Sitting of 1 February 1938

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 23d December, 1937, for the Christmas Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

SPEAKER'S WARRANTS FOR NEW WRITS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, Warrants for New Writs, namely,
For the County of Lancaster (Farnworth Division) in the room of Guy Rowson, esquire, deceased.
For the University of St. Andrew's, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of Edinburgh in the room of the right hon. James Ramsay MacDonald, deceased.
For the County of Glamorgan (Pontypridd Division) in the room of David Lewis Davies, esquire, deceased.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Ipswich, in the room of Captain Sir Francis John Childs Ganzoni, Baronet, now Lord Belstead, called up to the House of Peers.— [Captain Margesson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    SUPPLY OF OFFICERS.
    Captain Arthur Evansasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received the report of the Willingdon Committee; and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir, and it is being prepared for the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

    MARRIED QUARTERS.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it is possible for a soldier who has married young to have as much as 12 years ex emplary service to his credit and yet have to wait for four years or more after he has attained the age of 26 years with out being able to secure married quarters; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Certainly; all married soldiers of 26 automatically draw marriage allowance, but the provision of a married quarter is conditioned by the number of these available.
    Mr. Lewis: Am I to understand that my right hon. Friend is doing anything to increase the number available?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. George Griffiths: What is the good of the Minister of Health bringing in a Population Bill, if the Secretary for War is stopping it in this way?

  SCOTLAND.

    COMMUNITY CENTRES.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the Scottish local authorities have provided community centres in connection with their new housing areas; and whether he is pressing upon all local authorities to provide such amenities?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): The Department of Health have approved proposals for the provision of community centres by the town councils of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Greenock, Kilmarnock and Kirkcaldy; and a number of other local authorities have proposals under consideration. With regard to the second part of the question, the Department of Health and the Scottish Education Department issued a Memorandum in December, 1936, urging local authorities with large housing schemes to make provision for community centres.
    Mr. Mathers: In view of the date of that communication and the apparently small response that has been made to it, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time to urge this matter further on other local authorities?
    Mr. Elliot: There is always a certain amount of administrative pressure. I do not think it necessary at the moment to send out a further circular.

    SCOTTISH RECORDS ADVISORY COUNCIL.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state the names and qualifications of the persons appointed as the Scottish Records Advisory Council?
    Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The first Scottish Records Advisory Council has now been constituted. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names and qualifications of the members.
    Following is the information:
    William Angus, Esq., Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland. (Chairman and Convener.)
    The Reverend James Houston Baxter, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of St. Andrews.
    Professor Vivian Hunter Galbraith, M.A., Professor of History in the University of Edinburgh.
    Professor Robert Kerr Hannay, F.R.S.E., LL.D., Historiographer Royal in Scotland: Fraser Professor of History and Palaeography, University of Edinburgh.
    The Right Hon. Thomas Johnston, M.P.
    Professor John Duncan Mackie. M.C., M.A., Professor of Scottish History and Literature in the University of Glasgow.
    Henry William Meikle, Esq., M.A., D.Litt., Librarian of the National Library of Scotland.
    David Buchan Morris, Esq., Town Clerk of Stirling.
    William Douglas Simpson, Esq., M.A., D.Litt., Librarian of the University of Aberdeen.
    David Baird Smith, Esq., C.B.E., LL.D., Chairman of the Council of the Stair Society.
    The Reverend William Stephen, M.A., D.D., Fellow of the Scottish Society of Antiquaries, and
    Miss Marguerite Wood, Ph.D., Keeper of the Burgh Records, Edinburgh.

    POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to announce the policy of the Government in relation to the poultry industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. The problems of the poultry industry in the country as a whole are receiving consideration from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and myself, but it is not yet possible to make a statement.
    Mr. Mathers: Does this mean that the reluctance to make a statement for Scotland is due to the fact that we must wait on England; and is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to hurry forward this matter in view of its urgency?
    Mr. Elliot: It is being considered in relation to the country as a whole.
    Mr. T. Johnston: Meanwhile will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending inspectors round some of these small holdings to see what the economic position is, and whether it is possible for the small holders to make a living?
    Mr. Elliot: We are constantly receiving reports on these matters.
    Mr. Johnston: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider taking special steps to examine the question of whether or not these men are capable of making a living out of the holdings?
    Mr. Elliot: I think that has to be reviewed in connection with the position of the industry as a whole.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (GLASGOW).
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of householders with families drawing able bodied relief from Glasgow Corporation Public Assistance Department who are limited to 40s. per week, and the number drawing more than 40s. per week?
    Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the limit of 40s. in the Glasgow Corporation scale of able-bodied relief has now been abolished.

    HOUSING COMPANY'S RENTS.
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to secure that the Second Scottish National Housing Company, Limited, reduce the rents of steel houses at Sandy-hills and Springhoig, Glasgow, as the Glasgow Corporation have reduced their house rents for houses of a corresponding size in these areas?
    Mr. Elliot: In terms of their agreement with the Department of Health for Scotland, the company are required to fix their rents by reference to the rents charged for similar accommodation in the district. I have had inquiry made and am satisfied that the rents charged at Sandyhills and Springboig are in accordance with this agreement.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rents of corresponding houses in the area have been reduced by the Glasgow Corporation, and that, in addition to that fact, these houses are very much inferior to ordinary brick houses; and will he reconsider asking the company to reduce the rents of these houses?
    Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. There are 3,950 houses in a district close by, the rents of which vary from £26 to £36 per annum and the rents of the company's houses vary from £27 10s. to £34 per annum.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WAGES AND PRICES (NORTHUMBERLAND).
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Secretary for Mines (1) the average weekly wage paid in the coal mines of Northumberland for the years 1920 up to the latest available date in 1937;
    (2) the average pit-head price for the coal industry in Northumberland for the years 1920 to the latest available date in 1937?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): As this and the following question involve a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, answer them together by circulating a statistical statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    NORTHUMBERLAND.

    Year.

    Average Weekly Cash-earnings (excluding the value of allowances in kind*) per Wage-earner.

    Average Proceeds per ton of coal disposable commercially.

    £

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1920 †

    4

    2

    1

    48

    7

    1922

    2

    2

    11

    18

    6

    1923

    2

    10

    11

    21

    0½

    1924

    2

    8

    2

    18

    7½

    1925

    2

    5

    5‡

    14

    6¼

    1927

    2

    1

    11

    12

    10 ¾

    1928

    1

    17

    5

    11

    0½

    1929

    1

    18

    6

    11

    8

    1930

    1

    16

    10

    12

    3¾

    1931

    1

    15

    10

    11

    7½

    1932

    1

    18

    3

    11

    2¾

    1933

    2

    0

    2

    11

    2

    1934

    2

    2

    2

    11

    1½

    1935

    2

    2

    5

    11

    6½

    1936

    2

    6

    4

    12

    8

    1937 (Jan. to Nov.).

    2

    8

    2

    14

    2

    * Particulars of the value of allowances in kind are only available from 1927. At the present time these amount to about 5s. 6d. per week.

    † There was a stoppage at the collieries of two to three weeks during the fourth quarter, and the figures of average weekly cash earnings relate to January to September only.

    ‡ Including subvention.

    NOTE. - Figures are not given for the years 1921 and 1926, when there were protracted disputes in the coal mining industry.

    SELLING SCHEMES.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary for Mines what protests he has received from representatives of different classes of coal consumers with regard to their treatment under the coal-selling schemes at present in operation?
    Captain Crookshank: I have received a number of complaints in general terms from bodies representative of organised consumers of coal, but have advised in every suitable case that the independent machinery set up by Parliament for the purpose of investigating complaints caused by the operation of the schemes should be invoked. Those complaints not within the competency of that machinery are being given careful consideration by the Government in connection with Part III of the Coal Bill.

    PRICE (LONDON).
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the Secretary for Mines the retail price of a hundredweight of coal sold in small quantities in working-class districts of London at the latest available date; and whether he is satisfied that the prices are reason able?
    Captain Crookshank: I am informed that coal in 14 lb. bags is now sold at about 6½d. per bag. I have no information on which to form an opinion whether this trade, which is not to any extent in the hands of coal merchants, is carried on at reasonable prices.
    Sir P. Harris: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that this price is reasonable, as compared with the prices charged for larger quantities in other parts of London?
    Captain Crookshank: I have just told the hon. Baronet the reply to that question.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that the average price in Yorkshire last month was 14s. 5½d. per ton at the pit head?

    EIRE.
    Mr. Lunnasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to the relations between this country and the Irish Free State?
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what progress has been made in the settlement of questions outstanding with the Government of the Irish Free State?
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The new Constitution which was approved by the Parliament of the Irish Free State in June, 1937, came into force on 29th December. Hon. Members will be familiar with the terms of the announcement issued to the Press at the time, in the course of which the attitude to the new Constitution of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and of His Majesty's Governments in the other Dominions, was set out. A series of meetings was held a fortnight ago between representatives of the Government of the United Kingdom and representatives of the Government of Eire to discuss outstanding questions which affect the relations between the two countries. These meetings were devoted to preliminary examination of the questions involved and at their conclusion an agreed statement was issued to the effect that while no agreement had yet been reached upon any of the questions discussed, it was felt that the discussions had proceeded far enough to justify a more detailed examination of a number of points by officials of the respective Governments. This examination is now proceeding, and pending its completion, the meetings of Ministers have been suspended, to be resumed as soon as the necessary data are available for further conversations.
    Mr. Lunn: Are the two Governments discussing the whole of the points of difficulty between them; and is there any possibility of a settlement being arrived at upon those points?
    Mr. MacDonald: The major questions are all under discussion, and it would be premature to hazard any guess as to whether any agreement is likely or not.
    Sir William Davison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government propose to recognise the claim of the Free State Government to be known as the Government of Ireland, seeing that there is a Government of Northern Ireland?
    Hon. Members: Eire.
    Mr. Thurtle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the new Irish Constitution afrects in any way the status of citizens of the Irish Free State as citizens of the British Empire?
    Mr. Speaker: That clearly does not arise from the question on the Paper.
    Mr. Logan: Apart from the question of partition, is it possible to make any statement with regard to the financial position; and in regard to the cattle trade on the Merseyside, is it likely that an arrangement may be considered in regard to that position?
    Mr. MacDonald: It is not possible to make any statement. All these questions are under consideration now.

    NEWFOUNDLAND.
    Mr. Lunnasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in Newfoundland?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am glad to say that the general improvement in economic conditions in Newfoundand to which I referred in my answer on 21st October has been maintained. Employment, especially in the mining and logging industries, has been active in most parts of the Island, and the total number on relief in each month from August to December has been little over half that for the corresponding months of 1936. Although difficulties are still being experienced in finding markets for salt fish at remunerative prices, the price realised on the herring catch is satisfactory. Revenue for the half-year ended 31st December showed an expansion under all heads.
    Mr. Lunn: Is more being done in Newfoundland in order to establish co-operation between the industries and the workpeople, and is anything being done to establish some form of local government in Newfoundland in addition to the Commission of Government?
    Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member will put questions on these specific points, I will give him more adequate answers than I can without notice.
    Mr. Lunn: I am anticipating that the Commission of Government will continue, but is it likely to continue, and are the
    10
    people never to have a form of representative government in Newfoundland?
    Mr. MacDonald: There is no present prospect of the Commission of Government coming to an end; it is little beyond the beginning of its work.

    SHARE-PUSHING.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to introduce the Bill to amend the Companies Acts?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): A Bill to deal with share-pushing and similar matters is in course of preparation and will be introduced as soon as possible.

    DOMINIONS (REPATRIATION).
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the figures of the references furnished to the Board of Trade by the principal steamship companies, showing the number of British subjects that have been sent back to the United Kingdom for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date by the authorities of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?
    Mr. Stanley: According to returns furnished voluntarily to the Board of Trade by the principal steamship companies, the numbers of British subjects among those passengers from the United Kingdom to places outside Europe who were sent back during 1937 by the authorities of Canada and Australia were 66 and 10, respectively. So far as I am aware, no one was sent back by the New Zealand authorities.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is an increasing number on the previous year?
    Mr. Stanley: As regards Australia, it is practically the same as in the previous year; as regards Canada, it is considerably less.
    Mr. Day: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures of the number of subjects sent back from England and repatriated to our Colonies?
    Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down, and I will see what information I can give him.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS).
    Mr. Manderasked the President of the Board of Trade the position with regard to negotiations for a trade agreement with the United States of America?
    Mr. Lewisasked the President of tht Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make as to the progress of the negotiations for a trade agreement with the United States of America?
    Mr. Stanley: On 8th January the United States Government issued an announcement giving notice of their intention to negotiate a trade agreement with the United Kingdom. This announcement marked a further definite step in the United States procedure of negotiation. His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington will be one of His Majesty's Government's delegates. The rest of the delegation will leave for Washington shortly to assist him in the discussions. In addition to representatives of the Board of Trade, the delegation will include officers from the Dominions Office, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Board of Customs and Excise.
    Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay no attention to any attempt by private vested interests to bring these important negotiations to naught?
    Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that these negotiations will be of a protracted nature, or does he hope for some sort of an agreement this year?
    Mr. Stanley: It is never much good anticipating the course of negotiations. There are obviously many difficult subjects to discuss.
    Captain Peter Macdonald: Will there be any representation of the Colonies on this delegation? My right hon. Friend spoke of the Dominions; why not the Colonies?
    Mr. Stanley: Any questions will be closely watched, and I think the officials we are sending out will be quite ample.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will they do anything to safeguard the interests of the agriculturists?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it possible for private individuals to use influence with the Government to overcome any decision to which they might come?

    SPANISH IRON ORE (IMPORT).
    Sir John Mellorasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will indicate, in the form most convenient, the rate at which iron ore is now being imported from Spain into the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Stanley: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total tonnage of iron ore and concentrates (excluding chrome iron ore and pyrites) imported into the United Kingdom and consigned from Spain during each of the last six months of 1937 was as follow:—

    1937.

    Tons.

    July

    27,757

    August

    17,241

    September

    67,082

    October

    92,527

    November

    117,149

    December

    106,335

    COAL EXPORTS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the President of the Board of Trade the shipments of coal from the principal shipping groups in the United Kingdom for the first 10 months of the years 1937 and 1936, respectively, namely. Northeast Coast ports, Humber ports, Scottish ports and South Wales ports; and the figures for general merchandise traffic, imports and exports, for the same period for the port of Newcastle and the imports of iron ore for the same periods?
    Mr. Stanley: As the answer is lengthy and involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    During the first 10 months of 1936 and 1937 the total quantities of coal exported and of bunker coal shipped for the use of steamers, etc., engaged in the foreign trade and of fishing vessels, from the specified groups of ports in the United Kingdom were as follow:

    —

    Cargo coal.

    Bunker coal.

    January-October, 1936.

    January-October, 1937.

    January-October, 1936.

    January-October, 1937.

    Th. tons.

    Th. tons.

    Th. tons.

    Th. tons.

    North-eastern ports

    …

    …

    10,040

    11,161

    1,801

    1,487

    Humber ports

    …

    …

    2,445

    3,441

    2,052

    2,129

    Scottish ports

    …

    …

    4,484

    4,566

    1,779

    1,660

    Bristol Channel ports

    …

    …

    10,779

    13,490

    2,188

    2,454

    As regards the second part of the question, particulars of imports and exports of general merchandise at individual ports are compiled only in respect of calendar years. The figures for Newcastle for the year 1936 appear on pages 81 to 84 of Volume IV of the "Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom" for 1936. Corresponding particulars for the year 1937 are not yet available. As regards the third part of the question, imports of iron ore and concentrates (excluding chrome iron ore and pyrites) into the United Kingdom during the first 10 months of 1937 amounted to 5,558,000 tons, valued at £6,124,000, as compared with 4,994,000 tons, valued at £4,400,000, during the corresponding period of 1936.

    WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
    Sir J. Mellorasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the position of those tenants who would be liable to rebuild in the event of their premises being destroyed by the armed forces of an enemy and who are unable to obtain insurance against this risk; and whether the Government proposes to take any steps to relieve them from this dilemma?
    Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; this matter is under consideration.
    Sir George Mitchesortasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the growing public demand for insurance against war risks, he is now prepared to make any further statement as to the policy of the Government on this matter?
    Mr. Hutchinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that insurance offices, in renewing
    14
    fire and comprehensive policies upon dwelling houses, have now intimated that such policies from the first renewal date after 30th September, 1937, will be renewed: subject to an express condition exempting war risks, and that in some cases building societies are drawing the attention of their mortgagees to this condition; and whether, having regard to the uneasiness to which these circumstances are giving rise, he will make a statement?
    Mr. Stanley: In regard to the facts mentioned by the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), I am informed that insurance offices generally speaking have never covered war risks in this country, and that the recent alteration in the wording of policy conditions has not effected any material change but is merely designed to make clear the actual position that there is no liability under the contracts in question for damage due to war. On the general question of war risks insurance, I would refer to the answers I gave on 2nd and 9th November to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel).
    Mr. Thorne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if the companies in question did insure, they would be quite safe?
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very considerable pressure from people that there should be some method of insurance, and can he give an undertaking that the Government are likely to come to an early decision on the matter?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend, I know, will remember the answers to which I referred, which indicated that the Government are considering the question more from the point of view of possible compensation in time of emergency rather than by way of insurance.

  AGRICULTURE.

    POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement of the Government's policy with regard to the poultry industry?
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is able to make a statement on the Government's policy towards the poultry industry?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated in reply to an earlier question, it is not at present possible for me to make any statement on this matter.
    Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend say when Sir Duncan Watson's Committee is likely to report?
    Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend is referring to the technical committee on poultry diseases, I have just received an advance copy of their report, and I expect it will be generally available in the course of a week.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will now consider setting up a factory for the production of fish meal to enable the poultry farmers to obtain supplies of feeding-stuffs at a reasonable figure, in view of the continued difficulties of the poultry keepers to obtain a living?
    Mr. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 20th December last.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the Government not consider taking steps, apart from these committees, to do something to aid the poultry industry of this country? Time marches on, and nothing is done at all.
    Mr. Morrison: The Government are closely considering the whole poultry situation, but I would point out that the supply of fish meal is a very small matter in the budget of a poultry keeper.
    Mr. Muff: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that one of the largest fish-meal factories can be found in the City of Hull?

    POTATO PRODUCTION.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now consider
    16
    facilitating an increased acreage of potatoes with a view to earmarking the increased acreage specifically for supplying potatoes to a suitable factory for the manufacture of feeding-meal for pigs, and to providing a suitable supply of homegrown feeding-stuffs?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 18th November last.

    PIG INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make a statement on the Government's policy towards the pig industry?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Satisfactory progress has been made in the discussions with the marketing boards regarding the future of the schemes, and I hope shortly to be able to make a statement on the subject.

    ELECTRICITY BILL.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Transport when the Bill in connection with electricity distribution is to be introduced?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): Perhaps the hon. Member would await the reply to be given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a similar question by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
    Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether conversations with the various interested parties are concluded?
    Mr. Burgin: They are continuing.
    Mr. Edeasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to give a First Reading to the Bill for the reorganisation of the distribution of electricity?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As the hon. Member is aware, the time of this House will be very fully occupied in the coming weeks, and I am not yet in a position to say when this Bill will be presented. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question in a month's time.
    Mr. Ede: Is this an indication that the Government do not expect to pass this Bill this Session?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The answer does not say that, and it does not mean it.

  TRANSPORT.

    LONDON ROADS (Sir C. BRESSEY'S REPORT).
    Sir G. Mitchesonasked the Minister of Transport when the report of Sir Charles Bressey on the road communications of the Metropolis will be published?
    Mr. Burgin: The letterpress of the report is already in the hands of the printers, but the reproduction of the maps, which are an essential part of the report, may take a little time.

    TRUNK ROADS (LIGHTING).
    Sir G. Mitchesonasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any further statement to make in respect of the lighting of trunk roads?
    Mr. Burgin: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular dated 21st January which I have addressed to local authorities on the matter.

    NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE (BY-PASS).
    Mr. Denvilleasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the contribution from the Road Fund to the cost of building the new Waterloo Bridge, he will now consider making a substantial grant to the construction of an up-to-date bridge over the River Tyne with the object of by-passing Newcastle-on-Tyne?
    Mr. Burgin: The local authorities concerned were invited some months ago to examine the question of the construction of a by-pass road on the west side of Newcastle and of the provision of a new bridge in the neighbourhood of Scots-wood. I am awaiting their reply. If a suitable scheme is agreed upon I shall be ready to consider making the appropriate grant from the Road Fund.
    Mr. Gallacher: Would that apply also to the Forth Road Bridge?
    Mr. Burgin: That is quite a different question.
    Mr. Ede: Are we to understand that the Minister has given up trying to find an eastern by-pass of Newcastle?
    Mr. Burgin: I think that that is quite another matter. The particular by-pass which is under examination is on the west side.
    Miss Wilkinson: Before the right hon. Gentleman gives any further grants for
    18
    the west of Newcastle, which is already well supplied with bridges, will he consider the east where there are no bridges between Newcastle and the sea?
    Mr. Burgin: Certainly.

    ROAD GRANTS, LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. Kellyasked the Minister of Transport the grants made in 1937 for the construction of roads in Lancashire?
    Mr. Burgin: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister taking any safeguards in the great reconstruction of roads which he has in mind to see that no exploitation is going on and that certain contractors are not making fortunes out of the public?
    Following is the answer:
    The following grants from the Road Fund were made in 1937 for the construction of roads in Lancashire:

    —

    County Area.

    County Borough Areas.

    Total.

    Number of grants made.

    6

    5

    11

    Estimated cost of works.

    £78,711

    £79,855

    £158,566

    Total amount of grants.

    £47,956

    £53,568

    £101,524

    If the hon. Member wishes I can give him full information regarding each scheme.
    In addition to the above, grants were made in 1937 for the improvement of roads in Lancashire as follow:

    —

    County Area.

    County Borough Areas.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    s

    561,885

    413,585

    975,470

    Total amount of grants.

    317,250

    234,715

    551,965

    INDIA.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any statement to make regarding the position of affairs in India?
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I have been asked to reply; and perhaps it might be to the general convenience of the House if I stated that during the temporary absence of the Under-Secretary I shall be representing the Secretary of State and the India Office in this House. No, Sir; there is no general statement I could appropriately make within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.

    UNREGULATED TRADES (YOUNG PERSONS).
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to introduce a Bill to limit the hours of young persons in unregulated trades?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the projected Bill to give effect to certain recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Hours of Employment of Young Persons in Certain Unregulated Occupations. As I have stated in reply to previous questions, I am anxious 10 see this legislation passed, and hope that there may be time for the Bill during the present Session. I am afraid that I am not in a position to make any further statement at the moment.

    EUROPEAN NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the general European negotiations started by the visit of Lord Halifax to Berlin?
    The Prime Minister: The matter is under the active consideration of His Majesty's Government, but I have no statement to make at present.
    Mr. Mander: Can the Prime Minister say whether any progress has been made and when he expects to be able to make a statement?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said that the matter is under active consideration, which may be interpreted to mean that progress is being made. I am not in a position to make any prophecies.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not time we got to know what passed between Lord Halifax and Herr Hitler?
    Mr. Emmott: Would it not be a great mistake to assume, as the question might suggest, that no general European negotiations were being held before the visit of Lord Halifax to Berlin?
    The Prime Minister: It would be a mistake to assume anything.

    INTERNATIONAL TRADE (M. VAN ZEELAND'S REPORT).
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the Report received from M. van Zeeland?
    The Prime Minister: The proposals in M. van Zeeland's Report raise many complicated issues—financial, economic and political—which will require careful study by His Majesty's Government and by the other Governments concerned; and it would be premature to expect me to make any considered statement about them until this study has been completed. But I should like to take this opportunity of expressing publicly our warmest gratitude to M. van Zeeland for the energy and public spirit with which he has carried through this delicate and difficult inquiry. I feel that all who read the Report will recognise in it a constructive effort to restore international economic co-operation, and I hope that its proposals will be examined everywhere in the same objective spirit as inspired its compilation.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the gravity of the international situation, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to this House that consideration of the van Zeeland Report will be treated as a matter of urgency in order that definite action may be taken as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will see that there is no question of definite action by one Government alone. This is a matter which requires co-operation. I think I can assure him that the Report will be taken as being an urgent matter, and I have no doubt that it will be followed up by steps to bring about the co-operation.
    Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether, when the Government have had time to consider the van Zeeland Report, there will be an opportunity for the Government to state their conclusions and for a discussion in the House on the whole of the issues raised?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman has read the van Zeeland Report he will see that M. van Zeeland does indicate what, in his view, would be the best method of procedure. He calls it, I think, "methods of realisation," and he contemplates some preparatory soundings of the ground in various directions in respect of the various Governments. I think that it would be a pity for His Majesty's Government or any other Government to express their own views publicly before they had heard the views of others who are concerned. For that reason I should prefer to await the result of the preliminary soundings referred to, but there will, no doubt, be opportunities for discussion at a later stage.
    Mr. Attlee: Would it not be useful if-there were some preliminary soundings in this House in order to get the views of the House upon the report? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, further, whether we may take it that the Government will not in the meanwhile take action that would run counter to the broad lines suggested for bringing about greater economic co-operation?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot think of any action which the Government have in mind which would be contrary to the suggestions and recommendations of the report. I think there will probably be an opportunity for discussion, and I suggest that one of the days on which we are discussing the Civil Vote on Account might be an occasion.
    Mr. T. Williams: May I ask whether, during the time when preliminary soundings are taking place, there will be a halt called in regard in the imposition of further Customs duties?
    Mr. Lansbury: In considering these questions will the Government have before them the extreme urgency of the position and the fact that the public is most concerned that there should not be a long-drawn-out delay in bringing these matters to a head?
    The Prime Minister: Again I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are several Governments concerned in this matter.
    Mr. Lansbury: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into account that there are two Governments who invited M. van Zeeland to undertake these inquiries, and that therefore these two Governments have a little more responsibility in urging other Governments to come to a decision, and in themselves coming to a decision, at the earliest possible moment?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman there. I think that the primary responsibility for the next move lies with the French and British Governments, who commissioned M. van Zeeland to undertake this inquiry, and that, no doubt, will be the course taken.
    Colonel Wedgwood: May we be assured that no action will be taken in the direction of pledging the advance of money to the dictatorship Governments?

    REDISTRIBUTION.
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure of redistribution during the period of the present Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: The programme for the present Session, as the hon. Member is aware, has already been announced; I cannot anticipate the work of future Sessions.
    Mr. Thurtle: Does the Prime Minister regard this matter as one which calls for action before the next General Election?
    The Prime Minister: That is obviously a repetition of the question in another form.

    GOVERNMENT CINEMATOGRAPH ADVISER.
    Mr. Dayasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the special terms under which the Government cinematograph officer is employed?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): There are no special terms attaching to the post of Government Cinematograph Adviser. The

    23
    officer in question is an established civil servant and is subject to normal service conditions.
    Mr. Day: Had this officer had any technical or practical experience of the business before his appointment?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I believe this officer is giving every satisfaction in his appointment; and he has been doing the work for some years.
    Mr. Day: Cannot the Minister answer my question? Is it not a fact that the previous officer in charge of cinematograph work for the Government was an officer of the fire department?
    Miss Wilkinson: In view of the very divergent views that are held, may I ask to whom this particular officer is giving satisfaction?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Government. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) did not raise the question of this officer's duties. If he wishes to do so, I can let him have information about them. I can say that in carrying out these duties the officer is giving every satisfaction.
    Mr. Day: Is it not a fact that he obtains a proportion of his salary from a percentage of the profits?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville indicated dissent.

    NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has yet been reached as to whether National Defence Contribution will be levied upon profits resulting from the business of estate agents; and as to what part of such business will be regarded as professional and non-taxable for this purpose?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As explained in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16th December last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge), the ultimate decision in cases of doubt whether any particular business is or is not within the charge or whether any part of the business can be regarded as non-taxable does not rest
    24
    with the Board of Inland Revenue who are the assessing authority, but is a matter for determination on appeal. No such determination has yet been given in the case of the business of estate agents, but, in the view of the Board, such a business would appear to be within the charge to the National Defence Contribution.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does that mean that all estate agents' profits under Schedule D will be liable to National Defence Contribution?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have given the views of the Department, but, as I pointed out, the matter may yet have to be determined by appeal, if there is any doubt. As I say, the Department do hold the view that they are liable, but the determination may rest with the Commissioners or with the Courts.

    BAKING INDUSTRY.
    Sir Assheton Pownallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the committees set up in England and Scotland to formulate schemes for the better organisation of the baking industry have yet reported?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. In view of these reports I have decided to publish a draft Special Order applying the Trade Boards Acts, and the necessary preliminary steps are now being taken. I should add that in Scotland there are grounds for hoping that it will be possible by voluntary agreements as to wages and conditions to limit the field for statutory rates.
    Mr. Banfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his very best to hurry this matter, so that no undue delay may occur before a beginning is made with this reform?
    Mr. Brown: There will be no undue delay, save in complying with the normal provisions relating to the giving of 40 days' notice, and consultations taking place, and the holding of an inquiry if there is any disagreement.

    INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary what was the cause of the accident

    25
    at Ebury Bridge Road, Victoria, on Tuesday, 21st December; how many men were killed; and whether the overhead cradle was defective?
    Sir S. Hoare: This accident, which I understand occurred on Monday, 20th December, was due to the breaking of a pole supporting a painters' cradle. One man was killed and another injured. The cradle does not appear to have been defective, but subsequent investigations indicated that the pole had deteriorated.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary how many workmen were injured in the demolition of the disused railway arches in East Ferry Road, Millwall, on Wednesday, 22nd December; whether he is aware that a workman was killed four weeks previously when an adjoining arch fell; and whether he can give the House further information on the subject?
    Sir S. Hoare: I understand that one man was injured on the date in question, being struck by a small piece of brickwork thrown from above, and that he was treated at hospital for a minor scalp injury but not detained there. No collapse of an arch occurred, as reported in certain newspapers. As regards the accident on 12th November, I would refer to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member on the 18th of that month.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the accident at the Apollo Cinema, Ardwick, Manchester; and how many workmen were injured?
    Sir S. Hoare: I presume the hon. Member refers to an accident on 20th December during the construction of this building, when a steel erector named Monks received fatal injuries. I understand that he walked along a board for shuttering which had been temporarily left on some joists by joiners who had gone to fetch tools. Monks, apparently, did not realise that the board was not fixed, and when he reached the end it tilted up and he fell to the ground. No other workman was injured.

    CLUBS BILL.
    Lieut.-Commander Tufnellasked the Home Secretary when the Government intend to introduce the promised Bill dealing with clubs; and whether
    26
    ample time will be allowed for the discussion of the proposals by those mainly interested before the Second Reading is taken?
    Sir S. Hoare: As regards the first part of the question, I am afraid that I can add nothing at the moment to my statements in answer to previous questions on this subject. I will certainly bear in mind the suggestion in the second part, and in this connection I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a question by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) on 11th November last.

    SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTIONS (HOLIDAY RESORTS).
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Home Secretary what further representations he has received from holiday resorts in regard to the Shops (Sunday Trading Restrictions) Act, 1936; and whether any steps are being taken to mitigate the serious inconvenience caused in holiday resorts by certain provisions of this Act?
    Sir S. Hoare: During the past two months I have received representations on this matter from certain organisations and from a few individual local authorities. These representations are being considered, but so far as the Government are concerned, I cannot hold out any immediate prospect of amending legislation on this controversial subject.
    Mr. Robinson: If the Home Secretary finds that there is a unanimous desire on the part of the local authorities concerned to have a change in the law, will he try to meet that case?
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Before the right hon. Gentlemen proceeds any further with this issue, is he willing to take into account the case of the assistants who will be employed under amending legislation by this House?
    Sir S. Hoare: I should certainly have to take into account all interests concerned.

    HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Minister of Labour the industries and the numbers of employés affected in agreements now completed for giving annual paid holidays for 1938; and whether he has yet

    27
    received the report of the committee which inquired into the question generally?
    Mr. R. Robinsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement on the present position of holidays with pay in industry; and whether the report of the committee on this subject has yet been received?
    Mr. E. Brown: A list of the industries in which collective agreements between organisations of employers and workpeople providing for holidays with pay known to my Department was published as part of the evidence taken before the Committee on Holidays with Pay on 27th April, 1937. I am sending my hon. Friends a list of similar agreements which have been reported since that date. I estimate that the number of workpeople now covered by collective agreements on this subject is about 2,750,000. The answer to the second part of both questions is in the negative.
    Mr. Lyons: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he expects to receive and to consider this report in the immediate future?
    Mr. Brown: I imagine that I shall receive the report at an early date.
    Mr. Thorne: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given relate to mutual agreements?
    Mr. Brown: They are collective agreements.
    Mr. Lyons: Has my right hon. Friend yet decided to publish the report?
    Mr. Brown: I must receive it first, of course.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Are the 2,750,000 people who are mentioned as having holidays with pay wage-earners?
    Mr. Brown: These are the wage-earners who are covered by the collective agreements recorded by my Department.

    UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Minister of Labour the balance standing to the credit of the Unemployment Fund as at 1st January, 1938?
    Mr. E. Brown: On 1st January, 1938, the total balance of the Unemployment Fund was about £62,200,000.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Minister point out to the Statutory Committee the urgent necessity of increasing unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Brown: The Statutory Committee have already met and received representations, and they will, in due course, make their report to the Minister, probably in about a fortnight's time.
    Mr. R. Robinsonasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the surplus in the Unemployment Fund, he will review the position of seasonal workers?
    Mr. Brown: As I informed my hon. Friend on 23rd December, I have brought his suggestion to the notice of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee whose duty it is to make recommendations as to the disposal of any surplus of the Unemployment Fund.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that seasonal workers are still very dissatisfied with their position in unemployment insurance, and, in view of the great surplus in the Fund, can the Minister not remove this small anomaly?
    Mr. Brown: I have no doubt that the Statutory Committee will receive evidence on all kinds of subjects and will give them the relative importance that seems due.
    Miss Rathbone: Will the Minister remember also that women workers get a very unfair deal?
    Mr. Brown: I believe that that point has already been brought to the notice of the Committee but not in quite those terms.

    WAGES.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Minister of Labour whether he will indicate the approximate upswing of wages for the year ended 31st December, 1937?
    Mr. E. Brown: In those industries for which statistics are regularly compiled, the changes in rates of wages reported to my Department during the year ended 31st December, 1937, are estimated to have resulted in a net increase of about £780,000 in the full-time weekly rates of

    29
    wages of over 5,100,000 workpeople. These statistics are exclusive of changes in the rates of wages of agricultural labourers, domestic servants, shop assistants, clerks and Government employés, and they relate, in the main, to changes collectively arranged between organised groups of employers and workpeople. It is estimated that, in the industries for which information is available, the average level of full-time weekly rates of wages rose by over 4 per cent. during this period. This is the largest increase recorded in any single year since 1920.
    Mr. Lyons: Is this increase in the upswing of wages a result of the policy of the National Government?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. and learned Friend will see a detailed account of this matter in a special article in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.
    Mr. T. Williams: Could the Minister publish side by side with his last answer the value of the upswing in prices during the same time?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will find in the same issue of the Gazette a very complete statement regarding the index figure of the cost of living.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the weekly amount per man that the increase represents?
    Mr. Brown: That can be worked out.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it 6d. a week?
    Mr. Brown: I would point out that that is by no means a complete statement. It refers to wage rates; total earnings must be much greater.
    Mr. Gallacher: Fourpence per week.
    Mr. Thurtle: Has the Minister any evidence that the working class now live in riotous extravagance as a result of the increases?

    COLLIERIES, SOUTH-WEST DURHAM (FLOODING).
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Labour whether the detailed survey of the problem of the inflow of water into the colliery workings from the River Gaunless, in South-West Durham, has been completed; and whether he will publish the report when received?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am informed that the report to which the hon. Member refers has been presented to the South-West Durham Reconstruction and Development Board. I cannot at present make any statement as to whether or not the report will be published.

    PALLION FACTORY SITE, SUNDERLAND.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour the price paid per acre for the Pallion site, Sunderland; whether the site is cleared ready for building purposes; and when does he anticipate operations will commence?
    Mr. E. Brown: It is anticipated that the cost of acquisition and development of the Pallion site, approximately 17 acres, will be about £16,000. The work of acquiring the site has been started, and the construction of the first factory is expected to begin in the course of the next two or three weeks. Negotiations for other factories are in progress.

    DEFENCE (FOOD STORAGE).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has any statement to make on food storage?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have no statement to make at the present time.
    Mr. Parker: When can we have a straight answer to a straight question on this subject?
    Mr. Sandys: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government have not yet reached a decision on the question of food storage?
    Sir T. Inskip: That depends upon what my hon. Friend means by "decision." I can assure him that there is no desire on the part of the Government to postpone decision as soon as it can be taken, but the storage of food is a matter that must take its place in relation to other plans and to a certain number of preparatory measures.
    Mr. De Chair: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the extension of the food production of this country?
    Sir Arthur Salter: Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the apparently inspired statement in the Press last week does not represent the view of the Government?
    Sir T. Inskip: I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers as an inspired statement.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not the whole position very unsatisfactory?
    Sir Archibald Sinclair: As the right hon. Gentleman told us last July that all the preparatory consideration had been given to the question and that it was ripe for decision then, can he explain why six months have elapsed and no decision has been taken?
    Sir A. Salter: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the article which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" towards the end of last week, and ask whether he can assure the House that when the Government are in a position to announce their decision he will see that the first communication comes to this House and is not in the form of a communication to the Press?
    Sir T. Inskip: I have not seen the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I can assure him that any such statement will most certainly be made to this House.
    Mr. Gallacher: Has the Minister seen in the "Daily Worker" that the Government—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Sandys: I beg to give notice that, in order to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to make a fuller statement on this subject which is arousing public concern, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment to-morrow.

    TELEVISION.
    Captain A. Evansasked the Postmaster-General what reasons he can assign for the public response to television not being up to the standard expected?
    The Postmaster - General (Major Try on): It has always been realised that the development of a television service would not be an easy matter. Television programmes pre costly to produce; the normal effective range of a television station is not much more than 30 miles;
    32
    and television receiving sets are necessarily more expensive than sound receiving sets. In spite of these difficulties considerable progress has been made during the first year of the television service; and a high degree of efficiency has now been reached both technically and on the programme side. Meantime the prices of receiving sets have been reduced and many types of sets are now on sale which are thoroughly reliable and extremely simple to manipulate. A Sunday television service is about to be introduced; the weekday hours are to be extended; and every effort is being made to provide programmes of an interesting and attractive type. In addition, I have decided, on the recommendation of the Television Advisory Committee, that the present technical standards of transmission from the Alexandra Palace station shall remain substantially unaltered for at least three years from January, 1938, and the public may therefore purchase television sets without any fear that they will become obsolete or require substantial alteration for a very considerable time to come. Great Britain was the first country to establish a public television service and it is still the only country in which television can be received in the home. I am confident that rapid progress will be made with the development of the service and that it will eventually become a normal adjunct of the sound broadcasting service.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is it proposed to take any steps to relieve the present cramped conditions in Alexandra Palace, which make it very difficult to give a satisfactory television service?
    Major Tryon: The whole service is being improved, as I think the hon. Member will see when he reads my answer.
    Mr. Thorne: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make arrangements for Members of this House to go to Broadcasting House to see television in progress?
    Major Tryon: I shall be very happy to convey that suggestion to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  POST OFFICE.

    PENNY POSTAGE.
    Captain A. Evansasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the

    33
    record profit made by the Post Office during 1937, he will consider the reintroduction of penny postage?
    Major Tryon: It is estimated that, on the basis of the existing traffic, the re-introduction of penny postage would result in an immediate reduction in revenue of over £7,500,000 for letters and nearly £1,000,000 for postcards—making a total of about £8,500,000. After making full allowance, based on past experience, for the probable increase in postal traffic in consequence of the cheaper rate, the net cost would be over £7,500,000. Much as I would like to reintroduce penny postage, I regret that the financial situation would not warrant the sacrifice of revenue involved.
    Mr. Macquisten: Are not these the very arguments that were adduced when Rowland Hill first proposed penny postage?
    Major Tryon: It has been suggested that, if we lowered the postage by ½d., there would be no loss of revenue and the Postmaster-General would earn eternal gratitude; but, as a matter of fact, when we reduced the postage by ½d. in 1922, the Chancellor of the Exchequer lost several million pounds and the Postmaster-General lost his seat.

