Sitting of 7 July 1938

OFFICIAL REPORT.
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.
Mr. Stephen: I desire to present a petition, on behalf of the Sunderland Old Age Pension Association, signed by 31,000 of His Majesty's subjects in the county borough of Sunderland and district. The grievance set forth in the petition is the insufficiency of the old age pension of 10s. a week for the maintenance of life and the avoidance of hardship. The petition states:
"Wherefore your petitioners pray that this honourable House will pass legislation to provide for the payment of a pension of one pound a week at the age of 60 years, or withdrawal from industry or service, to include all aged spinsters, widows, and the widows of pensioners who are under pensionable age."

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  COST-OF-LIVING INQUIRY.
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the constant rise in the prices of world commodities, he will consider undertaking a further revision in the cost-of-living index?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 12th May, to questions on this subject by the hon. Members for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) and Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson).
  Mr. Day: In view of the difficulty which working-class families have in maintaining their standard of living on account of the changes in costs which have taken place, does not the Minister think he should bring forward some proposals?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. We are this very week taking the last of the inquiries, which has been on a larger basis than in any other part of the world, for the precise
  556
  purpose of determining accurately what the cost-of-living figure is.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has taken away the weekly allowance and that there is no daily sum yet?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. James Hallasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that applicants to the Unemployment Assistance Board's office at West India Dock Road for a supplementary grant have been forced to wait for a period before the grant has been allowed; and will he have inquiries made with a view to bringing about the discontinuance of this waiting period in cases where those on standard benefit are entitled to receive a supplementary grant?
    Mr. E. Brown: The Board inform me that there is no question of requiring a waiting period in these cases as a matter of rule and irrespective of the individual circumstances. Cases do, however, occur in which the recent employment history and the remuneration received provide grounds for the view that the applicant is not in need of a supplementary grant immediately on cessation of work. Each case is dealt with on its merits, and, when need is established, an allowance is granted.
    Mr. Hall: Does the Minister mean to say that, if it is essential that a man should receive a supplementary grant in, say, the fourth week of his unemployment, there is no need for it at an earlier date?
    Mr. Brown: The figures for the area show that between 1st April, 1937, and 30th June, 1938, 1,152 applications for supplementary assistance were received at the office in West India Dock Road; that in 90 cases it was refused on the ground that there were outside resources, and that in 1,019 of the remaining 1,062 cases the grant was allowed immediately on application.
    Mr. George Hallasked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for assistance under the Unemployment Assistance Board in South Wales who have suffered reductions in their assessment from July, 1937, to the end of May, 1938, for the reason that their allowance

    557
    was in excess of their assessment under the revised regulations; and will he give the figures separately for each area affected, also the total saving to the board as the result of these reductions?
    Brown: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The table below shows the number of applicants for assistance in the Board's administrative areas in South Wales who, on the dates indicated, were in receipt of allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of the standstill arrangements otherwise than on account of personal earnings. The same individuals may be included on more than one of these dates. Information regarding the total sums involved by the decreases is not available.

    U.A.B. Administrative Area.

    30th July,1937.

    31st December, 1937

    29th April,1938 (e).

    Cardiff 1. (a)

    48

    50

    230

    Cardiff 11.

    74

    126

    181

    Merthyr Tydfil

    145

    179

    545

    Aberdare

    152

    269

    839

    Dowlais

    52

    100

    456

    Pontypridd

    86

    176

    634

    Ferndale

    43

    47

    239

    Porth

    79

    119

    435

    Tonypandy

    90

    194

    535

    Treorchy

    88

    118

    372

    Newport

    112

    48

    103

    Bargoed

    141

    153

    325

    Caerphilly

    134

    179

    211

    Pontypool

    294

    366

    612

    Ebbw Vale

    76

    80

    187

    Abertillery

    172

    107

    290

    Brynmawr

    100

    74

    253

    Swansea

    403

    378

    432

    Bridgend

    368

    349

    339

    Haverfordwest (b)

    43

    38

    30

    Lianelly

    135

    234

    221

    Maesteg

    284

    344

    332

    Morriston (c)

    501

    551

    690

    Port Talbot (d)

    609

    639

    729

    Ammanford

    147

    144

    181

    Totals for Administrative Districts of Cardiff, New port and Swansea.

    4,376

    5,062

    9,401

    (a) includes the Outstation Area of Barry.

    (b) includes the Outstation Areas of Pembroke Dock and Cardigan.

    (c) includes the Outstation Area of Gorseinon.

    (d) includes the Outstation Area of Neath.

    (e) latest date for which statistics were obtained.

    DURHAM COUNTY.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in Durham county one man in five of the industrial population is unemployed, which is a high proportion; and what steps he is taking to deal with the situation?
    Mr. E. Brown: The percentage rate of unemployment in County Durham in June this year was 19.6, but, I would point out, that is half what it was in June, 1933. In reply to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 17th February, 1938.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that, apart from the trading estate, very little or nothing has been done by the Government to introduce new work into the county; and that there is very great concern among all ranks in the county with regard to the continued rise in the number of unemployed, the figures being 19.2 per cent. a month or two ago and over 20 per cent. to-day?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot agree with the statement in the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. In June, 1931, the percentage was 37.1, in 1933 it was 39.6, in December of last year it was 20.6, and now it is 19.6
    Mr. Batey: Will not the Minister tell us, as is asked in the question, what he is doing to deal with the situation?
    Mr. Brown: I indicated, in the answer to which I have referred, that a vast deal has been and is being done.
    Mr. Stewart: Nothing is being done apart from the trading estate.

