Sitting of 27 May 1937

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,
Banbury Waterworks Bill [Lords].
Ashdown Forest Bill [Lords].
Berkshire County Council Bill [Lords].
Hastings Extension Bill [Lords].
Saint Paul's and Saint James' Churches (Sheffield) Bill [Lords].
Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Hertfordshire County Council (Colne Valley Sewerage &c.) Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Fowey) Bill.
Walsall Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Clevedon Water) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Tonbridge Water) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Sevenoaks Water) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wisbech Water) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Yeadon Water) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Maidenhead Water) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
West Ham Corporation Bill.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Barnsley Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Pontypool Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That, in the case of the Pontypool Gas and Water Bill [Lords], Standing Order 220 be suspended, provided that the Agent for the Bill shall give notice To-morrow of the day proposed for Second Reading.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EMIGRATION.
  Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a communication from the International Labour Office regarding a conference of experts on the subject of migration; and what action, if any, has been taken?
  The Minister of Labour {Mr. Ernest Brown): No communication has yet been received from the International Labour Office on this subject.
  Sir R. Young: The right hon. Gentleman told me on 11th March that he was expecting a communication, and can he say when he will receive it?
  Mr. Brown: It does not rest with me, but with them.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Mainwaringasked the Minister of Labour whether it is the general practice in dealing with unemployed newly transferred to the Unemployment Assistance Board to operate the scale of allowances and determinations made in each case by the public assistance committees; and, if so, for how long a period is it intended that the individuals so affected should await a new determination in accordance with the unemployment assistance scales?
    Mr. E. Brown: Under Section 61 (3) of the Unemployment Act, 1934, the board is empowered to make at any time during the two months beginning on the Second Appointed Day allowances equal in amount to the previous rate of outdoor relief to applicants transferred from public assistance authorities in whose case an order for outdoor relief was in force immediately before that day. The task of determining the needs of applicants in accordance with the board's regulations will be completed by 31st May.
    Mr. Mainwaringasked the Minister of Labour what provision is made, if any, for the temporary relief of persons becoming unemployed and whose right to unemployment insurance benefit is questioned and who are referred to courts of referees?
    Mr. Brown: In so far as such persons are persons to whom the Unemployment Assistance Act applies, it is open to them, if they are in need, to make an application to the Unemployment Assistance Board.

    TRAINING.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour how many cases have occurred during the last two years in Great Britain in which benefit has been refused to persons undergoing a course of training without pay?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are a large number of persons in this category?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot say without an examination of the records of the 1,187 employment exchanges.
    Mr. Cassells: Is the Minister aware that the point raised in this question is giving great concern to omnibus employés, particularly in Scotland; and, if so, is he not prepared to have an investigation into it?
    Mr. Brown: I am prepared to look into any particular case which the hon. Member cares to bring to my attention, but the hon. Gentleman who put down the question asked for a general statement about the whole country, and I cannot give that.

    SOUTH-WEST DURHAM IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. Daltonasked the Minister of Labour whether the promised South-west Durham Improvement Association has yet been set up; and, if so, who are its members?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am glad to be able to inform the House that Lord Barnard has accepted the invitation of the Commissioner for the Special Areas to undertake the chairmanship of the South-west Durham Improvement Association, Limited. Mr. Herbert Thompson, C.S.I., Secretary to the South-west Durham Reconstruction and Development Board, and Mr. C. Forbes Adam, C.S.I., District Commissioner for Durham and Tyneside, have agreed to serve on the board of the association, and the necessary formalities of registration of the company will he carried out forthwith.
    Mr. Dalton: Do I understand that the chairman and two members only are to be the personnel of the board?
    Mr. Brown: That is the proposal.

    LANCASHIRE (SITE COMPANY).
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information as to the formation of a site company for Lancashire to operate in the industrially depressed areas in that county?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have no direct information in regard to this matter, although I understand that the question of forming such a company is under consideration by local interests.
    Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping in touch with the Lancashire Industrial Development Council?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, in close touch.

    UNEMPLOYABLE PERSONS.
    Mr. Leckieasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of conflicting opinions as to the proportion of those on the unemployed register who are either unemployable or will not be able to find suitable work again, he will appoint a small committee of experts to inquire and report on the whole question, classifying the unemployed into categories and thus simplifying methods for solving the problem?
    Mr. E. Brown: I do not think that any simple method of classification in this matter can be found by a committee of experts or otherwise, since the employability of each individual depends not only on his own personal and family circumstances, but on the nature and location of the employment that is now or may hereafter become available for him. The results of sample inquiries conducted on broad lines have been published from time to time, and I propose to have another such inquiry made in the near future.
    Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the suggestion that there are people on the register who are unemployable?
    Mr. Brown: Undoubtedly.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not a fact that there are people who are really unemployable who were taken over by the Public Assistance Board because they were able-bodied workpeople?
    Mr. Brown: That does not at all detract from my answer.

    RAILWAY SERVANTS (INSURANCE).
    Mr. A. V. Alexanderasked the Minister of Labour whether he has been in negotiation with the railway companies concerning the conditions on which railway employés are excepted from the unemployment insurance scheme; whether
    406
    he is aware that many railway employés are dissatisfied with the present position under which many of them are refused exemption from unemployment insurance contributions, although they have completed more than three years' service and have been given a guaranteed week; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?
    Mr. E. Brown: The general position of this matter was explained in my reply of 11th February to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short). Discussions with 1 he railway companies are still proceeding.

    TRADING ESTATES.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention that the trading estates shall have power to assist in securing sites in parts of the Special Areas other than that in which the trading estates are situated?
    Mr. E. Brown: The Commissioner has invited the trading estate companies to co-operate with him in the selection and development of sites outside the trading estate and he proposes, subject to their agreement, that they should undertake, on his behalf, such clearance, development and factory construction as may be required. The existing powers of the companies are sufficient for this purpose.

  TRANSPORT.

    WAGES AND CONDITIONS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government propose to adopt the recommendations of the committee on the regulation of wages and conditions of service in the road motor transport industries, goods?
    Mr. E. Brown: The report of this committee is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Mander: If I put down a question in a month's time will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member puts it down I will give him an answer.

    UNDERGROUND GARAGES, CENTRAL LONDON.
    Mr. Crowderasked the. Minister of Health in how many cases during the past two years have the London County Council and the City of London Corporation,

    407
    respectively, insisted upon the provision of underground garages in the case of new buildings being erected in the Central London area; and whether he has issued any recommendations in regard to this matter?
    The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have no information in regard to the first part of the question, but will communicate with the London County Council and the City of London Corporation on the matter and inform my hon. Friend of the result. While it is not for me to issue recommendations, I concur in the advice which has from time to time been given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion that, when underground garages are impracticable, courtyards should be provided for people visiting large blocks of buildings or offices so as to relieve the congestion on the roads?
    Mr. Kelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council recommend that visitors should look after their own cars?

    BY-PASS ROADS (PROPERTY, COMPENSATION).
    Mr. R. Duckworthasked the Minister of Transport what practice he proposes to follow with regard to compensation for businesses and property which are depreciated in value by the construction of by-passes to main roads under his direct control?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. HoreBelisha): Equally with any other highway authority our practice is governed by the general law in this matter.
    Mr. Duckworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider means of better cooperation and co-ordination of the authorities?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There is complete co-ordination between all the authorities.

    ROAD TRAFFIC CONTROL.
    Sir Reginald Blairasked the Minister of Transport for what period has single-line traffic, controlled by police signals, been in operation during the last
    408
    two years at the bridges near Rickmansworth, Herts; and when if, it proposed to resume normal traffic conditions?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Single-line working was brought into operation on 4th September last, but two-way traffic working has now been resumed.
    Colonel Goodmanasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any report as to the operation of the invisible-ray apparatus for controlling traffic at the junction of Queen's Drive and Muirhead Avenue, Liverpool; and whether such report is of the nature to justify him recommending the adoption of this system of traffic control to the authorities elsewhere responsible for traffic conditions?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: As the system has only been in operation for three weeks I would prefer to await a more extended period of trial before reaching a conclusion as to its effectiveness.

    COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether the inquiry into the question of the revision of the cost-of-living index figure is yet completed; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. E. Brown: The methods to be adopted in obtaining the data required for a revision of the basis of the cost-of-living index figures have for some time been under consideration by my Department, in consultation with an Advisory Committee appointed for this purpose. The committee have recommended that budgets should be collected giving details of the expenditure of a representative sample of some thousands of working-class families in each of four weeks at quarterly intervals, beginning in the autumn of this year, arid the necessary preparations for the collection of these budgets are now being made.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the importance of this matter and the dissatisfaction with the present cost-of-living figure, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite it?
    Mr. Brown: I do not want to have it expedited. I want to have it done thoroughly, so that we can depend upon it.

    PRISON SERVICE.
    Colonel Nathanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests have been made during the past three years to the Prison Commissioners by governors and chief officers of prisons for more staff, and with what result?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): Constant attention is paid to the staffing of the different prisons. In addition to a general review each autumn when statements are submitted by governors showing their estimated staff requirements for the following year, there are frequent consultations between governors and the Prison Commissioners as to staff arrangements to meet changing conditions or temporary needs. There has been an increase of staff during each of the last three years.
    Colonel Nathanasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Prison Officers' Representative Board has made repeated representations to his Department for an improvement in the pay scales of £2 10s. to £3 10s. per week of the subordinate officers; what has been the result; and whether, as it takes the majority of the officers from 12 to 17 years to reach the maximum rate and as these scales are approximately £1 per week lower than those of policemen, he will, having regard to the need of attracting a good class of men to the prison service, take steps to remove the grievance amongst the officers?
    Sir J. Simon: In 1936 an improved scale of pay for prison officers was settled in consultation with the Prison Officers' Representative Board. Under the new scale officers start at £210s. a week and rise by annual increments to £3 10s., and receive in addition free quarters, or an allowance in lieu, and certain other emoluments. One of the advantages of the new scale is that in future the time taken to reach the maximum will be much shorter than under the old scale, and there is no foundation for the suggestion that the new scale is insufficient to attract suitable candidates to the service. Since the acceptance by the staff of the new scale, such representations as have been made by the Representative Board have been not against the scale, but against the method of its application to existing officers. As, however, I have stated in reply
    410
    to previous questions, this method is that usually followed in the Civil Service, and was fully explained to the staff before the new scale was accepted by them.

    LICENSING ACTS (EXEMPTION ORDERS).
    Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary the number of exemption orders granted by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan area under the Licensing Acts for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and whether he will consider amending the existing licensing laws in order that all such applications could be referred to the licensing justices of the Metropolitan divisions?
    Sir J. Simon: During the year ended 31st March, 1937, 29,305 special orders of exemption were granted by the Commissioner to licensed premises, and 3,155 to clubs. The suggestion in the second part of the question has been noted, but as at present advised, I see no reason for any such change in the granting authority as proposed by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Day: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider dealing with this subject in London in the same way as it is dealt with in the provinces?
    Sir J. Simon: The conditions in the provinces are not the same. There is an obvious advantage in a great place like London in having a central authority which is able to secure uniform decisions.
    Viscountess Astor: I hope that the hon. Member is not representing the views of the Labour party.

    NEWSPAPERS (CONTENTS BILLS).
    Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that immediately after the Coronation ceremony on 12th May the three evening newspapers published in London all issued handbills referring to "Coronation Tragedy" and "Drama in the Abbey," which were calculated to mislead and depress the public; and whether he has yet received from newspaper proprietors' organisations any assurance that they will take steps to discourage the exploitation of private sorrow for personal profit on occasions of national rejoicing?
    Sir J. Simon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, the assurance for which I asked is not in the terms mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    LIFTS (SAFETY).
    Sir A. Wilsonasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the accident which occurred on 7th May at the offices of a life assurance company in London, when a woman fell 30 feet down an unprotected lift shaft; and whether he proposes to take powers to make safety appliances such as are now available compulsory in offices to which the public have access?
    Sir J. Simon: I have received a report on this accident from which it appears that the lift in question is fitted with interlocking gates. The accident appears to have been due to some failure of the interlocking mechanism, but this had been inspected only ten days before the accident occurred and was found to be working properly immediately afterwards. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the safety of lifts on premises outside the scope of the Factory Acts has been the subject of special inquiries by my Department, but I regret I cannot hold out any prospect at present of Government legislation on that point.

    COURTS OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
    Sir A. Wilsonasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many of the complaints made in official reports and elsewhere as to the manner in which justices of the peace and their clerks perform their duties are traceable to the fact that for many years past no attempt has been made to modernise by amendment and consolidation the Summary Jurisdiction, Vagrancy, Game, Highway, Borstal Detention, and other Acts which they administer or to issue in convenient form a compilation of Home Office circulars to magistrates; and whether he proposes to initiate special steps to expedite this work?
    Sir J. Simon: Such criticisms as have been made of the work of the courts of summary jurisdiction appear to have no
    412
    connection with the desirability, on grounds of convenience, of consolidating the Statutes to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The desirability is recognised of pressing on with the programme of consolidation so far as the time of Parliament and the Government Departments permits., and various Consolidating Acts have been passed in recent years. As regards amendments of the law relating to the procedure of the courts of summary jurisdiction, the Alloney Payments Act was passed in 1935, and this Session a Bill introduced. by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn (Mr. Petherick) relating to domestic proceedings has been passed by this House and will, if it receives approval in another place, effect a valuable measure of reform. I am dealing, in reply to other questions, which my hon. and gallant. Friend has put down for Written Answer, with the subjects of the law relating to Borstal sentences and of Home Office circulars to magistrates.

    NATURALISATION CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Home Secretary what opportunity is provided for an applicant for naturalisation papers to appeal against an adverse decision; and whether any opportunity is afforded to the applicant to remove possible misunderstanding on which the decision was based?
    Sir J. Simon: The Statute provides that the grant of a certificate of naturalisation shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State, and that he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision. From the fact that the reasons for a decision in a particular case cannot be stated, it must not be inferred that it is based on a misunderstanding.
    Mr. Williams: Even in the remote possibility of a decision having been based upon false evidence or on some misunderstanding, would it not be more in accordance with British justice if an opportunity were provided to dispel any such possible misunderstandings?
    Sir J. Simon: I think the hon. Member has in mind a particular case which he has been good enough to bring to the notice of my Department and which has.

    413
    been carefully considered. The suggestion that there was a misunderstanding as to identity was most thoroughly gone into, and it was decided that as there could be no room for any misunderstanding, an interview with the gentleman in question would not serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. Williams: As the evidence upon which the Home Office rely was taken in the absence of the individual concerned, a British resident for 58 years, if there is even a remote possibility of a misunderstanding would it not be more consistent with what we regard as British justice that an opportunity should be given to remove it?
    Sir J. Simon: I should be the last person to want to keep up any misunderstanding on a matter of this sort, but I assure the hon. Member that it was only after the matter had been investigated very closely that the decision come to was reached.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the payments for total incapacity under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether any amending legislation is contemplated in the near future?
    Sir J. Simon: The question of what rates of benefit should be paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act is very difficult and controversial. As the hon. Member is aware, the programme of legislation for the current Session has already been announced, and he will appreciate that it is not possible for me at present to make any statement as to the programme for next Session.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Workmen's Compensation Act in this country is about the meanest in the Empire, and seeing that the Dominions' representatives are over here, will he not consult some of them as to how they can carry on a more generous Workmen's Compensation Act than we have in this country?

    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (COMMITTEE).
    Mr. Muffasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to
    414
    announce the constitution of the committee on corporal punishment?
    Sir J. Simon: At the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, it has been decided that the Committee shall inquire not only into the English but also into the Scottish law and practice. The Committee's terms of reference will be:
    "To consider the question of corporal punishment in the penal systems of England and Wales and of Scotland; to review the law and practice relating to the use of this method of punishment by Juvenile Courts, by other Courts and as a penalty for certain offences committed by prisoners; and to report what changes are necessary or desirable."
    As already announced, the Hon. Edward Cadogan has consented to act as Chairman of the Committee. The following ladies and gentlemen have now accepted invitations to serve on it:

    The Lady Ampthill, C.I., G.B.E.

    Mrs. A. E. Astley.

    Professor J. L. Brierly, O.B.E., J.P.,

    Mr. E. Ford Duncanson, D.S.C., M.A., J.P.,

    Dr. Robert Hutchison, M.D., F.R.C.P.,

    Sir William McKechnie, K.B.E., C.B.,

    Mr. H. R. Tutt, and

    Mr. Cecil Whiteley, K.C.

    My right hon. Friend and I contemplate adding one other woman member whose name will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mandel.: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any members of this Committee have themselves received corporal punishment?
    Sir J. Simon: That is a witticism which has been perpetrated before in the House. The answer to the question may emerge in the course of the proceedings.

    EDUCATION.

      SCHOOL CONDITIONS, WALES.
      Mr. James Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Education, whether, having regard to the high incidence of tuberculosis in Wales, the school medical officers of health in the Principality have made any reports to him as to the large number of school buildings that are unsuitable and should be replaced, and as to the fact that in

      415
      the rural areas children have to walk long distances to school and during inclement weather have no facilities for drying their clothes, and further that there are also no facilities for securing a substantial midday meal; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with these problems?
      The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Oliver Stanley): While a few school medical officers have called attention to these matters in their reports, the great majority have not done so. I am, however, alive to the importance of improving or replacing unsatisfactory school buildings, and progress is continually being made in this respect. As regards the provision of facilities for drying children's clothes and for providing a midday meal, attention has been called to these matters in the Board's pamphlet on Elementary School Buildings (Educational Pamphlet No. 107) and in Circular 1444, both of which were issued by my Department last year; and I hope that as progress is made with the reorganisation of elementary schools it may be possible to secure a substantial extension of these facilities.

      SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SPECIAL PLACES).
      Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Education the number of applications made to him by individual authorities or schools during the previous two years for permission to award free places in secondary schools in excess of the normal maximum; and in how many cases these have been granted?
      Mr. Stanley: Since the beginning of the school year 1936–37, there has been no upper limit to the percentage of special places that may be awarded in secondary schools. In the school years 1934–35 and 1935–36, seven local education authorities applied for permission to award special places in excess of 50 per cent. of the total admissions in the previous year, and permission was given in each case.

      SCHOOL ATTENDANCES, CHESHAM.
      Mr. Dobbieasked the President of the Board of Education the number of children who have been absent from school in and around Chesham during the past six weeks; whether there is reason to believe that a contributory
      416
      cause is the unsatisfactory system of sewage disposal in the area; and, if so, whether he will take steps to deal with the matter?
      Mr. Stanley: I have no information on the subject, but I am making inquiries.

    HOUSING.

      STATISIICS.
      Mr. Barrasked the Minister of Health what is the total number of houses, as for England and Wales, completed with State assistance from 1919 up to 3rst March, 1937, or the last available date; and the total amount of State subsidy paid in respect thereof?
      Sir K. Wood: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Following is the answer:
      The total number of houses completed by private enterprise in England and Wales with State assistance from 1919 up to 31st March, 1937, was 423,723. From 1919 up to 31st March, 1936, local housing authorities in England and Wales completed 829,851 houses with State assistance and during the year ended 31st March, 1937, they completed a further 71,029 houses. A small proportion of these houses did not specifically attract a subsidy, but owing to the pooling arrangements brought about by the Housing Act, 1935, all houses now provided by a local housing authority share in any State assistance given to that authority in respect of their houses. The total amount of State subsidy paid in respect of the houses from 1919 up to 31s1 March, 1937, was £178,715,463.

      EXCHEQUER GRANTS.
      Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether he has now considered the resolution passed by the local authorities of Lancashire and Cheshire, who met in Manchester on 28th April, 1937, asking for Exchequer contributions towards solving the housing problem: and whether he will state the decision arrived at?
      Sir K. Wood: I am aware of the terms of the resolution referred to and will take them into consideration when reviewing the position as regards future subsidies for both slum clearance and overcrowding

      417
      purposes. That review, as the hon. Member no doubt knows, falls to be made after 1st October next.
      Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Minister also keep in mind the resolutions that have been passed all over the country by the National Housing Association regarding this very question?
      Sir K. Wood: Certainly, if the association send me a copy of the resolution.
      Mr. Griffiths: You will have a bundle of them very soon.
      Sir K. Wood: The Postmaster-General will, no doubt, take note of that observation.

    PUBLIC HEALTH.

      MATERNAL MORTALITY.
      Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the abnormally high maternal mortality rate in Wales, and more particularly in the rural areas, he is satisfied with the proposals submitted by the appropriate authorities in the Principality for the provision of midwifery service; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?
      Sir K. Wood: The examination of the proposals submitted by the local supervising authorities in Wales under the Midwives Act, 1936, is not yet complete, but I am advised that in the case of the majority of the authorities their proposals may be considered generally adequate. In some cases further information is being awaited and in others particular points, varying in different areas, are the subject of communication with the local supervising authority concerned. If in any case I am advised that the proposals submitted are inadequate, I shall make the necessary representations to the authority concerned.
      Viscountess Astor: Seeing how many of these maternal mortality cases are due to abortion, will the Minister see that there are proper birth control clinics to give advice to women in Wales?
      Mr. Hepworthasked the Minister of Health what action his Department proposes to take on the recommendations contained in the report on an investigation into maternal mortality?
      Sir K. Wood: I have already taken action on the principal recommendations in this report. On 7th May, I addressed a circular to all the maternity and child welfare authorities in this country setting out the recommendations made for securing a complete and effective maternity service in each area, and requesting those authorities to take such steps as are necessary to extend and improve the services already available in their areas. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the circular. I am in communication with the Medical Research Council on the questions recommended in the report for further research, and, as I informed the House last Monday, I have, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, already appointed a committee to inquire into the prevalence of abortion and to consider what steps can be taken, by more effective enforcement of the law or otherwise, to secure the reduction of maternal mortality and morbidity arising from this cause.

      TUBERCULOSIS, WALES.
      Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Health, having regard to the high mortality rate from tuberculosis in Wales, what steps he proposes to take to deal with the problem; in particular, what progress is being made with proposals for rural re-housing; and whether these plans can be expedited in view of the gravity of the problem?
      Sir K. Wood: Although the rate of mortality from tuberculosis in Wales is higher than in England and Wales as a whole, I may remind the hon. Member that there has been a substantial decline in the rates in Wales as well as in the rest of the country, this decline amounting to 38 per cent. on the figures for 1935 as compared with 191o. In Wales, the arrangements for the treatment of tuberculosis are made by the Welsh National Memorial Association on behalf of the Welsh county and county borough councils, and a survey of the services provided by the association is at present being undertaken by one of the medical officers of the Welsh Board of Health. I am awaiting the results of this survey before considering what further measures are required. As regards the second part of the question, the position is that 4,300 houses are included in the slum clearance programmes of the Welsh rural authorities and that 1,339 replacement houses

      419
      have been approved, of which over 700 have been completed. A further 386 houses have been approved for the abatement of overcrowding and for general needs. My Department is continually watching the progress of the clearance programme with a view to expediting it where possible.

      REFUSE BARGES, RIVER THAMES.
      Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the large number of barges used for the conveyance of refuse down the River Thames which do not effectively prevent the refuse from being exposed to view and blown into the water; and whether he will draw the attention of the local authorities concerned to the advantages of using barges provided with wooden hatch-covers?
      Sir K. Wood: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

      RESPIRATORY DISEASES (DUKE-FINGARD TREATMENT).
      Mr. Rowsonasked the Minister of Health whether he will set up a committee of inquiry, consisting of an equal number of medical men and laymen, to inquire into the efficacy and genuineness of the Duke-Fingard inhalation treatment for diseases of the respiratory organs, such as chronic catarrh, bronchitis, bronchiectasis, asthma, and tuberculosis; and will he take steps to have this treatment made available for panel patients under the Health Insurance Acts who are suffering from chest complaints?
      Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I am not aware of any sufficient reason for instituting a special inquiry into this treatment. As regards the second part of the question, an insurance practitioner is free to give such treatment as in his judgment is appropriate for his patients.
      Mr. Rawson: Will the Minister put this treatment on the list of medicaments which may be used by the medical profession for the diseases mentioned in the question?
      Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.
      Mr. Jagger: Is the Minister aware that personal friends of mine and numbers of my constituents who had been given up as incurable have been cured by this treatment?

      SMOKE ABATEMENT.
      Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to state what steps he intends to take in respect of the report of the chief inspector of alkali works dealing with smoke abatement; and can he say that burning pit-heaps will be included when he deals with the smoke nuisance?
      Sir K. Wood: The report does not appear to call for any special action in this respect. It indicates that the chief inspector and his staff are active in these matters, and that, in so far as burning pit-heaps are concerned, much improvement has already resulted from action taken by them.
      Mr. Tinker: Shall we be able to discuss this report on the Estimates?
      Sir K. Wood: That will be a matter to be decided by whoever presides over the Committee.

      MILK (ADIJITEF.kTION).
      Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Health whether he has now decided to take further steps to protect the public against watered milk, in view of the failures, in recent prosecutions in cases of proved watering, to obtain convictions before the magistrates?
      Sir K. Wood: I have considered this matter again in the light of the recent prosecutions to which the hon. Member drew my attention. I understand that there was conflicting evidence in these cases, and that the magistrates in their discretion decided not to convict. In these circumstances, I do not. as at present advised, propose introduce any fresh legislation on this subject.
      Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that very large quantities of milk are being sold heavily watered and that convictions cannot be obtained under the present law, will the Minister take steps to deal with the situation?
      Sir K. Wood: I have looked into the cases which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to send me, arid apparently there was conflicting evidence, and the magistrates took a certain view. In the circumstances, it is not easy to see exactly what could be done

      TYNESIDE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
      Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Health what steps the Government propose to take in implementing the findings of the Royal Commission upon Tyneside Local Government prior to the introduction of legislation affecting the same, in view of the widely divergent resolutions passed by the leading local authorities concerned upon the majority and minority reports and also upon variations of the same?
      Sir K. Wood: I can only say that the large issues raised by this report are receiving the careful consideration which they clearly require.
      Mr. Shinwell: Will the Minister take note that there will be strong opposition in the county of Durham to the implementing of all the recommendations of this report?
      Mr. Magnay: Before anything is done, will the Minister consult all the Members of Parliament for the district, so that their views may be considered?
      Sir K. Wood: I will certainly do that, and, I may say, I have communicated with all the local authorities in the area so that I may have their observations.
      Mr. Dalton: Does that include Durham County Council?
      Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.
      Miss Wilkinson: Does the Minister's reply mean that the Government are considering early legislation on the matter?
      Sir K. Wood: That was not my reply. have said that I am communicating with all the people who are affected, in order to get their views, and when I have their statements I will give consideration to the report.
      Mr. Adams: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, if necessary, to interview representatives of the authorities concerned?
      Sir K. Wood: I will await their statements, which they will no doubt be sending me. Of course, if necessary, I shall always be glad to see representatives of local authorities on matters of this kind.

      GOLD POLICY.
      Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether,
      422
      as every paper pound is now covered by 22s. worth of gold, and in order to avoid moving gold-holdings between the Exchange Equalisation Fund and the currency issue, and also to absorb gold in excess of reserve requirements, he will coin golden token half-sovereigns as substitutes for paper ins. notes and as a supplement to 10 silver token shillings, and thus sterilize inflation of commodity prices induced by over-production of gold and suggest a similar correction in relation to the United States of America paper dollar?
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose at the present time.
      Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable amount of surplus gold, and is he content to allow present conditions to drift?
      Mr. Chamberlain: I think the suggestion which my hon. Friend makes would not help, because, seeing that the notes are covered to the extent of 100 per cent., it does not make any difference whether the central authority issues notes and holds gold against them or cancels the notes and issues the gold.
      Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable to wind up the Equalisation Fund in the near future?
      Mr. Chamberlain: No, Sir.

      TAX OFFICES (ACCOMMODATION).
      Sir N. Grattan-Doyleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing with regard to the office accommodation provided for the officials responsible for the administration of the Income Tax, especially in respect of the lack of privacy accorded to taxpayers who are called upon to visit these offices and to discuss their personal affairs with the officials; and whether he proposes to take steps to cause more suitable accommodation to be provided?
      Mr. Chamberlain: Every endeavour is made to secure satisfactory accommodation for tax offices, and, during the last seven years, 373 offices, more than half

      423
      the total number, have been rehoused, while the accommodation in many others has been improved. In addition, it is anticipated that 44 more offices will be rehoused during the present year. The provision of proper facilities for the discussion of the taxpayer's affairs in privacy is one of the factors considered in planning accommodation, and is at present being reviewed. I am aware that proposals for further improvements have been received from the staff associations concerned, and these are under consideration.
      Major Dower: Would it not be possible, in the meanwhile, for one or two private rooms to be available at Income Tax offices where these personal conversations could take place?
      Mr. Chamberlain: We are trying to get that provided.

      LOCATION OF INDUSTRY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
      Mr. Lawsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state the names of the members of the Royal Commission on Location of Industry and the terms submitted to the Commission?
      Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state when the Royal Commission will be set up to inquire into the location and extension of industry, with a view to securing a more even distribution of production; and whether he can now give the terms of reference and the names of the persons who will be appointed to serve on such Commission?
      Mr. Chamberlain: I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement on this subject.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary to the Treasury the average aggregate annual cost over 20 years of providing increased pensions of £1 a week to all insured persons and to the aged over 70 benefiting under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1909 to 1924, with 35s. a week for married couples; the average annual cost of providing pensions of £1 a week to all persons within the scope of the Widows',
      424
      Orphans' and Old Age Contributory, Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1936; to widows of 55 years of age and over; and to widows of 65 years of age and over. respectively?
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am not clear what classification of costs the hon. Member desires as regards pensioners under 70. On 4th May I informed the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) that the additional cost of increasing pensions at 65 to all old age and contributory pensioners (including widows) to £1 a week (35s. for a married couple) would be about £75,000,000 a year at the present time, rising to about £95,000,000 a year in 20 years time. Of the figure of £75,000,000, about £42,500,000 is in respect of pensioners of 70 and over and about £32,500,000 in respect of pensioners between 65 and 70. Perhaps the hon. Member will consider whether these figures are sufficient for his purpose, and, if they are not, no doubt he will communicate with me.
      Mr. Dobbieasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the increasing prosperity of the nation, the Government will consider granting the old age pension to wives over the age of 55 years at the date their husbands qualify for pensions under the National Health Insurance Act?
      Mr. G. Hardieasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how soon the Government will alter the present Act relating to contributory old age pensions, giving to the wife, irrespective of her age, the pension at the same time as her husband?
      Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As the hon. Members are aware. similar proposals have been made from time to time, but it has not been found possible to accept them.
      Mr. Dobbieasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government have given any consideration to the question of granting pensions of 10s. per week to spinsters on attaining the age of 55 years under similar conditions to those which apply to the granting of the old age pension at the age of 70 years; and what is the estimate of the cost of this proposal?
      Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As regards the first part of the question. I would refer

      425
      the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 18th February last to the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach). The cost of granting a pension of 10s. a week to all unmarried women at 55 would be about £13,000,000 at the present time, as regards the period up to the attainment of the age of 70, plus the further cost (which I am unable to estimate) of old age pensions at 70 to single women who are not at present entitled to them. This figure would rise steadily in future. I am unable to estimate by how much this cost would be reduced by the application of a means test, as the necessary data are not available.

      MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES).
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownallasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give the decision of the Government on the question of Members' salaries?
      The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): In accordance with the undertaking which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on 7th April, I have made careful inquiries into the question whether the salaries of Members of Parliament should be increased. The existing figure of £400 was fixed in 1911. It is, I think, obvious that, if £400 was adequate in the circumstances then existing, it cannot be so regarded in the very different conditions which prevail to-day. After careful consideration the Government have decided to propose to the House of Commons that the figure should be increased to £600. The necessary steps will be taken at an early date.
      Sir A. Pownall: May I be permitted to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend for the decision that has been arrived at?
      Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the proposal be framed in such a way as to enable the House, if it wishes, to use a fraction of the sum to create a scheme for a pension fund for Members of Parliament?
      The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to-day to add anything to the answer I have given, but perhaps, if a question were put down at an early date, it would receive attention.
      Sir Percy Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when this proposal is likely to come into operation? Will it be at an early date?
      The Prime Minister: It might save time ii I repeat that I am unable to add anything to-day to my answer.
      Mr. Michael Beaumont: Will this proposal require fresh legislation; and, if so, or in any case, will my right hon. Friend consider the propriety, in view of the division of opinion in the House on this matter, of leaving it to a free vote of the House?
      The Prime Minister: I am not certain that it would be an act of propriety on my part to consider anything that this House might do next week.

      COAL INDUSTRY.

        OIL EXTRACTION.
        Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Lord President of the Council the number of processes for the extraction of oil from coal which have been examined by the Fuel Research Board; and in how many cases the Board has advised that there is a possibility of commercial success.
        The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Tests of 15 plants have been made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research under the published conditions for testing of plants for the low temperature carbonization of coal. These tests are concerned only with the performance of the plants during the period of test and with the technincal aspects of the processes involved. Reports upon these tests are intended to place accurate technical data in the hands of those interested, and no attempt is made to pronounce on the commercial possibilities of the plants concerned. Experimental work on the production of oil from coal by low temperature carbonization and other methods, such as hydrogenation and synthesis from mixtures of carbon monoxide and oxygen, has also been carried out by the Fuel Research Station as part of its normal programme. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the latest published report of the Fuel Research Board, in which reference is made to this work, and also a copy of the conditions under which tests of low temperature carbonization plants are carried out.
        Mr. Mathers: Are the tests with respect to these processes always carried out strictly in accordance with the formulas of the inventors?
        Mr. MacDonald: I understand that that is so.
        Mr. Robinsonasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now state the names of the members of the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence which has been constituted to examine the various processes for the production of oil from coal having regard to the necessity of security of oil supplies in emergency.
        The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardiff, East (Mr. T. Morris) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Coordination of Defence.
        Mr. Robinson: Does the sub-committee propose to invite any of the parties to give evidence, and when will it begin its sittings?
        Captain Crookshank: I think those questions had better be on the Paper, but I can say in regard to the last that the Committee has already met several times.

        BOYS (EMPLOYMENT).
        Mr. Whiteleyasked the Secretary for Mines how many coal-producing countries employ boys of 14 to 16 years of age below ground between the hours of 10 in the evening and six in the morning?
        Captain Crookshank: I regret that the information is not available.

      PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE (ANNUAL REPORTS).
      Mr. Harveyasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to resume the printing of the statutory annual report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Record Office, the issue of which has been discontinued since 192o; and whether copies of the annual report are now available for consultation except in the Library of the Houses of Parliament?
      Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
      428
      negative. Besides the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament, the re-ports can be consulted at the Public Record Office, the British Museum, the Central Library, Manchester, and the National Library of Wales.

      NEW COINAGE.
      Mr. Leckieasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the reason for the delay in issuing in bulk the new 3d. pieces; and when more of the coins are to be issued?
      Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Over 8,000,000 of these pieces have already been issued to the banks. Production of further quantities is proceeding at an average rate of some 800,000 pieces a week, but regard must always be had to the demands for the other denominations.
      Mr. H. G. Williams: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is an acute shortage of these coins in England; and will he consult his fellow-countrymen as to where they all are?
      Mr. Thorne: Are they hidden away in the banks?
      Lieut.-Colonel Colville: They are not in the banks, but I understand that they are treasured by individuals.

      MUNSTER SQUARE, REGENT'S PARK.
      Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Agriculture what action is being taken by the Commissioners for Crown Lands to preserve from destruction Munster Square, Regent's Park, designed by Nash and under their guardianship?
      The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The plans for re-development in the area east of Regent's Park between Cumberland Market and Longford Street —which includes Munster Square—will be settled in consultation with the Town Planning Department of the London County Council and the Crown Lands Advisory Committee, and will ultimately be exhibited in the House for inspection before building is commenced. I understand that the tenement houses referred to were designed by a private leaseholder, and not by John Nash, and are dilapidated and in many respects out of date as houses to be lived in. The question

      429
      whether these or other buildings on the estate ought to be preserved on architectural grounds will, however, receive the fullest consideration before the plans for development are finally settled. For fuller information on the general proposals for the development of this area, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 26th January last to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson).

      OYSTER PRODUCTION.
      Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made during recent years in the commercial production of oysters in tanks on the coasts 'of Great Britain; and whether research has yet reached a point where this industry can be expanded on a large scale?
      Mr. W. S. Morrison: There has been no production of oysters in tanks on a commercial scale up to the present in Great Britain. Experiments have, however, been undertaken in oyster-breeding in tanks since 1919, and for some years systematic and co-ordinated research in the matter has been in progress. A stage has now been reached in the evolution of a tank-breeding process when it is thought that commercial success in this method of production may be anticipated with some confidence.

      AGRICULTURE.

        LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY.
        Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the future operation of the Livestock Industry Bill and the loss of employment to the workers connected with the markets selected to be closed, he will take some steps to protect and secure for all workers continuity of employment.
        Mr. W. S. Morrison: The question of provision for compensation for loss of employment resulting from the operation of a Livestock Markets Order was fully discussed during the Committee and Report stages of the Livestock Industry Bill, and I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I made on those occasions.
        Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. friend consider, in the long-term policy
        430
        of the Government, making some provision for the protection of these men; arid does he not think that they might be employed in producing fertilisers for the land in the event of the long-term policy coming into operation?
        Mr. Gallacher: Are not the Government going to accept any responsibility for providing employment for these men, in view of the fact that it is the Government who will have put these men out of a job, through reorganisation?
        Mr. Morrison: It is by no means certain that any men will lose their jobs. The matter was fully discussed, and I have nothing to add to the replies which I made during the debates.
        Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture, in the case of dispossessed and compensated auctioneers in a market closed by reason of the operation of the Livestock Industry Bill, what safeguards it is his intention to adopt to prevent these auctioneers reopening in an adjacent market.
        Mr. Morrison: It is proposed under the Livestock Industry Bill to give the Livestock Commission power to make bylaws regulating the holding of livestock auctions in any markets in Great Britain. It is also proposed to provide facilities which will enable an authorised body, composed of auctioneers, themselves to determine, through the medium of a service scheme, the persons who may carry on the business of effecting sales by auction of livestock in markets to which such by-laws apply. I am satisfied that these provisions are sufficient to enable all necessary control to be exercised.
        Mr. De la Bère: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that part of the Bill is destructive of private enterprise?
        Mr. Morrison: No, I do not.