    CHRISTMAS TRAFFIC (SORTERS).
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that temporary sorters employed during the period of the Christmas pressure, work in many cases for 12-hour shifts; and whether arrangements can be made for the employment of a larger number of sorters for shorter shifts?
    Major Tryon: Inquiry in London and in certain large provincial towns shows that the arrangement whereby temporary staff worked as much as 12 hours daily operated at the offices concerned only for a few days at the height of the recent Christmas pressure period. Any further appreciable increase in the number of officers employed would have involved considerable difficulties of recruitment, training and accommodation. We took on an exceptionally large number of extra men this Christmas, and I am glad to have this opportunity of thanking the permanent and temporary staff for the very successful way in which they handled the largest Christmas traffic we have ever known.

    UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS.
    Mr. Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can now state the number of certificated teachers who completed their training in 1937 who have not found employment in public elementary schools; how many of them have been able to secure other teaching posts; and how many are still unemployed?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Of the 6,854 students who left training colleges and training departments in 1937, 4,853 were notified to the Board, as at 31st December last, as having obtained posts in public elementary schools, and, according to returns received from the colleges and departments, 905 obtained other teaching posts. Of the remainder, 710 who were known to have been seeking employment as teachers were reported as having failed to obtain posts.
    Mr. Harvey: Has not the Board a special responsibility for these teachers, who have been trained at the expense of the Government and for whom there is only a limited number of places?
    Mr. Lindsay: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that the position is very much better than it was last year, and very much better still than the year before; and next year I think, with the raising of the school-leaving age, we ought to be able to reduce the unemployment to a minimum.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately how many of the teachers who have not secured appointments are in debt to the Education authorities in respect of amounts borrowed by them during their period at college?
    Mr. Lindsay: I could not say without notice.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Would not the number of unemployed teachers be reduced if the size of the classes were also reduced?
    Mr. Lindsay: That is much more a question of buildings than of teachers.
    Mr. Bevan: Ought not new buildings to be constructed?
    Mr. Lindsay: They are going up as fast as possible.
    Mr. Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of certificated teachers who completed their training in 1935 and 1936, respectively, who have not secured teaching work?
    Mr. Lindsay: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers of students who left training colleges and training departments in 1935 and 1936 who were reported as having failed to obtain teaching posts by 31st December in the year following the completion of their training were as follow:

    Year of leaving.

    Number who left.

    Students who were known to be seeking teaching posts and who had failed to obtain them within 18 months.

    1935

    7,269

    376

    1936

    6,546

    291

    Later information is not available.

    CHINA AND JAPAN.
    Mr. Morgan Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the situation in China?
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in the Far East?
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Since the end of last year the Japanese armies have made some advance northward from Nanking towards Suchow, and have also occupied Tsingtao and Taian in Shantung in an advance southward.
    The Chinese Government has been reconstituted and the civil departments have moved to a number of towns further from the area of hostilities.
    It is understood that Japanese terms of peace were communicated in December to General Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese Government requested elucidation of certain points, but the Japanese Government
    36
    appear to have returned no reply to this request. Later, in January, the Japanese Government announced that they would "cease to deal with the Government of General Chiang Kai-Shek and looked forward to the establishment of a new Chinese régime." A Provisional Government claiming to be one for the whole of China has been set up in North China, but has not been formally recognised by the Japanese or any other Government. This Provisional Government has issued a decree modifying for North China the tariff schedule of the Chinese Maritime Customs in a sense favourable to Japanese imports. His Majesty's Government have protested against this action, which is contrary to treaty stipulations that there shall be a uniform tariff for all China.
    The claims put forward in Shanghai tending towards a larger Japanese share in the administration of the International Settlement at Shanghai are still under consideration by the Shanghai Municipal Council, who are keeping in touch with the Governments concerned.
    His Majesty's Government have had on various occasions to protest to the Japanese Government against action taken to the prejudice of British persons and property. While satisfaction has been obtained in some cases, others are outstanding and His Majesty's Government will continue to press for a satisfactory settlement. Other countries with interests in the Far East, notably the United States, have experienced similar difficulties and have had to take similar action for the protection of their nationals and interests. In the difficult conditions at present prevailing in the Far East, His Majesty's Government will continue to do their utmost for the protection of British interests, and for the promotion of international co-operation. They are in close and constant touch with other Governments principally interested, with whom they are glad to find a complete identity of view.
    Mr. Morgan Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what satisfaction the Japanese Government have given other than by way of apologies?
    Mr. Eden: In certain cases, I understand, payment has been made—in respect, for instance, of the soldiers who were killed at Shanghai.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Are the Government taking any action to give effect to the resolution of the League of Nations that China's fellow members of the League of Nations ought to give her help in the invasion of her territory?
    Mr. Eden: I do not think I could be expected to answer that question without notice; and, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, I am not by any means convinced that in present circumstances a public statement of that character would be advisable.
    Mr. Silverman: Is there any precedent for the refusal of a Government to recognise the lawfully constituted Government of another country with which it is formally and technically at peace?
    Mr. A. Henderson: Have the negotiations with respect to the Chinese Maritime Customs been terminated?
    Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Gentleman has a question on that subject on the Paper, but I am afraid it will not be reached.
    Mr. Mander: Can the Foreign Secretary say what action has been taken with reference to the Japanese censorship of British journalists in Shanghai?
    Mr. Eden: Action has been taken; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question down.

    DUMBRECK COLLIERY ACCIDENT.
    Mr. Johnston(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any statement to make regarding the fire which occurred at Dumbreck No. 1 Colliery, Stirlingshire.
    Captain Crookshank: It is with deep regret that I have to inform the House that on Sunday last nine men lost their lives as the result of a fire in the main haulage road in the Kilsyth Coking Coal Section at Dumbreck Colliery. Nine brushers and firemen were at work in this section, over a mile from the pit bottom. One of the brushers arrived at the pit bottom from the section soon after midday, and on investigation a serious fire was discovered in the main haulage road about 1,000 yards from the pit bottom. The fire was fought vigorously and finally extinguished soon after 3 o'clock on Monday morning. Meantime, rescue
    38
    teams in breathing apparatus made repeated attempts to get into the section at the return airway, which were unsuccessful till late in the evening. Between half-past nine on Sunday night and 3 o'clock on Monday morning they recovered in turn the bodies of the nine men, who had been killed. Full investigation by His Majesty's Inspectors is now proceeding.
    The House will wish me to express our deep sympathy with the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in this tragic accident.

    STEAMSHIP "ENDYMION" (TORPEDOING).
    Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information regarding the reported sinking of the British steamer "Endymion" by a Spanish insurgent submarine?
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): Yes, Sir. We have received a report to the effect that the British steamship "Endymion" was sunk by a torpedo yesterday morning in a position 16 miles south of Cape Tinoso. Ten persons, including one woman, were drowned, and four survivors are reported to have reached Cartagena. The reported position in which the vessel was sunk is approximately 20 miles from the nearest of the routes which have been recommended to shipping as a result of the Nyon arrangement, and she did not carry wireless. As soon as information reached the naval authorities, immediate steps were taken to despatch the destroyers which were then patrolling that area to the scene of the attack.
    Mr. Attlee: Is any action going to be taken in regard to this attack on a British vessel on the high seas?
    Mr. Cooper: The question is receiving the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government, and no doubt action will be taken and a statement made.
    Mr. Attlee: Is it not usual to express regret at the loss of British lives?
    Mr. Cooper: It is perhaps usual to express regret, and I am sorry I omitted it, but I think that that regret goes almost without being expressed.
    Miss Wilkinson: Not from you.
    Mr. David Grenfell: Is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman in his official position to call attention to the death of 10 British subjects while engaged on their legal duties, and does it not warrant a statement from him of condemnation of those who are guilty of the crime?
    Mr. Cooper: Certainly, I think the whole House will agree with me in expressing our condemnation of this attack by a pirate.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: Has there been any diminution in the British naval strength engaged in patrol work during the last eight weeks, and, if so, is the right hon. Gentleman now, in view of this further outrage, satisfied that the naval strength is sufficient for the protection of British ships?
    Mr. Cooper: It was generally agreed between the Nyon Powers at the end of the year to reduce the amount of ships patrolling, but we are taking steps to increase the patrol at once.
    Sir Arnold Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who owns the ship, how long it has been on the British register, and in what circumstances wireless was not fitted in accordance with British law?
    Mr. Cooper: The ship belongs to a firm which has been in business for many years. It was not, I think, previously trading in Spanish waters. It was on this occasion carrying a cargo of coal to Cartagena. There is no law which insists on British ships of this tonnage carrying wireless.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the Government take steps to see that proper compensation is paid to the dependants of the seamen who lost their lives, and will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that British seamen will be protected on the high seas when engaged in ordinary commercial pursuits?
    Mr. Cooper: The payment of compensation does not affect my Department, but I have no doubt steps will be taken to see that they are properly compensated. With regard to the protection of British lives, I assure the hon. Member that every possible step is taken. It is quite impossible to have a destroyer everywhere at the same time. On this occasion a
    40
    destroyer was only 38 miles away, and had the ship been provided with wireless and had it followed the course recommended, help might have been given.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman is now placing the responsibility on the captain of the vessel concerned?
    Mr. Cooper: No, Sir—solely on those who are guilty of this crime.
    Mr. Gallacher: Are the Minister and his supporters trying to find excuses for Franco for the murder of British seamen?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a form of supplementary question that I can allow.
    Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. In view of the grave issues involved in this question and the urgency of it, will you, Mr. Speaker, not permit a few more supplementary questions?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot permit a debate.
    Mr. Gallacher: It needs debate.
    Mr. Thurtle: With great respect, I suggest that this is an extraordinarily important matter and that we might spend a few more minutes on it.
    Commander Marsden: In view of that, Mr. Speaker, may I ask one more supplementary question?
    Mr. Alexander: I beg to give notice that, in view of the nature of the answers, we shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    FOREIGN ISSUES.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that loans to foreign countries which have been issued in London and quoted on the London Stock Exchange are primarily made with the object of encouraging the export of British manufactured goods, he can say whether it is now his intention to relax the restrictions on foreign borrowing of this nature?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): With Mr. Speaker's permission, I propose to make a more general statement, at the end of questions today, with regard to our policy on foreign lending. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to await that statement, which will cover this question.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount invested in foreign government bonds in London and quoted on the London Stock Exchange; will he give a schedule of the foreign countries in which these investments have been effected, and the amounts; and will he state which of the investments in the schedule have paid their interest up to date and those which are in default, and from what date?
    Sir J. Simon: To give a full and authoritative reply to my hon. Friend's question would involve considerable labour, but I think that if my hon. Friend will refer to the Stock Exchange Year Book and similar publications he will find there the informaion which he requires.
    At the end of Questions—
    Sir J. Simon: In view of the present condition of our exchanges, I have come to certain decisions on the subject of our policy on foreign lending, and I welcome the opportunity of communicating them to the House. As I have already informed the House, I do not consider that the time has come when consents in respect of foreign issues, as defined under the Foreign Transactions Advisory Committee's terms of reference, can be given indiscriminately, and I refer in particular to those on behalf of foreign governments, foreign local or public authorities, or state-controlled organisations. Applications of this kind will continue to be considered on their merits, along the lines laid down in the Committee's terms of reference and with regard to the general policy of His Majesty's Government. Greater latitude will, however, be allowed until further notice in respect of applications which do not fall within the class which I have mentioned. I refer particularly

    (a) to the raising of new money in this market on a long term basis on behalf of British borrowers, in which term I include borrowers in any part of the Empire, for the purpose of acquiring assets or developing enterprise in foreign countries; and

    (b) to transactions involving large blocks of foreign-owned securities which were the subject of my predecessor's letter of 12th June, 1933, to the Chairman of the Stock Exchange Committee.

    Applications should still be made to the Foreign Transactions Advisory Committee in respect of such proposals, not only because the Treasury will continue to avail itself of the advice so tendered, but
    42
    because it is essential that we should know what is going on. Such applications will, however, in general receive the sympathetic consideration of the Committee, though I do not, of course, say that in particular cases there may not be reasons of public policy which would lead to their rejection.
    What I have just said applies, of course, to long-term lending, and illustrates the desire of His Majesty's Government to encourage a suitable expansion of international capital transactions. I should add that foreign short-term lending of a non-commercial character involves other considerations, and raises special difficulties which render it generally undesirable.
    I must take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of His Majesty's Government to the Foreign Transactions Advisory Committee for the valuable services which they have rendered and will continue to render. I am glad to be able to state to the House that the modification in our policy on foreign lending which I have just announced has the full approval of the Committee. The work of the Committee could not have been, and could not be, fully effective were it not for the helpful spirit, which I wish to acknowledge, of the financial community in responding to the requests which it is found necessary to make to them from time to time.
    Mr. De la Bère: Instead of lending money abroad, why do you not lend it to agriculture at home?
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: This is a very important announcement, and it is quite impossible for anyone in this House to express an opinion on it on the spur of the moment. As far as I understand, there are two separate changes which are involved. The first is the relaxation on the prohibition of money to be lent for the purpose of encouraging British enterprise abroad, which, of course, would involve our exports from this country. The second applies, under both (a) and (b), to the purchase of foreign assets. It is in regard to the second that I want to ask two questions. In the first place, what assurance can be given that the indirect effect of this purchase of foreign assets will not be to place money in the hands of those Governments which are re-arming to the disadvantage of this

    43
    country? The second question is this: Does he not consider that this part, at any rate, of his proposal is very closely related to the proposals of M. van Zeeland, and would it not be better to await the decision of the Government on that larger issue before making this very significant change?
    Sir J. Simon: With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I do agree that the announcement I have made is along the lines of one of the suggestions made by M. van Zeeland, and as such I hope it may be largely welcomed. As regards the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question about this very technical matter of buying blocks of foreign securities, I shall, of course, carefully study the point that he makes, but at the same time I think he will observe that the whole matter is safeguarded by the necessity of an application to the Kennet Committee. Apart from that, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is very difficult to make useful comments on a mere announcement.
    Mr. Attlee: Is it quite clear that it is not the intention of the Government to encourage lending to the Powers that are engaged in active aggression?
    Sir J. Simon: Clearly not. I took the precaution of providing the right hon. Gentleman with a copy of my statement before questions began, and if he has time to study it he will see quite plainly that the exact opposite is the intention.
    Mr. Attlee: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of his statement, and it is just because that point is not quite clear that I ask the supplementary question.
    Mr. Petherick: Is it not usually possible to sell any amount of goods abroad if the British investor is prepared to pay for it in the shape of long-term loans? In the last few years has not the restriction on foreign lending been one of the great causes of our recovery, and will the right hon. Gentleman insist on a very rigid application of the new rules, so that as much as possible of the amount of money available is spent in this country and in the Empire?
    Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the committee referred to would very largely
    44
    take into consideration economic matters, but are there not involved in this question political considerations on which the House ought to have safeguards?
    Sir J. Simon: There are certainly both economic and political issues involved in considering this very difficult and complicated question. On the technical and financial side we have been very greatly served by the work done by the Kennet Committee. That does not in the least discharge the Government from its own responsibility, and, as I have indicated, the Government continues to keep control over every one of these questions.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether under this scheme he is now allowing British capitalists to invest their money in adventure in Abyssinia on long-term loans, and whether that will not be assisting the dictatorship countries?
    Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. I am surprised that my right hon. and gallant Friend should be so suspicious of the whole idea. The general proposal is to enlarge foreign trade, but the circumstances of individual cases to be dealt with are entirely reserved.
    Mr. Boothby: Arising out of the various replies, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that his statement does not mean that the Government will not exercise some discrimination as between one country and another in respect of both parts of the proposal?
    Sir J. Simon: If my hon. Friend will look at what I have read he will find that that is covered. The Government remain responsible for deciding whether in individual cases the transaction is one which on general grounds can be approved. No one is trying to get away from that. It is an attempt—a useful attempt I hope—to enlarge the possibilities of foreign trade.
    Mr. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman says that this is along the lines of the van Zeeland Report, how does he reconcile that statement with the statement made by the Prime Minister that before the van Zeeland Report can be put into operation other governments must be consulted?
    Sir J. Simon: I will explain it to the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly the case

    45
    that there must be mature consideration of the report. But the circumstance that the report makes a particular suggestion which has commended itself for some little time to His Majesty's Government is not any reason why we should not carry it out now.
    Mr. Speaker rose—
    Mr. Maclean: I wish to put a supplementary question.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not speak while I am standing.
    Mr. Maclean: I wish to put a further supplementary question.
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot turn all these questions into debates. It is quite out of order for the House to carry on in this way. This is not the time for a debate on the subject.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a question is of a much more important character, in showing the policy of the Government, than many of the other questions, and since he has delayed his reply to the question on the Order Paper until the finish of Question Time, does it not devolve upon the House to consider his statement as a much more important matter than that raised by any other question on the Paper? Because of that should not additional time be given to put questions to the Government about their change of policy? I now want to ask my question. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: The order of the questions does not arise. The fact that this question was answered at the end of Question
    Time does not add to the importance of the question. We cannot have debates at Question Time.
    Mr. Maclean: This is a declaration of policy on the part of the Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: As to the business for today, for what purpose does the Prime Minister intend to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule? Is it intended to ask the House to sit very late? In particular, I ask that the Blind Persons Bill should not be taken at an extremely late hour.
The Prime Minister: After the consideration of the proposed new Standing Order, which is on the Paper, it is desired to obtain the first three Orders and the two Import Duties Orders. The Motion for suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule is purely precautionary. I think that the business I have outlined can be obtained without asking the House to sit late.
Mr. Attlee: It is always difficult to judge beforehand how things will go. I hope that the Blind Persons Bill will not come on for consideration very late.
The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any reason to anticipate that we shall reach the Blind Persons Bill late. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we have already postponed that Bill.
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, 278; Noes, 116.

Division No. 77.]

AYES.

[4.15 p.m.

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

Bernays, R. H.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Blair, Sir R.

Cartland, J. R. H.

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

Blaker, Sir R.

Carver, Major W. H.

Apsley, Lord

Boothby, R. J. G.

Cary, R. A.

Aske, Sir R. w.

Bossom, A. C.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Assheton, R.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

Boyce, H. Leslie

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

Bracken, B.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Brass, Sir W.

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

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Channon, H.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

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

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Balniel, Lord

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

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

Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Bull, B. B.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Baxter, A. Beverley

Bullock, Capt. M.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Burghley, Lord

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Colfox, Major W. P.

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

Burton, Col. H. W.

Colman, N. C. D.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Butcher, H. W.

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

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Rankin, Sir R.

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

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

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

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

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

Hulbert, N. J.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

Hume, Sir G. H.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Hunter, T.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Craven-Ellis, W.

Hutchinson, G. C.

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

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

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Crooke, Sir J. S.

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Cross, R. H.

Keeling, E. H

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Crossley, A. C.

Kerr, Colonel C I. (Montrose)

Rowlands, G.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Russell, Sir Alexander

Davidson, Viscountess

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

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Salmon, Sir I.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Salt, E. W.

Dawson, Sir P.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Samuel, M. R. A.

De Chair, S. S.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

De la Bère, R.

Lees-Jones, J.

Sandys, E. D.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Leigh, Sir J.

Savery, Sir Servington

Denville, Alfred

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Scott. Lord William

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Levy, T.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Doland G. F.

Lewis, O.

Shaw. Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

Lindsay, K. M.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Drewe, C.

Lipson, D. L.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Lloyd, G. W.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Loftus, P. C.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Duggan, H. J.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Smithers, Sir W.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Lyons, A. M.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Dunglass, Lord

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

MaoDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

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

Ellis, Sir G.

Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Ellision, Capt. G. S.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Storey, S.

Emmott. C. E. G. C.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

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

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Macquisten, F. A.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Errington, E.

Magnay, T.

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

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Maitland, A.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

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

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Everard, W. L.

Marsden, Commander A.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Fildes, Sir H.

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

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Thomas, J. P. L.

Furness, S. N.

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

Touche, G. C.

Gledhill, G.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Grant-Ferris, R.

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

Turton, R. H.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

Wakefield, W. W.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Morgan, R. H.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

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

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

Grimston, R. V.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Warrender, Sir V.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Wayland, Sir W. A

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Hambro, A. V.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Hannah, I. C.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

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

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

Harvey, Sir G.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

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

Patrick, C. M.

Windsor-dive, Lieul.-Colonel G.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Peake, O.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Womersley. Sir W. J.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Petherick, M.

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Hepworth, J.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Wragg, H.

Higgs, W. F.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Procter, Major H. A.

Holmes, J. S.

Radford, E. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Bellenger, F. J.

Cluse, W. S.

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

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Cocks, F. S.

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

Benton, G.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Ammon, C. G.

Bevan, A.

Daggar, G.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Buchanan, G.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Banfield, J. W.

Burke, W. A.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Barnes, A. J.

Cape, T.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Barr, J.

Chater, D.

Day, H.

48

49

Dobbie, W.

Lawson, J. J.

Shinwell, E.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Leach, W.

Silkin, L.

Ede, J. C.

Leonard, W.

Silverman, S. S.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Leslie, J. R.

Simpson, F. B.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Logan, D. G.

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

Foot, D. M.

Lunn, W.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Frankel, D.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Gallacher, W.

McGhee, H. G.

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

Gardner, B. W.

McGovern, J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Maclean, N.

Sorensen, R. W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Stephen, C.

Grenfell, D. R.

Mander, G. le M.

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

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

Mathers, G.

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

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Maxton, J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

Messer, F.

Thorne, W.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Milner, Major J.

Thurtle, E.

Hardie, Agnes

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

Tinker, J. J.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Muff, G.

Tomlinson, G.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Naylor, T. E.

Walkden, A. G.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Walker, J.

Jagger, J.

Oliver, G. H.

Watkins, F. C.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Parker, J.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

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

Westwood, J.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Pritt, D. N.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Ridley, G.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Kelly, W. T.

Ritson, J.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Kirkwood, D.

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Lathan, G.

Sexton, T. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves,

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
George Tomlinson, Esquire, for the County of Lancaster (Farnworth Division).
BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  IMPORTATIONS FROM OVERSEAS.
  Sir Arnold Wilson: I beg to give notice that To-morrow, I shall call attention to Importations from Overseas, and move a Resolution.
  BOMBING OF CIVILIANS IN WAR TIME.
  Mr. Morgan Jones: I beg to give notice that To-morrow, I shall call attention to the Bombing of Civilians in War Time, and move a Resolution.
  STORAGE OF FOOD IN WAR TIME.
  Mr. Parker: I beg to give notice that To-morrow week, I shall call attention to the Storage of Food in War Time, and move a Resolution.
  NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.
  Captain Harold Balfour: I beg to give notice that To-morrow week, I shall call attention to National and Local Government Expenditure, and move a Resolution.
  CONDITIONS IN FAR EAST.
  Mr. Hannah: I beg to give notice that To-morrow, I shall call attention to Conditions in the Far East, and move a Resolution.
  CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD.
  Mr. A. Hills: I beg to give notice that To-morrow week, I shall call attention to the Central Agricultural Wages Board, and move a Resolution.
  INTERNATIONAL INJUSTICES.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I beg to give notice that To-morrow week, I shall call attention to Methods of Removing International Injustices by Peaceful Change, and move a Resolution.
  ROAD SYSTEM.
  Mr. Hulbert: I beg to give notice that To-morrow week, I shall call attention to the Road System of this country, and move a Resolution.
  CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

MONEY BILLS (PROCEDURE).
4.27 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move:
"That a Bill (other than a Bill which is required to originate in Committee of Ways and Means) the main object of which is the creation of a public charge may either be presented, or brought in upon an Order of the House, by a Minister of the Crown, and, in the case of a Bill so presented or brought in, the creation of the charge shall not require to be authorised by a Committee of the whole House until the Bill has been read a Second time, and after the charge has been so authorised the Bill shall be proceeded with in the same manner as a Bill which involves a charge that is subsidiary to its main purpose."
Hon. Members may recollect that, at the beginning of November last year, I made a statement to the House about the action which the Government proposed to take with reference to the Report of the Select Committee, which was appointed to consider the procedure upon certain Financial Measures, and I said then that the Government proposed to accept the second recommendation of the Select Committee—the recommendation which was concerned with the procedure upon Bills other than those originating in Committee of Ways and Means, of which the main purpose was the expenditure of public money. The recommendation of the Committee was for a change in the existing practice. Hon. Members are familiar with the fact that, in the case of Bills of this character, under present practice, the Money Resolution precedes the Second Reading of the Bill. The recommendation of the Committee is that in future the Financial Resolution may be taken after the Second Reading of the Bill, and in that case they suggest that the procedure should be assimilated with that which is followed now in the case of Bills containing provisions for the expenditure of public money, but in which these provisions are subsidiary to the main purpose of the Bill.
What are the reasons given by the Committee for their recommendation? They are two. First of all, they are of the opinion that a change would be justified on its merits. They point out that the distinction between these two classes of Bills—the ones which are mainly concerned with public expenditure and the ones in which public expenditure is only
68
the subsidiary purpose—is only technical in character, and that, in fact, sometimes it is rather difficult to say into which category a Bill falls. Moreover, they take the view that the present practice tends to lead to a waste of time, which is occasioned by duplication of debates, one debate taking place upon the Committee stage of the Money Resolution and another debate, going over the same ground, when we come to discuss the Second Reading of the subsequent Bill. That was their first reason.
The second reason was that they considered that this change in practice was the natural consequence of the first recommendation they had made. The first recommendation was, in effect, that the House should pass a Declaratory Resolution, the effect of which would be to lay it down that Financial Resolutions in future must be on rather wider lines than they had hitherto been, so as to allow of more discussion on the subsequent stages of the Bill. Obviously, if hon. Members wished to form an opinion as to whether a particular financial resolution was or was not in accordance with the terms of that Declaratory Resolution, they would not only wish to see the Financial Resolution but also the Bill, otherwise they would not be able to say whether it carried out the spirit of the recommendation.
Hon. Members will recollect that the Government decided not to accept the first recommendation of the Committee, and they have put forward an alternative procedure, which is intended to have the same effect. They have given written instructions to all the Departments and to the Parliamentary Counsels' Office. Really, the same reason for the change in the Standing Order which I am about to move exists in connection with the procedure adopted by the Government in the same way as if they had accepted the Declaratory Resolution. If the House wants to form an opinion as to whether any particular Resolution is in accordance with the instruction given by the Government they, again, will want to see the Bill in order that they may compare its terms with those of the Financial Resolution. Those are the reasons given by the Committee for their recommendation. As I have said, the Government accept the recommendation and have put down the Motion which I now move.

69
In their report the Committee set out a draft of the amended Standing Order which they were suggesting. We have followed their draft very closely but have amended it in two respects, both of which are designed to make more clear the intention of the Motion. I would point out the two alterations. First, we have inserted in the third line of the Order the words:
"or brought in upon an Order of the House,"
so as to cover both kinds of Bills, that is, Bills presented in the ordinary way or Bills brought in by a Minister upon an Order of the House. Secondly, we have inserted words in the beginning of the fourth line:
"in the case of a Bill so presented or brought in, the creation of the charge shall not require to be authorised by a Committee of the Whole House until the Bill has been read a Second time."
These actual words were not in the draft suggested by the Committee, but I think the House will see that it is better to have them in so as to make perfectly clear what the intention of the Order is.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more except to allude to three other points. First, a question was raised last November by an hon. Member as to whether under the new procedure in regard to one of these Money Bills when the Financial Resolution comes after the Second Reading, the Clauses will still be in italics. I understand that they will still be in italics, except where it would be necessary to put nearly all the Clauses into italics, in which case it might be desirable to adopt some other method of marking the distinction between these Clauses and other Clauses. That is a matter which will require Mr. Speaker's approval. I think we may take it that the Clerks at the Table will see that whatever is done is done in a manner which will be most convenient for the purposes of the House.
Another point is that, although the ordinary normal practice under this Standing Order, if it is adopted, will be that the Financial Resolution will follow the Second Reading of the Bill, the right of the Government of the day to retain the present procedure in any particular instance is left unimpaired. It is a permissive and not a mandatory Order. On that, I do not anticipate that the procedure will be other than that contemplated
70
by the Order, except in very special circumstances where there is some special reason, and it is necessary to have the Financial Resolution first.
One final point. Since the procedure under this Order in the case of these Bills will be assimilated to that followed in the case of Bills where the expenditure of public money is only a subsidiary purpose, there is consequently another alteration in procedure, namely, that since the Money Bill will not be brought in on a Money Resolution, it will be possible in future to take more than one stage of the Bill on the same day. At present only one stage can be taken on one day, and the next stage has to be taken on a different day. Under this revised procedure it will be possible to take more than one stage on one day; but that does not mean that you can proceed in Committee any further than such Clauses as do not entail the passing of the Financial Resolution to vitalise them so that they can be discussed.
4.38 p.m.
Mr. Lees-Smith: As the Prime Minister has explained, this Standing Order is the second main recommendation of the Select Committee which was set up last year to inquire into the whole question of whether our Financial Resolutions could be framed in a less restricted form. The Committee were instructed to confine themselves within the principles of Standing Order 63, principles which my friends and myself accept. The difficulty has arisen that as under these principles the framing of these Resolutions is in the hands of the Government, it is open to them, and they have in fact to decide on what subject the House shall be allowed to vote. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that this power had from time to time shown itself liable to abuse.
Looking back, I think that the time when this change in attitude took place was when the actual framing of these Financial Resolutions was taken out of the hands of the Public Bill Office of this House and handed over to the Treasury. The Public Bill Office is the servant of this House, and looks at matters from the point of view of Members of the House, but when these subjects are handed over to the Civil Service, the civil servant regards it as his duty to enable the Minister to get his Bills through as easily as possible, and he is not

71
specially deputed to consider what may be the final result if Parliamentary discussion gradually becomes atrophied.
The Prime Minister has stated the difference between the recommendation of the Select Committee and the actual steps which the Government have taken. The Committee recommended a formula not unlike that which the Government have adopted, and they recommended that it should be embodied in a Declaratory Resolution. The effect of that would have been that it would have been open to any Member of the House to raise a point of Order with Mr. Speaker as to whether the Financial Resolution was or was not within the scope of the Declaratory Resolution, and it would have been an obligation upon Mr. Speaker to give a ruling. The reason that the Government have adopted a different procedure is based upon the Memorandum which Mr. Speaker wrote for the Select Committee. That Memorandum contained one or two principles of such importance that I think it is worth while to spend a few minutes in reminding the House what they were.
I have been looking through some discussions which took place about 40 years ago when this kind of question was very much discussed in the House, certainly much more than now. In those days Select Committees laid down one very firm principle which they warned the House never to forget, and that is the great danger which might arise if Mr. Speaker was compelled to give decisions on matters which aroused strong party feeling. For some years we have, I think, rather abandoned that doctrine. For some years there has been a general idea expressed in these words: "Here is a difficulty; leave it to the Speaker to decide." More and more decisions of this sort have been put into his hands, such as the acceptance of the Closure, the acceptance of dilatory Motions for the Adjournment, and the certification of Money Bills under the Parliament Act. As a result, the Memorandum of Mr. Speaker is a public document of great importance, and I am bound to say that it rather reinforces certain views that I expressed—I think the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) also made certain suggestions—when we discussed this question some months ago.
I doubt whether the House fully realises how delicate the position of the Speaker
72
in this House is becoming. He depends on the good will of the House, and he depends certainly upon the good will of the Opposition, because undoubtedly if there were a strong feeling against the Speaker in any section of the House, his position would become almost impossible. I remember that in the case of Mr. Whitley when he gave a decision on a very exciting issue, five Privy Councillors, headed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) put a Motion of criticism on the Order Paper. That Motion could not be allowed to remain there, and Mr. Whitley had to insist that it should be discussed. There was a discussion, and I know that it had a great effect on his mind. Obviously, that is not the kind of thing that could be repeated very often, otherwise his position would not have been possible. For that reason the Select Committee, from that point of view alone, has been of great importance. I would point out, however, that the method of the Government, if adopted, is really a new technique. What they have done is to give instructions to the Treasury. If a particular issue arises, Mr. Speaker can give only a personal opinion, and he is at liberty to say that it is a matter on which he has no authority. But this is a new technique, because these instructions to the Treasury, debated in the House, are a method of attaching to them an importance almost comparable to the importance attaching to a Declaratory Resolution.
Apart from that, this new Standing Order deals in another way with the main difficulty which confronted the Select Committee. One of the difficulties which arises now is due to the fact that the Minister draws up the Financial Resolution before there has been any Second Reading Debate and, therefore, before he knows the special points to which various sections of the House attach particular interest and the special points upon which they really want to take a Division. If he finds that he has not fully estimated the opinion of certain sections of the House all he can do is to withdraw the Financial Resolution and introduce a new one: a clumsy procedure upon which he does not willingly desire to embark. But if there is a discussion on the Second Reading before the Financial Resolution is put down, the Minister will know what are the particular proposals upon which hon. Members would like to divide, and

73
if he then decides to draft the Financial Resolution so as to prevent them dividing, he does it with his eyes open. My impression is that this will lead to greater elasticity because most Ministers want to avoid a row in the House. If hon. Members will cast their minds back to the last six occasions on which there has been a row or something nearly amounting to a row, they will find that in every case it was not upon a point of principle, but on a point of procedure; it was because the Opposition, consisting sometimes of the party opposite and sometimes of my own party, thought that the Rules had been twisted unfairly to prevent them debating or dividing on points upon which they desired to express their views.
The other reason is one which led the Select Committee of 1932 to adopt this proposal, and it seemed to me to be so full of common sense that I was surprised the House did not adopt it at the time. The position at present is this. The Second Reading of a Bill is regarded as a full-dress discussion on broad principles upon which we are entitled, in the case of a Bill of importance, to a full day's debate. When you get the Financial Resolution first you get a Second Reading debate then, and you take a full day; you must have a full day because it is the first discussion then. When the Second Reading of the Bill comes on there must be a full day for that also, and the result is that the debate is spoilt because it is a duplication of one that has already taken place. But if the Second Reading has been taken and then the Financial Resolution comes on, it will clearly be a secondary debate to that of the Second Reading debate, and there will be many cases in which the Opposition will say that as we have had a Second Reading debate half a day is enough for the Financial Resolution, and ask for the time to be used for something else. For these various reasons my friends and I will support the new Standing Order.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. Dingle Foot: The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was a member of the Select Committee whose recommendations we are now considering. As I had not the honour of sitting on that Committee I should like to say that hon. Members of the House are much indebted to the members of the Select Committee and also to those who
74
appeared as witnesses before it. It is impossible to read the Minutes of Evidence without appreciating the tremendous amount of care and industry which must have been given to the preparation of the various memoranda which were laid before it. As far as hon. Members on these benches are concerned we shall support the Motion of the Prime Minister, because so far as it goes—I emphasise the words "so far as it goes"—it represents an improvement in our procedure. It represents an improvement, we think, for two reasons. In the first place, it will enable the Government in framing a Money Resolution to take into account views which have already been expressed in the House on Second Reading, and, in the second place, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, and as the Select Committee of 1932 concluded, it should, on some occasions result in avoiding a duplication of debate. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, under our present procedure it does not infrequently happen that a discussion on a Money Resolution tends to become a kind of dress rehearsal to the debate on Second Reading, and this change we hope will result in a considerable saving of the time of the House.
But I do not want it to be supposed that we are entirely satisfied with this alteration in the Rules of Procedure, or that we regard it as sufficient in itself to meet the grievances which have been so often expressed in the House during the last three years. The events which led up to the appointment of the Select Committee are fresh in our minds. We can recall the Debate on the Money Resolution on the two Special Areas Bills in 1934, the Money Resolution on the Tithe Bill, and on the Motion last year to repeal Standing Order 69. On those occasions the view was expressed, not only on this side of the House but in all quarters of the House, that the House was not being fairly treated by the Government and the Departments, and that Standing Order 69 was being used in such a way as to deprive hon. Members of legitimate opportunities of moving Amendments to Government legislation. I think this point should be made. It is quite clear that the Select Committee considers that the complaints which were made on those occasions were justified. Let me quote one passage from paragraph 10 on Page 9:

75
"Allowing, then, that it is proper for the House to exercise some measure of control over the financial proposals initiated by the Crown, it remains for your Committee to suggest in what direction it is most likely that a remedy for what they consider legitimate dissatisfaction can best be sought."
I think we are entitled to emphasise the words "legitimate dissatisfaction." Those who on various occasions in recent years have raised this question and have protested against the undue particularity with which Money Resolutions have been drawn are entitled to say that our criticisms have been entirely upheld by the report of the Select Committee. Hon. Members on these benches have from time to time pointed out that this difficulty in regard to Money Resolutions is not an isolated phenomenon. In our view it is part and parcel of the attitude which the Government and the Departments have taken towards this House in recent years. I am not going to take up much time, but I would like to remind hon. Members of two passages which occur in the Minutes of Evidence. The first is on page 89, in the second column, in the evidence of Sir Bryan Fell. He used these words:
"As an old servant of the House, I view with suspicion any encroachment of the Executive upon the rights of the House. Moreover, I feel that, if no action is taken as a result of this inquiry, and the Executive are allowed to establish their right to put detailed proposals before the House and to use the procedure of the House to prevent any amendment being moved to these proposals, the temptation to push the doctrine further will be irresistible, until, at length, the House will be debarred from making any amendment to the Executive's proposals and be allowed only to accept or reject them as they stand."
That is what we of the Liberal Opposition have been saying for a long time, and we are entitled to point to the fact that what we have been urging on the House is supported by so high an authority. I would also draw the attention of the House to two significant answers given by Sir William Graham-Harrison. The first is on page 145. The question was:
"Who is responsible for this alleged tightness? Is it the Treasury instructing the draftsman, or the draftsman?"
And the answer was—
"No, I think it is really the Treasury who want this control. I do not think that the draftsman likes doing things which he feels are an irritation to the House."
On the following page there is question 1339:
76
"Was it your practice to try and draft them not too tightly?"
The answer—
"One used to be told that it was wanted to restrict them in such and such a way, and one used, perhaps, to say, '1s this not really making it a little too tight? Is it not really unnecessarily preventing points being discussed in the House which ought to be discussed?' The draftsman is always at liberty to put points of that sort to those who instruct him, but the decision is not ultimately his; he has to do what he is told."
Those answers are cautiously expressed, naturally, but I think we may fairly conclude from them that there have been occasions when the Treasury wanted the Resolution to be drawn with a good deal of particularity and that the form of the Financial Resolution was not necessary for the purpose merely of drafting. After reading the Minutes what is left I think is the impression of the extraordinary difficulty there is in devising any procedure that is certain to meet all the grievances that have been expressed in the House in recent years. I do not think they can be met purely by some form of words. The complaints we have heard since 1934 have not been against the Standing Orders themselves. Standing Order 69 first came into use in 1922, and from that year until the end of 1934, when we had the first Special Areas Bill, it has worked fairly well, without, as far as I know, any very serious complaint. Therefore, the criticism that has been made has not been so much against the Standing Orders as against the way in which they have been used. The position is rather analogous to that of the Covenant of the League of Nations; there is nothing wrong, with the machinery of the Covenant, what is wrong is the misuse of that machinery. That seems to me to be precisely the position in the matter of the Standing Orders.
The new Standing Order may or may not prove to be a valuable safeguard. If, in future, it is used as is intended and if the Government, in drafting their Money Resolutions, have regard to the views that have been expressed in all parts of the House in the Second Reading Debates, the new Standing Order will, of course, be a very valuable addition to our Rules of Procedure; but if not, it will mean very little indeed. If the form of Financial Resolutions in future is not going to be affected by the views expressed in the House, we shall be no-further forward than we were before the

