come up against Privilege in another place. But I have made my protest. I have done it with a purpose, and I shall not detain your Lordships any longer except to repeat that I am not satisfied with the noble Earl's reply.
On Question, Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Performance of administrative functions by Wheat Commission.
10.—(1) The Wheat Commission may perform on behalf of the appropriate Minister any such functions in connection with the administration of this Part of this Act as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, entrust to the Commission; but the Commission shall not be authorised by virtue of this subsection to pay any subsidy payment, or to exercise any of the powers of the Ministers or the appropriate Minister to make any order, regulations or rules.
(2) The appropriate Minister may, in accordance with directions of the Treasury, pay from time to thus to the Wheat Commission, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such sums as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine to be required for defraying the expenses properly incurred by the Commission in the performance of functions entrusted to them under this section.
(3) The reference in subsection (6) of Section ten of the Wheat Act, 1932, to the administrative expenses; of the Wheat Commission shall be construed as a reference to those expenses less the amount of any sums paid to the Commission under this section; but, save as aforesaid, any reference in that Act to moneys received by the Commission or to expenditure incurred by, or the administrative expenses of, the Commission, shall be construed as including a reference to sums paid to, or, as the case may be, to expenses incurred by, the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act.
EARL PEEL EARL PEEL had given Notice that he would move to leave out Clause 10. The
882
noble Earl said: I put down an Amendment to leave out Clause 10 because there is a point on which I should like to get definite information from the Government. It affects the relations between the Wheat Commission and this new subsidy for oats and barley. I am sorry to call it a subsidy. I ought to call it something else, but for technical purposes I shall call it a subsidy. The point concerns the relations between the Wheat Commission and the duties suggested to be performed by the Wheat Commission under this Bill.
In order to make the matter quite clear, would your Lordships permit me to read a statement in another place by the Minister of Agriculture? Referring to Clause 10 (2), he said:
"Subsection (2) gives power to the appropriate Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, to make payments to the Wheat Commission to defray expenses incurred by the Commission in the performance of functions entrusted to them under the clause. That is for the obvious reason that if you allowed the cost of the oats and barley administration to fall upon them, you would be taking the course of asking them to pay something which the Government should pay."
I ask your Lordships to pay particular attention to those words.
"In subsection (3) there is a provision in regard to the administrative expenses of the Commission. It is not the intention that the Wheat Commission should have to undertake the task of sending out the forms or receiving them back again. That will be done by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, and the expenses will be borne on the Votes of the Departments. But the clerical staff of the Wheat Commission may be of use to us as they have a Register of wheat growers, and they may also perform certain inspectorial functions in regard to the matter."
It might be supposed from these references that the cost of the duties placed on the Wheat Commission by Part II of the Bill is to be paid out of the moneys provided by the Treasury. As I understand it—I am not sure that my version is correct—this is not so, and the Minister was referring only to special functions which may be laid on the Wheat Commission under Clause 10 of the Bill.
Rather a curious situation therefore arises. Under the Bill certain administrative duties must be undertaken by the Wheat Commission in order to carry out the provisions of the Bill when it becomes

883
an Act. They will have various functions to perform. They first of all have got the unpleasant duty of not paying the wheat subsidy to any farmer who, according to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is misguided enough to elect for the oats and barley subsidy, and if they have so paid the money they will have to recover it. Not only that, but they have a whole range of duties forced upon them under the Bill. For instance, these lists are to be given of the farmers who have so elected. The Register of the Wheat Commission is by names rather than by farms, and there arises a difficulty. You have to translate the farms into farmers. You have to perform a number of rather difficult and technical duties which I need not go into, in order to be quite certain that the wheat subsidy is only paid to those persons who have not elected to have the other subsidy. In addition to that they perform other duties.
It will be necessary for the Wheat Commission, even when no payments are made and no certificates come up in the ordinary course, to assure themselves of the amount of wheat sold by farmers who have elected not to take the wheat subsidy. That casts upon them a considerable extra expense. I am not quarrelling with the decision of the Government, but they have decided that, as this new subsidy comes directly out of the taxes and not, as the wheat subsidy comes, out of the price of the flour produced by the millers and brought in by the importers, that duty is not to be performed by the Wheat Commission because they are not a body of civil servants like Government Departments, but occupy this rather interesting and separate statutory position. I am not questioning that decision at all. I am only saying that if duties—and I can assure your Lordships with positive knowledge that that will be so—are cast upon the Wheat Commission, they should be reimbursed out of the taxes for the duties they so perform.
The only argument I have ever heard for making them pay for the duties they perform is that under the Bill you extend the number of quarters eligible for subsidy, and more money therefore will go to the wheat farmers. Very likely that will be so, and probably, again, it will not be diminished to any very large extent—or Lord Hastings thinks not, any-
884
how—by those farmers who wish to take the other subsidy. The distinction of course is this, that it must really be recognised that this subsidy for the barley and oats farmers comes from the taxes. The Wheat Fund comes from a totally separate and distinct source, and if more money is to be levied, and more money is therefore to be paid to the farmers by these present methods, there is no earthly reason why the expense of working this new subsidy should be paid out of the Wheat Fund. It is a question of principle. It amounts to this, that the Government are asking, if my interpretation is correct, that there should be a subsidy—or grant, if you like—made from the Wheat Fund to the taxes in order to perform these duties. See what a ridiculous position we are left in. Under Clause 10, if additional duties are called for from the Wheat Commission—and of course, as I say, the Wheat Commission is only too anxious to co-operate in every possible way, with the Ministry of Agriculture, its good friends, and with the Government—then a grant is made and they are reimbursed. That is under Clause 10. But under Clause 7, which casts certain duties on them, there is no reimbursement. Why there is this extraordinary distinction between Clause 7 and Clause 10 I fail to understand. I should like to see both things treated alike, because if the farmers' fund is not to be reimbursed and is to bear a burden because some farmers get more money under the new system, the same argument applies to the new duties. Anyhow, I submit they ought to be placed on the same footing.
I repeat that the Wheat Commission are perfectly ready to perform these duties, but if they are placed under duty by Act of Parliament to assist in the carrying out of this new form of subsidy for barley and oats, I suggest they should be reimbursed for their services, and that the cost should not fall on the Wheat Fund, not one penny of which comes out of the taxes. That is the whole point that I submit to your Lordships. I am going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will be good enough to tell us whether my interpretation is right. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Bill, and perhaps I am accusing the Treasury wrongly. I make no charge against the Ministry of Agriculture. I think I know where the