    BENEFIT (HOLIDAY PAYMENTS).
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that payment of unemployment benefit has been suspended in many cases without reference to a court of referees owing to the fact that the applicants for benefit have received their holiday payment; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy this?
    Mr. E. Brown: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to claims in which the circumstances are the same as those of claims which have been selected as typical cases for decision by the courts of

    559
    referees and umpire. The hon. Member will no doubt appreciate that it was not possible to deal with such cases pending a decision on the typical cases. It is the practice, as soon as such a decision has been obtained, to apply it to all the outstanding cases as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Smith: Can we be informed what was the umpire's decision on this question, in view of the ill feeling and undermining of good will that have been created?
    Mr. Brown: I have another question on that specific point.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Labour whether he can announce the Umpire's decision in the case of men receiving holiday credits on Tyneside?
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement in connection with the Umpire's decision in the case of unemployment and holidays with pay?
    Mr. Buchananasked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been made on the appeals which were heard last Friday regarding benefit payable at holiday periods; and, if so, can he state the terms of that decision?
    Mr. Brown: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the decision allowing benefit which was given by the Umpire on 5th July. I should add that I propose to issue as soon as possible a memorandum summarising the various past decisions which have been given by the Umpire on this subject.
    Miss Ward: Would the Minister indicate to the House whether the Umpire's decision was favourable or adverse?
    Mr. Brown: I am circulating the decision, and would prefer to add nothing in general terms. As, however, this particular case was a test case, perhaps I had better give to the House the first sentence of the decision. It says:
    "On the facts before me"—
    I may say that the association was the Amalgamated Engineering Union—
    "my decision is that if the above named
    unemployed person had made a claim for unemployment benefit the claim would have been allowed."
    I want to safeguard myself against any general conclusion being drawn from that.
    Mr. Thorne: I understand that that reply is in the affirmative, and that, if in future similar cases happen, they will get their usual amount of benefit.
    Mr. Brown: I would prefer that hon. Members should read the rather long detailed statement.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: If any worker is in receipt of holiday pay in circumstances similar to those of the case submitted, will he have the benefit of the same decision?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps hon. Members will await my memorandum. I will make it as full as I can, and will give it to the House as soon as possible.
    Following is the decision:

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1935.

    QUESTION UNDER SECTION 68 RELATING TO REPAYMENT TO AN ASSOCIATION IN LIEU OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Decision by the Umpire.
    Association—Amalgamated Engineering Union. Name
    On the facts before me my decision is that if the above named employed person had made a claim for unemployment benefit the claim would have been allowed.
    The claimant was employed up to and including 7th May, 1938. From 9th May to 16th June of that year he was wholly unemployed. On the last named date he received a payment of £1 10s. 3d. The payment was made in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 12th August, 1937; the material terms of which are set out in Decision 2354/38, which will be reported in due course so there is no necessity to repeat them in this decision.
    That decision establishes that the payment made to the claimant on 16th June, 1938, was a payment of wages.
    The principles applicable to payments of wages made to insured contributors during a period when they are not actually working have been long established.
    It is correct to say, as was said when this and other appeals were heard, that when those principles were enunciated holidays with pay were not so universal as they are to-day This is not a ground for holding that those principles are no longer applicable and for substituting fresh ones.
    Where a principle has been established by an interpretation placed by a decision of the Umpire upon the words of the Statute, and subsequent Acts of Parliament dealing with Unemployment Insurance have been passed without any provision therein for rendering such a decision not applicable, it has always been assumed that Parliament has recognised that the Umpire has placed an interpretation upon its words which it intended should be placed upon them.
    The principles applicable to cases in which payment of wages is made in respect of a period when no actual work is being performed differ according as to whether the insured contributor's employment has or has not terminated before the payments are made.
    When his employment has not terminated, and
    "in accordance with the terms of his employment an employé is entitled to receive, and does receive, from his employer part wages during periods when his actual services are not required, he continues during such periods to be in employment and is not unemployed. The fact that the payments are made pursuant to the customary or expressly agreed terms of the employment indicates that the relation of employer and employé continues so long as the payments are made'' (Decision 6084; reported out of its numerical order on page 3 of Pamphlet 36 of U.I. 440). As my predecessor stated in the decision he was not enunciating any new principle but was following decisions given by his predecessor under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and Out of Work Donation Regulations.
    When the employment of an insured contributor has terminated and he continues thereafter to receive wages, Section 35 (6) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935 (previously Section 4 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924), is applicable.
    Section 35 (6) of the 1935 Act (so far as it applies to this case) reads: "Notwithstanding that the employment of an insured contributor has terminated, he shall not be deemed to he unemployed for the purposes of this Act during a period in respect of which he continues to receive wages."
    In order to determine whether employment has terminated another well-established principle is applicable, namely, the principle which is known as the
    "Twelve Days' Rule" (see Decision 7712).
    Applying the Twelve Days' Rule to the present case, the employment of the claimant had terminated on 7th May, 1938, so Section 35 (6) of the 1935 Act must be applied to this case.
    Can it be said the claimant "continues to receive wages" notwithstanding that his employment has terminated when the employment terminated on 7th May, 1938, and there was no receipt of wages until r6th June, 1938? To answer that question in the affirmative would be to hold contrary to Decisions 2461/ 25, 7799/29, 6465/31, 6710/32 and many other decisions to a like effect.
    The present case is indistinguishable from Case 6710/32, and as the Court of Referees' decision accords with the decision in that case it cannot be disturbed.
    Wages are not paid daily, therefore an interval of a few days between the termination of the employment and the receipt of wages does not prevent the application of Section 35 (6) of the 1935 Act (see Decision 4886/ 28). What length of time intervening between the termination of the employment and the receipt of wages entitles a finding that there is a continuation of the receipt of wages depends upon the facts of each case. Where wages are paid weekly or fortnightly
    562
    an interval of a week or a fortnight respectively might be held not to break the continuity of the receipt of wages. In the present case the claimant's wages were, presumably, paid weekly, and the receipt of wages five weeks after the termination of his employment cannot be held to be a continuation of the receipt of wages.
    ERNEST W. WINGATE-SAUL,
    Umpire.
    Date: 5th July, 1938.
    Decision No. 2569/38.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many men on Tyneside have had their benefit reduced owing to receiving holiday credits;
    (2) how many men on Tyneside are worse off in race week as a result of having drawn holiday credits?
    Mr. Brown: In general, men on Tyneside have not had the sums otherwise due to them as unemployment benefit reduced owing to the receipt of holiday credits, and are better oft on account of such credits. The number of cases in which this is not so must be small and could only be ascertained by a detailed examination of many thousands of individual records. I should point out that men who had been finally discharged for more than a week receive the full amount of benefit in addition to their holiday credit.
    Mr. Montague: Why should anyone not have the advantage of holidays with pay?
    Mr. Brown: That is precisely the question to which the legal argument has been addressed. The House must understand that in this new and very desirable movement which has so swiftly come about for holidays with pay there are very many tricky points that crop up in insurance law which would not have arisen but for this movement.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Could not the right hon. Gentleman's Department have come to a conclusion on this matter in the same time as, or in less time than, it took them to draw up the circular preventing people from getting it?
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the resolution of the Glasgow and Edinburgh Trades Councils regarding the holiday pay restrictions imposed on the unemployed during the holiday period, and whether the restrictions will be suspended or removed?
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the resolution sent to him by the Glasgow and Edinburgh Joint Trades Councils Committee, representing all Scottish trades councils, protesting against the holiday pay restrictions imposed upon the unemployed on standard benefit, and on the Unemployment Assistance Board during the holiday period; and whether he has any statement to make?
    Mr. Brown: I would refer the hon. Members to the replies which I have just given to questions by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) and others on the subject of the payment of unemployment benefit to men who receive holiday payments. As the House is aware, the general question of the treatment of holidays under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme is at present under examination by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister consider sending to this important industrial organisation a copy of the findings of that inquiry as soon as they are available?
    Mr. Brown: I will consider that.