        PIGS AND BACON MARKETING SCHEMES.
        Mr. Alexanderasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the proposals of the Government in connection with the pigs and bacon marketing schemes, in view of the difficulties now being experienced by those engaged in the industry owing to the absence of a national contract?
        Mr. W. S. Morrison: The question of the reorganisation of the pigs and bacon marketing schemes is receiving the active consideration of the Government, but I am not yet able to make any statement in the matter.
        Mr. Alexander: Is not the Minister aware that there is a position of great uncertainty since the last annual contract for. pigs and bacon broke down, and that it is urgently necessary that some decision should be arrived at?
        Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the necessity for speed and, as far as my Department is concerned, there will be no avoidable delay. It is only recently, however, that I have received representations from many persons who are interested in the future of this industry.
        Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the inclusion of pork in the new scheme in view of the fact that the non-inclusion of pork led partly to the breakdown?
        Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the point that the hon. Member makes, and I will certainly give it consideration.

        POULTRY INDUSTRY.
        Mr. Price (for Mr. Lewis)asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is now prepared to take in view of the fact that many home producers have been unable to find a market for poultry which had been specially reared and prepared for sale during the past month owing to the abnormal importation of poultry from abroad during this period?
        Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr De la Bère) on 25th May.

        GOVERNMENT POLICY.
        Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to agricultural policy?
        Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am glad of this opportunity to make a statement. The Government have very carefully considered the position of agriculture from the points of view of the welfare of agriculture itself, national Defence, and the importance of maintaining continuity in our agricultural policy that is designed to ensure maximum supplies for the con-
        432
        sumer consistent with reasonable remuneration for the producer. The Government have in the past initiated proposals for dealing with particular agricultural products. This side of the Government's policy will continue and I hope shortly to announce proposals for the future of the milk and pig industries. There are, however, certain fundamental matters with which I wish to deal in the following statement.
        In regard to Defence, I should like at the outset to stress the following considerations. The two objectives—of producing the maximum quantity of food to meet our requirements in time of war, on the one hand, arid of the efficient development of our agriculture in time of peace, on the other—not only demand very different methods, but, to a natural extent, are opposed to each other. In particular, a drastic policy of food production for war purposes would entail the ploughing up of an extensive area of our grassland for the purpose of growing cereals and other crops for human consumption. In peace time, however, livestock husbandry, which is the foundation of our agriculture, is naturally based on a grassland system on account of the physical and climatic advantages which favour it. The Government have had to determine where, between these two objectives, the path lies which, on balance, it would be wise to follow.
        In the opinion of the Government, to put agriculture on a war-time footing with all the regulations, the regimentation of the farming community. and the heavy costs that it would unavoidably involve, would not be practicable at the present time; nor in their opinion is the situation such as to require the adoption of this course in time of peace. The Government are equally satisfied that considerations of national defence would not justify a policy in peace time of stimulating agricultural production to such a pitch that the country would e faced with a highly artificial situation which would, sooner or later, have to be liquidated if the emergency did not arise. Such a policy would be costly to build up and costly to close down. Moreover, farmers themselves will have a vivid recollection of the disorganisation and uncertainties which followed the repeal of the Corn Production Acts in 1921, and the Government have no wish to put them in such a position again.

        433
        Having regard to these considerations, the Government are satisfied that the best course in the general national interest is to continue their efforts to improve the general prosperity and efficiency of home agriculture, and in particular to promote an increase in the fertility and productivity of our soil. The proposals which I shall now outline are so designed that should an emergency arise we should be in a position immediately to take advantage of improved fertility but, should it not arise, we should be increasing the productivity of our land and stock by means which are consistent with, and not opposed to, the normal development of our agriculture on economic lines in time of peace.
        To achieve this object, the Government propose that the following measures should be taken:
        Liming.—One of the most serious deficiencies of the land of this country arises from failure to maintain the old practice of applying lime to the soil. Due to the long depression, farmers have been unable to bear the cost. The result has been felt not only in diminished fertility, but also in the lack of elements essential to healthy plant and animal life. The Government propose to assist farmers in raising the fertility of the soil by increased use of lime. They also consider it desirable to secure increased application particularly to grasslands, of basic slag which, like lime, is available from home sources and has an enduring effect upon the soil. They propose that for a limited period of years the cost to the farmer of lime and basic slag should be reduced by approximately 5o per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively. The object of these proposals is not only to make good past exhaustion of soil fertility in many parts of the country, but to build up reserves of fertility, valuable in peace time, and immediately available to meet the heavy demands upon it which might be made in time of war.
        Wheat.—It is proposed to raise the limit of the "anticipated supply" under the Wheat Act, 1932, from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 quarters and thereby to stimulate an increase in the wheat acreage. In present circumstances this involves no cost but will give valuable additional insurance to wheat growers in the United Kingdom.
        434
        Oats and Barley.—The Government propose also to introduce a scheme in respect of oats and barley which will be in the nature of an insurance against low prices. It will apply only to those growers of oats and barley in the United Kingdom not receiving benefit under the Wheat Act. For the purpose of the Oats Scheme there will be a standard price of 8s. per cwt., and a national standard acreage will be determined. A payment will be made to the grower in respect of each eligible acre. This payment will be calculated on the basis that, on the average, about 6 cwt. per acre are sold off farms. The payment will, therefore, be equal to six times the difference between the standard price of 8s. per cwt. and the average market price over a period. If the total acreage eligible for subsidy exceeds the national standard acreage, the rate of payment will be reduced proportionately. In the case of barley the principle of a national standard acreage will also apply, and it is proposed that payment will be at the same rate per acre as that for oats. At the prices prevailing for oats at the present time no payment would be made, but it is estimated that if prices were to fall to the lowest level of recent years the Exchequer liability in any year, in respect of both oats and barley, would not exceed £1,750,000. In no case will the payment exceed £1 per acre.
        Drainage.—It is proposed to extend the system of Exchequer grants for land drainage. In England and Wales grants will be given for works to be carried out by the lesser drainage authorities concerned. In Scotland the rate of grant for drainage under the scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland will be increased. It is hoped that with the aid of these grants it will be possible, in any one year, without interfering with the labour required for agriculture, to undertake essential works costing up to £450,000.
        Grassland Improvement—In a policy aimed at raising the fertility and productivity of our soil the improvement of our grassland must be an objective of fundamental importance. Grass forms one of our greatest natural resources and it is in the national interests that it should be more fully and profitably utilised in

        435
        time of peace and be a reservoir of fertility for an emergency. By the Livestock Industry Bill at present before Parliament and the arrangements for regulating supplies of livestock and meat to this market the Government are seeking to promote the prosperity and efficiency of the livestock industry. The Government believe that this measure and those now proposed for drainage and for the increased use of lime and basic slag will lead to a marked improvement in the grassland of this country. The Government are also alive to the potentialities of dried grass as a possible addition to home-grown supplies of feeding stuffs. They are accordingly encouraging further experiments in grass drying.
        Eradication of Animal Diseases.—The Government also propose to initiate a large-scale and more comprehensive campaign for the eradication of animal diseases in Great Britain. Our object is to improve the health of our livestock and increase agricultural productivity by seeking to eliminate what is perhaps the worst of all forms of wastage and economic loss in agriculture. In the first instance, efforts will mainly be directed to the eradication of diseases among cattle. The scheme will involve an additional charge on the Exchequer of about £6000,000 per annum for the first four years. It will, however, involve centralisation of public veterinary services and as against the increased cost to the Exchequer, the expenditure by local authorities will be reduced by about f£170,000. Parliamentary authority will be required for these proposals. The Government are anxious, however, to lose no time in developing the existing schemes of control of disease and, accordingly, I am arranging at once to amend the Attested Herds Scheme under the Milk Act, 1934, by providing additional assistance in England and Wales, as has already been done in Scotland, to owners of dairy stock who are desirous of eradicating tuberculosis from their herds. This revised scheme will become operative on the 1st June next.
        In the opinion of the Government the proposals which I have outlined by increasing the productivity of our agriculture, not only will enable it better to meet the situation in the event of war, but will be a substantial aid towards raising efficiency, lowering costs and
        436
        establishing the industry on a sounder economic foundation in time of peace.
        The necessary legislation to give effect to these proposals will be introduced at the earliest possible moment.
        Mr. De la Bère: May I be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman?
        Mr. T. Williams: While it would be indiscreet on my part and on the part of any hon. Member to question the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, might I ask him whether an estimate has been made of the total annual cost when all these schemes have been brought into being?
        Mr. Morrison: I have an estimate which is necessarily rough in the circumstances. We reckon that land drainage will cost about £140:000 a year, the lime and basic slag proposals, roughly, £1,000,000, the prevention of disease £600,000 and oats and barley, the provision for which will vary from year to year, a maximum of £1,750,000.
        Mr. D. Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether the proposal for assisting to supply lime and basic slag contemplates the fixing of prices, and whether during any given period he contemplates the provision of lime and basic slag at the percentages lower than present prices?
        Mr. Morrison: I cannot give a long explanation of a complicated scheme, but the House may rest assured that arrangements will be made to ensure that this assistance in regard to lime and basic slag will pass directly to the land. Some system of price control of that character will be undertaken.
        Sir Francis Acland: I; it contemplated to do anything for the really small men in agriculture, namely. the allotment holders, from the point of view of extra security of tenure in their plots?
        Mr. Morrison: That is a different matter, but if the right hon. Gentleman will give me notice of it I might make a separate statement at some other time.
        Sir Ronald Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the scheme in general, and particularly that part relating to lime and oats, will apply to the United Kingdom as a whole?
        Mr. Morrison: I understand that already the Government of Northern Ireland have made representations to His Majesty's Government on that matter, and it is now under discussion.
        Mr. Bellenger: With reference to that portion of the statement dealing with land drainage, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when the Government introduce legislation, they will at the same time give consideration to certain features of the existing Land Drainage Acts, namely, the method of assessment of drainage rates?
        Mr. Morrison: That is a separate matter again, but I will bear it in mind.
        Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement about poultry?
        Mr. Morrison: I cannot at the present time.
        Mr. T. Johnston: Having regard to the Government's motive for increasing the productivity of our soil, have they taken into consideration the desirability of increasing the market by arranging for increased consumption in the home market?
        Mr. Morrison: The whole policy of the Government in recent years has been directed to providing the consumers with more wealth, and there has been a great increase.
        Lieut.-Colonel the Marquess of Titchfield: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to introduce the legislation before or after the Recess?
        Mr. Morrison: I hope to introduce it at the earliest possible moment.
        Colonel Baldwin-Webb: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what plan he has for the poultry industry?
        Mr. Morrison: That is a different matter, and I have already stated that I am not in the position to make an announcement now.
        Mr. Paling: In view of the necessity for subsidising this industry, is it not time for the nation to take it over in its own interests?

      TRADE AND COMMERCE.

        AUSTRALIA (IRON ORE DEPOSITS).
        Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he
        438
        will arrange for consultations to take place with representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, with a view to securing that the iron ore deposits of Yampi Sound and the Blythe River are developed by and for British or Australian industry?
        The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Marquess of Hartington): My right hon. Friend does not think that the question is one that could usefully be discussed at the Imperial Conference. The development of the iron ore deposits in Australia is a matter for the Commonwealth Government and for the respective State Governments. I understand that an Australian operating company has been formed to develop the iron ore deposits in the Yampi Sound, and it appears from a recent notice in the Press that a company with a nominal capital of £35O,OO0 has been formed to develop the Blythe River deposits.
        Mr. Smith: Is the Noble Lord aware that this Australian company has been formed by a London finance company and that these iron ore supplies are being exploited in Japanese interests?
        Marquess of Hartington: I understand the Australian Government are fully informed about the position.
        Miss Wilkinson: In view of the serious shortage of iron ore in this country and the fact that, as the result of the policy of the Government, the Spanish deposits have been handed over to General Franco, does not the Noble Lord consider that the time has arrived for the development of iron ore within the Empire?

        IMPERIAL TRADE.
        Mr. E. Smithasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will arrange for the question of bulk trading and reciprocal trading between the Dominions and Colonies and the United Kingdom to he discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, with a view, in particular, to adopting the policy proposed by the Finance Minister of New Zealand?
        Marquess of Hartington: General questions concerning Imperial trade are open for discussion at the Imperial Conference, but as my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on 25th February, it has been arranged that questions arising out of the Ottawa Agreements shall be

        439
        dealt with by discussions between the individual Governments affected as occasion arises.
        Mr. Smith: Will the Minister answer the question whether the Government accept the principle contained in the question?
        Marquess of Hartington: Yes, when the hon. Member puts it on the Paper.

      WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
      Mr. Muffasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his Department was responsible for the preparation of Westminster Abbey for the Coronation; was the cost defrayed out of national funds; whether his Department is responsible for placing the Abbey into its former state; whether the cost of this work will be met out of public funds; and when will Westminster Abbey be able to be used for public worship?
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson) (for the First Commissioner of "Works): The answers to the first four parts of the question are in the affirmative. My Noble Friend hopes that the Abbey will again be available for public worship early in September.
      Mr. Muff: Seeing that these alterations were a public charge, can the Minister justify the charge of 10s. and 5s. to visitors? Further, can the hon. Gentleman say whether this huge sum is going to the Dean and Chapter and into their own private kitty?
      Mr. Hudson: I think a proportion of the proceeds go into the public Exchequer.

      PUBLIC BUILDINGS (FLOOD LIGHTING).
      Colonel Nathanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the public disappointment at the curtailment of the Coronation flood-lighting of public buildings, he will authorise the resumption of flood-lighting at week-ends for a limited number of weeks?
      Mr. R. S. Hudson: I would refer the hop, and gallant Member to the reply
      440
      given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans). The cost of retaining or reinstating the equipment even for a limited period on a hire basis would be considerable.

      AIRCRAFT FACTORY, SPEKE.
      Mr. Kirbyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how the building of the air factory at Speke (Liverpool) is progressing; when it is expected that the building will be completed; how many men are employed thereon; and what proportion are residents of Liverpool and/or Merseyside?
      The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): Satisfactory progress is being made and it is expected that the building will be completed early next year. The present number of men employed is 306, and I am advised that about 70 per cent. of them are residents of Liverpool or Merseyside.

      FLEET AIR ARM (MACHINES, DESIGNS).
      Mr. De la Bèreasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can give some assurance to the House that the average age of the designs of machines at present in use in the Fleet Air Arm is not markedly greater than that of the designs at present in use in the Royal Air Force?
      Sir P. Sassoon: I am glad to be able to give the assurance asked for by my hon. Friend.

      BRITISH ARMY.

        VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRES.
        Major Sir Reginald Dorman-Smithasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Army vocational training centres undertake work for private individuals; whether he is satisfied that it is fair to submit bona fide traders to this type of competition; and, if not, whether he will take steps to put a stop to this practice?
        The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): Yes, Sir. The work given to trainees at Army vocational training centres is normally of a public nature, but, when this is not available, private

        441
        work of educational value may be undertaken for individual members of the Army, regimental and garrison institutes, and civilians employed by the War Department provided it is to meet their own requirements and is not for profit or commercial use. The price charged, moreover, is that which it is estimated that an ordinary commercial firm would charge for the same work, except in cases where the workmanship, being that of a trainee, is not up to full commercial standard, when a reduction is made. I do not agree, therefore, that there is any ground for complaint.

        SUPPLY OF OFFICERS (COMMITTEE).
        Mr. Lees-Smithasked the Secretary of State for War whether the committee on the supply of officers for the Army has yet been set up; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the names of the committee and the terms of reference?
        Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir, the composition of the committee is now complete. I am happy to state that Lord Willingdon has consented to act as Chairman. The members of the committee are Mr. Will Spens, Master of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; Mr. S. R. K. Gurner, Headmaster of Whitgift School, Croydon; Lieut.-General Sir Charles Deedes, Military Secretary, War Office; Major-General E. K. Squires, Director of Staff Duties, War Office; and Mr. T. J. Cash, a Director of Finance, War Office. The terms of reference are:
        "To inquire into the causes of the present shortage of officers in the Army and to recommend measures to remedy it, and also to consider whether the present system of promotion from the ranks is working satisfactorily and whether it can be extended."
        The committee is starting its deliberations immediately.
        Mr. Ammon: Would not the committee be strengthened by the addition of a headmaster from one of the secondary schools under public authorities?
        Mr. Cooper: The headmaster of Whitgift School has had previous experience as a headmaster of a secondary school. He was selected primarily owing to his knowledge of secondary schools.

      INDIA (CATTLE).
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Under-Secretary of State for
      442
      India the approximate number of cows in India; how the proportion of cows and the milk consumption per head of population in India compares with that in Great Britain; and what steps are being taken at the present time to encourage the importation into India of high-class breeding stock to raise the standard of cattle in that country?
      Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. According to the latest figures available, the number of cows in British India is about 37,000,000. As regards milk consumption and cattle breeding in India I would refer to the information given on pages 211 to 256 of the report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in India. The Government Military dairy farms endeavour to improve the quality of their herds by the importation of special breeding stock. Any questions my hon. Friend may wish to ask in regard to the number of cows and the rate of milk consumption in this country should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
      Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. and gallant Friend convey to the Under-Secretary the fact that Ayrshire cattle have secured all the highest awards?
      Viscountess Astor: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman find out how many of these cows are tubercular and really a danger to health?

      SPAIN.
      Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what messages were sent by the admiral commanding the "Royal Oak" to the British merchant vessel "Kenfig Pool" prior to its entry into Bilbao on 24th May; whether these instructions included any statement as to rebel ships firing on this vessel when it was in territorial waters; and what information was given concerning the presence of mines in territorial waters?
      The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I am not yet in possession of full information on the points raised by the hon. Member. I should prefer, therefore, to deal with this question in conjunction with those dealing with the same subject already on the Order Paper for Monday next.
      Mr. Noel-Baker(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received any further information concerning the attack made upon a French air liner near Bilbao by German Military Aircraft, and whether they have received any proposals from the French Government for a joint protest to General Franco and the German Government?
      The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): I have been asked to reply. The answer to both parts of the question is No, Sir.
      Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask the Noble Lord whether the Government are aware that this liner was of the usual type and was following the usual route; that it is regularly used by foreign Press correspondents, representatives of the International Red Cross, and foreign consular agents; that it was attacked by five fighting machines in the air, and that after it landed it was attacked by machine guns; and is that not an outrage against international law which requires most energetic action by the Government?
      Viscount Cranborne: I can only repeat that it is a French machine, and it is primarily a matter for the French Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: Can the Prime Minister say what is to be the business for next week?
The Prime Minister: On Monday we shall take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and the Committee stage of the Civil List Bill.
Tuesday: Continuation of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, which we propose to conclude at 7.3o, and afterwards the Third Reading of the Civil List Bill.
Wednesday: Supply, Committee (8th allotted day). The Vote to be considered will be announced later.
Thursday: Ministers of the Crown Bill, Report and Third Reading.
The Business for Friday will be announced later, arid, if there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 117.

Division No. 192.]

AYES.

[3.58 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Bull, B. B.

Doland, G. F.

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

Bullock, Capt. M.

Donner, P. W.

Albery, Sir Irving

Burghley, Lord

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

Burton, Col. H. W.

Dower, Major A. V. G.

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

Cary, R. A.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

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

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

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

Duggan, H. J.

Assheton, R.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Dunglass, Lord

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Elliot, Rt. Hen. W. E.

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

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

Ellis, Sir G.

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Channon, H.

Elmley, Viscount

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Emery, J. F.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Balniel, Lord

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

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

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

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

Everard, W. L.

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

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

Fildes, Sir H.

Beit, Sir A. L.

Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

Fleming, E. L.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Cox, H. B. T.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Bernays, R. H.

Critchley, A.

Furness, S. N.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Blair, Sir R.

Gross, R. H.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Bossom, A. C.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Gledhill, G.

Boulton, W. W.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Gluekstein, L. H.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vonsittart

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Goldie, N. B.

Sower, Comdr. R. T.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Brass, Sir W.

Dawson, Sir P.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Do Chair, S. S.

Gretton-Doyle, Sir N.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

De la Bère, R.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Brown, Col. O. C. (Hexham)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Denville, Alfred

Grimston, R. V.

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

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Mander, G. le M.

Savery, Sir Servington

Guy, J. C. M.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Selley, H. R.

Hanbury, Sir C.

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

Shakespeare, G. H.

Hannah, I. C.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Harbord, A.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Harris, Sir P. A.

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Hartington, Marquess of

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

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

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Heilgers, Captain F F. A.

Moreing, A. C.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Morgan, R. H.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Munro, P.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Higgs, W. F.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

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

Holdsworth, H.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Hopkinson, A.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Patrick, C. M.

Sutcliffe, H.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Peake, O.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

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

Perkins, W. R. D.

Tate, Mavis C.

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Petherick, M.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Hulbert, N. J.

Pilkington, R.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Hume, Sir G. H.

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Touche, G. C.

Hunter, T.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Power, Sir J. C.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Joel, D. J. B.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.

Keeling, E. H.

Procter, Major H. A.

Turton, R. H.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Radford, E. A.

Wakefield, W. W.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Ramsbotham, H.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Kimball, L.

Rankin, Sir R.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Warrender, Sir V.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Latham, Sir P.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Watt, G. S. H.

Leckie, J. A.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Wayland, Sir W. A

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Wells, S. R.

Levy, T.

Ropner, Colonel L.

White, H. Graham

Lewis, O.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Lindsay, K. M.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

Little, Sir E. Graham.

Rothschild, J. A. de

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

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Rowlands, G.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Lloyd, G. W.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Loftus, P. C.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Wise, A. R.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Withers, Sir J. J.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

M'Connell, Sir J.

Salmon, Sir I.

Wragg, H.

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

Samuel, M. R. A.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

McKie, J. H.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Magnay, T.

Sandys, E. D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

Ward and Mr. James Stuart.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Day, H.

Kelly, W. T.

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

Dobbie, W.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

Ede, J. C.

Kirby, B. V.

Ammon, C. G.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Kirkwood, D.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

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

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Gallacher, W.

Lawson, J. J.

Banfield, J. W.

Gardner, B. W.

Lee, F.

Barnes, A. J.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Leonard, W.

Barr, J.

Gibbins, J.

Logan, D. G.

Batey, J.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Bellenger, F. J.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

McEntee, V. La T.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

McGhee, H. G.

Broad, F. A.

Grenfell, D. R.

MacLaren, A.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

MacNeill, Weir, L.

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

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Buchanan, G.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Marshall, F.

Burke, W. A.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Mathers, G.

Cassells, T.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Maxton, J.

Chater, D.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Milner, Major J.

Cluse, W. S.

Hopkin, D.

Montague, F.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Jagger, J.

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

Cocks, F. S.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

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

Daggar, G.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Muff, G.

Dalton, H.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Paling, W.

446

447

Parkinson, J. A.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Watson, W. McL.

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

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

Welsh, J. C.

Potts, J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Westwood, J.

Price, M. P.

Sorensen, R. W.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Pritt, D. N.

Stephen, C.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Quibell, D. J. K.

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

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Ritson, J.

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

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

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

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Rowson, G.

Thorne, W.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Thurtle, E.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Sanders, W. S.

Tirker, J. J.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Sexton, T. M.

Viant, S. P.

Shinwell, E.

Walkden, A. G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Short, A.

Walker, J.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

BILL PRESENTED.
  METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL,
  "to make provision for proportional representation in the election of Metropolitan Borough Councils," presented by Sir Percy Harris; supported by Mr. C. Wilson, Mr. Rickards, Sir William Wayland, Dr. Salter, and Mr. W. Roberts; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Sheep Stocks Valuation (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

FACTORIES BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

CIVIL LIST BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
4.10 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"this House cannot assent to a Civil List Bill which merely accepts and continues traditional conceptions of state and ceremonial instead of recognising that greater simplicity in the daily life of the Court is essential in the modern democratic constitution of the British Commonwealth."
This is not an occasion for ordinary party controversy, but it may well be an occasion when there is conflict of opinion on matters which are outside narrow party considerations. On this side of the House, after very full consideration, we decided on a line of policy which we believe is having very considerable public support. We have taken the line that it is desirable to simplify the vast and complex machinery which surrounds the Monarch and his family. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who spoke on the Money Resolution, took the view that we had little support for this attitude, and he did it in what seemed to me unnecessarily offensive words. He said:
"I wonder indeed on what he bases his contention"—
He was referring to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
"that there is this deep feeling amongst the advanced thinkers, the modern highbrows, that all this sort of thing requires profound simplification. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1937; cols. 45–6, Vol.
It will be within the recollection of the House that on the passing of the late King and the welcome to the new King my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in simple and dignified language said that he thought this was an occasion when all the paraphernalia surrounding the Throne should be simplified. After that speech we had a good deal of evidence, not from advanced thinkers or modern highbrows, unless the middle classes of this country would care to regard themselves as such, which I do
456
not think they would or could claim to be, that that view met with a considerable amount of support from a large number of people. Since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Petrick-Lawrence) spoke on Monday last, further evidence has reached us that this view is not merely the view of working people, but is a view which is very widespread among other sections of society for whom hon. Members opposite can perhaps claim to speak more than we do.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping devoted a good deal of his speech to the Coronation celebrations. In my view most of what he said then was irrelevant to what is the problem before the House. We are not against pageantry. Indeed, we should like to make the life of the people a little more colourful than it is to-day. It is, I think, unchallengeable that there was more bunting outside the homes of the poor of this land than there was outside the homes of the well-to-do. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) tells me that a well-known Lancashire newspaper, the "Manchester Evening Chronicle," offered a prize of £10 for the best decorated street. That prize was won by the poorest street in my horn Friend's constituency, and the people there gave the £10 to the local hospital. They made another collection and sent a further £6 to the local hospital. In a way there is something pitiful about that situation. It was an opportunity used by the poor to escape for a time from the drabness and the monotony of their lives. It was a spontaneous expression of opinion unrivalled in the West End of London, at least by private houses, of rejoicing on an occasion which seldom occurs in our national life.
In the movement for which I speak we have joyous occasions on which there is colour and life. I think our May Day celebrations and our miners' gala days will rival anything which can be produced by careful State organisation. We welcome that kind of thing; but that is not the point. The point is not the celebration of a particular occasion in which all people can freely take part, but the existence of a system which day by day, hour by hour, and minute by minute, by surrounding the Monarch with splendour, separates him from his people.

457
We are not arguing about the Coronation celebrations, but about the opportunity which occurs now to bring the Monarch more closely in line with the general trend of our national life. This is not an occasion to discuss the theoretical question of Republicanism versus Monarchy. The discussions on that subject in this House have taken place on the other side, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's very famous father, and by other distinguished Members of the House.
Republicanism in this country for the last two generations has been a middle-class creed. We do not regard it as a fundamental problem. We recognise now that the Monarchy in this country exists by the will of the British people and with the approval of the peoples of the Dominions. The Monarchy is recognised now as symbolising the fundamental unity of the peoples who are freely associated in the British Commonwealth of Nations. The question before us is whether these democratic peoples, nurtured in democratic usages and institutions, standing as a bulwark to-day against the conception of dictatorship, should accept conditions and traditions of kingship inherited from more aristocratic and, if 1 may say so, more autocratic days. It is always the fact that ceremonial in this country, and, I imagine, in all countries, lags far behind the practice of the time. We are not against ancient customs and traditions if they serve a living purpose, or if they symbolise essential features of our national life, but if they are merely outworn relics of an age long gone by they are of no service. That is not, however, the issue. Traditions and usages, if they are useful, we will accept.
In this matter there are two considerations. The first is that of the newer and younger democracies in the Commonwealth with their far simpler standards, untrammelled by ancient traditions hedged round by these age-long habits and customs, peoples who have struggled their way to democracy and have kept a relatively simple mode of life. The Statute of Westminster of some months ago has proved to be an instrument of value which the authors of that Act had, perhaps, never foreseen. With the Statute of Westminster these free self-governing Dominions, held together not by the
458
threat of force, but by unity of interest, have made their influence felt. They have a right now to be considered in the matter of the Civil List.
The second consideration is the people of our own land, with their modern conceptions of democracy and changes in the method of life. I have no doubt it has been said often enough to the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the great homes of our land are no longer being maintained under the heavy taxation which falls on the rich, and it is undoubtedly true that owing to the development of other interests, to a desire for keeping motor cars and so on, even the great and mighty of our land do not live under the same conditions as the old aristocracy. Life, in spite of all its increasing complications in many directions, is becoming simplified, and the great seigneur to-day, the great lord of the manor, the man who set himself above his fellows, is not in the position he used to occupy. In our view, if the Monarchy is to maintain its position as an Estate of the Realm, it must adapt itself to modern ideas and must truly reflect the national life. In my view it is an offence to the Monarchy, an offence to the idea of kingship, to assume that its dignity can only be maintained by excessive expenditure, excessive splendour and excessive display.
There appears to be in some quarters a. desire to retain the "divinity" that "doth hedge a king," to keep every device and tradition and every custom which marks off the King from his people; to keep the King and the chief members of the Royal Family as a series of public exhibits, deprived almost entirely of the opportunity of living a normal family life, and confined to meeting very carefully selected sections of people from various sections of the national life. It is not many months ago when, in the twinkling of an eye, the Duke of York ceased to be the Duke of York. At that moment a chapter in his life closed. His free intimacy with the boys' clubs in which he was interested came to a sudden end. He exchanged the shorts he used to wear at the boys' clubs camp for the full dress of an Admiral, and by that very act a door was closed against direct contact with one little aspect of our national life.
His Majesty when he was Duke of York, as many of us know, took a very

459
deep and living interest in industrial welfare problems. He made contacts and obtained experience, which -enriched his knowledge of our national life. That door is now closed to him except for those ceremonial occasions when the atmosphere, with all the dignity and splendour of Monarchy, is entirely different from the freer atmosphere he breathed as Duke of York. Now the King is surrounded from morning to night by ceremonial and ritual, by expensive apparatus which was designed in days when grandeur was regarded as essential to kingship. He is surrounded, also, by sage counsellors familiar with all the complications of etiquette and procedure of the Court, and —I am not saying anything disrespectful of them, because their knowledge is limited by their experience—by people who are not representative of the national life. Excessive display, elaborate ceremonial, dressing up on occasions, are barriers to that free play of opinion between the Crown and the cottage, between the palace and the homes of the people.
The Monarchy owes nothing of its inherent dignity to all that kind of splendour, and it would lose nothing by getting rid of these artificial trappings and the magnificences of life which encumber it to-day. It would lose nothing by sweeping away all these gew-gaws and frippery, which have nothing essential to do with the constitutional functions of the Monarch. I beliėve kingship would gain in dignity and in confidence, on which ultimately it must rest, by permitting to it a privacy of life which it does not now enjoy, and by destroying these barriers which stand between the King and the people. We have not taken this line on a matter of pounds or a matter of economy, but on a question of general principle in the interests of our democratic institutions. We believe, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said, that we are perhaps the stoutest defenders of the democratic system. That system is to us something very precious. It can never be maintained merely by show and glory, but only by the full co-operation of the Estates of the Realm, and to take the Monarch and put him on a Throne which places him above the Estates of the Realm is no service to the democratic interests of our people.
460
We are not raising any issue of a republic, but with the approval of large numbers of people, including Members who sit on the opposite side of the House, we are appealing to the Government for a simpler, more dignified and more honoured position for the Monarchy in this country. It may be that we shall be defeated. The use of uniforms and of ceremonial can never be a safeguard against Fascism. The maintenance of the democratic rights of our people depends upon the confidence of the masses of the people. They have joyously celebrated the Coronation, but they could wish that they were a little nearer to the Monarch. I am afraid the House will not accept my view, hut I wish that it would take that view, for those who wish to maintain the Monarchy in this country ought to be as interested in this as those of us on this side of the House.
It may be that we shall be defeated, but I am satisfied that as time goes by the life of the Royal Family will assimilate itself more closely to the lives of the people. We are asking that that should be done now, rather than that we should wait for the pressure which is bound to come from the people. We hope the King will have a long and prosperous Reign. Perhaps we shall never have the opportunity—at least I hope I shall not have the opportunity—of speaking on an occasion of this kind again, but this is an opportunity on which the House, as the soul of our democratic system should declare—I should imagine with the approval of the Monarch—for that newer simplification which will bring his life closer to the hearts and lives of our people.
4.33 P.m.
Mr. Lewis: The Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman is very curiously worded, and it contains at least three misstatements of fact. It begins by saying:
"That this House cannot assent to a Civil List Bill."
I think those Members who take the trouble to stay and go through the Division Lobby will find that this House not merely can but will assent to a Civil List Bill. The Amendment goes on to say that the question of ceremonial is essential in the Constitution. In point of fact, it is not essential in the Constitution. The Amendment then

461
describes the Constitution as "modern," whereas, of course, it is extremely ancient. This jumble of inaccuracies appears to arise from a confusion of two different things, one of them being the ceremonial side of the Monarchy and the other the constitutional position of the Monarch.
It is, of course, quite conceivable that a Monarch might carry out his constitutional duties extremely well with little or no ceremony; it is also quite conceivable that a Monarch might carry out his constitutional duties extremely badly, although with very elaborate ceremonial. The truth of the matter is that the ceremonial part of the Monarchy is not, as we are told in the Amendment, essential in the Constitution; it is entirely unessential. But though it is not essential, that does not mean that it is valueless. In the drab uniformity of modern life, the customary pageantry associated with the ceremonial of the Monarchy forms an extremely agreeable feature of our national life, and for that reason it is extremely popular with all classes in the country. Only a very drab and dreary mind could view without any pleasure the beauty and historical significance of such a ceremony as the Coronation.
The only question with regard to ceremony is one of degree. Circumstances might arise in which the Monarch himself might find certain ceremonies tedious and possibly, in his view, a hindrance to his other work, and he might seek to be relieved of them. In those circumstances, I think there might be some disappointment at the loss of some old picturesque custom, but there would be no strong popular feeling in the matter. I venture to say that the position would be entirely different if we in this House were to seek to interfere in this matter. If we were to say that the time had come to sweep away many of these old picturesque ceremonies, we should not in my view be truly representing the people of England. I do not know what precise motives the leaders of the Labour party had in tabling this Amendment this afternoon. I venture to say that, as far as their influence in the country is concerned, the best that they hope is that the Amendment will not be taken seriously.
4.37 P.m.
Mr. Sorensen: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by
462
my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and I must express my surprise that the Amendment has not been accepted by the Government. I cannot see what objection the Government can possibly have to the proposal to simplify, as far as is necessary and possible, the State ceremonial and other affairs connected with the pageantry and the fulfilment of the function of Monarchy in this country. Even those who are opposed to us and to this Amendment will agree that a stage is reached when pageantry and ceremonial may easily glide into sheer magic, and I have detected that possibility and danger in certain quarters of the House both during this Debate and in a similar Debate last Monday.
It was taken for granted that to-day the great majority of people accepts the Monarchy. It does not accept it necessarily because of theoretical considerations; in fact, the great majority of people pays very little attention to theoretical considerations regarding either monarchies or republics. People accept the Monarchy because it works well, and in my estimation, they will continue to accept it as long as it not only does not interfere with the progress of the country, but in fact can be accepted in some way as being of assistance to it. If it be the warm-hearted good humour of the British people that makes the Monarchy tolerable, surely that people has a perfect right to say that it must consider whether expenditure on the Monarchy and the ceremonial associated with it should not be modified and simplified. I dissent altogether from the views of the previous speaker, who seemed to suggest that if the Monarch himself wished to simplify the ceremonial, apparently there might be some possibility of accepting his suggested modifications. I dissent from that proposition because surely it is not the Monarch who must decide in a democratic country, but the people. It is a very dangerous suggestion, I venture to submit, which lays the emphasis in this instance on the individual rather than on the State.
That being so, I suggest in passing that, although all of us have appreciated the extraordinary expression of admiration, respect and affection that was demonstrated on Coronation day, we must not interpret that as being itself an endorsement of the magical interpretation