885
pressure comes from. It may be I am entirely mistaken, and that the Treasury is not going to make any such invidious distinction, but is anxious that the Wheat Commission should be repaid for any services they have rendered or any expenses they have incurred in administering or assisting in administering a totally different subsidy.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 10.—(Earl Peel.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I understand that the noble Earl, who has raised this matter as Chairman of the Wheat Commission, contends that extra work will be required in order to ensure that the grower with more than one farm does not get deficiency payments for a farm in respect of which he has opted for oats or barley. The Commission also think they will have extra duties in examining carefully any changes of occupation of farms during the year, in order to make sure whether or not deficiency payments for wheat grown on any such farm involved in a change of occupation are in order. That is quite correct. Extra duties are imposed upon the Wheat Commission under the Bill, but it has not been ascertained to what extent those functions and duties will be implemented by regulations. But I would point out that, as the result of the operation of the Bill, the Wheat Commission will in future be relieved of the necessity of dealing with a number of claims for comparatively small deficiency payments from those farmers to whom I made reference in the discussion on the last Amendment, who grow small quantities of wheat and much larger quantities of oats and barley and who will find it to their advantage to elect for oats and barley subsidy payments.
In consequence, the administrative expenses of the Commission will be reduced on that account, although I agree the reduction may not be very great. But the noble Earl will himself have realised the much greater advantage that will accrue to the growers, of wheat by raising the limit of the anticipated supply in respect of which deficiency payments may be made at the full rate from 27,000,000 cwts. to 36,000,000 cwts. The extent of the benefit to the wheat grower under that provision is of course considerable. I
886
understand that the existing administrative expenses of the Wheat Commission only amount approximately to one halfpenny per cwt. of wheat.
EARL PEEL: That is because they are so economical. You cannot throw that in our teeth.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: And any extra costs of administration arising through the alternative nature of the oats and barley subsidy and the wheat deficiency payment can only be a small proportion of the total expenses of the Commission, and can, therefore, have very little effect upon the amount received by growers of wheat. If as a result of the raising of the limit to 36,000,000 cwts. the wheat acreage increases 10 per cent, above the 1935 figure, which was the highest since the Wheat Act came into operation, the additional sum received by growers would be in the neighbourhood of £540,000 per annum on the average, assuming wheat prices fall as low as 35s. per quarter. The noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, but I am given to understand that the total administrative expenses of the Wheat Commission amount to approximately £60,000 per annum. If the extra costs of administration amount to even as much as £3,000 a year, this is very small in relation to the total additional benefit that may accrue to growers through the operation of the Bill; in fact it is less than 1 per cent, of their possible gain. I would say to the noble Earl that this matter has been very fully and carefully considered by both the Agricultural Departments and the Treasury, and the Government regret that they cannot see their way to reimburse the Commission from the Exchequer for any additional expenses that may be incurred by them in the avoidance of payments under the Wheat Act to farmers who elect to receive oats and barley subsidies. The noble Earl has rightly said that this is a matter that has had to be laid before the Treasury, and I have given the Treasury view on the subject raised by the noble Earl.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl has done his best to disguise the argument which my noble friend Lord Peel developed. He has informed us that the charge will be so small that really it is not worth bothering about, and that as growers will derive such infinitely

887
greater benefit from the Bill than they will lose by virtue of this charge, the matter is hardly worth considering. But I would remind the noble Earl that they will not be the same growers, and I do not believe the oat and barley growers will derive benefit from this Bill. It is apparently the wheat grower who is going to pay. If he will explain how the wheat man gets the benefit from having the Wheat Commission charged with a certain expenditure in the operation of the oats and barley subsidy, well and good, but I did not derive that impression from what the noble Earl said.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Perhaps I might be allowed to inform the noble Lord that under this Bill the quantity of wheat which may qualify for the standard price of 45s. per quarter will be increased from six million to eight million quarters. Therefore, the wheat grower will benefit to this extent, that he will now receive a price of 45s. per quarter, whereas in past years the actual sum received by the farmer has been less than that figure.
LORD HASTINGS: I thank the noble Earl for that perfectly plain statement, but I would point out that in order that he should gain this advantage he is to be mulcted in the small sum to which my noble friend Earl Peel draws attention. The psychology of farmers is one which is understood by some but not by all in your Lordships' House. If they get it into their minds that the operation of this Bill is going in some way to depreciate the value of the Wheat Commission's remarkable work, there will be more trouble stored up for the Ministry of Agriculture in that way than in almost any other of which I can think. If the noble Earl can induce the Treasury between now and the Report stage to take some view different from that which he has expressed I think he would be doing a very good turn to the Ministry of Agriculture itself. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to divide the Committee—presumably he does not—but I would invite the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, to see what he can do with the Treasury between now and the Report stage.
EARL PEEL: I would like to say a word in reply to the noble Earl's state-
888
ment. I always use very mild language in this House, otherwise I might say that his statement was almost scandalous and against good morals and good economy. What did he tell us? The Wheat Commission have conducted their affairs very successfully but now a grave charge is brought against them by the noble Earl. He says: "Your expenses of administration are only £60,000 a year." Generally, in administration, you are criticised if your expenses are large, but the charge brought by the noble Earl is that they are so small that the Commission can easily afford another £3,000 or £4,000.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I did not at all wish to give that impression. I merely wished to emphasise that the charges under this Bill would at the maximum amount to £3,000, whereas the total expenditure of the Wheat Commission is £60,000.
EARL PEEL: The noble Earl is renewing his error, it seems to me. I do not care whether it is £3,000 or £3. It is not the business of the Treasury to levy this charge on the Wheat Fund. The Government are going about saying how generously they are going to assist the farmers, and that they are going to give them a special subsidy. When it comes to the management of that subsidy they will not bear the charge themselves but say that a portion of that charge must be borne by the Wheat Fund which has nothing whatever to do with it. My objection is on principle and I am not concerned with whether the sum is small in relation to the administrative expenses of the Wheat Fund. It really seems as if we must increase them if we are charged with spending too little. It is a matter of principle. If these duties are to be carried out by the Wheat Commission then they ought to be reimbursed by the Treasury which is spending Government money whereas the Wheat Commission spends not Government money but money levied in another way.
I dare say that the Treasury do not like to see bodies levying money on which they would like to put their hands, but I do not think they ought to scrape off this £3,000 or £4,000 from a body like the Wheat Commission and then say: "Look how well we have administered this Act. We have not spent so much as we need have done, because we have charged

889
something on the Wheat Fund." I hope that the noble Earl is not quite right in saying that necessarily there is going to be this great increase. He forgets that if he is going to make a very great success of the oats and barley subsidy a good many people will cease to grow wheat and will grow oats and barley. However that may be, although I am sorry I cannot get any satisfaction from the noble Earl, I do not want to go to a Division. But I would say to the noble Earl: "Try a fall with the Treasury over it." We all of us have fought the Treasury at times. If the noble Earl succeeds in getting money out of the Treasury he will have achieved a position in your Lordships' House which few noble Lords have achieved, and I hope that before the Report stage he will be able to give me some satisfaction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Persons to and by whom payments, elections and applications may be made.
11. Any reference in the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act to the person who, at the beginning of the fourth day of June in any particular year was the occupier of a farm, shall be construed as including a reference to any person who, if any subsidy payment that might lawfully be made by reason of land comprised at that time in that farm having been under oats or under barley in that year were a debt which had then accrued due to the person who was then the occupier of the farm, would for the time being be entitled to claim that subsidy payment.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to omit Clause 11. The noble Lord said: I move to omit this clause because I am quite unable to understand it. I have sought information in various quarters and I even went to the length of consulting a legal luminary in the matter. That legal luminary, alter looking at the clause for some little time, said: "If you want to know my private opinion the draftsman of that clause was fit to be certified." That is all the assistance I got. I have tried very hard to understand the clause, but I am not able to understand it, and therefore I propose that it be left out because I do not think it is proper that your Lordships should give assent to the inclusion in this Bill of a clause which it is not possible to understand. I appeal to the noble Earl to give an explanation in English as she is usually spoken so that we can clear our minds.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 11.—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I quite agree that at first sight this clause looks very obscure, but all it does is to provide for cases in which by reason of death or because of something to which the noble Lord alluded, certification for insanity, or because of bankruptcy, the occupier is unable to claim any subsidy payable. It puts in his shoes the person responsible for his affairs, thereby enabling the subsidy to be obtainable on behalf of the person who by reason of his disability is unable to make the claim himself.
LORD CRANWORTH: The noble Earl has given us a very simple statement. Can he tell us why the clause does not say that?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Certainly I will not attempt to do so, having no legal qualifications.
LORD HASTINGS: Would the noble Earl think it unreasonable to try to induce those in authority to draft the clause in some different way and bring it up on Report in a form that can be understood? There will be a time when ordinary people living in the country will have to purchase copies of the Act and will have to interpret it. To their minds the clause conveys nothing at all as it stands. Surely it should not be very difficult to draft it in a form in which it can be understood. If the noble Earl could undertake to do that I am sure your Lordships' House would facilitate its passage on Report with gratitude.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: If this clause has in time to be interpreted it will, of course, be interpreted by His Majesty's Judges and not by those unqualified to interpret legal language.
On Question, Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Amendments of 22 & 23 Geo. 5. c. 24]:
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(1) Subsection (3) of Section two of the Wheat Act, 1932 (which subsection defines the expression 'standard price' for the purpose of that Act) shall have effect as if for the words 'ten shillings' there were substituted the words 'twelve shillings'; and the provisions of and the powers conferred by the proviso to that subsection upon the committee