    ELDERLY PEOPLE.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour the results of his investigations into the unemployment of men over 45 years of age; and what steps he now proposes to take?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have at present nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) on 21st June.
    Mr. Batey: Does the Minister remember that he went about the country last September raising hopes that something was going to be done for these men? Has he done anything?
    Mr. Brown: I would point out to the hon. Member that there have been great decreases in this particular section. In May, 1935, as compared with May, 1937, the number of men aged 45 and over who were unemployed was reduced by 120,000; between May, 1935, and February, 1938, it was reduced by 84,000.
    Mr. T. Smith: Will the Minister tell the House what he proposes to do as
    564
    the result of the experience that has been gained in certain areas?
    Mr. Brown: I said in my earlier answer, which was a long and very full one, that a great deal has been done by administrative methods, which was the purpose of my tour.

    BENEFIT (SATURDAYS).
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour why no unemployment benefit is paid for Saturdays, followed by a week's unemployment, to the employés of a Wednesfield firm, in view of the fact that the firm do not work regularly a five-day week when on full time?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret that I cannot deal with this point without details enabling me to identify the particular case. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to send these to me.
    Mr. Mander: I will do that. Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that this firm does not normally work a five-day week, and that there are about 150 persons affected?
    Mr. Brown: When I get the information from the hon. Member, I will not only take note of it, but will investigate that point as well.

    WEST CUMBERLAND SPECIAL AREA (DISTRICT COMMISSIONER).
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Labour whether the West Cumberland Industrial Development Company were consulted about the recent appointment to the post of district commissioner for that area?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am glad to take this opportunity of correcting a misunderstanding which has arisen regarding the answer I gave to the hon. Member's Supplementary Question on Thursday last. My reference to the board of West Cumberland Development Company was intended merely to emphasise that commercial experience on the part of the district commissioner was not an essential qualification, because of the industrial knowledge and experience which are possessed by members of the board and which are always freely at the disposal of the district commissioner.
    Mr. Anderson: Would not consultations with the people on the spot have been advisable?
    Mr. Brown: It would never have occurred to me that it would, because it was the commissioner's legal duty to make the appointment in consultation with the Ministry and the Treasury.
    Mr. Anderson: Is it not a fact that the man who was appointed has no experience of industrial questions, and if a man has not that business experience how can you expect the people in the area to have the confidence in him that they ought to have?
    Mr. Brown: I have already pointed out that general experience of an administrative kind is the essential qualification. I did that last week.