463
of Monarchy or indeed of that extravagance which is frequently associated with monarchies in other parts of the world. Both on this side of the House and opposite we accept the principle of a Monarchy. We could not indeed sit or stand in this House did we not take the Oath of Allegiance on becoming Members. But I would remind hon. Members that the real significance of the Oath or Affirmation lies in the last phrase, in which we state "according to law." That imposes the principle of collective responsibility.
We have long since rejected the conception of the divine right of kings. Unfortunately, in some quarters there are those who desire to exploit the magical remnants that still remain in the minds of certain sections of the community. I believe that if that acceptance of the remnants of the conception of the divine right of kings extends, it will be to the detriment of real loyalty in this country. I repeat, our loyalty is loyalty to the law, loyalty to the country, and if I may say it with deference, surely no one accepts the Monarchy except in so far as it fits in with the law and in so far as it fits in with the highest interests of the country. There are some indeed who are elevating the principle of Monarchy to such a pitch that they are not only perilously near approaching the position of magic, but are in fact approaching a position of blasphemy as well.
For instance, I noticed with interest only a few days ago that a man living in the neighbourhood in which I reside, because he passed some foolish and tasteless remarks about the King, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. It is certainly a most extraordinary position that while, apparently, we may blaspheme quite freely without any penalty from the law, we dare not use foolish language about the King without being likely to receive the severe sentence of one month's imprisonment. I can only think that the savage and foolish sentence imposed on the man I have in mind was due to the fact that the members of the bench on that occasion were seized with this superstitious and magical idea of the Monarchy which led them to believe that an insult to the King was a far more heinous offence than blasphemy of Almighty God.
That being so, though none of us will join in cheap and derisive sneers at those
464
who disagree with us, we say definitely that we will not slavishly bow down to Monarchy and accept it as something apart from rational consideration. In these days, kingship has to be considered on its merits, and the traditions and ceremonial of kingship must also be considered on their merits. We are not going to accept all the ceremonial associated with Monarchy without analysing its value and considering from time to time whether it could not be simplified in some degree. Judging by the interruptions made by certain hon. Members opposite the other day, they were apparently so stirred by the fact that a huge multitude had gathered in the West End on Coronation Day, that they lost their whole sense of proportion, It is true that possibly a million or more people gathered on that day, and that many of them sat up all night in order to see the procession. I heard of one lady of 63 who travelled to London at 12 o'clock on the previous day, waited on the kerbstone for the procession, and had fallen asleep when it arrived.
Some may look upon that as an act of piety, greatly to be admired. Frankly, I regard it as an exhibition of superstition, and lack of proportion which is to be deplored. I am certain it is not the desire of the Monarch himself that people should do those things. If we had an opportunity of discussing these matters with His Majesty, I am sure that he being a sympathetic and wise man would see that this kind of excessive adoration, this kind of extravagant adulation is not desirable and does not add to the dignity of his position. There are times when the multitude can be swayed by men who deliberately exploit that sort of psychological condition. Those who have given even slight attention to the study of human behaviour in the mass—even amateur students of psychology—know full well that the behaviour of crowds does not necessarily, in itself, indicate what is really valuable. Crowds can be swayed by propaganda, both wise and unwise. The mass of people who have but little colour in their lives will rush forth to witness some episode which breaks the drab monotony of their existence. I do not deprecate that nor do I cast any gibe or sneer at them.
For my own part, I joined in the Coronation celebrations in my constituency with the utmost sincerity and

465
geniality. Even though the rain poured down upon us we entered into the spirit of the occasion, and I had more cups of tea and pieces of cake than I really desired. I was glad to find that my supporters were among the most enthusiastic of those who justifiably took this as an occasion for rejoicing. Discussing the matter with them I found that their attitude was that they accepted the King as part of their lives; they believed him to be "a good sort," as they put it, and in view of a certain episode they wished to be even more emphatic than they would otherwise have been in the expression of their respect and good wishes to him. But they repudiated emphatically any belief that he was above ordinary human beings, or was in the nature of a god. The British people are full of good humour and good-will. They are, in some ways, unlike the people of other parts of the world where great chasms seem to yawn between one section of the community and another. It is to the credit of this country that we have escaped the bitter intolerance that is often unfortunately exhibited in other countries, and I can well understand my own supporters in my locality gladly and willingly entering into the spirit of Coronation Day, sending their good wishes to His Majesty and trusting that during his reign the country would progress to a higher state of enduring peace and social justice.
I hope earnestly that some hon. Members opposite, before this Debate closes, will show that they recognise that this Amendment is not moved in any churlish spirit against the King in person. Nor is it an exhibition of disloyalty on our part. We wish to register our firm conviction that the Monarchy is not above the interests of the nation, but that it serves the national interests and, therefore, we have a right to consider the exact degree in which the ceremonial of the Monarchy should be exercised and the form which that ceremonial should take. If, without qualification or reflection, we accept blindly all the traditions of Monarchy, good and bad, and continue them in the future we shall be sliding perilously near to magic, superstitution and indeed blasphemy. We shall be nearing the point of accepting the majority of people as ordinary mortals with just a few individuals in special positions to be treated
466
as higher than the rest and almost worshipped. I hope the Amendment will be accepted by Members on both sides of the House with the recognition that if Britain is to continue to show the world that curious combination of traditional autocracy with constitutional democracy, we shall do so not by blindly worshipping the past, but by being bold enough to strike out in a new, a clearer, and a simpler direction.
4.52 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I intervene in this Debate in order to bring forward a concrete, practical proposal for giving effect to my right hon. Friend's Amendment. It is not my purpose to have a nice talk about kings and queens or to advance my opinion upon matters about which I know little, and, frankly, care even less. I remember reading in some book of doggerel poetry something to this effect:
"If you can walk with kings and keep the common touch."
As far as I am concerned my struggle in life is to keep the common touch and I am willing to leave the walking with kings to other people, especially as I notice they often have to walk backwards. I start from the point of view that the people of this country desire the maintenance of the Crown as the outward and visible symbol of the State. If that be so, then the Crown must be supported with adequate and due dignity. But I feel that there is something more than that. Although the Crown has been divested of all executive authority a great variety of public duties is thrust upon the wearer of the Crown and certain members of the Royal Family. They have exacting rounds of public engagements to fulfil, and the Monarch has to be constantly at the disposal of his Ministers and the high officials of the State for purposes of consultation and advice and for the transaction of public business. The Monarch is compelled, in many ways, to lead a completely unnatural life. A great number of real disabilities are inflicted upon him, and his natural liberties are curtailed by virtue of his position.
It seems to me, therefore, that over and above whatever sums are necessary for the upkeep of the Monarchy, there is a clear case for granting, what I would bluntly call a salary, to the Monarch and to other members of the Royal Family

467
who are called on to perform public duties. I should like to see a distinction drawn in the Civil List between what I call the salary of the Monarch for performing his duties as a public servant, and those sums which are necessary for the upkeep of the status and dignity of the Crown. If that were done, a very widespread but false line of criticism would be disarmed. At present the Civil List comes to something approaching £500,000, and if one is addressing a meeting of miners or other working-people it is impossible to disabuse their minds of the idea that that is the sum which is paid to the King for doing his job. It is impossible to make clear all the details and technicalities about how much is required for the upkeep of the status and dignity of the Crown. It is impossible to make them realise that much of that money is received with one hand and immediately paid out with the other for matters concerned with the upkeep of the Monarchy and the performance of public duties, and not for the benefit of the Monarch personally.
Similarly, in the case of the Queen Mother, while the country most rightly regards her with great affection, it is extremely difficult to justify, say to an audience of miners in Nuneaton, the grant of £70,000 a year to her. It is a colossal sum, and very difficult to explain. I believe that to maintain a destroyer in the Home Fleet costs £80,000 a year, which indicates the magnitude of the sum. I have had two cases brought to my notice recently in my constituency of widows, one of whom, whose husband lost his life rescuing a mate in a gas-filled sewer, is to receive something like 5s. a week from the Carnegie funds, and the other, whose man died after a lifetime of labour in the pit, has been tided over by the Labour club. They have nothing but a bare pittance to look forward to for the rest of their lives, and with these actual instances in mind, how is one to explain this grant of £70,000 a year or all that is involved in it? There is another line of criticism. Rightly or wrongly, the Royal households give to the country at large an impression of innumerable officials wearing remarkable uniforms and bearing strange titles and with very little to do. A great many of them are, in fact, extremely con-
468
scientious and hard-working men, as one knows, but not all of them.
Yet another line of criticism which it is difficult to meet is this: The Civil List is voted at the beginning of the reign. One always hopes that the reign will endure for a long time, but, however long it may last, the Civil List remains unaltered, and unscrutinised. In view of the extent and number of Royal estates and residences, and the size of the Royal households, surely unceasing financial scrutiny and vigilance are necessary if avoidance of waste is to be secured. We all remember that when the Prince Consort looked into these matters he found terrible waste and extravagance in the maintenance of the Royal households and was able to effect great economies. I am unable to believe that there are not similar instances of waste, extravagance and unnecessary expenditure at present, which could be removed if these sums were subject to unceasing scrutiny and supervision. That scrutiny and supervision could be arranged without any curtailment or infringement of the dignity or comfort of the Monarch.
As a means of meeting these criticisms, I suggest that the sums voted in the Civil List should be divided under two heads. First of all a salary should be paid to the Monarch arid then salaries to other members of the Royal Family who perform public duties, and an annuity to the Queen Mother. The sums should not be subject to revision but should be paid to the members of the Royal Family for them to administer and to spend as they like. Side by side with that I suggest the constitution of what I would call a Crown Office out of the materials already to hand in the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. All the expenses concerned with the upkeep of the Monarchy and with the performance of public duties, the maintenance of the Royal residences, estates and stables, entertaining, charities and so on, should pass through the Crown Office and be budgeted for yearly. All this is public money voted for public purposes, but it is the only money voted by Parliament which does not receive yearly scrutiny of the sort to which I have referred. Diplomats and admirals and other distinguished servants receive their salaries personally, but the money for the upkeep of their position is subjected to yearly supervision and scrutiny in a Government

469
office. Why should not this public money which is voted for the upkeep of the comfort and dignity of the Crown be subject to the same scrutiny and examination?
I cannot see that either the comfort or the dignity of the Crown would be in any way affected or impaired by such an arrangement as I have suggested. On the contrary, the Crown and the whole of the Royal Family would be rendered immune from a considerable volume of damaging and unjust criticism which attaches to them owing to the idea that large sums are voted for their personal expenditure. They would also be relieved from a vexatious burden of personal responsibility, and their comfort and dignity would be enhanced. If these expenses were passed through a Crown Office, the Royal households, instead of presenting as they do now an appearance of great establishments, innumerable officials, great expense and vast size, would evolve into simple Royal establishments and households such as are the admiration of all who visit the Scandinavian countries. Moreover, officials of the Crown Office would feel able to scrutinise expenditure and put forward proposals for retrenchment and economies without in any way appearing to reflect on Royalty or upon the members of the Royal Family.
I make no attempt to go into detail now, but I think this proposal for the creation of a Crown Office, through which this expenditure should pass, is a workmanlike and practical one. It would not only result in economies, but would remove a great deal of undeserved criticism at present attaching to the wearer of the Crown and to the Royal Family. After all, it is the proudest boast of our Kings that they are the servants of the public. They are indeed very hard worked public servants, and as such there is no reason why they should not receive the salaries which they earn and deserve. There is also no reason why they should be credited, in the eyes of the great majority of the people of the country, with receiving large sums for themselves which in fact, are not spent on themselves but on maintaining a position of dignity which they themselves do not want but which the country imposes upon them for the purposes of the Constitution. This proposal, which I hope may receive some consideration, is obviously one which
470
could not be adopted forthwith, but I suggest that in the course and passage of time some such arrangement should be made.
The Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) is one to recommend a greater simplification of the life of the Court and the bringing of the Court more into line with the everyday life of the people. A great deal could be done in that direction by the Press. If exaggerated and fantastic notions and ideas about the Monarch and about Royalty prevail, the Press is largely responsible, and if the simplification recommended is to be attained, then the co-operation of the Press will certainly be required. The way in which the Press at the present moment talks about the Royal family and royalty is incredibly fatuous and stupid and can only do great harm. I noticed earlier in the year that someone writing to the "Spectator" to call attention to this fact said:
"The blurb writer represents our Royalties to be partly creatures out of fairyland, partly super-human and partly semi-divine. I read in a great newspaper 'the Princess Elizabeth has to a peculiar degree the art of carrying herself with easy charm and graceful b dignity,' that 'she is steeped in economics and the sciences and accomplished in Latin, French and German, while the principles and precedents of the Constitution will soon be studied'."
As the writer truly remarked, to emphasise its absurdity such dope usually concludes by saying:
"The aim of her parents is not to spoil the child but to bring her up exactly like other children."
I venture to entertain the House with one or two other extracts from the Press. Here is one:
"There is something very homely and informal in the fact that the Lady Elizabeth should suddenly become Queen and Empress in the middle of an attack of 'flu.…
The arduousness of the Royal Family's life was never more obvious than this week when Queen Mary went twice to the films."
Here is another extract—a very good one indeed. The "Stamp Collectors' Fortnightly" said that:
"Much as we all admired and almost worshipped Edward VIII, it is well known that he was not personally a philatelist."
It is almost beyond one's comprehension that newspapers should find it necessary to publish such stuff. Before the birth of the last child of the Duke and Duchess

471
of Kent, one of our evening newspapers announced:
"Blue has already been adopted as the colour of the baby princess. Already, too, she is the owner of quite a considerable quantity of jewels."
If the need of some simplification of the life of the Court does commend itself to the general good sense of the community, the Press could certainly do a great deal to assist by ceasing to publish such fatuous nonsense as I have read to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) made a speech on Monday which really sounded to me to be very like Colonel Blimp describing the Coronation to a spinsters' tea party in Bath or Cheltenham. He ventured to rebuke my friends on this side of the House for something which they had said about the Royal residences and he was extremely sarcastic. Now I find this extract on this subject in a paper, not of the Left Wing, but in the "Sphere," which I should describe as a Right Wing publication.
"If the question be raised as to a redundancy of Royal residences, let us not dismiss it as an outrageous impertinence. The Royal Family is to-day embarrassed by too many residences and if one or two were disposed of and the proceeds remitted to the public exchequer or towards the cost of social services, what a magnificent gesture of the promise of the new reign it would be. There are four or five satellite Royal residences in commission round Windsor; three or four more round Balmoral; two or more in Norfolk; in London there are Buckingham Palace, Marlborough House, York House, Clarence House, not to speak of 'private' houses in Royal occupation. Some of these are permanently redundant henceforth, and examination of the problem of disposal and retrenchment must not be dismissed as impertinent."
I have read this from an article in the "Sphere" by way of some answer to the gibes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. He rebuked us on this side for what we had said about association between the Monarchy and the Labour party or Left Wing elements and said that if we wanted to have these associations with the Crown we ought to persuade the country to elect us as the Government, and then we should have them. That is entirely to miss the point of what is involved. In or out of office the wealthy and privileged classes who support the Conservative party surround the Throne. You have only to look at the
472
Coronation Service—which really ought to be done in tapestry, a service completely divorced from any practical connection with modem life—something completely mediaeval and fantastic. But the point is that, when the Labour party is in office, it is, of course, granted its proper official access to the Crown, but there such access ends. When the Labour party goes out of office, what opportunities of real contact with the Crown or the Court has the Labour party got? You cannot force intimacy or friendship. One may hope that they will develop, but at present there is no intimacy between the Crown and the Court and the representatives of the alternative Government of this country.
I conclude with a further extract from the article in the "Sphere" to which I have already referred. It puts the matter in a nutshell. This was written some weeks ago, and it says:
"During the coming Debate on the Civil List the Labour opposition w ill raise a number of points envisaging further simplification and even further democratisation of the business of kingship and the Court. This point should not be pettishly dismissed as 'vulgar obstruction' or 'ill-mannered criticism of our beloved Royal Family.' The Government and Parliament should receive these criticisms in a spirit of co-operation and as offering suggestions for reforms which may be overdue."
The writer of that article has put our point of view in a nutshell. It is interesting to see that the leaven is working and that the views which we hold on these benches are making themselves felt in such circles as read a publication like the "Sphere." The people of this country do like a show and processions and ceremonial. I do not think they care very much what it is about or what are the principles underlying it as long as it is a good show and good ceremonial. They think that a King is necessary in this country and, thinking that, they do not want any cheeseparing about the upkeep of the Throne. All these things are compatible with economy, with simplicity and with the true spirit of democracy.
I am certain that the great problem of the next 25 or 30 years will be to work out a real system of relationship between ourselves and the Dominions. We are very far from having worked out that relationship yet. Although we think that we have such a genius for political government, we do not seem to have evolved the right system of relationship with India

473
or Ireland yet. During the next 25 or 30 years, however, that will be one of the great problems of our country. In working out the basis of relationship between ourselves and the Dominions, the one certain thing we have to count upon is that we and the Dominions have a Crown in common. There was, therefore, probably never a time when the position of the Crown and the upkeep of the status and dignity of the Crown were more vital to the whole of the British Commonwealth than at the present moment. If we are to give the Crown its full value in this great problem of statesmanship which lies before us, I believe that the way to it lies along the lines of the Labour party's Amendment to-day in bringing the Crown into relationship with every element in the country, and particularly the working-class element, which it would be folly and a mockery of words to pretend exists at the present moment.
5.19 p.m.
Sir Percy Harris: My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) expressed the view of our party on this problem the other day. Unfortunately, he is prevented from being present this afternoon to express our views on the Amendment. With the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate in favour of increased simplicity in the Court, my right hon. Friend expressed, and I express again, considerable sympathy. I think the whole House will recognise that with the growth of democracy the spirit of simplicity is most desirable. We feel, however, that it can be left in the hands of His Majesty to introduce it gradually and at the right time. The experience of the last few years is ample evidence of the desire of King George V and of the present King to have every opportunity of making contact with and approach to the King as easy and simple as possible. Anybody who was present in Westminster Hall the other day when the King met representatives of all his Parliaments from overseas at a lunch, will recognise that the precedent in that direction is symbolical of the spirit which inspires the Crown at the present time.
With regard to the cost and expense of maintaining the pomp and circumstance of the Court, I would remind the House
474
that we appointed a committee representative of all sections of the House, except the section represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). They had the facts and figures put before them and had the opportunity of considering what revenues were required to keep up the dignity of the Crown. I venture to suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), who put forward some interesting and contructive suggestions, that that was the opportunity for the financial details of the Civil List to be discussed.
If we were to pass the Amendment to-day it would mean the rejection of this Bill. Surely that is not a good message to send to the new King charged with a difficult problem in very special circumstances. If there is reason to believe that different methods and different forms should be followed to provide the Court with the necessary revenues for carrying out its work, a special committee should be appointed for the purpose. There is much to be said for a suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, but the suggestion that the nation desires that much of the ceremonial that now goes on should be less decorative by no means represents the feeling of the country. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition said rightly that the loyalty of the mass of the people in poor streets likes to take the form of decorations. They like to express their feelings in displays of flags. I can bear witness that in the East End of London there was more display of bunting and flags in the poor streets than in the more wealthy corners of the town.
If there is any criticism of the Monarchy, it is that the King and Queen too often drive through the streets in a dull drab, unattractive motor car instead of in a picturesque carriage. I remember on the occasion of a Royal visit the disappointment of a poor child, because the Duke of York, as he then was, wore a top hat and tail coat instead of a crown and picturesque attire. There is something in the argument that in the dull drab life of modern industry a little pomp and circumstances, a little beauty and pageantry are to he encouraged, and that entails heavy expenditure to the Monarchy. This Bill is the result of an inquiry before a representative committee which discussed

475
in detail, with the evidence before them, what was required to maintain the Monarchy, and as this Amendment is a rejection Amendment I shall have to oppose it.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Annesley Somerville: The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) was obviously impatient with the vagueness and inconsequence of the Amendment that was moved on behalf of his party, so he proceeded to make suggestions for improving it. As far as I can gather, he desired to separate the expenditure in Royal Households which is due to public functions and the private expenditure of the Royal Family. It would be extremely difficult to do that, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remedy is more impracticable than the Amendment. He said he found it difficult to explain to one of his miner constituents at Nuneaton why the country should provide £70,000 a year for Queen Mary. He might have begun by saying that this sum was agreed to by a Committee of this House on which his party was well represented. He might have gone on to say that Queen Mary has the duty of keeping up a historic residence, that the upkeep is considerable, and that it involves the employment of a number of some of the best citizens in the country. They are tried and worthy ex-service men and women, and that applies to all the Royal residences. There we find employed many people who have deserved well of their country. They have served their country, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman did, and he ought to have great sympathy with them. I have the honour to represent a number of them as the Member for Windsor. It is a worthy thing that some of that money should go to keep these people in comfort, in return for which they do valuable service. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might have gone on to say that Queen Mary is in great request at functions in connection with social service, where her presence is always welcomed with the greatest loyalty. This costs money. If he had made that explanation, I feel sure that his miner friend would have accepted it and would have been ready to explain the expenditure to other constituents.
The Preamble to the Bill states that the Civil List provides means for the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the
476
Crown and the Royal Family. That implies provision for the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the Crown throughout the British Empire. The doubt with regard to it is not that it is excessive, but whether it is adequate. The Leader of the Opposition laid great stress on the necessity for simplifying the life of the Royal Family and bringing it more into touch with the life of the people. As one who has had a small share in the training of one of the members of the Royal Family, I can testify that the domestic life of the Royal Family is as simple and natural as that of any family in the country. There is no household in this land in which a sense of public duty and social responsibility is so highly valued and so carefully inculcated as in the Royal Household, and it is well to realise that and to remember it.
The Leader of the Opposition wishes that the Royal Family should not be always on parade. Has he thought the matter out? Does he realise the size of the engagement book of Their Majesties? If he saw it, and noted the number of functions they have to attend throughout the year, visiting great cities, opening great buildings, and taking part in the starting of great social services, he would see that Their Majesties must be, to a large extent always in state. Their hosts on those occasions want them to come in state as representatives of the State. When they visit the Dominions and Colonies, it is the same thing. If we realise these things it seems purposeless to say that the Royal Family should not be always on parade. When they go to Royal Lodge at Windsor and relax, there are no people who value that relaxation so much, or are so simple and natural in their family life.
I gather from what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said on Monday that he wishes the Royal castles to be institutions in the social service of the country. They are. Is it no service to the country that they should be repositories of tradition and art and beauty? I can speak of Windsor Castle. To that castle there come from all parts of this country, from all parts of the Dominions and from all parts of the world, thousands and thousands of pilgrims every year. They go through the State apartments, which are repositories of some of the greatest treasures on earth. To go

477
through the Rubens Room is an education in itself. Is not that a social service to the country? Incidentally, a small charge is made to those going through the State apartments. What is done with the money? It is given to local charities, and, in particular, to the King Edward VII Hospital, which is one of the best appointed hospitals outside London, due to the great interest and work of King Edward VII. We all know the interest which the Royal Family takes in hospitals. The King should keep in touch with all sections of his people it is said. He does. We know what interest he takes in the great question of National Defence, as a sailor King of whom we are proud. He has that question at heart. We know what he has done for boys' camps. He has lived with the boys and has been of the greatest service to that movement. He takes the greatest interest in sport of all kinds, is a good shot and keen horseman. That is what the people like—a man who is in touch with every side of social life.
When Members of the Opposition are discussing these matters, I would ask them to keep to the facts. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) made the astounding statement that the Civil List provided £10,000 a week for the King. That hon. Member speaks more often than any other Member of this House and when he does he is a standing refutation of his exotic political theories, for in no foreign country would he be allowed so much freedom of expression. If his theories of government are no more accurate than his arithmetic, they must be worth very little. I will only add that this Civil List provides Their Majesties with, I hope, an adequate amount. It provides His Majesty with the means to be what he desires to be and what, for the good of the country, he is, and that is the leader in all our great national social activities, the guardian of the high traditions of government and the leading representative of peace and freedom in the world.
5.35 P.m.
Mr. Maxton: I do not wish to prolong this Debate. I have a feeling that the House is interested in other matters than this. Perhaps the announcement of the Prime Minister at Question Time to-day was of more direct personal interest to the majority of Members, and perhaps the
478
changes impending to-morrow make us regard to-day's business as the end of an epoch rather than as the beginning of one. But I should not like the Debate to end without one or two words being said from this bench. An hon. Member behind me apologised for the absence of his leader on this occasion. I have to apologise for the absence of my party. On this occasion, at least, they have a good alibi, because one is sitting on a Select Committee on Procedure and the other on the Factories Bill Committee. Both those Committees are meeting just now, and I think that is unfair to parties whose numbers are small. Both of them are there or should be, for I can only assert with positiveness that that is where they are supposed to be. The fourth member of the party is, unfortunately, unwell. Silence on an occasion of this sort is liable to misinterpretation.
I wish to say that I associate myself with the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment for the Opposition. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) said Windsor Castle performed a certain function as a museum. I have not the faintest objection to its performing that function, and I think the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) has no objection. If I understood the hon. and gallant Member aright he was anxious that all that type of expenditure associated with the Monarchy should be brought under the definite control of this House, and be separated from the personal expenditure of the Monarch and of the individual members of the Royal Family. That is a proposal which ought to receive careful consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a wise and a sensible proposal. I have never been in Windsor Castle and have never had the privilege of seeing the beauties which the hon. Member has described to us. I understand that the hon. Member is now giving me a personal invitation, and to make the visit under the aegis of the Member for the division would add much to the pleasure of the occasion and, I am sure, add to my knowledge. But while I have not visited Windsor I have visited the Palace of Versailles, which is also an entertainment place, a show place and an educative place—but there is no monarch in France. It is of great historic interest—but there is no king.

479
History remains when the king has departed. I have also been at Potsdam, which is very beautiful and very interesting. It was the home of the ex-Kaiser. The Kaiser has gone, but the history is still there, and the hon. Member, as an old schoolmaster, will agree with me that the history is the more important.
The hon. Member went on to say that in no country in the world would my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) be allowed to speak with so great freedom as here, but that is not absolutely true. There are, fortunately, still a good many countries in which a man can voice his political views with complete freedom, and there are many countries in which the point of view of the hon. Member for West Fife has much bigger support than it has in this country. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor that that is not so because of the virtues of monarchy, because any democratic rights which we have here, indeed our right to exist as a House of Commons, has had to be torn from monarchs by the force of the people. He talks as if it were some act of benevolence on the part of the monarchs in the last two or three reigns.
Mr. A. Somerville: I did not make any such suggestion. I mentioned only that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) had said that the King has £10,000 a week given him by the Civil List.
Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member went much further than that. He suggested that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and people like myself should be very silent, very humble, very grateful to the Monarch because we are allowed to speak at all.
Mr. Somerville Mr. Somerville indicated dissent.
Mr. Maxton: That is the suggestion made not only by the hon. Member for Windsor but by a whole lot of other people, that we ought to be thankful to the Royal Family because we are allowed to have a voice in things. That is a complete perversion of history. The reason we have the right to speak here is because commoners in the past were never prepared to accept the monarchy as being above criticism, as something that was absolutely perfect, as something that could not be improved upon. That is
480
the mood of certain Members of the House to-day, that in the relationship of the monarchy to the people we have now reached perfection, that while all the modifications, adjustments and changes which were made in the past have been good, and have led to a good final result, that now we have finished. and that it is rather low, just bad form, to raise one's voice, to put forward even in the most moderate way the suggestion that we have not reached perfection, and that in many ways the general structure of this country politically from the standpoint of the monarchy could be tremendously improved.
I take an equalitarian view of society. My purpose in politics is to try to reach a state of complete economic and social equality, and I have never made any secret of it. I am here because I have stood for that object unequivocally. Yet to-day I am asked to vote silently £100,000 as personal remuneration for a Monarch, to vote tens of thousands of pounds to the women members of the Royal Family, to vote £6,000 to a schoolgirl. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton quoted a statement that she is very good at Latin. The professor of Latin at my old university in Glasgow does not get half that sum. I am supposed to sit here silently and vote all that money, as an equalitarian, as one who has fought hard with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for something more than 17s. a week for an unemployed man, and have met with a non possumus—told it could not be done—and for 3s. a week for a child and 10s. for old age pensioners. We have fought and struggled for all that the House has been able to obtain for these people. Now I am expected to be a gentleman and vote £100,000 for the Monarch, £70,000 for some Princess and £6,000 for one little girl. It is just a lot of utter rubbish to expect it of me, and I would not do it. I am not going to carry on with this Debate. I know when I am on a bad wicket. I know, as well as anybody here, that my propaganda activities in this matter will have to be directed in more likely-looking quarters than the present House of Commons, but I was not going to let the occasion go past without saying what I felt.
5.46 p.m.
Sir William Davison: The thing that impressed itself most on my mind in the

481
genuine speech that we have just heard was the phrase which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) used as he sat down, about recognising that he was on a bad wicket. Incidentally, with regard to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) the words which were originally used by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) were that this Debate hitherto had shown the extraordinary fairness of the democracy of this country because, in this assembly of Parliament, the hon. Member for West Fife, whose views are abhorrent to practically the whole of the House, was allowed not only to speak but to speak without interruption words which were out of tune and abhorrent to nearly all of us. We ought to be congratulated on our democratic power of self-control that we listen to such things, although we are entirely out of sympathy.
Mr. Maxton: At no time, and I did not do it to-night, have I voiced any criticism of the House of Commons as a fair debating assembly. I never have.
Sir W. Davison: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) referred to that very remarkable and inspiring luncheon which we had in Westminster Hall a week or so ago, when His Majesty the King met representatives from this and all the other Parliaments of the Empire. I had the pleasure of having two men from Dominion Parliaments, one on each side of me, and I was greatly interested by what one of them said to me as the King came in. He said: "The people over here do not really understand what we feel in the Dominions for the King and the Throne. I suppose it is that you see him walking about among you, but in the Dominions the King is something emblematical to us. He stands for the finest ideals that we have. He represents in his person all the ideals of the British Empire, and all that it means and involves." I thought to myself, as I heard this Debate to-day, and the Debate the other day: What would those two simple gentlemen have thought of this Debate in this House of Commons on the Civil List?
In the first day's Debate, the Leader of the Opposition recognised that this country likes pageantry, and I think it was he who said we do not want any cheeseparing. We like the King to go
482
out on certain occasions with all the nobility and pageantry of which this country is capable, but at the same time hon. Members are urging cheeseparing. One of the largest items in the Civil List is £108,000 for the upkeep of the Royal palaces. You do not suppose the King desires to occupy those great Rubens Rooms that we have heard described in Windsor Castle, for his personal enjoyment; he goes there in order to receive visitors of state. As I pointed out the other day, there is no more simple family in the country than the Royal Family have always been. They love simple pursuits. What does the King do when he is released from duty? He goes to the Royal Lodge, a comparatively small country house in the middle of Windsor Park. He does not go to Windsor Castle, and he gets away from Buckingham Palace and such places. These expenses are largely Imperial expenses. These places are kept up so that the great ideals of the Empire and the Dominions, of which my friend spoke the other day, should be properly housed.
To carry out the same idea as is suggested, you would throw down Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's. No doubt people could worship just as well in a tin tabernacle or in some rough shanty. No doubt they would, if it were necessary to do so; but just as we venerate the fane of Westminster Abbey, which has been associated with the history of the country for all these centuries, and venerate St. Paul's Cathedral as a great shrine where we can have our national celebrations, so we consider the Throne, which is the keystone of the Empire, and which means so much as a great centre of Democracy throughout the world. Hon. Members opposite are always railing against Fascism and dictatorship; they must see that the British Monarchy is the greatest bulwark against those ideas. The King stands above the ordinary man by reason of his exalted position.
This Debate, from beginning to end, has seemed to me to be frivolous and out of touch with the feeling of the vast mass of the people of this country; certainly out of touch with the feeling of the people in the Dominions. I trust that we shall have no more of the frivolous speeches that we have recently had from the other side and which made fun,

483
vulgar fun, of a thing which is a sacred thing, because an emblem—[Laughter] —you hear the vulgar laughter—of all that we hold venerable and inspires us with the ideal of Great Britain and of the British Empire.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Leckie: I did not intend to intervene in the Debate, but when the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) was speaking I was reminded of an incident which shows the value of uniform. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment rather deprecated uniform and contrasted the Duke of York in his shorts among his boys with the Duke after suddenly changing into Admiral's uniform. Evidently he does not approve, to a great extent, of uniform. When the then Prince of Wales, shortly after the War, came to my constituency it was arranged that the mayor of the borough should meet him by car, and dressed in his red robes, cocked hat and chain of office. He went out to the edge of the borough and met the Prince of Wales, who was in a lounge suit. The Prince entered the car and they drove through the borough. The Prince of Wales showed the greatest interest in everything.
Next morning, a teacher in one of the schools said to a boy in a class: "I suppose you saw the Prince of Wales yesterday." The boy got up and said: "He looked lovely. He was in his red robes, his cocked hat and his chain of office, and he really looked beautiful." The Prince of Wales had not been recognised on that occasion by many of the children.
I feel that a great deal of the Debate this afternoon was unnecessary. We hear about the expense of the Royal Family and of the Monarchy, but if we compare the expenditure in other countries, where they have no Royalty but are republics, we find that their expense is far greater. I have seen figures for the United States which show conclusively that that is so, and I think hon. Members would find the same thing among our friends in France. We can leave it to the good sense of His Majesty to spend this money quietly and to mingle with the people of all parties and all sections of the community. There is no doubt that the King is a democrat
484
in this democratic country, and I am sure that we shall find, as the days go on, that he will meet all parties and all sections of the community, and be as popular and well-known as any King in our history.
5.55 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate began by saying that this was not on the ordinary lines of party controversy. That is so true that I am anxious not to discover differences that do not exist. In the course of the discussion the differences that have been marked have been in fact rather imaginary. I want to treat the Debate as fairly and as impartially as I can, and not to represent it as being something different from what I understand is the case. In reading the Amendment for rejection of the Civil List Bill, we must take into consideration what was said in the Amendment to the Money Resolution, and also the terms of the Resolution which was moved in the course of the proceedings in the Select Committee. If that be done, we must readily accept the claim of the right hon. Gentleman that what is behind the Amendment is not a desire for what he called cheeseparing economy. I would go a little further, and say that the Amendment does not rest upon a question of economy at all, nor is it a criticism of the pageantry which is displayed on particular occasions; it is, as I understand it, a desire to place on record the view of hon. Members opposite that greater simplification should be maintained in the day-to-day life of the Monarch and those who surround him. That is a proposition which can be maintained without the slightest offence to the present Monarch and one which must be dealt with upon its merits. As I shall show later on, I think the real difference between hon. Members and others in this House does not lie so much in the general proposition; the basis of the Amendment is the method by which it is proposed to carry the Amendment into effect.
Let me say in passing that although I have so fully accepted the view of hon. Members that it is not their desire to base their proposition upon considerations of economy, nevertheless it is extremely

485
difficult to get away from the suspicion that that is, in fact, one consideration which they wish to accomplish. It will be seen how difficult it is for them to keep off the subject. We had the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), part of which was devoted to the suggestion that there was waste in the conduct of the Royal Household, and that it should be the subject of investigation. He obviously wished that kind of thing discovered and discontinued. I am not denying that, in the past, there was waste in the Royal Household, but I do not think that is a complaint which can fairly be brought against the Royal Household to-day, granted that certain styles of living are to be maintained. There has, for a long time, been an Officer of the Household, a competent officer from the Treasury, whose business it has been to investigate and keep a close watch upon all the items of expenditure in the Royal Household, and to advise His Majesty when, in his opinion, there was any extravagance or waste in any direction. It will be remembered that as a matter of fact considerable economies in that respect were already made in the reign of King George V, and that the Civil List which is before the House to-day has the benefit of those economies. The Committee of 1936 had before them a very full account of the expenses of the Royal Household, and they did not form the opinion that there was any serious waste or extravagance in the present method of carrying on the Royal Household.
Coming back to the general proposition in favour of simplification, the right hon. Gentleman alleges that there is a widespread feeling in the country, not confined, he says, to the working class, but also expressed by an extensive section of the middle class, that such a simplification is desirable. I can only say that for my part I have not received any representations of the kind, either in correspondence or in any intervention at any meeting that I have addressed in the country; I have never heard any criticism of that kind. I think the right hon. Gentleman was on rather more dangerous ground when he seemed to suggest that this feeling existed in the Dominions. I know of no evidence of that, but in any case I do not think it would be right for us to ascribe opinions to the Dominions one way or the other, as they have their
486
own channels for making any representations that they want to make.
As far as this country is concerned, although, as I say, I have not seen any evidence that there is any strong feeling on the subject, I am of opinion that the whole trend to-day, not only as regards the Monarchy but elsewhere, is towards a greater simplification of manners, and to some extent a breaking down of barriers which used to exist in the old days. I remember on one occasion having the honour of accompanying His Majesty King George V on his drive through some of the poorer parts of London to open a new building when I was Minister of Health. When we got to those poorer parts of the town, there were loud cries, from the people who were lining the streets, of "old George." I looked with some concern to see how His Majesty would receive a title of that kind, but I saw no traces of embarrassment or of displeasure on His Majesty's countenance. On the contrary, he seemed heartily to enjoy the familiarity with which he was being addressed.
Mr. Maxton: Nobody said "Good old Neville."
Mr. Chamberlain: It is a very funny thing that the hon. Member should have said that, because that is exactly what they did say, and I can assure the House that it caused me much more embarrassment than the remark addressed to His Majesty caused to him. I cannot imagine that when Henry VIII drove through the streets anyone called out "Good old Henry." I think everyone knows that the occasions and the places upon which and in which their Majesties come into actual personal contact with their subjects are far more numerous to-day, and far more informal in character, than they ever were before. That is a natural trend which has been going on for many years, and which, I am certain, will continue to go on in many directions.
I think, really, the difference lies in this, that hon. Members, in their desire to hasten the process of simplification, have it in mind that some body should be set up to examine, as was said on previous occasions, with His Majesty, how this simplification could be brought about at once, instead of, as we would desire, leaving it to His Majesty's own inclination and natural disposition to bring about a gradual simplification as

487
it may seem to him good to do. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman to-day, and the Leader of the Opposition the other day, while they repeatedly spoke of ceremonial, gewgaws, uniform and so forth in general terms, refrained from specifying exactly in what respect it was that this simplification was to be effected. I know that there have been suggestions that there is a multiplicity of Royal residences and palaces, but, when you come to the question which Royal residence or palace should be abolished—
Mr. Gallacher: The lot.
Mr. Chamberlain: That is comprehensive, but I do not imagine that the Front Bench opposite would be prepared to start quite so drastically as that. I have assumed that they would have to begin with one or more of these Royal residences or palaces, and I should be curious to see with which one they would begin. Whichever it was, it would he recognised the moment it was proposed to interfere with it, that something was being taken away from the nation, or from a part of the nation, on which the nation set very great value and store. It may be suggested that there might be some diminution in the number of servants, but is it really suggested that His Majesty is going to be brought nearer to the hearts of his people if there are 50 servants to-morrow where there are 60 to-day? When you try to translate simplification into actual transactions and actual measures to be taken, while they may come gradually, if an attempt were made to put them into a scheme which could be worked out by a committee the result would be so ridiculous as to make the whole scheme one of a most un-
dignified character. I cannot help thinking that, whatever may be the general desire of sections of people in this country that the Monarchy should grow more simple as the people grow more simple in their habits, they would far prefer that that should be left to His Majesty to decide for himself, rather than that, at the beginning of his reign, which has begun so happily and with so much general satisfaction and rejoicing, he should be asked to enter into this meticulous examination, the results of which he could hardly refuse to accept, whatever they were, and to cut down here and there in his Household or relinquish some of his Royal residences which have been in the possession of his family for generations.
I do not take the Amendment, whatever its form, as meaning any hostility to the idea of the Monarchy, or any hostility to the suggestion that we should have a Monarchy which should be kept up with due regard to dignity. I take it as being moved for the purpose of placing on record a point of view which has been put before us in very moderate terms by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I could have hoped that it would not be necessary, having stated the point of view, to carry it to a Division; but, if that is asking too much, at any rate I hope that the description of the motive in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which I have ventured to suggest is accurate, and that it is not to be regarded as anything more than that.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 112.