77
Standing Order was passed. Having regard to the views which you, Sir, expressed in the Memorandum to which the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway referred, I do not think anyone on these benches would ask that there should be a Declaratory Resolution in the form that was recommended by the Select Committee. The Government have now adopted two devices, first, the device of the new Standing Order, and secondly, the device of sending the circular round to the Departments. I do not think the terms of that circular or written instruction have ever been communciated to the House.
The Prime Minister: I read it to the House.
Mr. Foot: I am sorry; I did not know the terms had been read out. Those two devices have been adopted by the Government as a result of the Report of the Select Committee. I can only say that my hon. Friends and I are not over-sanguine as to the future, but we hope that, as a result of the many protests that have been made in the House and of the views that were clearly expressed by the Select Committee in their report, there will not be any further attempts unduly to circumscribe the powers of the House, and that the House will be able not merely to accept or reject, but also to shake and amend Government proposals.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Lambert: The extreme importance of dealing with finance in a democratic country cannot be over-estimated, as we are able to see very clearly from what is happening in a neighbouring country at the moment. I am very glad to see inscribed in the Report of the Select Committee the principle of the sole right of the Crown to initiate expenditure, a principle which has been described as one of the sheet anchors of good Government, and the wisdom of which is, I think, generally recognised. There is one point on which I think the Teasury must be defended, namely, the charge that they have drawn these Money Resolutions too rigidly. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has quoted the opinion of Sir William Graham-Harrison. I would like to refer him to the evidence of the Government draftsmen who drafted the Money Resolutions on the Tithe Bill and the Special Areas Bill. If the hon. Gentleman
78
will turn to page 46 of the Minutes of Evidence, questions 6 and 7, he will find that Sir Maurice Gwyer and Mr. Granville Ram stated:
"We can assure the Committee that, in some of the cases which have aroused the most adverse comment, such ingenuity as the draftsman possesses has been employed not for the purpose of drawing the Resolution as closely as possible but of trying to give effect to these directions by seeking for ways in which to widen the field of discussion in Committee on the Bill without thereby presenting that Committee with a blank cheque in favour of an unnamed payee."
That was the considered opinion of the Government draftsmen who drafted the Resolutions in connection with the Tithe Bill and the Special Areas Bill. We have there an explicit statement by the draftsmen that they have tried to widen rather than to circumscribe. It is pretty clear to me that our financial position during the next few years will lead to much apprehension. Large debts, big armament expenditure, and taxation at a very high level are things which will give future Chancellors of the Exchequer some severe headaches. I maintain that it would be impossible to allow Members of the House of Commons to run riot with public expenditure, and to propose public expenditure. This is as much in the interests of the party opposite as it is in the interests of any Government.
Mr. A. Bevan: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just told the House, does he consider that the acceptance of the Prime Minister's Motion will make any improvement in the existing situation, seeing that on recent occasions which have been mentioned the draftsmen have exercised as much generosity as was possible towards the House?
Mr. Lambert: The hon. Member must realise that if the Government has the sole right to initiate expenditure, that right must be very closely guarded. Whether this Motion will add much to the opportunities of the House, I cannot say; but one thing of which I am sure is that it is in the interests of all Governments, whether Labour or otherwise, to maintain the principle that the Government only shall initiate expenditure. I will give hon. Members opposite an example. At some time they will be in power, and they will probably propose new expenditure; they will have their critics, and some of their critics will be hon. Members below the Gangway. The

79
hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is very insistent that Members of the House shall have the right to initiate expenditure. Let us assume that a Labour Government is in office, and proposes to deal with pensions. If they proposed an extra half-crown a week, and the hon. Member for Camlachie proposed an extra 5s., they would have the ordeal of having to vote against that in the Lobby. I do not think it is fair to put Members of the House of Commons into that position.
Mr. Stephen: Thanks very much.
Mr. Lambert: In the Select Committee I watched all the hon. Member's efforts to obtain for Members of the House the power of initiating expenditure. That is a principle which seems to me to be absolutely impossible. In defence of that Select Committee, I must say that they proposed a Declaratory Resolution, but great objections had been made to that proposal, notably by Mr. Speaker. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) that of late we have imposed upon Mr. Speaker many duties which are quite foreign to the duties which he had even when I entered the House. He has to decide whether a Bill is a Financial Bill for purposes of the Parliament Act; there is then the Closure, the enormous power of selecting Amendments, and also the question of the Adjournment.
Those are questions which bring Mr. Speaker into contact with the House, but fortunately, Sir Dennis, we have had a series of speakers of great impartiality. I believe that those Speakers have filled that great position no less worthily than the present occupant of it, with great dignity and great impartiality. Of course, there have been times when certain wild people have attacked Mr. Speaker in his constituency. I remember that at one time the Tory party attacked Mr. Speaker Gully, and the Labour party attacked the present Speaker. It is only the Liberal party which is really the constitutional party. I bow to Mr. Speaker's decision, and I think there is a great deal to be said for removing this new responsibility from the Speaker. Mr. Speaker's powers are very great, and it was indeed a revelation to me when the late Chief Clerk, Sir Horace Dawkins, said
80
that Speakers perform a great many more functions privately than the House knows about. All parties, I believe, are agreed on this Motion, and I am very much obliged to the Government for having accepted at any rate one useful portion of the Report of the Select Committee.
5.13 p.m.
Mr. Stephen: I believe that this new Standing Order, far from making an improvement in the situation, will make it a little bit worse. One defect of it is that it will restrict the amount of debate which is possible at present. In the present circumstances, we are able to have practically a Second Reading Debate on a Financial Resolution and also a Second Reading Debate on the Bill itself; whereas in future, we shall have a Second Reading Debate on the Bill, but it is obvious that we shall be very strictly tied to the financial side on the Financial Resolution. However, since hon. Members above the Gangway have accepted the Motion, I do not think it is worth while dividing the House against it, in view of the smallness of our numbers.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) seemed to think that the statement of the Prime Minister would result in a real improvement and would do away with the bonds imposed upon the House in connection with Financial Resolutions. In the Select Committee the right hon. Gentleman, who used to belong to the Liberal party, was always frank about his position and willing to face the situation. He has very rightly drawn attention to the evidence given by the draftsmen in which they showed plainly that they have tried to observe in the spirit as well as in the letter the previous instruction of the Prime Minister with regard to making Resolutions as wide as possible in order to give the House the fullest opportunities of discussion. Under the present procedure, I do not think their statement can be questioned. What we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway has been largely an attempt, in a difficult situation, to persuade people that there is a possibility of improvement. But, frankly, one ought to admit that, with the rules as they are, the situation will not be materially altered.
If the right hon. Gentleman opposite looks at the Order Paper to-day, he will find that the eighth Order relates to the

81
Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Bill. There was the statement of the Prime Minister previous to the setting up of the Select Committee. Then there was the subsequent statement by the Prime Minister, before that Bill was introduced. Yet with regard to that Bill exactly the same position was created as that which had been complained of previously. A definition of "agricultural population" was introduced, which practically tied up the Scottish Grand Committee in its consideration of the Bill and Members of all parties in the Scottish Committee expressed the utmost dislike of what had been done in that respect. It is plain from our experience in that case that we are not advancing to any improvement of the position in this respect.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has referred to the proceedings at the Select Committee. I must confess that I was to a very large extent "on my lonesome" in that Committee. I had a fair amount of support from the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) who was also capable of taking a frank view of the situation. On the whole, however, I took a view somewhat different from the view which my colleagues generally were inclined to take. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton is wrong in thinking that I expressed the view that there should be no restriction at all upon Members of this House. I did not express that view in Committee because we were bound by the terms of reference. It is, however, the view which I hold. I would like to see every Member having the opportunity of bringing forward any proposals for any expenditure which he thought necessary. But in the Committee we were restricted to the question of the maintenance of Standing Order No. 63 and consequently the line which I took in Committee was the line taken by the Leader of the Opposition in the Debate of 8th March previous to the setting up of the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
"I am seeking to return to the procedure which obtained for 200 years till 1919, indeed until 1922."—[OFFICIAI, REPORT, 8th March, 1937; col. 816, Vol. 321.]
That was the position which I took up in the Committee and which I sought to have put into the report. Hon. Members of the Labour party on the Committee
82
evidently took a different view from that of their leader in this respect. They thought that was the wrong position to take. I thought it was the right position for the Select Committee to take. All that has been done in regard to the Standing Order, and the Prime Minister's declaration, will not get us out of the difficulty in which we are placed in connection with this matter.
The Leader of the Opposition, in the speech to which I have already referred, also showed how in the past it had been necessary for the legislature to have a check upon the executive in order to limit expenditure whereas now it appeared to be considered necessary that the executive should have some check upon expenditure that the legislature was prepared to sanction. Why should it have such a check? During the sittings of the Select Committee the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds raised the point very sharply and very frankly said that if you had democracy, then the representatives of the people should have full power and if the people in the country wanted a thing they were entitled to have it. I think that is absolutely sound and that the provisions of this Standing Order with regard to our discussions are simply an attempt to evade something which has become necessary in the circumstances in which we live to-day. In the old days the franchise was limited and because of that limitation the desires of a great number of people outside had not to be taken into account. With the extension of the franchise there has arisen uncertainty as to who may come into this House and an endeavour is being made to thwart the consequences of the extension of the franchise by setting up machinery and procedure in this House whereby what the people want will be denied to them. I refer hon. Members to page 64 of the minutes of evidence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton put this point:
"Assuming that the Government introduced a Bill to provide pensions at 10s. a week and some Member proposed that they should be 15s. then every Member who voted against the 15s. would be held up to opprobrium in his constituency."
The right hon. Gentleman is frank about it and I am not quarrelling with him for taking up that position. That is his point of view. But is it the point of view of hon. Members of the Labour party that

83
there should be in this House machinery and procedure which would debar Members from moving, for instance, that a pension should be 15s. instead of 10s.? 1s that their view? It did not appear to be the view of the Labour party in the Debate which led to the setting up of the Select Committee. It was not the view of the Leader of the party. But if hon. Members refer to page 70 of the minutes of evidence they will see that I raised this question with Mr. Lindsay, secretary to the Parliamentary Labour party. I quote from the report:
"553. Would you say that it is contrary to the idea of Standing Order 63 if the Government proposed a pension of 10s., that Members should have the right to move a pension of 15s.?—No, I do not agree with that.
554. You would say that it is contrary to Standing Order 63?—Yes; I think it is contrary to public policy too."
So that the point of view of the Labour party as expressed to the Select Committee is that it would be contrary to public policy, if a Bill were brought in to provide pensions of 10s., that Members of this House should have the right to move Amendments to make the pensions 15s.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member appears to be seeking to attribute to the Labour party sentiments which have not been authoritatively or officially expressed by the party. Can he point to any statement of party policy to that effect?
Mr. Stephen: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his question and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Mr. Lindsay was giving this evidence as secretary of the Labour party and was stating the view of the Labour party.
Mr. Bevan: I do not understand that to be the position. I understand that he was giving evidence to the Committee as an expert on Parliamentary procedure and not in this case in his capacity as secretary to the Parliamentary Labour party.
Mr. Stephen: I myself do not quite see the distinction in that way but if the hon. Member will go through the OFFICIAL REPORT of to-day's proceedings, I think he will find that it was also stated by his Leader to-day in this Debate. At any rate a similar position was stated. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) did not put it exactly in the same way, in relation to a
84
concrete case, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley will recall that he said that it was an impossible position that private Members should be allowed to propose expenditure—that they had not to find the money and that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had to find the money. He will also recall the fact that he and I had some rather nasty words in the Committee on this point when he told me to remember that I was not on the hustings. The point that I am making is that, apart from myself, the one Member of the Committee representing the party above the Gangway who was willing that Members should have this opportunity was the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds, who said that if you were going to have democracy, you should have democracy.
I think it is an intolerable position that, as a result of the feeling in the ranks of the party above the Gangway, we should be left in the position to-day of accepting this new Standing Order as if it were really going to satisfy the Members above the Gangway, and Members generally in this House, who feel that things are not what they ought to be with regard to the retention of the liberties which Members of this House have enjoyed in the past. The Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted to restore the previous position. He proposed the repeal of Standing Order No. 69, and it was said that that would be sufficient. When witnesses were questioned on this matter, it became plain that it would go very largely towards restoring the previous position if this Standing Order were repealed. Also I would ask hon. Members to realise that it was made plain in the evidence that Standing Order No. 69 was passed by the House to expedite business in the House and that its utilisation with regard to Financial Resolutions occurred only when the decision had been given by Sir Edwin Cornwall in 1922. When the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 was before the House, you had an illustration of what was the practice of the House, and then it was suggested that that was an exception, but Appendix No. IV shows that that was not the exception, but that the King's Recommendation having been associated with the setting-up Motion, there was a liberty to Members, within certain limits, much greater than is possible when Standing Order No. 69 is

85
utilised and the King's Recommendation is attached to the Financial Resolution brought in under that Standing Order.
I can foresee that this is only the beginning of a great deal of trouble in the future. It is no real removal of the fetters that are being put upon Members in this House, very largely at the instigation of the Treasury. The right hon. Member for Keighley drew a nice picture of our having a Second Reading Debate and the Government seeing the points that the House wanted to have debated and drawing the Financial Resolution accordingly, so that decisions would be able to be taken on those points. I notice one hon. Member opposite laughing, and I too am laughing very much at the idea. It has been plain throughout that the Government, seeking to get their legislation through and having the opportunity of a Second Reading Debate, will know how to draw a Financial Resolution so as to shut out the possibility of, say, a revolt on their own benches and so as to make it impossible for a Division to be taken on a particular point. For example, take a Labour Government introducing a Bill in connection with unemployment insurance. You would have a Debate on the Second Reading, and it is plain that there would be many Members on their own benches who would be anxious to take a more generous view than the Government, not having the responsibility of the Front Bench. It is obvious that the Government would draw the Resolution so that it would not be possible to have a particular Amendment of that sort and so that Members in the party would not possibly have the opportunity of putting the Government into a difficulty.
It has occurred before, and it will occur again, and I say that if Members of this House think they are going to thwart democracy and thwart what people outside really want by setting up financial machinery and Standing Orders in this way, I believe they are living under an illusion, that democracy will make itself felt in this country, and that the people will see that they get the things which they desire. To me, this new Standing Order will have the effect of limiting somewhat the Debate that is possible at present, and it will do nothing whatsoever to give Members an opportunity of collaborating in order to make Measures more the opinion of the House. It will
86
leave things as they are in that respect, and we shall still remain tied up, unable to have any real effect upon the Executive of the day. I wish that the point of view of the Labour party in the Select Committee had been the point of view of their Leader in the Debate. If it had been, I believe that we should have had a better report from the Select Committee and that to-day anything like this from the Government would have been rejected with scorn.
5.38 p.m.
Sir Hugh O'Neill: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has reminded the House that on the Select Committee, of which both he and I were Members, he ploughed a somewhat lonely furrow. That is the actual truth, but on the whole I think he was in opposition to most other Members of the Committee on nearly every point that came before it, and he was very strenuous and vehement in asserting his own views. He has just told the House that in his view the position would be largely met if we went back to the old system which prevailed up to 1932, I think it was, when it was necessary to have a preliminary setting-up Resolution to which the King's Recommendation was given, but I think it was shown pretty clearly, first of all in the Debate some months ago, initiated by the Leader of the Opposition, and subsequently on the Select Committee, that even if we were to go back to the system of a preliminary setting-up Resolution, that really would not help us one iota, because that Resolution would be drawn as widely or as narrowly as the Government cared to draw it.
Mr. Stephen: Was it not the case that Sir Horace Dawkins made it plain that if we went back to the old practice, and if the Public Bill Office drew the setting-up Motion, it could only be drawn in very general terms?
Sir H. O'Neill: I am afraid that that is not my recollection of what Sir Horace Dawkins said, but the hon. Member is, of course, at liberty to take his own point of view. When this matter was raised on a previous occasion, I said that I thought that one of the causes which had given rise to this difficulty about very closely-drawn Financial Resolutions was the general trend of financial affairs of the time, namely, that in old days it was

87
on the whole the desire of the House of Commons to reduce expenditure and that when you got Financial Resolutions Amendments were moved, which were perfectly in order, to reduce the amount of money which was being asked for, but that in these days all that had changed. Now we very seldom get Financial Resolutions where the Amendments moved are to reduce the expenditure—at any rate, in regard to a certain type of Bill. The Amendments generally are moved by Members who desire to extend the scope of the expenditure and to apply expenditure to a much larger number of objects than those contained in the original proposal. That is a sign of the times, a change that has taken place owing to our largely increasing social expenditure and social services in this country.
I said in the previous Debate, and I still think, that up to a point the reason why these Financial Resolutions have had to be drawn more tightly and with less latitude than formerly is because of this tendency of the House of Commons today to desire to increase rather than to reduce expenditure. Well, the Select Committee met, and they proposed to deal with the main question which came before them by the recommendation of a Declaratory Resolution. The terms of that Resolution are before the House, and it must be remembered that when the Committee recommended a Declaratory Resolution they had before them Mr. Speaker's Memorandum. That did not come afterwards, so that they recommended that Resolution with the knowledge of what was contained in Mr. Speaker's Memorandum. I think that generally the view of most Members of the Committee on that question was that though, of course, they would be most reluctant to impose upon Mr. Speaker any more burdens or difficulties than he has at present, because they are very many, nevertheless I think the Committee felt that he already has so many matters to decide which may arouse controversy, that this one more might not make so very much more difference.
That, I think, was the reason why, in spite of Mr. Speaker's Memorandum, the Committee decided to recommend the Declaratory Resolution. That, however, has not been adopted by the Government, and I think we all recognise the reason,
88
namely, that if there was even the slightest risk of imposing upon the Chair any more obligations or duties which would tend to place him in a difficulty, it would be better not to do so. The Government have, therefore, recommended this procedure, under which very rigid and very peremptory instructions have been given to the Departments and Parliamentary Counsel with regard to the drafting of these Resolutions in the future. Time alone can show whether or not that will have the desired effect. I think it is clear that they will not have such an effect as a Declaratory Resolution would have had, but, on the whole, I certainly think that it ought to do a great deal in the direction that most of us desire. The words that we suggested in the Declaratory Resolution are practically contained in the letter of instructions to the Departments, so that I think probably it will do a great deal of good and will carry out, I hope, the desire of the House and of the Select Committee to bring about a less detailed drafting of these Financial Resolutions.
All that I have said up to now does not really concern the actual Standing Order that we now have before us, because that deals solely with the second recommendation of the Select Committee, namely, that in future in the case of wholly Money Bills the Financial Resolution, instead of being taken before the introduction of the Bill, should be taken after the Bill has been read a Second time. That is, I think, a fairly large departure from existing practice, and it to a certain extent, in my view, impinges upon the strict interpretation of Standing Order 64, which is one of the oldest Standing Orders under which this House operates, having been passed over 200 years ago in the reign of Queen Anne at the same time as Standing Order 63. Standing Order 64 says that any proposal involving expenditure of money cannot be entered upon unless it has been first referred to a Committee of the House of Commons. The object obviously was to bring about a preliminary discussion before the House of Commons was bound in any way in regard to financial matters.
The change which we are carrying out to-day certainly does to a small extent affect that governing principle, because in future we are going to say that Bills which involve expenditure can be brought in without the necessity of a preliminary

89
consideration in a Committee of the whole House. To my mind that is a very considerable departure, but, after all, times change and to a certain extent obviously we must change with them. This change is, on the whole, one which I think can be justified. It was recommended in 1932 by the Select Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Labour of which I was also a member. That Committee recommended a change very much on the lines of this Standing Order, but it was not carried out, and I have always imagined the reason was that we did not limit our recommendation and suggest that it should apply only to Government Bills. If that recommendation of 1932 had been carried out in its entirety, it would have done exactly what the hon. Member for Camlachie desires; it would have given to private Members the right to bring in Bills involving expenditure, without a preliminary Resolution. That not only would be contrary to the great principle that only the Government can initiate expenditure, but would take away one of the neatest shields which Members of Parliament themselves have from being attacked by rapacious constituents who desire to bring in all kinds of legislation.
Although that matter was not dealt with as a result of the report of the previous Committee, it is being dealt with to-day, and we are at this moment about to make this considerable change in our procedure. Its advantage is that it will obviate two Second Reading discussions, and there is no doubt that it will be an advantage that those who have to draft Money Resolutions will know when they draft them what the opinion of the House of Commons was on the Second Reading of the Bill. Very often many people, and certainly new Members of this House, think that our procedure here is very cumbersome and antiquated. At any rate, we are making a change to-day in what I hope will prove to be the right direction. In spite of our procedure appearing sometimes to be cumbersome and antiquated, it enables more than ample discussion to take place on all financial questions, and it certainly results in a more efficient conduct of Parliamentary business than in any other legislative assembly in the world.
5.52 p.m.
Sir Cyril Entwistle: References have been made by Members who served on the Select Committee to the attitude they
90
took on the Committee, and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) referred to himself as ploughing a lonely furrow in certain directions. He is right on that, but he will admit that I also ploughed a lonely furrow in the sense that I was the only member of the Committee who was not in favour of the general principle of the Declaratory Resolution which has not been accepted by the Government. I am, therefore, extremely gratified to see that the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who spoke for the Labour party, and the hon. Member who represented the Liberal party, have expressed their support of the decision which the Government have made and of the Standing Order which they have put on the Paper. I am also glad to see that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), who took a strong line in the opposite direction, has not intervened so far to criticise what the Government have done. The speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie really presents the case against the Declaratory Resolution recommended by the Select Committee and the reason why the Government found themselves unable to accept that part of the recommendations of the Committee.
The truth of the matter is that it was impossible really to devise a Declaratory Resolution which would maintain inviolate the principle embodied in Standing Order 63. That was one of the difficulties with which the Committee was faced. The terms of reference to the Committee placed on them the obligation of maintaining the principle of Standing Order 63, and it wanted a great deal of ingenuity to try to devise any words which would not impinge on that principle In my opinion, that Declaratory Resolution, which, according to all the expert advice given to the Committee, would have been equivalent to a Standing Order, would have meant that there would have been some control over the initiating of expenditure other than that of the Executive. The principle of Standing Order 63 goes back to a far more distant period than the Standing Order itself. It is, in fact, one of the oldest constitutional practices of this House that the House vests in the Crown the sole responsibility over national expenditure and it forbids the Commons to increase the sum demanded by the Crown for the

91
service of the State. It is under that Standing Order that amendments for increasing the charge are ruled out of order. Any Amendment that increases the charge is out of order because it violates Standing Order 63, unless the Amendment is within the terms of the Financial Resolution which authorises the charge. Naturally, the wider you express the terms of the Financial Resolution the less real would be the Government control over expenditure as set down under Standing Order 63.
The only way of solving the difficulty of giving wider latitude to Members to modify proposals for expenditure which do not seriously affect the amount of that expenditure was the method which has been adopted by the Government, which was to give instructions to the draftsmen. We have evidence of the draftsmen that they were trying to carry that out prior to the Committee being set up. There are difficulties inherent in the matter, as every Member will perceive. An individual Amendment might be quite small in its character and might seem to impose a very small additional charge, but if one Amendment is permissible any number of Amendments are permissible, and the accumulation of Amendments might become a very serious thing. The answer was made that in that case the Government must get their suporters to oppose the Amendments. It is clear that if any Amendments to increase expenditure by Members were to be permissible and the only check on them was to be that the Government must vote them down, a great deal of time would be expended unnecessarily in the House. Moreover, it is hardly right that we should have divisions on matters of expenditure which under our very Standing Orders we do not permit Private Members to initiate.
Mr. Maxton: There may be on the Paper an accumulation of Amendments which do not involve financial matters on any Bill. Would it be more difficult for the Chair to deal with an accumulation of Amendments involving financial matters than to deal with Amendments that do not involve them? Are there not ample powers vested in the Chair to prevent the time of the Committee being unduly taken?
Sir C. Entwistle: If Amendments do not involve the expenditure of money they are not out of order and can be moved, but the purpose of the hon. Member for Camlachie was to make any order. The Declaratory Resolution tried to allow a certain number of Amendments Amendment involving expenditure in of that character provided they did not materially increase the expenditure involved in the Government's proposals. I was only endeavouring to point out that one Amendment might not materially increase it, but if you added together a considerable number of Amendments, the effect might be a considerable increase in the expenditure. If the hon. Member suggests that the way to get over the difficulty is to rely on the power of selection of the Chair, that would impose on the Chair a responsibility far greater than any that has ever been imposed in the past and would certainly involve the Chair in political controversy, which nobody desires. I think that the Government have adopted the only practical means of dealing with the many grievances that were made in regard to discussion being fettered. I am sure that the Parliamentary draftsmen will do their best to draft the terms of Resolutions so as to permit the maximum of discussion without removing the safeguard in Standing Order 63 that the responsibility for expenditure must rest with the Government and with the Government alone.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Bevan: I take it that those of us who have proposed to take part in this Debate have furnished ourselves with the report of the Select Committee and have read it carefully, and I think it is rather a burden that we should be compelled to listen once more to the observations on the subject made in this Debate. I understood that the Committee had made a unanimous recommendation, whereas almost every member of the Committee who has spoken has been careful to point out where he differed from his colleagues. However, I suppose Members who took part in those discussions, which lasted so long and were so onerous, must be allowed an opportunity of giving their testimony when the occasion occurs. We are all of us grateful to the members of the Committee for the work they performed. I am more inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend in front of me in endorsing the Motion as far as it goes than

93
to agree with the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), because I hold the view that it is tidier and more businesslike to have the Financial Resolution following the Second Reading of a Bill instead of preceding it. It is better that there should be first a general discussion on the principles of a Measure, so that the Government may be thus put in possession of the lines upon which we think the legislation should be drawn up and be given an opportunity of making their financial commitments with that information in their minds. Apart from any historical precedents, that seems to me to be a much more businesslike procedure, and although it may deny the House an opportunity of a wide debate upon a resolution it has often seemed to me that the width of debates on Financial Resolutions were often in inverse ratio to their utility. I would rather have the wider debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and the more restricted debate on the Financial Resolution. But that is a matter of procedure.
Mr. Stephen: We will remember that.
Mr. Bevan: That involves no question of principle. That is a matter of procedure. I will come later to the question of principle. As a matter of procedure alone I think the proposal is a businesslike one. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Camlachie how, if that procedure had existed a service would have been done to the House in the case of the Special Areas Bill. He jeered at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend that on Second Reading of a Bill the Government should be put in possession of the views of the House and then draw up the Financial Resolution, by suggesting that that would merely give the Government an opportunity of filling up any holes which they might have left open. In the Debate on the Special Areas Bill two points were raised, one the amount to be spent and the other the designation of distressed areas. Under the existing procedure and under the new procedure we should be forbidden to initiate any increase in the amount of money, but on that occasion we were also forbidden to add to the number of distressed areas, because the beneficiaries of the money had been indicated in the King's Recommendation which preceded the Bill. Assuming that an intelligent use is to be made of the new Standing Order we shall
94
still be forbidden to increase the amount of expenditure, but if on the Second Reading Members indicate that they wish to add to the number of areas that restriction would not occur.
Mr. Stephen: In the Debate on the Financial Resolution referred to Members did indicate the areas that they wanted to be included, and the Chair did not rule anyone out for mentioning that this or that ought to be included.
Mr. Bevan: After the Financial Resolution had gone through the House, with the King's Recommendation attached, you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as the Chairman of Ways and Means, said that we could not add to the list of distressed areas, because that would change the nature of the beneficiaries, and would violate the Resolution. The same thing occurred on the Trunk Roads Bill. I suggest that if under the new procedure Members in all parts of the House say, "We think that not only should A and B be beneficiaries of this money, but C also," and if in face of that generally expressed opinion the Government still drew up the Financial Resolution in narrow terms forbidding it, we should regard their action as a violation of the spirit of the Standing Order. That would not cut across the desire of hon. Members everywhere to forbid private Members the power to initiate expenditure. I think that is a complete illustration of how this procedure might make our discussions more useful.
Now I come to the general principle. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie when he suggests that this matter raises an issue of great principle. Our Standing Orders and our system of procedure enshrine the results of long years of struggle between the Commons and the Crown, and no part of our Constitution enshrines them more vividly than the procedure relating to financial resolutions in this House. The reason why in the past private Members never wished to increase expenditure was that it was the King who wanted the money and they always wanted to give him less than he asked. So it was not very remarkable that in the past the House of Commons were not anxious to initiate expense and were always putting a restraint upon the demands of the Crown. When the Executive became dependent

95
upon the votes of the Commons and not upon the devotees of the King they had to take steps to prevent the King's men from initiating expenditure on behalf of the King. The restriction upon the initiation of expenditure was imposed because the King had been trying in that way to get round the position. He would make a demand upon his Ministers, his Ministers would refuse it, and then he would use the King's party in the House to impose an increase of expenditure upon the Executive.
The limitation was imposed in the first place to protect the House of Commons against the Crown. It is now used to protect the Executive against the Commons; the position has become reversed. In the past the House of Commons largely represented rich people who were trying to restrict the expenditure of the Crown. Now the House of Commons has in it representatives of poor people who are trying to get more money for the poor from the rich, so that any attempt to prevent the initiation of expenditure in this House is a limitation of democracy and a limitation of the liberty of the subject, although some hon. Members have tried to represent this Standing Order 63 as a defence of democracy. What the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) wants to do is to render a section of his constituents inarticulate. He assumes that there are some people in his constituency who desire, say, to increase old age pensions from 10s. to 15s. and he does not want to be placed in the embarrassing position of having to deny them. I am not putting this as a personal matter and have no wish to put it offensively, but that is precisely the position. The right hon. Member said that if it lay in the power of private Members to initiate expenditure they could propose an increase of 5s. Why does he object to it? Because he thinks some of his constituents would say to him, "Why did you vote against an increase of 5s. in my pension?", and he does not want to be exposed to that embarrassment.
Mr. Stephen: That is also the position of the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith).
Mr. Bevan: As I understand it, Members wish to sustain Standing Order 63 in its full panoply because they wish to
96
deny to their constituents the opportunity of securing an improvement in their condition. In other words, that Standing Order is now a barrier between the rich and the poor. There are some Members in the House who do not desire to see a full exercise of democratic rights, but to limit them. We on this side are here because we have said to our constituents, "We think that you are having an unfair deal and we want to improve your conditions." If we had not said that we should not be here. When we come here we are told that it is undesirable that we should have the power to initiate an improvement in their conditions.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now discussing Standing Order 63, which was outside the terms of the reference of the Select Committee, and is consequently out of order in this Debate.
Mr. Bevan: I am under the disability, Mr. Speaker, of your not having been put in possession of the full character of the Debate, because I am now replying to observations made by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), another hon. Member opposite and many others who have taken the contrary line to the one which I am now expounding. But I accept your Ruling that I cannot continue the Debate on those lines, though I must say that the Debate is now being much more restricted than it has been.
Mr. Speaker: This is the only remark I have made during the whole Debate and certainly I have not restricted the scope of the discussion.
Mr. Bevan: It was not my desire to reflect in the least upon your Ruling, but I am within the recollection of hon. Members when I say that the points which I have been discussing have been dealt with in the Debate. However, I do not wish to pursue them, and will merely say that apart from the advantage of the Financial Resolution following the Second Reading of a Bill the other advantages contained in the Standing Order would depend entirely on the use the Government make of their powers. In the near future we shall probably hear that Financial Resolutions are not to be so rigidly drawn, because the Government will know that we are watching how they use this Standing Order, which, however, leaves the matter still in the hands of the

97
Government and very much where it was before. The use which the Government make of it will depend upon their estimate of our vigilance, and I therefore hope that when we discuss the matter again hon. Members in all parts of the House will remember that it is the intention of this Standing Order to give more power to the House of Commons to discuss Amendments to Bills. The rows which we have had in the past will recur unless the Government realise that we are anxious that they shall not repeat their former practice of drawing up Financial Resolutions so rigidly that there can be no effective discussion of the merits of the Measure.
6.17 p.m.
Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: As I was one of those who asked for a Select Committee on this matter perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words on this difficult problem of reconciling the claims of Government business with the rights of private Members. It is obvious from the evidence which has been given that this was a problem which merited attention. A Debate was raised on 8th March on this matter and gave rise to the appointment of the Committee. Lord Baldwin, who was then Prime Minister, said that instructions had been given two years ago that Financial Resolutions were to be drafted as flexibly as was consistent with Standing Order 63. Those instructions had come about as a result of a question asked in December, 1934, when you, Sir, said that not only had the limit been reached but that it had been exceeded in the amount of detail which was being put into Money Resolutions. The instruction to which the Prime Minister referred caused no improvement; in fact, the provisions of Financial Resolutions became more strict and tight. What was the explanation? I think it is contained in one of the appendices to the report, where it is pointed out that the instructions were not given in writing or in any formal manner. The matter was discussed orally between Parliamentary Counsel and the officials, and in the course of ordinary routine attention was drawn to the observations of Mr. Speaker.
The Government's Motion appears to be most satisfactory and will meet all the difficulties of which I complained in the Debate last March. The Government have issued instructions, and this time there is no informality about them. The instructions
98
have been issued in writing. If this recommendation is carried out it should meet toe criticisms I made last March. With regard to the second recommendation, that Second Readings of main-purpose Bills shall be taken before the Financial Resolutions, several Members have pointed out that this would be a saving of time. In addition to that, a much more useful and interesting Debate will take place if the text of the Bill is before the House than can possibly take place when we have only the Financial Resolution, however much detailed it maybe. The Attorney-General, whom I am glad to see in his place, made a point in his speech in March that when a Bill was founded upon a Financial Resolution one must always find the bulk of the Bill in the Financial Resolution. That is, of course, quite true. The complaint has been not only of main-purpose Bills but also of incidental-expense Bills. The first Special Areas Bill was one of these, and the Tithe Bill was another.
The Select Committee recommended that the practice for Money Bills should now be assimilated to that of Bills of which finance was an incidental part. I gathered from the Prime Minister to-day that it would no longer be necessary to differentiate between the two kinds of Bills, but of course it will be necessary to do so. At the present time a private Member can present a Bill involving incidental expenditure, though the Bill cannot be taken in Committee stage until the necessary money resolution has been passed. Unless there is a labelling of main-purpose Bills to distinguish them from incidental-expense Bills, private Members could present them, therefore the Public Bill Office will still have the obligation of differentiating between the two types of Bill. The practice in this House of only one stage of a Money Bill being taken on one day is, as the Prime Minister said, to cease.
One of the advantages of having the Second Reading before the Financial Resolution is that the Government will hear the Second Reading Debate and can then bring in their Financial Resolution drafted in such a way as to meet the wishes of the House. The practice with regard to Bills containing incidental expenditure is to have the Second Reading of the Bill and, immediately after it, on the same night we are asked to pass the

99
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. It will be very much better if there is a space between the Second Reading of a money Bill and the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution so that the Government, having heard the criticism during the Second Reading, can bring in a Financial Resolution suitable to meet the wishes of the House, to spend either more or less money. If we are to carry on upon the same day, one of the great advantages of taking the Second Reading before the Financial Resolution will be nullified. This matter of main-purpose Bills being taken only one stage on one day is something that should be continued as now.
6.24 p.m.
Major Milner: As one who served upon the Committee, I support the words of the last speaker in which he expressed the hope that in no circumstances would a Financial Resolution be taken on the same day as the Second Reading of the Bill. One of the obvious advantages in the procedure proposed in the Motion is that the Government will have an opportunity of considering what the House has said on Second Reading and will thereby be enabled to modify any proposed Financial Resolution so as to bring it as far as possible into line with the feeling of the House. Obviously, if the Financial Resolution is taken on the same day as the Second Reading of the Bill, that opportunity of consideration and amendment, which was one of the principal operating the minds of the Members of the Select Committee, would be lost. I hope that no attempt will be made, except in exceptional circumstances when there may be no conflict of any kind, to take the Financial Resolution on the same day as the Second Reading.
A good deal has been said about the recommendations of the Committee. I certainly think that the Motion presented by the Government is probably an improvement over what was suggested by the Select Committee in their second recommendation. I was a little concerned about what the Prime Minister said on 9th November, and also to-day, in apparently emphasising the point that the operation of the Motion will be primarily permissive, as though he expected that there would be occasions upon which advantage would not be taken of it and of the wishes of the House. In
100
passing this Motion to-day, I cannot conceive of the circumstances which would lead the Government to have a Financial Resolution first and a Second Reading second, unless for some special reason the Government desired to restrict the opportunities of Amendment afforded to the House. If that were proposed I am sure that the attention of the House would be called to it and that a very serious view would be taken. The whole object of the Select Committee and of our discussion to-day, as well as of the Motion before the House, is to arrange matters so that, within a limited area, the House of Commons shall have opportunities for amendment and that the Government, after they have heard the views of hon. Members, may be able to put their Financial Resolution into a form which will meet the wishes of the House and the Government shall consider the House in deciding the form in which they draw up their Financial Resolution. I should, therefore, like to hear from whoever is to reply why stress is laid upon the permissive character of the Motion, and what circumstances might cause the Government to depart from the terms of the Motion now before us.
With regard to the neglect or refusal of the Government to carry out the second recommendation of the Committee, I am seriously concerned. I do not regard the giving of an instruction, either verbally or by letter to Government Departments, as in any way having the force of a Declaratory Resolution. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken said that instructions had been previously given, and that the Committee received the most categorical assurance from the Parliamentary draftsmen that those instructions had been carried out as far as possible. How much further would they have been carried out had they been written instructions and not verbal? Such instructions have not succeeded previously, and I doubt very much whether they will succeed in future. I hope they may. I recognise that if advantage is taken of the fact that the Government are enabled to draw up a Financial Resolution after Second Reading and thus to adapt the Financial Resolution to the wishes of the House, this difficulty may not arise.
I appreciate the grounds on which the Government have declined to carry out

101
the second recommendation of the Committee. The first recommendation was to maintain unimpaired the full effect of Standing Order 63. As I understand it, the desire of the Committee was that some latitude should be given in regard, I will not say to the initiation of expenditure, but in regard to Amendments,
"so as to permit of Amendments to the Bill which have for their object the extension or relaxation of such provisions and which did not materially increase the charge."
As I understood it, the whole object of setting up this Committee was to obtain some relaxation of the previous restriction. The proposal which the Committee made, and which the Government have not adopted, was put in affirmative terms, and had it been adopted it would have provided for the extension or relaxation which, as I understood it, the whole House desired. It is said by the Government spokesmen that the instructions given to the draftsmen will ensure the desired latitude, which would have been obtained by an Order of the House had the proposed Resolution been passed, but I respectfully submit that that is not the case. Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), seem to think that the instructions given by the Government are precisely in accord with the terms of the suggested Declaratory Resolution, but in my submission that is not the case. The letter to the Parliamentary draftsmen is an instruction
"not to restrict the scope within which the Committee on the Bills may consider amendments further than is necessary to enable the Government to discharge their responsibilities in regard to public expenditure."
It seems to me that those words may cover a multitude of sins on the part of the Parliamentary draftsmen, and that there is not the slightest assurance under these instructions that the House will have any further latitude in the future than it has had in the past, particularly as the instructions are given in a negative form. Had they been given in the precise form of a Declaratory Resolution, I should have felt that they would have had more effect. The suggested Declaratory Resolution said:
"That this House, while affirming the principle that proposals for expenditure should be initiated only by the Crown, is of opinion that Standing Order No. 63 is capable of being applied so as to restrict unduly the control which, within the limits prescribed by
102
that principle, this House has been accustomed to exercise over legislation authorising expenditure; and that any detailed provisions which define or limit the objects and conditions of expenditure contained in a Bill should, if and so far as they are set out in a Financial Resolution, be expressed in wider terms than in the Bill so as to permit amendments to the Bill which have for their object the extension or relaxation of such provisions and which do not materially increase the charge."
That is an affirmative instruction to the draftsmen and others so to draw the Resolution as not to preclude amendments. The instruction which the Government have given is a merely negative one. It is merely an instruction
"not to restrict the scope … and to leave to the Committee the utmost freedom for discussion and amendment of details which is compatible with the discharge of those responsibilities."
In my submission these two things are not the same. I recognise the grounds on which the Government have not thought fit to adopt the Committee's recommendation. It was a recommendation which I think—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—was agreed to, certainly in its final form, unanimously by every member of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). Therefore, I support in toto the recommendations of the Committee, and regret that the Government have not seen fit to carry them into effect.
I am very much tempted to enter into the discussion of the subject raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie, but I do not propose to do so, firstly because, strictly speaking, it was not within our terms of reference; secondly, because the report in its final form was, as I have said, unanimous; and thirdly, because you, Mr. Speaker, have called our attention to the point of Order which is involved. The test with regard to the Government's decision in this matter must be one of experience. It is not the desire of myself or of my hon. Friends to alter the Standing Orders unnecessarily. No doubt the Government will carry the Motion, which we shall support, and I shall look with interest to see whether it is possible for the House to have the latitude which it undoubtedly desires. I very much hope that it may be possible to ensure the carrying out of the wish of the House in that respect, particularly as I recognise both the principle involved and the difficulty which, if the suggested Resolution were passed, would be imposed

103
on Mr. Speaker in occasional circumstances. That, however, might not very often occur, because an opportunity would be given to the Government to alter their Financial Resolution in accordance with the wishes of the House, and also because, in the case of this particular sanction, as of so many other sanctions, once the House, the Government and the Parliamentary draftsmen know that there is a sanction, that sanction is only very rarely likely to be called for.
6.39 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I think that the person who should be congratulated upon the turn that the Debate has taken is really the Chief Whip. In the previous Debate complaint was made about the increasing practice of the Government putting fetters on the House, but that complaint has been met with a form of words which is really going to ease considerably the work of the Chief Whip. Of course the great objection to a Declaratary Resolution has been that it would lay a burden on the Chair, which it was felt would not be prudent, and on that I will make no further criticism; but, after great searching, that proposal was the best thing that many experts, including old officers of the House, could suggest in order to protect Members from undue interference by the Executive.
So far as the new Standing Order is concerned, we are to get the Second Reading before the Financial Resolution, but of course the Financial Resolution will be in draft before the Bill is printed for Second Reading. It stands to reason that it will be. But the Minister will be saved any shame, because he can privately alter his Financial Resolution, whereas, if it were objected to in the discussion, he would have to withdraw it. That increased pressure, for what it is worth, has now been introduced. But we have been told by the Prime Minister that the Financial Resolution will now be a formal thing; and another thing which is most important from the point of view of the Chief Whip is that, whereas a Money Bill, as it is called, originatmg on a Resolution, has previously had to make a rather stately and restrained progress through this House, with such-and-such intervals between its various stages, the Chief Whip will now be able to tell us that, while the Government do not wish
104
to keep us unduly late, they propose to take the later stages of the Bill before the House adjourns. Therefore, the Chief Whip has made a splendid thing out of what arose on a protest against his own action.
I think the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is wrong in supposing that a reversion to the pre-Standing Order No. 69 practice is going to help. It is true that in the case of the Old Age Pensions Bill, 1908, it was moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of granting supplies, and it is true that, within the scope of such a Motion, amendments could be made; but when we get to the stage at which Members agree to improve the Bill by increasing the flow of public money, what would happen would be that the setting-up Resolution would be in the same strict terms in which the Government draftsmen now set out their Resolutions at the instance of the Treasury.
Mr. Stephen: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that Sir Brian Fell and those associated with him in the Public Bill Office agreed that it would be impossible for the Public Bill Office to draw a Resolution in the tight terms in which it is drawn to-day.
Mr. Benn: Drawing up a Bill is, of course, the work of a public department, and they will never surrender that work to any office. All that they will do is to see that the setting-up Resolution, which would be required under the old procedure, is treated as the actual Resolution. I am as anxious as the hon. Member is to find some solution, but I do not think it is to be found in reverting to the pre-1922 procedure. As to the evidence, to which the hon. Member referred, evidence on procedure was given by Mr. Scott Lindsay, and the hon. Member put some questions to him with regard to Standing Order No. 63, asking, for example, whether he would agree that a private Member might propose an increased charge here or there; and Mr. Scott Lindsay, in his answers, made the same criticism that the hon. Member has made here this afternoon. In point of fact, the hon. Member, both in the Committee and in the House was completely out of order in raising Standing Order No. 63 or any question under it. I drew attention to that in the Committee. If you are to discuss Standing Order No.