    COTTON MILLS (JUVENILE LABOUR).
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the present difficulty in recruiting juvenile labour for cotton mills and that Employment Exchanges at the present time are chary of placing young persons in employment in the industry; and whether, in view of the decision of the Government to introduce legislation at an early date for improving conditions in the trade, he will instruct the Employment Exchanges accordingly?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that there is some difficulty in recruiting juvenile labour for the cotton mills. It is the duty of juvenile employment officers to give full information to juveniles about vacancies in local industries, including cotton, but they cannot compel acceptance of any particular vacancies. Any changes in the conditions in the cotton industry will become known to juvenile officers when vacancies are notified, and will be conveyed to suitable applicants.

    NEW FACTORIES, SUNDERLAND.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state the price that was paid for the Pallion site, Sunderland; the cost of clearing the site for building, and whether that expenditure was borne out of public funds; what was the rateable value of the site when last occupied; and what buildings, and at what cost, have since been erected upon it?
    Mr. E. Brown: The price (including legal charges) paid for the Pallion site, in accordance with the valuation of the district valuer, was £6,210. In addition,
    566
    it is estimated that a sum of £1,500 will be payable as compensation to existing tenants as and when land leased to them is required for development. If the whole site is required for factories the cost of development will be about £11,500. To date, one factory has been completed and two others are in course of erection. The estimated cost of these factories is about £39,000, but it is not possible to estimate the expenditure involved if the whole site is eventually required for factories. The whole of the expenditure incurred will be borne by the Special Areas Fund. I have no information as to the rateable value of the site, which was previously in agricultural occupation as market gardens and allotments.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken by the Government to deal with the increase of unemployment, as reflected in the figures published this week?
    Mr. E. Brown: The increase of unemployment to which the hon. Member refers was wholly accounted for by temporary stoppages, due partly to local holidays on the day of the count and partly to extensions of the Whitsun holiday. There was, in fact, a considerable reduction as compared with the previous month in the numbers wholly unemployed. As regards the Government's general policy for dealing with unemployment, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) on 4th July.
    Mr. Lawson: Was not that increase unusual at this time of the year, and particularly in view of the rearmament policy; and will the Minister give some explanation as to what is the Government's policy?
    Mr. Brown: The explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be found, I think, a very full and adequate one.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister not aware that when the figures are up he has always some excuse, and when they are down he is always boasting of it?
    Mr. Brown: I can always rely on hon. Gentlemen opposite to call attention to them when they are up and forget them when they are down.
    Mr. Lawson: Was not the increase at this time of the year unusual?
    Mr. Brown: I would not say so, in the circumstances. We have had three years of continuous decrease of unemployment and—what is more important—increase of employment; an increase which is really very spectacular. There is an element which occurs always in a period of that kind—there is a tendency for consumable goods to be overproduced, and a lag follows.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons in Scotland classified as being in insurable employment for the years ended May, 1933 and 1938, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: Estimates of the number of insured persons are available only in respect of the beginning of July of each year. The estimated number of insured persons in Scotland at the beginning of July, 1932, was 1,340,310; the number of such persons recorded as unemployed at 22nd May, 1933, was 351,217. At July, 1937, the corresponding total of insured persons (exclusive of juveniles under 16 years of age and of persons within the agricultural scheme, who were not insurable against unemployment in 1932) was 1,398,480; the number of such persons unemployed at 16th May, 1938, was 228,119.
    Mr. Davidson: In view of the increase in the number of insurable employés in Scotland, does the Minister agree that in future the actual numbers of unemployed should be given instead of percentages, which may give rise to a certain amount of misrepresentation?
    Mr. Brown: I am always prepared to give the House all my information. My recollection is that when we produce the returns monthly, we give figures and not percentages.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that in speeches in this House he tends to use percentages instead of figures?
    Mr. Brown: I use any accurate information.

    BURY.
    Sir John Haslam (for Mr. Chorlton)asked the Minister of Labour the unemployment figure for Bury last month;
    568
    and, further, whether any men were engaged upon aircraft or aero-engine work for the new programme for the expansion of the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 13th June, the number of insured persons aged 16–64 recorded as unemployed in the Bury area was 7,613, or 31.8 per cent. of the numbers insured at July, 1937. A few vacancies have been notified to the Bury Exchange in connection with the Royal Air Force expansion programme and have been filled.

    MOTOR TRADE (DAGENHAM, ROMFORD AND BARKING).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons engaged in the motor trade who were on the unemployed registers at the Dagenham, Rom-ford and Barking Exchanges, respectively, at the beginning of July, 1938, and six months ago?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Table showing the number of insured persons, aged 14–64, in the motor vehicle, cycle and aircraft industry classification, recorded as unemployed at the under-mentioned Employment Exchanges at 13th June, 1938, the latest date for which figures are available, and at 13th December, 1937:

    13th June,

    13th December,

    1938

    1937

    Dagenham

    …

    688

    221

    Romford

    …

    151

    62

    Barking

    …

    94

    28

    REFUGEES.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the possibility of finding room for additional German refugees by cancelling the permission of German non-refugees to remain in this country?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): A case for such action would only arise if there were in this country numbers of German subjects who could be required to leave without undue hardship to themselves or disadvantage to ourselves; and this is not so. Apart from those who have been settled here for many years, of whom