Division No. 193.]

AYES.

[6.11 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Blair, Sir R.

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

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

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Bossom, A. C.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Albery, Sir Irving

Boulton, W. W.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

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

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Channon, H.

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

Bracken, B.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Brass, Sir W.

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

Aske, Sir R. W.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Assheton, R.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

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

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

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

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

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

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Bull, B. B.

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

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Cox, H. B. T.

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Burgin, Rt. Hon. Dr. E. L.

Craven-Ellis, W.

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

Carver, Major W. H.

Critchtey, A

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Cary, R. A.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Bernays, R. H.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Croom-Johnton, R. P.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Cross, R. H.

Hopkinson, A.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Culverwell, C. T.

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

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Rowlands, G.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Hulbert, N. J.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Davison, Sir W. H.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Dawson, Sir P.

Hunter, T.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Salmon, Sir I.

Danville, Alfred

Keeling, E. H.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Doland, G. F.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Donner, P. W.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Sandys, E. D.

Dower, Major A. V. G.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Savery, Sir Servington

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Selley, H. R.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Latham, Sir P.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Leckie, J. A.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Dunglass, Lord

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Eastwood, J. F.

Levy, T.

Shuts, Colonel Sir J. J.

Ellis, Sir G.

Lewis, O.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Elmley, Viscount

Lindsay, K. M.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Emery, J. F.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Lloyd, G. W.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Loftus, P. C.

Spens. W. P.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

M'Connell, Sir J.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

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

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

McKie, J. H.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Everard, W. L.

Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Fildes, Sir H.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

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

Fleming, E. L.

Mander, G. le M.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Foot, D. M.

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

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Fox, Sir G. W G.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Tate, Mavis C.

Furness, S. N.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Train, Sir J.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Gledhill, G.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Turton, R. H.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

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

Wakefield, W. W.

Cower, Sir R. V.

Moreing, A. C.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Morgan, R. H.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Munro, P.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Nioolson, Hon. H. G.

Wells, S. R.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

White, H. Graham

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Grimston, R. V.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

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

Palmer, G. E. H.

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

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Patrick, C. M.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Guy, J. C. M.

Peake, O.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Hanbury, Sir C.

Petherick, M.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Hannah, I. C.

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Wragg, H.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Procter, Major H. A.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Radford, E. A.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Lient.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

Higgs, W. F.

Ramsbotham, H.

Ward and Sir Henry Morris-

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

Rankin, Sir R.

Jones.

Holdsworth, H.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Cluse, W. S.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

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

Cocks, F. S.

Groves, T. E.

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

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Amnion, C. G.

Daggar, G.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Dalton, H.

Hayday, A.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Banfield, J. W.

Day, H.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Barnes, A. J.

Dobbie, W.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Barr, J.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Hopkin, D.

Batey, J.

Ede, J. C.

Jagger, J.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Broad, F. A.

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

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Gallacher, W.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

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

Gardner, B. W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Buchanan, G.

Gibbins, J.

Kelly, W. T.

Burke, W. A.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Cape, T.

Green, W. H. (Deptford>

Kirby, B. V.

Cassells, T.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Kirkwood, D.

Chater, D.

Grenfell, D. R.

Lawson, J. J.

490

491

Lee, F.

Parker, J.

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

Leonard, W.

Parkinson, J. A.

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

Leslie, J. R.

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

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Price, M. P.

Thorne, W.

McEntea, V. La T.

Pritt, D. N.

Tinker, J. J.

McGhee, H. G.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Viant, S. P.

MacLaren, A.

Riley, B.

Walker, J.

Maclean, N.

Ritson, J.

Watson, W. McL.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Rowson, G.

Welsh, J. C.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Sanders, W. S.

Westwood, J.

Marshall, F.

Sexton, T. M.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Maxton, J.

Shinwell, E.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Messer, F.

Short, A.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Milner, Major J.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Montague, F.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

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

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

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Oliver, G. H.

Sorensen, R. W.

Paling, W.

Stephen, C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Captain Margesson.]

CHAIRMEN OF TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS, ETC. (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
6.21 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has been printed for a long time, and its effects are only too well known to the House, because it was discussed at some length on the Financial Resolution. It is a simple Bill which gives effect to a very simple and solitary principle. It is, that functionaries originally appointed upon a temporary basis for a specific term of years, whose duties are now found to be permanent, should be put upon an established basis such as that to which civil servants are usually entitled, with consequent rates of pension. Accordingly, the Clauses of the Bill apply the Superannuation Acts with modifications having regard to the special conditions in which the functionaries referred to are engaged. In view of the nature of the jurisdiction which these functionaries discharge, they are engaged at a later age than is normal with those who serve the public, and the pension which is related to the number of years which any particular employé serves would obviously be very much less than the habitual one. As they are engaged at a later age one of the proposals of the Bill is to advance by five years the age at which civil servants normally become entitled to pension, and also by
492
five years the age at which they are normally retained in the service.
If the age were left as it is in the Superannuation Acts the State might lose prematurely those who have special qualifications and whose mental powers are still alert to perform the duties that are required of them. On the other hand the functionaries themselves would find the pensions to which they had become entitled so exiguous as hardly to be likely to attract them from their previous employment. At 60 years of age a Civil servant normally becomes entitled to half the salary that he was enjoying at the age of his retirement. Consequently, a Civil servant retiring with a salary of £1,500 a year, which is roughly the salary of these officers, would become entitled to £750 a year pension. If the same rule applied without the modification now suggested to these officers they would get only a half to a third of that amount. Those are the main reasons which cause us to make these modifications.
There is included in the Bill for convenience the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal. His salary is recovered from railway funds, and the proposal in regard to him here h that he should be pensionable on the same basis as the Masters of the Supreme Court who discharge similar functions. The Amendments of the Superannuation Acts in Clause 2 are purely consequential. Those are the proposals of the Bill which 1 commend to the House.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. Parkinson: The Minister has been unduly short in his explanation, though I quite agree that it can be brought down to one or two points—the age of the Commissioners, and of course their pension, after they have served their period. The

493
first appointments were in 1931 and in the period of six years since there have been several retirements. In the selection of people to carry on the work there have been one or two opportunities given to appoint younger men. Owing to their appointment at a comparatively late age their superannuation is smaller, and the Bill advances by five years the service and the opportunity for pension. The right hon. Gentleman says we might lose good serviceable men simply because their pension, if they had to retire at the ordinary Civil Service age, would not be attractive. I do not quite agree with him there. He said the Traffic Commissioners had a salary of £1,500 a year and that their superannuation would be something like half that amount, and the Bill proposes to raise the age from 60 to 65 and from 65 to 70. Is that the right kind of practice to adopt? Ought we not really to be reducing ages rather than increasing them?
I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman may cite this as a special case but, being a special case, it creates in some senses an anomaly which will have its rebound upon the Government later on. It is certainly a clear departure from the normal Civil Service practice. I understand that the Civil Service practice is retirement at 60 with a possible extension to 65, but on no account except in one or two cases which are under Treasury control, can they go beyond 65. In view of the fact that these people have been appointed rather late in life, I want to ask the House whether they think it is a step in the right direction, in order to meet the convenience of, say, ten to a dozen people, to create this position of extending the age of service. The modern tendency is to try to reduce the years of service and bring in pensions at an earlier date, but in this case the Government are taking the opposite decision. Is it wise to depart from the Civil Service practice and so create an anomaly which may possibly lead to other anomalies being created? It is no use saying that nothing else will happen. We never know. Similar circumstances may arise in connection with some other Department. Is it not better to keep to the old retirement age of 65, and if these persons cannot receive their full pension, would it not be possible to make an adjustment at the age of 65, so that they might retire and receive the pension to which they are
494
entitled? Appointments should be made at a younger age in future, so that the difficulty with regard to pensions could not occur. This appears to be a deliberate breaking of a custom which has served its purpose very well indeed.
It will be said that these men were appointed in later life simply because they could not have had the necessary experience before that time. I agree that the previous Minister of Transport exercised his judgment when he made these appointments and did what he thought was best in an experimental period. Persons should be appointed between the ages of 50 and 55, so that they can work the full period necessary to secure superannuation or pension. Some people might say that at such an age they would be too young, but I do not think so. The duties are meticulous, but I do not think that it can be said that it is not possible for men of 50 or 55 to fulfil those duties. We are told that men of 50 or 55 are too old in the industrial world, but when it comes to a question of work in the Civil Service they appear to be too young. It should be possible to make a clean cut at the age of 65, with the necessary adjustments in respect of pension. If that were done, it would be possible to avoid the difficulty of persons entitled to pensions taking up other appointments. I do not want to say anything against these people, but as I go about the country I find a tremendous number of pensionable persons stepping into industry at the expense of other people.
Clause 3 deals with the retirement and superannuation allowance of the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal, and it is ridiculous to ask for the extension of the age from 72 years to 75 years. If a man has not made good by that age, I do not think that there ought to be an extension of his services. This should be brought down to the Civil Service practice and superannuation made possible at 65, and it should be left there. No doubt I shall be reminded that the Minister mentioned that this appointment does not cost the Government anything and that the railway people pay. Payment of the salary is really of no moment; it does not matter whether it is paid by the railway companies or the Government, but it is wrong to extend the period from 72 years to 75. I am not saying that there has not been efficiency shown in all the appointments that have been

495
made, but it is up to the Government to see that they secure efficiency, which I do not think is possible, by extending the age which has existed for so many years as the Civil Service limit. I realise that there are plenty of younger men who can do work which I cannot do, but which I could do a few years ago. It is a step in the wrong direction to break down the custom of the Civil Service. These appointments should cease at 65 without any further extension. I would rather introduce pensions at an earlier age than extend the period of these people in order that they may qualify. We are going in the wrong direction.
I shall no doubt be told that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport at that time exercised his discretion in the appointment of these people. I do not think that anybody could charge him with not having given due consideration to the appointments or of not having exercised his intelligence, but his experience has not been universally accepted as being of the best, and now is the opportunity to replace these appointments with younger, fresher and more alert minds. The work is not easy. The Commissioners may not work as many hours as we do, but their work is of a meticulous character and calls for rigid scrutiny of all things that come before them. I object to the extension of age. I want the Minister to give consideration to this matter and to bring in men of middle age with well balanced minds, able to give long service. I want to relieve the aged people. We would be doing the greatest service to these people if they were able to be relieved of their jobs and to live upon the pensions to which they were entitled. It would enable them to spend the evening of their lives unharassed by the meticulous duties which they have to perform.
This Bill ought to have been made a step forward instead of a step backward. It almost amounts to a disgrace to ask the House to give power to three Ministers to extend from 72 to 75 years the age so far as the Railway Rates Tribunal is concerned, when at the same time there are so many people in the country able, willing and probably anxious to do this kind of work. I hope that the Minister will take these observations into consideration, and that in future appointments will be made so as to enable these persons to serve the full period for their pensions.
496
We as a nation ought to be working towards bringing about retirement at a lower age for all classes of the community. When people have served their day and generation, pensions should be given at such a time in their lives as to enable them to live in the enjoyment of them for some years.
6.44 p.m.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Before the Bill receives a Second Reading, I should like to know the policy that is to be adopted in the future by the Minister of Transport when selecting chairmen of traffic commissioners. What is to be the method of selection, and on what grounds are these appointments to be made? It is to be deprecated that in these times a Bill is being presented to the House to extend the age to the extent that this Bill proposes. Enlightened opinion throughout this country in particular, and it is now accepted in industry generally, is that the time for people to retire, after having given of their best in the service of industry, as most men do, at the very latest is round about 60 years of age. In these days of mechanisation arid electrification, there is no need any longer to ask men to carry on in industry or in appointments where they have to accept serious responsibility, as have these men. It ought to be no longer the position that they should be asked to carry on after 60 years of age. There are thousands of well trained young persons coming out of the secondary schools and out of the universities who cannot get satisfactory appointments after their parents have very often sacrificed themselves in order to give them a good education, but find that the a venues of employment are closed in these times. Rather than extend the age, as the Bill proposes, one would have thought that the object of the Government would have been to get the best possible men for these positions, and that they should be given an opportunity of retiring at the ape of 60 rather than of having to carry on as they are to do.
Moreover, I wish to contrast the policy of the Government in these matters with the treatment meted out to poor men and women with regard to their pensions. We know that the cost of living is going up and that the Government are not prepared to take that into consideration, and we know that there are anomalies with which the Government are not prepared

497
to deal. We know that when men and women have given their best to the country, they are called upon to retire on pensions of 10s. a week at 65 years of age. I ask the Minister of Transport whether it is a fact that many of the people who are now holding these positions are already receiving pensions of from £6 to £14 a week. If that be the case, let us compare it with the treatment of ex-service men.
One of the things that has caused me most concern since I have been a Member of the House is our inability to do anything to meet the grievances of ex-service men. As a result of having taken an interest in this question, I have a pile of correspondence from all parts of the country, and I am convinced that if they only knew of the grievances which ex-service men have, hon. Members in all parts of the House would demand that something should be done for them. Although that is the position of ex-service men, we find that many of the traffic commissioners are receiving pensions of from £6 to £14 a week as retired chief constables, retired generals or retired colonels.
According to an answer which the Minister of Transport gave to me a few weeks ago, all the traffic commissioners a re receiving in salaries between £1,500 a year and £1,700 a year. This is not a question of individuals, but one of principle, and although I must give a number of examples, I do not want it to be taken that I am critical of the individuals as individuals. Is it a fact that in one area a chief constable had been in that position for 28 years, that he retired on a pension of £660 a year, and that he is now receiving at least £1,000 a year in addition as a salary for fulfilling the duties of traffic commissioner? Is it a fact that in another area a traffic commissioner who is an ex-chief constable is receiving a pension of £800 a year, and that in several other cases they are ex-chief constables receiving pensions of from £300 to £466? I contend that those people are already sufficiently well-placed in life and that they are already sufficiently well cared for.
On the one hand the Government are prepared to give this treatment to ex-chief constables, ex-generals and ex-colonels, and on the other hand, when a poor man's wife has reached the age of
498
65 years, she is not able to draw a pension of 10s. a week, in spite of the fact that her husband may have been a miner or an engineer for 30, 40 or 50 years. I ask the Minister whether the facts are as I have stated, and if so, what is to be the policy in future with regard to the selection of the men to fill these positions? Are ex-chief constables, ex-generals and ex-colonels to be selected in future? I suggest that it will not be good for this House, good for the Government or good national policy for men who are already well cared for and who are already receiving very good pensions to be placed, by this Bill, in the position of being able to draw other pensions.
6.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): One thing which this Debate has brought out is that both sides of the House are agreed that for these very important positions we want to get the very best men and we want to treat them properly. The Debate has mainly turned on the question of age. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) asked me whether certain of the Traffic Commissioners are already receiving pensions. In reply to a question of that nature, I sent him a list of the Traffic Commissioners, and from that he will see that of the 12 Commissioners, five are in receipt of pensions—three Police pensions, one Army pension and one Colonial pension. As the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) pointed out, all of them were appointed by the Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, who, like us, wanted to get the very best people possible.
I want to impress upon the House that these gentleman are not civil servants in the strict sense of the word, and in endeavouring, as this Bill does, to give them security of tenure and make their appointments permanent, we are adopting the same procedure as is used for civil servants. A large part of the Debate has dealt with the retiring age, which is 65 to 70, instead of 60 to 65 as in the Civil Service. That is really a compromise between the age of 72, which is laid down for judicial posts, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wigan, and the 60 years of age which is laid down for civil servants; but there is the difference that civil servants join the Service

499
generally on leaving school and spend all their lives in it, whereas it will be obvious to the House that the Traffic Commissioners cannot do that, as they must, of necessity, owing to the nature of their work, be men of mature age.
Therefore, we have tried, as did the Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, to choose then who have been successful in other walks of life. If when they come to do this rather arduous work they prove to be successful, we want to keep them for a reasonable time. We believe, as did our predecessors, that we shall thus get the very best men for these extremely important posts. I would remind the House that the Treasury both can and do extend the term of service of civil servants. Incidentally, this proposal to alter the age by five years cuts both ways, for the Traffic Commissioner is not eligible for a pension at 60, but at 65 years of age. In reply to a remark made by the hon. Member for Wigan, in filling these appointments we try now to get men at a little earlier age than was possible for the original appointments. If the hon. Member will look at the list of the chairmen, he will see that there is quite a number of the age of 50 or very little over it.
The question of pensions was fully debated on the Money Resolution as far back as February. The scale is the same as that laid down in the Superannuation Acts. Ten years of service is the minimum requirement, and I repeat what I said on the Money Resolution, that none of the five chairmen who are eligible for this pension—and incidentally the Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal, who is also eligible—is in receipt of another pension from public funds. As regards the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal, we are not, as some hon. Members seem to think, making any alteration in existing practice. There is an Act on the Statute Book known as the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, and under that Act come a number of persons carrying on duties which are very similar to those of
the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal, such as the Masters of the Supreme Court, Official Referee, Official Solicitor, Registrars and Taxing Masters. All we are doing under Clause 3 is to make an addition to the list so that the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal will be treated exactly as the other judicial and semi-judicial posts are treated. In accordance with the Act of 1925, the age of 72 has been inserted, with a possible extension to 75.
Mr. Parkinson: Why increase the list? Would it not be better to diminish it?
Captain Hudson: We want to give permanency to this gentleman, and we feel that the work he is doing is similar to that of the other people in the list; therefore, we think it best to place him in the list. Whether at some period some Government may feel that it would like to have an amending Act to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, I am not here to say, but I do say that by putting him in the list we are not making any alteration in what is the existing practice. In the case of the posts to which I have referred—Master of the Supreme Court, Official Referee and so on—if the Lord Chancellor wishes it, the age may be extended to 75. In the present case, obviously the Lord Chancellor is not the person concerned, and, therefore, the Bill says that the age may be extended to 75 in a case in which the Lord Chancellor, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Transport and the Treasury agree. We feel that that is the place, if we are to give permanency under this Act, where the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal should go in. I submit that these alterations which we propose are equitable to the present occupants, will facilitate recruitment in the future, and will also give that security of tenure which is very desirable in appointments of this kind.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 95.

Division No. 194.]

AYES.

[7.2 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Aske, Sir R. W.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

Assheton, R.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Agnew, Lieul.-Comdr. P. G.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Bracken, B.

Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Brass, Sir W.

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

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

Brooklebank, Sir Edmund

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

Beit, Sir A. L.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Bossom, A. C.

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

Bull, B. B.

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

Peake, O.

Burgin, Rt. Han. Dr. E. L.

Guy, J. C. M.

Petherick, M.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hanbury, Sir C.

Radford, E. A.

Cary, R. A.

Hannah, I. C.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harris, Sir P. A.

Ramsbotham, H.

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

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Uuiv's.)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Channon, H.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Ropner, Colonel L.

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

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

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

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

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

Rowlands, G.

Cox, H. B. T.

Holdsworth, H.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Critchley, A

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Samuel, M. R. A.

Cruddas, Col. B.

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

Seely, Sir H. M.

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Hunter, T.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Dawson, Sir P.

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

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

De Chair, S. S.

Joel, D. J. B.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

Denville, Alfred

Keeling, E. H.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Spens. W. P.

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Leckle, J. A.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Dunglass, Lord

Lees-Jones, J.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Eastwood, J. F.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Elmley, Viscount

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Emery, J. F.

Levy, T.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Lewis, O.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lindsay, K. M.

Tate, Mavis G.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Lloyd, G. W.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

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

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Wakefield, W. W.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

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

Fildes, Sir H.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Fleming, E. L.

McKie, J. H.

Warrender, Sir V.

Foot, D. M.

Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Furness, S. N.

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

Wells, S. R.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

White, H. Graham

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gledhiil, G.

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

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

Gluckstein, L. H.

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Moreing, A. C.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Morgan, R. H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Wragg, H.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Munro, P.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

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

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Grimston, R. V.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and Captain

Hope.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Gibbins, J.

Maxton, J.

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

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Messer, F.

Adamson, W. M.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A,

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

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

Grenfell, D. R.

Naylor, T. E.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Banfield, J. W.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Paling, W.

Barnes, A. J.

Hayday, A.

Parker, J.

Barr, J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Parkinson, J. A.

Batey, J.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

Bellenger, F. J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Price, M. P.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Pritt, D. N.

Broad, F. A.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Riley, B.

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

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Ritson, J.

Burke, W. A.

Kelly, W. T.

Rowson, G.

Cape, T.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Sanders, W. S.

Chater, D.

Kirby, B. V.

Sexton, T. M.

Cluse, W. S.

Kirkwood, D.

Shinwell, E.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Lawson, J. J.

Short, A.

Daggar, G.

Lee, F.

Simpson, F. B.

navies, R. J. (Westhoughtoh)

Leonard, W.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Dobbie, W.

Leslie, J. R.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

McGhee, H. G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Ede, J. C.

MacLaren, A.

Sorensen, R. W.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Maclean, N.

Stephen, C.

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

Mainwaring, W. H.

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

Gallacher, W.

Marshall, F.

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

Gardner, B. W.

Mathers, G.

Thorne, W.

502

503

Tinker, J. J.

Westwood, J.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Viant, S. P.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Walker, J.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Watson, W. McL.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

Welsh, J. C.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Cross.]

STATUTORY SALARIES BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Tinker: I expected that we would have had some kind of explanation from the Front Bench. However, I will give a lead to it. This Bill has been before the House since November last and has been discussed on various occasions. Many attempts have been made to get it through, and to-day we have the Third Reading. Once more an attempt will be made to get it through quietly. We have had no explanation and there is nothing on the face of the Bill to say what it means. The House should know for what it is voting. The Bill will increase the salaries of certain persons who are at present fairly well paid. It takes them to a very high figure. There are certain Members on this side who might argue that abilities such as these people possess cannot be too highly paid, but in this modern world we have to have some kind of comparison.
The salaries of these judges and commissioners are to be increased from £2,000 to £2,300, and from £1,600 to £2,000. I dare say the argument now is that with the general increase of salaries all round these people are entitled to it also, but regard must be had to other kinds of people. The argument put forward is that if you want good men you have to pay for them. Another argument is that their duties have increased so much that they must be paid more. Men in their positions will give equal service without any question of increased pay. To be a judge in this land is one of the highest positions which can be attained in giving service to the people. I dare say that on our side when we have the giving of judgeships many of my hon. Friends who are now getting fairly nice salaries will in the autumn of their days be glad to accept
504
a position of that kind and will be glad to look on it as a most honourable occupation, enabling them to lend their experience and dignity to the highest position in the land. There would be no question in their minds as to whether they would receive £3,000 or £5,000. Some moderate kind of payment and the honour of their position would be enough.
Roughly, 100 people will get this £300 a year rise. There will be additional superannuation also. It will mean a total cost of £35,000 a year, and in these days of handing out money very easily that would not appear to be a very large figure. My point is to draw some kind of comparison. The whole of that money will have to be found out of the general taxation of the country, and many of the people who will be called on to bear this extra burden of taxation in order to provide the £35,000 are themselves in poor circumstances. This afternoon a question was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether anything could be done to raise the low pensions of old age pensioners, and what the cost would be. The reply was that the cost would be so prohibitive that it was impossible. Old age pensioners who are receiving 10s. a week will think it out of all reason that we should be considering the payment of £300 a year more to certain other people without any demur at all. I am asking that we should have some regard for these old people when we are doling out these huge sums of money.
I must draw the comparison. I do not want to pay huge sums of money in increases of salary to certain people without giving some thought to the poorer sections of the community. We shall be voting ourselves an increase of 50 per cent. very soon, and it will be very hard for any one of us to talk about increases of salary. Human nature is such that we take generally what we can get, but I shall be faced with a position of some difficulty and shall have to say like the Scotsman that I take all I can get. At the same time, there is a feeling abroad that there is not much regard for the bottom dog. People who are getting comparatively good wages and are in high positions can get increases of salary without any comment, and, therefore, I feel

505
it my duty not to allow the Bill to go through without a Division. I must point out the difference there is between one particular section of the community and another, and I shall on all occasions try to drive that lesson home. We are failing in our duty until we have done something for those people who are on the lowest level.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to associate myself with the protest of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) against this useless and wasteful expenditure of money. There is no question at all of the people concerned being in any financial or domestic difficulty. They can get along all right as things are now. I do not agree with those who say that these men have great ability, and are therefore deserving of large salaries. These particular individuals are selected and very carefully protected, and their ability is generally expressed in one particular direction. I have heard many of these judges express sentiments which have utterly shocked me. I would have deprived them of every penny that was coming to them when I have heard them express themselves in that way. Of course I happened to be in the dock at the time, and heard one of them using his so-called ability, which it is said is worth an increase of £300 a year, to send a fellow mortal behind the bars, whether he has committed an offence or not. I have never been taken in by the talk about their great ability. Like other hon. Members I am continually meeting people in my constituency who draw my attention to these increases for judges and for other

Division No. 195.]

AYES.

[7.24 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

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

Carver, Major W. H.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

Channon, H.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

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

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Everard, W. L.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

Fildes, Sir H.

Aske, Sir R. W.

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

Fleming, E. L.

Assheton, R.

Cox, H. B. T.

Foot, D. M.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Critchley, A.

Furness, S. N.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Crowder, J. F. E.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Gledhill, G.

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

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Beit, Sir A. L.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Gower, Sir R. V.

Bossom, A. C.

Dawson, Sir P.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Denville, Alfred

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Bracken, B.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

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

Brass, Sir W.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Dugdale, Captain T. L

Grimston, R. V.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Dunglass, Lord

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

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

Eastwood, J. F.

Guy, J. C. M.

Bull, B. B.

Elmley, Viscount

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. Dr. E. L.

Emery, J. F.

Hanbury, Sir C.

people, while at the same time they draw attention to the neglect of the lower people. I cannot understand Members of the Government and their supporters sitting so callously and so cold-bloodedly handing out money to people who do not need it, and at the same time neglect those who do.
No hon. Member opposite can make out a case that there is domestic or financial need of any kind on the part of these judges, and yet it is proposed to hand out money to them while old men and old women get 10s. a week. Have hon. Members no sense of proportion; no heart, no bowels of compassion? I am certain that hon. Members opposite cannot have, otherwise they could not do it. I shall declare throughout the country this scandal. It is a scandal to hand out £300 a year to those who have plenty and refuse to assist aged men and women and poor working men, who, despite the rise in the cost of living, are not to receive a penny increase of their pension of 10s. a week. Any hon. Member who has any feelings for the masses of the people and who desires to represent his constituents honestly and freely would not vote for this payment, but would concentrate his attention on administering to the needs of those who have absolutely nothing. I hope that every hon. Member who is concerned with the best interests of the country will go into the Lobby against this proposal.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The House divided: Ayes, Noes, 94.

Hannah, I. C.

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

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Shuts, Colonel Sir J. J.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

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

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Morgan, R. H.

Spens, W. P.

Herbsert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Munro, P.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Holdsworth, H.

Peake, O.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Petherick, M.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Tate, Mavis C.

Hunter, T.

Procter, Major H. A.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Joel, D. J. B.

Radford, E. A.

Wakefield, W. W.

Keeling, E. H.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Ramsbotham, H.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

White, H. Graham

Leckie, J. A.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Lees-Jones, J.

Remer, J. R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Withers, Sir J. J.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Rowlands, G.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

McKie, J. H.

Samuel, M. R. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby

Maitland, A.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

and Mr. Cross.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Groves, T. E.

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

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

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Price, M. P.

Adamson, W. M.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Pritt, D. N.

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

Hayday, A.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Riley, B.

Banfield, J. W.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Ritson, J.

Barnes, A. J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Rowson, G.

Barr, J.

Hopkin, D.

Sanders, W. S.

Batey, J.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Sexton, T. M.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Shinwell, E.

Broad, F. A.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Short, A.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Simpson, F. B.

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

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Burke, W. A.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Capo, T.

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Chafer, D.

Kirkwood, D.

Sorensen, R. W.

Cluse, W. S.

Lee, F.

Stephen, C.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Leonard, W.

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

Daggar, G.

Leslie, J. R.

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

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McGhee, H. G.

Thorne, W.

Dobbie, W.

MacLaren, A.

Tinker, J. J.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Maclean, N.

Viant, S. P.

Ede, J. C.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Watson, W. McL.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marshall, F.

Welsh, J. C.

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

Maxton, J.

Westwood, J.

Gallacher, W.

Messer, F.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Gardner, B. W.

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

Williams. E. J. (Ogmore)

Gibbins, J.

Naylor, T. E.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Paling, W.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Grenfell, D. R.

Parker, J.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Parkinson, J. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

TRADE MARKS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords.]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill of 33 Clauses and three Schedules, which comes to the House of Commons from another
508
place. It seeks to introduce Amendments into the law relating to trade marks. The Bill deals with very technical subject matter, and I would ask the indulgence of the House if it becomes necessary in introducing the Bill for me occasionally to refer to matters which seem, on the wording of the Bill itself, somewhat abstruse. The conception of a trade mark, however, is understood by every Member of the House. A trade mark is a very valuable right in connection with business. Business methods vary from time to time and it is natural,

509
therefore, that the law relating to trade marks should come under review. The law relating to trade marks is already a considerable body of Statute and case law, and it is found expedient when any revision of that law is to be made that a Departmental Committee should be set up, and that the question should be referred to that committee, that evidence should be called, conclusions reached and a. report, with the evidence, published. That policy has been adopted in the present case and, generally speaking, the Bill which I am now commending to the House implements the report of the Departmental Committee.
Hon. Members who propose to follow the Bill carefully will find information in Command Paper 4568, which is the report of the Departmental Committee, and Command Paper 5328, which is the Paper showing how the provisions of the amending Bill affect the earlier Acts. Trade marks are intended to be of assistance to manufacturers and traders. Many a great business has been built up by the successful use of rights of a monopoly character which the trade mark law enables them to use. If by alteration of the methods of business or by alteration of the structure of the units in business the trade mark law is behind commercial practice, then the law relating, to trade marks instead of being of advantage and assistance to the mercantile community might be a hindrance. In one respect at least, as I shall show when: I come to the detailed Clauses of the Bill, the present law of England relating to trade marks imposes an unnecessary handicap on manufacturers and traders and calls out for alteration. I refer to the power of assigning a trade mark without the obligation of assigning the whole of the business. Because it has been discovered that the present trade mark law is a handicap and because it has been held to be necessary to amend 'its provisions, the House will find when we come to deal with them that that portion of the Bill is of a retrospective character, so that the assignment of trade marks, honestly made by traders in the belief that it was valid, but which may be invalidated by a decision of the courts, will be valid by the action of this House is passing this Bill into law.
I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain the House at any length in commending a Bill which is based on the
510
report of a Departmental Committee. My experience of the House is that where a Departmental Committee has looked into a subject well, where there has been a report published, with the evidence, and where the different views of witnesses have been canvassed and a decision reached, the House, broadly speaking, has been prepared to implement a substantial majority of the conclusions of such a report. I am in hopes that that will be found to be the decision to-night. Very considerable pressure has been brought upon the Board of Trade by the commercial community in favour of this Measure, and we now have an opportunity of conferring rights on the mercantile community for which they ask, which it is in our power to give them, and which will do something to restore the balance between British traders and the traders of some other countries.
Perhaps the House, after these opening observations, will allow me to go through the provisions of the Bill. The method by which the Bill is printed is to give to the House references to the main body of the existing law in marginal annotations to each Clause. I need not go through each Clause. The Bill contains a number of principles of varying degrees of importance relating to different parts of trade mark law, but it will be sufficient to commend the Bill to the House if I take the main provisions in which the law is altered and amended, and if I give to the House with regard to the remaining Clauses an assurance that there is a volume of Amendments such as we should expect when a great body of law is brought up to date and some years have elapsed since the last revision. I proceed, therefore, to look at some of the main Clauses in which there are alterations. Clause 1 redrafts the definition of trade mark law. There are one or two variations of importance which are introduced, and I would commend to the House, particularly those interested in the manufacturing side of business, the actual working of the new definition of trade mark. Clause 2 is unimportant for the main purpose of the introduction of the Bill in the manner I am presenting it. Clause 3 deals with registration under Part III of the Register and need not delay us at this stage.
Clause 4 is one of the main Clauses. This is the Clause which deals with words

511
used as the name or description of an article. A whole set of provisions which will be of assistance to the owners of well-known word trade marks is in Clause 4. These provisions relate to word trade marks which have become the name or description of the articles or substances in connection with which they are used. Under the existing law wherever a trade mark becomes in fact the name of the goods, in other words where the proprietor of the article has so far been successful in popularising a trade mark that the name itself is transferred to the goods, when he reaches the summit of his ambition and the goods become known by the trade mark, then the mark becomes destroyed as a trade mark. That is obviously a position which is out of date. The House will agree that there are a large number of instances which glare at us from the hoardings indicating the success of the policy which certain manufacturers and distributors of goods have adopted by making the article so well known that what originated as a trade mark has in fact become the name of the article or substance.
A great many people who travel on the continent know of certain standard articles of diet which are known only by their trade mark. Instances will occur to hon. Members at once where the very mention of the name is sufficient to bring forth not only the commodity that is desired, not only the type of that commodity but the particular brand, with the label on it, which has conveyed the name to the article itself. One instance—and I am only using it for the purpose of enlightenment—of a mark which has become the universal name of the commodity, is the word "gramophone," and another the word "linoleum," both of which have now passed away from the use of the trade mark in the early stages and become the name of the commodity itself. I do not propose to go through the literal provisions of Clause 4, because they can be dealt with when we come to the Committee stage. It is an out-of-date principle to suggest that if a trade mark succeeds completely it should cease to have validity. It should be the other way round. If it becomes so well known that it signifies the commodity itself then it should remain protected, and it will be
512
found that the Clause is sufficient for that purpose.
I have nothing particular to say about Clauses 5 and 6 except what can be dealt with on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part," in Committee. I come to the operative Clause of the Bill, Clause 7, which deals with the assignment and transfer of trade marks. This question has been discussed in this country and abroad for a great many years. Under our present law a registered trade mark can be assigned and transmitted only in connection with the goodwill of the business concerned in the goods for which it has been registered. So restricted have been case law decisions on that matter that it has been held that you can have no separation of the goodwill, that you can have no separation of ownership of a trade mark, even when you have big modern companies such as Imperial Chemical Industries and other large companies, and you have subsidiary companies and the convenience of having a separate limited liability company for dealing with one section of your business.
Imagine a case where a whole range of commodities is known by a particular mark, and where it is desired to deal with the manufacture in one part of that business separately from the manufacture in another part. Under present English law any attempt to make that mark correspond with the separation of the companies under the one management of the one parent company, would be to invalidate that mark. It is not possible under the English law, of trade marks as it stands, to have any division or separation of parts of the goodwill in connection with the goods to which the mark applies. You cannot. therefore, have a parent company and a subsidiary company, you cannot have manufacturer and distributor, you cannot have a buying company and a selling company, you cannot have a selling company and a retail company with separate rights in the commodity to which the trade mark applies, without jeopardising, if not invalidating, the trade mark itself.
On a strict interpretation of the English law to-day the only way in which the registered proprietor of a British trade mark can validly assign that trade mark is to divest himself of the whole of the goodwill in the goods to which the trade mark applies. That is far too restric-