105
63, you must have a free discussion, but you cannot have the Rules of Order infringed to enable one Member to put a point when others have not the opportunity of giving a proper answer. The hon. Member will recollect that he himself, with my assistance, drafted and moved an Amendment accepting the principle of Standing Order No. 63. If he will turn to page xxii, he will find that an Amendment was proposed to add words accepting the principle of Standing Order No. 63. In point of fact it is irrelevant to quote the evidence given by Mr. Scott Lindsay before the Committee and pretend that it was the view of someone else, when in fact the whole discussion was out of order, as was recognised by the hon. Member himself when he moved a Resolution accepting Standing Order No. 63. That question is out of order, and I cannot discuss it, but the principle that the responsibility for expenditure must rest upon the Government is a principle which anyone with experience of the House is bound to accept.
Ordered,
"That a Bill (other than a Bill which is required to originate in Committee of Ways and Means) the main object of which is the creation of a public charge may either be presented, or brought in upon an Order of the House, by a Minister of the Crown, and, in the case of a Bill so presented or brought in, the creation of the charge shall not require to be authorised by a Committee of the whole House until the Bill has been read a Second time, and after the charge has been so authorised the Bill shall be proceeded with in the same manner as a Bill which involves a charge that is subsidiary to its main purpose."
Ordered,
"That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to direct information to be furnished.)
    6.41 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out from "Britain," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
    106
    "every person giving information in accordance with the Registration Acts, upon the registration, on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, of any birth, still-birth, or death, shall furnish to the registration officer such of the particulars specified in the Schedule to this Act as are appropriate to the registration and are within the knowledge of the person giving the information."
    Members of the Committee may recall the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill. It is my purpose this evening to move a number of Amendments which I have put on the Order Paper in the light of that discussion, and I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I make one or two general observations on the Amendments, which must really be read together, and which, I hope, may commend themselves to the Committee.
    The principal alteration which the Amendment that I am now moving, and subsequent Amendments, will effect is the substitution in the Schedule of a limited number of defined, but simple, particulars which may be required, for the ordinary census method of procedure, to which many hon. Members took objection. It will be a simplified course. It will secure the information desired by one operation instead of two, and will, no doubt, commend itself to hon. Members. The particulars which are to be given are to be given by the person whose duty it is to give the information under the Registration Acts. I may say also that such a person is required to give only facts within his or her knowledge, and if the person has no knowledge of them a statement to that effect will result in relief from any obligation in the matter. The date from which such particulars are to be furnished is fixed as from 1st July next. Another Amendment on the Paper, if approved by the Committee, wholly ensures a matter on which hon. Members had quite rightly some anxiety, that such information, if given, is secret and privileged. I think examination will lead hon. Members to agree that it does ensure what was generally desired. With regard to the particulars now asked for, as far as I can observe—and I have had an opportunity of discussing them with a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House—there are no objections to them, and there are a number of Amendments in the names of hon. Members on the Paper to the same effect. These particulars will generally supply information about the degree of fertility of the mother, about childless

    107
    wives, and the information requisite for statistical utilisation of such information.
    Anyone who has been in touch with people interested in this matter from the statistical point of view will, I think, agree that, with these particulars, simple and limited as they are, a considerable advance can be made in the study of fertility. By means of this information we shall be able to get, for instance, particulars of the whole issue of the mother. At present, it is true, we get particulars of every birth and of the parents of the child, but the whole of our birth-rate information in this country is based on a mass of unrelated units, consisting on each occasion of particulars of parents and one child. From the information we are able to obtain as a result of the particulars set forth in this Bill, there are certain supplementary lines of investigation which can be made. For instance, the particulars furnished as to the mother's issue, distinguished living and dead or stillborn children, will help us to investigate further the relation between high infantile mortality and a high birth-rate. Cancer in women has long been studied from the point of view of married and unmarried women, and the investigation will now enable us to investigate it further, from the aspect of childless wives and those who have produced children. Whether the results are negative or positive, they cannot fail to have an important bearing on the whole fertility problem.
    There is another matter to which public attention has recently been called. A letter appeared in the "Times" from a number of eminent people who have taken an interest in this matter, in which they raised the question of occupation so far as the particulars in this Bill are concerned. In the course of the ordinary registration powers, we obtain to-day from the informant the particulars needed for filling up the column in the births and deaths register which is headed "Rank or Profession," but, in fact, the information supplied is much more extensive than those words imply. The model in the Schedule of the Act gives the word "carpenter" as the sort of thing that should be inserted. These gentlemen who wrote to the paper—and I hope to be able to meet them—want particulars to be provided further than the mere statement of the general term of occupation, and information to be obtained on much more
    108
    detailed lines. They want us to adopt, on what I would call general census lines, the classification of over 600 heads. I think there is much to be said for further information being obtained. It will be obvious to hon. Members that, for the detailed requirements of this kind in the present Bill, it would be better to use the powers given under Section 44 of the Births and Registration Act, 1874, which permits the heading in the registers to be altered and various processes to be adopted whereby more detailed information can be obtained. Anybody who thinks of it for a moment will agree that that is a much more convenient procedure. This cannot, of course, meet the case of the inability of a mother to give detailed information as to her husband's occupation. While she may know generally what her husband's occupation is, she may not know it in the detailed sense required in the census, but could, by the means I have indicated, obtain more useful information, and enable it to be used in connection with a census.
    I want to say a final word in connection with the Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), fixing the operation of the Act at 10 years. I do not regard this as unreasonable. It is in some respects consequential on the limitations proposed as set out in the Schedule. In my original proposals, I adopted the procedure in which whoever was Minister then would be able to come forward and get a positive Resolution from the House. That has gone. It may well be, therefore, that experience will show during the next few years, or it may not, how far these matters suffice which we are putting in the Bill to-day, and whether further information is necessary, or whether further modications of the scheme are desired. I hope, at any rate before the end of 10 years, that we may have sufficient information upon which to consider the whole matter in its larger aspects, and, therefore, if my hon. Friend will move his Amendment at the appropriate time, so far as the Government and I myself are concerned, we are prepared to accept it. I hope the Amendment I have put on the Paper will meet the wishes of hon. Members.
    6.58 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It is the usual practice in this House and in its Committees

    109
    when a Minister makes a concession to thank him for what he is doing. If I depart from that practice to-day, it will not be because I minimise the concession, or from any lack of courtesy to the Minister, who has certainly dealt fairly and, in the main, wisely, with his critics from all sides. The reason why I propose to take a different view is that I think the thanks are due from the Minister to us in this matter, because we have, in fact, saved him from that grave unpopularity throughout the country which he would have had had the Bill in its original form become an Act. The fate of unpopularity is one which no Minister, and, if I may say so, least of all the present Minister of Health, would wish to reap.
    The facts are, in the first place, that on certain assumptions, which may or may not eventuate, there would be a declining population in this country. In consequence of that, statisticians have made out a case for obtaining more facts of a specific character. Whether the elicitation of those facts will help the Minister to form a Bill or not, it is certainly a reasonable proposal that certain facts should be obtained. But there is this proviso, that those facts to be obtained for statistical purposes must not be at too great a cost of public inconvenience and an invasion of the privacy of individuals. That being so, the Minister gave instructions for the preparation of a Bill. It was couched in extraordinarily wide terms. The extravagant proposals contained in it very much surprised many statisticians who were asking for information, and very much alarmed many Members of the House who read the Bill. Before the Second Reading they realised, what the general public was only beginning vaguely to realise, the grave implications of the way in which the Bill was drawn. It was no answer to these views that the powers that the Minister would possess might not in fact be abused, or might not even be exercised in the full form in which they were given. It was no excuse to say that the House would have a further opportunity of considering any Orders that the Minister would make under the Bill because the House has only, even on an affirmative Resolution, a very limited amount of time and opportunity for giving adequate consideration to any such proposal. Therefore, on the Second Reading
    110
    there was in all quarters of the House wide opposition to the Bill as drafted. I particularly emphasise the words "as drafted," because the opposition was not to the obtaining of such statistics as are really necessary, but to the form in which the proposals were embodied in the Bill.
    Some of the statisticians, who, I think, had not read the Bill, and some sections of the Press which certainly had not given full consideration to its terms saw fit to condemn some of us, and to suggest that our purpose would have been served had we meekly praised the Bill on Second Reading and put down a few Amendments. But, had we taken that course and put down the very Amendments which the Minister has put before us today, is it at all likely that the Bill would have been modified in the way that it is being modified now? The only way to secure the drastic alterations that we have secured was to attack the Second Reading, and we attacked it, making it clear that our opposition was not to the principle but to the form in which the Bill was drawn. In consequence of that criticism, reflecting in advance, as it did, what would have been the attitude of public opinion had the Bill become law, the Minister saw the red light and recognised it when he saw it and, though be naturally proceeded to the Second Reading, he has very wisely, very fairly, and very courteously drastically altered the Bill. I have gone through it with a pen and a bottle of red ink and put in the alterations that the Minister proposes. Having done so, I was tempted to a rather interesting analysis of how much of the original Bill was standing, and I found that of 180 lines less than 67 remain, and even in those 67 there are considerable alterations of individual words. Therefore, about a third of the Bill as it originally appeared will stand and two-thirds will disappear. I confess straight away without the smallest difficulty that by these drastic changes our criticism is mainly met, particularly as it is a fact that these changes are not merely of the character but are to a certain extent in the very form in which we ourselves recommended them to his consideration.
    I am very glad that he has been able to make these alterations. I think between us we shall make a very much better Bill which will attain the object which statisticians have at heart, and which will not give the same amount of

    111
    difficulty and embarrassment to the general public.
    The particular Amendment now before us meets one of the objections which I stressed specially on the Second Reading. As the Bill was originally drafted, a considerable number of people could have been called upon to assist in supplying the information, and I foresaw the possibility of the unhappy individual who went to effect the registration being sent back several times and having to badger a large number of people to try to obtain the information. As I understand the Amendment, the whole of that has gone. What will happen is that one person will go to effect the registration and certain questions will be asked. He or she will be expected to give an answer to the best of their ability, and, if they are unable to complete the whole of the interrogatory, they will be told they have done all they can be called upon to do and the rest, being outside their knowledge, will be left over. That sweeping alteration was one of the points that I stressed most particularly, and I am very glad that the Minister has seen his way to take this course. I think that will relieve the general public of a great deal of the difficulty that there was under the original proposal. The right hon. Gentleman in other parts of the Bill has made full pro vision for the information being confidential, but what he has not provided for—
    The Chairman: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not observed that there is a special Amendment with regard to that matter, which as at present advised I propose to call.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Perhaps I may indicate my point and, if you think it better to postpone it, I will do so. There is no provision, as I see it, anywhere in the Bill for a person who is going to be asked for information being told that it will be confidential. The Minister may say he intends to tell the registrar that he is to make that observation to the person, but, even so, I think it ought to appear in the Bill. I would ask the Minister whether he will at some stage put in an Amendment instructing the registration officer to inform the person giving the information that it is confidential. I am very glad that he proposes these alterations, and I am sure that he and the
    112
    general public ought to be very much indebted to the criticis in all parts of the House who have induced him to make these very wide changes.
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. Kingsley Griffith: Of course, it is an extraordinary thing to look at the Bill with the Amendments now proposed and to reflect on what it was in its youth. There is really nothing left of the old dog except the collar round its neck. I seemed almost to detect some kind of congratulation by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last at having saved the Minister from himself, but I do not think he is quite entitled to take that credit to himself. His Amendment was not put down until the Friday, the Bill being taken on the Monday. I had my Motion for rejection on the Paper for three weeks before that and, if it had not been put down, the Bill would have had its Second Reading in its original form as an agreed Bill. I do not want to indulge in an undignified wrangle as to who killed Cock Robin, but I thank the Minister heartily for the ample way in which he has met the wishes of the House as clearly expressed on the Second Reading. It seems to me that this is a vindication of Government by debate, that when discontent is expressed on all sides the Minister should set himself industriously to recast it thoroughly in such a form as the House will accept, not by the mere exercise of a mechanical whip-driven majority, but with real approval and enthusiasm.
    A number of Amendments which I have put on the Paper will now, as far as I can make out, be out of order because the Minister has removed all the words that they were designed to amend. In ordinary circumstances that would pain me very much—all my pretty chickens at one swoop—but as the Minister's own Amendments are fulfilling the purposes that I had in mind—he having a staff of skilled draftsmen at his disposal—much better than I could have done myself, it only remains for me to say that I am glad to accept all the Minister's Amendments, and I advise my hon. Friends to do the same. It is not necessary for me to remove any of my confidence, and I hope that when the Bill has been amended by the Committee and finally comes up for Third Reading, it will be in a form which will achieve the object of the scientific gentlemen who genuinely desire information

    113
    upon this all-important subject with a view to the future of our race, and will, at the same time, avoid those difficulties of unnecessary interrogation which many of us fear both for themselves and their effect upon public opinion.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: As one who took some part in criticising the Bill on Second Reading, I want to join with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) in expressing gratification at finding that, somewhat late in the day, the right hon. Gentleman was glad to adopt our views. His difficulty was that he thought that he was drafting a poster for the general election which would not be criticised by anybody whose voice would be heard by him. One now realises, when he sees the effect of criticism upon the right hon. Gentleman's draftsmanship, what a pity it is that he cannot be kept more under control in some of his extra ministerial activities. I have carried the analysis of his repentance a little further than my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh. I have counted every word in the Bill, and I find that he started off with 1362, of which he proposes to remove 894, leaving him with 468, to which he proposes to add 400, giving him a total Bill of 868 words, of which 468 alone represent his first thoughts. The 400 representing his second thoughts are a great deal better than the 468 of the original Bill which remains. I do not understand the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman this evening, because if what he said in his Second Reading speech, and in the article which appeared in the "Daily Express" on the morning of our discussion, were accurate statements, the amended Bill is totally inadequate, and he ought really to have stood by his guns.
    Does he now believe that Australia, New Zealand and various other Dominions have legislation like the Bill that he introduced, and, if so, why has so great an Imperialist as himself been converted by a Little Englander like the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough? Either the right hon. Gentleman was telling us the truth on the original occasion, or to-day he is running away from the truth. I do not think that he could escape from that dilemma even if he wanted to. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that
    114
    if that for which he then asked was required, this Bill is inadequate. If, on the other hand, the present Bill is adequate, why did he inflict upon the House the trouble of having a Second Reading Debate of the kind that we had, which caused one of the Burgesses of Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) to use such language that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Ritson) feels that he has to explain to his constituents the reasons why he has to associate with persons who deal with such subjects in such plain language? The fact is, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman tried to put it across the House, and, unfortunately for him, was found out One can only hope that it will be a warning to him in future, when pseudo-scientific people like the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) ask for information in the name of science, not to fall into the trap in the simple way he did with regard to this Bill. I join with my right hon. Friend in feeling satisfaction that we shall not now have to divide upon many of the points that we raised on Second Reading. I rejoice also with my right hon. Friend in this vindication of the power of the House of Commons in controlling even so elusive a Minister as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health.
    7.21 p.m.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: In view of the remarks of the pseudo-serious politician the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I feel that I must, as being perhaps the nearest approach to a scientific Member of Parliament on the subject of vital statistics, maintain the position he has challenged. It is perfectly true that the attitude taken up by me, in trying to defend the Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill, was somewhat at variance with that which I propose to take up in supporting his attitude to-day. That has to be vindicated from the point of view of the statistician. I have been in touch since the Second Reading Debate, with statisticians, economists, and sanitarians, and I have met the leading body of members in each respect, and despite the epithet applied to me by the last speaker, I may, anyhow, venture to speak on behalf of the really scientific people and their attitude to this Measure. The main point is, how far were the original proposals essential, and how far the present proposals fulfil the purposes of the Bill. Obviously, the first

    115
    perturbation of those who have to work in respect of matters of vital statistics must be whether the Bill is being cut down far too much. It is obvious that it is being cut down in response, and doubtless according to the wishes of the people as expressed in this House, and it is equally obvious that that wish is expressed in this House in total disregard of the real objects of the vital statistical bureau of inquiry, which is the object of the Bill.
    It was a try-on as between the scientific department of the Government, that is, the Registrar-General's office, on the one hand, in the investigation into the population question, wanting to have as free a hand as possible in order to get whatever figures that were necessary for research, and, on the other hand, Members of this House rightly trying to defend the liberties of the people, but without any regard to the position of vital statistics and the need for vital statistical and scientific inquiry. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) convulsed the House with laughter on what to me did not seem very relevant, but the point of the Bill is quite clear, and the main object of the requirement of statistics is still maintained. I cannot make further inquiries—and I do not think that any hon. Member of the Committee can—as to the reason why the Bill was brought forward in such a complicated form as was the case on the Second Reading. I still believe that there are certain points that would have been useful to a statistical inquiry but which were not essential. That seems to be the conclusion of the statisticians, as far as I have been able to consult them on the subject. The drafting of the Measure originally gave rise to all sorts of excessive and unnecessary fears as to what might have happened and might have been avoided.
    I hope that whenever a future Measure is presented to Parliament dealing with a really technical and scientific point, it will be drafted in a much simpler form, and much more in the form of the Bill with which we are to deal this evening. When you are dealing with a technical subject, it is essentially beyond the purview of almost all Members of the House, and should be left to the Minister to decide, with his experts in the office. Many advanced countries in the world to-day
    116
    would say that certainly that is the only way in which you can really scientifically conduct a Government, certainly as regards technicalities. As a matter of fact, it is largely done in this country. Many of the most technical subjects are under departments, special committees, councils and so on that are under the Privy Council, and do not come under the purview of this House at all. There are many other departments of Government where a great deal of the work and technicalities is carried on without this House being consulted. This was a case where such an investigation was required and naturally as is the way of scientific men, they ask for a great deal more power than they thought they were likely to want or to exercise. Hon. Members, as a result of the Debate in this House, have decided to restrict them to the severest and smallest limit. I hope that it is not too great a restriction. The Minister himself has suggested that if it is found that there is too great a restriction, a further amending Bill may be introduced in the course of a few years.
    Meanwhile, the object of this inquiry, let us remember, is infinitely more important than the actual difficulties of getting these intimate facts from the people. It is a question of whether the nation shall survive at all. I fear that the real seriousness of the depopulation question is not understood by this House or by the people at large. It has been decided to adopt an inquiry which will take a considerable time and we may be losing precious years while certain other countries have taken steps which have been successful already. You are side-tracking and delaying an issue, which you think is absolutely of no immediate importance. It is of immediate importance and brooks no delay. I am sorry that there should be this great delay, but I am glad that there is to be simplification of that which is required in order that we may become more active in regard to registration. I hope that the administration of this proposed Measure, as it is to be amended by the Minister, will be satisfactory, and I only hope that the distinguished economists, who, on a perfectly non-political or non-party basis, wrote a letter to the "Times" after very careful consideration, will be satisfied with the proposal which is now being made.
    To-day we are taking a step, I do not know whether it is forward or downward,

    117
    in deciding the best method of dealing with this matter, either the method of trusting the Minister by Order in Council to decide what things are necessary or, on the other hand, to adopt the course of saying: "Hands off the liberties of the people; whatever happens to vital statistics we must not invade the privacy of the people." I am not sure that the House has taken the right decision. It is a very vital decision but it has been taken, and I do not desire further to interfere with that decision.
    7.31 p.m.
    Sir Arthur Salter: In rising at this moment when my senior colleague in the renresentation of Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) is not here, I shall perhaps remove some misconception if I say that I am not in any way rising as his spokesman. It is quite clear that I could not emulate the presentation of his opinion, even if I should in every respect wish to do so. Quite apart, however, from the question of presentation, my own view is substantially different from his in regard to this Bill as he expressed it on Second Reading, although we then both voted against it. I rise without any reservation whatever to congratulate the Minister not only upon the Amendments that he has moved but upon the Bill as now to be amended. I believe that from the point of view of the scientific purposes for which the Bill is intended it will in its future amended form be of greater assistance than the Bill which was originally presented.
    I do not regret in the least having given a silent vote against the Bill on Second Reading. The Amendments now proposed by the Minister are, I think, a complete justification of those of us who acted as I did. If any further justification was needed it has been supplied by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). While, however, I do not in the least regret what I did, I have been rather sorry that the Minister should have had more trouble when he was making a disinterested contribution to research and giving his own time and the Government's time for this purpose than on other occasions when he has less conspicuously displayed such virtue. I dare say he may have thought it rather hard that some of us connected with institutions concerned with social research should have opposed him in these circumstances
    118
    for I do not in the least agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who said that the Minister thought that he was drawing up an election poster when he drafted the Bill. I have never seen a Bill that was less like an election poster than the Bill that was first introduced to us.
    A good deal of surprise has been expressed in the Committee and elsewhere as to why some of us who not only agreed with the principle of the Bill and ardently desire it in its present form should have voted against its Second Reading. May I say why I took that course? I took it, not in spite of being in social research and social science, but because I am interested in them, and because this science will often require information—
    The Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member can elaborate that part of the Bill. That must be dealt with on Third Reading.
    Sir A. Salter: I bow to your Ruling and will leave that point. I sincerely hope that the effect of the processes through which the Bill has gone will not at a later stage be a discouragement to the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary or their successors if in the future those who are interested in the social sciences come forward with a request for reasonable information not involving an undue amount of inconvenience to the public, although inquiries on these matters must always involve a certain amount of inconvenience. I hope that when essential information is in future asked for by those interested in social research, it will more willingly be given, because some of us have urged that what is now demanded should be strictly limited to what the population experts have stated they really need.
    I congratulate the Minister upon having not only escaped a great deal of unpopularity for himself and saved a great deal of inconvenience to the public by the course that he has adopted, but also on having by his present proposals served the true future interests of scientific social research.
    7.37 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I should like to thank hon. Members for what they have said in regard to my own part in connection with this Bill. I do not think that I shall regret my association with this matter.

    119
    My view is that public opinion will grow steadily in favour of the course which has been taken. Opinion in this country has been growing steadily in favour of the necessity of knowing much more in regard to this vital question than we know at the present time. Looking at the matter not merely from the point of view of this Bill or the question of population, I am convinced that in the next few years we shall need this kind of information more and more in connection with our social policy.
    Although I have not had as comfortable a journey as I have had in connection with other legislation, I am not ashamed at having been associated with this proposal. I thank those who have supported me consistently all the way through. There is, of course, a difference between the Bill as originally proposed and as it is now proposed to amend it. We shall not be able to obtain all the information sought in the original Bill, but because you do not obtain all the information that was originally suggested it does not mean that the information that you will get will not be of value. Naturally, I should have preferred, if I could have got the acceptance of the House, all the information that was originally sought, but I am I hope a good House of Commons man and I accept the will of the House. It is in that spirit that I have made my new proposals. I am advised, and I think that everyone will agree with that advice, that the information that will be obtained as a result of my Amendment to-day will be of considerable value.
    As far as my own personal association with the Bill is concerned, I do not in the least regret it. I have certainly had a far less uncomfortable time than many of my distinguished predecessors who have been associated with proposals of this kind. I think King David started on this subject and he had a very difficult time. When proposals were made in this House for the first census in 1753 the hon. Member for Oxford University at that time said that the proposal for having a census would be followed by
    "some great public misfortune or an epidemical distemper."
    Another hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for York, said that he did not think that there was
    120
    "any individual of the human species who was so presumptuous or abandoned as to make such a proposal"
    as that made by the Ministers. No one has said that of me. Therefore, on the whole I do not think that I have done very badly.
    In answer to the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) I may say that I will consider what he said as to the position of the registrars in relation to the confidential nature of the particulars referred to. It occurs to me that perhaps a greater safeguard would be that on the documents to be prepared we should state quite plainly that this is confidential information. That would perhaps be better than having it in an Act of Parliament. However, I will confer with the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I beg to move, after the words last added, to add:
    "(5) Any particulars furnished in pursuance of this Act shall be privileged and shall not in any event be liable to be produced in any court of law."
    We seem to be in an atmosphere of congratulations, and the air is full of bouquets. May I remind the Minister that when he talks about numbering the people, it was the people who suffered while King David was immune? I join in thanking the Minister for his drastic alterations of the Bill so that it is now a reasonable and workable Measure. I congratulate myself that my Amendment still stands when so many other Amendments in the names of hon. Members have fallen. I move my Amendment in order to point out the dangers to personal liberty and personal privacy which are entailed in legislation such as that which was envisaged in the Bill as originally presented.
    I am afraid that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) is more concerned as a scientist with scientific data and less with the privacy of the individual. It is the duty of this House to see to it that when information has to be supplied by a private individual there should be some safeguards—drastic safeguards—in order that the individual may be protected, I will not say against the misuse but the use against himself of information obtained by law. That information should be privileged. The Bill

    121
    asked for powers the exercise of which it is now generally conceded would have been intolerable from the point of view of the individual citizen. There is a modern fashion for statistics, very few of which, it seems to me, are ever used. People are compelled by law to furnish all sorts of facts and details about themselves and their families which many years ago would have been considered entirely their own affair. It may be that it is right that we should now extract from the individual so much private information about himself or herself, but as it stood the Bill went so far in the invasion of the privacy of the individual that the House and the country became alarmed.
    When I put the Amendment on the Paper it was to safeguard the individual from the provisions of the Bill as it then stood, and from the Schedule as it then stood. We have not reached the Schedule, but I understand it is to be so altered as to make it more or less innocuous. I realise that the action of the Minister in meeting the wishes of the House and of people outside has robbed my Amendment of the force it would have had if the Bill had remained unaltered, but I still think that there might be occasions when information which is forcibly obtained under the law should remain privileged, and should not be disposable in a court of law. There may be, of course, occasions when it should be disclosed, but the main principle should be that the citizen should not be forced to furnish information which might be used against himself. I agree with what the Minister has said that the information furnished to the registrar and his staff remains secret and confidential.
    No one has suggested, and I do not suggest, that the registrar and his staff are failing in their obvious duty, but it is not from a disclosure by the registrar or his staff that I wish to safeguard the individual citizen. I wish to safeguard him, in the main, from the danger that the information which he furnishes may be called for under subpoena in a court of law. I suggest that this is a point which this House should bear in mind when discussing this Bill and similar legislation in the future. More and more we are encroaching, perhaps rightly, on the individual liberty of the citizen, and more and more we are running the risk that some fact which is disclosed in filling up some form may be forced to be given as
    122
    evidence in a court of law. There are occasions when that would be perfectly right, but this House should watch most carefully, in passing any legislation, that information which the Bill demands from the individual shall not be disclosable in a court of law unless the individual gives his consent for it to be so disclosed. I move the Amendment in order to call the attention to the trend of modern legislation and the necessity which exists to safeguard the individual.
    7.49 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The object of the hon. and gallant Member will, in fact, be attained if the Committee accepts an Amendment of the Minister of Health to Clause 4 which appears on the Order Paper. The Committee will notice that that Amendment ends with the proviso:
    "Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to any disclosure of information made for the purposes of any proceedings which may be taken in respect of an offence under this Section, or for the purposes of any report of such proceedings."
    Subject to these two exceptions, which I am sure the Committee will agree ought to be made, the effect of the form of words in Clause 4 will be to make it impossible to obtain this information by subpoena in a court of law. The form of words in Clause 4 follows closely the form which was recently before the courts, when the court said that as these two exceptions were made it was quite clear that there was a general prohibition against their production in ordinary cases. As this form of words, therefore, has been construed it is desirable to follow them in the Bill, and by using this form of words we impose the privilege which the hon. and gallant Member desires. I agree that we have to consider carefully before conferring this absolute privilege in regard to information, but in cases where the information is wanted for statistical purposes in order to get a picture of the country as a whole, it seems right to give this privilege.
    Mr. Foot: If I follow the Attorney-General correctly the effect of the Amendment to Clause 4 will be that there will be an absolute privilege except in respect of proceedings for offences under the Bill. Under the form of words would it not be impossible to waive the privilege?
    The Chairman: That it a point which we can discuss when we come to the Amendment of the Minister on Clause 4.
    Mr. George Griffiths: I think it would be better to put it in Clause 1 as Subsection (5). If it is definitely clear, why not put it in the first Clause of the Bill? I ask the Minister of Health to be a man and accept the Amendment.
    Sir A. Southby: After the explanation of the Attorney-General and the assurance he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Duty of Registrar-General to collect information, and provision for expenses.)
    Amendment made: In page 2, line 23, leave out "an Order made under the foregoing Section," and insert "this Act."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power to make regulations.)
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 2, leave out "an order made under."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    7.56 p.m.
    Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) In Section twenty-nine of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1836 (which Section, as amended by Section thirty-one of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874, and by Section seven of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1926, determines certain fees payable to registration officers in respect of the registration of births, stillbirths, and deaths), for the words 'one shilling' there shall be substituted the words 'one shilling and five pence.'
    Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1926, shall cease to have effect."
    Notwithstanding the changes which have been made in the Bill and in the Schedule, a considerable amount of additional work is going to be thrown upon the registration officers. I am sure the Committee would not allow that to happen without seeing that the registration officers were adequately remunerated for the extra work. A great many of the registration officers are salaried, and, under Clause 3 as it is drafted, their salaries are to be adjusted. But there are
    124
    a number of men who are paid on a fee basis; they are paid on the basis of the number of entries they make, and not by means of a salary. It is rather a curious position at present. They are paid on the basis of a fee of 2s. 6d. for each entry, whether it is a birth or death, in each quarter up to the first 20 entries, and for all entries after the first 20 they are paid 1s. an entry if it is a birth, and 1s. 3d. if it is a death. I do not know whether the Committee will judge that the reason for the decline in the birth rate is that you have to pay more for registering a death than for registering a birth. The suggestion I am putting forward is that these men after the first 20 entries should be paid at the rate of 1s. 5d. per entry whether it is a birth or a death, and the inequality between the 1s. 3d. and 1s. removed. I think it is a fair figure. The National Association of Local Government Officers have discussed this matter with the Registrar-General, and I should like to pay a tribute to the sympathy and consideration which the Registrar-General has given to this matter. It is in collaboration with him that they have put forward to the Committee the figure of 1s. 5d. in the Amendment, which I hope the Committee will accept.
    7.59 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I think the Committee will agree that this is a reasonable Amendment. We are increasing the remuneration of registration officers who are engaged on a salaried basis; this is to meet the case of a limited number of registration officers who have retained their old terms. Many, hon. Members who are familiar with the work of local government will know that the National Association of Local Government Officers have interested themselves in the matter and that they have seen the Registrar-General about it. We all think that this Amendment is a reasonable one. It will not mean in any way a charge on the public. The arrangement with regard to fees is carried over from the old days when the poor law guardians were entrusted with the work. From the point of view of the local authorities, it will mean little or nothing. I think the Committee may be satisfied that the Amendment is a reasonable one.
    8.1 p.m.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: At Question Time this afternoon, there was reference to the fact

    125
    that the workers had got a 4 per cent. increase in wages, and hon. Members opposite applauded that statement. The Minister has now accepted this Amendment without demur, and is giving these registrars a 42½ per cent. increase by one stroke of the pen.
    Mr. Turton: No.
    Mr. Griffiths: It amounts to 42 per cent.
    Mr. Turton: The hon. Member has left out of account the fact that the fee of 2s. 6d. for the first 20 entries does not change. If he will work the figures out, he will find that the increase is less.
    Mr. Griffiths: Apart from the first 20 entries, these men will get a 42½ per cent. increase. What I am complaining about is that when the workers, the people on the means test and the unemployed ask for an increase, the Government say, "Oh, no, we cannot do it; it will smash the Government." But when civil servants want a 42½ per cent. increase, the Minister says that it is very reasonable. I do not think it is reasonable, and I think we should oppose this increase of 5d. I hope my hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment.
    Sir F. Fremantle: The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) does not seem to have realised that the fee of 1s. was fixed in the year 1836. I do not think the wages of the workers to whom he was referring were fixed 100 years ago. The proposal now is that the fee of 1s., which was fixed in 1836, should be increased to 1s. 5d. 100 years later. It is an increase which does not represent even the increase in the value of money.
    8.4 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to know exactly on what basis the whole emoluments of these men are paid, and who pays them. I gather that it is to be squared up in the block grant. Does that mean that the money will come out of the Exchequer, or does it mean that the councils will have to foot the bill in the first instance, and that it will be squared up, as between one council and another, in the block grant? I have been asked by the County Councils Association of Scotland to move that all the additional costs involved by this Bill should be paid by the Exchequer on the
    126
    ground that it is for a public and not for a local purpose that the information is being sought. I imagined that an Amendment of that kind would be out of order, and consequently I did not put one on the Order Paper; but I should like to have a little more information from the Minister on the matter.
    8.6 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I will gladly tell the right hon. Gentleman what I know about the matter. The employment of these registrars, some of whom are salaried, and some of whom are on a fee basis, as far as the financial relationships of the local authorities are concerned, would be dealt with under the Local Government Act, 1929. When the Poor Law guardians were abolished, their duties in connection with the registration of births and deaths were transferred to the local authorities. In the system which appertains at present, and which appertained when the Poor Law guardians were in existence, certain fees are payable to Registrars; but the salaried men instead of appropriating the fees surrender them to the local authorities, which pay them their salaries.
    With regard to the registrars on a salaried basis, it is provided in the Bill that the slight increase in the duties which will fall upon them in connection with these proposals should be met by a adjustment of their remuneration by the local authorities. After the Bill had been presented the case of the registrars still on the old fee basis arose. It is to deal with these registrars, who are paid by fees, that the Amendment has been moved. The cost will fall upon the local authorities. It will be remembered that under the block grants, any minor increase of this kind during the quinquennium is to be regarded as part of the extra cost of the local authorities in their day-to-day activities. The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that an additional sum was provided in order to meet cases of this nature. The extra cost to the local authorities will be trifling, and it will enable the fee-receiving registrars to have some increase in their remuneration, as is provided for in the case of the salaried registrars. I think the Amendment is a reasonable one. I hope that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) will not ask his hon. Friends to vote against it. I think these registrars are

    127
    entitled to this increase in their remuneration, and the mere fact that other people do not get as much as the hon. Member would like is no reason for our not being fair to these registrars.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: The increase is to be 5d. for every birth and death. Last year there were, in round figures, 590,000 births. All those births will be registered.
    Sir F. Fremantle: This Amendment will not apply to all the births that are registered.
    Mr. Griffiths: Not in future?
    Sir F. Fremantle: No.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 8, leave out sub-sections (2) and (3).—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4—(Penalties.)
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 31, leave out from "to," to the end of line 5, on page 4, and insert:
    "furnish in accordance with this Act any information which he is required by this Act to furnish; or
    (b) in furnishing any such information makes any statement which, to his knowledge, is false in a material particular."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    8.10 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert:
    "(2) No information obtained by virtue of this Act with respect to any particular person shall be disclosed except so far as may be necessary—

    (a) for the performance by any person of his functions under this Act in connection with the furnishing, collection or collation of such information; or

    (b) for the performance by the Registrar-General of his functions under section five of the Census Act, 1920;

    and if any person discloses any such information in contravention of this subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine:
    Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any disclosure of information made for the purposes of any proceedings
    128
    which may be taken in respect of an offence under this section, or for the purposes of any report of such proceedings."
    As I indicated in dealing with a previous Amendment, the opportunity has been taken to redraft the provisions of Clause 4, dealing with penalties, on the lines of the decision recently taken by the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. The general effect of this Amendment was explained by me a ew minutes ago, and indeed it speak for itself. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) raised a point with which I will deal now. He asked whether, under this Clause, this information could be disclosed in a court of law with the consent of the person concerned. The answer is "No." If it is once said that it can be disclosed with the consent of the person, when the person does not give that consent, everybody will say that there is something "fishy" about it. There is also another reason why the Committee may feel that it is not necessary to pause very long over this matter. In regard to all these questions which are dealt with under the Bill, such as the age of the wife at the date of marriage, and the age of the mother at the date of the birth, if it were necessary to prove them in an individual case in a court of law, they could be proved by the ordinary registration documents for that individual. The object of this Bill is not so much to get information which cannot be got otherwise, but to get it in a form in which it can be used statistically. I think that is another reason why no injustice could possibly be done by the fact that there is not in this Amendment a provision to the effect that the information can be produced with the consent of the person.
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: I should like to ask another question purely as a matter of information. The proviso refers only to the
    "disclosure of information made for the purposes of any proceedings which may be taken in respect of an offence under this section."
    Is it the intention that the information obtained under this Bill should not be available for the purpose of any other criminal proceedings?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Saving for Registration Acts.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 4, line 25, leave out "any Order made under."
    In line 27, leave out from "Act," to "shall," in line 28.
    In line 30, leave out from "Acts," to the end of the Clause [Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Application to Scotland.)
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Erskine Hill: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, at the end, to add:
    "(d) for Sub-section (2) of Section three there shall be substituted the following Subsection:

    (2) Section eighteen of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1860 (which relates to the increase of remuneration of Registrars), shall have effect as if, after the words 'fiftieth section,' there were inserted the words 'or of the fifty-first section.'"