    569
    many have British-born wives and British-born children, the large proportion of those admitted are either refugees or persons admitted for special purposes, such as technicians who will leave this country when they have fulfilled the purpose of their visit.
    Mr. Mander: If we reach a position where there is no more room for German refugees, would it not be reasonable to make some room by sending back some of the German agents and Nazi propagandists who are here?
    Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member has asked a hypothetical question. I would wait.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In view of the increased cost that this change would involve, would the hon. Member be prepared to bear that cost?
    Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Home Secretary how many alien refugees have been admitted to this country during the last six months?
    Sir S. Hoare: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on this matter on 23rd June to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley).
    Mr. Adams: Does my right hon. Friend repudiate the reports in the Press about floods of illegal immigrants?
    Sir S. Hoare: I have not seen those reports. In any case, I would hesitate to take any responsibility for reports in the Press.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Home Secretary (1) the average weekly payments for workmen's compensation made to miners who are totally incapacitated during the last two years for which the figures are available, and for the same periods the average weekly payments made to miners who were partially incapacitated;
    (2) the average weekly payments for workmen's compensation made to miners in Northumberland who are totally incapacitated during the last two years for which figures are available; and for the same periods the average weekly payments made for partial incapacity in Northumberland to miners?
    Sir S. Hoare: I regret that the figures asked for are not available.
    Mr. T. Smith: Would it not be advisable, when compiling the annual report, to make a more detailed classification?
    Sir S. Hoare: I will consider that suggestion; but these particular details would involve a great deal of work.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state the names of members of the Royal Commission upon workmen's compensation and the terms of reference?
    Mr. Cassellsasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to expedite the appointment and deliberations of the proposed Royal Commission on workmen's compensation and employers' liability, in light of the growing demand for amendment of the law, together with the fact that the Stewart Committee, although appointed by warrant on 23rd October, 1935, did not issue its report until 13th January, 1938?
    Sir S. Hoare: I am not in a position to add to the answers which the Prime Minister gave to questions on this subject on 22nd June, but the Government will certainly do all it can to expedite the setting up of the Commission and to assist the Commission in its inquiry.
    Mr. Adams: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate any likely time when he will have this information?
    Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. It is a very important inquiry, and it must take some little time.
    Mr. R. Gibson (for Mr. Cassells)asked the Home Secretary whether the proposed Royal Commission to be set up relative to amendment of workmen's compensation and employers' liability will be guided in its deliberations in any way by the findings of the Stewart Committee Report, Command Paper 5657; and will they be called upon to deal with the question of compulsory insurance, all as referred to in Command Paper 5528?
    Sir S. Hoare: The Commission will have before it the report of the Stewart Committee and I have no doubt will derive great assistance from the report and will attach full weight to the committee's findings. The question of extending the scope of compulsory insurance will fall

    571
    within the terms of reference of the Commission, and they will no doubt have full regard to the report of the recent committee on Compulsory Insurance, which has a considerable bearing on some aspects of the matter.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the Commission also have before it the report of the Holman-Gregory Committee?
    Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, certainly, and all relevant matter of that kind.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the terms of reference of the Commission cover the question of the rehabilitation of injured workmen?
    Sir S. Hoare: The Prime Minister dealt with that question in an answer a week ago, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
    Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary what has been the amount advanced to the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund in any way by the Government and what will be the approximate amount due to be returned to the Government after its liabilities have been discharged; and whether any decision has been made as to the manner in which the balance of the assets will be dealt with?
    Sir S. Hoare: In the year 1891, Parliament voted £150,000 to enable the fund to meet its obligations to the widows and orphans of subscribers on the understanding that any surplus remaining when the final grant had been paid would revert to the Exchequer, and that no extension of existing benefits would be permitted. There are about 1,000 surviving subscribers and the present value of the assets is estimated at £260,000. It is impossible to say what will be the balance ultimately left. The amount of grant payable on the death of a subscriber depends on whether he leaves a widow or unmarried daughters.
    Mr. Day: Has the Home Secretary any idea as to when this fund will be wound up; and is any interest being paid on it?
    Sir S. Hoare: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down the second part of the question. As to the first part, I have no information.

    AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
    Mr. Shortasked the Home Secretary whether the Doncaster Town Council have agreed to the delivery of the three trailer pumps offered in his letter of 19th May?
    The Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir; and instructions have also been given for the delivery of these appliances.
    Mr. George Griffiths: When will they be delivered?
    Mr. Lloyd: Almost at once.

    DANGEROUS DRIVING CONVICTIONS.
    Lyonsasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which a man was convicted of the dangerous driving of a motor vehicle, having been committed for trial by the justices after an investigation at which the public and Press were excluded; whether any proposal was submitted for his approval and, if so, on what grounds; and whether, in the public interest, justices will be circularised with representations and warnings for and against this procedure in any such future cases?
    Sir S. Hoare: I have had no communication with the justices about this case, and it would be wrong that a court of justice should be subject to the directions or approval of the executive as to the course to be followed in dealing with a particular case. As regards the general question, I am advised that when justices are making a preliminary investigation of an indictable case for the purpose of determining whether or not a defendant should be committed for trial, they are not required to sit in open court, though it is the practice for them to do so. In my view they should not sit in private save in exceptional cases such as those in which they are satisfied that publicity given to these preliminary proceedings will prejudice the ends of justice.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of G. E. Stedall, who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for dangerous driving of a motor vehicle;