513
tive. Our law is behind the law of other countries in that regard and many a British trading company is finding itself in the position of having unwittingly jeopardised the validity of important marks by following in the footsteps of American and Continental manufacturers who have subdivided their method of carrying on their business. That all came to the front in the case "In re John Sinclair, Limited." The Sinclair case is known to everybody who has investigated the question of trade marks as a hindrance, arising from the present doctrine of English law, to the development and extension of British manufacturing business. This Clause not only deals with the Sinclair case, but does so retrospectively so that assignments which have been made in the past and which would be invalidated by the Sinclair decision will be validated, once this Measure has been passed. Obviously, questions will arise in Committee on this Clause, and I shall expect hon. Members to submit instances for determination as to whether or not particular assignments would or would not be valid. But in moving the Second Reading, it is sufficient for me to say that this is a long overdue reform for which the commercial community are crying out, and the least justice we can do to them is to pass this Measure into law as rapidly as possible to give them the freedom which other countries possess in this respect. That is the keynote of this legislation.
Clause 7 may be described as the meat of the Bill, but we are still in the early stages as far as the details of this legislation are concerned. Clause 8 deals with the use by somebody else of an owner's trade mark. Hon. Members who have had experience of these matters know that you cannot, under existing law, license or lease a trade mark. The whole idea of a trade mark, broadly speaking, connotes manufacture by the proprietor of the mark and one of the things which you cannot do at present is to allow another trader to use your mark. There was a contradiction in terms between the registration of a mark which suggested that the registered proprietor manufactured it, and the use of that mark by somebody else. Clause 8 which is akin to Clause 7 (Assignment and transmission of trade marks) is concerned with the limits within which A can authorise B to use A's trade mark. This, again, is
514
an amendment of the law which has been long overdue. It is an enabling amendment of a beneficial character. It has been asked for by the commercial community and it clearly prevents fraud upon the public and allows considerable facility in business by enabling a registered proprietor to give to others the power of user.
In Clauses 9 to 12 there is nothing of special importance which need be brought to the notice of the House in a Second Reading speech, and I pass to Clause 13. We now come to consider what are called defensive trade marks. Hon. Members are probably aware that for trade mark purposes goods are divided into classes, and if you are a manufacturer of a particular commodity you register your trade mark in the class which is applicable to those goods. If you are a manufacturer of bicycles, you do not register your trade mark in the class that relates to boots and shoes. That is all very elementary, but modern business has reached such a pitch that you may find a word obtaining such wide usage that the public imagine that that word connotes manufacture by a particular firm. Take as an example the word "Bovril." That is a commodity manufactured by an eminent house and the name carries with it a certain guarantee to the public of method of manufacture and a certain appeal. As the law stands, the word "Bovril" can only be registered in that class of goods which is applicable to a beverage of that kind. There is nothing to prevent a house agent having a Bovril house or a boot and shoe firm from having Bovril boots and shoes. That might be damaging.
I can think of other examples which would come much nearer to damaging the registered proprietor but I take that one case. I suggest that the House will consider it wrong that we should restrict a registered trade mark merely to the class in which that mark is registered. I submit that power should be given to the owner of a business to register in other classes, as a defence against the use in connection with other classes of goods of the mark which he has popularised. The word "Bovril" for example, should not be capable of being taken by some less scrupulous trader for application to a commodity in some class in which the word "Bovril" is not

515
registered. I do not think the matter needs argument. I have ventured to deal with it in an elementary way—the House will excuse me for doing so—because I am anxious that the real importance of the matter should not be misunderstoood and it is expressed here in what are, necessarily, rather technical terms. I imagine that that Clause will need no further commendation.
There is nothing in Clause 14 on which I need detain the House, and I pass to Clause 15. The habit has grown up in certain quarters of using valuable trade marks in a way which does not commend itself to a large body of traders. Again, I give an example of the practice to which I refer. A particular brand of cigarettes is put on the market. The registered proprietor of the trade mark applicable to those cigarettes builds up a big proprietary business, establishes goodwill, makes the name of his cigarettes a household word and people buy their cigarettes by reference to that word. Along come other traders to say, "Here is a packet of cigarettes as good as —," quoting the particular trade mark. In a famous case in the House of Lords, the Yeast-Vite case, it was held that it was no breach of the right of the registered proprietor if another trader sold goods which were not the goods of the registered proprietor, which were not goods marked under that brand at all, but which bore on the face of them words like "The same as" or "As good as," followed by the name of the goods of the registered proprietor.
Clause 15 is designed to say that among the rights which belong to the registered proprietor of a mark is the right to prevent other people using his mark as a means of selling their own goods, which have not the quality, the reputation, or the standard built up by him under the original trade mark. I think that is a proposal which will appeal to the fair-mindedness of hon. Members. I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in having that Clause added to the Bill. It seems intolerable that when a man has built up a business it should be open to somebody else to label his goods "These are not the other fellow's goods, but they are as good as his," and to use his trade mark or in other words, without having spent a penny on building up the business, to settle as it were under the colours of the other man's flag. I do not
516
think it is a practice which the commercial community wishes to encourage, and I believe that Clause 15 which is inserted to give power to prevent that kind of usage will be approved. I have mentioned the use of the words "This is as good as—." Other words are "This is a substitute for—," but whatever the form of words, the Clause is designed to prevent people taking a good trade mark in vain, by pretending that their goods are equivalent to or replacements of, or as good as the original goods, without suggesting of course that the goods on which these comments are made are the goods of the proprietor of the trade mark.
There is nothing in Clause 16 calling for remark and I come to another important Clause, Clause 17. A great many of us who have had experience in these matters have come across this question. A trade mark is attached to goods. How far can the owner of the trade mark insist that the goods which leave his factory, packed in a particular way, cartoned in a particular way, bearing a particular label shall be kept packed, cartoned and labelled in the same way for distribution by the purchaser of the goods? The broad law on the matter is that if you make a contract as seller with another person as buyer, you can attach to the contract conditions to that effect but once that has been done, if your purchaser in his turn sells to another the original registered proprietor cannot bind the subsequent purchasers. That is the law as it stands, and the amendment of the law which the Government recommend to the House is to enable the registered proprietor of a trade mark to attach conditions to his goods which will be binding on any subsequent purchaser who knows that those conditions exist.
Mr. Kelly: Does that mean price?
Dr. Burgin: No, not price. There was a discussion in the Departmental Committee—and I would refer hon. Members to the report—as to whether price control should be among the matters which could be attached by way of condition. As that has been reported on by another committee, the Trade Marks Committee felt that they were not called upon to sit as a court of appeal in reference to it, and the question of price control was withdrawn. There are two conditions of a different character—conditions of pack-

517
ing and presentation which it is thought might rightly be attached to the goods and "to run with the goods," to use a lawyers' expression. Hon. Members will remember the phrase "running with the land" in covenants connected with housing estates. Something of the same idea is incorporated in the conditions allowed to be attached by a registered proprietor which will "run with the goods" into the hands of any purchaser, but there is no provision that he may attach conditions as to price. There is nothing in Clause 17 which is intended to cover that.
Hon. Members if they wish some illuminating examples of what this Clause is intended to deal with should refer to the report. There they will find, in paragraph 179, on page 48, some very curious instances of all kinds of removals, obliteration, partial obliteration and defacement of registered trade marks which were brought to the notice of the Committee. Genuine cartons of proprietory goods were found to have been covered with all kinds of odd slips relating to ice-cream stores, billiard saloons and on one was even an extract from the "Daily Herald." Matters of that kind are an abuse on the face of a trade mark. The Departmental Committee have accordingly advised the rather middle course that the proprietor or registered user can contract with the purchaser against certain specified things. Those restrictions run with the goods and the contract becomes enforceable without notice. Clause 18 deals with certification and there is a Schedule. Clauses 19 and 20 are sets of proposals dealing with special goods such as those of the Cutlers' Company in Sheffield. Sheffield marks and textile marks are always dealt with on a separate footing and need not detain us now. Clauses 31 and 32 are the only other Clauses to which I desire to call the attention of the House in the Second Reading speech. They deal with matters to assist export traders. At present registration limited to goods that are to be exported would in certain cases be invalid. In these Clauses it will be possible to register a trade mark limited to those goods of the manufacturer which it is intended to export.
I apologise if I have dealt with the matter on somewhat general lines and
518
in somewhat other than the usual method of dealing with a Bill, but when the House comes to look into the technical provisions of the Bill for dealing with trade marks which are an intricate part of the law, they will have cause for gratitude rather than criticism.
8.6 p.m.
Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add "upon this day three months."
I move the Amendment in order that at the end of the Debate we shall not be taken as having misled the Government into thinking that we were not going to divide. On the other hand, if we get assurances on this Bill, I will not say at this point that we will actually divide the House on the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary, whom we congratulate on the recent recognition accorded to him, need not apologise for the manner in which he has introduced the Bill. It is a long, technical and legal Measure, and the right hon. Gentleman, as always, has given an able and lucid account of the salient and important Clauses.
Although I am at this stage moving the rejection of the Bill, I should like to say that the Goschen Committee was on the whole exceedingly capable and patient in its work, which has resulted in a large number of detailed recommendations for the improvement of the trade mark legislation which all sections of the trading community will welcome. But that should not prevent us—and the Parliamentary Secretary would not expect that it should—from levelling a critical eve at those parts of the Bill which, while purporting to do certain things for which the mercantile section of the community have been pressing, constitute such changes as may mean infringement of the rights of the consuming public. Whenever we deal with legislation of this kind which is of a restrictive character, hon. Members of whatever party ought to examine it not merely from the mercantile point of view, but from the point of view of what is the right and proper thing to do in the interests of the whole community. It is from that angle that we have to level some criticism at the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary made particular reference to two important Clauses

519
in the earlier stages of the Bill—Clauses 4 and 7. I shall leave my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to say something about the drafting of those Clauses. Having consulted him and other legal friends, I feel that, while the objective may be well-intentioned, I should not like the wording of those Clauses to be the final dictum on the Statute Book on which cases are to be decided. The objective is quite worthy and one to be supported, but I must warn the Parliamentary Secretary that there will be a considerable volume of criticism as to the involved nature of those Clauses. They are based far too much on the kind of language which is necessarily adopted in the report of a Departmental Committee; it is hardly the kind of language which ought to be the basis for the construing of legal enactment in particular cases.
I come to the subjects on which I have been most moved to put down this Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. When the Parliamentary Secretary talks about Clause 15 with some enthusiasm, I cannot help thinking that he is not really keeping in mind the whole of the communal interest in the passage of legislation in this House. He bent his attention to an attempt to preserve not merely the rights and privileges but the monopoly interests in sections of the community which might well run inimically to the wider body of consumers. I do not for one moment quarrel with the general outlook of the Goschen Committee on deliberate attempts to defraud the public by the use on an article of a printed label or trade mark for a wrong purpose, or in the retention of a trade mark itself and the defacement of other parts such as the cases referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in quoting the report of the Goschen Committee. But when we look at the possible effect of Clause 15 there are important considerations to be taken up.
The wording of the Clause in this case also is difficult to follow, but it appears to me that, if this Clause is not amended, trade mark infringement will occur if anyone makes any reference to other goods which they were selling under a mark. For example, it will be impossible to sell a medicine as "similar to." The Parliamentary Secretary used the term "as good as." I might quote the name of
520
the article which was the subject of the case in the House of Lords quoted in the Goschen Committee's Report. Obviously this particular Clause is aimed as a reply to criticism in reference to the case Irvings Yeast-Vite Limited v. Horsenail. It will be impossible to sell a medicine as "similar to," although in effect the two productions might be identically made of common substances in which there is no special virtue. The only virtue is in the use of the adopted trade mark which might perhaps lead to an exploitation of the public in price which is absolutely indefensible.
The Parliamentary Secretary smiles at that but anyone, who has knowledge of a manufacturing laboratory occupied in preparing a formula for the manufacture of common remedies and substances used day by day by the people, knows perfectly well that over and over again you get a substance, very beneficial for general use, which can be manufactured, say, for 2d. and which, with the packing and distribution, might well have another cost of 2d. added to it. But by means of a steady insistent propaganda and page advertisements in the newspapers it sells regularly at is. 9d. or 2s.— a tremendous margin of profit. What we fear under this Clause is the position of those who, not wanting to exploit the public in the use of quite good and popular remedies, provide something of exactly the same efficacy but at a price well within the reach of the working-class consumer, and, instead of charging Is. 9d. or 2S. put it up at 6d. If a customer comes into a store and says, "May I have X article?" and the salesman says, "We do not stock it, but here is our own preparation which is as good as X," it seems to us that under this Clause he will be committing an offence. Instead of merely preventing deliberate attempts to defraud in the use of a label, which I can well understand is their object, the Board of Trade will under this Clause actually protect a monopoly in an article governed by a trade mark and the maintainance of unreasonable prices to the public.
Dr. Burgin: Would the right. hon. Gentleman allow me, in order to clarify my mind, to put to hire a question? Is he suggesting that the salesman behind the counter merely gives it as his opinion that the other article is as good as the proprietary article for which the customer

521
asked, or is he contemplating that the article which is to be tendered in exchange is to have on it an indication that the substitute article "is as good as"? There is a considerable difference, and I would like to know what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. A salesman may express an opinion that something is, in his judgment, as efficacious as something else. That is another matter. What I am anxious in this Bill to prevent is that where there is a goodwill in a particular substance built up under a name, which is as much property as the ownership of the factory in which it is made, it should riot be taken away from the registered trader by somebody else pretending that something else "is as good as."
Mr. Alexander: I am much obliged for the question. I said at the outset that I thought the wording of this Clause was not clear. The use of the words "to import a reference to some person" in paragraph (b), taken by themselves without the preceding words, might lead to a good deal of dubiety in the minds of those people who have to handle the business afterwards. For the moment I am arguing as if they applied to oral reference as well as to the actual inscription, but that is not the only point. You may have a recognised trade mark for what is, after all, a common substance including a trade name. You may get a trade circular, not for general publication, sent from the factory or laboratory to all your branches, not using any trade mark, but giving instructions that your production A is to compete with this other trade mark production. If a copy of that circular became available to anybody interested in the trade mark article, then, under this Clause—the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but I was the Member of Parliament to whom he referred just now, and I do not mind it being said that I was a witness before the committee. I know what I am talking about on this subject. I went out of my way to make particular inquiries of the sections of the important Department which deals with this matter, and the presentation of the matter as I am putting it now was not out of the minds of the officials who were dealing with the drafting of the Bill.
Dr. Burgin: Not under those words.
Mr. Alexander: We must have a complete assurance on that point before we
522
get through the stages of the Bill. In view, however, of the general attitude of the trade, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, it is vastly important, in the interests of the consuming public, that we should not try to attach the same privileges of a vested interest to an article under a trade mark as there are already in the case of a patented article. There has always in the past been a perfectly open chance for the consuming public, as long as it was not deceived by a fraud in the misuse of a trade mark, to make its choice between articles available to it. We fear that under this Clause that we are proceeding to a situation in which it will be almost impossible for the consuming public to have an adequate choice of common remedies or common articles of use because of the restriction put on those who are competing with particular trade mark articles.
The House of Commons ought not to stand for a situation like that. We are all the more concerned about that because of Clause 17. I well remember the report of the Committee of the Board of Trade some years ago on the restraint of trade. I have not got that out of my mind at the present time. It is true, and I am grateful for the fact, that as a result of the report of the Goschen Committee we have not at this moment to fear special restriction with regard to price. But there are conditions in Clause 17 which seem to me to upset the whole basis of most of the principles of English law in such matters in seeking to give the right to pursue somebody in relation to a commodity who is no party to the contract with the pursuer. That seems to be entirely wrong according to the basic principles of English law. I am not a lawyer, and I will leave the lawyers to argue that out, but it is something I do not like. May I put a case in which I am particularly interested, and I must argue it in the first instance from a price factor, although price does not enter into Clause 17.
If you get, as you do, a body like the Proprietary Articles Trade Association setting up a rigid boycott of any purchasers of theirs who do not sell at a fixed price, there are occasions when their first purchasers do in fact enable these goods to be received and to be sold by other traders. Why should that third party be sued by any member of the Proprietary

523
Articles Trade Association with regard to price? If that holds good in regard to price, why should it not hold good in respect of any of the other general provisions, except the actual case of fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent defacement of a registered trade mark? On these two points we want to do all we can to strengthen the law to prevent fraud on the public, but when we look at the wording of Clause 17 we fear very much that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that once you admit the principle of being able to pursue, not merely the other party to a contract which the pursuer has made, but somebody else, it will be competent to proceed in relation to other considerations as well. On these grounds, unless we can get wider assurances I shall certainly divide the House. If we get assurances which meet my points, I shall not ask my hon. Friends to divide, but I do insist that when we are passing trade marks legislation we must have regard to the general public interest and not merely to that pressure of mercantile interests to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary upon the well-deserved honour to which he has recently attained. We all know the tremendous amount of hard work which he has done in his present office, and he has earned the admiration of the whole House. In the second place I should like to congratulate him on the very lucid way in which he so shortly described this very complicated Bill. In regard to the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), I wondered why it was that he had put down the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, but when he came to develop his argument the reason appeared to be fairly obvious. He began by saying, quite rightly, that it should be the duty of this House to look after the interests of the whole community, not merely those of the manufacturer and of the trader but also those of the consuming public. That is the duty of the House. I would point out that a trade mark is not merely a protection for the trader but a protection for the buyer and consumer. Obviously that is so. It is provided so that the buyer and consumer can know that the article he is purchasing is the one
524
he wants. That is the whole purpose of the trade mark.
The position has been built up by the trader advertising his goods so that the consuming public may know that they are his goods and nobody else's. Originally the trader used to write his own name on them—John Jones or John Williams—then he began to add his address, and afterwards he put signs on. At last Parliament intervened and said that he should be protected, and that nobody else should copy that name or that mark, and then not only would he be protected but the consuming public would be protected. That is the whole purpose. When we come to Clause 15 of this Bill, which was the point of the right hon. Gentleman's opposition, I am absolutely staggered at the attitude he has taken up. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, it was brought to the attention of everybody in the case of Yeast Vite that a fraud could be perpetrated upon the public, and when the Parliamentary Secretary put a direct question I think the right hon. Gentleman was in some difficulty in replying, because he does not want to defend a fraud.
Mr. Alexander: Hear, hear!
Mr. Davies: But where are you going to draw the line? In that case a man had a proprietary article known as Yeast Vite and a large trade had been built up. The name was registered and everybody knew it. Then another man came along and put on the market an article which was not Yeast Vite but a substitute for it. On it he wrote "Yeast Vite" in large letters. A customer goes into a shop and says, "Give the Yeast Vite" and is handed this substitnte. Afterwards, when he points out that it is not Yeast Vite he has pointed out to him the little words "substitute for." That is getting precious near to fraud. An action was brought: by the proprietors of the trade mark claiming that there had been an infringement of it. The matter went before the courts and was taken all the way to the House of Lords, which decided that there had been no infringement of the trade mark, because it was stated that it was not Yeast Vite but "substitute for" Yeast Vite. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the law should be allowed to remain in that state?

525
There are a great number of proprietary articles which are known to the public, and the public want them. They have been very much advertised and they are well known. You may have the finest article in the world, but if the public do not know of it what is the use of it? That is why large sums of money have to be spent in advertising. Then somebody comes along who does not advertise but relies upon other methods. Taking the example of Bovril which the Parliamentary Secretary gave, he says, "I cannot make Bovril, I cannot sell my preparation as Bovril" and puts upon the bottle "substitute for Bovril." If somebody came into a shop asking for Bovril and was handed that preparation, would the right hon. Gentleman defend it?
Mr. Alexander: I never have done.
Mr. Davies: The whole purpose of this Clause is to deal with such a case. Then it is said that if a trade circular is sent round saying, "The articles we are about to sell now will be as good as so-and-so's" it would be an offence. That would not be the case so long as it was merely a case of boosting. There is the very well known case which is known to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), on which so many of us have been brought up, dealing with something being "as good as Elkington A.1." That was merely boosting, and so long as it is boosting only it is all right, but if you are trying to deceive the public, trying to pass on to them something in substitution for the article which they really want, it is a fraud and it ought to be stopped. The whole purpose of this Clause is to prevent it, and I honestly cannot follow the objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Bill as a whole not only meets with the approval of all the traders, but it brings our legislation into line with the legislation in other countries, and undoubtedly it will be followed—as the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows, because he has been into the subject—by all the Dominions and by other countries as well. I hope the House will have no hesitation in giving a Second Reading to the Bill.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Barnes: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) has given us a very
526
fraudulent interpretation of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). I should be sorry if the inquiry directed to the Parliamentary Secretary were obscured by introducing the question of fraud on the public. No one can say that the speech of my right hon. Friend was a justification of the palming off upon the public of articles by a fraudulent description. What we are concerned about is the vagueness of Clause 15. Before we confer further powers upon those who, in my view, are a privileged section of traders, we are entitled to have definite assurances as to how far these new proposals go. Let us look at the position of a trader under the Trade Marks Acts. He brings together certain ingredients and describes his preparation as a proprietary article. He cannot of himself enforce his proprietary right in the markets of this country or in the markets of the world, but the community, through Parliament, has given him certain privileges and protection, and that being the case Parliament is entitled to ask for safeguards and to ask that that individual shall have a sense of his public responsibilities.
What is actually happening in many cases is that owners of proprietary preparations are taking advantage of this legal protection to practise frauds on the public in the claims they make regarding the curative powers of their preparations and in the prices they charge for them. I should have felt much more satisfied if the Board of Trade, while proposing to extend this legislation, had inserted safeguards which are very essential for the protection of the public at large, had imposed obligations on the owners of proprietary preparations which would prevent them from exploiting the public.
To come to the major point that we have in mind: I was surprised at the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, if I gathered his point correctly. I will take Bovril as an illustration. I believe he said that, under the provisions of the Bill, a firm like Bovril Limited will now have not only a protective right in their specific patented brands, which may be of beef extract or something else, but will have also a similar right of legal protection of the name of the manufacturing firm. Have I gathered the point aright?
Dr. Burgin: No. The point with regard to "Bovril" was that it is a beef

527
extract and is a word that you can register at present only under the classification of food, foodstuffs and so on. I was suggesting that it would be wise to give the proprietor of the trade mark the power to prevent the manufacturer of another substance in another class from using the word—to prevent him using the word "Bovril," for instance.
Mr. Barnes: If I remember aright, the illustration used was "boots," and that you should not apply the name "Bovril" to boots.
Dr. Burgin: Yes. You should not allow any manufacturer of boots to sell them as "Bovril boots."
Mr. Barnes: That suggestion appears to me to be carrying the law to a dangerous extent. I cannot see the utility of a provision of that character. There is no competition between boots and beef extract, and no question of substitution or of imposing upon the public a substituted brand. It might have a restrictive action upon trade generally. Suppose there were a firm whose name was Bovril and they were manufacturing shirts and wished to place the word "Bovril" on their shirts. Why should you say that an individual whose name is Bovril should have a protective right to label his goods, which are food extracts, and another individual of the same name should not be able to apply his name or the name of his firm or company to his particular brand of manufacture? That might lead to a very difficult and dangerous situation. What we are pressing for is that before the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, the Minister should make it plain that this legislation, while giving legitimate protection to a legitimate firm in putting a mark upon a fair article, shall not have the effect of conferring a monopoly in that commodity and for that brand of goods, and that any other firm, possibly within a common range of goods, should be able to produce their own brand, provided that they do not actually use the name. I accept the point of view put by the Parliamentary Secretary. We want assurances that there will not be, as a result of the Bill, a development of further restrictions in the realm of proprietary goods.
8.39 P.m.
Mr. Spens: Let me say a word on Clause 17, first adding a word to what was said by the hon. Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes). I do not believe that Clause 15 is likely to embarrass traders very much. Anything in the nature of fraud has been strenuously opposed by those who are opposing the Bill and I cannot help thinking that, if there is any doubt, it will be possible in the Committee stage to put the Clause in such a form as will not cause any great liability on traders.
When I come to Clause 17, I am bound to say that I begin to feel a doubt, and when I hear of covenant running with goods, similar to covenant running with land, I begin to sit up and take notice. I agree that when you have got the goods from the hands of the first purchaser, who has contracted to sell them only on certain terms, into the hands of a sub-purchaser, or a sub-sub-purchaser, no doubt, in many cases, the original owner of the proprietary article may suffer, at the hands of third or fourth parties, something very near to the nature of grave, fraudulent devices. On the other hand if you attempt to make contractual conditions running with goods, into whosesoever hands they come, it seems to me that you are introducing a new principle which may require very careful consideration in the House of Commons when the Bill goes into Committee and as I may not be there, perhaps I may make a remark about the difficulties winch I foresee.
When dealing with obligations affecting land, every purchaser has to investigate the title. Nobody purchases land, if he is wise, unless there is a full investigation, and for his sins, of course, he has to pay members of my branch or of the other branch of the profession. When one purchases large consignments of goods there is no investigation of title, although there may be some question as to the character of the person who sells them. There is no investigation as to the title to goods or of the possible conditions restraining the manner in which you are to sell them when they are in your hands. Here is a Bill which, no doubt quite rightly in the interests of the owner of proprietary articles, is endeavouring to impose upon the sub-sub-purchasers liabilities in respect of the sale of those goods. True, it is limited to persons who

529
sell them knowingly, and that those who are ignorant, plead ignorance or prove ignorance of the conditions, can succeed in defending such an action as tins, but it seems to me that you are putting into the hands of the owners of proprietary articles the right to bring a number of actions against retail distributors of goods, in which actions the burden of proving knowledge of the conditions would be on the defendants. The Clause might very well work, if the special conditions which are to run with the goods, into whosesoever hands they come, could be printed on the carton or something of that sort, in which the goods are packed, or if the mark itself could be made to contain the notice of the restrictive conditions.
It seems to me that it would be difficult and dangerous to traders as a whole to go the length of protecting the owners of proprietary articles by making a possibility of—I will not say abuse—by owners of the articles by a series of actions against retail traders, in order to protect their proprietary interests in a trade mark. Before we finally part with the Bill we ought to get an assurance that some further provision will be imposed, envisaging the possibility of damage that may be done to retail traders who may be constantly brought under the obligation of selling goods, which they had bought in perfect innocence, while ignorant of the conditions which had been laid down by the owners of the proprietary articles. Subject to that, I will congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having introduced this Measure, dealing with a great number of matters in trade mark law, not asked for but very much desired.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Broad: I am sure that no Member of the House wants to see any opportunity for fraud or substitution that is intended to deceive. We are long past the days when we used to be told that adulteration was merely a form of competition, and the same applies, of course, to substitution. But, at the same time, we are at a period when everybody is trying to build up a little preserve or monopoly, and I am very much afraid that the provisions of some of the Clauses of this Bill will have that effect. The Minister mentioned the possibility
530
of a trade mark like Bovril for boots, and one could suggest other cases of a similar kind. For instance, there is a well-known brand of cigarettes called "Black Cat," and there are people who sell "Black Boy" chocolates. The word "Black" is an essential feature of both names, and I suppose the "Black Boy" chocolates people might be regarded as infringing the trade mark of the "Black Cat" cigarettes people.
Many articles are now sold in packets or cartons which previously were sold loose or were prepared in the home. Many people at one time used to bake beans. Then a certain firm came along, baked beans, put them up in tins, and advertised them. They have certainty a. right to their own particular brand of baked beans, but if an essential feature of the trade mark is the words "baked beans," it would seem to me that nobody else would he able to sell their own brand of baked beans, because an essential part of the name was the "baked beans" part. There is nothing special about baking beans, and, because someone showed initiative by putting up baked beans in cartons or tins, that is not to say that they should have a monopoly for all time. Someone else sliced potatoes thinner than usual and sold them in cartons as "potato crisps," and apparently it will not be possible for anyone else to sell the same commodity as potato crisps because that expression is an essential feature of the present brand.
Major Procter: Will the hon. Member say in what part of the Bill that is enacted?
Mr. Broad: It is in Clause 15, which says:
"That right shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who, not being the proprietor of the trade mark or a registered user thereof…uses a mark identical with it or comprising any of its essential features or colourably resembling it."
There is one particular case that I have in mind. Some chemical people were selling a new and very valuable kind of disinfectant, for use as a gargle and so on. It was called "thymol," and, in order to make it ready for use, it was compounded in some way with glycerine. Prescriptions were given by doctors, that you took to the chemist, for this "Glycerine of Thymol." It became

531
more generally used, and then a very big firm—an American firm—put up the stuff as a standard article and called it "Glyco-Thymoline." Other firms began to do the same thing, calling it "Glycerinated Thymol," or "Glycerine of Thymol," and, since "Glycerine of Thymol" or "Glycerinated Thymol" sounds very like "Glyco-Thymoline," it might be said that one could never sell glycerine in combination with thymol because of this trade mark "Glyco-Thymoline." What I am afraid of is the creation of monopolies in that way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Glow lamps."] Those were originally known as incandescent lamps. After a great deal of experiment and research they were made possible by a man who never devised any lamp at all, Professor Swan, who devised the method of flashing the filament so that it would give out light. The only name by which people knew them was that of incandescent lamps, but presumably such a title would now confer a monopoly, because, unless some distinctive or fancy words were added, those words would be an essential feature of the name. The intention, apparently, is that certain particular companies or combines of companies shall have a monopoly in the case of articles like soap, disinfectants, or vacuum cleaners—not the Hoover, but any kind, because "vacuum cleaner" is an essential part of that name, although people would not know what else to ask for. It seems to me that, if that be the intention, the effect will be to give sectional monopolies in particular ranges of commodities. I am very much opposed to that, and I think the House would be opposed to it in the interests of the general public.
This is not a question of some new invention, but a question of commodities and articles which have been in general common use, which people have made for themselves, but in the case of which someone has taken the initiative of bottling, tinning or packeting them under a name which has become known. Now, apparently, nobody else is to be able to sell them, because certain words are regarded as being an essential part of the trade mark. We see this, not only in connection with particular commodities, but in connection with particular sections of professions which try to make a little ring-fence for themselves which nobody else
532
is allowed to enter. We see it even in the agricultural industry. However much people may wish to grow potatoes, yet in this free and happy land a man may be fined £5 an acre for growing potatoes. I do not want to see anybody fined £5 a bottle for selling glycerine of thymol, or£5 a bag for selling potato crisps.
8.53 P.m.
Mr. Pritt: While I want to say a certain number of things against this Bill, I recognise, with other Members, that in the main it is a good Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman apologised for explaining the Bill, he was apologising for a virtue. It is a virtue which we often find in his particular Department, and which we only wish that other Government Departments would copy. I was interested to note that at the outset the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that this Bill is demanded by strong pressure from the commercial community. That reminds us that really the only thing that will get any action out of this Government is the pressure of the commercial community. Indeed, if the trade mark "His Master's Voice" is not taken by some other firm in the same class, I think His Majesty's Government ought to register it immediately for themselves. This Bill is a Bill to increase the monopoly rights of certain people, and the House of Commons has always been careful, and ought to be always increasingly careful, when passing legislation which increases the monopoly rights of any person or of any group of persons.
Monopolies are prima facie an injustice, but when the operation of monopolies in modern times is simply a method of transferring more and more wealth to people or groups who are already too wealthy, a monopoly commonly develops into a ramp of the worst type. Every one running any concern which can protect itself by a patent or a trade mark owes a duty to the shareholders to extract as much money from the public as he can. He carries out that duty with great efficiency, and one of the methods of carrying it out is to exercise pressure on the Government to produce more legislation to assist him to do so. At the same time, every one in the House ought to be willing to help in any legislation which will put a stop to fraud of any kind. We know from the speech of the Secretary of State for

533
War last night, on which we confidently rely to win us at least 30 extra seats at the next election, that fraud is a necessary and integral part of modern capitalist trade. He even pointed out that for that reason we ought to indulge it, but I am sure the House in general will not subscribe to that view, and we shall all agree that legislation to prevent fraud, however difficult to pass and to enforce, should certainly be encouraged. We also recognise on this side of the House that, at any rate to a very considerable extent, we should welcome legislation which protects the legitimately built up goodwill of any honest trader.
I want to say a few words about the merits and demerits of one or two of the Clauses. Generally I want to complain about the drafting. I do not think I have ever criticised the Parliamentary draftsmen before, although I have criticised innumerable Bills which were the result of the conflicting efforts of the Parliamentary draftsmen and of various Members of the House itself. But for one reason or another, perhaps owing to the inherent complexity of this legislation, there is a great deal in the Bill which is really very bad. Bad drafting is not only a method of adding to the wealth of a particular section of the community which is already not unduly impoverished. It is a much greater evil than that. It enables the strong man to crush a smaller competitor by a threat of litigation and it compels innumerable traders to refrain from doing those things that they might well want to do, because their solicitors tell them that if they do them it may or may not be an infringement, and it will cost several thousands to make sure whether it is or not, and it adds in the end to- the cost of the goods the whole of the exorbitant charges which litigation due to uncertainty in drafting brings about. It is a matter which can partly be dealt with in Committee, but, owing to pressure of time, or to difficulties inherent in the application of the English language, it will not be dealt with in Committee.
Every one who has brought his mind to bear on the matter is now in substantial agreement that what Clause 15 is intended to do is a reasonable thing to do, a thing like the Yeast-Vite decision, a thing
534
which ought to be covered by a special Section in a Statute. If it can be brought about, it is right that it should be done. The difficulty is immensely multiplied when you have powerful interests which, if not ingenious themselves, can at any rate hire people who are ingenious to apply Sections to things to which they were never intended to apply, and it is most important that the drafting should be right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), who has been advised by competent lawyers that he is right, as well as by other competent lawyers that he is wrong, is quite sure that there is a real danger that this Clause will hit an oral description in the same way as it hits a printed description. I do not think so, but I have been wrong in my time, though I am sure the House will not believe it. The mere fact that it is possible may be sufficient to prevent many people even daring to try to sell their goods. I think it can probably be remedied in Committee, but it is not a very easy matter.
With regard to Clause 17, I was glad when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) rose, because I felt certain that he would put the ordinary Conservative lawyer's view, and he did, though he did not put it with any great prolixity. It is a completely revolutionary Clause. That, of course, does not frighten me in itself, but I like my revolution to be tidy, to be effective and to be devoted to a good end, and I am very worried about this Clause. Firstly, it attempts in the law of contract a revolution which is very ill conceived. Secondly, in its actual wording it enables proprietors of branded goods to impose price restrictions; and, thirdly, it applies this new doctrine with such carelessness that it makes the operation both unnecessarily wide and unnecessarily uncertain. The law of contract is, ordinarily speaking, a branch of the law under which only the parties who voluntarily contract themselves to particular things are bound. There have been innumerable efforts by ingenious people to extend that doctrine for the purpose of assisting the game of price maintenance, which has 10 vices for every virtue that it possesses, and they have on the whole failed. It is pretty generally recognised in law that the transferability of a con-

535
tract is a new weapon which should be watched with the very greatest care.
The Clause not only enables the rich vendor of branded goods to follow his contractual rights right along with his goods, to perhaps the seventeenth purchaser, but it enables other persons also who may have become the proprietors of the trade mark at different times, to do so. So, instead of what ought to be a case of a simple and carefully limited extension, you find that both parties to the contract may be varied. That is a bad start, because, Heaven knows, contract law already is indefinite and undefined enough, and if you are to have one rather badly drafted Section in one Act which is going to "manufacture" half a dozen different people to a contract on both sides, it makes the law more complex than ever. The next complaint I have to make is one which is rendered worse by the fact that you have already an infinite variability on both sides, and that is, that the contract is made applicable to the derivative parties, A, B, C, D, and E, and you get that next complexity. You start quite a simple contract between A and B, and B will sell to C, who sells to D, who sells to E, and A is meanwhile transferred to somebody else, so that you get A and Ai enforcing part of a contract against B only, and other parts of the contract against C, D and E. It is worse than that. The Clause leaves it uncertain as to whether you can enforce a transferable part of the contract against original B as well as against C, D and E.
I am glad to hear from the various murmurs that the House thinks that it is not a bad idea. We shall have four or five more judges if this sort of thing is to become at all more general, and then there will be plenty of briefs for worthy and unworthy barristers. There is a minor trouble about the Bill as drafted which can easily be dealt with in Committee. As the thing is drafted, if any goods come my way which have originally a contract made about them in this fashion, the burden of proof will rest upon me to prove that I am an innocent purchaser. What chance I should have to prove that I was an innocent purchaser in a suspicious court, I do not know. The most serious thing about it is this, and it shows how difficult it is to pass legislation of this kind without creating more evils
536
than you cure. You do not need to go further than (a) to find the very first thing about which a contract has to run with the goods: prohibiting the application of the trade mark to the goods after they have suffered alteration in any manner at all—it sounds very reasonable to see how the words go on—
"or in any particular manner as respects their state or condition, get-up, or packing."
I do not suppose that it will take more than five minutes; in fact I expect that it has been done already by the astute people who run these big price maintenance proposals. They say that here is a Clause which says that once a trade mark is on the goods, you may stop everybody in the country selling the goods if there has been any alteration whatever in the get-up or the packing. So all that you have to do, as far as I can see, is this: If you have some goods—and this is how modern commerce works—if you have a bottle of some liquid or a tin of some powder which costs you a penny to make, 4d. to advertise and 2d. to market, you will sell it for 2s. 9d. Oddly enough you will be determined to use every power you have, including the legislature, to see that no one interferes with the substance.
There may be somebody who wants to sell it for less than 2s. 9d. You can get him at once by making the contract run with the goods, and so stopping him. All you have to do is to print in large and legible type, "These goods are not to be sold for less than 25. 9d." A man can sell them still for 2s. but he must not put a label over the tab, because he will be altering the packet. You are entitled to put a marl who wants to have a ramp in the position of being told by a solicitor, "You can sell it for 2s. if you can find a public to pay 2s. for a thing which has a label, "Not to be sold for less than 2s. 9d." If a thing which is sold for 2S. 9d. is offered for 2s., the public will think that it is soiled stock, and it will be very nice for the price maintenance ramp.
I ask for some assurance that this Clause will be very carefully reconsidered before anything of the sort is allowed to go any further. I would make this practical suggestion. We all want to stop fraud of any kind. There is already in trade mark law a well worked out system showing how far you can go by legislation about trade marks to protect one proprietor