891
referred to therein and upon the Minister shall extend and apply to the standard price as re-defined by this subsection."
The noble Lord said: This is a substantial Amendment. If it is accepted the Government will take a few steps further down the road which they intend to tread if I understand them rightly, inasmuch as it will stop the drift from the land, and it will do at least something, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, "to make farming pay." The present Minister somewhat paraphrased those words: he said "give a reasonable price to the farmer." I am just a little hopeful that this Amendment may be accepted, and for two reasons. The first is that when I mentioned this subject in the Second Reading debate the noble Earl passed it by, I thought, with a pleased smile, but at all events he passed it by with silence, and I have always heard that silence constitutes consent. The second reason is that this Amendment would cost the Treasury nothing at all, not a penny, and therefore no question of Privilege or Financial Resolutions need be considered by your Lordships. This Amendment can be considered purely on its merits, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that its merits are exactly the same as those of the original measure.
Of all the agricultural measures that have been brought in by this and the last Government, the Wheat Act is the only one which has been one hundred per cent. successful. When that Wheat Act was brought in, the difference between the standard price and the actual price of wheat was considerably less than the difference between the new standard price and the price that wheat stands at now. As my noble friend Lord Hastings pointed out just now, the price of wheat is at least 44s. a quarter, the standard price being 45s. The actual price has been at least 44s. and has been considerably over 45s., and there is good reason to fear, or think, or hope, as the case may be, that that price of 44s. is likely in the near future to rise, and possibly rise considerably. Drought has had its say, and what is still more important is the question of soil erosion in the great wheat-bearing areas, which makes it extremely likely that the price will rise to at least 50s. and even to 55s.
It is desirable to grow wheat in this country, and more than ever desirable if
892
other countries are finding a difficulty in exporting wheat. I saw in yesterday's paper that America will have no wheat to export this year, and other countries are getting short of wheat. It is eminently desirable, not only from the point of view of the farmer, not only from the point of view of some security in wartime, but from all points of view, that we should grow more wheat. There is presumably another reason why this Act originally came in, and that was the cost of production. I think it is quite indisputable, and I feel that the noble Earl will agree with me, that the cost of production of wheat has gone up, since the Wheat Act came in, by a sum comparable to that sum to which I propose that the standard price should be raised. Quite clearly, if this Wheat Act can be amended in the way in which it is already amended in the Bill, it can also be amended in the way in which I suggest it shall be amended. As the noble Earl knows very well, the whole of the wheat-growing areas, and also most of the areas that do not grow wheat, have pressed that the standard price should be raised. I believe that this Amendment would give more satisfaction than any other Amendment that has been put down, and I beg, with the greatest confidence and the greatest hope, to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 42, at the beginning, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Cranworth.)
LORD HASTINGS: I desire to support my noble friend Lord Cranworth in this Amendment as strongly as I possibly can, more particularly because of the last reason that he gave. Means have to be found to meet the ever-increasing costs of production. Fertilisers are costing more, labour is costing more, and a figure which was applicable a few years ago is no longer applicable and no longer produces any profit to the man who draws it from the Wheat Commission. This Amendment would give a great deal of hope to the labouring population. They realise, as we all do, that the costs of production which are now falling upon the farmer have got to a point at which he cannot meet them, and they would be as anxious as we are that something should be done to enable him to meet them. My noble friend has pointed out that this Amendment can be accepted without the cost of a penny to the State

893
or to the taxpayer. It can be accepted without imposing any levies or charges greater than, or indeed as great as, were imposed when the original fixation of price was arranged. The world price of wheat to-day makes that possible. There is nothing in Statute, by-law or Order in Council which debars the Wheat Commission itself from revising its figure, and, of course, Parliament has the power to move in this matter whenever it pleases. There does not seem to me to be any sound reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. I am not going to assume that the noble Earl is not going to accept it, but if he does not I am going to urge my noble friend to go to a Division, so that the Committee may decide. I beg to support my noble friend.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am sure that both the noble Lords who have spoken will remember the Committee, composed of a few persons under Sir John Beale, which was called the Standard Price Committee and which reported in June, 1935. By that date they had arrived at a definite conclusion that it was undesirable at that time to make any alteration in the standard price. But they added that there were still unstable factors in the agricultural situation, and they suggested that a similar inquiry might be desirable after a further period. The Wheat Commission have recently made a number of suggestions for minor amendments to the Wheat Act. One of these suggestions is that provision should be made that at some future date the question of the standard price should be reviewed by a Standard Price Committee similar to that of 1935, and that that Committee should start its work in 1938, and that the Minister should have power, subject to the approval of Parliament, to alter the standard price in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.
It is hoped to introduce a Bill amending the Wheat Act next Session. In this connection the proposal for a triennial review of the standard price is under consideration. I hope that with that announcement noble Lords will see that it is the better way in which to approach the subject in view of the manner in which it was approached previously. Owing to lack of Parliamentary time, it was impossible this Session to bring forward a Bill to amend the Wheat Act.
894
That Bill will be brought forward next Session, and therefore the noble Lord will not at this stage of the Bill, I hope, press the Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Earl very much for his most interesting statement. I wish to get it quite clear in my mind. Is it to this effect, that next Session, or next year, it is intended that a Bill will be introduced which will set up a Committee which shall definitely review the standard price once every three years? Have I got it right?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The intention is to bring in a Bill to make certain Amendments to the Wheat Act, and one of the suggestions of the Wheat Commission is that the setting up of a Standard Price Committee should be included, as an instruction to the Minister, in the Bill, and that is a matter which would be under consideration when the whole subject of amendment of the Wheat Act came under review.
LORD CRANWORTH: Did the noble Earl say under "favourable" consideration?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: It is a recommendation of the Wheat Commission, and therefore it will receive from my right honourable friend that regard to which any recommendation from that body would be entitled.
LORD CRANWORTH: The noble Earl guarded himself with deep care, and I do not blame him. I welcome the hope, the good hope, of new legislation on those lines, and if my noble friend will agree with me I shall be content to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following clause:
Application of Part II to Northern Ireland.
". The preceding provisions of this Part of this Act shall, in the application thereof to Northern Ireland, have effect as if for any reference in those provisions to the fourth day of June there were substituted a reference to the first day of June."
The noble Earl said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment, and its purpose has already been explained in discussion.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13 insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
Exchequer grants for defraying land drainage expenses in England and Wales.
(2) The drainage authorities to which this section applies are all drainage authorities as defined by Section eighty-one of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, except catchment boards, and except the council of any county borough which has not established an agricultural committee constituted in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), after "The drainage authorities," to insert "including those in process of absorption into catchment boards." The noble Lord said: This is really little more than a drafting Amendment, I think. The intention of it is this. I understand that certain catchment boards are shortly to absorb certain internal drainage boards. These internal drainage boards will have the benefit of this Part of the Bill, but will lose that benefit if they are absorbed, and the intention is that they shall not lose that benefit by merely an act of administration.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 39, after ("authorities") insert the said words.—(Lord Cranworth.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: I would like to say one word in favour of this Amendment, having had experience of the Thames for so long a time. Under Clause 14, I understand, the catchment boards are going to be excluded from any benefits under the Bill which would be extended to internal drainage boards. I think the tendency in the future will be for catchment boards to take over the duties of the internal drainage boards. Of course the care of the main river, into which all the water has to come on its way to the sea, is the important feature of the system, and it is very inconvenient that internal drainage boards should have the control over certain tributaries. They might let water down or keep it back, and those responsible for the prevention of floods would find it very difficult to carry out their duties unless they had some control. That has been experienced in the Lea where there are no internal drainage boards at all, and the question is whether under Clause 14 the catchment
896
board of the Lea will be deprived of the benefits which they would have received supposing there had been internal drainage boards. I hope it will be possible to introduce words to that effect.
In the case of the Thames we had this experience, that at flood time as much as 1,000,000,000 gallons more water from the River Wey had to be dealt with. I said: "What are you going to do about this? We shall have to spend more money to get this water into the sea." It cost £300,000. That money has been spent, and I think wisely spent, but in this particular instance the engineer for the Wey scheme and the engineer for the Thames scheme was one and the same person, and therefore we could work together and prevent water coming into the Thames too soon. The same thing is going, I think, to happen in the case of the Thames. The internal drainage boards will be absorbed by the catchment board, and I think it would be a discouragement to the catchment board if they are going to lose any benefit which might have accrued to them had the internal drainage boards been continued. I do not tie myself to the particular words of this Amendment, but I hope that the Minister will be able to meet this case, because it would be one of hardship.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I would like to assure noble Lords quite definitely that the catchment boards will be eligible to receive the grants that are now proposed in their capacity as internal drainage boards, but I should perhaps, in view of the speech of Lord Desborough, make one distinction between that general statement and the position, as I understand it, with regard to the River Thames catchment area, because—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—I understand that the Conservancy, which is the catchment board for the area, has applied to the Ministry for the confirmation of a scheme, prepared by them under the Land Drainage Act, for the abolition of the internal drainage boards within that area. But concurrently with this proposal, they have also applied to the Ministry for the addition to the main river under their jurisdiction of a large number of other watercourses, including those now within the districts of the internal drainage boards proposed to be abolished. I gather that these two applications have