    573
    and whether, as on 4th July, at Maidenhead, at the coroner's inquest upon the person killed in the collision in connection with which the charge was brought, the jury found a verdict of accidental death and exonerated the driver, he proposes to take any and what steps to review this matter?
    Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir. I have received from Mr. Stedall's solicitors a full report of the facts of this case. Mr. Stedall in swerving to avoid another car collided with a third car of which the driver was killed. Mr. Stedall and the driver of the car which he swerved to avoid were both charged with dangerous driving. The other defendant was acquitted but Mr. Stedall was convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment. Mr. Stedall appealed to quarter sessions but his conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal. Subsequently at an inquest held on the person killed the coroner's jury returned a verdict of accidental death and added a rider to the effect that the driver who had been acquitted had put Mr. Stedall in great danger. This rider does not, in fact, necessarily exonerate Mr. Stedall, but in any event a rider by a coroner's jury, whose sole function was to determine the cause of death and who, I am informed, had no evidence additional to that considered by the convicting Magistrates and by quarter sessions, would not afford grounds for reviewing a conviction by the courts established by law for the trial of offences and the hearing of appeals. I have considered the representations made on Mr. Stedall's behalf and can find no ground for interference with the sentence which the court thought fit to impose.
    Sir Edmund Findlay: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I humbly suggest that questions such as this which apply only to one particular person should be put down for written answer, in view of the difficulty we have in getting answers to questions?
    Mr. Speaker: It is purely a matter of opinion.

    POISON CASES (EXPERT ADVICE).
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Home Secretary on what basis experts employed to advise the Home Office or the police authorities in poison cases are paid for
    574
    their services; and whether any independent check is applied to their reports before a prosecution is instituted?
    Sir S. Hoare: The services of two analysts, appointed by and receiving retaining fees from the Home Office, are available to the police and coroners, if they have occasion to consult them. In such cases they are remunerated in accordance with a scale of fees approved by the Treasury. In addition, forensic science laboratories have been established in London and certain other centres, with whole-time scientific staff remunerated by salary. In other cases the police may seek the assistance of other experts who would be remunerated by fee. In every case the function of the expert is to give an opinion, as a scientist, on the material submitted to him and he does so on his own responsibility. The responsibility for the prosecution rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions or with the police, as the case may be.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.

    ACCOMMODATION.
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Home Secretary how many unmarried police officers are to be accommodated at the Kennington Lane and the Judd Street section houses, what is the estimated value of each of the sites, what is the amount of the contracts for the buildings, and what is the cost per foot cube based on the contract price?
    Sir S. Hoare: As the answer to this question contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    —

    Kennington Lane.

    Judd Street (Compton Place).

    Number of single officers to be accommodated.

    204

    193

    Estimated value of sites

    £10,000

    £7,000

    Total amount of all contracts.

    £118,779

    £107,667

    Gross cost per foot cube

    2s. 5.92d.

    2s. 4.55d.

    In both cases the contracts cover a set of married quarters in addition to the accommodation for single men. The statement of cost is subject to correction

    575
    when the final figures are available on completion of the works.
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Home Secretary how many families are to be accommodated in the new block of married quarters at Elystan Street, Chelsea; what was the cost of the site; what was the amount of the building contracts; what was the price per foot cube of the building; and if the final total cost of the building has been ascertained, what is the amount?
    Sir S. Hoare: This block of married quarters was completed and occupied over a year ago. It accommodates 114 families; the site cost £40,000; the amount of the building contracts and final total building cost was £86,657; the price per foot cube was 1s. 7d.
    Mr. McEntee: In view of the price of 1s. 7d. per foot cube in the case of this particular building, can the right hon. Gentleman say why a building for a single man in the Chelsea area costs 2s. 2d. per foot cube, as stated in the answer which he gave me a little while ago, and will he inquire into the difference?
    Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly look into it.

    RECEIVERS DEPARTMENT (ENGINEERS SECTION, STAFF).
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Home Secretary what is the total number of professional, technical, clerical and industrial manual workers employed in the engineers section of the receivers department of the Metropolitan police district; what is the total annual salaries and wages of this staff; and what are the number and salaries and wages costs of that part of the staff engaged solely in connection with the motor fleet of the department?
    Sir S. Hoare: The total number of persons of the classes mentioned employed in the engineers department is 575; the annual amount of their salaries and wages is £107,000; the corresponding figures for that part of the staff employed solely in connection with the motor fleet are 335 and £60,000.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Sir George Jonesasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the smallness of the pensions paid to widows of
    576
    members of the Metropolitan police force, even in cases where their late husbands had long service in the force and during such time made regular contributions to the pension fund; and whether he will consider taking the necessary steps to increase such pensions?
    Sir S. Hoare: The amount of the pensions payable to the widows of members of the Metropolitan and other police forces is governed by Statute, and legislation would be required to enable any increase in the amount of the pension to be given. For the present I can only say that I have under consideration various representations which I have received.

    WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early date for the discussion of the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln relating to war risks insurance?
    [That this House, in view of the large sums of money advanced by local authorities under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and the apprehension caused by the absence of a definite statement of the details of the Government's policy on the question of insurance of property against damage by enemy aircraft, urges on the President of the Board of Trade the immediate publication of the preparatory work already undertaken to facilitate the application of a scheme of insurance or compensation if an emergency arises.]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): In the present state of public business, I am afraid that I can hold out no hope of time being available for the discussion of this Motion.