537
against another when it is legitimate so to do. I do not pretend that it is simple and perfect. If it were either there would not have been the Goschen Committee nor this draft Bill, but what can be done is sufficiently worked out, and I suggest that the matter should be reconsidered. There are quite plainly some evils to be dealt with in Clause 17. They can be dealt with by an extension of the trade mark law; that is to say, by the application of statutory enactments to packing or trade marks. This is not the time to make a very dangerous hole in a complicated thing like the general law of contract. As it stands I suggest that Clause 17 presents very grave difficulty indeed.
9.13 p.m.
Dr. Burgin: It is only with the leave of the House that I can answer the questions which have been put but I think I can dispose of the matter relatively simply. In the first place, the Government have no cause to be anything but gratified at the way in which this Bill has been received by the House. It is clear that all parties think that some amendment of the trade mark law is required and that in large measure the Bill now submitted is one to which they desire to give support. I would like to reply to the suggestion that a defensive mark might lead to some extension of monopoly or the possibility of some abuse. If the hon. and learned Member will follow me for a moment, in the opening words of Clause 13 he will find that defensive trade marks are limited to invented words. There will, therefore, never be any prohibition whatever on members of the public using simple language and descriptions of articles by their proper names. I only give that answer immediately because it clears away a whole series of misconceptions on the part of certain hon. Members and enables us to proceed.
The substantial points have been made on Clauses 15 and 17. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was very harsh in his strictures on the draftsman. One would hardly have gathered from some of the expressions that he used that there had been any investigation into the matter at all. Of course, every Clause has been most elaborately sifted and is submitted as a serious suggestion for improvement of the existing law. If in Committee we find
538
that a Clause intended to deal with something is thought or is shown to deal with something wholly different, the House needs no assurance from me that that matter will be put right. If it is possible when we get to grips in Committee to simplify the language whilst retaining the amendment that we desire to attain, then let us by all means bend our efforts in that direction.
I am gratified to find a measure of general approval in the House with the object that the Government are seeking to attain. If some of our wording is imperfect, then we must try to improve it. If Clause 15 can really be thought to extend to the verbal boost by a salesman that a certain thing is in his judgment as good as or equivalent to aspirin, then that is nonsense. If it is necessary to delete or to insert words to prevent that impression gaining ground, then we can deal with it in Committee. I am convinced that the Clause does not mean anything of the kind and that the words in line 23 "uses a mark identical," cannot possibly be held to justify that impression. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) thought that Clause 15 might possibly cover a trade letter written by a trading concern to its branches, giving directions to managers, or to their laboratory making some comment on what was the object of some rival commodity. That, again, is a sort of thing that we can look at in Committee. I have not so interpreted the Clause. The particular purpose of the Clause is to prevent such fraud as the presentation of an article with a label on it as "being equal to," "a substitute for," or "as good as." That is a practice that we want to prevent. There is no question of the Clause having application to directions written from head office, or anything of that kind.
Clause 17 has been referred to by hon. and learned Members as if it were contrary to principle that one should suggest that a monopoly article should have certain conditions running with it and passing into the hands of different purchasers, as regards packing or presentation, etc. This is a new provision, but it is a provision that we have had in regard to patents. It is possible under a licence to include conditions even as far as price fixing with regard to a patented article, which will run with the article. This very important Depart-

539
mental Committee has recommended that there should be this extension. They made the recommendation, after hearing the evidence, that the extension should take this form, and Clause 17 has been drafted with a view to carrying out that recommendation of the Committee. By all means let us look at the wording of the Clause and in Committee see that we do not import into legislation something more than we intend to include, but do not let us take the view that a manufacturer who packs a particular article in a particular way is not entitled. to claim that those goods should not be unpacked or sold in a different form, and that in making that suggestion there is anything wrong. The idea is that the manufacturer when an article leaves his factory in a particular state should, if his customer requires it in a particular state, be entitled to say that it should reach the customer in that state.
Mr. Alexander: If the customer requires it.
Dr. Burgin: If and when the customer requires it. There is a whole series of things in regard to which a manufacturer ought to be able to attach conditions as to the packing, stoppering, etc., of his goods. What we are endeavouring to do is to implement the report of the Departmental Committee on this matter. I neither want to go beyond it nor less far. If our words are not apt, then let us in Committee revise them.
Sir Stafford Cripps: Is it the intention of this Clause to prevent the sale secondhand of goods under their trade name? That is to say, is a manufacturer to be able to impose a condition that a trader may not sell at second hand in that way That would be the effect of the Clause.
Dr. Burgin: It is not intended to do anything of the kind, and I do not think that it can be so interpreted, but if so that is a matter that could be adjusted. What it is intended to deal with is the case of the person who buys something, unpacks it, and then distributes it in different packages, and the whole method of the trade mark is altered and eventually the purchaser receives something completely different from the article as it left the manufacturer. That is one circumstance with which the Clause is intended to deal. The objects of the Government
540
are to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. In so far as the wording is inapt, I shall be very happy to amend it.
Mr. Alexander: With that assurance from the hon. Member I should be content, if my hon. Friends agree, to withdraw the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, provided that we can get attention to the matters that we have raised, when the Bill is in Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

PUBLIC HEALTH (DRAINAGE OF TRADE PREMISES) BILL. [Lords.]
Order for Second Reading read.
9.23 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope the Bill will not prove as controversial as the last one. I notice with some relief that the learned gentlemen are now leaving the House. This Bill is much simpler than the previous one, but it is an important Measure, and I hope that it will commend itself generally to the House. Its object is to improve the purity of the streams and rivers of this country and also to relieve traders of a troublesome incident of manufacture. It cannot be disputed that many of our rivers are to-day seriously polluted and that the present law is not sufficient to prevent certain avoidable contamination which arises from the reception of the liquids proceeding from certain industrial and manufacturing processes. Nor, on the other hand, is it satisfactory in certain respects from the point of view of industry itself. The problem is a pressing one because it arises from the growing tendency for the manufacturers to settle on rivers which have not been industrialised before and by the importance which, I think it will be agreed, must be attached to conserving the available sources of water supply, both domestic and industrial. Legislation is much overdue.
This matter was considered by the Joint Advisory Committee on River Pollution as long ago as 1930. They

541
heard the evidence and gave careful consideration to the problem, and they came to the conclusion that the law was inadequate, that it was indefinite itself and in its application, and that a new code was desirable which would at the same time as it defined the rights and obligations of traders and local authorities, be uniform in its application, while it admitted of variations in detail to suit local conditions. The general conclusions of this committee were: (1) that the local sanitary authorities should be under a general obligation to take and dispose of the trade effluents of their district; (2) that the trader should have a right to discharge such effluents to the public sewers; and (3) that there should be certain safeguards and conditions. Lord Gainford, in another place, introduced a Bill on these general lines last year. It went through all its stages, but owing to lack of time was not proceeded with in this House. It was in these circumstances that I had to consider the matter, and I think that the Government have come to a right decision when we say that it is in the general interest that the matter should be proceeded with, and the passing of the Public Health Act, 1936, has enabled a measure to be introduced in this House in a somewhat simpler form.
Consultations have taken place with the various associations of local authorities and many other associations interested in this problem as well as with representatives of certain trades and industries. I think that with certain Amendments of a committee character which may be necessary I can describe these proposals to the House as a measure of common agreement. I have already conferred with certain trades and industries and have given them an undertaking that Amendments will be moved in committee to deal with some difficulties of traders which have recently been the subject of our discussions. This Measure provides that local authorities shall, either by agreement with traders on individual applications, or by means of the enforcement of by-laws, settle the terms on which effluents may be discharged into sewers and I would like to give this assurance, that these by-laws must be approved by my Department, and they must be of such a nature as to safeguard the interests of the traders and also to protect the local authority itself against liability for undue expense.
542
I have considered the position of trade and industry, and traders are given a right of appeal and power is given to make exceptions to deal with particular cases. These by-law-making powers enable the local authority to determine the maximum amount of trade effluent which may be discharged on any one day with their consent and the maximum rate of discharge without consent. This Bill deals only with the regulation of what may be passed through drains as the drains themselves are now regulated by the Public Health Act, 1936. Traders are given, in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule, full opportunity of considering any proposed by-laws and making representations before they are made and submitted for confirmation. There are also a number of provisions which have been carefully made as to notices, appeals and penalties under this scheme. Existing agreements are preserved and provisions are included for the protection of authorities who are under an obligation to treat sewage from other local authorities' areas and docks and harbour authorities. The Bill will make for a measure of economy which, I know, the House would desire, because it does not inflict any hardship on anybody, inasmuch as it will be cheaper to dispose of trade effluents collectively and the cost of treatment of trade effluents concentrated at sewage disposal works will be less than the aggregate cost of treatment at numerous plants on individual trade premises.
I believe that the traders themselves will make use of these provisions without compulsion, and that the authorities who will be charged with the duty of seeing to the cleanliness of rivers will be able to exercise their powers in the knowledge that there are reasonably cheap measures of disposal open to these traders. I should explain that London is excluded from the Bill, but I understand that it will follow its working with attention, and, if it proves beneficial, will consider the steps which it will take in order to obtain similar provisions for London. I hope that this Bill will commend itself to the House. A large number of people have interested themselves in its provisions for a long period. Much work has, been done in connection with it. I propose it not as a major Bill but one which will be of some use as far as the cleanliness of rivers is concerned, and as a measure for solving a problem which for

543
so long has been proved difficult as far as trade and industry are concerned. I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with a number of traders and if there are any Amendments they desire, which will not interfere with the main purpose of the Bill, I shall be perfectly willing to consider them in Committee. I desire to present the Bill as one which will obtain general support, and I submit it as a useful little Bill which will do a great deal of good.
Mr. Burke: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the position of the laundry trade whose effluents are of a domestic character?
Sir K. Wood: The Institution of British Launderers have said that their position might be affected by the Bill as drafted and have asked that some amendment should be made to exclude from the operation of the Bill effluents from laundries in so far as they are of a similar character to the ordinary domestic washing effluents. It has been agreed that an Amendment shall be moved in Committee, and I shall be glad to do it, to exempt from the consent of local authorities any liquid produced solely in the course of laundering articles. I understand that the Institution are satisfied with the assurance, and if I am permitted to do so I will carry out the obligation when the Bill comes before the Committee.
9.37 P.m.
Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman has made quite clear the purpose and object of the Bill. A similar measure was introduced in another place a year ago, but, unhappily, owing to lack of time it did not reach the Statute Book. This is an improvement on that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to accommodate certain interests, I think, to the advantage of the community at large, and on behalf of those for whom I speak we propose to offer general support to the Measure. We regard it as a useful and helpful Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman can depend upon our co-operation and goodwill when it is passing through the Committee stage. It may be necessary to submit Amendments but they will not be put forward in any spirit of hostility —rather with a view of improving the Measure. The Bill is undoubtedly calculated to deal with a great evil. The pollution of our streams and rivers by
544
trade effluents is very general, and the measure is long overdue, having regard to the consideration which has been given to the problem of pollution by various committees and other interested bodies and the pressure which has been brought upon the Department from time to time to deal with the matter. There is no element of compulsion it the Bill. It is a perfect model of compromise and is in harmony with the characteristic way in which we approach many of the problems affecting local administration, traders, industry and the general public.
Looking at the legal phraseology of the Bill, the draftsman seems to have thought of everything. Traders may discharge their trade effluents into the sewers of local authorities, notice must be given, local authorities' interests are protected, any person aggrieved Las a right of appeal, there is a right of exemption, local authorities may make by-laws and shall do so if the right lion. Gentleman requires, local authorities, by agreement, may construct the necessary works and recover the cost from the traders concerned, and there is also provision for agreement between one local authority and another. In the course of our industrial development there has been sad neglect on the part of industry, of local authorities and on the part of the Government regarding the pollution of our beautiful streams and rivers. The condition of many of them is a disgrace to our vaunted civilisation. Through Sheffield, my adopted city, rues the River Don. When I was a boy I remember a citizen of Sheffield describing what a beautiful river it was and how in the very heart of Sheffield salmon and trout were to be seen and caught by the anglers and fishermen of those days. [Interruption.] I am not speaking of the anglers of the type of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but of those who come from Doncaster and Sheffield. The thousands of anglers who are organised in the National Federation of Anglers are interested not merely in the catching of fish, but in the preservation of the countryside and in maintaining the amenities, and beauties of our streams and rivers.
What is the state of the River Don to-day? From Penistone until it enters the Humber and finally reaches the sea, it is a veritable cesspool of filth and pollution. A few weeks ago I went to

545
Sheffield to look at the River Don. It seemed to me to be flowing in agony, ashamed of itself. [Interruption.] I do not know what my hon. Friends behind me can see to laugh at in this. I do not know why any hon. Member should see any cause for merriment in the destruction of one of the most beautiful rivers that has ever flowed between banks. It is a disgrace to this House, to the local authorities and to men and women of intelligence that they should have allowed these beautiful streams and rivers to be spoiled, and if this Bill will only restore the beauty and amenities of the river Don, I for one welcome it. I am interested in this matter not from the fishermen's point of view, for I am not an angler, but from the point of view of the maintenance of beauty and the preservation of the countryside. When the workmen who work in these factories, among the stench, dirt and foulness of factory life, leave their houses with their wives and children to go for a walk, they go to the stench of the factories once again as it is reflected in the abuse and destruction of our rivers. This is something which we ought not to have tolerated for so long. Let me refer to the River Trent, and here I will quote from an article by Mr. J. Inglis Spicer, who is, I believe, secretary of the Trent Fishery Board, which appeared in "The Listener" of 22nd July, 1936:
"There are in this one river system 130 miles out of a total of 550 of flowing water (or what should be water) where neither animal nor plant life can subsist. In another 50 miles or so, the lower forms of plant life may subsist, but fish and insect life are absent. There can he no amenities in a countryside so fouled, and many of the fish are living very precariously indeed, with, hanging over them, the shadow of sudden death from preventible pollution. The river starts off badly polluted in the Potteries. It takes 30 miles to recover, as rivers will if left alone. Not a fish, not a water plant, for 30 miles! On natural recovery, with the help of fairly clean tributary streams, fish appear, with occasional slaughter of course. But down comes Birmingham and the Black Country's quota of pollution, devastating over 52 miles of water courses. There is a slow convalescence, running the gauntlet of Burton, Derby, Nottingham and Newark, and the river, tired and thankful, reaches the sea for purification by evaporation."
I rejoice to think that we are finding time to deal with this matter, and I hope that traders, within the provisions of this Bill, will co-operate with the local authorities
546
and the Ministry, and that we shall see a steady improvement in the condition of these rivers. At the same time, I hope that many traders will install purification plant where necessary. Moreover, I hope the Minister will not be content merely to provide that trade effluents shall run into the sewers of public authorities, but that he will see that public authorities do not allow their sewage to run into the rivers and streams, for much of the pollution has also been due to that. I do not propose to give evidence on that point, but I have read the reports of almost every fishery board in this country, and I do not think there is one that does not contain evidence of the pollution of rivers by sewage from local authorities, independent of the pollution caused by trade effluents. While we are seeking by this Bill to remedy the grave evil of trade effluents, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence and any powers which he may have to ensure that local authorities, having once got the trade effluents into their sewers, will not allow the sewage to run into the river, thus continuing the pollution which we are now seeking to remedy. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I welcome this Bill and reserve our right to submit Amendments, which will be put forward not in hostility, but in the hope of improving the Bill.
9.51 p.m.
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes), the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Duggan), the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) and I had on the Order Paper for a long time a Motion for the rejection of this Bill. That Motion was put down at the request of the Institute of British Launderers. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) for raising the matter by way of a question at the end of the Minister's speech, and I am glad that the Minister gave an assurance that he will move an Amendment in the Committee which will meet the views and desires of the Institute of British Launderers. Therefore, I merely wish to say that, with the assurance which the Minister has given, my hon. Friends are satisfied, and we have already withdrawn the Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
9.52 p.m.
Rear-Admiral Beamish: If any excuse is necessary for the few remarks which I wish to make to the House, I would

547
remind hon. Members that for a good many years I have been concerned with the Joint Advisory Committee which made the recommendations upon which this Bill is very largely based. I wish to associate myself with everything that was said by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short). I very much felt for him when some of his supporters smiled when he was speaking of the condition of some of our rivers. I must confess that it is more a matter for tears than for smiles. It is a very long time since anything really serious was done to help to prevent pollution, and this Bill is one further step to repair the injuries that industry, individual citizens and public authorities have inflicted upon the streams and rivers of this country. I am confident that it is a step in the right direction, although there are other steps which I hope will be taken in time to come, which will do more than this particular Bill does to carry forward what can only be an admirable piece of work. Miraculous results in the case of the rivers which the hon. Member for Doncaster mentioned cannot be hoped for, but at the same time a great deal of good will be done to them by this co-ordination and centralisation of the treatment of trade effluents.
It certainly will be beneficial in the case of the worst rivers, and I think it will ultimately mean the saving of certain rivers which, at present, are only slightly polluted, but on which, in recent years, industries have settled in order to get the advantage of the clean water. The effect of those industries settling on those rivers naturally has been to pollute them to some extent. I feel strongly that this is a question on which the public conscience ought to be aroused, and I am pleased to notice the agreement in the House to-night that we are doing the right thing in trying to have this matter rectified.
The question of angling interests me very much and I am sure it will appeal to all who support the Bill. Reference has been made to 100,000 anglers, but I can tell the House that 220,000 licences for coarse fish angling were issued in 1935 and if we utilise this Measure to the full and keep control over public authorities and see that purification is properly carried out, there is little doubt that the figure of 220,000 may easily be doubled. I am sure that would be a satisfaction to
548
all who agree that angling is one of the most delightful and peaceful recreations of mankind. I wish to tender my meed of praise and thanks to the Minister for having brought forward this Bill.
9.58 P.m.
Mr. Cassells: While associating myself with all that has been said on this subject, there is one point which I wish to bring to the Minister's notice. Apparently Scotland has been disregarded in the Bill. I would recall a question which was asked in the House about 12 months ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in regard to the poisoning of fish in the River Leven. I trust that Scotland is not being disregarded in this matter and that steps will lie taken by the Minister to see that Scottish interests are protected.
9.59 P.m.
Mr. Quibell: I join in welcoming the Bill particularly because I hope it will do something to deal with the pollution of streams in rural areas. I can find nothing in the Bill, however, which will remedy what I consider to be the worst feature of pollution. In certain rural districts not far from my own area, sewage is disposed of on the banks of the River Trent. There is no other method of disposal. It has to be carried there in the night, dumped On the banks of the river in order that the tide shall take it down stream. That fact is known to the officers of the local authorities but they deliberately close their eyes to it. I am afraid that the policy of extending water supplies to the rural villages, a policy with which I agree, will intensify the problem of pollution in the case of the smaller streams which find their way into larger streams and finally into the rivers. The Ministry would add considerably to the usefulness of the Bill if they could meet that point by inserting a Clause insisting that where town water supplies are extended to rural villages, steps shall be taken by the rural authorities to see that raw sewage does not go into the smaller streams and thence into the rivers.
Some hon. Members have been anxious to protect the interests of a particular section of the community, namely, the Institute of British Launderers. I do not know what is the relation of that body

549
to the pollution of streams, but this I do know, that a considerable amount of discharge goes into the sewers of local authorities which is actually trade effluent, and I do not see why certain bodies should be excluded in this connection. If we are not careful, the strain put upon the sewers of local authorities in some cases by trade effluents will involve those authorities in a considerable expense, and I hope the Minister will take that point into consideration. The Bill is only a beginning, but, as a step in the right direction, we all welcome it and I hope it will reach the Statute Book. As regards the local authorities, I would only say that my own local authority is spending between £100,000 and £200,000 in extending sewerage works. The policy of the Ministry at present is to restrict the size of sewers so that they serve only for a limited number of years. If difficulties arise as a consequence of increasing the amount of effluents that the sewers have to take, it is a matter to which consideration must be given. With those comments on the Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have the pleasure of passing it into law, but he must be prepared in Committee to face Amendments such as I have indicated, and I hope that he will not promise, first to one organisation and then to another, that they will be exempted from any special contribution, having regard to the expenditure in which local authorities may be involved.
10.2 p.m.
Mr. Kelly: I wish to ask a question, but I am not concerned to receive an answer to-night and am prepared to wait for it until a later stage. Under Clause 4 it will be possible to deal in two ways with people who are concerned with trade effluents. The Minister may deal with them directly, or they may be dealt with under the local authority. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's experience of what happens when there are two methods of dealing with a matter of this kind, I would ask him to make up his mind on this point and to say that all these cases shall be dealt with under the local authority. These people will have, I think, a right of appeal, and it would be an advantage if all cases and applications went to the local authority in the first instance. In another branch of local administration railways are exempt from certain provisions which local authorities impose, and the railways are able to do
550
almost anything they like in defiance of the local authorities. I ask the Minister to consider this matter and to have one method of dealing with all these people, no matter what their trade or business may be. Let them have a right to appeal if they are dissatisfied with the local authorities' decision, but let us have one form of administration.
10.5 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I would like to endorse the remarks made by the right hon. Member on the Front Bench on the necessity of restoring many of the beauty spots in this country, especially the rivers and their adjacent areas. In my home town there is a river and it is a disgrace to the community. Everyone will agree than anything that can help to clean up these rivers is desirable and should be given every support. It is terrible if an hon. Member can come here and talk of opposing the Bill on behalf of some association interested in business or profit. When I listened to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) talking about these beautiful spots and men and women and their families taking a delight in walking out to them, my mind went to a particular place which has been turned into a most awful and barren wilderness. It was one of the most beautiful districts you could have seen a few years ago.
This Bill refers to trade effluent as effluent with or without particles of matter, but I have in mind a product from an industry that has completely wiped out the beauties of the foreshore. Beautiful sands have been covered with rubbish, the harbour completely blocked up and destroyed, and men deprived of the livelihood they were making from fishing. This has resulted from the redd dumped from a coalpit into the harbour. The amenity of that countryside has been destroyed. When this Bill is being discussed in Committee some consideration should be given to the possibility of guarding against not only effluent in the way of liquid that can pollute a stream but against products of other characters that can easily be dumped on the banks of a stream and cause pollution and desolation. I hope the Minister will give that matter some consideration.
10.9 p.m.
Mr. Mathers: The Minister must be gratified to hear the chorus of approval for the attempt which this Bill represents

551
to carry out some improvement in the streams of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) has raised a question with regard to Scotland. I hope the Minister of Health will be able to give us some inch-cation of what is the intention of the Government in regard to the question whether separate legislation is to be brought in for Scotland. While I and others have urged the necessity of having a better measure for maintaining the purity of Scottish rivers, our opinion that the present legislation which applies in Scotland is not adequate for its purpose is not one that is shared, as we gather, by those in charge of the Scottish Office.
But I do not rise to make the point particularly with regard to Scotland. I wish to have some enlightenment in regard to the discharge of trade effluent that does not actually go into local authorities' public sewers, as described at the commencement of this Bill. I am thinking of trade effluent that goes direct into a stream. The trade effluent that I have in mind is coal dust. A colliery situated on the side of a stream has settling ponds. The coal is washed, and there are ponds for the settling of the dust, but frequently we have found in times of flood the opportunity is taken to open the sluices that control those settling ponds and the effluent is allowed to run into the stream in the hope that the flood water will carry it completely away and leave little or no trace. That position does not seem to be dealt with by the Bill, and I am anxious to know whether it is intended to deal with a condition of that kind by means of this Bill. I am certain that other hon. Members are able to testify to the fact that this is a very serious form of pollution and that it does immense harm to rivers, makes them most unsightly, destroys the fish and makes the rivers totally unsuitable for the gentle pastime of angling. I hope we may have some enlightment as to the intentions of the Government in this regard in the further stages of the Bill.
10.13 p.m.
Sir John Haslam: I only wish to ask the Minister not to rest content with insisting on small communities providing purification works. In my experience some of those purification works have
552
been put up elaborately, the local authorities being compelled by the river inspectors to provide them or else prosecution follows, but through parsimony or neglect of some sort the works have been left without any attention and the remedy, in the long run, is worse than the disease. In travelling about the countryside, I have noticed that there has been an enormous increase in milk and cheese factories. The effluent from those factories is very obnoxious indeed and I hope the Minister of Health will have his inspectors watch those places, because it is not beyond the wit of man to devise remedies.
I would also impress on the Minister the importance of getting, as far as possible, the effluent from all villages and hamlets to run into a large town or city, even though it may involve a little more expense at the time. In my experience the effluent is dealt with far more efficiently and consistently in a large town than in some of the smaller villages. The small village gets a grant from the Ministry towards the initial cost of the purification works, but it feels the strain in the upkeep afterward; and is apt to cease to do the necessary work of maintenance. That is not the position in regard to a large town. I have always used what influence I possessed to encourage these outside districts to run into a central town, for the town has a better base of rateage and does not feel the strain so heavily in the upkeep of the work. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to encourage the multiplication of the large sewerage works rather than of small local ones.
10.16 p.m.
Mr. David Adams: The treatment of trade effluents by local authorities is not obligatory, and I cordially welcome this measure, although, as an angler, I am not certain that the felicitous results that have been anticipated for the angling fraternity will be fully realised if, in fact, only the lesser rivers and streams will be affected by the Measure, and if we have to rely on the goodwill of the local authorities whether any action takes place. There is an imperative necessity that an obligation should be placed on all local authorities to establish sewage disposal works. The question of the River Tyne pollution has been under consideration by local authorities and others for many

553
years, and it is estimated that the establishment of the necessary works would cost some millions of money. Here we have a great river which undoubtedly is highly polluted, and yet there is no medical officer of health in the Tyneside area or in the riparian authorities who will state that the health of the community is in any degree affected by the fact that the Tyne is really a large sewer. It is a remarkable fact, and perhaps a testimony to the quality of the Tyneside, that there is a big trade done in Tyne salmon, in spite of the fact that the sewage is said never to leave the river. This, I hope, is merely a preliminary measure in the interests of public health, of the fishing fraternity, and of the purification and beautification of the country, to the making of sewage disposal works obligatory by each of the local authorities in the Kingdom.
10.19 p.m.
Mr. E. Smith: I should be lacking in my duty if I did not, on behalf of the local authorities in my area, say how much we welcome this Bill. The river running through the area that I represent has had so much effluent poured into it for many years that it made a well known duke leave its neighbourhood. I am very glad that he did leave, because now his beautiful hall and park are given up to the enjoyment of the people of the district. They go out there at week-ends and are enabled to see the beautifully laid-out grounds, with their flowers and vegetation of all description. It is a real treat to see the people from that industrial area enjoying themselves in that beautiful park at the week-ends. I welcome this Bill, because it will enable the local authority to deal with the effluent which still flows into the river, and I regard that as a step in the right direction.
10.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): It is a source of much satisfaction to us to know that the efforts of the Department to improve the position as regards rivers have met with such universal praise from hon. Members to-night. My right hon. Friend and I are extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) and other hon. Members for expressing their praise of the Bill in such generous terms. One or two questions have been put to us and I will endeavour to answer
554
them. The hon. Member for Dumbarton-shire (Mr. Cassel1s), and I think, also, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) asked what was happening in the case of Scotland. I understand that a separate Bill is needed for Scotland, and that it is under consideration by the Scottish Office. The hon. Member for Linlithgow went on to ask whether coal dust going into a river could be regarded as an effluent. I understand that the discharge of coal dust is already an offence under the Act passed in 1876 for the prevention of the pollution of rivers, and it is for the local authorities to put an end to a nuisance of this kind by undertaking a prosecution if they think fit. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) raised a point about pollution by the deposit of night soil on a river bank. I have not heard of the paritcular case he mentioned, but if he will be good enough to let us have particulars we will look into it. At first sight it would seem to be a matter to be dealt with primarily by the local authorities.
Mr. Gallacher: In the event of a coal company putting its redd on the land and polluting a river, is the company subject to prosecution under this Bill?
Mr. Hudson: I should not like to answer a hypothetical question without being furnished with fuller details. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the case he has in mind I shall be glad to look into it and see whether anything can be done. The hon. Member for Brigg raised another point of some interest and, I agree, of some importance, and that was the effect on sewage disposal of the increasing extent to which water supplies are being provided in rural areas. I agree that in many areas that has become a matter of great importance, and as a matter of fact my right hon. Friend and I received a deputation some time ago which raised that specific question, among others. I can assure him it has not escaped our notice and is under consideration at the present moment, but I cannot discuss on the Second Reading of this Bill possible means there may be of dealing with that situation. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) praised the Bill from rather an odd angle, if I understood his argument aright, because evidently the effect of this Bill may be that dukes will continnue to live in their ancestral homes. I think I have now

555
dealt with all the points which have been raised. As my right hon. Friend said, we shall consider any reasonable Amendments that may be put forward in Committee. That observation applies equally to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). I am not sure that I fully apprehended his point, but if he will come to see me to-morrow or next week, I will see whether we can do anything to meet it.

IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).
10.26 p.m.
Dr. Burgin: I beg to move,
"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 5) Order, 1937, dated the twenty-third day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-third day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved."
This Order relates to iron or steel screws for wood, and it suggests that after 27th April, the duty shall be 20 per cent. instead of a range of duty that was a specific duty per lb. It is a reduction of duty, and I imagine that the House of Commons will welcome it accordingly. The reason why this Order has to be brought to the House is that, if you alter a duty of 3d. or 2d. per lb. on screws to a duty of 20 per cent., you might, by the alteration of the price level, find that your 20 per cent. duty became higher. For that purely technical reason it is necessary to ask the House to approve the Order. There are, in fact, no screws imported on which a duty of 20 per cent. will be as high as the specific duty. The House receives my assurance that this is a reduction of duty.
Resolved,
"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 5) Order, 1937, dated the twenty-third day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-third day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved."

DESTRUCTIVE IMPORTED ANIMALS ACT, 1932.
10.27 p.m.
The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I beg to move,
"That the Order under erection 10 of the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, for prohibiting the importation into, and keeping within, Great Britain of any animal of the species designated Scirius carolinensis, and commonly known as the Grey Squirrel, which was presented to this House on Thursday, the 6th day of May, 1937. be approved."
The object of the Act under which is made the Order which I am asking the House to approve, was primarily to deal with the musk rat and, in point of fact, it has been very successful in dealing with that animal and has thoroughly vindicated the passing of the Measure. The Act also includes powers to extend its application to other destructive, non-indigenous mammals, not established in a wild state in Great Britain, or which have become so established only in the last 50 years. The grey squirrel is a destructive imported animal, and I am asking the House that its importation into Great Britain may be prohibited. There is a very formidable indictment against this animal. It is the bitter enemy of agriculture, horticulture and sylviculture, and of all bird life.
The cost of harbouring such an undesirable alien has already been considerable, and is likely to increase, unless we do something about it. In 1930 the grey squirrel existed in something like 35 counties in Great Britain, and we have evidence to show that since then the numbers and range of the activities of grey squirrels have not decreased but have increased. The destruction of the grey squirrel has been made the subject of a campaign by the Ministry of Agriculture, and although that Campaign was supported to the full with the publication of leaflets, use of wireless and exhortations of county councils, arid so forth, it cannot be said that those propaganda measures have been anything like successful. The Act which we are now asking the House to apply, makes specific provision for dealing with grey squirrels by authorising the appropriate Departments to take such steps as are considered necessary for their destruction.
In England the appropriate Department may authorise the agricultural committee of the county council of any county

557
to exercise these powers within the county at the expense of the Department. We still think that voluntary agencies afford the best means of dealing with this pest, and it is not the intention of the Government to undertake the actual operations of shooting or trapping, or to utilise the powers given by the Act, but those powers will remain in reserve should they be required. We regard the Order as the first step in a campaign of propaganda and publicity designed to encourage the extermination of these animals by voluntary effort, and we think it will be the more successful if it has the moral effect which legislation by this House will give it. I trust that the House will approve of the Order, and enable the Ministry and people in the country at large to assist in the extermination of what has become a serious and destructive pest to birds, trees, fruit, and agriculture generally.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Radford: I wish that my hon. Friend had given us a little more information, or, shall I say, basis of proof, with regard to the destructive propensities of the grey squirrel. I have observed that there seem to be fewer of the old English brown squirrels about, and I have heard it said that these grey squirrels either destroy them or frighten them away, but, while my hon. Friend gave an alarming catalogue of the crimes which are laid at the door of the grey squirrel, he did not give us that detailed information which I think the House would like to have before it passes an Order which is practically a sentence of death on a little animal which at any rate is interesting to watch, even if it is mischievous. In the part of the country where I live, namely Cheshire, there are numbers of these grey squirrels, and they are certainly very interesting to watch, and I should like to have a little more proof as to whether they do all the mischief that is imputed to them. Possibly other Members may have knowledge of the subject, but I do not feel that, on the information which has been given to the House to-night, we are justified in passing an Order which is practically one for the extermination of a picturesque and really quite tame little creature.
10.34 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel C. Kerr: I should like to endorse every word that has been said
558
by the Minister on this subject. For some years I have had to suffer from this pest in the place where I live, and I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) can really feel that these animals are dear little pets. They are tree rats of the most unworthy type, and they completely destroy the charming little red squirrel, which does no harm to anybody. To one's garden, whether it be the ornamental garden or the fruit or vegetable garden, they do tremendous damage, as well as to all the ornamental birds, and, if the love of animals and birds is to be brought into this question, let us love the little birds that they destroy, the nests that they destroy, arid all the other charming things that we see about in the garden, on the hillside and in the fields. I have personal knowledge of this matter, so much so that I had to buy a rather expensive gun for my gardener, and I believe I am not exaggerating when I say that we shoot on an average from five to seven of these animals every week. But we are in a hopeless position, because the people next door do not do anything of the sort, and, as fast as we kill the animals, they are replaced. I hope that my hon. Friend, who, I know, is actuated by the most kindly sentiments in this matter, will not consider them dear little animals at all.
Mr. Goldie: I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend would inform us what a non-indigenous mammal is.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. David Adams: I think we ought to have some more information as to the destructiveness of the grey squirrel. Much of the complaint is that it is an American introduction and that it breeds more rapidly than the red squirrel. It is said that the red squirrel does little or no damage to gardens or to fruit, but the contrary is the case and only its beauty has saved it in the past. We ought to be very careful indeed before determining on the wholesale extermination of the interesting grey squirrel. There are very few pleasure gardens, certainly in the South of England, which I have visited where the grey squirrel is not a feature. It is easily tamed, and to say that owners of gardens may at any time be subject to an instruction from the Minister of Agriculture that it is an

559
obligation to destroy it is an act of detriment to the beauty and interest of the country. We require a great deal more information than the Minister has submitted, which has been of a purely negative character.
10.38 p.m.
Mr. Ramsbotham: I did not submit proofs of the guilt of this animal because I thought they were substantially known. When it is said that we are pronouncing sentence against the grey squirrel, the grey squirrel has pronounced sentence on thousands of other creatures which are more graceful than he is. I have a note of the food of the grey squirrel which will be some evidence of the damage that it does. It comprises green shoots and buds of various trees, nuts and seeds in all stages, ripe and unripe; fruits, wild and cultivated, ripe and unripe; the inner bark of young trees, notably beech and sycamore, bulbs and roots of various kinds, birds' eggs and young birds. It is common knowledge that it is a very destructive and mischievous pest. With regard to the expression "non-indigenous," I take it to mean that the grey squirrel is not normally a native of this country. At any rate, 50 years ago it was not known. Unfortunately it has become widely established since.
Mr. Radford: Is the House to understand that, if this Order is passed, officers of the Ministry of Agriculture may at any time enter upon private premises, if they have reason to believe that there are grey squirrels, in order to destroy them? After all, a man's ground is supposed to be his castle.
Resolved,
"That the Order under Section 10 of the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, for prohibiting the importation into, and keeping within, Great Britain of any animal of the species designated Scirius carolinensis and commonly known as the Grey Squirrel, which was presented to this HOUSE on Thursday the 6th day of May, 1937, be approved."

INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL.
10.39 p.m.
Mr. Windsor: I beg to move,
"That the Order [25th May] that the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be considered upon Saturday, 24th July, having been made upon the Motion of a Member not duly authorised by the Member in charge of the Bill, be read, and discharged; that the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be considered upon Monday next."
The reason for the Motion is, I think, fully understood, and I will content myself with formally moving it.
Mr. Kelly: I beg formally to second the Motion, which is well understood, as the Mover has stated.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.]
Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CIVIL SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION ACTS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION ACTS).
  TAX OFFICES (PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION).
  TAX OFFICES (PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES, SCOTLAND.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES, SCOTLAND.
  CLAIMS AND RECORDS OFFICE, KEW.
  CLAIMS AND RECORDS OFFICE, KEW.
  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD.
  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  REGISTERED UNEMPLOYED, SCOTLAND.
  REGISTERED UNEMPLOYED, SCOTLAND.
  TRANSFERENCE (AFTER-CARE).
  TRANSFERENCE (AFTER-CARE).
SCOTLAND.
  SPECIAL AREAS AMENDMENT ACT.
  SPECIAL AREAS AMENDMENT ACT.
  DEAF AND DUMB POPULATION.
  DEAF AND DUMB POPULATION.
  MARINE OIL ENGINES (IMPORTS).
  MARINE OIL ENGINES (IMPORTS).
  PRISON ADMINISTRATION (BORSTAL DETENTION).
  PRISON ADMINISTRATION (BORSTAL DETENTION).
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION COURTS.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION COURTS.
  PERSISTENT OFFENDERS.
  PERSISTENT OFFENDERS.
  HOUSING (OVERCROWDING).
  HOUSING (OVERCROWDING).
  FOOD LAW (COMMITTEE).
  FOOD LAW (COMMITTEE).
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD.
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD.
  EDUCATION (CRIPPLE SCHOOLS).
  EDUCATION (CRIPPLE SCHOOLS).
  THE CORONATION.
  THE CORONATION.
  BRITISH ARMY (COMMISSIONS FROM RANKS).
  BRITISH ARMY (COMMISSIONS FROM RANKS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

AGRICULTURAL POLICY.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask whether the Government are in a position to make a general statement of agricultural policy.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord opposite for giving me this opportunity of providing your Lordships' House with the statement of policy that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has announced in another place this afternoon. The statement is as follows: The Government have very carefully considered the position of agriculture from the points of view of the welfare of agriculture itself, National Defence, and the importance of maintaining continuity in our agricultural policy that is designed to ensure maximum supplies for the consumer consistent with reasonable remuneration for the producer. The Government have in the past initiated proposals for dealing with particular agricultural products. This side of the Government's policy will continue and I hope shortly to announce proposals for the future of the milk and pig industries. There are, however, certain fundamental matters with which I wish to deal in the following statement.
In regard to Defence, I should like at the outset to stress the following considerations. The two objectives—of producing the maximum quantity of food to meet our requirements in time of war, on the one hand, and of the efficient development of our agriculture in time of peace, on the other—not only demand very different methods but, to a material extent, are opposed to each other. In particular, a drastic policy of food production for war purposes would entail the ploughing up of an extensive area of our grassland for the

261
purpose of growing cereals and other crops for human consumption. In peace time, however, livestock husbandry, which is the foundation of our agriculture, is naturally based on a grassland system on account of the physical and climatic advantages which favour it. The Government have had to determine where, between these two objectives, the path lies which, on balance, it would be wise to follow.
In the opinion of the Government, to put agriculture on a war-time footing with all the regulations, the regimentation of the farming community, and the heavy costs that it would unavoidably involve, would not be practicable at the present time; nor in their opinion is the situation such as to require the adoption of this course in time of peace. The Government are equally satisfied that considerations of National Defence would not justify a policy in peace time of stimulating agricultural production to such a pitch that the country would be laced with a highly artificial situation which would, sooner or later, have to be liquidated if the emergency did not arise. Such a policy would be costly to build up and costly to close down. Moreover, farmers themselves will have a vivid recollection of the disorganisation and uncertainties which followed the repeal of the Corn Production Acts in 1921, and the Government have no wish to put them in such a position again. Having regard to these considerations, the Government are satisfied that the best course in the general national interest is to continue their efforts to improve the general prosperity and efficiency of home agriculture, and in particular to promote an increase in the fertility and productivity of our soil. The proposals which I shall now outline are so designed that should an emergency arise we should be in a position immediately to take advantage of improved fertility, but, should it not arise, we should be increasing the productivity of our land and stock by means which are consistent with, and not opposed to, the normal development of cur agriculture on economic lines in time of peace.
To achieve this object, the Government propose that the following measures should be taken: One of the most serious deficiencies of the land of this country arises from failure to maintain the old practice of applying lime to the soil. Due
262
to the long depression, farmers have been unable to bear the cost. The result has been felt not only in diminished fertility, but also in the lack of elements essential to healthy plant and animal life. The Government propose to assist farmers in raising the fertility of the soil by increased use of lime. They also consider it desirable to secure increased application, particularly to grasslands, of basic slag which, like lime, is available from home sources and has an enduring effect upon the soil. They propose that for a limited period of years the cost to the farmer of lime and basic slag should be reduced by approximately 50 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively. The object of these proposals is not only to make good past exhaustion of soil fertility in many parts of the country, but to build up reserves of fertility, valuable in peace time, and immediately available to meet the heavy demands upon it which might be made in time of war.
It is proposed to raise the limit of the "anticipated supply" under the Wheat Act, 1932, from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 quarters and thereby to stimulate an increase in the wheat acreage. In present circumstances this involves no cost but will give valuable additional insurance to wheat growers in the United Kingdom. The Government propose also to introduce a scheme in respect of oats and barley which will be in the nature of an insurance against low prices. It will apply only to those growers of oats and barley in the United Kingdom not receiving benefit under the Wheat Act. For the purpose of the oats scheme there will be a standard price of 8s. per cwt., and a national standard acreage will be determined. A payment will be made to the grower in respect of each eligible acre. This payment will be calculated on the basis that, on the average, about 6 cwt. per acre are sold off farms. The payment will therefore be equal to six times the difference between the standard price of 8s. per cwt. and the average market price over a period. It the total acreage eligible for subsidy exceeds the national standard acreage, the rate of payment will be reduced proportionately. In the case of barley the principle of a national standard acreage will also apply, and it is proposed that payment will be at the same rate per acre as that for oats. At the prices prevailing for oats at the present time no payment would be made, but

263
it is estimated that if prices were to fall to the lowest level of recent years the Exchequer liability in any year, in respect of both oats and barley, would not exceed £1,750,000. In no case will the payment exceed £1 per acre.
It is proposed to extend the system of Exchequer grants for land drainage. In England and Wales grants will be given for works to be carried out by the lesser drainage authorities concerned. In Scotland the rate of grant for drainage under the scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland will be increased. It is hoped that with the aid of these grants it will be possible, in any one year, without interfering with the labour required for agriculture, to undertake essential works costing up to £450,000.
In a policy aimed at raising the fertility and productivity of our soil the improvement of our grassland must be an objective of fundamental importance. Grass forms one of our greatest natural resources and it is in the national interests that it should be more fully and profitably utilised in time of peace and be a reservoir of fertility for an emergency. By the Livestock Industry Bill at present before Parliament and the arrangements for regulating supplies of livestock and meat to this market the Government are seeking to promote the prosperity and efficiency of the livestock industry. The Government believe that this measure and those now proposed for drainage and for the increased use of lime and basic slag will lead to a marked improvement in the grassland of this country. The Government are also alive to the potentialities of dried grass as a possible addition to home-grown supplies of feeding stuffs. They are accordingly encouraging further experiments in grass drying.
The Government also propose to initiate a large-scale and more comprehensive campaign for the eradication of animal diseases in Great Britain. Our object is to improve the health of our livestock and increase agricultural productivity by seeking to eliminate what is perhaps the worst of all forms of wastage and economic loss in agriculture. In the first instance, efforts will mainly be directed to the eradication of diseases among cattle. The scheme will involve an additional charge
264
on the Exchequer of about £600,000 per annum for the first four years. It will, however, involve centralisation of public veterinary services and, as against the increased cost to the Exchequer, the expenditure by local authorities will be reduced by about £170,000. Parliamentary authority will be required for these proposals. The Government are anxious, however, to lose no time in developing the existing schemes of control of disease, and, accordingly, I am arranging at once to amend the Attested Herds Scheme under the Milk Act, 1934, by providing additional assistance in England and Wales, as has already been done in Scotland, to owners of dairy stock who are desirous of eradicating tuberculosis from their herds. This revised scheme will become operative on the 1st June next.
In the opinion of the Government the proposals which I have outlined, by increasing the productivity of our agriculture, not only will enable it better to meet the situation in the event of war, but will be a substantial aid towards raising efficiency, lowering costs and establishing the industry on a sounder economic foundation in time of peace. The necessary legislation to give effect to these proposals will be introduced at the earliest possible date.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, as the House will probably wish to discuss the statement which has just been made by the noble Earl, I beg to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to provide a suitable opportunity for such a discussion to take place and, if so, whether they can state when that is likely to be.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, it would certainly be the wish of His Majesty's Government to give the earliest possible opportunity that might be desired by the House for the discussion of the statement that my noble friend has just made. When exactly it will be convenient to take that discussion I am not now in a position to state precisely, but perhaps my noble friend opposite would allow me to communicate with him and with other noble Lords who would wish to take part in the discussion as to the selection of the precise date.
LORD SNELL: Thank you.

GRANGEMOUTH BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION 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.
BURGESS HILL WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name, that leave be given to advance from Wednesday, June 2, to Tuesday, June 1 next, my Motion relating to the "inconvenience caused to many members of their Lordships' House, and others, owing to the breakdown in the motor car arrangements after the conclusion of the Coronation Service in Westminster Abbey" on May 12. My Motion will take a very few words to explain. I placed the Motion down for June 2, but I have since ascertained that it will be more convenient to some of your Lordships if it were taken the day before. I went into the question of having it taken the following day or the day after, but unfortunately other business intervened, and consequently I have to ask your Lordships whether you would be prepared to give me leave to advance the Motion by one day and to take it on Tuesday next instead of on Wednesday. I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to Viscount Elibank to advance his Motion, which now stands for Wednesday, the 2nd of June, to Tuesday, the 1st of June.—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given accordingly.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
JOHNSTONE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

SHEEP STOCKS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD THANKERTON: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Thankerton).
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time I think it would be only right for me to state that, in the course of the last few days, I and the other noble Lords who with myself do not consider that it goes nearly far enough have received ample confirmation, in our opinion, for the views which we have expressed. That something ought to be done in the matter of sheep stock valuations is certainly very true and our regret is that what has been done is quite inadequate to the exigencies of the situation. The Bill before your Lordships is a lawyers' and an arbiters' Bill, not a Bill calculated to appeal to the agriculturist. I should like to state in a very few words some of the principal objections to it as it stands at the present time.
First of all, there is no appeal so far as I can see on points of fact but merely on points of law. By Clause 1 (2) if the arbiter fails to comply with any requirements of subsection (1) his award may be set aside by the Sheriff. If, however, he does comply with these requirements, which are merely to show his basis of valuation, nothing apparently can be done to set aside that valuation no matter how absurd or how inflated the figures may be. On pages 9 and 10 of the Report of the Kinross Committee there are given one or two significant instances which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read as the quotations are very short:
"In one instance in Perthshire ewehoggs"—

267
a hogg in this case is a sheep and not the animal usually known by that description—
"which were sold within two or three days of the arbiter's award, in May, 1932, realised less than one-third of the amount at which they had been valued."
Then, later, on page 10:
"In another case in Perthshire where the valuation took place at Martinmas, 1926, it was provided that the sheep were to be taken over 'at the actual market value … no additional value whatever being allowed in respect of acclimatisation or of the stock … being hefted to the ground.' The valuations fixed in this case were such as to raise grave doubts whether sufficient regard had been paid to the terms of the submission."
That was a very polite way of putting it, but unfortunately while most of the arbiters are men of undoubted integrity there are among their number a few whose decisions cannot be explained by anything which a reasonable man can possibly contemplate. There is unfortunately in this Bill nothing which will make it easier to render such decisions impossible in the future.
Furthermore, in Clause 2 (3), it is provided that in cases of appeal to the Sheriff
"it shall be lawful for the arbiter, pending the decision of such question, to make an order directing payment to the outgoing tenant of such sum, not exceeding that amount, as the arbiter may think fit."
What the arbiter may think fit may be completely wiped out by other debts owing from the tenant to the landlord and, once such a payment has been made, if it should afterwards be found that there are various set-offs against it, it will be very difficult indeed in many cases to recover the money. Again we have the position of the arbiter being not only the jury but also the judge. It seems to be, as far as matters of fact are concerned, or what purport in the submission to be facts, that there is absolutely no control over the arbiter whatsoever.
Again, in Clause 3 (1), if there is any dispute it may
"if both parties agree, in lieu of being determined in the manner provided in the lease, he determined by the Land Court."
Well, my Lords, if both parties were willing to agree to the Land Court it is probable that they would have been able already to settle their differences. We consider that it would be far better if the final decision could be transferred to the Land Court on the appeal of either party,
268
whether or no the other consents. These are a very few of the lacuna in this Bill. I am afraid that your Lordships will find that it will not go very far to settle what has been for a good many years past a very burning question in Scottish agriculture, and I fear that before many years are past some further amending legislation will have to be introduced before the position will be in any way capable of providing justice for all concerned.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I am asking your approval to-day of a measure which incorporates an integral and essential part of the Government's permanent policy for the livestock industry of this country. This policy for the livestock industry is in turn only a part of the general policy of the Government to develop and strengthen the agricultural industry as a whole. I think, therefore, it is important that at the outset I should take a wider view than would be strictly justified by the provisions of this Bill, in order that we may see its proposals in their true relationship to general policy. I do not need at this time, and in this place, to emphasise the importance of a healthy and prosperous agricultural industry as a foundation for national well-being in times of peace, and as an essential reservoir of strength in times of emergency; but we must be clear how we are to secure a prosperous industry. An agricultural policy, if it is to be sound and to stand the test of time, must reach down to fundamentals. We must look beyond temporary expedients. We must do something more than buttress from time to time this or that section of agriculture, though it is agreed that such action is necessary. We must make sure that the potential productivity of the land is at its maximum, that it is in good heart, and that conditions are such that the farmer is able to obtain a reasonable return for his enterprise, so that an adequate supply of capital and labour is forthcoming to work the land. It is more than ever of outstanding importance to-day, when international anxieties exist, to ensure that our home agriculture should be able to make

269
the greatest possible contribution in the event of a national emergency.
I have just been privileged to give your Lordships a comprehensive statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has made in another place this afternoon, indicating the broad lines of a policy designed to develop to the fullest possible extent the productive capacity of the land. That statement provides the general background against which the Government's proposals for the livestock industry should be viewed. The livestock industry, measured by the value of its output, is much the most important section of our agriculture. The value of its output, with that of its related products, in Great Britain in 1934–35 (the latest year for which this information is available) was £171,000,000, or 70 per cent. of the total agricultural output. Beef alone was valued at £35,500,000, or nearly 15 per cent. of the total output. The depressed state of this important section of agriculture has been a matter of concern to the Government for some years and, as your Lordships are aware, various emergency steps have been taken to hold the situation and to prevent as far as possible a decline of production in this country. Those emergency steps have been (1) the quantitative regulation of imports of meat to steady the supply situation; and (2) the emergency Exchequer subsidy to home producers of fat cattle.
In July of last year the then Minister of Agriculture outlined the Government's permanent proposals covering the livestock industry, and it is important that we should bear in mind what those proposals were. The main underlying principle was the maintenence of stable market conditions by the regulation of the supplies coming to this country from overseas. That is the firm foundation on which the Government's livestock proposals rest. It is proposed, so far as beef is concerned—which is the most important commodity—that this regulation shall be effected through the medium of an Empire Beef Council and an International Beef Conference. The Government believe that the responsibility for securing stable market conditions should be assumed through this machinery by producers themselves. The International Conference has already held preliminary meetings, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that United
270
Kingdom producers have been extremely fortunate in securing the services of the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, as their representative.
The Government have every reason to hope that these two bodies, the Empire Council and the International Conference, will successfully perform their difficult task; but as stable market conditions are an essential feature of the Government's policy, it is necessary to take powers to regulate imports by Order, which could be exercised by the Government itself if the need should at any time arise. These powers are contained in Part III of this Bill. Another feature of the general policy outlined in the statement of last July was a duty on imports of beef and veal from foreign countries. This, as your Lordships will be aware, has since been imposed under the Beef and Veal Customs Duties Act. I do not claim that this duty or levy has any great protective value, but it is, I think, a handicap imposed on the most serious competitors of our own producers, and it has the great merit, from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of making a substantial contribution in revenue towards the cost of the subsidy porposals to which I shall shortly come.
It is on this foundation that we can proceed to develop the domestic side of our policy, and that is the aspect of the policy which I now ask your Lordships to consider. The central feature of the Bill is the proposal to establish a permanent, independent Livestock Commission, which will act as the fly wheel of the whole mechanism. It will be entrusted with a general supervision of the whole livestock industry, and it will assist Ministers with its advice. It will also have very important specific duties. It will draw up for approval a scheme for the payment of the cattle subsidy, and will undertake its administration. It will draft Orders for the control of livestock markets; and it will make bylaws for the advancement of efficiency and economy in markets. It will be responsible for submitting central slaughter-house schemes for approval; and it will also prepare and submit "service schemes" under Part VI of the Bill for approval, if requested to do so by the interests concerned.
The Commission will be a body quite independent of the livestock industry. It will be in no sense representative. It may

271
be said that this is a radical departure from the principle of producer-control embodied in the Agricultural Marketing Acts, but in this case we need to establish a body whose duties will take it far beyond the producers' end of the industry; and I think that it will be agreed that a body with powers covering every section of an industry ought not to be composed of representatives of any one section. But the Government go further and think that the Commission should not even be composed of representatives of all sections of the industry: they feel that the best results are likely to be obtained if a non-representative Commission of impartial outlook is assisted and advised by a Committee which is representative of the many diverse elements interested in the industry. Such a Committee is provided for: producers, local authorities, auctioneers, and other interests concerned will be interested and represented, and four independent members will also be added. Three sub-committees will be constituted, for England, Scotland and Wales respectively, so that differences of outlook may be fully taken into account.
I turn now to the question of the subsidy, that is, Part II of the Bill. It is proposed that a maximum of £5,000,000 a year should be made available for payments direct to producers of fat cattle, and that any unexpended balance remaining in the Fund at the end of a financial year should be available to meet requirements in the succeeding year. The Bill provides for the rates of payment for different descriptions of animals to be determined by Orders and Regulations made by the appropriate Ministers—a method which gives a flexibility which is essential in permanent legislative arrangements. It is suggested that the subsidy payments should be graduated in two ways. It is proposed that there should be one rate of subsidy for animals of ordinary quality, and a higher rate for animals of a prescribed higher quality; and, as between animals of the same standard, a higher rate of subsidy for animals bred in the United Kingdom than for imported animals.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is most desirable to make a larger payment for cattle of good quality, for it is only by doing all in our power to maintain high quality standards that we can
272
hope to encourage consumption of the home-produced article and compete effectively with the overseas producer. A thorough investigation has convinced the Government that a two-tier grading system of this nature is quite practicable. It is equally desirable to give all possible encouragement to the home breeder of stores, especially at the present time, with Defence considerations so prominent in our minds. The store-breeder has had a lean time for some years, but there has been recently a welcome rise in store prices, and the position to-day is very greatly improved on what it has been in the last few years.
Criticisms have been made that the Government are providing insufficient money to put the industry on its feet, and that the very proposal for a direct subsidy on a permanent basis is not in accordance with what is said to be the Government's declared policy of a levy-subsidy on the lines of the Wheat Act. I would beg leave to deny this. In the White Paper of July, 1934, on "The Livestock Situation," it was pointed out that there were three possible lines of action—namely, (1) a drastic reduction of imports by means of quantitative regulation; or (2) action along the lines of the Wheat Act; or (3) a levy on imports and payments to producers coupled with some degree of supply regulation in the interests of all suppliers. The White Paper said:
"The Government are of opinion that a plan based on a levy … and a regulated market … would afford the best long-term solution of this problem and … would hold the balance evenly between producer and consumer."
In a further White Paper issued in March, 1935, the Government reaffirmed that opinion. What is the present position? This Bill provides the payments to producers; and a levy on imports is already being collected under the Beef and Veal Customs Duties Act. A levy subsidy on the lines of the Wheat Act of 1932 cannot be as easily applied to meat. We import three times as much wheat as we grow, so that a moderate levy provides a fund sufficient for a substantial payment on home-grown supplies; but the case would be very different with meat, of which about half our supplies are home-produced.
It is also urged that provision should be made for deficiency payments related

273
to a standard price, as in the case of wheat. But while it is possible to assess a standard price for a crop such as wheat, it is quite another matter to determine the costs of production, or to devise an acceptable standard price for such a commodity as beef, which may be bred, reared and fattened on the same farm, bred in one country and fattened in another, fattened on grass or fed in stalls. Those are practical difficulties. There is also another factor, the need for permanence in these proposals. A subsidy based upon a standard price would involve the Exchequer in an unlimited liability and, as was said in the statement made this afternoon, no one who remembers the shattering effect on agriculture of the repeal of the Corn Production Act would wish to take any risk of that disastrous experience being repeated. May I remind your Lordships again that the subsidy proposals must be considered in conjunction with the other important features which are embraced in the Government's livestock policy. There is provision for the regulation of imports of meat; there is an import duty on foreign beef, which only a short time ago would have seemed politically impracticable; and this Bill makes permanent provision of a sum for the assistance of the industry which is greater by £1,000,000 a year, or 25 per cent., than the sums which producers have been receiving during the past two and a half years. I suggest with confidence that the subsidy provided in this Bill, combined with the control and taxation of imports, will be adequate to restore the fat cattle industry to a remunerative basis and maintain it in a fit condition.
Part III of the Bill I have already mentioned, and I come therefore to Parts IV, V, and VI of this measure. They are concerned respectively with markets, slaughtering and service schemes, and they have this common factor, that they are all directed towards improving the organisation and the technical equipment of the home livestock industry. I do not think anyone will deny that if we aim to make agriculture once again a remunerative industry, we shall not achieve that aim simply by the control of imports and the subsidising of the home producer. The home industry must also play its part, as indeed it has striven to do in recent years, by cutting out any dead wood and by taking
274
full advantage of the facilities for organisation provided by Parliament and of the new processes and technique that science continually makes available.
To take first the question of livestock markets. The Reorganisation Commission for Fat Stock, over which the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, presided, examined the systems of marketing in this country, and stated with conviction that there was room for improvement. That statement should not, I think, surprise us, when we remember that for ninety years no Markets Act has passed through Parliament, despite the revolutions that have taken place in that period in transport and communications. The railway, motor, telegraph, telephone, and wireless all belong to that period and there has been also a rapid expansion of the selling of livestock by auction. The Reorganisation Commission said
"that one weakness of the existing system lies in the fact that competition for supplies is dispersed over too many places of sale, e.g. over too many farms, too many markets, too many auctioneers. Thus, too many livestock selling centres are not 'real and effective' markets. …"
But they went on to say:
"Our aim is not to build a new market structure, but to improve the existing one";
and
"we suggest the retention of the main existing methods of sale. …"
That is the policy embodied in the present Bill. It is one of mending, and not of ending markets.
It is most important to observe that the proposed Livestock Commission will not be able themselves to close a market. They will make proposals to the Minister in the form of a draft Livestock Markets Order, for a particular area of Great Britain, and only after full inquiry by the Minister, and if necessary by Parliament, can an Order become operative. There is the fullest opportunity for every interest opposed to an Order to state their case and justify it before an impartial body. Further, compensation may be provided for market owners or auctioneers whose interests are affected adversely by an Order, the money for which will come, not from the subsidy fund, but from a levy on those who stand to gain from the greater business and greater security that the operation of the Order will bring them. It is not so much the ample safeguards that I would emphasise, but the moderate policy that lies behind these

275
proposals. It is not intended to rationalise a great proportion of markets out of existence. There are no fewer than 1,100 markets in Great Britain handling some 25,000,000 head of livestock a year—an average throughput of less than 500 head a week each. The market that requires to be dealt with is the market which is redundant because it no longer serves an essential purpose or an economic need. A market with a small turnover is not necessarily redundant. Nor is redundancy the whole of the problem. Many markets are not fitted with modern equipment; many are so restricted by ancient charters that they cannot give adequate service to livestock producers. The improvement of markets is as important as the regulating of their number. Consequently, it is proposed that the Commission shall be empowered to require approved market premises to modernise their equipment, and they may further make by-laws for regulating the number of auctions, for controlling charges and for fixing the times of markets.
Part V of the Bill deals with central slaughtering. In England and Wales there are 15,000 private slaughter-houses and 100 public abattoirs. The private slaughter-houses handle three-quarters of the total trade. In Scotland there are 150 public abattoirs handling about 90 per cent. of the home-killed meat consumed in that country. This position, and especially that in England and Wales, contrasts strongly, and some would say compares very unfavourably, with the position in the great overseas meat-exporting countries, where centralised slaughtering has long been in operation with undoubted advantage to their livestock industries. It has been argued that what is good for an exporting industry is not necessarily good for an industry such as ours which caters for the home market. But this new technique has been applied with great success in the Dominions and elsewhere to slaughtering for the home market. Moreover, we cannot disregard the expert and impartial inquiries which have been conducted in this country in the last few years and which have given the unanimous verdict that improvements can be effected in our slaughtering system.
There has been much discussion and theory on the subject. What we need is practical experience of the meat-works
276
technique, so that we may decide whether or not it is suitable for adoption in this country. The Bill therefore proposes that a limited number of experiments should be made—no more than three. This is in contrast with the policy relating to livestock markets. The Bill embodies a permanent policy for improving the markets system; but in the case of central slaughtering it simply enables the material to be gathered together on which a permanent policy could be based at a later date. The essential feature which it is desired to test out in these three experimental central slaughterhouses is the meat-works principle. The existing public abattoir in this country is, as your Lordships are aware, simply a communal building sheltering a number of individual butchering firms who work in separate cubicles and to no common plan. Under such a system it is impossible to realise the economies of coordination. The experimental abattoirs will, on the contrary, be able to unify the organisation and to control the slaughtering by a single administrative authority. A single gang of specialised slaughtermen working continuously through the week will replace the haphazard system under which butchers employ their own slaughtermen to kill at individually chosen times; and specialised labour working with the most up-to-date technical equipment should ensure that the meat is well-conditioned so as to reach the highest standards of quality and uniformity, and that the by-products are used to the greatest possible advantage instead of going to waste, as they so often do at present.
The initiative in promoting these experiments can only come from an outside body, whether that body be one representing private enterprise, a local authority, or combination of local authorities. If proposals are put forward, the Commission may, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and all the local interests affected, submit them to the Minister in the form of a draft slaughter-house scheme. A scheme cannot become operative except after full inquiry by the Minister and after being submitted to the negative Resolution procedure in Parliament. With central slaughtering schemes as with livestock markets orders, everything has been done to make sure that no unfairness results to any interests

277
affected. The bodies conducting these experiments will be able to seek assistance by way of grant or loan from a fund of £250,000 which will be made available from the Exchequer. This sum will be quite distinct from, and additional to, the Cattle Fund of £5,000,000 a year, and its provision is I think justified by the fact that the bodies conducting these experiments will be doing pioneer work of great importance to the livestock industry and to the nation.
Part VI contains an interesting proposal for encouraging, by legislative means, self-help in the industry. The Commission is enabled, if so requested by a section of the industry, or various sections acting jointly, to submit proposals to the appropriate Minister for schemes for the performance of services likely to be of benefit to the industry, such as the promotion of a scheme of research and education, the insurance or advertising of livestock and the products of slaughter, the improvement of the breeding of livestock and possibly a scheme for the collection and provision of statistics. The proposal is that the schemes should be administered, not by the Commission, but by ad hoc bodies, and provision for the setting up of these ad hoc bodies would be contained in the scheme itself. Here again, full provision is made for consultation and inquiry into objections that may be put forward. The Minister has to be satisfied that the scheme is in the public interest and that there is a preponderating majority in favour of it on the part of those who would be called upon to contribute; and in the last resort the negative Resolution procedure comes into play. It should I think be emphasised that the initiative rests entirely with the industry. An important feature of the Bill is that it calls upon the industry itself to co-operate with the Government, through the Livestock Commission, in securing in full measure the benefits that the Bill is designed to afford. Those of your Lordships who have read the Bill will I think agree with me that co-operation is the underlying key-note throughout, and the Bill is noteworthy for its frequent reference to consultation and the extensive use made of the statutory body which is to advise the Livestock Commission.
278
The Bill seeks primarily to benefit the agricultural industry, but the possibilities provided for a more up-to-date and efficient service in the marketing of livestock and the products of the slaughtering of livestock give the measure, in addition, a wider national significance. The Bill has stood up well to a very long and close scrutiny in another place where, as your Lordships may be aware, the Committee stage lasted for eighteen days. The Amendments made there have improved the Bill but have made no fundamental changes in it. It is an enabling measure and it should be recognised that, apart from the subsidy, the object of the Bill is to provide machinery for future action rather than to offer a solution to all the difficulties with which the many sections of the industry have been beset for a considerable time. I have therefore some confidence in placing this very comprehensive measure before your Lordships. I expect that at a later stage members of your Lordships' House may feel that some further improvements are necessary to the Bill, but I am sure that noble Lords will find themselves in sympathy with its main purpose as a long-term measure which is designed to promote the permanent prosperity of the livestock industry, not only by means of direct State assistance but also through the scope that it affords for further economy and efficiency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I feel a little diffident in addressing your Lordships on a subject like agriculture, of which I am almost supremely ignorant, whereas so many of your Lordships are great agricultural experts. But it does seem to me that this Bill is a little like the proverbial curate's egg, "good in parts." Part I of the Bill, which seeks to set up the Livestock Commission, we warmly welcome on this side of the House. We think that is a very excellent thing indeed. But when we come to Part II, which introduces the question of a subsidy, we part company from His Majesty's Government. I would like to be permitted to congratulate the noble Earl on his able speech in moving the Second Reading. He told us that it is intended to give a subsidy up to £5,000,000 per annum to farmers. There is no class of the community that we on this side of the

279
House are more anxious to help than farmers, but it seems to us that it is very debatable whether a subsidy is the right way of helping them. It might be very much better to increase wages all round. If that were done farmers would be enabled to make a sufficient profit for themselves without their having to be subsidised to the extent proposed in this Bill.
Where is the money for this subsidy to come from? I understand—and I am sure the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—that it is proposed to raise the import duty on meat to the extent in some cases of three-farthings per 1b. and in other cases of one half-penny per 1b. Now the people who buy imported beef are the very poorest part of the community, and they are the people who, very largely, are going to provide this £5,000,000 per annum to help the farmers; yet they themselves will get no benefit at all. It is well known throughout the world that English beef is far and away the best beef, but the poorest members of the community here have not sufficient money to be able to buy it. You are asking them in this Bill to supply £5,000,000 a year towards something from which they will get no benefit at all themselves.
The noble Earl mentioned the question of a standard price. That point was raised in another place. I read very carefully the debates that took place there on this question. It would appear that the Government cannot, or will not, find out if it is possible to get down to a standard price. I quite admit that it is a very difficult thing to do. Farming is not like an ordinary business in which you can estimate what would make a profit and what would not. At the same time it must be possible for a farmer to find out whether, if he sells meat at a certain number of shillings per cwt., he is making a profit or not. It seems to me that it is going a little beyond the bounds to suggest giving him a subsidy of 7s. 6d. per cwt. and not take into account in any sense whatever what the current price per cwt. is, or what it was last year, or what it may be next year, and so on.
I understand that at this time last year it was in the region of 32s. 6d. per cwt., and that it has risen to about 45s. 6d.; I believe it has been up to 51s. in certain districts. It may be uneconomic for a
280
farmer to sell meat at 45s. 6d., even with the subsidy of 7s. 6d. on top of that; I do not know; but surely your Lordships' House and the country at large are entitled to know. There must be a basic price at which it is economic for the farmer to sell meat and still make a profit. The rest of the Bill gives very wide powers to the Commission to inquire into all sorts of details concerning other traders connected with the matter, but the Government seem to find it impossible to come down to any sort of standard price. I really wonder why that is so. I have no other criticism to offer. With regard to Part V, we warmly welcome the principle of organising slaughter-houses. As I have tried to indicate we cannot support this Bill wholeheartedly, but it may be that the noble Earl, who is always so charming, may be more reasonable in accepting Amendments from this side of the House at the Committee stage than his colleagues were in another place.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I very much regret finding myself in the position of having to join the chorus in another place, and also I am afraid the chorus throughout the country—a chorus that damns this Bill with faint praise. I myself may perhaps qualify that by saying that I praise the Bill with faint damns. It is an attitude which I hate to take up because it is quite clear to me that in doing so I shall lay myself open to the charge of being ungrateful and of receiving in a churlish spirit a gift of no less than £5,000,000. That is a charge I should particularly dislike to face, because I am very well aware that no Government within my recollection and no Government during the last forty years have made anything like the endeavours that the present Government have made to set agriculture once more on its feet. They have to-day given us yet another proof of their determination so to do.
I would like to explain the reason of the attitude of agriculture towards this measure. In the first place I would ask your Lordships to remember that the farmer considers not intentions and not efforts but results. Results are the only things that affect his pocket and really affect his attitude. What is the present position of agriculture? I am afraid it is very little, if at all, better than it was before the present Government or the preceding Government came into power.

281
Take the case of the agricultural labourer. It is quite true that his wages have gone up—they have gone up, I think, by 3s. or 4s. a week—but at the same time the cost of living has gone up slightly and it must be doubtful whether he is more than a very little better off than he was three or four years ago. On that point I would say that I do not consider any Government entitled to have a complacent attitude with regard to agriculture until they can say that they have put wages in agriculture, when all things are considered, on a comparative level with those of other industries in this country.
Take the case of the farmer. It is quite true that the value of his product is rather more, but part of that increase has been taken away by the rise in wages and I believe that probably the whole of the rest of it has been taken away by the higher cost of feeding stuffs. I think he is probably in about the same position as he was four years ago. Take the case of the owner, and especially the owner-occupier. He is definitely worse off because rents, as far as I know, have not risen and the cost of the unkeep of buildings and equipment has gone up. He therefore is not in such a good position as he was three or four years ago.
I do not think any branch of agriculture really likes subsidies at all. Agriculturists do not like people getting up and saying they are living by the charity of £20,000,000 given by the Government. They do not like after-dinner speakers getting up and proposing the toast of "Agriculture and industry." They want to know why they should not both be treated on the same lines. Recently we had a Minister of Agriculture who was considered, and rightly considered, to be one of the greatest Ministers of Agriculture we have ever had. He left his office in a blaze of popularity. That Minister was never tired of saying that the right solution of the problem was a levy subsidy or a low tariff. He always used to bring in a person of whom he was very fond, the housewife. He used to say that the housewife would not stand dear food but was prepared for a levy subsidy. It is no good telling us that the money raised by the subsidy is more than the tariff on Argentine meat because the industry anticipated that not only would it get a tariff on foreign meat but a smaller tariff on Colonial meat.
282
Agriculturists remember well that saying, which is so easily forgotten by some and yet so tenaciously remembered by them, that the home market belongs firstly to the British farmer, secondly to the Empire farmer and thirdly to the foreigner. Those words will always remain in the farmer's memory, the more so because the Empire representatives at Ottawa accepted them. But when I say that I am still deeply conscious of the fear, and the very just fear, that any Government must have of any rise in the price of food. A small rise would shake a Government of any complexion and a high rise would make any Government liable to be turned out. It would be of little use, I admit, for a Government to do the right thing if that resulted in the Government being turned out and their policy instantly destroyed. It would be an act of folly. Therefore the Government have come down on the side of a subsidy. May I point out here that this is a subsidy not so much for the farmer as for the consumer, because in this case, as we know, the people in the Argentine are paying this subsidy and so it is in effect a subsidy to the consumer. Therefore it is only right that His Majesty's Government should give something to the producer in this country in return for it.
This Bill is in two separate parts. The first one deals with the machinery for distributing the subsidy, and the second indicates the powder that must be taken with the jam—that is to say, the amount of rationalisation, experimental or otherwise, which the industry must undertake in return for the benefits given. It is desirable that the machinery set up should be simple and economic. It should be simple because the farmer is already overburdened with forms and details in his work. Much of his day is already taken up with them rather than with work on the farm. It is desirable that the machinery should be economic because the cost of this Commission comes out of the subsidy.
I want to call to your Lordships' attention one rather big thing about this Commission. If you will turn to the First Schedule you will see there, in paragraph 4, a plain, simple statement of fact:
"No member of the Commission shall be capable of being elected to, or of sitting in, the Commons House of Parliament."