897
received a certain degree of opposition, and they are at present sub judice.
LORD DESBOROUGH: With regard to the Thames there is only one dissentient. All the rest have agreed.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am glad to hear that. But in the event of the proposals being ultimately approved, as they have to be approved, by the Minister, the catchment board would then be in a position to apply for grants under the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, which is quite independent of the present Bill, which in itself does not affect catchment boards and only makes grants available to lesser drainage authorities.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Earl, and naturally I accept his assurance and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Exchequer grants towards drainage expenditure in Scotland.
15. Without prejudice to any other power exercisable by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, that Department may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make grants of such amounts and subject to such conditions as the Treasury may from time to time approve to owners or occupiers of agriculture land in Scotland in respect of expenditure on the drainage thereof.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to leave out "Department of Agriculture for Scotland, that Department" and to insert "Minister, he." The noble Lord said: The purport of this Amendment will be quite obvious to your Lordships. It is not intended for one moment to take away from the happy land of Scotland what they have got, but I do object a little to the attitude of the Government, who appear rather to like treating agriculture like a school treat, where they say to a little boy: "You cannot have a second bun because the little girl has not had a slice of cake yet." I rather deprecate that. But on the grounds of simple logic also I want to move this Amendment. When we press, as we have pressed all along, that field draining, ditching and pipe draining should be included in the Bill, the answer of the noble Earl has been: "One step at a time. You cannot have that, because you must get the water off by the internal drainage boards. The internal drainage boards
898
will clear the water off, and then will be the time for the ditches to have our attention." When you come to Scotland the Government say: "You shall have the land drains because you have not got an internal drainage board." It seems to me one of the most illogical arguments I have ever heard, and I really do press that England should have the advantage that accrues to the happier land of Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 16, leave out from ("the") to ("may") in line 17, and insert ("Minister, he").—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I realised when this Amendment was put down that the purpose of it was not to limit the drainage activities in Scotland but to apply those activities in the matter of field drainage to this country. I referred at considerable length to this in my Second Reading speech. There is no question of our not wishing to provide facilities for drainage, as the noble Lord suggested. It is solely that at present we have readied a stage where the activities undertaken by the catchment boards have been to some extent successful in clearing our main watercourses. I think it would be contrary to the accepted laws of land drainage, and possibly highly dangerous, to risk bringing a lot of extra water into the minor watercourses before they are in a position to receive it. That would be the situation that would come about if extensive field drainage were done. It is for this reason that the Government have decided to encourage minor arterial drainage work as the obvious second step to the clearance of the main rivers, which is now being dealt with by the catchment boards. When that second step has been successfully undertaken, the question of assistance being given to field drainage would naturally arise.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Earl has made a very plausible reply, which may be all right as far as those large areas of England are concerned which are fairly flat in character, where the discharge of a large amount of new water might, as he says, cause extensive flooding. But I would remind him that there are in England and in Wales very large tracts of country which do not materially differ from Scotland,

899
inasmuch as the streams are very rapid and precipitous in character and can quite easily carry away any extra water thrown into them. These streams often drain large expanses of boggy hillside, and I must say it seems to me to be hardly reasonable to exclude these large areas, simply because other areas could not with safety have these measures applied to them. Might I respectfully suggest that it would be to the advantage of agriculture in these areas if applications for grants were to be considered and met where the Ministry were satisfied that this discharge of extra water would not in any way be likely to cause flooding? Because I do think that to refuse these parts of England, which are very little different from Scotland in their character, assistance which has certainly been of very great help to Scotland is hardly reasonable, and I do think it would bear rather hardly upon the English farmer, who feels a quite justifiable grievance.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl will remember that on the Second Reading I expressed some surprise that in no part of Part III was the amount of the grants designated. I had rather hoped that the noble Earl would have been able to put down an Amendment for this stage touching on that matter. I would ask him to consider before we get to the Report stage whether it would not be better to try to include in the Bill itself some kind of indication of the amount of the grants that are likely to be payable to drainage authorities when they apply for them. As I said on the Second Reading, those amounts cannot even be discovered by reference to the Financial Resolution passed in another place. You have to refer to the Memorandum introducing the Financial Resolution, which of course is not in the ordinary way available to the public.
But more particularly relevant to the matter now in hand is the point I desire to touch upon now. There will be under this Part of the Bill a certain amount of intermediate drainage done, at the expense partly of the ratepayer and partly of the taxpayer. Under this Bill I am hoping that a great deal will be done, but I fear that labour difficulties will prevent as much being done as we should have hoped. But there is no provision made in this Part of the Bill for
900
any form of record being kept of the work which is going to be done. It has occurred to several of us, discussing this very important matter, that the absence of a record might have the most disastrous effect later, if and when the State determines to extend its drainage operations to the fields themselves. The noble Earl will be with me when I remind him that, just as all these interim streams fall into rivers and can, by reason of then-size, be discovered, so also must all field drains, culverts, and the like fall into the kind of drain or stream that is to be dealt with under this particular Part of the Bill. But these culverts and outfalls are not so easily discoverable as are those that fall into rivers dealt with by the catchment boards.
There are some of us who regard it as of the greatest importance that in any work of this kind undertaken by public money a record should be kept of the outfalls in the field drains which come into these interim drainage arrangements. I am not proposing, naturally, that this should be included in the measure, but I hope the noble Earl will take note of it because, in administrative regulation, that kind of thing can be provided for, and it would be most unfortunate if, by reason of forgetfulness or haphazard management, that essential factor was lost sight of. I hope greatly that arrangements will be made for plans of all work done under this Part of the Bill to be kept in the proper place where they will be available at a later stage. That may be thought not to be too relevant to the Amendment brought forward by my noble friend, and I admit it is not, but I must make my excuses, because it was the only opportunity I had of referring to a matter which, it will be agreed, is of some public importance.
With regard to this Amendment my noble friend has made out a case, and I would remind the noble Earl that there is no reference in the Bill to the limit of grants available, so that it would be very difficult for Privilege to be claimed. There is no mention of a sum or a ratio, and therefore it would be extraordinarily difficult to claim Privilege if the House decided to agree to my noble friend's Amendment to insist that field drainage should be applied to England as also to Scotland. But it will be recognised clearly that the cost would be very great,