    ANGLO-GERMAN PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.
    Mr. Brackenasked the Prime Minister when the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the revised Anglo-German Payments Agreement?
    The Prime Minister: I fear that in the present state of Parliamentary business it will not be possible to give a special opportunity for the discussion of the agreement referred to, but no doubt there will be occasions in the normal course of business on which it could be discussed.
    Mr. Bracken: As this question raises issues of very great importance to investors, ought it not to be discussed in this House? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is unable to provide me with an answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will clarify the position of foreign holders of the British Tranche of the Austrian 4½ per cent. Guaranteed Loan, in view of the fact that it was issued by the Bank of England and that the principal and interest is, in part, guaranteed by the British Government?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir J. Simon): The Anglo-German Transfer Agreement of 1st July, 1938 (Command Paper 5788), does not cover bonds of the Austrian Government 4½ per cent. Guaranteed Loan which were not in the ownership of British holders on 1st July, 1938. The position of holders of such bonds will therefore depend upon any arrangements made between the German Government and the Government of which such holders are nationals, or, failing any such arrangement, on the implementation by the guarantor Governments of their guarantees. In regard to the latter point, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) on Monday last.
    Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the holders of such bonds will be reimbursed by the guarantors in case of no suitable arrangement being come to between the German Government and the holders of the bonds?
    Sir J. Simon: That was the subject of the answer to which I have referred my hon. and gallant Friend. Perhaps it may be convenient if I read one sentence:
    "I understand that all the Governments represented at the recent meeting of the Committee of Guarantor States in London indicated their readiness to implement their guarantees, if called upon to do so."—[OFFILIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1938; col. 43, Vol. 338.]

  EDUCATION.

    EXPENDITURE.
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the heavy cost of the equipment of the Defence forces and the fact that more public money is now being spent than ever before in our history upon education, the Board is calling upon local education authorities to defer all new expenditure that is not imperatively necessary?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The prospective raising of the school age and the completion of re-organisation of elementary schools are involving local education authorities in substantial expenditure, and there is no evidence that authorities, alive to their commitments in these respects, are embarking on extravagant or unnecessary expenditure. In these circumstances, my Noble Friend sees no occasion for issuing any communication of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Sir P. Hurd: Has the Board of Education received representations from local education authorities, as, for instance, the borough of Hornsey and the county of Wilts, indicating that at this time of national emergency in regard to Defence, some curb should be put upon new expenditure?
    Mr. Lindsay: I think some representations have been made to my Noble Friend in the course of the last six months.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Has the borough of Hornsey ever previously made representations in respect of any other forms of excessive expenditure?
    Mr. Lindsay: I should require notice of that question.

    SCHOOL MEALS.
    Mr. G. Griffithsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will bring up to date the information in regard to the period during which school meals are provided?
    Mr. Lindsay: Complete information in respect of the year ended 31st March, 1938, will not be available until the autumn. The latest information, in respect of the year ended 31st March, 1937, was given in reply to a question by

    579
    the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on 9th November last, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does not the Minister agree that, if there is not so much money spent on buildings, they will have more to spend on feeding the youngsters?

    POOLE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can give any information in connection with two boys that have been expelled from the Poole Grammar School for smoking out of school hours; and what action he intends taking in the matter?
    Mr. Lindsay: My Noble Friend is making inquiries into this matter and when further information has been received I will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Thorne: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give me any indication as to when I might put down the question again?
    Mr. Lindsay: I should think within a week.
    Mr. Thorne: I will put it down again next Thursday.
    Mr. Dunnasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many reports have reached his Department from England and Wales showing malnutrition amongst school children up to the nearest available date; and what action he is taking in the matter?
    Mr. Lindsay: The school medical officers' annual reports for all areas in England and Wales include statistics of the assessment of the nutrition of children examined at routine medical inspection during the year 1937. In 260 out of the 315 areas some children are shown to be suffering from bad nutrition but in many cases the number is very small, often only one or two out of several thousand children examined, and the total number of such children represents 0.6 per cent. of the number examined. In addition, 10.7 per cent. are shown to have slightly subnormal nutrition. The adequacy of the provision for the supply of free meals or milk to necessitous under-nourished children is kept under review by the Board and in appropriate cases the matter is taken up with the local education authority.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the hon. Member satisfied that the measures now being taken by local authorities are effecting an improvement in regard to the children in their areas?
    Mr. Lindsay: I am very glad to say that there is a progressive improvement.
    Viscountess Astor: Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities are doing little or nothing and that there are 193,000 mal-nourished children in the country?
    Mr. Lindsay: I would not vouch for the exact figures, but I have said before that there is inequality of performance.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Can the Minister state whether in regard to this question of malnutrition the Board lay down any time limit for the examination of the children?
    Mr. Lindsay: There is no time limit.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Member satisfied that the tests as to nutrition and malnutrition are satisfactory?
    Mr. Lindsay: I dealt with this matter in some detail when the Vote before the Department was debated. I am not completely satisfied.
    Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that the best test of whether a child is malnourished is whether the income of the home is sufficient?

    CHURCH OF ENGLAND SENIOR SCHOOLS, SURREY.
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the proposal to erect a Church of England senior school at Tilford, Surrey; and whether due consideration has been given to the protest against this proposal signed by a number of ratepayers and parents?
    Mr. Lindsay: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Board have decided to hold a public inquiry into the proposal.
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the proposal to erect a Church of England senior school at Milford,

    581
    Surrey; and whether due consideration has been given to the protest against this project signed by parents and ratepayers?
    Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir. After careful consideration of the appeal against it, the Board have decided in favour of the proposed Church of England senior school.
    Mr. Thurtle: Is the hon. Member aware that this decision will arouse great indignation in this part of Surrey?
    Mr. Lindsay: I can assure the hon. Member that my Noble Friend looked very carefully into all the facts of the case.