283
That is very remarkable. I went into this matter with the object of seeing from what classes this Commission could be drawn, and I think that this list contains most of them: minors of both sexes, serving soldiers, sailors and civil servants, certified lunatics, undischarged bankrupts, felons, and members of your Lordships' House. There may be some reason for selecting this Commission from those classes, but I think I shall be justified in asking the noble Earl at a later date to say why he proposes to do so. Of course, it has been suggested to me that this paragraph is supposed to mean that no Member of Parliament is eligible to be a member of the Commission, but I cannot believe that even a Parliamentary Drafting Committee, if it meant that, would not put it down. I trust, therefore, that in due course the noble Earl will inform me about that provision.
The point that I wish to make here is that the number of the Commission is nine. That seems to me to be rather an excessive number. The Milk Commission, which sat for a great many months—in fact, I think it sat for a year—came to the conclusion that five was an ample number for such a Commission, and I venture to suggest that five would be a suitable number for this Commission. Part I also provides for an Advisory Committee. Its numbers are not stated, although when I first saw the Bill they were stated. Its powers are apparently limited to advice. I gather, and hope, that its members are not being paid, but I should be glad later to have an assurance on that point. One thing which strikes me about this Advisory Committee is that there is no machinery for having a majority of producers on it. There should be such a majority. I have heard the Minister explain that this Bill is a producers' Bill; that is to say, its main object is the interest of producers. That being so, it would surely be only right that the majority of this Advisory Committee should definitely be producers. The Government seem in this matter to move from extreme to extreme. When the Milk Board was set up, the whole of its members came from the producers, although a great many people at the time thought that this was a mistake. Under this Bill not only do the producers have no representative on the Board at all,
284
but even in a quite powerless Advisory Committee there is no machinery for giving them a majority.
Part II indicates the lines along which the Commission may work in distributing the balance of this subsidy. I was extremely glad to hear the noble Earl say that where there is a balance at the end of one year it will be placed to reserve and added to the next year. I had hoped that that would be so but was unable to find it in the Bill; no doubt the noble Earl will be able to tell me later where it occurs. Part III, on the regulation of imports, has caused a great many people to lift up their ears and hope that something substantial is going to be done. But the more I peruse that Part, the more difficult I find it to see exactly what is meant, or what powers have been given to the Board of Trade which the Government do not already hold. There is one small point that I hope will be taken into consideration. Where a quota is put on and the supply of imports is limited, care is to be taken of the seasonal production in this country. There are times in this country, especially when the cattle come off grass, as the noble Earl is aware, when there are plenty of cattle, but at other times there is a shortage. It is eminently desirable that someone should have the power of regulating, not during the whole period of one year but during shorter periods, the number of cattle which come into this country. I hope that the noble Earl will consider that point.
Now we come to the powers. I have never been able to understand, but I am quite open to conviction on the point, how the closing of markets will help the producer—and I am, of course, speaking entirely from his side. I should have thought that the law of supply and demand would govern prices. If the producer sends cattle to a market and gets a bad price, he will not send them there any more but will send them to another market, and the first market will close down. It is a well-established axiom that if you get a common level price throughout the country for any article the price of which has before varied in different markets, that common price will not be the highest price but the lowest. I should have thought that the producer could not expect any greater remuneration from the operation of this Part of the Bill. It contains, however, great pro-

285
visos and precautions, and I have no great fears on that score. One or two more safeguards should, however, be inserted, and I feel certain that if these are proved to be desirable the noble Earl will see his way to accept them.
I should like to commend His Majesty's Government for having only three experimental slaughter schemes, for proceeding with care and caution in a matter of obviously great difficulty. I do not quite understand one matter. When I first heard about this scheme, and indeed to-day, it was suggested to me that in a big centralised slaughter-house offals would be so carefully, skilfully and cheaply handled that they would bring in a high price, which would go to the producer. I hoped that was so, and it seemed reasonable, but in the Bill itself I cannot see how that occurs. There is no machinery for the slaughter-house to purchase animals. It is said that the cost of the offals will be returned to the person from whom the animals were obtained for slaughter. That person will be the butcher. Although it might be thought that the butcher would give more for the beast on account of getting more for the offals—well, my Lords, I happen to be a butcher myself, and I rather doubt it. It may be so, and I hope for the best, but I should rather have liked to see in this Bill some powers whereby at least one of these experimental abattoirs could purchase. I should have thought that one somewhere in the region of London might have induced the British public to buy more freely meat which now they have difficulty in obtaining, and which they doubtless replace from foreign sources. I am rather sorry that this power appeared impossible. The Bill may require some slight amendment in that respect. I am also just a little distressed to see municipalities mentioned as the people who are apparently going to operate this part of the Bill. At all events, they are mentioned. The last thing that the producer would wish is that profits raised from an abattoir should be used for the purpose of paying the rates. If there were in fact any profits, the feeling of the producer, and I think the intention of the Bill, is that they should go to him.
The last Part which interests the producer is Part VI, on service schemes. I am afraid that that is the Part of which I have the gravest suspicion, because
286
it does appear to me that it may lead to coercion of minorities by majorities. There are two special points with regard to it. It is mentioned that one of the purposes is to be "the advertisement of livestock or such products as aforesaid." One presumes one will see notices around the country of "Eat more meat," just as we are told to eat and drink many more things, regardless of the fact that we have only one stomach each, of a certain size. If you eat more meat you eat less of another form of food. And I rather regret number (vi) "the improvement of breeding of livestock." If there is one thing upon which we pride ourselves in this country it is, I think, the breeding of our livestock, and I should be very suspicious if a Commission of these supermen, who exist so freely on paper but are so difficult to find in the flesh, were to tell me how I was to breed my animals.
Those are my criticisms of the Bill, and I would say in conclusion that if I appear ungrateful in some ways I wish most heartily to congratulate the Government on taking up this question at all, and on the immense pains which they have shown in the matter. I can only trust, with regard to my belief that the subsidy will prove entirely ineffective, that the Government will prove to be right and I shall prove to be wrong.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, we have listened to two very interesting statements from the noble Earl on behalf of the Government. The first statement, as to the future plans of the Government, we are not debating to-day. The other statement was contained in the very lucid exposition of the Bill with which the noble Earl explained its provisions. As I understand it, we are now discussing the last big measure of the Government to deal with a special commodity. The Government in the past have dealt with agriculture as if it consisted of a lot of separate industries. Some of us thought that that was not the proper way. We thought that agriculture should have been dealt with as one industry, and I think that the way in which it has been dealt with has meant that in fact the country as a whole has not got the best value for the money which has been spent. I think that if we dealt with agriculture as one industry, and not as a lot of quite watertight, separate industries, we should

287
have more value for the money spent. I do not agree with the noble Lord who spoke last when he said that agriculture was no better off now than it was before the Government began spending money upon it. There is one special test. I think the value of agricultural land is higher, to-day, than it was a few years ago, and that is not a bad test of the prosperity of the industry.
When I read the Bill I wondered what our late noble friend Lord Banbury would have said of the first two clauses—that the Minister of Agriculture, in order to deal with one commodity, should feel it necessary to have for his assistance a Commission of nine members, a Commission with a large staff, all to be paid salaries. We can all picture the late noble Lord describing them. And that is not sufficient. It is not enough to give the Minister the benefit of a large Commission with a staff, but the Commission itself must be assisted by an Advisory Committee. Times have indeed changed when these proposals can be brought before the House without any strenuous protest being made. I will say one thing. If it is necessary to have an independent or semi-independent body, I think the Government are quite right to proceed on the lines on which they are proceeding in this Bill, rather than on the lines on which they have proceeded hitherto under the Marketing Acts. I am sure you will have a governing body that will be able to legislate more in the interests of the community as a whole.
I think what has happened in connection with cattle shows the disadvantages of dealing with each commodity separately. After all, you cannot separate milk production from the cattle industry. I think it would have been far better if the Government had waited a little bit and dealt with the cattle industry as a whole. You cannot possibly have one separate scheme for milk and another separate scheme for meat. The existence of the milk scheme, without at the same time any permanent policy for dealing with livestock, has undoubtedly prejudiced the cattle industry, and the absence of livestock proposals has increased the difficulties in connection with milk. Take for instance, the question of calves. For dairying the calf is often a by-product, whereas in the livestock industry its production is a different question.
288
Since the milk scheme was introduced the specialised production and rearing of calves has declined. There has been far too much use of what are called scrub bulls, and as a result the quality of beef has tended to deteriorate.
I understand that at the present moment 40 per cent. of the beasts killed for beef are females, and that must affect the future of milk production. Farmers in Wales, Scotland and the West have changed over from stock-rearing and farm butter-making to selling milk. There has been a great slaughtering of calves, and Mr. Baxter, in a public speech made recently, said he foresaw "a cumulative shortage in store cattle and dairy cows within a few years." I believe that since he made that speech the danger is less real, but one has to remember that the heifer calf of to-day is the milch cow of tomorrow, and I am certain it would have been far better if the Government had been in a position to deal with milk and cattle at the same time. Similarly, it is impossible to deal with one type of meat without taking into consideration other meats. Meat is produced by three animals, the bullock, the sheep and the pig, and consumption by the public depends upon the relative prices of the three types of meat. If pig meat goes up in price, its consumption goes down, and the public turn to mutton if its price is relatively low. So one has to have a policy, it appears to me, in relation to those three commodities.
On the question of the subsidy I think that our principle should be this. I do not think that, whether dealing with wheat or meat, we should attempt to guarantee to the farmer a profit. I think what we ought to do is to guarantee him against a serious loss through the bottom falling out of the market. That seems to me a far sounder principle on which to base subsidies. The past subsidy has been a flat-rate subsidy given for any beast over a relatively low quality. A farmer who sold a big, raw-boned, tough old creature got the full benefit, and I think it would have been far better if the farmer who supplied a nice, light-weight, well-finished beast had a bigger subsidy. It would have been far better really had we attempted to give an ad valorem subsidy—something like half-a-crown per pound on the value of the beast. I think you would have had better results. The flat-rate subsidy, it seems to me, has been an

289
anti-grading proposal. But, as I understand it, in the present Bill that is being rectified, and there is an additional qualtiy subsidy which is to be paid. That is on the right lines.
Perhaps the noble Earl when he speaks again would tell us whether it is proposed to spend the whole of the money, which the Government now propose to spend annually, regardless of the world price of meat and regardless of the price of cattle. There have been great fluctuations in the past. Livestock farmers have been in a very difficult position. The price of meat has gone down, but it is quite possible that it may go up, and what I am wondering is whether the Government propose to give the same subsidy regardless of the world price of meat. I am not at all convinced that it is right to discriminate, as the Government propose to do, against Irish imported cattle. I think it would be in the interest of agriculture as a whole if we were to take the British Isles as one unit. For dealing with livestock the British Isles form a perfect unit: you have some portions where the cattle can be reared, and others where they can be fed; and it is not to the permanent advantage of the cattle industry to continue the Irish war.
Grading of meat is extraordinarily difficult and unsatisfactory. Grading fat animals is very difficult, grading of stores is almost impossible, and that adds to the difficulties of dealing with livestock. It is for that reason that I personally think that the best way of grading cattle is through the auction market, because there you have an automatic grading. By that I mean not so much the small local markets, which I think it is proposed, quite rightly, to reduce in number; I am talking of the larger, more efficient, more up-to-date auction markets, such as exist in Scotland, or such as exists at Banbury, where there is plenty of competition. We know that in the small market it is relatively easy for buyers to form rings and the farmers are at a disadvantage. Where, however, you have a large number of beasts passing through it is much more difficult for rings to be formed, and farmers get true prices for their stock.
The Bill proposes to deal with the disposal of cattle in two ways—by auction markets and by the central abattoirs. I think the Government are right to contemplate the curtailing of the number
290
of small local markets. They were necessary in the old days before there were motor vans, but undoubtedly nowadays there is no need for the continued existence of a large number of them. But we have to bear in mind that a large proportion of British meat is consumed in rural districts, and we must be very careful not to do anything which will encourage the local butcher to telephone to a large centre, where there is a central abattoir, for his supply, because if he does that, he is just as likely to telephone for a standardised, imported, chilled joint as to telephone for fresh home-produced beef.
I am not going to-day to debate the relative merits of central abattoirs and auction markets. As I understand it, on the whole officials favour sale on the hook, whereas farmers prefer sale on the hoof. I have been trying to find what proportion of the livestock is sold by the different systems. I understand that between September, 1934, and August, 1936, only about 3 per cent. was sold on the deadweight basis. That seems to indicate that both the farmers and the business community look upon sale by auction as being the best and most businesslike method. The advantages of central abattoirs are largely hypothetical. The noble Lord, Lord Bingley, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, presided over Committees which recommended this system, but in neither of their Reports did they give the evidence on which they based their recommendations. It may well be that what is suitable for an exporting country is not suitable for this country. The benefits, I say, are dubious, and, that being the case, I think the Government are quite right to limit their experiments. I think probably it is right to try an experiment, but I am wondering whether it would not be better to limit the experiments to two instead of to three abattoirs. It seems to me that agriculture really does not prosper with too much Government control and red tape. I heard the other day a new definition of the practical farmer. The practical farmer was said to be that farmer who depends upon Whitehall for practically everything. That is not the type of farmer who has been successful in this country. It is not by controlling the farmer at every step that British farming has achieved the position which it has held at different periods, and

291
which is still held by the best British farmers.
On the question of the import regulations by quota, I think that what has happened has shown that quota regulations have not been to the advantage of the home producer. If you take the price of bacon, if you take the price of beef, you will find that imported bacon and imported beef—that is to say, foreign farmers—have derived, relatively speaking, greater benefits under the quota system than the home producer.
The noble Earl, when speaking on future policy in his first statement to-day, referred to the question of Defence. We are bound when considering agriculture, as we are when considering industry, or anything else, to realise that the world to-day is faced with the possibility of war, and, that being the case, we have to consider that possibility in any discussion of agriculture. I think we should do nothing whatever that would prevent the maintenance of peace. If we look around the world to-day we find that certain things are necessary in order to increase the prospects of peace, and thereby reduce the possibility of war. One of the things which is undoubtedly necessary to improve our prospects of peace is an increased international exchange of goods. Undoubtedly if we can increase world trade, if we can increase the interchange of goods, we are making a contribution towards the maintenance of peace, but we are very apt, if we are interested in the production of a particular commodity, say foodstuffs, to take too sectional a view. We all of us tend to condemn other countries for adopting the policy of complete self-sufficiency and thereby prejudicing the trade development of the world. We naturally want to do what we can to develop home agriculture, but the greatest interest of all at the present moment, whether in agriculture or anything else, is the maintenance of peace. Therefore I think the Government are quite wise, as I understood the noble Earl's statement, in realising that one of the ways in which we can prevent war is by not developing unduly the home production of food.
Make agriculture prosperous, but do not follow the example of those countries which are going in for the policy of
292
autarchy. If one looks quite impartially and fairly at agriculture to-day, and compares it with what it was a generation ago, one cannot say truthfully that agriculture is a decaying industry. There are plenty of good farmers who are doing well. I know some who are quite prepared to admit it. There are, of course, as in every industry, some producers who are not doing so well. Undoubtedly the output from our soil to-day is much greater than it was fifty or sixty years ago; it is something like thirty or forty per cent. more. The output of our pastures is double what it used to be. The noble Earl who spoke from the Labour Benches blessed this Bill because it contained what I think he described as a reorganisation scheme, but I confess I become increasingly suspicious of schemes which in fact create monopolies that tend to exploit the public. I do not say that this will do that, but some of the schemes we have discussed undoubtedly have tended in that direction.
I welcome very much what the noble Earl said about the Government's proposals for reducing disease. I refreshed my memory before coming to the House this afternoon by reading a speech made by a Minister of Agriculture in another place four or five years ago. He then announced that the Government proposed to curtail their expenditure on education by £100,000; that they proposed to curtail their expenditure on research by £100,000; and that they intended to curtail their expenditure on eliminating animal diseases and on drainage by considerable sums. The noble Earl has given an indication of a far better and more far-sighted policy to-day. I am perfectly certain, taking it as a long-term policy, if the Government proceeded with a policy of spending large sums of money, even lavish sums of money, on eradicating disease and on developing disease-resisting strains of cattle, they would do a great deal to help the industry as a whole in the future. I hope very much the noble Earl one day may say whether the Government can do anything to subsidise parents, particularly males. It is not enough to eliminate the scrub bull. It would pay the country to give premiums to really good bulls. I do not mean thousand guinea bulls such as are exported to South America,

293
but really good hulls. If that were done, I believe we should get value for our money.
At the present moment, those farmers who are doing best are those who either possess capital themselves or can borrow considerable sums and who run their farms as successful manufacturers run their businesses. So I hope the Government may possibly do something also to give credit to the farmers. That is one of the chief needs to-day. Only one last thing. I hope that the Government will do nothing to discourage initiative among our farmers. British farmers have won the position they occupy to-clay because they have shown a disposition and ability to overcome obstacles, and not to look to the Government for practically everything to pull them through.
LORD BINGLEY: My Lords, I do not think, in view of the discussion there has been in your Lordships' House, that the Government need have much anxiety as to the final reception this Bill will get. Criticism has of course been made, and it has taken different forms. My noble friend Lord Cranworth took more the old-fashioned agricultural view which perhaps represents his conservatism more than his dislike of the Bill. We have to recognise, as methods change, that even agricultural people have got to face things which they did not like to face before. I quite agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken that the late Lord Banbury would have gone to his grave very much earlier than he did if this sort of Bill had been produced in his presence, but I do not think the noble Viscount would say we ought to legislate entirely on lines that would have satisfied the late Lord Banbury. I am rather surprised that new methods—breaking into new systems—should not receive greater support from the noble Viscount than might have been expected from more conservative quarters.
The object of this Bill is, of course, to assist livestock production. Much of the outcry that there was in some quarters at the beginning was not very well informed. It was evident that though the agriculturist was prepared to accept and to be comparatively grateful for some things, yet the conditions under which assistance in the way of subsidy and regulation of imports were to be secured did not satisfy him at all. We have got to realise that a
294
subsidy at this moment is necessary. I hate subsidies. I want to see agriculture brought into a better position, so that no subsidy will be required, but for the moment I do not see how it can be carried on. We have got to get the industry on its feet. I was interested to hear the noble Viscount who has just spoken repeat what he has so often said as to regulation and procedure by quota being distinctly harmful to the consumer. If he would only consider the alternative plan of the straight tariff, which I believe he has always advocated, I think he will find it is infinitely more difficult to deal with milk, bacon, and so on by tariff, or ever by levy subsidy, than by quota regulation; and for this reason. Supposing you proceed by a straight tariff, you first of all have to make it effective. In the case of a commodity like beef, where there is tremendous competition, with a great many people wanting to import it into this country, you have to have a very severe tariff before it will have any effect at all. You do not know at what point it will be effective or at what point it will be defeated by the machinations of the victim, who may tinker with currency and exchange, or at what point it will affect importations into this country.
One of the main objects of the policy now being followed is to secure a place in the market for the livestock produced in this country. If you put a tariff on beef or even on bacon, you will find that you cannot tell exactly how much you are going to keep out, and how much of the market you are going to leave for the British producer; hut, in the case of quota regulation, you can pretty definitely calculate what the whole consumption is and what amount will be wanted from abroad. Having done that, you can regulate the import from abroad with far greater certainty that your policy will be effective. That is a method that cannot be used if you employ tariffs. The tariff is a very clumsy and inaccurate weapon to deal with that situation. I have often heard the noble Viscount criticise the quota regulation system, but if he will try and work out a Budget and see how difficult it is to deal with articles of very general consumption on which the feelings of the poorer classes of the people are extremely sensitive, he will see how difficult it would be to deal with articles of that sort by means of the rather clumsy device of the tariff. Subsidy and regulation will help

295
the industry, but when we come to the question of improved marketing it is not such an easy matter. I must say that it is very obvious there is an urgent need to reduce the production cost of livestock. Many a man is drawing money out of the industry which ought to be going into the pockets of the farmer.
There is no doubt that marketing in this country is terribly out of date. Not long ago the farmer drove his few animals to market. They lost weight all the way as a result, and it was naturally necessary for him to go to the nearest market. We have got beyond that now. Still there is great opposition to the idea that any of these markets should be closed. I agree that the main object of the Bill is not so much to close markets as to secure their greater efficiency. You would think that in all cases, if a market was inefficient, it would come to an end of itself, but that has not proved to be the case. We had a great deal of evidence before the Reorganisation Committee that there was a very large number of surplus small markets, and that there was a great feeling among farmers and those who have to use them that rings were formed and improper methods of trading persisted in. It is obvious that the way to defeat that sort of thing is to increase the size of your market and get a larger number of buyers drawn from a larger area into it. Therefore, subject to proper care and discrimination and to all the safeguards embodied in this Bill, I think the prospect of either making those markets more efficient or, if necessary, of having to close them down, is one which might very easily help the industry considerably.
Of course there will be very keen opposition to closing the markets from the shopkeepers in the market towns, and because of the vested interest of the auctioneers, and the profits which the dealers and butchers are making and all that sort of thing. In addition the natural conservatism of farmers will make them not wish to see a local market closed. I think, however, that the machinery provided by the Bill will enable that matter to be dealt with satisfactorily without any risk. The auctioneer, of course, is often a very popular figure. The farmer frequently depends upon him, and very often he is financially indebted to the auctioneer.
296
The auctioneer is undoubtedly a very great help to the farmer. He helps him through valuations; he sees him through difficulties; he advises him, and he very often finances him. We all know what very good fellows most of the auctioneers are. At the same time, I think there is no doubt that too many auctioneers are not efficient. We had full evidence to that effect. There are, of course, remarkably good auctions in this country. Banbury has been quoted. That is one which stands out among the auction marts of this country, but there are certainly a great many markets which are not so efficient as Banbury. And the inefficiency of the auctions due to the inefficiency of the auctioneer means of course loss to the farmer who is trying to sell his produce in that market.
I do not want to keep your Lordships long, especially at this time, but I should like to say one thing about the experiment of central slaughtering. I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that you cannot have central slaughtering in country districts. That, I think, has always been accepted, and I do not think it has really been seriously suggested that there should be; but there is no doubt whatever that the system of small slaughter-houses in large urban areas is an extremely vicious one, and not only leads to a great deal of waste but is unsatisfactory in many other ways. In the areas where there is a big turnover I believe some closer system of organising central slaughtering would be of very great advantage. After all, this is merely an experiment, and it is just as well to try a thing out before you definitely commit yourself to a big policy. The Government have distinctly made it clear that they are not in favour of a policy of general central slaughter-houses whatever the advantages may be, but I welcome the chance of an experiment. I do not think we can complain that this sort of thing has to be done by the Livestock Commission, for this reason, that I am afraid there is a certain element of "powder and jam" about this. You want to get the agricultural industry to take these appliances up themselves, and unless you can convince the farmers that they will be to their advantage you will not succeed. I think that is the reason for having these Commissions.

297
For myself I dislike Commissions, but I think in this case a certain amount of extra outside assistance will be required because the necessary drive does not come from the industry itself. I myself should like to see more of the system that prevails in other countries. I should like to see the chance of sending stock to a big market where there is an abattoir with all the appliances to enable carcases to go in and be dealt with easily and come out easily, and with proper facilities for treating the by-products. That would result in a great saving of the waste which at present occurs under our system. I think that is a system we might establish in this country. Then the farmer, instead of wasting his time going to market to sell his stock, would be able to sell by grade and dead weight and do it merely through short correspondence. That would mean a great saving of time, trouble and expense.
I will conclude by saying that the farmer, as we all know, is a very conservative person, and when he finds that the opposition to this Bill is supported by butchers, dealers and auctioneers and a good many people whose interests are not quite his own, I think he may well ask whether the opposition to the Bill is really centred entirely on the interests of the farmer. I hope that from this Bill the farmer will get considerable value. The Bill has been considerably improved in the House of Commons, and it may be no doubt still more improved in your Lordships' House, through which I hope it will pass with the same ease as it did through the other House.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, in his concluding remarks pointed out that the opposition to this Bill came not from the farmers but from other interests, and I think it is only right that we should realise that this is not entirely a farmers' Bill. Other interests are very deeply affected by it, such as those of the auctioneers and the butchers. Their livelihood and their capital are affected by the Bill, and therefore they have every reason and every right to oppose it. I might also point out to the noble Lord that if the agricultural newspaper which I read is correct the President of the National Farmers' Union, who is a member in the other place, was so dissatisfied with the Bill that he did not vote for the Third Reading, so that the farmers are not entirely
298
satisfied. I think perhaps the noble Earl in front of me may realise from the speeches to which he has already listened that it is not a Bill which is received with great enthusiasm either by the agricultural community or by other communities who are interested in it.
It is obvious that there is no point in making a lengthy speech at this stage in the proceedings, but there are one or two matters to which I should like to draw attention and which have not been mentioned in this debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the number of Commissions and Committees with which the Ministry of Agriculture, or rather the Ministers have buttressed themselves in this Bill. I should add another one. We have the Livestock Advisory Committee, and if you go to Clause 16 so far as markets are concerned we may also have to set up yet another Committee to advise the Commission. That I think is a bad feature of this Bill. This Bill is to implement the Government's policy so far as agriculture is concerned, and they have set up in it these Commissions and Committees behind which they will be able to shelter when there is criticism of the results of the Bill after it has become an Act of Parliament. One knows only too well that whenever there has been criticism of what has gone on with regard to milk or pigs, the answer has invariably been that it is a producers' scheme run by the producers. The answer in this case will no doubt be that the Government have taken the advice of the Commission or of the Livestock Advisory Committee. But the Commission will be appointed by the Government, and I can quite easily see the ball being tossed from the Government to the Commission and then to the Advisory Committee and back all along the line. It looks to me as if this is a very real attempt, which possibly may be a successful attempt, on the part of the Government to evade responsibility for their own actions.
I quite agree that the Livestock Advisory Committee is a very necessary part of the machinery of this Bill, because this Bill interferes with the ordinary business of a certain part of the community as it is run to-day. Therefore, when you are going to alter that, you do need the expert advice of those who are concerned in the industry with which we are dealing. The Com-

299
mission on the other hand is to consist of eight men and a Chairman appointed by the Government, and it is laid down in the First Schedule that any member
"will have or has, as the case may be, no such interest in any agricultural or commercial undertaking as is likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a Commissioner."
That is to say, he must be a man who has no active interest in agriculture or in any ancillary business connected with the livestock industry. I do not go so far as to say that the choice is so limited as my noble friend Lord Cranworth suggested, but a Commissioner must be a man who owns no land and who does not farm. He must either have retired from farming or must never have farmed. Again, so far as auctioneering or butchering is concerned, he must be no longer in business. The Commissioners are to be entirely independent and, for the very reason that they are not in business, they will be incapable of advising satisfactorily on the detailed measures which are incorporated in the Bill before your Lordships. My own conclusion is that the Commission is an entirely unnecessary part of the livestock organisation. I do not propose to move an Amendment abolishing the Commission, because I do not feel capable of dealing with all the consequential Amendments involved if it were carried; but I do wish to point out that by adopting this particular method the Government seem to be attempting to evade to a great extent the responsibilities of their own policy and to put them on a Commission which by its very constitution is not the right body to deal with matters that arise under a Bill of this nature.
This Commission is, as the noble Earl suggested, a departure from the established methods of dealing with agricultural commodities. Hitherto, in dealing with commodities under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, we have had a body elected by the producers themselves. I know the defects of that particular system; I think we all know them; but on the other hand the system had this advantage, that those concerned in the production of the particular commodity concerned were able to express their dissatisfaction actively, even to the extent of electing somebody else as member of a board in place of somebody they disliked.
300
They even—and this is far more important—had the right if they so desired of liquidating a scheme under which any particular commodity was being marketed. With this Government-appointed Commission they will have absolutely no right of that nature. They are giving away all their independence, not to people elected by themselves, but to an independent Commission appointed by the Government. They will have absolutely no right under this Bill, as far as I can see, to put an end to the working of that Commission if they are dissatisfied. They can only act through Parliamentary procedure, and as agricultural electors are in a small minority that probably will not be very effective procedure from their point of view.
The next point to which I would wish to refer is the regulation of imports. In complete contrast to the number of advisory committees to the Ministry of Agriculture the Board of Trade which win deal with the regulation of imports under the Bill have absolutely no one to turn to for advice. The regulation of imports is a very important part of this Bill. The noble Earl said there is going to be an International Beef Conference to advise on the regulation of imports. My criticism of that is that I have grave doubt whether such an International Beef Conference will ever come to any satisfactory agreement, and I am quite certain that if such a Conference does come to a decision it will not necessarily be favourable to the English producer. Such a Conference will have many interests to consider, and although my noble friend Lord Bingley is a member of it, and I have great admiration for his qualities and know that he is favourably disposed to the home producer, still he is only one man. Therefore I have grave doubts: first, as to the success of the Conference; and secondly, even if it is successful, whether it is going to be of any use to the home producer. One has to fall back on the Board of Trade which, in contrast to the Ministry of Agriculture, will be completely uncontrolled, and from rather bitter experience of the Board of Trade in connection with quotas I am afraid that the Board of Trade is rather inclined to consider the consumer very much to the exclusion of the producer.
The final point I want to bring before your Lordships is that of the slaughtering

301
schemes. We have had little or no information, either in this House or as far as I can ascertain in the course of the progress of the Bill in another place, as to the real intentions of the Government in regard to the working of these slaughtering schemes. It may be said that this is a matter of detail which can be settled later, but it is a matter of great importance to those who are concerned in the slaughtering business, and I think that we should take a great deal of care in considering the legislation affecting these slaughtering schemes. We have no knowledge, for instance, of what is to be the exact definition of meat. It was said in another place by the Minister that a person carrying on a central slaughterhouse should not be entitled to retain any of the products of the slaughtering other than those described as the unidentifiable offals. He then went on to identify them as blood, horns and hooves, occasional fat scraps, glands and offals of condemned meat. That is a statement of the Minister of Agriculture. It is not included in the Bill. It is left to the scheme to state what the offals will be.
It may well be that in any scheme which is brought up it will seem desirable to include a number of edible offals. That we do not know, and I should very much like some assurance on that point. It has its importance, not only from the butchers' point of view but also from that of the livestock producer. Centralised slaughtering probably entails the meat being conveyed alive, in the first instance, rather farther than it would he if it went to a small local slaughter-house, and the dead meat and its products being conveyed back. A great deal of the profit in meat lies in the edible offals, and their sale—I only give this as an instance—depends enormously upon their condition. I am informed that to-day sheeps' livers from the Argentine are worth 8d. a pound, while fresh English sheeps' livers are worth about 2s. 3d. a 1b. It is a very considerable difference. If you keep the same sheeps' livers in a central slaughter-house for three days, possibly in cold storage, as would be necessary, they will go back to the butcher in a form which will only fetch the same price as a similar article brought from as far away as South America. They will be an inferior article, and that fact in turn will react upon the producer of livestock, who will not get
302
such a big price for his beef because of the lesser value of his offals.
That is only an instance to show, as I feel very strongly, how careful we need to be when we are considering the alteration of existing channels of trade, and how essential it is to take the most expert advice that we can get in settling the details. I do not wish to say any more than that. I am afraid I have said a great deal in criticism of the Bill as a whole. I must confess that when I first read the Bill I very nearly put down a Motion for its rejection, and now, having gone further into it, I wonder why I did not put down such a Motion. There is a great deal in the Bill which is very unsatisfactory, and I cannot see any advantage in it either to the livestock producer or to the trade of this country.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, there is one point which I do not think has yet been alluded to but which is worthy of mention: what is going to happen to the shopkeepers and traders of a small town at which farmers attend the market, if that market is compulsorily closed? Many small market towns throughout the country are largely dependent for their trade upon the farmers who come in, possibly once or twice a week, possibly once a fortnight, to market, very often accompanied by their womenfolk, to buy their normal supplies. It may be said that, should these markets be closed, the farmers will still continue to get their provisions and other commodities from the shops with which they have hitherto dealt. I do not think that is correct. Although Lord Bingley has expressed the view that it may be even more convenient for the farmer in the future to do his marketing over the telephone, from my own experience of farmers in all parts of Scotland—and I do not know that they are so very different from farmers in Yorkshire—I find that they regard, rightly or wrongly, attendance at the market at which they are going to do business, and sometimes at many markets at which they have no business to do, as practically their sole method of social intercourse with their fellows. I have myself, on occasion, got into trouble with my farmer friends for suggesting that many of them would do better to attend fewer markets and do a little more personal work on their farms. The point is that if the market is

303
transferred to what will probably be a larger town, a great proportion of the farmers who previously shopped at the small town will transfer their attendance to the town to which the market has been moved. This is likely to have a very serious effect indeed upon the livelihood of thousands of small traders throughout the country. We should therefore be very careful before agreeing to anything which will make the lot of these small traders, already rather difficult, even harder than it is to-day.
There are one or two other small points—possibly not so small. Clause 26, enabling local authorities to indulge in apparently unbridled licence to set up slaughter-houses, even outside their own areas, and to carry out various operations connected with them, fills me with considerable concern. Two other points were raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, one of which concerns the way in which cow beef is being developed in ever-increasing quantities at the present time owing to the way in which farms are going over to milk. That is certainly, in Southwest Scotland, a quite serious problem. Farms are being turned into dairy farms which are certainly not suitable. I hope that this Bill contains something, though I have not been able to find it, which will make it profitable for farmers on such farms to go back to the proper system of mixed farming which they used to practise and get away from milk production, which, in many cases, is quite unsuitable for them.
My last point concerns the importation of Irish store cattle. I should like to see the breeding of cows, if possible, from store cattle made easier and more remunerative. In Scotland we shall be dependent for a long time on Irish store cattle. The price of stores to-day is so high as to make any profit on fattening problematic, if not non-existent. If anything more is done to restrict the supplies before fresh encouragement is given to the home producer, I do not think it will be in the interests of the country as a whole.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, we have witnessed once again the very interesting manner in which agricultural issues are debated in your Lordships' House. I am quite certain that the many points of view that have been expressed by the noble Lords who have taken part in
304
this debate will receive the interest and consideration of the Minister before the Committee stage of the Bill is reached. On one point there has been a fair degree of unanimity, and that is that during the years since the depression began in 1930 the price of fat stock has been at a level which is unremunerative to the producer. We can therefore assume that it is agreed that if the fertility of the land is to be maintained—and I am very glad to hear that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, approved of the comprehensive statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government for maintaining the potential productivity of the soil—some action has to be taken to revive the livestock industry.
The noble Lords, Lord Cranworth and Lord Radnor, have to some extent severely criticised the method that the Government have employed for bringing that relief. But Parliament agreed, over two and a half years ago, that assistance should be given to the livestock industry in the form of a subsidy, and the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, has very considerably eased my task by referring to the two questions which have been raised of the levy subsidy principle and the standard price. Much criticism has been made to-night, and especially has this point of view been expressed by Lord Astor, that there are too many organisations, that a subsidy is in the long run harmful to the farmer; and he quoted the definition of a practical farmer of today as one who relies upon assistance from Whitehall. But, my Lords, it is important to realise that this Bill helps the farmer to help himself. It is an enabling Bill and with the provisions with regard to the subsidy which will now be on a quality basis—on a two-tier system—I think there is not much danger of the farmer becoming less self reliant owing to the legislative provisions of Parliament.
It is generally agreed, I think, that the pre-eminently successful piece of legislation that the Government have inaugurated since the depression has been the Wheat Act of 1932, and naturally on the part of some there is a strong inclination to the view that that procedure should be adopted for other products. But, as Lord Bingley has already stated, the case of meat is very different from that of wheat. In the first place, we import four-fifths of our supplies of wheat and flour, and the levy under that Act

305
is on the miller and importer of flour and not upon the Exchequer; whereas, in the case of meat, half our total consumption is provided from home sources. It would therefore be of considerable difficulty to impose a levy sufficient to produce the subsidy that the beef producer is to get. And if such a principle were adopted we must bear in mind that it would have very grave repercussions on agreements with the Argentine and with our Dominions.
Many specific questions have been put to me on this Bill and I regretted to hear the general criticism made by Lord Cranworth that the Bill will not help the farmer to any considerable degree. The noble Lord says that the increased subsidy that will be given for cattle of the highest quality is lost through the rise in wages and the increased cost of feeding stuffs. It is undoubtedly true that those two factors have put an unfortunate check upon the increased returns which would otherwise have been received during the course of the last few months. Lord Cranworth also expressed the opinion that the proposed Livestock Commission was too large at nine members; he thought that five would be quite sufficient. I think that as the proposed Livestock Commission will have more functions and specific duties to perform than the present Cattle Committee, its membership should be increased. The membership of the Cattle Committee is to-day seven. Lord Cranworth also asked whether the members of the Commission were to be paid.
LORD CRANWORTH: I asked that of the Advisory Committee.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The members of the Advisory Committee will not be remunerated for their services except as to out-of-pocket expenses. It is the case, as Lord Astor suggested, that, in present circumstances, 40 per cent. of the beasts slaughtered and receiving subsidy are heifers. Lord Cranworth said that he was of opinion that the Advisory Committee of the Livestock Commission would not be of any great service to the producers because there would be so many representatives of other interested parties. There are many bodies who under this Act will be actively interested in the Livestock Advisory Committee. There are the producers, the local authorities, and the auctioneers, and it will be the aim of Ministers when the Livestock
306
Advisory Committee is being formed to limit the number of representatives of each body to proper dimensions, in order not to make that Committee unwieldy. It is most desirable that the Committee should be composed of experts on the different aspects of the duties with which the Commission have to deal. It will no doubt be possible for the Committee so to arrange their business as to group various items for consideration and refer them to sub-committees. The only alternative I can see to that proposal is that there should be the somewhat cumbersome procedure of a separate committee for each Part of the Bill. If such a procedure were adopted it would be entirely contrary to the general view expressed by Lord Astor and Lord Cranworth, that the fewer statutory bodies that exist the better it is.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked a question as to whether it is proposed to spend all the subsidy regardless of the world price of meat. The money under the subsidy proposals will be voted annually, the maximum being £5,000,000 and the rates of subsidy will be prescribed by the Minister, who will of course from time to time take account of the market situation. Therefore under that procedure there will be no risk of the £5,000,000 voted by Parliament being paid if not justified by market conditions.
LORD CRANWORTH: And I think you said that any surplus would be reserved for another year.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: In the White Paper which gives the provisional proposals for the cattle subsidy it is stated that the balance in the subsidy fund will be carried over till next year. But that actual provision is not contained in the Bill. There are many other points which I feel could better be replied to on the Committee stage than at the present time, but I would like to conclude by saying that we attach the greatest importance to these proposals for planning the industry because we feel, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, properly said, that without them we can obtain no bottom to the market. It is for the purpose of putting a foundation to the market that there is provision in the Bill for regulation of supplies, for subsidy payments and for reorganisation and re-equipment in marketing and slaughtering. As I have said, this Bill does not force organisation

307
on an unwilling industry as I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, implied. In the case of markets, if there is objection in any quarter the proposals have to be reviewed first by the bodies intimately affected. Then they are sent to the Minister in draft form. The next procedure is a public inquiry; and finally the scheme, if necessary, comes before Parliament. Under such a procedure I think one can be confident that if any representative organisation interested in the market proposals strongly resents the action that is proposed, Parliament will see that it is not enforced arbitrarily.
The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, asked how the Livestock Markets Order would assist the producer. There can be no doubt that where a market has become old-fashioned and ill-equipped to deal with conditions produced by new methods of transport and communications, the amount of stock it will deal with is decreased. But as the noble Lord, Lord
308
Bingley, very truly said, a market does not die of its own accord; the farmer sends his cattle to such a market, even though it is poorly equipped, because he has been used to sending them there rather than because of the price he receives there. It may therefore be necessary to eliminate some of these 1,100 markets and get real markets where there is competitive buying and where rings are absent. I am afraid that I have referred very sketchily to some of the points raised in the debate, but at this late hour it would perhaps not be right for me to deal with them further, and I can only assure the House that I will make it my duty to go very fully into those points between now and the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
TATTON ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Judges Report received; Bill presented, and read 1a.
MANSFIELD DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

HASTINGS CORPORATION GENERAL POWERS BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the live Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Dartford Tunnel Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Hastings Corporation General Powers Bill: Read, and agreed to. All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL. [H.L.]
NORTH COTSWOLD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
HASTINGS CORPORATION GENERAL POWERS BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Devonport be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Ruthven of Gowrie: Read, and agreed to.