901
and possibly on that ground my noble friend will not press his Amendment. I would, however, remind the noble Earl and the Government generally that by allowing Clause 15 to pass with their authority into the law of the land, they have established a precedent for the same kind of favour being extended to England in a short space of time, from which they will be unable to get away. The last thing an Englishman would feel would be jealousy of Scotland, but there is a feeling south of the Border that eventually we should be allowed to have some, at least, of the good things extended to our brothers on the other side of the Tweed. It is a very useful precedent for those of us who live in England, and we shall not forget it.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am not very much convinced by the logic of the noble Earl, because he repeated what he said before, but I feel, with my noble friend Lord Hastings, that this is a matter of money. May I make this suggestion? I understood that the noble Earl agreed to have a pow-wow with the Treasury on another matter. Perhaps he will have a private talk with them on this point, too, and see how soon he will have the money available for this particular Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I should have said, with reference to the speech of my noble friend Lord Mansfield, that I fully appreciate that there are parts of England which correspond in topographical lay-out to Scotland, which are not enclosed, and where drainage that could not be said to be field drainage as such could be effected as a minor drainage operation under the lesser drainage authorities. I am given to understand that it is being considered whether the grants provided within the framework of this Bill could be extended to that particular kind of work. That would be limited, if it was found possible, to unenclosed spaces of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Hastings has taken this opportunity of raising the point he brought forward. I would remind the noble Lord that the activities undertaken by the lesser drainage authorities will be on the surface and they will be open. There will not be, so far as I am aware, any underground drainage operations. Therefore,
902
the necessity for records would not be so great as it would be in the case of field drainage. At the same time, I am given to understand that maps are collected and registered at the appropriate place of the lesser drainage authority, and these maps, if they should prove to be of any use or service, can be referred to.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Veterinary inspectors.
18—(1) As from the commencement of this Part of this Act, the functions of veterinary inspectors in Great Britain under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1935, and any enactments relating to milk or to dairies, and the functions of veterinary inspectors in England and veterinary officers in Scotland under any arrangements made by virtue of Section nine of the Milk Act, 1934, shall, in accordance with directions given by the Minister, be discharged by veterinary inspectors appointed for the purpose by him under Section five of the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, and the provisions of any enactment relating to such functions shall have effect accordingly.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"The Chief Veterinary Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture shall supervise and direct such veterinary inspectors in the discharge of their duties and shall be responsible directly to the Minister in relation thereto."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment was put down by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and myself for slightly different reasons. The main reason that induced the noble Viscount to put it down was that he considers it would give a greater feeling of superiority to the Chief Veterinary Officer. Indeed, he expresses the opinion that the service generally suffers to a certain extent from a slight inferiority complex, and he considers it would be to the great advantage of the profession, and of all their clients, if this procedure were followed. I understand it is the same procedure as takes place in the Ministry of Health. I put my name to the Amendment for a different reason—for a reason I indicated during the Second Reading. I regard this particular Part of the Bill with deadly fear. I am afraid of scientific cranks, and I look with some hope to the Minister to stand as a bulwark between me and such cranks. For these two reasons I beg to move this Amendment, which I think is not unimportant.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: This Amendment was moved in another place and much Parliamentary time was devoted to the discussion of it. The Amendment raises two issues. It raises, first, the general question as to whether it is proper for Parliament to give statutory instructions to a Minister with regard to the administrative arrangements which he makes within his Department for carrying out efficiently the duties for which he is responsible to Parliament. Secondly, it raises the question whether it is, in fact, a desirable administrative arrangement that the Chief Veterinary Officer should report directly to the Minister in relation to the duties of the veterinary inspectors appointed to the centralised veterinary service.
With regard to the first point, the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has referred to the practice that is followed at the Ministry of Health, but I would remind the noble Lord that there is no statutory provision that compels the Minister of Health to appoint a Chief Medical Officer of Health and says that the Chief Medical Officer of Health has to have direct access to the Minister. That is done in accordance with administrative convenience and at the wish of the Minister himself. I believe, without going at any length into the whole constitutional question, your Lordships will appreciate that there is not, as far as I know, any precedent for such a provision being included in any Statute, and I would suggest on those grounds that the noble Lord should not press his Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, has referred to the desire on his part that the Permanent Secretary should, administratively, be responsible for the activities of the Central Veterinary Service to act, as he terms it, as a check upon their activities. That is a matter of opinion, and I would not wish to enlarge upon it to any great extent at this stage; but I would say that, from the administrative angle, it is thought that all work undertaken by a Government Department must be administered in the team spirit, and it is the Permanent Secretary who is responsible from year to year for the
904
efficient administration of his Department. In his turn he is responsible to the Minister. It would be quite contrary to precedent for the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture to be responsible for other than his own veterinary work and for that of the staff under him. The normal way in which these things are done is by conference, and wherever representation to the Minister was necessary, there is no doubt whatever that the Chief Veterinary Officer would have access to him at any time to raise a point for which he was responsible. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: I should like to thank the noble Earl for his explanation. To me he throws a new light, and I have no doubt a correct light, on the procedure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Special payments in connection until the eradication of bovine tuberculosis.
(3) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after any arrangements made by him have been approved for the purposes of this section by the Treasury, lay particulars of the arrangements before Parliament.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved to add to subsection (3):
"and if either House of Parliament within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such particulars are laid before it resolves that the arrangements be annulled, the arrangements shall forthwith be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new arrangements"
The noble Lord said: In subsection (3) it is provided that the Minister is required to lay upon the Table of each House particulars of the arrangements made by him under subsection (1) and approved by the Treasury for payment to the owners of herds of sums for securing that those herds will be free from tuberculosis. Subsection (3), however, does not provide that either House, if it is not satisfied with these arrangements, has any power of control. I submit to your Lordships that it is desirable that Parliament should retain in its own hands the power to veto arrangements of which it does not approve, and the proposed Amendment provides this power in common form by the