    The object of this Amendment is to meet a similar situation to that which has been met by the adoption of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) relating to the remuneration of English registrars. It proposes to carry out, in so far as that can be done—the two laws being different—the same remedy in the case of Scotland. The Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act of 1854, divided registrars in Scotland into two classes, namely, those who were paid by fees and those who were paid by salary. In fact, close on 8 per cent. of the registrars in Scotland are paid by fees and approximately 92 per cent. are paid by salary. With regard to those who are paid by fees no difficulty arises. A fee-paid registrar can apply to the Registrar-General for an increase of his fees and if the Registrar-General sees fit to do so, he can make an order on the local authority to pay the increase. If the local authority refuses or delays then the matter is remitted to the Sheriff whose decision is final. It is with regard to the 92 per cent. who are paid by salary that the Amendment is moved, in order to secure a statutory method of revising the salaries of those officials. The effect will be to enable salaried registrars to have their remuneration revised on the same principle as that at present applied in the case
    130
    of registrars who are paid by fees. The Committee has already adopted the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton dealing with the case of the English registrars and I submit that that is a good reason for passing this Amendment. I should add that the Scottish Registrars Association are in favour of this Amendment.
    8.19 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I wish to ask the hon. and learned Member whether he has received a communication from the Association of County Councils in Scotland with regard to this matter? As I understand the position, they do not wish the Registrar-General to have the power of interference with local authorities in regard to the salaries of these officers and they would like an Amendment in a different form. The hon. and learned Gentleman made no reference to that in his speech, and I wish to ask him whether he cannot see his way to meet the wishes of the Association of County Councils. They suggest an Amendment in this form—to insert:
    "Any additional salary or fees payable to registrars arising out of or in consequence of this Act shall be fixed and determined by the Registrar-General of Scotland."
    Perhaps the hon. and learned Member or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will explain what the position is and how far the suggestion of the Association of County Councils in Scotland is met by the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Mr. Erskine Hill: I should say that I did receive the communication from the Association of County Councils to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I did not mention it because I thought that their suggested Amendment would be out of order. What my Amendment seeks to do is to make a minor extension of an existing principle. What the suggested Amendment seeks to do is to alter the principle altogether.
    8.22 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): A short time ago the Committee accepted an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) enabling the fees of English registrars to be increased. In England it is possible under the existing law for those registrars who are paid by salary to

    131
    have their remuneration reviewed in accordance with the amount of work performed, but it is not possible to have fees reviewed. The Committee has now accepted an Amendment which will enable fees also to be reviewed. In Scotland the position is at present the reverse. As my hon. and learned Friend the Mover of the Amendment has explained, it is possible under the existing law of Scotland to review the remuneration of those registrars who are paid by fees but there is no provision for the review of remuneration in the case of salaried registrars. Under the Act of 1860, a registrar in Scotland who is dissatisfied with the amount of his fees can appeal to the Registrar General who may direct the local authority to raise his remuneration. If the local authority should not agree to do so, then, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, the question is decided in the last resort by the Sheriff.
    The effect of the present Amendment would be to put salaried registrars in Scotland in exactly the same position as those who are paid by fees. Precisely, the same procedure under the Act of 1860 would then apply to salaries and to fees. I think my hon. and learned Friend has given an adequate reply to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Any such Amendment as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be out of order and I cannot see any reason for drawing a distinction between those functions of the registrar which have always been remunerated by the local authorities and the addition to those functions which would ensue from this Bill. If the present Amendment were not accepted, I think the Scottish registrars would be put at an unfair disadvantage as compared with the English registrars, and I should therefore advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.26 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: This is the one Clause that the Minister did not propose to amend, and I was going to ask him whether he would consider, before the Report stage, the fact that in this case "Registrar General" is spelled without a hyphen,
    132
    whereas elsewhere throughout the Bill, and on the Amendment Paper, "Registrar-General" is spelled with a hyphen. I know that one Noble Lord in another place takes great delight in making these small verbal alterations in Bills sent up to that House, and I hope it will be possible for this Bill, now that it has been subject to such scrutiny, at least to be consistent with itself.
    Sir K. Wood: I take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I congratulate him on the amount of leisure that he must have had at his disposal.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Short title, interpretation and extent.)
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out "and the Marriage Acts, 1811 to 1934."
    This Amendment and the next Amendment are consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 11, leave out "and registrar of marriages."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    8.28 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, at the end, to add:
    "(4) This Act shall continue in force until the thirtieth day of June, 1948, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
    Provided that, in the event of the expiration of this Act, Sub-section (2) of section 38 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, shall apply in relation thereto as if this Act had, at the time of its expiration, ceased to have effect by reason of the repeal thereof by another Act."
    May I express my regret that this Amendment has to be in manuscript form? It is not altogether my fault. I endeavoured to put the substance of the Amendment into what I thought was the proper form when I put it on the Order Paper, and the Minister was kind enough to intimate that he would be prepared to give me the substance of the Amendment but that the Parliamentary draftsmen did not like its wording. I had a conference with him during the Recess, and the Amendment was re-worded to meet their objections, and as this Bill is taken on the first day after we have come back, it has not been possible to put the amended words on the Order Paper. The Amendment raises only

    133
    two points. One is that the operation of the Bill shall not be for an indefinite period, but for 10 years only. The other paragraph is common form, to provide protection for anybody who has started an action under the Act if the Act comes to an end while the action is pending.
    The only point that I would put before the Committee now is the question of the 10-years limit. There is a good deal of difference of opinion about the utility of this Bill as a whole, and there was much criticism of it on Second Reading. As a result of that criticism, the Minister has certainly, I think everyone will admit, done his best to meet the views then expressed, and I do not think he could have done more than he has done. The only other thing that he could have done would have been to have put the whole Bill into the waste paper basket. But if we are to have the Bill at all, we should be grateful to the Minister for having tried to meet the objections which were urged against it. The point is still left uncertain as to the period for which the Bill should operate. I suggest a time limit of 10 years, and the Minister has been kind enough to say that he will not raise objection to that.
    There are really two points of view in this matter—that of those who wish to collect these statistics and that of those who have to furnish them. It quite commonly happens that Government Departments, for example, are empowered to collect statistics from private individuals, who have to go to a lot of trouble in filling up forms. Time goes on, and again and again it has been observed that, whereas further questions are added to these forms, it very rarely happens that questions are struck out on the ground that they have become obsolete or are not serving any useful purpose. As one of those who doubts very much whether these questions will serve a useful purpose, I am anxious that they shall not go on indefinitely merely because nobody takes the trouble to get rid of them, and that is why I suggest that we should now set a term to them. I think that, from the point of those who approve the Bill and want it, the suggestion is not unreasonable, because, after all, if in 10 years nothing useful can be shown to have come out of the Act, it is not unreasonable to ask that it should come to an end, whereas if good can be shown to have come out of it and at the end of 10 years the Minister can
    134
    come to Parliament and ask for another Bill, it will serve his purpose.
    Sir K. Wood: I am happy to accept the Amendment.
    8.32 p.m.
    Mr. Cartland: If at the end of 10 years Parliament has to make a decision, are we to take it that it will not be until the end of 10 years that we shall have any indication as to what statistical information has been obtained? There is nothing in the Bill which lays it down when the information which is to be obtained under it will be published, and I am quite certain that it is not the intention not to publish this information at certain regular intervals. What I should like to know is when it is proposed to do so, at what sort of intervals, and whether it will be at the end of five or 10 years, or annually, that the information will be published. My right hon. Friend, when he first agreed to the extension of the Registrar-General's work, arising out of the Motion, promised that from time to time he would come to the House and make a report as to what that Committee was doing. I want to know whether it is still proposed to give a report to Parliament as to the work of the Committee, quite independent of the information which is going to be obtained under the Bill.
    8.35 p.m.
    Sir F. Fremantle: May I utter a word of protest against the Minister accepting this proposal? It is a most astonishing one. We have to make up our minds whether we believe in this Measure or not. If we do we shall add a corpus of vital statistical inquiry to the registration system of this country, but the Amendment proposes that after 10 years this particular body shall be taken out again. It would be more logical for the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), if he still represents Colchester at the end of 10 years, to move that we abolish the whole births and deaths registration system, but to say that we agree with the collection of these statistics, but only for 10 years, and that then we should make up our minds again is the most childish suggestion I have ever heard.
    8.37 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: As the Committee has heard, my right hon. Friend proposes to accept the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) asked about the use

    135
    that will be made of this information. I cannot give any specific assurance as to the dates, and so on, but he will notice that in the new Amendment to Clause 4 one of the lawful uses of this information is to enable the Registrar-General to perform his functions under Section 5 of the Census Act, 1920. That imposes on the Registrar-General the duty from time to time to collect and publish any available statistics, and full use of that power will be made at convenient times. Experience will show what times are convenient. The Committee to which my hon. Friend referred will be consulted and kept informed of the position. The actual times of publication will be decided as the information comes to hand and can be tabulated and considered.
    8.38 p.m.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is not the whole purpose of the Bill to see that the birth rate goes up? The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) brought forward a Motion one Wednesday about the declining population. The Government accepted it and set up a committee of inquiry. The committee made a report and the Minister introduced this Bill. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, about 40 per cent. of the words of the old Bill are in this one and the other 60 per cent. consists of new stuff put in to-day. Its whole purpose is to stop the declining birth rate. The hon. Member for King's Norton and I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) that if, when we have had 10 years of this Bill as an Act, we find that the birth rate has gone up to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) then surely there will be no need to bother any more about this Measure. If the upper and middle classes will do their job as well as the working classes are doing their job in this respect, the population will go up in the next 10 years.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: Without being so emphatic or revolutionary as the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), I am rather surprised that the Minister has accepted this Amendment. We are dealing here with a matter that appears from one's survey of history to move over rather long cycles, and to suggest that 10 years will be an adequate period in which to find whether this particular
    136
    information is of any value seems to me an unwarrantable assumption. The causes which we are attempting to discover by this inquiry for statistical information operate over far longer periods than 10 years, and at the end of that period we shall not have a sufficient body of information to enable us to say whether we are justified or not in continuing the Bill. I have never opposed the idea that this information ought to be sought, but I felt on Second Reading that we were asking for a good deal of information which was useless, and were really collecting statistics for collection's sake. I do, however, want the Measure to be one that will be a really useful contribution to the study of the social conditions of our time. I regret the decision of the Minister to accept the Amendment limiting the Bill to 10 years. We want more than that period to discover whether particular causes are in operation and I should have preferred a longer period.
    8.42 p.m.
    Sir A. Salter: I join with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) in regretting that the Minister should have accepted the Amendment. We are now adding to the ordinary machinery for acquiring information as an aid to research into this important subject. The Bill as it is now to be amended is, I think, an admirable addition to that machinery and I do not see why it should be regarded as temporary any more than any other similar machinery that is set up by Parliament. Parliament can pass another Act in 10 years' time or at any other time, and this limitation of period to 10 years seems to be unnecessary.
    8.43 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the Amendment, because by doing so he has exposed the whole sham of this Bill so far as the question of population is concerned. It is true that you can get out of this Bill a measure of registration, but when we discuss it we try to make it clear that the question of population is related to security, and that if we have a mass of unemployment and insecurity we are bound to have a decline in population. The fact that the Minister is perpetrating a fraud when he introduces this Bill and tries to give the impression that he is concerned about population and the causes of decline, is made clear when, without

    137
    any discussion, he accepts an Amendment of this kind. When did a Minister ever come forward with a Bill that was supposed to be of value in this all-important question of population, and then accept an infantile suggestion such as might have come from a first class room, that it should be finished in 10 years? That is not the way to deal with a serious question. It is playing with Parliament and with the people of this country, and demonstrates clearly that the Government ate incapable of dealing with the question of population, which is one of the most serious questions that confront us. Therefore, I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the Amendment, because it has exposed his own character and the character of his Bill.
    8.45 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to say a word on this Amendment, because I should like to tell my hon. Friend opposite and others who have spoken what is in my mind, and why I think that, even from their point of view, it is not an undesirable thing to assure the review of this matter by Parliament in 10 years' time. My own judgment is that, following the experience of other countries, before the expiration of 10 years we shall, perhaps, have to examine larger questions which are involved in the population problem in this country. If that view be correct it may very well be that any larger examination, say by a Royal Commission or anything of that kind, may result in a desire for additional information. I may then be even more justified than I feel to-day. That is my own impression; but in any event I do not think it will harm anyone if the matter should come up in 10 years' time, or in 10 years after, because it will always be possible for the Bill to be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and we shall be able to note the position again. I do not think this proposal will interfere with the continual progress in the compilation of statistics of this character.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    SCHEDULE.—(Matters with respect to which particulars may be required.)
    8.48 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 14, and to insert:
    138

    "(a) the age of the mother;

    (b) the date of the marriage;

    (c) the number of children of the mother by her present husband and how many of them are living;

    (d) the number of children of the mother by any former husband and how many of them are living."

    This Amendment deals with matters which I have already described to the Committee, and I think it will secure their approval.
    8.49 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The proposed changes in the Schedule are in the main along the lines put forward by myself and others on the Second Reading of the Bill. They were subsequently embodied in Amendments which are actually on the Order Paper; but there is one quite important difference between the Amendments which I put down and the Amendment which the Minister has introduced, and I think it is only right that I should say a word on the point. I proposed that the answers to the questions relating to marriage should be voluntary, whereas the Minister has put them in the same class as other questions and made the answers to them compulsory. The Committee ought to face up to the facts, and the facts are that both in England and in Scotland questions are asked regarding the marriage of persons responsible for the birth of a child when the birth comes to be registered. In Scotland the question is asked in the form in which it is proposed by the Minister in his Schedule. In England, on the other hand, the question is asked in a different form, one which, in fact, enables a large number of people to pose as married couples when, in fact, they have not been married according to the laws of our country. During the War we accorded to couples of that kind the same privileges in many respects as were accorded to persons who were legitimately married. I mean that we gave separation allowances to the reputed wives of soldiers at the front just as if they had been married.
    The effect of this form of question in England is that in a certain proportion of cases there is no disclosure of the fact that the parents of the child are not married, and the child passes through life quite happily as legitimate when, if the facts had been strictly disclosed, a different position would have appeared. Hon. Members may have varying views on the desirability of this state of things,

    139
    but they should not shut their eyes to the effect of this new proposal of the Minister, because asking the specific question as to the date of the marriage will undoubtedly mean that answers will be given with greater accuracy, unless a certain provision about "knowledge" is used as a loophole of escape. This will mean that a greater number of children in this country will in future be registered as illegitimate than has been the case in the past. I have carefully thought over the question of putting down Amendments to prevent that situation arising, but after full consideration I have decided that I could not very well take that course, for many reasons, in particular because in Scotland the law is what the Minister is proposing it should be in this country.
    I have thought it right to make this statement, because I do not want hon. Members to shut their eyes to what is going to take place. I shall be agreeably surprised if, as the result of the passage of this Bill into law, there is not a substantial increase in the apparent number of illegitimate births in this country. If that takes place hon. Members must realise that it will not be due to any increase in irregular unions but to the operation of this Bill. I do not propose to oppose the Minister's proposals, which are a tremendous improvement on those of the original Bill, but I thought it right to give this word of warning to the Committee.
    8.53 p.m.
    Sir A. Salter: There is one point on which I should like to put a question to the Minister. This Amendment leaves out any reference to occupation, such as was included in the Bill as first presented. The Minister gave us in his opening statement an explanation of why he thought that was a right and proper alteration, and if I understand his statement in the way in which I hope I may understand it it seems to be a perfectly sufficient explanation; but I should like to put these questions: (1) May I take it that he has power under the existing law to change the form of question which is now asked with regard to occupation in such a way as to make it I do not say identical with but fit in with the census classification? (2) Has he as much power under the existing law as he would have had had the Bill as it was first presented
    140
    become law? (3) Can we have an assurance that the Department will use the powers under the existing law in such a way as to make the new question with regard to occupation fit in with the census classification?
    8.55 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I should like to answer now the questions which have been put to me. I have power under the Section of the earlier Act, which I quoted in my first observations, to change the form of question, but I have not as much power as I asked for in the original Bill. I sought to take power, when a mother came to register her child, to go to the husband if the mother did not have the required information, but objection was taken to that by some of my hon. Friends. In the circumstances, I am not asking for that power, but I can assure the hon. Member that I shall endeavour to get as near to the census classification as I can. In a very large number of cases the mother will not be able to give the information. In view of the state of Government business and of the very large number of Clauses in the Bill, the hon. Member will probably appreciate that I am taking what I think to be the practical course to secure the best result.
    On the point raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), although I naturally do not object to the terms in which he put it to me, I can only say that it would be almost impossible to make a differentiation between compulsory or voluntary information. I do not know of any country in the world where this is done in order to arrive at population statistics. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I did make inquiries from the Registrar-General in Scotland as to whether there was any objection of the kind be mentioned. I was assured by his colleague, the Registrar-General here in London, who gave me the information, that there was not.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 16, leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 24, and insert:

    "(a) if the deceased was a male, whether he had been married, and, if so, whether he was married at the date of death;

    (b) if the deceased was a woman and had been married—

    (i) the year in which she was married and the duration of the marriage;

    141

    (ii) whether she had children by her husband or any former husband;

    (c) the age of the surviving spouse, if any, of the deceased."

    In line 25, leave out paragraph 3.—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

  BLIND PERSONS BILL.
  Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 7th December.]
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  BLIND PERSONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Duty of local authorities to promote welfare of blind persons.)
    9.1 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, after "account," to insert "not only the needs of the blind person, but also."
    This Amendment has been put on the Paper in order to bring about a greater measure of uniformity in the treatment by local authorities of blind persons in regard to matters which are not affected by local conditions. It has been pointed out that there are variations in the scales of domiciliary financial assistance adopted by different local authorities. Some of them are due to and are justified by different local conditions, but it is desirable that all local authorities should have in force the same method of treating such special sources of income as are payable towards meeting the special needs of blind persons arising out of sickness or disability. I emphasise the words "arising out of sickness or disability of the blind person." My Amendment takes the matter further than the proposal which was made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that I have endeavoured to meet him in the matter.
    In their report in 1935 upon the unemployable blind, a sub-committee of the Advisory Committee for the Welfare of the Blind called attention to the methods of assisting persons under the Blind Persons Act, and the schedule contained the same exceptions as are contained in the Poor Law Act. It has been the practice
    142
    of my Department ever since that report went out to direct the attention of local authorities to the desirability of taking the course suggested, but we are going a great deal further to-day. The Amendment is wider and more extensive than that which was proposed in 1935. The Committee will see that we are in the same position as under the Unemployment Act of 1934. The second thing that we are doing is to say that it shall no longer be a matter of discretion for the local authorities, and that in cases of hardship arising out of sickness or incapacity, all local authorities shall take the same course. I have no doubt that most hon. Members are familiar with the Section of the 1934 Act which deals with friendly society and national health insurance payments, and states, for instance, that the first £1 per week of any wounds or disability pension, one-half of any weekly payment of compensation under the Acts relating to workmen's compensation, and to a specified extent money and investments treated as capital assets shall be disregarded. This is a much wider provision than before, and it is put forward with a view to obtaining some amount of uniformity. I think it is the right course for us to take at this time, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be in agreement with me in regard to the proposal. I have no doubt that he is familiar with it. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the Committee.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Before I put the Amendment, I should like to ask the Minister whether his next Amendment—in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "and the rules laid down in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Sub-section (3) of Section thirty-eight of the Unemployment Act, 1934 (which require certain assets of the person concerned to be disregarded), shall be complied with in computing the resources of any person in order to determine his needs for the purposes of this Sub-section"—
    is to be regarded as consequential upon this one. It could, of course, stand separately, but it would appear to me that, on the present Amendment, we might very well take the discussion upon it and the next subsequent Amendments together.
    Sir K. Wood indicated assent.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If that be agreeable, we will take the discussion on this Amendment.
    9.6 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: We put an Amendment on the Paper in order to try to get some concession on this matter, and my colleagues and I are grateful to the Minister for having seen lit to accept our proposals. The reason why we did not include in our Amendment all the points that are provided for in the Act of 1934 was simply that we thought that by raising some of them we should be able to draw the attention of the Minister to the matter. Evidently we have done so, and he has met us in a very full way. I would like to thank him for doing so, as I feel that this is a very real concession. In regard to unemployment assistance we know how much it means to many people whose circumstances have been damaged because of disabilities from which they suffer. The right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Health in the Labour Government, in a previous debate, put the point in a very neat way when he said that those people had an added disablement of some kind or other, and this payment was simply so far as possible to put them on the same level as the others with regard to what they might have from other general arrangements for providing for their needs. It is a great satisfaction to us that these concessions are to be made in the case of blind people also.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Furth Amendment made: In page 2, line 18, at the end, insert:
    "and the rules laid down in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Sub-section (3) of Section thirty-eight of the Unemployment Act, 1934 (which require certain assets of the person concerned to be disregarded), shall be complied with in computing the resources of any person in order to determine his needs for the purposes of this Sub-section."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. Windsor: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, at the end, to insert:
    "or who at the time of his death was a member of the household of which such a blind person as aforesaid was at that time a member and was dependent on him."
    This Amendment may appear to be a very small one, but nevertheless it is of considerable importance to those blind persons in whose families death unfortunately occurs, and who are thereby forced to apply to the public assistance committee. The purpose of the Amendment is to give to local authorities operating the Act of 1920 the same power that
    144
    they have under that general provision. I understand that the Amendment has been favourably considered by the Ministry, and that there is a disposition on their part to accept it.
    9.10 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I am very glad to be able to accept this Amendment. Its effect will be to empower a local authority to pay or contribute to funeral expenses of a member of the household of a blind person who is dependent on him, the payment or contribution being made under the Blind Persons Act instead of under the Poor Law. This is consistent with the general intention of the last preceding paragraph of the Clause, under which local authorities providing assistance to blind persons are required to take into account the needs of any members of the household of a blind person who are dependent on him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.11 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out:
    "either assistance in an institution or."
    The aim of this Amendment, as, I think, of the Bill, is to eliminate any remainder of what might be termed the pauper taint. It is that assistance in any institution should be provided under this Act and not by way of Poor Law relief. I do not think that much argument is required at this time of day in requesting the House to pursue that course, for the Local Government Act, 1929, had the same object in view.
    9.12 p.m.
    Mr. Windsor: I have only a word to add to what my hon. Friend has said. It is that the purpose of the Amendment is to get an explanation from the Minister as to the precise meaning of these words, which also appear in the Act of 1920. So far as we can gather, they mean that the institution in question may be either a Poor Law institution or any other kind of institution. We are merely concerned that they shall refer to a blind institution, and shall have no relation whatever to the Poor Law.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. Bernays: I have considerable sympathy with the mover of the Amendment, but am afraid I am unable to

    145
    accept his words. It would not be practicable, I am advised, for local authorities to provide institutional treatment for blind persons exclusively under the Blind Persons Act. In many cases blind persons requiring this form of assistance have to be dealt with under the Public Health Act or in Poor Law institutions, in the same way as sighted persons requiring similar treatment, but there is on the Paper an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. A. Chapman), which the Government propose to accept, stating that assistance provided in an institution for the blind must be provided under the Blind Persons Act. This will still leave the necessary exception which I have already mentioned.
    Mr. David Adams: In view of the hon. Gentleman's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.14 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I am sorry that my Amendment was not called—
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I thought I made it clear that any discussion ought to take place on the Minister's Amendment. The hon. Member appeared to acquiesce in that suggestion, so I took it that he was satisfied.
    Mr. Messer: I understood you, Captain Bourne, to say, "the two Amendments," and obviously they were the two Amendments in the name of the Minister of Health.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry if the hon. Member misunderstood me. I meant, the next four Amendments. I thought the hon. Member acquiesced in my suggestion. Apparently the rest of the Committee did.
    Mr. Messer: No, I am inclined to think that many Members of the Committee thought my Amendment was not called because it was out of order. Had that not been the case I should have moved it. I regret that it was not called, because there was so much of importance contained in it. As the matter stands, there is the possibility of this Bill being, not a benefit, but a real hardship to many
    146
    people. Unless the Minister on Report meets in some way the point I am going to make there will be blind people who will be suffering a reduction in income as a consequence of the Bill, though I am certain that that is not the intention of the Minister. As is known, local authorities are entrusted with the task of preparing schemes for the purposes of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and drawing up domiciliary schemes. Some of the authorities, realising that the assessment of the basis of income under the Old Age Pensions Act does not entirely meet the needs of the case, arrange a machine by which they assess. Under the Old Age Pensions Act, the owner of a house is assessed under Schedule A. There are public authorities which, when they are assessing the owner of a house who is blind, take into consideration all the receipts for which that house is responsible, deduct rates, mortgage, ground rent and repairs, and regard the balance as income.
    The Middlesex County Council have a scheme which gives 27s. 6d. a week to a blind person. There was a case of a woman who had a life interest in her house, and when she arrived at the age of 50 she was told she could no longer draw the 17s. 6d. a week from the Middlesex County Council plus the 10s. a week which was the assumed value of the house, but that her old age pension would be reduced. The difference in the method of calculating the property meant that she suffered a reduction of 2s. 10d. a week. I was under the impression, when this legislation was introduced, that the Minister was going to seize the opportunity to remedy what was then already a grievance, and one which has been intensified by the fact that you are reducing the age at which pension will be paid. In another case, the wife of a person receiving old age pension had her domiciliary pension reduced from 23s. 6d. to 21s. Had my Amendment been accepted, the 10s. a week would have stood without regard to other income.
    There is also the question of the basis of the Ministry of Health's assessment of the value of maintenance in institutions. I can give an instance of a blind person who was in receipt of a pension of 27s. 6d. a week, and who, on being transferred to Middlesex, went into an institution. Had he not gone into the institution he would have been entitled to 10s. a week blind person's pension, but, because the

    147
    Ministry assessed the value of what he was getting in the institution as higher than the amount of income that would justify his pension, he got nothing. Those are types of cases that would be met had my Amendment been accepted. Take the case of the differences in the scheme existing throughout the country. The Minister said that his object was to bring about uniformity, but does he do that? The report to which he referred contains two important items—that there are 42 public authorities which have no blind persons' scheme at all in operation, and that there are 20 authorities who pay as little as 15s. a week. It is possible under the Bill, as it stands, for those local authorities to pay only 5s. a week, because the 10s. a week pension will make up the 15s. that the blind person had previously been given.
    If it is intended that the Bill should benefit the blind, why should local authorities reap the benefit? The Bill is not intended to transfer the financial liability from the local authority to the State. I am in perfect agreement with extending the area of liability: I think the State ought to take the greater share of responsibility for things which are certainly not of local origin; but there is the fact that many local authorities will take advantage of this position, that a pension of 10s. a week will be given, and they will be giving less. That is not really the way to tackle this problem. Are we legislating for a local authority or for these people who, denied the blessing we have got, have renounced a joy which no amount of compensation will make up to them? I hope we are going to have an assurance that this will be met, and that, at any rate, blind persons will not have their position worsened, and that some encouragement will be given to local authorities who want to do the right thing and are prevented by the fact that the provisions of the Bill do not permit them to do so.
    9.24 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: I also did not understand, Captain Bourne, that you intended to take a general discussion on all the Amendments. Therefore, I might say a few words on my Amendment, which covers much the same ground as some of the others. It is difficult to understand why, by this Bill, the pension age is being
    148
    reduced to 40. It is not going to help blind people at all. It is a direct subsidy to the rates. The 10s. which is to be granted is not going to be any addition to the emoluments of the blind, but is simply going into the rates. My suggestion is that it should be stated in the Statute that it shall not be taken into consideration, and that therefore the income of the blind person shall be 10s. more. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will indicate whether he will express the wish that as far as possible local authorities who are at present making up the amount shall continue to do so, at any rate to a considerable extent, or whether it is in the mind of the Government that automatically they will take the 10s. If some guidance or lead was given by the Government to local authorities it might make a certain amount of difference. Certainly in the case of persons who are unemployable it will be no benefit to the blind person, but where persons are employed it may be that there will be some slight saving to the voluntary societies as well as to the rates, but again the blind person does not seen to get any benefit out of it.
    In the case of a town like Wolverhampton, where they have a fairly generous scale, they make up the income of the unemployable blind to 25s. and some authorities give 27s. 6d., that is, for people over 50, 10s. pension plus 15s. out of the rates, and in the case of those under 50 the whole 25s. is made up. Now it will simply be 10s. and 15s. as in the case of those over 50. It seems an extraordinarily unsatisfactory state of affairs. I hope the Government will be able to do something, either by introducing an Amendment or by making a declaration as to their intentions and hopes, to see that some portion of this increase of 10s. actually goes to the family of the blind person.
    9.28 p.m.
    Mr. Bernays: I am very glad of the opportunity of stating the Government's view on the question. As the Bill stands, local authorities have a wide discretion as to the kind and amount of assistance to blind persons. At the same time we cannot take the view that there should be no need test at all. For local authorities to disregard the fact that an old age pension was being paid, in deciding whether and what kind of assistance should be given, would be obviously acting contrary to the

    149
    fundamental principle that assistance granted from public funds must be calculated by reference to the need of the applicant.
    Mr. Mander: Will the hon. Gentleman express the view that the Government hope that the 10s. will not simply be taken by the local authorities in relief of rates and that some portion will be left for the benefit of the blind persons?
    Mr. Bernays: It is a matter for the local authorities to decide.
    Mr. Mander: They would be quite in order, if they thought fit, in allowing the whole of the 10s. to inure to the benefit of the blind persons?
    Mr. Bernays: If in their opinion the need of the applicant justified it.
    Mr. Messer: Is that exactly the position? Here is a case where a woman was told that unless her domiciliary assistance was reduced, she would not get the pension of 10s. a week. That means that the Ministry of Health made it impossible for the Middlesex County Council to bring her income up to 27s. 6d., as is the case with other blind people. The Minister promised to look into it.
    Mr. Bernays: If my right hon. Friend gave that pledge I am certain that he will fulfil it.
    Mr. Silverman: Surely the time to look into it is now when you are passing an Act which will be interpreted by local authorities not merely by the words of the Act, but by anything that the Parliamentary Secretary says. The whole object of the Bill is to standardise assistance, but it may result in the whole of the 10s. being taken into account and so operate to reduce the person's income. It is all very well to say that the Minister has promised an inquiry and then to pass an Act which prejudges the whole position and say the inquiry will take place at some future date. The Bill ought to be so drafted as to embody in it the results of any investigation into cases of this kind which the Minister has been able to make, and not perpetuate an ambiguity which may have a precisely contrary effect to everything that is intended.
    9.31 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply is so unsatisfactory. I am very glad that the
    150
    Minister has made a concession to my hon. Friend below the Gangway, but he has not really made anything more than a very small concession, because the whole political purpose of the Bill is to pretend that a great Measure is being put on the Statute Book in the interests of the blind. The real social purpose of providing a pension for blind persons is, as far as money can do it, to help to bring the blind back to normality—to give them something in terms of money that they have lost in terms of life. The hon. Gentleman says that this is within the discretion of the local authority. It is not. I am very glad that certain things are taken out of their discretion and that, where the unemployed are sick or have wound or disability pensions, that is going to be disregarded, but the hon. Gentleman has really misled the Committee. As the law stands now, the local authority must take this 10s. into account, and how many blind persons are going to be any better off? Very few.
    If the Government were to assist local authorities by substantial grants openly, I should welcome it, but to pass a few shillings to the local authorities is not helping the blind and is not fair to the local authorities. That to me is the kernel of the Bill. I honestly believe that the view of the Committee would be that a blind person should be given by the State 10s. a week as compensation for the loss of sight, a priceless possession, and in no circumstances ought that 10s. to be taken into account. That seems to me to be fair and, as I have explained on more than one occasion, it has been admitted in the case of health insurance and disability pension, but in the case of people who are permanently blind the Government are not prepared to admit it. If it were not for the small concessions that have been granted I should be prepared to go into the Lobby against the Clause. I cannot do that, but I am bound to put on record the view of my hon. Friends that the Bill means very little. The hon. Gentleman has misled the Committee in his statement that these matters are within the discretion of the local authority. What is bound to happen is that this new 10s., which they are giving to some people, will be drawn into the coffers of the local authorities, and the blind for whom they profess to have great care and in whose interests this Bill is introduced, will be no better off.

    151
    I should like a further statement from the hon. Gentleman before we pass this Clause.
    9.36 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to make as strong a protest as I can possibly make against the statement of the Minister, when, in reply to the argument presented from below the Gangway, he gets up at that Box and tries to justify the operation of a means test against the blind people of this country. I am convinced that a means test against ordinary people cannot be justified, but when it comes to a means test against the blind, it is the very last word in inhumanity. Despite any concessions that may have been made, definite opposition should be shown to this Clause because of the operation of the means test. There is no need to emphasise what has already been put forward, that a blind man or woman receiving a certain income from the local authorities, will, after the 10s. has been granted through the medium of this Bill, still draw the same income, and the only advantage will be to the local authorities. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said, the 10s. should be given and should not, under any consideration, be taken into account in any relief or assistance of any kind given to a blind person.
    I want especially to draw attention to the fact that those who are responsible for advocating a means test for the blind people are scandalously wasting and destroying the wealth of this country—wealth that they have never earned. I do not know how any Members on those benches, after the case in the courts last week, which is typical of what is going on all the time, dare suggest a means test against the blind people of this country. It is the most shameful and scandalous suggestion it is possible to conceive. I would like to see the Minister responsible for the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman who gets up and speaks for a means test face a means test and undergo the financial conditions imposed upon many of the blind people of the country. Is it not terrible enough to be faced with the tragedy of blindness? But you must inquire into every penny they get, and this 10s. must be taken into account before relief is given. I protest against it, and despite the concessions that have
    152
    been made, there should, because of the character of the statement which has been made here and the determination to operate a means test against the blind, be a Division upon this Clause. I hope that the people in the country who have seen what is going on in view of that court case last week will bear this in mind, when they read the statement which has been made by the hon. Gentleman, that it is essential to operate a means test against the blind in this country. I would like, if permitted, to use the language that is in my mind about hon. Members on the other side, but the language I would use would not be printed.
    9.41 p.m.
    Mr. Buchanan: The Minister ought to have given a much more reasonable reply to the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who made out a very reasonable case. He said something about a means test, but he did not reply to what was one of the most reasoned speeches I have heard in this House on the subject. The hon. Member for South Tottenham knows something about the blind and the work of administration, and he made out a reasoned case, and the only response was a sentence or two in reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I am not complaining of the hon. Member being replied to, but I do complain that there was not a single sentence uttered in reply to the hon. Member for South Tottenham. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to have given an answer. The subject is very important and really deserves something more than its casual dismissal by him in half-a-dozen words. The hon. Member said that the blind person should be treated in the same way as the ex-soldier or the person under health insurance, namely, that the 10s. should be paid to him in respect of his affliction and should in no circumstances be taken into account by anybody. All that the Parliamentary Secretary said was that there should be a kind of means test.
    That is not an answer in itself. Even if it were, one would have expected the Parliamentary Secretary to have said that, under this Bill, even a means test that might be applicable to others should at least be considerably modified here. Though he could not accept the statement made by the hon. Member for South Tottenham, at least he could have said

    153
    that, if they could not guarantee an income of 10s. a week to every blind person, at least they could make it wider in scope than it has hitherto been. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), in so far as there has been a concession, I am grateful for it. A number of people will benefit—ex-soldiers and those in receipt of benefit under health insurance. There are in some parts of the country local authorities paying 27s. 6d. a week, which is the maximum, and others are paying considerably less. I would not have minded if the Parliamentary Secretary had met the hon. Member for South Tottenham by ensuring that, wherever the local authorities are paying less than the maximum, the 10s. pension grant should go towards increasing it to the maximum paid by the best authorities. The pension should be used where they are paying 15s. or £1 and should not be taken into account as a means test until the 27s. 6d. level has been reached. That at least would have been some concession to the hon. Gentleman.
    I wonder whether blind people are not going to be worse off than the ordinary poor. When the Poor Law Bills, particularly the Scottish Poor Law Bill, were before us, certain concessions and safeguards were made with regard to the ordinary poor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who was the Leader of the Labour Opposition at the time, rightly complained that the English Bill did not go nearly as far as the Scottish Bill in dealing with the poor. Certain safeguards were laid down for the ordinary poor, but in regard to the blind person none of the safeguards applied to the ordinary poor are applicable. It is provided in the Bill that:
    "In determining, in the case of any blind person, whether or not, or to what extent, to provide financial assistance under the preceding provisions of this Sub-section, the council shall take into account the needs of any members of the household of which the blind persons is a member who are dependent on him."
    In Scotland the ordinary poor person, apart from the question of exemption, has an appeal to a Scottish authority, the Department of Health. If he feels aggrieved that the local authority are treating him unfairly he has an appeal to the Government Department. The local authority may be disregarding the
    154
    Act. The Government Department must investigate the matter and give a decision. Under this Bill a blind person has no such appeal and to that extent he is worse off than the ordinary poor person. The Scottish blind person who appeals for a pension is subject to the decision of the local authority, willy nilly, and there is no appeal from that, whereas the ordinary poor person or the person who is sick, who feels that the amount paid by the local authority is not enough, can appeal to the Department of Health, who must investigate the matter and give a decision either upholding the local authority or turning it down and ordering it to pay more relief.
    Why should it not be provided that 10s. a week should at any rate be guaranteed to the blind person? In regard to a disabled soldied, £1 a week is guaranteed by exemption, while for a sick person under Health Insurance allowance 7s. 6d. is guaranteed. We say that a blind person over 40 years of age shall be guaranteed an income of 10s. a week, which shall not be touchable by any local authority. If the Minister cannot agree to that, why should he not say that before the local authority can take the 10s. into account at least they shall be paying the maximum of 27s. 6d.? Is that asking too much? We are not asking the Parliamentary Secretary to upset any fixed principle in regard to the means test, but we do say that the means test should be less rigid and should be more humanely operated in regard to a blind person. I should like to ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to state the position of a blind person in Scotland in regard to appeals.
    9.50 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. James Reid): The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has raised certain questions in regard to Scotland. The position is this, and I do not think that it is substantially different from the English position, that under the Poor Law legislation of 1934 the guiding principle was the scale laid down under the Transitional Payments Act of 1932. Under the present Bill the scale by the Amendment which the Committee have accepted is the scale in Section 38 of the Unemployment Act, 1934. During the Debates on the Unemployment Act the advantages of the new scale over the old scale were made perfectly obvious, and I need not go into

    155
    them. The position is that under the Unemployment Act, 1934, there are a number of things that must be disregarded. Prior to that enactment it was only optional to disregard them. This scale does not prohibit a local authority from assessing the needs of a blind person at considerably more than the needs of a person who has full sight. All that this provision does is to say that certain things shall not be taken into account, but it does not prevent the local authority from taking other things into account.
    The position is regard to appeals is that there is no appeal in individual cases under the Bill, but there is the overriding provision that the local authority must satisfy the Minister with regard to its administration.
    Mr. Buchanan: So that a blind person is worse off than an ordinary poor person.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Experience has shown that there is no need for an individual appeal, because I am not aware, and I should have been aware if there were such cases, of any cases in which the local authority has treated a blind person with such parsimony that an appeal would have been appropriate. If such cases had been known to us we should have taken appropriate steps. As we do not know of such cases it appears to be quite unnecessary to put in any provision in regard to appeals.
    Mr. Johnston: Can the Solicitor-General say why he is not willing in this Bill to give the blind person the same right of appeal that a sighted person has?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The reason is that experience has not demonstrated the necessity for any such appeal. The Poor Law code is an entirely different code from the Blind Persons code. There always has been an appeal under the Poor Law code but there never has been, so far as I am aware, any appeal under the Blind Persons code, and I am not aware that anybody has ever raised the question that that was a defect in the original Act. If it was not necessary in the original Act it is not necessary in this Act, which is a mere extension of the original Act.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: How can the Solicitor-General for Scotland know whether there
    156
    is any need for an appeal or not? He says that there is no need to have a right of appeal because nobody has appealed. But if there is no right of appeal nobody can appeal. We are asking that there should be a right of appeal in the Bill. If nobody appeals no harm will be done, but if there are people who appeal it may be that they will get better treatment than they have at present. I suggest that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should consider before the Report stage whether blind persons should not have the same right of appeal as poor persons have at present.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should have thought that if during the years which have elapsed since the original Act was passed there had been cases where an appeal was appropriate the Department would have known of such cases.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: How could they?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Hon. Members are well aware of the methods by which hard cases are brought to the knowledge of Government Departments, and if it turns out that there are facts unknown to the Government, the Government would naturally take notice of such facts. I submit that 17 years experience has justified the framework of the original Bill and that no case has been shown for altering it.
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: When he speaks of appeals is the hon. and learned Member aware of the mass of machinery, the wide span which exists between the blind person and the municipal authority? Does he know in actual practice how it works out? The county council appoints an education committee, which appoints a blind persons sub-committee, which farms out the work to a local charity, which appoints a case committee, which appoints home teachers who go to the homes of the blind. What chance is there of a blind person ever knowing to whom he can appeal?
    Mr. Buchanan: I do not propose to continue the discussion but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say something about exempting the 10s. As to what the Solicitor-General for Scotland has said, I think if there was a right of appeal it would show the need for a right of appeal.