905
usual procedure of a Resolution. I would also remind your Lordships that in another place a similar addition was made to subsection (4) of Clause 21. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Sempill.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The proposal of the subsection is for the laying on the Table of particulars of arrangements, and this follows the procedure adopted under the provisions of Section 9, subsection (3), of the Milk Act of 1934. This clause as a whole is a re-enactment of Section 9 of that Act, with an extension of objects mentioned in subsection (1), enabling the Ministers to make grants in respect of beef herds, and also to remove the limit of financial expenditure. I would remind your Lordships that you did not consider the negative Resolution procedure necessary when making the original provision under the 1934 Act, and since this is little more than a re-enactment of those provisions it is difficult to see why your Lordships' House should wish to alter the procedure from that which was then decided upon. I would suggest to the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment that for those reasons he should not press it.
LORD SALTOUN: This matter may have been omitted from the previous Act, but I think Parliament ought to scrutinise very carefully every extension of absolutism of this kind. After all, there can be no harm in Parliament having a right to scrutinise these regulations, and to annul them if it seems to Parliament that they are wrong. There should be only one supreme power in this country, and that is the King and Parliament. I always view with the very greatest suspicion these arrangements that have to be tabled but do not have to be approved or disapproved. One can never tell how far, by this simple method of extension, they may be carried.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I also should like to support this Amendment. Part IV of this Bill is not going to be too easy for the Government to work. The noble Earl just now spoke of team work, but by reason of Part IV an end is to be put to the team work which has hitherto been carried on by county councils. Naturally all county councils
906
are going to do their best for both parties, and to see that this is worked properly. At the same time, I think that Parliament should be able to retain the power of veto, and that the county councils should be able to submit to Parliament any objections which they may have to any proposed arrangements.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I should like to ask what is the use of laying these particulars before Parliament if Parliament is to have no say in the matter and if there is no provision for Parliament to amend or refuse assent if it thinks fit? It is quite a usual thing to have such a provision as that when particulars are laid before Parliament and there seems no reason why that custom should not be followed in this Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: This is little more than a re-enactment of the Milk Act, and I should have thought that it was sufficient if, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, there were opportunities of examining the arrangements when they are laid before Parliament. There will be ample opportunity by such a procedure to bring any points of criticism before the respective Ministers and to register dissent from the proposals. The Minister, assuming, as one does assume, that he is a reasonable person, would naturally take those representations fully into account. This is an instance where by introducing the procedure of Resolution we should be increasing the already very heavy burden that there is upon your Lordships' House. I would point out to your Lordships that Clause 19 (3) provides:
"The Minister shall, as soon as may be after any arrangements made by him have been approved for the purposes of this section by the Treasury, lay particulars of the arrangements before Parliament."
I hope that will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: May I point out to the noble Earl that this is the subsection to which I object? What is the purpose of laying particulars before Parliament if we are not allowed to say whether we approve them or not in the ordinary manner set forth in almost every Act under which a Minister has to lay regulations before Parliament before they become effective? The fact that that is not done under the Milk Act does not mean that it is not necessary under this measure.
LORD SALTOUN: May I say that if registering dissent merely means interviewing the Minister I have found that Ministers are very hard to persuade?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think the answer is that there can be general discussion upon matters laid by the Minister before Parliament. If procedure by Resolution is not provided for, that does not necessarily mean that discussion is vetoed. However, if it is the wish of your Lordships that in this particular instance the procedure should be extended, I shall be only too glad to refer the matter again to my right honourable friend and bring it up again at a later stage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Eradication areas and attested areas.
22. The powers of the Minister under Section twenty-two of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, shall include power to make orders—
THE EARL OF GLASGOW THE EARL OF GLASGOW moved, after "power" ["power to make orders"] to insert "after consultation with the local authority of the area." The noble Earl said: This is a guarding Amendment. We hope by a future Amendment very shortly to get the noble Earl to agree that the Minister should take over the whole of the services in connection with diseases of animals. If that is done this Amendment will not be necessary. Nevertheless in my opinion it is a good Amendment because I think the Minister should consult with interested local authorities before making orders which may have a very serious effect on administration in the locality and on the industry in the area of the local authority. There may be a good many orders—slaughtering orders, restriction of movement orders and compensation orders and orders dealing with various things. It seems to be only reasonable that there should be some arrangement by which local authorities should have their rights in this matter protected, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept this amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, after ("power") insert ("after consultation with the local authority of the area.").—(The Earl of Glasgow.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I should like to support this Amendment rather strongly, because I have a feeling that this Part of the Bill is likely to lead to a lot of friction between local authorities and the Minister. This Amendment will do a good deal, I think, to stop that friction and help in the easy working of the Act. I hope that it will be accepted.
LORD ROWALLAN: I should like to support all that has been said on this Amendment. I do believe that it would help very considerably towards the easier working of the Act and that there would be considerably less friction if consultation took place. Consultation, after all, does not mean that the veterinary authorities must take the advice of the local authorities; it merely means that there shall be a chance of ventilating the question and that certain matters will not be overlooked.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I fully appreciate the importance that noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment attach to consultation with local authorities before any steps are taken to declare an area for the purposes of Clause 22. The fullest consultation will have to take place with producers, and, indeed, with the local authorities concerned. I would remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend gave an explicit assurance on this matter in another place that he would, before making any arrangements, consult in every case with the local authorities. I can only repeat to your Lordships that assurance. I would like also to remind your Lordships that it is not only the local authorities that should be consulted. There are other bodies who will equally need to be consulted and whose advice will be invaluable in the inauguration of this central service. There are producers and a long list of other people. In view of that fact I suggest to your Lordships that it would be more satisfactory if you would accept the assurance given by the Minister that consultation will take place and not insert this Amendment in the Bill.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I thank the noble Earl for what he has said, but I really cannot see why this Amendment should not be inserted. It would do no harm. This is the first occasion on which I have moved an Amendment in your Lordships' House and I would like to press it to a Division, but I will not.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): May I say one word in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow? I went through exactly the same mental process as that through which I think he has been going—namely, of feeling that this was an eminently reasonable Amendment. I do not think, however, that it is quite as simple a matter as appears on the Paper. As the noble Earl will appreciate, there are an immense number of cases in which, not only in regard to agriculture, diseases of animals and the like, the State and local authorities are working together over a common field. I am advised that although in all those cases consultation, as my noble friend has said, also in fact takes place, yet in none of those Acts, as far as I know, do these words in terms appear. Therefore it is felt by those who are responsible for advising on these matters, and who, indeed, are responsible for keeping the general administration of the country in order, that if these words, which, on the face of them, appear eminently reasonable, were inserted here, it would have a rather uncertain and unsettling effect upon a great many other Statutes which I do not profess at the moment to have present to my mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Superannuation rights of veterinary inspectors]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 14, at end insert:
("(a) the expression 'veterinary inspector' includes a person who, immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act, was a veterinary officer in Scotland;".—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
Application to Scotland.
32. In the application of this Act to Scotland—
LORD ROWALLAN LORD ROWALLAN moved to insert the following new paragraph:
910
"(d) Section eighteen shall be read and construed as if alter the words 'this Part of this Act' there were inserted the words 'the functions of the local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1935, shall be transferred to the Minister and'
and as if the words
'and any enactments relating to milk or to dairies, and the functions of veterinary inspectors in England and veterinary officers in Scotland under any arrangements made by virtue of Section nine of the Milk Act, 1934' were omitted."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is confined entirely to the application clause to Scotland. I have no doubt that there are those who feel that Scotland is getting all the plums under agricultural legislation at the present time, that this is another plum that she is receiving, and also that perhaps some concessions should be given to England. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that under this Bill the three duties of the local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Act are taken over by the Central Veterinary Service; that is to say, the routine veterinary inspection of dairy herds under the Milk and Dairies Legislation; tuberculin testing and veterinary inspection under the Milk (Special Designations) Order of the Department of Health for Scotland; and diagnostic inquiries into the various scheduled diseases, including tuberculosis. These are the three chief veterinary duties of the local authorities at the present time, and these are being taken away.
The contention of the noble Lord who supports me in this matter, of myself, and also of the County Councils' Association of Scotland, is that if these three main portions of the duties of the local authorities are to be taken away, there is no logical reason for leaving the local authorities with certain duties which they have to undertake and for the expense of which they are responsible but over which they feel that they have no control whatsoever. In other words, the control is taken out of their hands but the responsibility and expenditure are theirs. The first of these is the publication of the orders of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. There are a great number of orders, and they are likely to be very greatly increased, I should imagine, under the new Bill. Then there is the direction of the work of inspectors of the local authorities—that is, mainly, of the police—in giving effect to the various orders.

911
That remains one of the duties of the local authorities. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this part of their duties seems to give to a junior inspector of the Department of Agriculture the right to give orders to the chief constable of the county. I should be very glad to hear that that is not the case, but it certainly seems to be so under this Bill as it stands.
Then there are also the arrangements for the issue of licences for the holding of livestock markets in certain infected areas and of special markets for imported animals; for the issue of movement licences for animals in scheduled areas; for the enforcement and supervision of the orders relating to the paving of livestock markets; and for the cleansing and disinfection of such markets and of railway and road vehicles used for animals, the dipping of sheep for sheep scab, and other preventive disease orders. Under this new régime no executive duties are to be left to the counties at all. They are to have no control; they are merely to be used as billposters and charwomen. I submit that it is causing them difficulty to see why, when so much has been taken away in the interests, admittedly, of unification and co-ordination, they should be left with these duties, which could easily be dispensed with or administered from some other source. Admittedly the services of the police are necessary, but there is no reason why certain arrangements should not be come to with county councils for the services of the police, which are given in many other directions and on many other occasions. I submit that this Amendment should receive your support and that you should see your way to concede the unanimous desire of the county councils of Scotland that they should be relieved of this burden of having to pay and undertake responsibilities over which they have no control whatsoever. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 30, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Rowallan.)
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to add a very few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has so well put. In Scotland, as I said on the Second Reading and as I think is common ground, we have built up a very efficient health service on the keenness and enthusiasm
912
of the personnel of the health service of the various counties, which has a very high standard. These men are going to find their whole organisation torn in half: that one part of their duties is taken away and centred in officers of the Central Government, and yet that other persons in their employment are at the orders of these officers. You may not perhaps find that a junior veterinary surgeon will give orders to a chief constable, but you will find other anomalies. Take the case of tuberculosis, which was mentioned the other night. The Chief Medical Officer ascertains that it is bovine tuberculosis through his own staff, through his bacteriologist. He then communicates with the Minister's officer, the veterinary surgeon, who has to set to work to chase down the cow which is responsible for that tuberculosis. The veterinary surgeon can only do that, as the Bill stands, through the servants of the local authority, and if they fail, his expressions of disappointment, which may be very severe, are made of course to the servants of the local authority. You get an impossible situation. That is, I submit, a very strong point. People should not have responsibility when they have not got control. That is the feeling of the local authorities.
There is one other point. It is common ground that what I have said about the health services of Scotland is true, and also that their organisation is going to be rudely disturbed by the passage of this Bill. But it is claimed that that is because other parts of the country are not so far advanced and have to be brought up to a standard. The position remains, in fact, that the health services of Scotland are going to be the catspaw to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. I hope the noble Earl will give very grave consideration in his reply to our feelings about the matter. I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to press this Amendment to a Division or not. If he does, I shall certainly support him, and I hope most of your Lordships will do so. But if he is not going to press it to a Division and if we have got to accept the position, then what I have to say for the local authorities in Scotland is this: If the object of the Government is ultimately to take over the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts; if it is also the determined intention of the

913
Government to put all these veterinary health services on such a basis that they are going to raise the standard not only to what it is in Scotland, to-day, but to carry the thing to even greater heights, such as we hope to attain under our own scheme in Scotland; then, as true partners, we are ready to make the sacrifice. But if our health services are going to be shattered in order to ginger up other people to a standard which is under our own standard, then it is not good enough, and you are asking us to make a sacrifice which we ought not to be asked to make.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment has, I understand, two objects. The first is to transfer to the Minister not only the functions of veterinary inspectors of local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Acts, but also other functions of the local authorities under those Acts. The second is to provide that the existing functions of veterinary inspectors and veterinary officers in Scotland under any of the enactments relating to milk or to dairies, and under any arrangements made under Section 9 of the Milk Act, 1934, shall continue to be administered in Scotland as they are at present; that is, by the local authorities.
As regards the first object, the noble Lord is well aware that the Diseases of Animals Acts impose upon local authorities not only the duties of a veterinary character arising under the Acts and various orders of the Minister, but also the numerous other duties of an administrative and executive character which are indispensable to the proper administration of the Acts. In other words, the Acts necessitate not only the examination of cattle by professional veterinary officers, with the object of determining the existence or otherwise of disease, but also the consequential action of an executive character required to control and eradicate disease, and to administer and enforce the various preventive measures. I will not enumerate what those duties include, for Lord Rowallan knows them better than I do, but the local authorities are empowered to enforce the general orders made by the Minister for the prevention of the spread of diseases, such as the paving, cleansing and disinfection of livestock markets, the cleansing and disinfection of railway and road vehicles,
914
the boiling of animal foodstuffs, the destruction of hay and straw packing material, the disposal of meat wrappers, and such details as that.
In addition the police, as such, independently of their duties as inspectors where they are so appointed, are required to receive from stock owners notices of suspected cases of disease, such as foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever, sheep scab, anthrax and so forth, and transmit them either to the Ministry or other proper authority. Apart from these executive duties local authorities are also empowered to make internal regulations relating to the dipping of sheep, and to authorise, when required, the holding under certain conditions of livestock markets in declared infected areas, or for the exposure of imported animals. All these duties and functions of a non-veterinary character are vital to the achievement of the objects for which the Diseases of Animals Acts and orders of the Minister thereunder exist, and the non-veterinary inspectors of local authorities and the police are essential to enable them to be carried out. If it were assumed for a moment that all these duties were transferred to the Ministry it would be necessary for the local authorities to retain their administrative and executive functions of a non-veterinary character.
For these reasons they would require the services of their inspectors and the police and, in relation to the Diseases of Animals Acts, it would cut right across the intentions of a central veterinary service if it were contemplated that the numerous activities to which I have referred, meat inspection and the sanitary provisions under the Milk and Dairies Orders, were to be effected by the central service. It is on those grounds that very grave difficulties would arise in the administration of what we hope is to be a service which is directed essentially to the better eradication of animal diseases generally. It would be a matter far greater than that embraced in the Diseases of Animals Acts, and it would be a matter far larger than that contemplated in this Bill. For that reason it is a matter of regret that I cannot, on behalf of the Government, say to the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment that it can be further considered.
LORD ROWALLAN: I am sorry to hear that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill takes up such an attitude, because I realise perfectly well that up to the present time the Diseases of Animals Acts have worked fairly satisfactorily and smoothly under the county councils. I would point out, however, that in the past, when the Councils had to put up with what I may call the tribulations of the Diseases of Animals Acts in heavy outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, there have been crises and panic. These instances, however, have been few and far between. This possible cause of friction is going to be constant and not merely at times of crisis. It is going to be constant serious friction. There is going to be constantly this feeling that one side or the other is overstepping its duties, that possibly the man who is in charge of the disinfection of the market is setting at nought the labours of the man in charge of the prevention and eradication of disease. I cannot believe that the divided control in the prevention of disease and the diagnosis of disease which we are going to have under this clause is ever going to succeed. I do not press this Amendment to-day, but I will reserve my right to move an Amendment in the Bill at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW THE EARL OF GLASGOW moved to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) It shall be the duty of officers appointed by the Minister to furnish any information reasonably required by the local authority or their medical officer of health in regard to any disease of animals affecting or likely to affect the health of persons resident in the area of the authority, and to trace the source of infection wherever reasonably practicable."
The noble Earl said: It is provided that a certificate of a veterinary inspector to the effect that an animal is or was afflicted with the disease specified in the certificate shall for the purposes of the Act be conclusive evidence in all Courts of Justice of the matter certified. The exclusion of the Courts of Justice in a question affecting property of value is not a desirable principle, and in future the protection afforded by the executive direction of a lay local authority, or committee of a local authority, will no longer be available to the owner under the new scheme. Under the present administration the lay authority generally
916
know all about it, and would not allow a veterinary officer, perhaps inexperienced, to commit an injustice. The point is that you are doing away with the local lay committee. In any important question you would go straight to the veterinary officer, who would naturally have to back up his own man. I think this is a reasonable Amendment, and might possibly be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 30, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Glasgow.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This Amendment deals in rather more specific terms with a question which is fully covered by the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 18 in relation to Great Britain as a whole. It is fully recognised that the services of a veterinary inspector are, and will still be, required at times by local authorities to enable them to discharge their functions in relation to public health. It is for this reason that provision is made in Clause 18 (3) requiring the Minister to make arrangements for placing the services of veterinary inspectors at the disposal of the local authorities. For example, in connection with meat inspection in Scotland, a veterinary inspector may be called in to give a decision where meat has been condemned by the detention officer, and it is proposed that arrangements should be made by the Minister under which the services of a veterinary inspector of the Ministry should be made available for this purpose. As this is a purely public health service, an appropriate fee, fixed after consultation with the local authority and with the approval of the Treasury, will be charged.
The services of veterinary inspectors of the Ministry will also be made available for inspections of cattle carried out in consequence of notifications received from medical officers of health under the Milk and Dairies Acts or the Infectious Disease (Prevention) Act, 1890, that the consumption of milk from a certain specified herd is likely to cause tuberculosis, or is suspected to have caused some other infectious disease. This is very largely an animal health service and it is not proposed that fees should be charged in these cases. The purpose of this Amendment is therefore fully covered by subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 18 which have already been passed by your Lordships.
LORD ROWALLAN: My reading of subsections (3) and (4) was that they concerned the provision of meat inspectors and other services by the Ministry to the local authority, but this Amendment raises an entirely different question. It is that when once one of the Ministry's veterinary inspectors had been in charge of a case where tuberculosis is suspected, he shall be asked to give the greatest possible assistance to the medical officers whose duty it will be to follow up that case and try to trace its source in the interests of public health. It seems to me that the two cases are not allied at all; that the one is a permanent service for meat inspection, and the other is the special call of the local authorities on the veterinary authorities, who are already expected to have the information, or at any rate who are easily able to obtain the information, which the medical authorities in the county require.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I should like to assure the noble Lord that where a medical officer has been informed of a tubercular case of bovine origin the inspectors, whether they be full-time or part-time under the veterinary service, will act in the closest co-operation with the medical officer in tracking the herd from which the disease arose. That will be a practice to be continued in the future as much as, and I hope a great deal more than, it has been in the past. I would wish to give the assurance to the noble Lord that it not only benefits the large centres of population, for which the medical officer of health is responsible, in tracking and eliminating so dangerous a disease as tuberculosis, but it will also be of the greatest benefit to the agricultural industry, and the farmers in particular, because it will be a means whereby the veterinary service can trace and find the particular disease which they wish to eradicate, f would like to give the most explicit assurance to the noble Lord that that will be carried out.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I cannot say I feel extremely satisfied at the noble Earl's answer, but there is nothing left but to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in the third column (extent of repeal) in the references to the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, to leave out the last "and" and to insert "subsection (5) of Section forty-four; and." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a very simple one. Section 44 of the Diseases of Animals Act enacts that the certificate of a veterinary surgeon that an animal is suffering from a disease shall be conclusive evidence in a Court of Law that the animal is in fact suffering from that disease. That is felt as a grievance by many people, and I submit that it is a very bad provision, because, supposing a veterinary surgeon certifies that a horse is suffering from anthrax and an analysis takes place and it is shown that that horse does not suffer from anthrax, still in any Court of Law where the case comes up the certificate of the veterinary surgeon that the horse is suffering from anthrax has to be taken by the Court. I submit that it is not right, in any Court in the world, to take a paper certificate when the actual facts are open to the investigation of the Court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 22, leave out ("and") and insert ("subsection (5) of Section forty-four; and").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The effect of this Amendment would be to render a positive diagnosis of scheduled disease open to challenge in the Courts and thus cut across a fundamental principle of the Diseases of Animals Acts—namely, that as the Minister is responsible for any administrative action necessary in connection with an outbreak of disease, he must accept full responsibility for the diagnosis on which such action is based. The Minister would be in an impossible position if, for instance, a positive diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease, in consequence of which the usual stringent conditions restricting the holding of markets and the movement of animals over a wide area is imposed, was subsequently upset in the Courts. Rapidity of action is essential in dealing with outbreaks of disease, and it is therefore of the greatest importance that there should be no possible doubt about the legal effect of the certificate as to the existence of disease on which such action is based.