    157
    I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say a word that the 10s. pension shall be untouchable by the State, that no local authority shall be allowed to touch the 10s. pension until the 27s. 6d. maximum has been reached.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Bernays: The hon. Member has asked me to give an assurance that there will be no means test. I am unable to give such an assurance, and I have told the Committee that that was the case. As a matter of fact, the proposal which has been advocated in the interests of the blind that there should be no means test is not, in fact, supported by the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind, who reported in 1924:
    "We cannot support the total abolition of the income limit in the case of blind poisons nor support the suggestion made that all adult blind persons should receive a pension of 10s. a week. We are convinced that if this was carried out it would tend to discourage individual effort."
    I realise that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has great knowledge and experience of these matters and naturally his views are of importance, but I suggest it is also important that we should know the views of the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind on this question. I have already said that local authorities have a discretion, a wide discretion, in this matter and as to the kind of assistance which shall be given to blind persons, but you cannot pour out public money without inquiring whether that public money is needed or not. That is the principle of the means test, and it is one from which the Government cannot depart.
    10.2 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: I feel in some considerable difficulty. I supported the Second Reading of the Bill and I cannot vote against Clause 2. At the same time the Government have not met our case by the concession which has been made. It is no use telling us what the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind said in 1924; this is 1938. It is no good talking about the means test, and about giving the blind money whether they need it or not. If a man has lost two eyes I say that there is no question of a means test; he is worthy of 10s. a week. There can be no argument about that. The Parliamentary Secretary says that local authorities have latitude and discretion. I say that they have not. This gift of 10s. to
    158
    people who have not enjoyed it before, but who have been assessed by the local authority, will go into the coffers of the local authority. I am as anxious as anybody to help local authorities, but not through the blind. The concession of the Minister is not worth a row of pins.
    The real point which we have not been able to argue because the Amendment has not been called, is whether this 10s. given to the blind is part of the blind person's body, something which is given to him because of a physical defect. The principle has been admitted in the case of war pensioners, in the case of sick persons and by Parliament in the case of people receiving workmen's compensation. What we are asking is a perfectly straight and simple thing, which all decent people in their hearts know is right, that the 10s. should be regarded as part of the blind person, and that there should be no question of taking away from him the 10s. which the State has given him because of his physical disability. We have had no reply on that matter. As I have said, I cannot vote against Clause 2, but I think the Committee is entitled to some statement from the Minister as to where he stands on what we consider to be a very vital question.
    10.6 p.m.
    Sir Stafford Cripps: I am sure that anybody who heard the two speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary must have felt that they were wholly inadequate to meet the very serious argument that has been put forward by various hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I am sure the Minister will not refuse to reply on a matter which is so serious to so many blind persons in this country. What has the Parliamentary Secretary told us? He has told us that it is a principle that whenever public money is paid out, there must be a means test. I am surprised at his hyprocrisy in making such a remark. Does he remember the tramp shipowners, and will he tell us where the means test came in when public money was paid out to them? Does he remember the beet sugar subsidy? Does he remember payment after payment of public money without any suggestion of a means test? Does he remember that when, in those cases, a means test was suggested by my hon. Friends simply to bring in equality of treatment, it was brushed aside as something which people of that

    159
    sort could not be made to suffer? Now the hon. Gentleman has the audacity to say to the Committee that blind persons must be subjected to something to which tramp shipowners and others cannot be subjected.
    Surely, that cannot be the true argument behind this. If it is, I hope the Minister will get up and tell us so. As my right hon. Friend said, we are dealing here with a permanent disability of a human being. Under the National Health Insurance Act, we admit that people must go on getting something in respect of a temporary disability. When the disability becomes permanent, that something is to be taken away. A workman who is injured and who goes blind as a result of his work continues to get money under the Workmen's Compensation Act without its being taken into account in the means test, but a person who is blind from some other reason apparently is to be in a far less advantageous position. Where is the logic in that? What is the explanation? If blindness is a serious disability which will reduce the whole level of life of an individual, why are we so concerned to see that in no conceivable circumstances can he get something more than the bare margin of a living? It cannot be because the Exchequer cannot afford it. It cannot be because of the viciousness of humanity wishing to inflict even further hardships upon people who are already suffering so much. We are waiting for an explanation as to why this is, and we hope that the Minister, in view of the wholly inadequate statements which have been made so far, will give us that explanation.
    10.9 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I am glad to say a few words at this stage. I did not intend any disrespect towards the Committee, but I had been in the Committee from a quarter to three this afternoon until nearly nine o'clock, and I went out for a little while. Unfortunately, I have not heard the arguments that have been advanced on this matter. I am aware that it is rather common form to say, as I have myself said in days gone by, that replies by Ministers are wholly inadequate; but from my own knowledge of my hon. Friend, I very much doubt whether his replies were inadequate.
    Mr. Buchanan: If you had been in opposition, you would have riddled them.
    Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member is very complimentary to me. With regard to the observations which have just been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), which are the only observations I have heard on this Clause, I do not think it is realised that, by the proposals of this Bill, blind persons are put in a special position. In Clause 2 it is stated that:
    "It shall be the duty of the council of every county or county borough to make arrangements for promoting the welfare of blind persons ordinarily resident in the area of the council."
    The Clause then goes on to enumerate the things that may be done in fulfilment of that duty. Consequently, the blind are put into a special position, a position which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, is not the position as far as ordinary persons are concerned, for they get their assistance either under the unemployment scheme or in connection with the poor law. In this Bill, for the first time, we say that it is the duty of every county or county borough council to make all the arrangements necessary for the welfare of the blind in their particular area under the Blind Persons Act. A special duty is placed on the local authorities with regard to blind persons.
    I come now to the other point that was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There is a fundamental difference between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite, although it should be said that there is not a difference as far as concerns many local authorities which are administered by Labour majorities. Hon. Members opposite say that when we come to giving public assistance, we should not have regard to needs and to the assistance which the people are already receiving. I should be prepared to state on any public platform in the country that it is right to say to people "What are you receiving?" before either a local authority or the State decides, in its turn, what should be given to these people. I understand that it is on that fundamental principle that the Opposition are contesting this Clause. I maintain—and I believe it is the judgment of the average, sensible person in this country, irrespective of party politics—that before either the State or a local authority gives assistance, it is not incorrect and it is not indecent to say "What are you now receiving and what have you received before?"
    Mr. Gallacher: To the poor, you mean—not to your own kind.
    Sir K. Wood: If any person to-night went to almost anybody in the Committee in his private capacity and asked for assistance, many of us would be very glad to give it, but I think we should only be taking a reasonable step, and one in the interests of the person asking for the assistance, when we said to him, "What is your need and what help are you getting already?" That is the fundamental issue which arises on this matter. I have not the time adequately to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the statement that he has put forward. It raises the fundamental difference which exists between us on this subject. His view is that you should not take into account in giving assistance any question of a person's means, but that you should simply say that a certain amount will be given, irrespective of what the person is receiving in other ways.
    Sir S. Cripps: I was not putting the fundamental point of the means test. I was putting this point to the right hon. Gentleman. Why cannot these sums be excluded from the means test just as other sums are excluded, to wit. National Health Insurance matters and other matters of that kind?
    Sir K. Wood: I will deal with that. I hope I have secured the support of the majority of the Committee for my contention that when you give assistance of this kind you ought to have regard to the person's means. If I have not the support of the majority of the Committee on that point I am content to accept the judgment upon it of the average man and woman of this country. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman asks "Why have you made an exception as you have done to-night?" That is in reference to the Amendment which I moved, and which dealt with matters set out in the Unemployment Insurance Act. The answer is that all those matters are connected with the special needs of a person in relation to sickness or accident and all those matters apply equally to the blind person and to the person who is sighted. For the first time in the history of this country as far as the blind are concerned, we have laid down that these matters in relation to sickness and accidents shall be excepted. Then the hon. and learned
    162
    Gentleman asked, "Why not Old Age pensions?" I say that as regards Old Age pensioners, blind people and sighted people are in exactly the same position. It is true that in the Bill we have provided for special consideration for the blind and we have said that it shall be the duty of local authorities to do everything they can for the welfare of the blind, but when you come to the question of Old Age pensioners, the blind people are in the same position as the ordinary sighted persons. For those reasons, stated I am afraid very inadequately, at very short notice and without having heard the discussion, I believe the Committee will do right in voting for this Clause. It does a great deal for the blind and it makes a great advance. As regards the particular matters raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman we have made special provision for the blind and, as I say, in relation to Old Age pensions they are in the same position as others.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I realise that the Minister has had a very heavy day and that he could hardly be expected to attend during the whole of this discussion, but I ask him whether he agrees that it is right in this Bill to reduce the income of blind people? Maintaining the attitude which he has indicated means that certain blind people will suffer a reduction of income. The right hon. Gentleman's attempt to relate the ordinary old age pension to the blind pension is not a good one. These are not merely poor people who have lived their lives and worked in the ordinary way. Normally old age pensioners at 70 have lived their life and have had something to live for. It is assumed that they are earning or at any rate have an income. But here we are dealing with blind people who are getting a pension for a special purpose, and that special purpose is a disability. It is not their fault that they are blind by virtue of some industrial disease, accident, or from birth. It is a disability in exactly the same way as that of people who have been moved.
    There are those local authorities which have attempted to do what the Minister has said they should do, that is, to make the best possible provision, but he does not realise that by maintaining this attitude, he is preventing them from doing what they want to do. The Old Age Pensions Act assesses the value of a house

    163
    on Schedule A, but a county authority, doing what the Minister says he wants it to do and providing for the blind in the best possible way, assesses the value of the house in a different way. It has regard to the income and the expenditure on rates, rent, mortgage, repairs, and so on, and it has regard to the balance of the income. What does the Minister say when we come to apply that? In cases which have actually been before the committee, two received 17s. 6d. a week from the county council under the domiciliary assistance scheme. One of these blind persons lives in her own house, in which she has a life interest. The method of calculating the value of the property under the Old Age Pensions Act differs from that prescribed by the county council's domiciliary assistance scheme, and the case committee has been informed that the old age pension would be reduced unless the amount received by her was reduced from 17s. 6d. to 14s. 8d. a week.
    There is a case where a woman loses 2s. 10d. a week. Blind people at the age of 40 who are in that position will suffer a reduction, and it would be better for them if this Bill were not passed and they had to wait until 10 years hence, until they were 50, and were compelled to come under this scheme. I want the Minister to consider those cases. I agree with my hon. Friend that while the abolition of the means test would be a good thing, it is hopeless to expect the Government to do it. We can only expect them to go a little way to meet the anomalies which have been pointed out and which make the administration of this work so very difficult. I hope the Minister will give us some encouragement. This and other cases have been brought before his notice. In reply to a letter addressed to him, his Ministry said:
    "With reference to your letter, I am directed by the Minister of Health to state that his jurisdiction under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924, is limited to the consideration of claims and questions referred to him on appeal against decisions of local pensions committees. … You are aware, however, that under the Act of 1924 there has been an improvement. Any suggestion for the amendment of the existing Statute would be primarily a matter for the Treasury, but representations made by your sub-committee have been noted."
    That was in January, 1937, and here we have this Bill. When we thought that
    164
    under it something was going to be done to deal with this situation, we are discouraged, because nothing has been done. I hope that on the Report stage or later we shall get some encouragement and that even if the whole thing cannot be dealt with in the way we ask, we shall be able to deal with this particular aspect of the case. Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the cases where these local authorities are paying a very small sum? There are between 17 and 20 authorities which are paying only 15s. a week. Under the Bill all they need do is to pay 5s., and nothing of the 10s. Is the intention of the Minister to allow that to continue? Under this Bill therefore a local authority can pay much less than is paid now. How can the Minister consistently state that the Amendments he has moved will remove the anomalies that exist? They will not do anything of the sort. I hope that we shall get some encouragement to believe that an improvement will be made before the Bill goes through the rest of its stages.
    10.26 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: The Minister has dealt with this matter in an interesting way, but, on the whole, I do not think that he has done as well as the Under-Secretary. The Under-Secretary did try to make out that, after all, wide discretion was given to the local authorities and that it was within their scope, if they thought fit, to distribute part of this 10s, to the blind person. I do not think there is much foundation for that, according to what we heard afterwards, but he did try to give that impression. The Minister has blown the case for the major part of the Bill sky high. It ought to be called a Rates Relief Bill and not a Blind Persons Bill. He has been trying to convey the impression that an extra amount is to be paid to blind persons between 40 and 50, but now we know that they need not get one penny more as far as this 10s. is concerned. I understand that that is what he said. If it is not, I hope he will say so. If it is hoped that the local authorities will pass on some of this 10s., I wish he would say so and give a lead to the country. In the absence of any statement of that kind, we are justified in saying that this is a rates relief bill and nothing else.
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister a question if he will condescend

    165
    to pay attention. I listened to his homily on public money and what he is pre pared to do about public money on public platforms. Would he be prepared to meet any representative of this side of the House on a public platform and show whether there has been one occasion on which he has opposed public money being handed out regardless of means when it has been big public money. For instance, the other week we had here the case of a pension of over £800 a year, the recipient of which took a job with a firm interested in the same business as he had been carrying on as a Civil Servant, and he received £1,000 or £2,000 a year from the company. Has the Minister opposed the handing out of that public money or demanded an investigation of means? Has there ever been a demand from the Minister that means should be investigated in the case of the military men who did not win the War? How dare you get up and say that you are opposed to public money being handed out unless means are taken into consideration. Can you tell me if there was one ship owner—
    The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I would remind the hon. Member that he is addressing the Chair.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry. I do not know why I should speak to the Minister after the exhibition he has given us. I ask him whether he can tell us of one shipowner—and there are one or two sitting round about—who had to disclose his means before the Minister and his colleagues handed out public money to him? I challenge the Minister to meet me on any public platform in any part of the country. I will demonstrate there that an examination into means applies only in the case of the poor. The Minister and his associates are prepared to hand out money to their own class without the slightest consideration. When it comes to the blind the Parliamentary Secretary reads out from some report that to give them 10s. will demoralise them, will kill initiative. How dare he do such a thing as that? These are the Christian gentlemen who represent the National Government. As the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench here said, that 10s. should be given to the blind and under no circumstances should it be touched. Still the means test can be operated, but that 10s. should never be touched. I am
    166
    absolutely opposed to a means test of any kind directed against poor people, but that could be done even if a means test were operated. Is it impossible to give 10s. a week to the blind without taking into consideration their other means? It seems utterly hopeless to try to make any impression on hon. Members opposite. They will spend more than 10s. on buying one of their colleagues a drink. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] Oh, I have a very good idea of what it costs. Could not the Minister even at this late hour get up and say, "I am prepared to consider this proposal that however the means test operates this 10s. shall not be touched and may be bringing some change later"?
    10.34 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: I do not wish to continue this Debate, but the right hon. Gentleman has not replied to one point of very considerable: substance. We are not now dealing with the rearmament pro gramme, which is concerned with hundreds of millions of pounds. We are dealing with a relatively small number of people—
    Mr. Messer: Five thousand.
    Mr. Greenwood:—who in 1920 were regarded by this House as being old persons at the age of 50. Let me say that the blind have always resented that view, but because of their disability they were given the pension at 50 years of age. Now the right hon. Gentleman offers a new concession and says, "We will give the blind the old age pension at 40 years of age." That was done because these people had an irremediable disability. They received their 10s.
    The right hon. Gentleman is now reducing the age. He admits the case that these people are abnormal and that the State should come to their assistance, so far as money can assist people who have lost one of their senses, that of sight. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet replied to this point, which I have repeatedly put in this House. This is the third time to-night I am putting it. He talks about needs and about the means test, but I am not talking about that at all because the question of need does not arise. If a man is sick, part of his health insurance is completely disregarded when the question of need comes into account, and the same is true of a half-blinded ex-service man; he has lost one eye, and

    167
    he gets payment for that eye through life. Nothing can touch that payment. Yet a man who becomes blind as a consequence of the industrial struggle is to receive 10s., under conditions. I am asking a simple thing, and hon. Members surely recognise that my point is a right one; it is that the right hon. Gentleman should put the 10s. in the same position as the first £1 of a disabled ex-service man's allowance. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again: will he, for this limited section of people who have been deprived of one of the most priceless things in life, their sight, say that the 10s. which the State believes is due to them because of their disability shall be part of themselves and shall not go to reduce the rates of local authorities? I have not yet had a reply from the right hon. Gentleman, and we are entitled to it.
    I shall not vote against Clause 2, because I would not do anything to injure a blind person. If the Bill helps blind persons I am glad of it. I think we are entitled to a far better explanation than we have had from the Government side. The Bill is a fraud. Blind persons will not benefit as much as the country has been led to believe. I feel very strongly on the point, and I would not have been so persistent if I had not felt strongly. I feel that we are entitled to a better answer to the case which has been put up from these benches to-night, and that we should have it from the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary or perhaps from one of the Law Officers of the Crown. Unless we get such an answer we shall have to pursue the matter on the Report stage.
    10.39 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I would like to say a further word, but I regret that I cannot take the matter further than I have stated. I would point out that the provisions of the Bill for the first time require local authorities to make this special provision for the blind. We are entitled to take into account the resources of the blind in that respect. I am sorry that I cannot add anything to that very brief reply, although I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. I have done my best to explain the position to him.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Recovery of cost of assistance by one English local authority from another.)
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. Windsor: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that when at the instance of one council a blind person is resident in the area of another council for the purposes of being trained or employed in a workshop or other institution such blind person shall for the purposes of the Act be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the area of the first-named council, and nothing in this section shall be deemed to relieve the first-named council of their obligations under this Act in respect of that person, his household, and dependants."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to draw attention to the anomaly that exists between various local authorities in the administration of the Act of 1920. It will be appreciated, from some of the speeches we have heard, that some local authorities have endeavoured to deal fairly with the blind, but there are other authorities that are not doing anything whatsoever to carry out their local responsibilities. In the case of Kingston-upon-Hull, for example, the outlying areas are sending their blind persons for the purposes of training to the blind institution in the City of Hull, and thereby creating an anomaly, because the areas from which they come are very often paying 10s., 12s. and 15s. a week less than the Hull Corporation is paying to the blind. It is in the interests of local authorities and of the blind themselves that this Amendment is put on the Paper. If the Minister feels that the words on the Paper would not be workable, I should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that words shall be put in the Bill on some such lines as those of Clause 4, which applies to Scotland. I fail to see any reason why if those provisions are applied to Scotland, England and Wales should not have the same form of treatment and we are only asking that something on these lines should be granted in the case of the English counties.
    10.43 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I would like to give the hon. Gentleman a short explanation of the proposals in the Bill so far as this matter is concerned, because I think that the Amendment has perhaps been put down with some misconception of the provisions. I would point out that Clause 3

    169
    of the Bill does not alter the position under the principal Act, under which it is the duty of a council to make arrangements for promoting the welfare of blind persons ordinarily resident in the district. Nor does the Clause alter the meaning of the words "ordinarily resident;" it merely provides that in certain circumstances the council of the area in which the man is ordinarily resident may recover the cost of the assistance from some other county. In considering this matter, which has long been a source of difficulty in various areas, we have had many consultations with the local authorities, and it is as a result of those consultations that this Clause has been included in the Bill, as representing a general agreement between local authorities.
    So far as training is concerned, the Amendment is unnecessary, since a person sent by a council to be trained in another area does not, of course, become ordinarily resident there. He remains resident, in the legal sense of the word, in the area from which he has been removed. So far as employment is concerned, it is, of course, a question of fact whether the blind person has legally changed his ordinary residence if he has gone to another area to obtain employment. Where he does not change his ordinary residence, according to legal terms, the Amendment is unnecessary. The hon. Member's Amendment would saddle the council of the area from which the person has moved with the cost of his assistance for the rest of his life. I would suggest that that is going much too far.
    Clause 3, which I am asking the House to adopt, is, I think, a reasonable compromise. It does, in fact, what I think the hon. Gentleman wants to do; it limits the liability of the first council to the remainder of the five years' period provided in the Bill. I think it is the view of all the local authorities, as it is my own view, that at the end of that period it is reasonable to regard the person as having established himself in that particular area, of which he becomes an ordinary citizen, and that that area should then take over the responsibility for his welfare. That is the arrangement which has been arrived at with the local authorities. It works both ways, and I think it is a much more reasonable proposition
    170
    than to suggest that for ever that man should be the responsibility of one local authority. At any rate, the compromise I have indicated to the Committee, and which has been agreed to by the local authorities, is an agreement that I would not like to see disturbed, because we should then have to go back to the local authorities. I think it is an agreement that should be accepted by the Committee.
    10.49 p.m.
    Mr. Muff: I regret that the Minister cannot give us more satisfaction. In the district which I, along with certain other hon. Members, represent in this House, we have a case of great hardship. Hull is surrounded by a very poor county council area, one of the poorest in the country. They send their blind persons into Hull, and the Hull Blind Persons' Committee treats them with such generosity that these people come along, bringing their dependants, and we are told by the Hull Corporation that if the Clause is passed as it is drafted it means an additional expenditure for them of £2,000 a year. That is what I have been told officially and that is why we appeal that especially corporations like Hull shall be protected against such places as Howdenshire, Holderness and Buckrose—pretty but very poor—which are trading upon the generosity of more well-favoured places. Therefore, I ask the Minister if he cannot give us a better reply than he has already given.
    Sir K. Wood: I will gladly look into the cases to which the hon. Member has referred, but at first sight under my proposal it would appear that the position will be improved because, owing to the five years' clause, the allowance will, of course, cover a considerable period of years. But I will look into the case of Hull and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    10.51 p.m.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I should like to say a few words in support of the principle of the Amendment of hon. Members opposite, who have given the case of Hull as an illustration. In Norwich we have a very admirable Institution for the Blind. It is a voluntary institution which attracts trainees and workshop employés from no less than 10 outside authorities. Since it is a voluntary institution, there is, of course, no limit to the numbers that they

    171
    may take from outside authorities and, as a result of that they may directly and indirectly saddle the corporation eventually with a very heavy financial responsibility. The hon. Member who spoke last mentioned a possible £2,000 a year. In the case of Norwich it may amount to £3,000. The workshop employés from Norwich number 26, and from elsewhere 30, and the numbers of trainees are, from Norwich seven, from elsewhere 27. It is true, as the Minister said, that the trainees, while they are trainees, do not saddle the corporation with any financial liability, but if, as the result of the training that they get there, they later become workshop employés and settle in Norwich—and everyone would wish them to do so if it is in their interests as blind persons that they should—the result may be that the corporation may have a very heavy liability which it would not otherwise have. It is true, as the Minister says, that, as far as the law is concerned, the corporation will be legally better off as the result of this Clause, but they will only be better off on paper, since in the present uncertainty of the law the outside authorities are in fact making payments, which they will refuse to continue to make, if the Bill becomes law in its present form. What the right hon. Gentleman said about the compromise agreed to by the local authorities is true, and I have no doubt that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association and the London County Council agreed with it by a great majority, and it is natural that they should, but the unfortunate cases, such as Norwich, which are in a peculiar position, deserve consideration.
    Although there may be objections to the proposal put forward on the Second Reading by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) I wonder whether some such principle, as he suggested, could not be adopted, making the liability for a blind person the permanent liability of the authority for the area in which he was living when he first became blind. While generally supporting the principle which underlies the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I do not think that, in its present form, it carries out that which hon. Members opposite desire, because the words "at the instance of one council" would
    172
    not cover the case where a man of his own volition remained a worker in the city concerned. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to consider these matters before Report to see whether some arrangement cannot be made which will be on a fairer basis in such cases as I have described.
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: One of the admitted defects of the 1920 Act was that it did not make it obligatory upon all authorities who are sharing in a good scheme for trainees or institutions for the blind to make their contribution to such institutions in direct proportion to the liabilities incurred by the authorities. Both in the case of Norwich and Hull the local authorities appear to have been singularly lacking in a sense of public obligation in not having entered, as have the City of Newcastle and other great cities in the North of England, into joint obligations to meet the financial liabilities in proportion to the numbers taking advantage of the institutions specially set up for the blind. That was the defect of the 1920 Act inasmuch as it was not obligatory but was left optional, with the result that mean-spirited local authorities or those who were impoverished or lacking in public spirit declined to be liable, and authorities such as Hull and Norwich have been imposed upon. The defect will still continue for a considerable period of years under the present Act and under Clause 3. The Minister has found himself unable to accept our proposition, but I am glad to learn that he intends to look into cases of hardship and to take other steps to remedy the disabilities which have been brought before the Committee to-day.
    10.58 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I will look into the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss), so far as Norwich is concerned, and by the hon. Member opposite with regard to Hull. I will gladly look into individual cases, although I cannot hold out any hope—I do not think that any one in my place would do so—of departing from the general agreement come to by local authorities in the country. If they had not come to agreement, I think that instead of two hon. Members, there would have been 50 rise in this House. Therefore, it is a fair basis to rest on the general judgment of

    173
    the local authorities in the country, but I will look at the two individual cases which have been referred to.
    Mr. Windsor: In view of the statement of the Minister that he is prepared to look into cases of hardship not only with regard to Hull, but with regard to places similarly situated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    10.59 p.m.
    Mr. Mathers: Before we part with this Clause, there is a point upon which the Committee are entitled to some information. The Clause is for the recovery of the cost of assistance by one English local authority from another. That means that the boundaries between the different English local authorities can be surmounted, but there is no indication in the Bill as to how the boundary between an English local authority and a Scottish local authority is to be got over. I cannot give actually a concrete case, but, knowing that there is a fairly well equipped institution for the blind in the city of Carlisle, it is possible from the Scottish side of the border, for example, Gretna, that a blind person may be brought into the city of Carlisle. That brings a blind person not only from one English local authority to another but from a Scottish local authority into an English local authority's district. The point may be covered in some other Act or in dealing with the principal Act, or it may be covered in Acts relating to Scotland, but it should be made clear in this Debate what the actual position is.
    11.1 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The position is this. Scottish local authorities have indicated unanimously, I think, that they do not desire to have the type of relief which is to be accorded to the English local authorities. Accordingly, one Scottish local authority will not be entitled to claim against another Scottish local authority. In these circumstances I think that the exemption must extend to the questions which arise between one English and one Scottish local authority, so that if a blind person from England goes into Scotland the Scottish local authority will not have relief against the
    174
    English authority and, conversely, if a blind person domiciled in Scotland goes to England the English local authority which helps to support him will have no relief against the Scottish authority. That is the only way to give effect to the diverse conditions in both countries.
    Mr. Mathers: Is it not the case that Scottish local authorities do recover from each other in respect of any assistance they give under the Poor Law? It seems to me that this is very closely related to the Poor Law arrangement, much more closely than I like. I thought that it would apply in the same way here, and I am rather surprised at the answer that has been given by the Solicitor-General.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I can assure the hon. Member that we have departed entirely from the Poor Law system of settlement, which is an archaic and cumbrous system.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to blind persons employed at institutions in Scotland.)
    11.3 p.m.
    Mr. Allan Chapman: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, after "employment," to insert, "or is undergoing training."
    In the past it has been understood that the word "employment" covered the term "or is undergoing training." That is still the point of view held by the Ministry, and therefore the words of the Amendment merely regularise the position that exists.
    11.4 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The proposed words are in our view unnecessary and might be misleading. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend in connection with the English section of the Bill, there is a vital difference between a person who is employed and a person who is undergoing training. A person who is employed is ordinarily resident in the place where he is employed and not in the place where he used to be before he was employed, whereas a person who is undergoing training is by reason of the short period of the training still all the time ordinarily resident in the place from which he came, and never becomes ordinarily resident in the place where he is undergoing training.

    175
    Accordingly, it is unnecessary to insert these words, because a person who is undergoing training remains ordinarily resident where he came from. It might be dangerous to insert these words. I am informed that in every case where people are sent from one area to another for training it is done under an elaborate agreement under which the education authority becomes bound to guarantee their expenses. It is not desirable that this arrangement which has worked so well should in any way be altered, and if we were to put in these words it might indicate an intention of altering the existing arrangements. I hope the hon. Member will agree that the words are unnecessary.
    Mr. Chapman: Can the hon. and learned Member give an assurance that a trainee will be interpreted as being employed in this particular case?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I indicated that far from a trainee being regarded as employed he is quite different from an employed person, and that this difference makes it impossible to accept these words.
    11.7 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: If the Solicitor-General had given any other explanation I can assure him that we should have divided the Committee on this proposal. I accept his explanation that a trainee is in a different position from a person who is employed. I also accept his statement that the education authority is responsible for his training and education when he is a trainee, and consequently they have the responsibility of maintaining the individual as long as he is training, but not when he becomes an employed person. I am satisfied with the explanation given by the Solicitor-General.
    Mr. Chapman: In view of the explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5 (Interpretation.)
    11.9 p.m.
    Mr. Jagger: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the end, to add:
    "Provided that if any dispute arises as to whether or not a person is a blind person within
    176
    the meaning of this Section it shall be the duty of the local authority in whose area the blind person is resident to make arrangements for the person to be examined by two ophthalmic surgeons, whose decision, unless there is disagreement, shall be final, and where there is disagreement the local authority shall arrange for the person to be examined by a third ophthalmic surgeon, whose decision shall be final."
    We feel that the Clause as it stands does not deal with the difficulty of borderline cases. Those who had experience in connection with grants of another kind to blind persons know the large percentage of borderline cases where it is difficult to define whether a person is blind or not. We have the kind of case where a man standing close to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence would be aware that there was a faint object opposite to-him, but if the Foreign Secretary skipped past him on his way to Geneva would be quite unconscious that an opaque object had passed. We feel that in cases where it is determined by one person that the person is blind the person should have the opportunty of going before a court of two medical referees. If these two medical referees are in agreement, their decision should be final and binding and if they differ, there should be called in a third medical expert, whose decision would be final and binding. I feel that Clause 5, without this provision, would lead to very great difficulty in determining borderline cases, and I think that the addition of the words in the Amendment would remove that difficulty.
    11.11 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: I support the Amendment. I am certain that on this Amendment we shall receive a measure of agreement from the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has not made many concessions to-night, and I have been very disappointed in him. I set high hopes on him, and felt that we were going to do good work on this Bill, but we have not done very much. Here the right hon. Gentleman has a chance of removing a grievance, and the fact that it is a very small thing ought to impel him to give us what we want. The number of people who are likely to disagree with the examination is very small indeed. When a person has been examined and it has been determined that he has sufficient vision to perform some sort of work, it leaves him in a very unfortunate position if he finds that nobody will, in fact, employ him owing to his eyesight not

    177
    being good enough. I know that the degree of vision, as laid down, is in accordance with a certain definite arrangement that is understood and known; but it is a principle that not merely should one do justice, but that it should appear that one does justice; in other words, that the person should not feel aggrieved.
    If anybody who felt that there was doubt in his case had an opportunity of going before two other doctors, and if, in the event of disagreement between them, a third could be called in, it would remove that doubt from his mind. At the present time, the practice in many places is that when a notification comes that a person is blind, the local authority's medical officer of health examines him. That medical officer is known by name to the individual concerned, and it may be that that individual has not very much faith in the medical officer. If he is turned down, he may feel that it is not on the merits of the case, but because of some prejudice. There is such a thing as people holding political opinions and feeling that if those opinions are not popular, they suffer the consequences. Many reasons enter into the minds of people suffering from physical disabilities of this nature. I hope the Minister will agree to the Amendment, not because I believe it would be put into operation in many cases, but because it would do some good in the case of those who feel aggrieved.
    11.14 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I think the whole Committee will agree with the general objects which the two hon. Members have in view, but there are certain practical difficulties which I am afraid render it impossible for me to accept the Amendment. I would like first to point out that in order to assist local authorities to carry out their duties in this respect in a proper and uniform manner, there was issued from my Department in 1933 a circular, the schedule to which set out the optical criteria which I and my predecessors have recommended for adoption in determining whether a person satisfied the condition of being so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential. It was recommended, also, that the examination for this purpose
    178
    should be carried out by a medical practitioner with special experience in this kind of work. I am glad to say that the effect of this communication to the local authorities has been to reduce very substantially the number of cases in which any reasonable doubt can arise as to a person's blindness. In a number of cases local authorities also have available a referee service. There is, for instance, that provided by the Northern Counties Association but the reason why this Amendment cannot be accepted is that, obviously, it would not be practicable everywhere to establish such a service or to make the arrangements set out in the Amendment, since in some areas of the country it would be difficult and in others impossible to find the requisite number of medical practitioners with the special experience which is necessary. It would be impossible to put the provision proposed by the Amendment, as a statutory duty on local authorities. I assure the hon. Gentlemen opposite that I have every sympathy with what they have said, and that I will do my best, as I am sure anyone who occupies my position will do his best, to see that any reasonable doubts are satisfied, so that not only shall justice be done but that it shall be clear that justice is being done. The difficulty is that you could not lay down as a statutory obligation the proposal in the Amendment owing to the impossibility in every case of securing a tribunal such as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Hon. Members: Why not?
    Mr. Jagger: I should be pleased to do it for you.
    Sir K. Wood: The hon. Gentleman possibly speaks with more knowledge of the capacity of the medical profession but that is the advice given to me. I hope the hon. Member will accept my assurance that we will do everything we can to secure the results which we all desire.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

  DOMINICA BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.21 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  For some time past the people of the Island of Dominica have been anxious to be separated from the Federation of the Leeward Islands and to be associated in future with the Windward Islands. The Island of Dominica has very special characteristics. It lies between two French islands and has no British island near it. It lies between the French Colonies of Guadeloupe and Martinique. In the early days of the nineteenth century, when it became British at the end of the Napoleonic wars, it was more or less independently governed. It was associated for some purposes with the British islands to the South, the Islands of St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and Grenada. However, Parliament in its wisdom in 1871 passed a Statute which made the group of the Leeward Islands to the North of Guadeloupe into a federation, and included Dominica in that federation. Undoubtedly for some time past the people of the Island of Dominica have wished to be out of that federation, partly for cultural and partly for economic reasons, because the northern group is almost purely English-speaking, and the Island of Antigua and some of the other islands have been British from very early days. Also Dominica is a long way geographically—over 100 miles—past the French Island of Guadeloupe. Further the federation set up by the Act of 1871 is a more or less complete federation; that is to say, there is a federal legislature dealing with some subjects, and there are local legislatures dealing with other subjects, and Dominica feels that owing to difficulties of communication, differences of national traditions, language, and the like it would be well to get out of that federation.
  The Leeward Islands are islands of low rainfall, but Dominica is far and away the wettest of all the islands. The average is over 120 inches a year. The consequence is that the whole economic life of the islands is different. In the northern group of islands the two main products are sea island cotton and sugar. Owing to the considerable stretches of flat land
  180
  there are sugar plantations and the like. That is out of the question in Dominica. There is no flat land of any importance; it is by far the most mountainous of the islands, and owing to its high rainfall and steep volcanic formation—because it is the most volcanic of the West Indian Islands—the economic products are inevitably tropical fruits and practically nothing else. The principal fruits are bananas and limes. In the main and almost entirely it is a peasant cultivation.
  The two neighbouring islands being French with long French traditions, there was, in 1934, an important petition by all the leading people of the island asking to be taken out of the Federation. It was examined, and since then there has been an election, when all the elected members were pledged to use all their efforts to get out of the Leeward Islands. They wished to be associated with the Windward Islands. The latter have no federal legislature, but they consist of three separate colonies which have completely separate legislatures, organisations and staffs, with the single exception that they have one governor and pool the expenses of his office. It so happens that the most northern of the Windward Islands, though not so characteristically French as Dominica, is certainly more French than any of the Leeward Islands and there is a certain amount of communication and social intercourse between the people of Dominica and the Windward Islands. No doubt this change would have been made some time ago if it had not been for the necessity of Imperial legislation, because it was by an Act of Parliament in 1871 that Dominica was placed in this statutory Federation of the Leeward Islands. There is nothing to prevent the islands having separate governors, but there has been only one for the Federation for business convenience and in order to save money because the islands cannot afford an expensive staff with the little revenue they can get for public services. There are very few whites in Dominica, but almost entirely coloured people, and incidentaly it is the only West Indian island where there are still full blooded Caribs, by which I mean descendants of the inhabitants of the island before negroes were introduced in the sixteenth century. This island, with its separate and special character, wishes to be associated with the looser federation of the

  181
  Windward Islands, and in order to effect that change it is necessary that there should be passed this statute. In future the legislature of Dominica will enact all amendments in local laws. The future legislature of Dominica will cover the whole field of government. The sole object of the Bill is to meet the wishes of the people of Dominica and to take them out of one federation and associate them in future with the Windward Islands.
  11.32 p.m.
  Colonel Wedgwood: For many years the great question in the West Indies was the amalgamation of all the islands in the West Indies into one West Indian Federation. I always thought that would be a deplorable step backwards, and this certainly is a step in another direction, and I would say at once that it is always good to decentralise as far as possible. On that point I feel that it might be noted that this Colony of Dominica, which we have occupied off and on for the best part of 160 years, is still talking French. Even in Ceylon, where we have been for a much shorter period, we have changed to English. But I do not quarrel with that position; it is not necessary to impress British culture in that way. We are told that we own one quarter of the earth, and therefore ought to hand over a lot to Germany and Italy, but I would ask the House to observe, how much it is that we really own in Dominica. Apparently we manage with one British administrator and get him paid. The whole of the land belongs to the natives of the island and we own nothing except the duty of balancing the accounts out of our pocket when they go wrong.
  In view of the trouble there has been in Trinidad lately I think we might have from the Secretary of State a word or two on what this change will mean so far as the treatment of any native labour there may be there is concerned, and what change it will mean in education. I suppose there has been some sort of education in that part; will that education continue in future to be as good as it has been in the past? Is it possible that it might even be improved? I believe that there are 45,000 blacks and 200 whites—[Interruption]—I understand that there are only 100 whites and 47,000 blacks; in those circumstances, when you are making a self-governing country, will the whites approve of an uneducated black population? The best remedy for labour
  182
  troubles is an educated proletariat who will be able to state their case with arguments instead of brickbats.
  A change is being made in the island of Dominica, and I want to be quite sure that it is not in the wrong direction, so far as native administration is concerned. How will the new authority differ from the old? Will it be elected in the same way, for the same constituencies? Will it be the same authority, with fuller power than it had?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore indicated assent.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Will it cost any more? Will the cost of the new administration be the same as the cost of the old? A country where the annual wealth is only some £75,000 cannot afford much more taxation. Therefore I presume that the cost of administration will be the same. If the authority governing the country is the same and the cost of administration is the same, do not think we shall have any right to object to the transfer.
  11.37 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: The Secretary of State for the Colonies has made out a very good and clear case for the transfer of Dominica from one group of islands to another, but I do not think you can quite consider this change without considering the situation as a whole and asking the Government how they view the situation out there. There have been a certain number of inquiries in recent years into the position. There is the report of the Closer Union Committee that went out in 1933 and which had, as its terms of reference, the unification, if possible, of the Leeward Islands, the Windward Islands, Trinidad and Tobago. That committee came to the conclusion that Trinidad was not interested, but it did make a definite recommendation that the Leeward and Windward Islands should be amalgamated. I should like to know what relation, if any, the proposed change bears to that recommendation. Perhaps I might quote from page 33 of that report, where the committee say:
  "We desire to make it clear that our proposals do not pretend to be more than a first step, although an effective one, towards a real federation, not only of the islands with which we are dealing but of other units in the West Indies which may eventually be found willing to join."