919
In view of that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I still think it is not a logical position, and not right, that a certificate which may be false, when it is proved to be false, should yet be the basis of civil action for damages or some of that kind. I really do not think I ought to withdraw this Amendment, but there is not a large enough House to press it, and I hope the noble Lord will take the matter into further consideration.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Title:
An Act to assist farmers to increase the fertility of their land; to provide for payment of a subsidy to farmers in respect of their crops of oats and barley, and to raise the limit of the quantity of wheat in respect of which deficiency payments under the Wheat Act, 1932, may be made at the full rate; to make further grants for land drainage; to promote the eradication of diseases of animals and poultry, and with that object to establish a national service of veterinary inspectors; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, to leave out "for payment of a subsidy to" and insert "against heavy financial loss by." The noble Lord said: There is nothing in respect of which farmers all over the country are so sensitive as that they should be held up to the general public and the taxpayer as mendicants in receipt of charity. Unhappily, there is just that element of truth in it which makes it impossible to deny, and it is unquestionable that in certain respects the farming community have, through no fault of their own, been compelled to ask for and accept the assistance of the general taxpayer. In this particular instance, and in respect of the Amendment I have down, the words as drawn, "to provide for payment of a subsidy to farmers in respect of their crops of oats and barley" are definitely untrue. They are an attempt to saddle the farming community with the odium of being in receipt of yet another subsidy when, at the very most, a few will, in certain remote circumstances, be entitled to apply for some assistance to aid them in the event of heavy financial loss. There are none who can be said ever to be likely to be in
920
receipt of a subsidy. The circumstances of the present day are such that whatever provision the Treasury may have made to meet this Part of the Bill is most unlikely ever to have to be paid. That it should go forth that "Here are those farmers once again to receive a subsidy at the expense of the general taxpayer" is certainly misleading to the public and grossly unfair to the farming community.
I desire, if I may, to change the title so that it shall literally describe what is intended to be done, and that is "to provide against heavy financial loss by farmers in respect of their crops of oats and barley." Deprivation of self-respect is a very serious matter, and any noble Lord who has any acquaintance whatever with the independent agricultural community will realise the extreme sensitiveness they feel, and have felt, in regard to these subsidies. While I am very well aware that no alteration of words is going to affect the purpose, intent, or effect of the Bill, this Amendment at least puts in proper language what is being done and does not represent to the public a situation which is most unlikely ever to arise. I do beg the Government to consider this. It is a psychological matter. It does not affect policy; it does not affect money; but it does affect the self-respect of the farming community as a whole. I would ask that the truth should be allowed to come out in this instance and that the title should be altered.
Amendment moved—
In line 2 of the title, leave out from ("from") to ("farmers") and insert ("against heavy financial loss by").—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I have listened to the case that the noble Lord has put for the amendment of the title. It is true that the subsidy payments for oats and barley only operate if prices fall below the standard price of 8s. by 5d. or more. On the other hand, it is equally true that the payments are perhaps properly described as a subsidy, inasmuch as they may begin to accrue before the farmers would in many cases be involved in heavy financial loss. When the maximum rate of £1 per acre operates it would certainly be true to say that the subsidy payments are then an insurance against heavy financial loss. I recognise the point which the noble Lord so well put that this is more a question of psychology for

921
the farming community generally than a matter of policy. In view of the strong feeling of members of your Lordships' House upon this point, and in view of the opinion that there is, according to the noble Lord, throughout the country on this point, and, further, in view of the opinion expressed in the debate on the Second Reading, I feel I should be justified in accepting the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I am deeply grateful to the noble Earl for that concession. I can assure him it will be very greatly appreciated by the farming community as a whole and by the land-owning community also as a whole. It introduces into the Bill words which are infinitely more suitable to the purpose than were there before, and on behalf of the farming community I beg to thank the Government for their consideration.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved that the Lord President be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is a Standing Order of your Lordships' House that when the Lord President is a member of this House he should be a member of your Lordships' Offices Committee. My noble friend Viscount Halifax, as Lord Privy Seal, which office he filled until recently, was a member of the Committee, but when he became Lord President he ceased to be a member, and it was necessary, therefore, in accordance with the Standing Order, and, I am sure, in accordance with the wish of your
922
Lordships, to move that he be added thereto.
Moved, That the Lord President be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS: THE RECESS.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, whether he has any statement to make about the business that will be before your Lordships' House next week?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, during the forthcoming week I think that any business now outstanding will be dealt with and, if it has been disposed of by that date, it is hoped to adjourn for the Summer Recess on Friday, July 30. The Motion for the Adjournment will contain the usual provision empowering the Lord Chancellor, upon representations being made to him by His Majesty's Government, to call your Lordships together at an earlier date, if such a course should appear necessary in the public interest. It might also be for your Lordships' convenience if I added that we propose that the House shall reassemble on Thursday, October 21. It is expected that Parliament will be prorogued on that date and that His Majesty will open the new Session of Parliament on Tuesday, October 26. I may perhaps at the same time be allowed to remind your Lordships that, as announced last night, we shall meet to-morrow at midday for the Third Reading of the Factories Bill, and to receive the Milk Bill from another place.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

BRIGG GAS ORDER, 1937.
ORMSKIRK DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1937.
WORKSOP GAS ORDER, 1937.
HEMSWORTH GRIMETHORPE AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1937.
IRON BRIDGE AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1937.
DUMFRIESSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1937.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petitions have been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

AMENDMENT OF THE MILK MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Amendment as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Amendment raises important questions
924
of policy and principle similar to those agreed to by the House when approving the Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933; that the Amendment is founded on precedent inasmuch as Amendments of Schemes have already been submitted for the approval of Parliament under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933; that in the opinion of the Committee the Amendment cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Amendment;
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (BIRMINGHAM TAME AND REA MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI-SIONAL ORDER (WISBECH WATER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI-SIONAL ORDER (YEADON WATER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI-SIONAL ORDER (CLEVEDON WATER) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.