  183
  The last paragraph says:
  "Our endeavour has been to lay a sound foundation for a structure designed eventually to grow, if the communities concerned desire, into a West Indian Federation, taking its proper place in that intricate mosaic which constitutes the British Empire."
  Such a federation, it adds, needs the formation of a clear conception of what is being aimed at and then the devising of successive steps by which the conception may become a reality. That is the point about which I want some more information. Is this one step in a succession of steps leading to some general change in that part of the world? I think we are entitled to know, before we give a Second Reading to this Bill, whether the Government have anything in mind beyond the proposals which have actually been made, and whether they propose to carry out the recommendations of the Committee of 1933. The right hon. Gentleman made reference to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which says:
  "His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as His Majesty in Council thinks proper for the government of Dominica on and after the appointed day, and any such Order in Council may delegate to any authority constituted for Dominica"
  and so on. I gather that it is not proposed to make any change, but of course a future Government would have power under this instrument to make changes and introduce quite a different Constitution. I notice that, when the Committee were examining witnesses on the subject of the development of self-government, certain quite definite views were put before them. For instance, some witnesses expressed themselves as strongly opposed to any form of self-government, though in favour of increased control in local affairs. The Committee said, and I think this is significant:
  "It is worth recording that many of the witnesses in this and other islands most strongly opposed to any form of self-government at this stage were coloured, or of direct African descent."
  It is clear that there is some apprehension among the coloured peoples that they might be dominated by the white section of the population. I notice in the Committee's report a very interesting passage which will certainly appeal to Members of this House, in which the arguments for nomination as against election are dealt with. The Committee say:
  184
  "The main arguments put forward in favour of the system of nomination pure and simple were that by it alone could the services of the best men be secured, since many would refuse to stand for election or face the hustings or the taunts and abuse of some unscrupulous opponent; that elections were usually controlled by some caucus through whose agency men were elected who worked only for their sectional or personal interests and wilfully obstructed the Government; and that in the present condition of the West Indies it is only by nomination that the interests of all sections of the community can be represented."
  As all of us here have fought our way in the face of outcries at the hustings, I do not know that we shall be much impressed by these arguments against election. The two questions I want to put to the Colonial Secretary are: What vista have the Government in front of them? and What do they propose to do with regard to the particular form of instrument of government in Dominica, either now or at some future date?
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I accept the view that Dominica, because of economic and other reasons, should be transferred to the Windward Islands—that it would be better that it should be a colony under the Windward Islands than a presidency under the Leeward Islands. I accept the view also that possibly the majority of the inhabitants of Dominica desire the change, and that probably such a transfer will tidy things up a bit in that part of the world and end a number of old disputes. I should like, however, to put to the Secretary of State a number of questions which have not been answered in the statement he has already made. In common with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton' (Mr. Mander), I would like to know whether the Bill is a step towards what a number of commissions have recommended in the matter of greater unity. Are we to understand that it is now the accepted policy of the Government that no further steps should be taken towards greater unity in the West Indies? In the second place, I would like to know whether adequate provision will be made after the transfer in respect to those services which are surrendered as a result of the transfer? Some reference was made in another place to the fact that certain services, because of the association with the Leeward Islands, would be abandoned. Is adequate provision to be made under

  185
  the new conditions in respect to those services?
  The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton referred to the problem of local government in the islands. The Secretary of State has said that precisely the same form of local government would exist under the new conditions as under the old, but I gather that a little while ago there were certain proposals for reform in the Constitution itself. It was suggested, I believe, that an unofficial majority should be established in the Legislative Council, and that there should be an increase in the number of elected unofficial members.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That has been carried out.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am very pleased to know that, because I am anxious to see a larger measure of self-government given to these islands. The proposals for wider election should result in the legislature having a wider power over the executive, and the island being less subject to Governor rule. I hope, further, that the change will result in more attention being given to the appalling social conditions in the island. It is true that, from time to time, grants have been made from the Colonial Development Fund and in other ways, but the health conditions of the island are very poor, housing conditions are bad, sanitary arrangements are about as bad as they can be, and the general standard of living is pretty low. With poor communications, both in the island itself and between it and other islands, there is a great deal of work to be done. I hope that, as a result of this change, and with an increase of enlightened opinion in the island, these economic and social problems will be tackled more vigorously, with the support of the home Government. I hope the support of the Government will be given increasingly to the idea of the development of a larger measure of self-government among the people in these islands, and that, perhaps, later on, some looser federation can be formed which will bring the West Indian people to the status of a Dominion inside the British Commonwealth of Nations.
  11.49 p.m.
  Mr. Maxton: I am afraid I do not welcome this quite so whole-heartedly as
  186
  the other hon. Members who have spoken. The only arguments the Minister adduced in support of the Measure—geographical, political and economic-are arguments that have been good for 50 years. Why does he come for ward now after he has held office—
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I thought I explained. It is the result of a petition by the people of the island. Every one of the elected members was returned on this issue. It is to give effect to the wishes of the people of Dominica.
  Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman said that undoubtedly. He also said he had consulted a number of leading people. I am always dubious about things done after consulting leading people. I have not been to the Leeward or Windward Islands, but I remember many occasions when Governments have consulted leading people in Glasgow, and I have no doubt the leading people in the Windward and Leeward Islands are of the same type as the leading people in Glasgow, with the necessary changes for the different conditions.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There are no big towns and there is no industrial activity. There is nothing of that sort.
  Mr. Maxton: Obviously there are some leading people.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There are the elected members.
  Mr. Maxton: I read the Debate in the other place and I did not find the Under-Secretary making the claim about the Members having won their election with this as one of the planks of their programme. At any rate, apart from these recent indications that the people of these islands wanted this change, the right hon. Gentleman has had indications of a variety of kinds practically all the time the island has been in the existing position, and yet he has ignored them until now. I do not think that in his Colonial administration the right hon. Gentleman has tended to operate according to the wishes of the people on the spot. Even when they were put strongly and generally expressed it has never been regarded by him as a reason for having things in other Crown Colonies that the people on the spot wanted there. The people of Mauritius have been pressing

  187
  him for a lot of things and there is a widespread general demand for changes, but he has not thought fit to do it. Why do they bring forward a Measure of this description on this occasion? It is a breach of the Prime Minister's pledge earlier in the day.
  I want also to voice a matter that I mentioned in the Debate on the King's Speech. I think the House is far too casual in the way it treats the affairs of the Crown Colonies. It is quite inexcusable to bring this on at the end of a long programme when there is a long stretch from now to the Adjournment in August. Here is a thing that has been pressed for by the people of this island for nearly 70 years, and we are told that it is now urgent and it must be passed to-night, after the very indifferent type of discussion that the House gives at this hour of the evening and after what I do not think is an adequate explanation. I noticed that his Under-Secretary mentioned something that he did not mention. It is particularly necessary and desirable to secure a fuller consideration of these problems owing to the unfortunate and unsatisfactory state of the Presidency's finances at the present moment. If they were one of the reasons for pushing on with this Measure, then the Colonial Secretary ought to have told us something about the financial position of the island, and he ought to have given us some indications. I cannot see how the financial condition of the island, which is so purely peasant and has had such a very cheap form of administrative control, should have got into such a bad state that some urgent drastic action is needed here tonight. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows, and will perhaps tell us how the finances of these peasant people, living under the most miserable conditions, after 60 or 70 years of this kind of control and over a century of British rule, a people who are living in poverty, with a cheap administrative machine, have got into such a terrible condition in 1938? To whom is the money being owed? Is it to the leading people? Is it external debt? The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps explain it to me. I am not standing here trying to pose as an expert on this matter, but I am asking genuinely for information.
  I am concerned very seriously about the condition of coloured workers in British
  188
  Crown Colonies. The Trinidad business has shown us all, I hope, that we have some reason to be concerned. It has shown the Dominions Secretary himself that he has some reason to be concerned in taking the actions he has taken. I would infinitely prefer that this House prevented situations like the Trinidad situation from arising than that we should take what is called powerful, strong action after an intolerable position has arisen. I want to know what the financial troubles of the island have been that have compelled the Colonial Secretary to rush this matter, because I can only call it rushing, when it comes on like this practically without warning, after years and years when it might have been dealt with. I want to know what the financial conditions are, and, further, how the financial conditions are to be improved by the separation of the islands? As far as I understand colonial administration, the Governor will still be the responsible and effective centre of government. Are we to understand that this removal is a vote of censure upon the Governor of the one lot of islands and a vote of confidence in the Governor of the other lot of islands? Are we to understand that the new Governor under whom they come is a financial expert, and that the one they are removing is not a financial expert? These things ought to be explained in extenso to this House by the right hon. Gentleman, and he did not do it in presenting the Measure.
  11.59 p.m.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would like to reply to the criticisms to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. Finance is not a prominent consideration in this Bill. I do not think this Bill affects Dominica financially very much one way or the other. I have asked my people and they say that it may cost them £500 a year less, or it may cost £500 a year more, but certainly not more than that one way or the other. Undoubtedly the island had a certain amount of capital enterprise in the days when it had a flourishing limes industry, when a certain number of European planters went there in connection with the development of that industry, but the inherent climatic conditions and the geographical situation did not make the attempt to establish large plantations possible or likely to be successful. The total debt of the island, I am glad to say, is about £6,000, roughly 2s. 6d. per

  189
  head of the population. The island has had help from time to time by assistance from this country, and I am afraid that its revenues cannot stand any increase in taxation or any increase in rates. The main road of the island is called Imperial Road, as it was built by a special grant from this House. The conditions are wholly and utterly different from those which obtain in Trinidad.
  There is no question of federation in the West Indies, but I would gladly see all these communities co-operating and sharing in better technical and scientific research. I am sure that the happiness of the people of this small island is more likely to be promoted by decentralisation than by over-centralisation. Each island has its local conditions and local characteristics, indeed, nothing strikes one more than the difference between one island and another. The matter of education will be entirely under the control of the local legislature, which consists of three official members, one of whom is the administrator as President, or if the Governor is administering the island, he is a member when he is there; three nominated unofficial members and five elected unofficial members. There is, therefore, an unofficial majority of eight to three; and the care of education will in fact be determined by the people of the island themselves, and will not be imposed upon them by us.
  Mr. Creech Jones: What proportion of the people of the island enjoy the vote; how many can exercise the vote?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is a very wide franchise.
  Miss Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many? It is an important point.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I really do not know, but certainly the franchise is quite wide.
  Miss Wilkinson: The right hon. Gentlemon has experts and secretaries behind him. Cannot he find out?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will try to find out before the Committee stage. Under the new Constitution I think the qualification was lowered; at any rate, the mass of the people are able through the elected members to have their say.
  Mr. Mander: It is clear that the qualifications in Dominica are, according to the report:

  "(a) A net income of £30 a year.

  (b) Ownership of real property in the Presidency of the clear value of £100.

  (c) Payment of rent on real property in the Presidency of £12 a year.

  (d) Being resident in the district, payment of direct taxes in the previous year of at least 15s."

  Miss Wilkinson: Ought we not to know what wages are paid in these places? I should imagine that the £30 income limit might cut out a vast mass of the people.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There is, I think, very little comparison to be drawn from the wages. The people have their small banana plantations and their bread-fruit and coconut plantations.
  Miss Wilkinson: They would not be small at £100.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As I say, there is no industrial employment, and easily the largest employer there is the Government. The total net revenue is about £75,000 a year. Cost of police, education, roads, sanitation and health come out of the revenue, and I think the taxation has reached its maximum.
  Miss Wilkinson: You will not have much to pay wages.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have dealt with the question of a general federation. There is no intention of raising any of those wider questions in the Bill.
  12.9 a.m.
  Miss Wilkinson: I interrupted the Minister while he was speaking because I feel that he has not been quite fair to the House. He has been asking us to pass this important Measure while nobody will give us information we want, despite the fact that the Minister has experts available, and that the information is apparently available to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). There is not merely a lack of conscientiousness on the part of the Minister, although that is important, but he tried to give an impression that the franchise is very wide. We are told that this Measure would make the Island of Dominica unique in these islands. I have taken some interest in the matter because,

  191
  from time to time, I have received public petitions and letters from various quite small organisations of women who are agitating in some areas—not in the case of Dominica. From lists of figures for these islands, I have been interested to see how few, compartively speaking, of the mass of the people were able to vote. From the information which was given by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton I think it will turn out to be quite a high franchise. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give us, when we get to the Committee stage, some figures as to the percentage of people on the island who do in fact vote. The right hon. Gentleman may have been right in making the statement which he has made, and I do not contradict it, but it is important that we should know, in separating the people of Dominica from the others, to what extent they are being handed over to a comparatively small clique in the island, who will oppress them as they are doing in certain other of these islands.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Captain Margesson.]

  IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

    CARROTS.
    12.12 a.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move,
    "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 10) Order, 1937, dated the fourteenth day of December, 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 fourteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved."
    In November, 1934, the House approved an Order imposing an import duty of 10s. a cwt. on carrots for a certain period of the year and allowing the duty on carrots during the remaing period of the year to be the sum of 2s. 4d. That proposal was made solely for the purpose of helping the home growers of early carrots under glass, and it has turned out to be of considerable help to those
    192
    growers who are fortunate enough, for this purpose, to live in the southern half of these islands; but it so happens, apparently, that the sun does not shine as strongly in the northern part of this country, and it has been found that people who wish to grow this particular kind of early carrots in the North of England cannot get their crop so early and are cut out from the benefits of the legislation, which was meant to apply to all parts of the country. I do not wish to detain the House at this late hour, and therefore I will limit myself to saying that this Order adds a fortnight to the 10s. period, thus seeking to rectify what is considered to be a rather unjust situation.
    12.14 a.m.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: It is exceedingly unfortunate that we on this side always have to protest against these Orders being taken after 11 o'clock and indeed after midnight. The pledge that was given by the Government that we should not be required to sit late to-night has been entirely set aside. It is true that these Orders are exempted business, but there is a good deal more in the principle of this matter that we want to discuss than can reasonably be discussed at this hour. However, I feel it is incumbent upon me to say that it is not merely a question of the additional duty being levied, by this Order, for a fortnight in the year; it is a question of adding something to the burden which already rests on the consumer of this particular commodity for another part of the year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that the growers of this very valuable vegetable in the South have been getting the sun and that those in the North have not. Now the people in the South will get the additional benefit. I gather that that is the position, in order that the people of the North may also benefit for a similar period. We on this side of the House have very strong recollections of discussions on nutrition. We heard figures quoted by the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) of the value it would be to working-class mothers if they would use more of carrots and water, and it is a pretty fine commentary upon a Government, being content to shelter behind that kind of argument from their own benches with regard to nutrition, that they then seek first to tax and then to

    193
    extend the period of tax on the very foods that they argue are the most nutritional for the purposes of the children of the country.
    We shall shortly be considering the report of M. van Zeeland with regard to the general hope of improving trade relationships between nations and I cannot help but mention that I saw in a newspaper this morning that the Parliamentary Secretary's colleague, the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, was making a speech, only yesterday, I think, to the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris, in which he said:
    "Everywhere commerce is hindered by tariffs, quotas, and exchange troubles."
    He went on to say:
    "Every day in my office I hear the complaints of my exporters, and here to-night I have the other side of the medal in the complaints of my importers."
    The other Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is abroad trying to make suggestions for the reduction of tariffs, while his colleague is here, asking us to place additional burdens on the consumer. If it were not for the lateness of the hour, I could say a great deal more about this matter in principle, but I want to say quite frankly, that I really do not think the Government have made out a very good case for this change.
    12.18 a.m.
    Sir Percy Harris: I want to add my protest against the Government taking this business at this late hour. If the programme was so congested that it was necessary to sit late, the House should have met earlier, either last week or yesterday, but to ask us at a quarter past 12 to pass a new import duties Order is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure and quite unworthy of the Patronage Secretary. We have had a very busy day and passed three important Orders, and I only hope my right hon. Friend will resist passing through Orders of this character after midnight. Large concerns are likely to have their businesses interfered with by these irritating regulations, which are bound to handicap trade and make business more difficult. This is a Continental trade, and it is not a good gesture to France, where they are going through very severe financial stringency and finding it very difficult to maintain their exports, to put on an annoying additional duty of this sort. More and more
    194
    these Commissioners are treating Parliament with contempt. They do not even pretend to give us an outline of the evidence that has enabled them to arrive at the conclusion that it is necessary to add another fortnight in this case. I hope this habit of beginning what is a comparatively new Session in this way will not be continued. If it is, I shall vigorously protest on every occasion.
    12.20 a.m.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I have heard many discussions on Free Trade and tariffs, but never have I heard a speech on the subject like that to which we have just listened from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. His case was that the sun shines more strongly elsewhere than it shines at times in this country, and it is not fair, and we must have protection against that. I should like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have heard many speeches by him that I have admired, but for courage and self-restraint, his silence tonight is one of his greatest achievements.
    12.21 a.m.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: I hesitate to speak at this late hour of the night, but I think that back benchers also should protest against the Government's treatment of this House. Many Members, not only on this side but on all sides of the House, have been continually pressing the Government to outline a definite food policy for the country, and we have been continually met with evasive replies. I can give the Minister many figures to show that in Scotland agricultural produce has materially declined because of the lack of a Government policy on the question of food for the people. Many Members know that daily we are receiving protests from women's organisations, from housewives, from co-operative guilds, and even in some instances from Conservative women's organisations, on the rising cost of foodstuffs. Here is a foodstuff that is essential to the people of this country, and the Government's only practical policy to-day is to impose further taxation on a necessity for the people. The bringing on of business like this at such a late hour will make business in this House much more difficult in the future. There are many of us on these benches who are not going to tolerate the casualness of this Government much longer. As representatives of

    195
    many thousands of people, we are going to ask and we are going to demand from the Government that at least they should put up spokesmen who can give the House a sensible outline of the Government's policy, and not mere casualness such as we have had to-night.
    12.23 a.m.
    Mr. Pritt: There is another matter that the Minister might consider with reference to this little piece of legislation. I presume that when the Order which is being amended was passed, it was decided and considered that the best way on the whole of balancing the exploitation of the consumer in the interests of the producer was to impose this tax for a certain period, which would enable carrot growers in the South to have their little rake-off, like shipowners or beet-sugar people; but now it is proposed, in order to give somebody else a rake-off, to give the carrot growers in the South of England a fortnight more rake-off than they previously needed, so that a certain percentage of the growers of early carrots in England will actually be having the benefit of an extra exploitation of the community for a fortnight longer than they need have had, and the consumers in Dundee will, I suppose, be reduced to water alone, instead of water and carrots, for a fortnight longer than would otherwise
    happen, and, of course, as long as it was safe to drink.
    Surely the House ought to be told the percentage of growers in the South and in the North. How many of the growers in the North have cousins on the Front Bench? The growers in the North are obviously those who have worked themselves up, having previously grown something better suited to their climate. In the hope of getting protection, the good nature of the House is exploited at this time, and in order to get through one more little ramp. We ought to be told precisely what the ramp is.
    12.26 a.m.
    Mr. Jagger: I want to complain about the stupid way in which this change has been made. Surely it could be graded in accordance with the amount of sunshine that we have on a given date so that gradually, from the Orkney Islands to Lands End it was graded exactly in accordance with the sun available? If that is not done, the whole argument for the duty becomes absurd in the extreme and is convicted of a stupidity that is inconceivable, even for the Government.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 28.

    Division No. 78.]

    AYES.

    [12.27 a.m.

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

    Cruddas, Col. B.

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

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

    De Chair, S. S.

    Hunter, T.

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

    Dodd, J. S.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Balniel. Lord

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Keeling. E. H.

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Beechman, N. A.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Bird, Sir R. B.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Kimball. L.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Emery, J. F.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Lyons. A. M.

    Boyce. H. Leslie

    Errington, E.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Bracken, B.

    Fildes, Sir H.

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

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Findlay. Sir E.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Bull, B. B.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Furness, S. N.

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

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Fyfe. D. P. M.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Gower. Sir R. V.

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

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Channon, H.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Munro, P.

    Chapman. A. (Rutherglen)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Guinness. T. L. E. B.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

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

    Hannon. Sir P. J. H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Harbord, A.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Crooke, Sir J. S.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Crookshank. Capt. H. F. C.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Cross. R. H.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Storey, S.

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

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

    Rowlands, G.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Wragg, H.

    Salt, E. W.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Savery, Sir Servington

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

    Scott. Lord William

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

    Captain Hope and Captain

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Dugdale.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

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

    NOES.

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

    Jagger, J.

    Silverman, S. S.

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

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Buchanan, G.

    Logan, D. G.

    Stephen, C.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Mathers, G.

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

    Ede, J. C.

    Maxton, J.

    Tomlinson, G.

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

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Westwood, J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Seely. Sir H. M.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Sexton, T. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Tinker and Mr. Davidson.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Resolved,
    "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 10) Order, 1937, dated the fourteenth day of December, 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 fourteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved."

  IMPORT DUTIES (FINANCE ACT, 1933).

    PEPPERCORNS.
    12.35 a.m.
    Captain Wallace: I beg to move:
    "That the Import Duties (Substitution) (No. 1) Order, 1937, dated the thirteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Finance Act, 1933, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said thirteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved."
    I am sure that hon. Members who seem to have been slightly perturbed by the increase of duty in the last Order will be delighted to hear that this Order means a reduction of duty. This is one of the cases in which a specific duty was substituted for an ad valorem duty under the terms of Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1933. The specific duty was first put on in May, 1934, at the rate of 5s. 6d. per cwt.—equal to 10 per cent. It was put up in November of that year to 7s. 3d. It has been difficult, for a variety of reasons, to alter it since then, but during
    198
    the last nine or ten months the value of imported pepper has been relatively stable—something between 40s. and 50s. per cwt. In these circumstances we propose—and the Advisory Committee proposed—as in duty bound, that the duty should be a specific duty of 4s. 6d., or the equivalent of 10 per cent.
    Resolved,
    "That the Import Duties (Substitution) (No. 1) Order, 1937, dated the thirteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Finance Act, 1933, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said thirteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved."

    COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; to be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes before One o'Clock.

  INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
  INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
SCOTLAND.
  MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (EMPLOYÉ HOURS OF WORK).
  MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (EMPLOYÉ HOURS OF WORK).
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (EMPLOYÉS).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (EMPLOYÉS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PETROL).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PETROL).
  WARSHIP BUILDING (INSURANCE CONTRACTS).
  WARSHIP BUILDING (INSURANCE CONTRACTS).
  CIVIL AVIATION (WIRELESS ON AEROPLANES).
  CIVIL AVIATION (WIRELESS ON AEROPLANES).
  TITHE REDEMPTION.
  TITHE REDEMPTION.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  POLISH COAL CARGOES (INSURANCE).
  POLISH COAL CARGOES (INSURANCE).
  IRON ORE IMPORTS.
  IRON ORE IMPORTS.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  WATER SUPPLY.
  WATER SUPPLY.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
HOUSING.
  NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
  NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
  SILICOSIS.
  SILICOSIS.
  LEICESTER.
  LEICESTER.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (LEICESTER).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (LEICESTER).
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
DEFENCE.
  WHEAT AND FLOUR STORAGE.
  WHEAT AND FLOUR STORAGE.
  ARMED FORCES AND MUNITIONS SUPPLY.
  ARMED FORCES AND MUNITIONS SUPPLY.
  SEA-BORNE TRAFFIC, EAST COAST.
  SEA-BORNE TRAFFIC, EAST COAST.
  LAND PURCHASES.
  LAND PURCHASES.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  POST OFFICE (SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS).
  POST OFFICE (SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS).
  COAL BILL.
  COAL BILL.
  ROAD TRANSPORT (EMPLOYÉS WAGES).
  ROAD TRANSPORT (EMPLOYÉS WAGES).
Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PATENTS, ETC. (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Elements of invention not formally claimed in Convention country.
6. After subsection (2A) of Section ninety-one of the Patents and Designs Act, there shall be inserted the following subsection:
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to leave out "subsection (2A) of" and insert "the subsection numbered (2A) directed by the last foregoing section to be inserted in." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. The expression "the Patents and Designs Act" is defined in the Bill to mean the Act of 1907 as amended by subsequent enactments up to and including the Act of 1932. Strictly speaking, therefore, the new subsection (2A) inserted by Clause 5 of the Bill is not a subsection of "the Patents and Designs Act."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out ("subsection (2A) of") and insert ("the subsection numbered (2A) directed by the last foregoing section to be inserted in").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new Clause:
Appeal from Comptroller's refusal of application under s. 91 of Patents and Designs Act.
". After the subsection numbered (2B) directed by the last foregoing section to be
566
inserted in Section ninety-one of the Patents and Designs Act, there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(2C) Any refusal by the Comptroller to accept an application for a patent, or to accept a specification, on the ground of non-compliance with any requirement of this section, shall be subject to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.'"
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strabolgi, suggested that the opportunity afforded by the Bill should be taken to provide that decisions of the Comptroller on points arising under Section 91 of the Patents and Designs Act should be appealable to the Patents Appeal Tribunal. This Amendment is intended to give such an appeal from any refusal of the Comptroller to accept an application for a patent, or to accept a specification, on the ground of noncompliance with any requirement of Section 91. This will put decisions of the Comptroller relating to matters dealt with in that section in the same position, as regard appeals, as decisions upon most of the other points arising under the Act before acceptance of an application or specification. I think that this new clause will meet the point raised by the noble Lord, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, and for moving this Amendment. I have one point only to raise in connection with it, which has been put to me by those who are very experienced in patent matters. They point out to me that it is not quite clear by what procedure the Comptroller will be able to satisfy himself when an application is made to him. Taking the particular clause, which my noble friend Lord Marks so warmly supported, about the inventor being able to have his name included in the patent: as I am advised, according to Section 1 (8) of the Bill, the Comptroller of Patents will have to be satisfied that the person claiming to be entitled to have his name mentioned in the patent is the inventor of the whole invention or of a substantial part thereof. I am sure the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will see the point there: what will be the procedure under which the Comptroller will so satisfy himself? This matter may arise in future in

567
regard to a foreign patent such as, under the Convention, receives certain protection here. The very fact that the inventor's name is mentioned in a foreign patent does not, I gather, automatically mean that he will have his name mentioned in the British patent. He has to apply, before the British patent is granted under the Convention, to have his name printed upon it according to the Act.
What does the Comptroller do? How does he satisfy himself that this is a genuine application and that the inventor has a right to have his name printed? For example, if the inventor files an application for a patent at the International Office at Berne and is granted a patent thereon, I understand that he expects that automatically for a certain period he is protected in this country. I think that is the whole object of the Convention. Then, if he applies to the English Patents Comptroller to have his name printed in the patent, what means has the English Patents Comptroller of knowing that the application is genuine? This is a difficulty that has been pointed out to me. I dare say it has been examined by the Board of Trade and the officials concerned, but I should be very much obliged if the noble Lord would have that matter looked into and see that the wording is quite clear, and that there cannot be any possibility of mistakes arising.
LORD MARKS: I am afraid the noble Lord is not quite familiar with the facts. If a person is granted a patent abroad and applies in this country to have that patent granted under the International Convention, that patent cannot be altered, and consequently, if the person has any name mentioned in it abroad, that name will also be mentioned automatically here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Short title, citation, construction, printing and commencement.
(3) Where by this Act any enactment or word is directed to be added to or omitted from the Patents and Designs Act, or to be substituted for any other enactment or word, that Act shall be construed as if it had, at the time when the direction takes effect, been enacted with the addition, omission or substitution.
A copy of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, with the amendments effected by the Patents and Designs Act, 1914, the Patents and Designs Act, 1919, the Patents and Designs (Convention) Act, 1928, the Patents and Designs Act, 1932 and this Act, shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments and deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and His Majesty's printer shall print in accordance with the copy so certified all copies of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, that are printed after the commencement of this Act.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to insert after subsection (2):
"(3) For the purpose of identifying references in this Act to subsections and paragraphs contained in the Patents and Designs Act, regard shall be had to consequential renumbering authorised by subsection (2) of Section fourteen of the Patents and Designs Act, 1932, and carried into effect in copies of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, printed on behalf of His Majesty's printer in accordance with that enactment."
The noble Lord said: This is merely a drafting Amendment. It is intended to remove any doubts as to the status of reprints of the principal Act with subsequent Amendments and a consequential renumbering of the subsections and paragraphs, made by the Stationery Office under subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1932. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 26, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to leave out the first paragraph of subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment also is drafting. Words to this effect used to appear in printing clauses. It is thought that they were always superfluous. Moreover, in view of the modernised form of the present printing clause, they are even more incongruous than before. It is submitted that it is dangerous to leave such superfluous words in the Bill, in case some ingenious person were to endeavour to give the words an effective meaning which would almost certainly be a meaning that is not intended.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, leave out lines 27 to 32.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "print" and insert" copies of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, in accordance with the copy so certified." The noble Lord said: This is also merely drafting. The words in the Bill might be construed as precluding the Stationery Office from reprinting, as and when necessary, the Act of 1907 in its original form. The new form of words leaves it open to the Stationery Office to do this, while still achieving the real intention—namely to ensure that copies of the authorised reprint are made available to the public.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, leave out from ("print") to end of line 42 and insert ("copies of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, in accordance with the copy so certified").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to insert, after subsection (4):
"() Any reference, in an Act passed before this Act, to an enactment that is the subject of an amendment effected by a Merchandise Marks Act shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as including a reference to that enactment as so amended.
In this subsection, the expression 'a Merchandise Marks Act' means—

(a) so much this Act as relates to merchandise marks;

(b) any previous Act that may be cited with the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887."

The noble Lord said: This also is only drafting. It is a provision of the usual type for securing that references in other Acts of Parliament to the existing Merchandise Marks Acts shall, in proper cases, be construed as including references to those Acts as amended by this Bill. A similar provision with regard to the Patents and Designs Acts already occurs in subsection (4) of Clause 12 of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.
Consequential and minor amendments of Patents and Designs Act.

Section amended.

Amendment.

Forty-eight
For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection:
"(2) In this section, the expression 'Convention vessel' means a vessel of a Convention country; the expressions 'Convention aircraft' and 'Convention land vehicle' have corresponding meanings; and the expression 'Convention country has the meaning assigned to it by, or by virtue of, Section ninety-one A of this Act."
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The first two Amendments to the Schedule are drafting. The interpretation of the expression "Convention country" wherever it appears in the Patents and Designs Act, as amended by the Bill, is already provided for by Clause 9 of the Bill, so that the interpretation of that expression for the special purpose of Section 48 is redundant.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 21, after ("country") insert ("and").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 24, leave out from ("meanings") to end of line 27.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next two Amendments are consequential on the new clause which I moved a few moments ago, regarding appeals from certain decisions of the Comptroller, proposed to be inserted in the Bill after Clause 6.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 14, after ("Comptroller") insert ("or on appeal the Appeal Tribunal")
Page 12, line 25, at end insert ("or (on appeal) the Appeal Tribunal may direct such acceptance and grant as aforesaid").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

DOCKING AND NICKING OF HORSES (PROHIBITION) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The clauses of the Bill can be explained, I think, very briefly. The first contains a prohibition against the operations of docking and nicking of horses' tails. The second contains a saving, which will enable those operations to be performed in certain circumstances—in the words of the Bill, "because of disease of or injury to the tail" of the horse. The third clause provides an appropriate penalty, and the fourth clause prohibits the importation of docked horses. I should like to say, at this stage, that since this Bill was printed and read a first time representations have been made to me that this clause will operate unfairly, as it stands, as regards the importing interest from the Continent. I have considered the matter, and I am willing to undertake that should this Bill receive a Second Reading I will move an Amendment to this clause to provide that it shall not come into operation until a period of six years has elapsed after the coming into operation of the rest of the Act. I am satisfied that that Amendment will be fair not only to the importing interest but to those who breed horses in this country. Clause 5 contains certain necessary definitions.
I should now like to devote some minutes to putting before your Lordships some of the many arguments, as I conceive them to be, in favour of this Bill. Being aware that there is a certain amount of opposition to it, I hope your Lordships will be indulgent in that matter. I would begin by asking two questions. The first is this: Is docking cruel? The second question is: If so, is it necessary? and I should think, my Lords, that it is on the basis of those two questions that this matter should be approached. The general principle of law, as I understand it, with regard to cruelty to animals is this, that practices which are cruel and also necessary are legal. On the other hand, practices which are cruel and unnecessary are illegal. If your Lordships, having heard this debate, are satisfied that docking though cruel is necessary, or that clocking is not cruel, then I am content that this Bill should be defeated.
572
If, on the other hand, you are satisfied, as I hope that the House will be satisfied, that this practice of docking is both cruel and unnecessary, then I shall ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
I have no quarrel whatever with that principle of law, if I have stated it correctly. I say that docking is cruel and unnecessary, and I recognise that it is necessary for me to demonstrate to your Lordships this afternoon that these statements are justified. I ought at this stage to mention that the present law is this. Under the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, 1919, a horse may not be docked except under a general or local anæsthetic. I want to make it clear that this Bill is not being introduced now because it happens to be very difficult to administer the 1919 Act. I am not here this afternoon to say that because we cannot enforce one Act I want another. But that happens to be true nevertheless: it is for obvious reasons difficult to enforce that Act, and the Act is often ignored. And even if an anæsthetic is used it can hardly be denied that there is some pain resulting from the operation. But it is not because of that that I am presenting this Bill to your Lordships; it is because the cruelty in docking is not so much in the operation but is prevalent over the whole of the rest of the horse's life. The permanent absence of a tail causes, in my submission, lifelong suffering to a horse, and the reason for that is pertinent to seek this afternoon.
In several very interesting ways there has been provided by nature protection for horses against flies in summer time and against cold weather and exposure in winter time. A horse has its feet, its mouth, its forelock, its mane and its tail to protect it against these things—all as it were specially designed to perform some useful function. In addition to those it has a fly muscle, the proper name for which, I am instructed, is the panniculus carnosus. This very interesting fly muscle covers most of its body but not all. It is intended apparently to cover those parts of the body which are not protected by the other means—the mane, the tail and so forth; in particular it does not cover the hind quarters—the hips and the buttocks of the horse—for the reason that the tail is provided to perform that function and to get rid of flies without there being the necessity of

573
a fly muscle in those parts of a horse's body. There is one exception to the general title that there is protection for every part of the body, and that is that at the base of the tail, where as a matter of fact the tail cannot reach, there has been provided a special thick pad or patch of skin which flies cannot penetrate. I mention that to illustrate the fact that the whole body is covered in some respects. If the tail, or a large part of the tail, is removed by docking it is clear that a substantial portion of the horse's body becomes entirely exposed and unprotected. The part of the body between the thighs is entirely naked of hair, and that becomes entirely exposed by the removal of the tail.
I ought at this stage to admit that I am not an expert in these matters, but I have taken great trouble to study the writings of experts. May I therefore on that account be excused if I make this quotation from a book called The Points of a Horse by the late Captain Holland Hayes, who, I understand, was an acknowledged expert on this subject:
"The suffering inflicted during the operation (docking) is trifling as compared to the misery which the decked horse has to endure in the open during hot weather. In this respect brood mares which have been docked are particularly to be pitied, and men who dock fillies, or get them docked, merit the contempt of all lovers of horses."
That is the principal argument for this Bill and for the statement that docking is cruel. Docking is, we say, more or less a fashion. It is demanded by those who want to show horses, but perhaps some of those who show young horses do not give enough thought to what is going to happen to those horses in the later years of their lives, when they are turned out to grass and are entirely unprotected against flies in hot weather. Perhaps that is not often thought of in the show ring. Again, horses which have no tails are very apt to stamp and kick on hard roads and in stables, in order to try to remove flies, and it is clear that that does them no good. Horses out at grass in particular suffer very greatly from the absence of tails; they cannot get proper rest, and they cannot feed properly.
I ought now to say a word about the operation of nicking, because it is sought to prohibit nicking as well as docking in this Bill. Nicking, it is admitted, is very rarely carried on in this country to-day. It is in some other countries, and was in
574
this country. Again I hope I shall be forgiven for reading this description, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way whatever. The operation of nicking is a surgical one, cutting the strong flexor muscles on each side of the base of the tail. The tail is then bent up at nearly a right angle, tightly bandaged, and held in this position by mechanical devices until the wounds heal in perhaps two or three weeks. The purpose is to paralyse the muscles which depress the tail so as to keep it in a permanently erect position. I have not heard of any arguments for nicking, and it seems plain that that operation is cruel. I propose therefore to pass on to docking, but: in passing to say that if nicking is very little practised in this country, then no harm will be clone by prohibiting it in the future. I am unable to think of any arguments in its favour whatever. It is pure fashion so far as I know.
I hope that I have succeeded, at any rate in part, in showing that these practices are cruel. But I must also show, if I am to succeed in presenting my case, that they are not necessary. I must deal with some of the objections to this Bill which will no doubt be put forward, and the principal objection of which I have been able to think is the old story that in driving a horse there is a danger of the reins getting under the tail. I must say at once that that argument simply will not do, and for this reason, that people are driving horses with undocked tails in every country of the world every day of the year. Of course, I know that care is required to drive a horse, and it has been said—and I think there is a good deal in it—that if a rein does get under a docked tail it is more difficult to dislodge, because a docked horse will clutch his tail much more than an undocked one. In this connection it is interesting to know what people in other countries are doing. In Russia, I am told, horses are never docked, and we all know that there is a great deal of driving of horses in Russia. In Canada and the United States four-in-hands and even six-in-hands are constantly driven with horses with undocked tails. I am afraid I am quoting a lot of figures, but I desire to substantiate my case with facts. In New York City there are 5,000 milk delivery horses undocked, and in the United States there are over 15,000,000 undocked farm horses.

575
I emphasise the fact that they are farm horses, because I believe one of the arguments against this Bill is that particularly in ploughing and in other farm operations a docked tail is desirable. Is there any truth in this statement that you cannot plough without docking the horse's tail? We have tried to find that out, and we have found that many people use undocked horses for ploughing. Another detail, is that in the Essex ploughing match last summer the prize was won by an undocked horse. Again, docked horses are never used in hearses, and if there is any case in which I should have thought it imperative to ensure that no accident arose it would be the use of horses for hearses. That again goes to show that this is a pure fashion. So much is it a fashion to have undocked horses in a hearse that people who cannot get anything else but docked horses actually put false tails on them when they put the horses into a hearse. That is contrary to the statement that it is entirely a fashion to clock horses for other purposes and on other occasions. If it is said that it is impossible to drive horses with undocked tails, bearing in mind that they are doing it so much abroad, is it really suggested that English drivers are less skilful than foreign drivers? I cannot believe that is so. Even if there was a danger, it can be avoided. It can be avoided by cutting the hair to the end of the dock. There will be nothing illegal about doing that even if this Bill is passed. It can be avoided by plaiting and binding together and braiding the hair of the tail. It can be avoided by binding the dock with webbing if necessary.
It is said that undocked horses are dirty or liable to cause disease. The fact—if it is a fact, which I deny—that they are likely to be more dirty than other horses can be avoided by tying up or shortening the hair. I submit that there is no evidence that an undocked horse is more liable to get disease than a docked horse, and I would remind your Lordships that there is a clause in this Bill empowering this operation to take place if there is any disease or injury to the tail. Then it is said that the appearance of a horse is improved by docking and its quarters better shown off. That is purely a matter of opinion. I will not labour the point except to say that opinions differ and that a great
576
body of opinion says, on the contrary, that the appearance of a horse is ruined by docking. In any case the same remedies apply, and if people want to see the hind quarters of a horse better they can apply the same remedy, by doing up and bandaging the tail. Surely mutilation cannot be an aid to beauty. I am fortified in that statement by the results of inquiries which have been made from well-known painters and sculptors. The support which we have received from them is very encouraging. I am not going to weary your Lordships with figures or names, but I can assure you—and I can prove it if necessary—that a very large number of well-known painters and sculptors support this Bill.
Another objection which I want to anticipate is that in tip-carts which are used on farms and elsewhere it is awkward or dangerous to have an undocked tail. I say there is nothing in that argument. If there is any difficulty it is simply because of bad harnessing, simply because the traces are too short. In any case, which is the right thing to do—to cut the horse to fit the cart, or to make the cart to fit the horse? Pursuing this question of whether it is necessary, I have some other interesting facts. One of them is that I understand that in the Coronation procession there were no docked horses. I am open to correction on that point, but I believe it to be true. I know it is true that in the Army docking is forbidden by King's Regulations. I understand that there are no, or very few, docked horses in the Metropolitan Police, and I know there is a very large body of opinion amongst owners, trainers, breeders, jockeys, and riding schools in favour of this Bill. It is also supported by the Council of the National Veterinary Medical Association of Great Britain and Ireland. We have been particularly anxious to know how large users of driven horses fare with undocked horses and what their opinion is. I can say that three out of four railway companies—I do not think we had any reply from the fourth—have no objection at all to buying undocked horses. These companies are employing very many thousands of horses, in London and elsewhere, to-day.
We made some inquiries overseas, because I was particularly anxious to

577
know how other countries looked at this problem, and we had some very interesting results. I found to my surprise that it is regarded as an English fashion, and it is generally said that if it is stopped in England it will be stopped almost everywhere. It is unheard of in some parts of the world. It is illegal in some parts of the world. It is illegal in seven States of the United States, and it is interesting to note that in one of these States it has been against the law for some years. It is illegal in Germany, and it is illegal in Norway. I made inquiries to find out what has happened in Norway since it was made illegal three years ago, and the answer is there has been no complaint at all as the result. In Australia they say there is no need to prohibit docking because it is not practised, and they cannot understand why it should be clone in England. In India it is not now practised. In South Africa it is practically unknown except amongst horses imported from England, and they make the rather subtle remark that "cruelties of the utilitarian rather than of the fashionable type" are prevalent in South Africa.
Docking is purely a fashion. I make that statement, and I hope to be able to substantiate it. I have inquired into the history of this particular fashion. It has been known since the earliest times. It burst into prevalence in England apparently, in the reign of Charles II. It waxed and waned throughout the decades and centuries, and from 1840 to 1880 it was practically unknown; it had almost died out. In 1880 it began to come back again, and in 1900 it was almost universal. Since then, happily, it has been again on the wane, although it is still extremely common in England. What happened in hose days when docking was not practised if all those dangers which we hear about are really true? From 1840 to 1880 was the age of driving horses, when motor cars were unheard of, and if there is really anything in the argument that it is dangerous to drive undocked horses, what happened in those days? Why did they not dock their horses? This is a cruel fashion which, unhappily, other countries practise simply because the English practise it.
Human fashions are also prevalent in this country. Some of them some people think equally silly, but human beings can answer and speak for themselves. They
578
are not bound, although I must say sometimes they almost appear to be, to conform to those fashions unless they wish to do so. Horses, however, are not asked whether they wish to conform or whether they do not. This is a stigma upon this country. The Arabs, I am told, cannot understand why English people dock horses. It is cruel and unnecessary, and when the old arguments are brought out, as I fear some of them may be this afternoon, I ask your Lordships to say that it cannot be said that not docking horses is a dangerous practice when the driving and riding of undocked horses is being carried on all over the world every day of the year. I will conclude by quoting a statement by the late Duke of Devonshire which, I think, sums up the case for this Bill in a much better way than I could myself. He said:
"The body of a horse is endowed by nature with a head at one end and a tail at the other, both having obvious uses. Remove one, and you produce a monstrosity and inflict chronic cruelty. Docking in itself is a small thing, but its effect in removing protection from flies in summer, in deference to an absurd and hideous fashion, is simple torture to the animal so treated."
I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR, who had given Notice that he would move that the Bill be read 2athis day six months, said: My Lords, in moving the rejection of the Bill may I first of all pay tribute to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading for the very fair way in which he has done so, and may I continue by saying that so far as nicking is concerned my first introduction to it was in the title of this Bill. On investigation and inquiry I have come to the conclusion that had the Bill been confined to the practice of nicking I think there would have been no opposition from either myself or anybody else to the Bill, because there can be no defence of this practice, although I might suggest to the noble Lord that there are degrees of nicking, and I am informed that the operation can be done so as to leave very little trace. Therefore, if Clause 4 of this Bill becomes law, it may put a rather difficult decision upon Custom House officers who have to decide whether an imported horse has been nicked or not. May I further also say

579
that so far as my arguments are concerned I am not referring in any way to riding horses. Horses used for riding are not, as a matter of fact, in these days generally docked, and I think there is no defence of the practice for horses that are used for that purpose and for that purpose only.
Incidentally, I may say that one member of your Lordships' House asked to be enlightened as to what the operation of docking was. He suggested that "perhaps you would enlighten some of us Cockneys because we do not know what docking is." In case there are any others who have no knowledge, may I say that it consists in the removal of part of the bony formation at the end of a horse's tail thereby shortening the tail and removing the part on which the longer hairs of the horse's tail grow. The issue in this Bill is one of cruelty to the horse, and it is in fact a very narrow issue. The noble Lord has pointed out that the operation of docking can only be carried out by law under an anæthetic, either local or general, and the mere fact that the law is not always enforced is no reason, as he quite rightly pointed out, for making another law. That issue is still further narrowed to a very small portion of the horse's body.
In common no doubt with many other of your Lordships I have had a pamphlet from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in which they tell me about this special muscle which a horse has for removing flies from its body, and they point out a very small area stretching from the stifle joint to the top of the rump where that muscle does not exist. This makes a very small issue for your Lordships to debate. But, incidentally, I may say that in the case of the ordinary commercial horse which has been docked the tail is long enough to reach the area concerned. I may also add that a muscle does not exist on a horse's face which he can reach with his tail, nor does one exist below the knee on the front leg which equally he can reach even with an undocked tail, so that it might be called almost a form of special pleading. But be that as it may, I do not base my arguments against the Bill on questions of that nature. My arguments are based on purely practical considerations, and I hope to show your Lordships that the operation of docking
580
is, in a great many cases, a necessary operation and that prohibition would be a hardship to those to whom it is necessary. In moving the rejection of this Bill I find that I have the support of the National Horse Association, which is a body that has, I think, something like 1,200 individual subscribers and some 160 associations or organisations as well, all of whom are interested in horses and none of whom can be said to be hostile to the best interests of the horses.
LORD MIDDLETON: Have they consulted the subscribers?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: That I do not know. I might also say that the National Farmers 'Union, which numbers amongst its members a very large body of people who use horses for agricultural purposes, is very much opposed to this Bill. There is also the Central Landowners' Association, and in fact, so far as my knowledge goes, generally speaking the big users of draft horses are opposed to this Bill. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading mentioned the railway companies, and said that three out of the four of the main railway lines of this country were in favour of the Bill. I happen to be a director of a railway company and I made some inquiry as to the attitude of the railway companies on this matter. I was informed that they were all opposed to the Bill, and, in fact, the only point at issue was whether it was expedient to try to reject it on Second Reading in your Lordships' House or allow it to die a natural death in the course of events. I think there is, amongst those who are interested in the use of the horse as a practical proposition and as a commercial proposition, a very large body of opinion which is opposed to this Bill to prevent the docking of horses.
The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading said it was entirely fashion. That applies of course to riding horses. I quite agree. I have told your Lordships that I do not approve of the docking of riding horses. It did apply in the days when the horse was the usual mode of locomotion before the advent of motor cars. Now motor cars have come in, and as very few people take out a smart carriage and pair nowadays there can be no question of fashion as far as that aspect is concerned. Users of draft horses are not concerned with fashion.

581
They are concerned entirely with practical considerations. They are not inhumane as a body, and they would not countenance the practice of docking were it not desirable from their point of view as users of horses. There are various arguments. There is the question of danger, which was passed over, I would say lightly, by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. But it is a very real danger. An undocked horse may easily get its tail entangled in the harness or over the reins. It may run away in consequence, and be a serious source of danger in our crowded streets to-day.
If your Lordships have ever seen a plough team at work you will realise that it is not difficult for the long tail of a horse to get over the long loose plough reins. In those circumstances a horse may easily run away and not only do damage to himself but to anybody who gets in the way. There is another source of danger. Horses are used, and to my mind quite rightly, for the delivery of parcels and the like in towns. Horses have the great advantage over motor cars in that they can move without the aid of human beings, that they have a pair of eyes and a certain amount of intelligence. The usual practice is for a carman to take two or three parcels, drop one at the first house and call to the horse which follows him up the street without anybody in attendance. Suppose such a horse gets his tail over the reins on the side opposite the pavement. He may be a quiet horse, not going to run away, but as he moves forward the pull on the reins will direct him steadily towards the middle of the road where any motor car coming along may easily run into him. There is no warning to the driver of the car that the horse is going to do such a thing and the horse is only obeying what he has been taught to obey. I do not want to labour too much the question of danger.
There is another question—that of hygiene. The long tail of a horse needs to be cleaned. Cleaning a long tail means a considerable amount of labour, and the experience of those who have to do with heavy draught horses is that not infrequently the cleaning of a long tail is neglected or partially neglected. The result is irritation to the tail of the horse and some form of disease in a horse's tail, which I may say causes the horse a very considerable amount of pain and
582
discomfort, far more than any flies can cause. You cannot prevent human beings behaving as they do, and you cannot prevent some of them being rather lazy. There is another argument against the Bill. Hackney horses are, I think, invariably docked. I know that many of your Lordships have no use for the hackney horse, but whether or not you are hostile to the hackney horse you must agree that hackney horses provide employment and contribute not inconsiderably to our export trade. That fact, I think, deserves some recognition by us. If they are not allowed to be docked that will destroy much of the export trade in hackney horses. You may say that is a good thing. But not all the trade will be destroyed, and those hackney horses which are exported undocked, when they reach foreign countries will be docked in those foreign countries, and they will be docked without the aid of an anæsthetic. It would be cruel, therefore, to export undocked horses to a country where they are required to be docked.
But, my Lords, there is to my mind an even more important argument against the Bill. Horses are not the only animals to have their tails cut. Dogs have their tails cut, sometimes even bitten off, and without the aid of an anæsthetic. If it is made unlawful for horses to be docked, is there any reasonable argument why it should not be made unlawful for dogs to have their tails cut, or for hounds' ears to be rounded? Is there any reasonable argument against the prohibition of any form of so-called mutilation which is practised on animals to-day? Even lambs have their tails cut. If this Bill passes your Lordships' House and becomes law it seems to me that there will be no end to legislation of a similar nature. To my mind this is a form of grandmotherly legislation. It is perhaps almost an insult to our grandmothers to use that particular adjective, because they were sensible and would have had no nonsense of this sort. But still it is grandmotherly legislation, and I cannot help feeling that, quite apart from the practical considerations which I have put before your Lordships, it is a matter which should not be dealt with by Statute but can be dealt with much better by public opinion. The time of Parliament should not be occupied in passing legislation of this nature. I hope that with the arguments I have put before your Lordships

583
you will consider not only that the practical considerations preclude the desirability of this Bill being passed in your Lordships' House, but that you will also realise that it is almost bringing Parliament into contempt to ask it to pass legislation on a matter which should be dealt with by public opinion and not by legislation. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships, when I take this matter to a Division later, will support me.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to support my noble friend who has just spoken. The noble Lord who so ably introduced the Bill said he had two things to prove. One thing was that the practice was cruel, and the other was that it was unnecessary. I do not think he has proved either. He began by giving away half his case by admitting that the actual operation of docking as regulated by law was not cruel at all; so that is a matter which I need not argue. The question really is whether the discomfort which a docked horse suffers from flies is so great that it is necessary to have a special Act of Parliament to relieve him of it. I have seen a great many horses turned out, docked and undocked. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill admitted, very rightly, that the tail operates over only a very small part of the horse's body. Where it does operate it is a very inefficient instrument, because what really troubles a horse more than the ordinary common fly is the horse-fly. You get these horse-flies sticking on to a horse, and he may hammer away at them with his tail but he cannot get them out. It is really an exaggeration to say that a horse cannot rest and cannot feed in summer on account of the ordinary common fly. Surely any one who goes on a hot day and sees horses that are turned out to grass, whether they have long tails or short tails, will see that they do feed and do rest. I have never been able to see that it made much difference to their rest or their feeding whether they had long tails or short. I admit that there is just a little bit of the body which can be reached by a long tail but not by a short one. It is, however, quite small, and the tail only operates on the common house-
584
fly; it will not get a horse-fly off the horse at all.
Then I come to the other side of the question: what we gain by allowing docking. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill undertook to show that docking was unnecessary. I grant him that; you cannot say that it is really necessary. It does, however, provide a safeguard against a considerable danger. It is quite true that people do not drive horses nowadays anything like so much as they did in the days of our youth; but they do drive them still, and in the West Country, where I come from, you see a good many horses being driven to and from market. It is those horses which are more likely than any others to get their tails over the reins. The trouble, sometimes fatal, that may ensue is much greater than any inconvenience that a horse may suffer by not being able to brush the ordinary common fly off a very small portion of its body. That is the case in a nutshell. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill so ably has failed absolutely to prove either that docking is cruel or that the Bill is necessary. That being so, I think we ought to protest against adding another crime to our criminal law. Fancy putting a man in prison for doing what a body like the Farmers' Union and various other bodies of great standing in the country look upon not as a crime at all but as a very necessary proceeding!It would be reducing legislation to a farce to take up such a trifling matter as this and add another quite unnecessary crime to the crime book. Therefore I shall vote against the Second Reading.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me at this stage of the debate to intervene to indicate in the briefest possible manner the Government's attitude to this Bill. All I wish to say is that the Government do not desire at present to offer any observations on the Bill; they do not, in fact, propose to ask your Lordships to vote one way or the other on the Bill, but to leave the question of the Second Reading to the free vote of the House.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I feel that we are much indebted to the noble Lord for introducing this Bill. Docking, as we all know, is going out

585
in this country, and even the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill seemed to be content if public opinion drove it out. He would shed no tears if docking came to an end without the aid of the law. Well, let it go quickly if it is a bad thing. The law has very often, and properly, assisted public opinion to get its way with due expedition. The opposition to the Bill is, I really believe, an example of prejudice. Prejudice, when it has to defend itself, is often obliged to think of grounds based on reason. Therefore we hear reasons given which we are to understand are the real ground for preserving docking or preventing the abolition of docking, on the four sides of the question: utility, economics, humanity and good taste. In regard to utility, the danger arising from reins getting under the tail is, of course, genuine, and the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, gave us an entertaining picture of the farmer returning from market and the predicament he might be in. But perhaps I might suggest that if the rein got under the tail of a docked horse his predicament would be far greater. One can well conceive the predicament of a driver who would perhaps find it possible to extricate the rein from under an ordinary tail, but would have to be extremely sober to get it out from under a clocked tail.
I see that the opponents of the Bill quote one or two authorities who have been Ministers of Agriculture and are not in favour of prohibition. Perhaps, having been twice Minister of Agriculture, I might make a counter-statement. It is that I could find any number of good farmers who are strong opponents of docking. The real utility of the Bill is, of course, as Lord Merthyr said, the protection of horses from flies and cold; and I venture to think that a powerful motive in the opposition to the Bill is that many of us are addicted to the worship of show-ring standards. Everybody knows that in regard to shire horses and hackneys the standards of the show ring are very strong and would die very hard. But these standards have very often been proved extremely futile. I wonder if the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, with his very great knowledge of the pig industry, remembers an illustration of that truth which I think he and I had occasion to notice at one time. There was a demonstration by the Ministry of Agriculture of
586
the right kind of bacon pig to grow, and at this particular exhibition there were shown two sides of bacon which represented what you should not try to grow. It transpired that those two sides were the sides of pigs which respectively had won the first and second prizes in the show ring. So much for the show-ring standards.
With regard to the export question, let us remember that there was similar opposition to legislation concerning the export of horses for slaughter as well as to legislation dealing with the compulsory slaughter of animals. In both cases the grounds for opposition have been widely disproved, and I think that none of your Lordships would wish to advocate the removal of such legislation. It was said just now that if we drive hackney horses abroad undocked they may be docked there without an anesthetic. Have we any grounds for saying that these animals are in greater danger abroad than they are here? Some countries are ahead of us in such matters—Germany is particularly very much ahead of us—and therefore I think that that argument is hardly one to be used.
On the humanity side of the question there is no reason to labour the point about the discomfort that horses have to put up with from flies if they are docked, and nobody can deny that there may be docking without anæsthetics at all. It seems to me to be one of the most extraordinary phenomena of our country that people who are often very fond of animals should be quite blind to the feelings of animals when some strong fashion or habit prevails in their minds. I notice that the opponents of this Bill say, in their papers, that a docked tail is a most efficient weapon for removing flies from the quarters of a horse. I think that if you reduce the argument to that kind of absurdity it is a very strong argument against their case.
The real motive in the minds of those who are opposed to this Bill is the look of the thing. It is a question of taste. It is the aesthetic question in the end. Some people would rather die than turn up at a meet on a horse with a long tail; I mean unclipped. I remember that in the days when I hunted myself I should have felt it quite intolerable to do so, because it would be markedly against the fashion, and there were many people in those days who would not have liked to go to

587
a meet on a horse which was not docked. I do not say that it is so now, but in the past such a person would have incurred the charge of being something in the nature of an amateur or sentimentalist.
Therefore I think the opposition to the Bill is perfectly natural; but who will deny that to admire a docked horse represents a taste which is absolutely distorted? You may get to admire a clipped poodle, or a bull terrier with its ears cut, but you must admit that your mind is in a septic condition if you do so. I do not think my expression is too strong. You might equally admire those grotesque horses depicted in that admirable book Horse Nonsense; you might get to feel that those things are essential. Lord Radnor mentioned dogs. We are inconsistent about dogs. It is difficult to admire a spaniel with a natural tail, but nobody can deny that the comparison between the case of a horse and a dog is too far fetched. Nobody can deny, whether a spaniel's natural tail is worth looking at or not, that a horse's tail is certainly well worth looking at. We in this country are behind other countries in this matter, and it is just a case where we ought to be not behind them but in front, leading other countries. On every ground—on the grounds of humanity, utility and taste—I think the Bill would be in harmony with the mass of public opinion, and ought to become law, and I hope that if it passes this House the Government will give time to it.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, it must be gratifying to Ministers to see so generous an attendance on the first day of the reassembling. Looking round one sees noble Lords who are better known for their attraction to horses in many forms than as regular attendants in this House. Anyhow this seems to be a subject which, the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, having given the House the privilege of a free vote, might be extended to cover a very considerable field, but I am sure we feel gratitude to the noble Lord who is the sponsor of this Bill for two things. First of all, for the very fair and fluent way in which he has advocated the principle of the Bill, and secondly, for his thoughtfulness in giving to your Lordships, on the first day after the Recess, a subject which
588
requires no general knowledge but which secures this generous attendance, because it is generally admitted that questions of greater interest to the Empire receive much less attention.
The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that this is largely a question of fashion. On the other hand the noble Lord who has just spoken says it is a matter of prejudice, and evidently that is true. On this subject many noble Lords have strong feelings. Otherwise they would not come here. After all, the horse population in this country is regrettably falling rapidly, and the degree of pain involved in this operation is perhaps not very considerable, but we all think very strongly about these things. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill did so on very solid grounds. He said that it would cause regret in the country that the time of Parliament should be taken up with so relatively small a matter, and that it would be far better to leave it to public opinion. We all know that in these things fashion oscillates. We have oscillation of public opinion in the matter of ladies' skirts. At one time they are long, and at another time they are short. We have seen a similar oscillation in the matter of horses' tails. I am sure that the bloods of Melton would not like to turn out on horses which have not long tails, and that seems to show that public opinion is changing and that this is a matter which can be left to public opinion. After all, in the last thirty years the fashion has changed. I have not any statistics, but the proportion of docked to undocked horses has fallen very much; I think it has fallen by about 40 per cent. in the last five or six years. Therefore this evil, if it is an evil, is remedying itself.
But I do not wish to weary the House, and when so eminent an authority and one so familiar with the sporting life of this country as the former Minister for Agriculture who has just spoken has already given his views, it would be almost impertinent for anybody else to add to them. At the same time one would like to suggest that if the prohibition of docking is advocated because of its cruelty, one can easily visualize how dangerous this Bill might be in suggesting forms of interference with the ordinary practices in the country. Pain has to be imposed in the unsexing of animals, male and female, in all countries, and what about the de-horning of cattle in Australia

589
and New Zealand? It may be said that these matters are irrelevant, but they are practical facts. Let us deal with practical facts. To pass legislation like this would cause great regret in the agricultural community. Why risk interfering with the ordinary practice when the pain involved does not really amount to anything substantial? Two years ago a Bill was introduced which would have interfered with the holding of rodeos because of the alleged cruelty to the animals, but those of your Lordships who have seen a rodeo will agree that the danger is really to the men and not to the animal, and, as these men take the risk for their livelihood they are entitled to consideration. On this matter I would like to support the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that it is undesirable to pass legislation to deal with a matter which is best left to the evolution of custom and the general feeling of the country.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the discussion has taken a very practical form on the part of every speaker who has engaged in it, and in the absence of any direct opinion from His Majesty's Government—I think it possible that all the members of His Majesty's Government may not take an identical view on this subject—we have, I think, to consider what the practical arguments are. The noble Earl, Lord 'Radnor, in his very moderately expressed advice to reject the Bill, indicated that riding horses are not in fact greatly affected by the Bill, and ought not to be. That, I take it, is quite true, because I imagine that the old practice of docking hunters has almost entirely died out. I think that even most of the horses fat hunting which come from Ireland have long tails. It appears to me that there are really two practical considerations, one in favour of the Bill and the other opposed to it, on which the decision of the House ought to turn. One, which was advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is the possible danger and inconvenience to agricultural horses. That, I agree, is a powerful argument, and if it could be fully sustained, I think it ought to carry the day. But I confess that it is not quite clear to my mind that the safeguards and the various means of keeping long tails away from mischief might not in practically all cases meet the objections which are raised.
590
Of the arguments used on the other side the one which, I confess, appeals to me personally is what happens to docked horses when they are turned out. I think that anybody who has watched mares on a summer's day, with all the flies that persecute them, will feel that if those animals were summarily docket they would be in an infinitely worse case than they are. It is quite true of course that muscular effort disposes of flies to a certain extent, and it is also true up to a point, as was stated, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, that the most pernicious type of horse-fly can barely be removed even by the long and strong tail of a mare. But in spite of that it is impossible not to feel, when one has lived in that atmosphere for years, that a very great part of the comfort which animals are able to enjoy in the paddock is due to the fact of their being able to use their long tails. That, I confess, is the argument that has the most weight with myself, and to my mind it outweighs the other one which I mentioned, and to which I do not deny a certain validity. But, feeling as I do on the point I have mentioned, from a long personal experience of it, I shall be prepared to give my vote in favour of the Bill.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I believe I am correct in saying that as the mover of the rejection of this Bill I have the right to reply. I shall do so very briefly indeed. Many of the arguments used in favour of the Bill have been to the effect that the docking of horses is done purely because it is fashionable, purely because of a prejudice. Were that the only reason in favour of docking I should not be opposing this Bill. My argument is that it is for practical reasons; and no other, that docking is carried out to-day. So far as turning out horses to grass is concerned, the draught horses that are used in our great cities, the majority of which I believe are to-day docked, are hardly ever turned out to grass and therefore can suffer no pain from flies. Finally, may I say that should this Bill become law it will be one further blow at the horse industry in this country, and one which that industry can ill afford.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I shall also reply in a very few words: The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, spoke of the danger of undocked horses in crowded streets. There are undocked horses in crowded streets all over the world, and I

591
do not think it would be any worse in our streets. He then gave us an example of a horse in a delivery cart which had to be left whilst the driver went into the house to deliver goods. I only say in passing that that practice, although I know it is common, happens to be illegal and has been so, I think, since the Highway Act of 1835. Then he described the difficulty of people who could not afford the time or summon the energy to clean properly the tail of the horse. The answer to that is that these people can cut off the hair of the horse's tail which is beyond the dock. As long as they do not cut the dock, they can cut as much hair off as they like without infringing this Bill.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: That would leave no protection against flies.
LORD MERTHYR: It leaves less protection against flies, but more protection than a docked tail would provide. It is a question of degree. The noble Earl said that this Bill had not the support of the Central Landowners' Association. I have no doubt he would not say that if it
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
were not true, but I am a member of that Association and I have not heard a single word about being asked to support it or otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, gave us a very amusing argument against this Bill, but it is hardly a forcible one and other means must surely be found to keep under control those horses coming back from market. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said we ought not to pass this Bill because there are other and greater cruelties. That is the old story of the red herring. It is an extraordinary fact that in no place and at no time can one propose a measure to stop cruelty to animals without meeting with that argument. Somebody always says, "But some other cruelty is much greater, and therefore you must not pass this." I have only these observations to make, and I do ask your Lordships most sincerely to give a Second Reading to this Bill in order that public opinion may further be tested.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Gainford, L

Colville of Culross, V.

Greville, L.

Halifax, V. (L. President)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Harris, L.

Mersey, V.

Hawke, L

Ailesbury, M.

Plumer, V.

Holden, L

Crewe, M.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reading, M.

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Addison, L.

Marks, L.

Bradford, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Merthyr, L. [Teller.]

Carnwath, E.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Middleton, L.

Clarendon, E.

Berwick, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denbigh, E.

Braye, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Cawley, L.

Poltimore, L.

Granville, E.

Charnwood, L.

Redesdale, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rushcliffe, L.

Lucan, E

St. Levan, L.

Munster, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L.

Poulett, E

Daryngton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Elton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Stradbroke, E.

Erskine, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Feversham, E.

Bayford, L. [Teller.]

Illingworth, L.

Powis, E

Bingley, L.

Jessel, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Cautley, L.

Palmer, L.

Chesham, L.

Rockley, L

Elibank, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Strabolgi, L.

Digby, L.

Templemore, L.

Barnby, L.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Teynham, L.

Wardington, L.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Hutchison of Montrose, I have been asked to move the Second Reading of the Bill which stands in his name. It is, I understand, a measure which is generally agreed upon by your Lordships and one which should not therefore prove to be of a very highly controversial character. The principal objects of the Bill are fourfold: firstly, to extend the powers of education authorities by authorising them to provide meals for unemployed juveniles attending industrial centres; secondly, to bring into the agricultural scheme of employment insurance those persons whose employment is specified in the Schedule to the Bill; thirdly, to amend the law relating to the discharge of the debt; and, fourthly and lastly, to alter the present system of insurance of men discharged in certain circumstances from His Majesty's Forces.
Perhaps I might now turn to the Bill and explain to your Lordships the clauses which contain the principal objects that I have enumerated. The first clause carries out the recommendation of the National Advisory Council, who reported some time ago that in their opinion education authorities should be given powers to provide meals for juveniles at junior instruction centres under the same conditions as at present apply in public elementary schools, and, further, that education authorities should also be empowered to provide biscuits and milk free of cost to juveniles attending these industrial centres. Both these recommendations are given effect to in the first clause of the Bill, and Clause 6 applies those principles to Scotland. With regard to Clause 2, as I have already mentioned those persons whose employment is set out and specified in the Schedule will be brought into the agricultural scheme of unemployment insurance on and after April 4 next. I understand that some 25,000 persons are affected by this clause. I might mention at this stage, although the matter does not come into this measure at all, that we already have power whereby chauffeurs can be included by regulations in the general
594
scheme of the Unemployment Fund, and this in fact will happen on and after the same date—that is, April 4 next.
The next two clauses of the Bill contain new provisions relating to the disposal of balances in the General Account of the Unemployment Fund and to the repayment of debt. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that at the present time the debt of this Fund stands at a figure of about£103,000,000, and is repayable under the 1935 Act in half-yearly instalments of£2,500,000. The Statutory Committee is in fact paying interest at about 3⅛per cent. on this debt. I think that is a brief but none the less accurate and true statement of the debit side of the balance sheet, and perhaps I might now turn to what I shall describe as the credit side of this balance sheet. I maintain that, due to the policy of His Majesty's Government who have by legislation and by action endeavoured to render every possible assistance both to industry and industrial employment, the General Fund has to-day a balance of some£60,000,000 which is invested in short-dated Government stocks bearing interest upon the average of about 2 per cent. per annum. Whilst I am perfectly prepared to admit that some disparity in interest rates between these two figures is inevitable, it is, I think, to say the least, desirable to minimise this anomaly as far as possible by making arrangements that will prove to be both fair and equitable to the present and future contributors to the General Fund in their effort to discharge this debt.
Under the 1935 Act the Statutory Committee has power to recommend the use of the disposable surplus—that is to say, any part of the current balances of the General Account which is not required to be retained as a reserve against future expenditure. Observe what will happen. If this surplus is applied towards the reduction of the debt over and above the half-yearly instalments if£2,500,000 the only result is that the debit will be extinguished at an earlier date than 1971, and most of the existing contributors to the General Account would gain no advantage. Accordingly the policy of the Government was to find a means whereby the debt could be reduced without damaging the financial stability of the Fund and at the same time to give general assistance to the present contributors to the Fund. We believe we have

595
found such a means and it is embodied in these two clauses. They provide, firstly, that any sums in addition to the annuities applied from the balances of the Fund towards the reduction of debt should result in a proportionate reduction in the annual debt payment, leaving the final date for the extinction of the debt unchanged and unaltered; secondly, that not only the disposable surpluses but all the balances of the General Account can be used for the repayment of debt; and, thirdly, that there shall be power to reborrow as and when necessary in respect of such use of non-disposable balances up to the limit which the debt of the Fund would have been if there had been no repayment from the reserves.
I pass to Clause 5 which repeals subsection (6) of Section 96 of the 1935 Act. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that as the law stands at present a man who is discharged from one of the Services is placed in the same position as regards contributions as if he were an insured contributor who had been employed continuously up to that date. If, however, his service was terminated otherwise than on the normal completion of service no credit of contributions is made except in a few cases with which I need not weary your Lordships at this stage. It has been pointed out, and we agree, that this provision operates in many cases with extreme severity. The anomaly is accordingly removed by Clause 5 of this Bill. Then there is the case of the ex-Service man who is discharged in consequence of conviction by a Civil Court or by a Service Court. He will receive a credit for his period of service, but he will not be entitled to benefit until six weeks after the date of his discharge. Deserters, of course, will receive, as at present, no credit of contributions whatever. I do do not think I need weary your Lordships with any further explanation of the Bill at this stage. You will observe that the object of the measure is to render assistance to those suffering from lack of employment either by providing meals for juveniles attending industrial centres, or by reducing the debt of the General Account for the benefit of all contributors to that Account, or by altering the system of insurance for men discharged in certain circumstances from the Forces. That is the Bill which I present on behalf of my noble friend, and it is one which I
596
heartily commend to the favourable consideration of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, the noble Earl has explained this little Bill very clearly, but it represents a lost opportunity and in his explanation the noble Earl failed to refer to that opportunity. He failed also to refer to a singular act of meanness embodied in this Bill; I cannot call it anything else. I am sure we all welcome the extension of the benefit of unemployment insurance to those to whom it is now extended by this Bill—namely, gamekeepers, grooms, lodge-keepers, stable-keepers, chauffeurs and others. It is all to the good that they should be included. But there are two main criticisms and one minor criticism of which your Lordships should be informed before the Bill is given your approval.
I will take first the minor criticism. We are all glad that His Majesty's Government authorise contributions to be made to young persons attending instructional centres who are in need of food, for it is a justification of what a good many of us have been saying for a long time—that there have always been a lot of young people unemployed who would be better for a good square meal. I am very glad that His Majesty's Government are authorising education authorities to provide those meals. But this is a gift horse which we ought to look in the mouth. Who are these young people? They are people between the ages of fourteen and sixteen in the main who are unemployed. In the Unemployment Fund in respect of those who are between fourteen and sixteen years of age there is a surplus of about£360,000 a year. That surplus, of course, is derived from the contributions of those children, as I must call them, not many of whom, happily, are unemployed. The cost of these meals will come out of this fund. They are, in fact, paying for their own meals. There is this to say further. Unless I am misinformed—perhaps the noble Earl before the Committee stage will make inquiry on this point—where an education authority selects a child between fourteen and sixteen years of age in attendance at an instructional centre who is deemed to be in need of feeding,

597
if the parents of that child are in receipt of poor law relief the cost of the food given wilt be deducted from the relief given to the parents. If I am rightly informed on that point it is a matter which should certainly be put right, otherwise the food is paid for twice over—first at the expense of the relief afforded to the parents, and secondly out of the surplus in the fund derived from the contributions of children between these ages. I know that the noble Earl who is acting for a colleague will not be in a position to reply to this point to-day, and I do not expect him to do so, but I hope he will make inquiry into the matter before the Committee stage is reached.
Now I come to the two main cricitisms. The first concerns a grievous omission from the Bill; that is, the failure to extend the benefits of unemployment insurance to those who are known as black-coated workers. Their case was inquired into by a Royal Commission and that Royal Commission reported strongly in favour of the inclusion of the black-coated workers, as they are called, in unemployment insurance. I understand there are something like 400,000 who will be affected—namely, those whose earned income is between£250 and£400 a year. It is estimated that they would bring into the Fund£2,400,000 a year. The extension of unemployment insurance to this class is badly wanted. It has been recommended by a Royal Commission set up by the Government, and it is exceptionally easy to make the extension at this time because of the large surplus in the Fund. I suggest that it is a singular and grievous omission on the part of the Government to have extended benefit simply to chauffeurs, gamekeepers and so on, and not to have included this very large and extraordinarily deserving section of the population. That is the omission to which want to call your Lordships' attention, and which I have described as a lost opportunity.
There is another criticism of a provision in the Bill itself which I say is singularly mean, and that is the action which is supposed to be taken in respect of the Fund. What is the Fund? This is the Fund that has been accumulated because the payments out since it was established have been less than the payments in. The payments in are derived, of course, from the payments of the employers,
598
the workpeople and the Government. How has the surplus been accumulated? It has been accumulated in the main by the application of the means test. It has been accumulated because there has been a more stringent scrutiny of the claimants upon the Fund, and it has also been added to by cutting down the benefits payable from the Fund—namely, by extending the waiting period which workpeople had to observe before they were entitled to benefit, and by diminishing the benefits which are payable out of the Fund. Before the Act, I understand, if a person had thirty stamps on his card payable over two years, he was entitled to benefit for one year and four months. This was cut down to six months. This Fund has been accumulated—at all events added to very largely—by the administration of the means test and by the curtailment of the opportunities to benefit in this way.
The workpeople and their employers have in fact provided this Fund, but it ought not to have been called upon to repay a debt which was accumulated before the Fund was established. This debt, repaid at the rate of£5,000,000 a year, is not a debt which ought to be repaid from the Fund at all. As even The Times newspaper said at the time, it was not anticipated that this debt—the debt that existed in the time of severe depression—would have to be paid by those who contributed to the new Fund. It was not their affair; it was a debt that had accumulated in a time of exceptional depression, and it was a national obligation, just as many other obligations were that were incurred about the same time. I see that the Economist at that time—I am talking about November, 1933, when this thing started—said:
"It is surely unwise and unreasonable to charge upon the Fund the surplus of amortisation of the£115,000,000 debt incurred during a period when all pretence at actuarial solvency had been abandoned by successive Governments."
That is a fair statement of the case. We object altogether to the Fund paying this£5,000,000 at all; but this Bill makes it worse. It enables the Government to extract more from these contributions of the unemployed to pay somebody else's debts. That is why I said at the beginning that this Bill contained an act of singular meanness which did not appear on the surface.

599
I will not detain your Lordships' House any longer, but I do notice—I say it with profound respect—that this matter, which affects a million unemployed persons, does not seem to attract the same attention as the Bill which we have just been debating for a considerable time. I confess that I came in prejudiced against that Bill, but I thought that its opponents put up such a poor case that I voted for it. But this is a much more important Bill than that, when all is done and said, and I am sure that it deserves a very close and consistent attention from your Lordships. For the reasons I have given, I hope that it will receive your careful scrutiny when it gets into Committee.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps I might briefly reply to the questions which the noble Lord opposite has addressed to me. With regard to his point on the first clause of the Bill, perhaps it would be better if I replied at a later stage, as the question is not directly connected with the Ministry of Labour. With regard to black-coated workers, perhaps I might add this. My right honourable friend has said that the salary limit for unemployment insurance will not be altered this Session. This does not and should not imply in any way whatever that ultimately and in the near future the decision will not be altered. But I think I might carry that a little farther by reminding the noble Lord that voluntary pensions for persons in non-manual employment and in receipt of remuneration at rates in excess of£250 per year are available during the present year upon very favourable terms. It will, I think, be interesting to see what use the higher-paid non-manual workers will make of this opportunity to provide for their future. Incidentally, it was not a Royal Commission but the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee which recommended that those in receipt of higher salaries should be brought into the unemployment scheme.
Secondly, the noble Lord opposite appeared to believe that the surplus of £60,000,000 on the General Account at the present time was due entirely to the means test. I maintain, on the contrary, that it was due entirely to the policy which His Majesty's Government have pursued by rendering assistance to industry and to industrial employment. Moreover, there have been considerable
600
improvements. It is within my recollection that during the last three years a shilling extra has been paid for children; we have abolished three days of the waiting period; we have given additional weeks to those who had five years' good employment experience; and furthermore we have reduced the figure which is normally paid by a penny a week—which, incidentally, represents an annual loss of revenue of about£6,500,000. I maintain, therefore, that we have done very considerable work to alleviate the distress amongst those who are suffering from unemployment.
I come lastly to the question of the debt. I do not want now to be led into a quarrel over whether this debt should remain a burden on the General Fund or whether it should be transferred entirely to the Treasury. At the time the 1935 Act was passed the debt on this fund stood at a figure of£115,000,000. It was very fully discussed, not only in another place but also in your Lordships' House, at that time, and I do not feel that I can ask my right honourable friend to reopen the whole of this question. As I have said, I will bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the other points which the noble Lord made in the course of his remarks and I will also endeavour to obtain some reply to the question he raised on Clause 1 of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PREVENTION OF ROAD ACCIDENTS.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Lords following be named of the Select Committee:

M. Reading,

E. Iddesleigh,

E. Birkenhead,

L. Brocket,

L. Alness,

L. Rushcliffe,

L. Addison.

—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
BOMBAY, BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND TROLLEY VEHICLES BILL. [H.L.]
RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
ROYAL SHEFFIELD INFIRMARY AND HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
SHEFFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
WEST SURREY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
WEST THURROCK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, read1a and referred to the Examiners.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
CHICHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
DUDLEY EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
GATESHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H L.]
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVERS BOARD AND GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
LEE CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H L.]
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
PLYMOUTH EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SALTBURN AND MARSKE-BY-THESEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WARRINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

WORKINGTON GAS ORDER, 1938.
Special Order proposed to be made, on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Workington:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (CARSHALTON URBAN DIS TRICT ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Carshalton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (WALTON AND WEYBRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Walton and Weybridge:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.