    INSTITUTIONS (JAPANESE PRODUCE).
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Health whether he will issue a circular to all authorities and institutions which receive a Government grant or allowance, requiring them to refrain from purchasing goods made in Japan and/or tinned foods imported from Japan?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): On more than one occasion, the attention of local authorities has been drawn to the desirability of securing that goods and materials required by them should so far as is practicable be of British manufacture. I fear I have no power to take any further steps.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
    Mr. G. Griffithsasked the Minister of Health whether he will give, if possible for each 12 months separately, for 1935, 1936 and 1937, particulars of statistical and other results of the joint council of midwifery nutrition scheme for expectant mothers, stating also the total annual cost of this scheme and the annual amount of grant made by the Commissioner for Special Areas?
    Mr. Elliot: The full cost of the scheme for the period from January, 1937, to 31st March, 1938, has been met from the amount of £8,500 granted by the Commissioner for the Special Areas. I regret that I have no information for the period prior to January, 1937, when the cost was defrayed out of voluntary contributions. As regards the statistical results of the scheme to date I would refer
    582
    to the replies which were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on 17th March and 19th May of this year.
    Viscountess Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that out of 2,000 who were properly fed only one died in child-birth, whereas out of 2,000 that were underfed, seven died? Will he consider seriously the fact that 13s. 4d. spent on extra food in these cases would have saved the lives of these mothers?
    Mr. Elliot: Full information was given on 17th March and 19th May.
    Viscountess Astor: I have stated facts.

    ABORTION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the Minister of Health whether the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Abortion, under the chairmanship of Mr. N. Birkett, K.C., will be published before the Recess; whether he will represent to the chairman of that committee the advisability of publishing the evidence at the same time as the report; and whether, if the committee so desires, he will do his best to ensure that the publication of the evidence is not vetoed on financial grounds?
    Mr. Elliot: I understand that the committee have recently completed the hearing of evidence. They are now engaged in consideration of the evidence and they hope to be in a position to present a report before the end of the year. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, but I think that it would be premature to settle this question at the present stage.
    Sir A. Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that on a matter of this sort unless the evidence is published it will be very difficult for the House to reach a conclusion?
    Mr. Elliot: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Health the total number of patients receiving treatment for tuberculosis as at the last convenient date and the number of persons who have been awaiting treatment for more than 10 days on that date from local authorities in England and Wales?
    Mr. Elliot: The number of patients who, on 1st April, 1938, were receiving treatment in residential institutions under the schemes of local authorities in England and Wales for the institutional treatment of tuberculosis was 27,968, and the number of persons who had been awaiting such treatment for more than 10 days was 1,798.
    Mr. Day: What steps are being taken to make provision for these persons who are waiting for treatment?
    Mr. Elliot: It is not a very long waiting list.
    Mr. Day: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a danger to the community that so many people should be waiting for treatment?

    LAND ACQUISITION (WALSALL).
    Mr. MacLarenasked the Minister of Health what was the result of the arbitration case to decide the price of the land at Wisemore acquired under compulsory powers of purchase by the Walsall Corporation for the purpose of slum clearance; and what was the area of the land in question as well as its rateable value previous to purchase?
    Mr. Elliot: The town council obtained compulsory powers for these properties in 1934 and 1937. I am informed that they were able to agree a price with the owners in respect of all the properties in the Orders confirmed in 1937 and in respect of some in the Orders confirmed in 1934. The arbitrator's award in the other cases amounted to £3,280 for properties of a rateable value of £369 covering an area of 6,674 square yards.

    OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Health how many old age pensioners situated in the area of the city of Salford are in receipt of assistance from the public assistance committee, and the amount that is being paid out weekly in this category?
    Mr. Elliot: On 1st January, 1938, the latest date for which figures are available, the number was 1,229. As regards the
    584
    last part of the question, the returns received in my Department do not distinguish the cost of payments to the category of persons mentioned.
    Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that the same kind of reply has been given to other hon. Members who have put this particular question, can the right hon. Gentleman's Department not get from the local authorities the amounts they pay to these people?
    Mr. Elliot: I do not get it from the returns. Whether a special return should be asked for, is another matter.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that it would involve so much work in asking the local authorities for the information?
    Mr. Elliot: Every additional demand involves a certain amount of work.

    NATIONAL PARKS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to declare the policy of the Government with reference to the question of national parks, arising out of the recommendations of the National Parks Committee of 1931?
    Mr. Elliot: I propose to consider this matter in connection with the report on the adequacy of existing planning powers, which I understand will be submitted to me shortly by my Advisory Committee on Town and Country Planning.
    Mr. Mander: In view of the tremendous national interest in this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to make a statement of policy before the House rises?
    Mr. Elliot: No, I am afraid I cannot do that.
    Mr. Mender: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    HOUSING ESTATES (ROAD WORKS).
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the large number of building estates, often semi-derelict owing to the failure of the promoters, in which

    585
    no roads are properly made up or taken over by the respective local authorities; and whether, in the interests of reasonable public transit, he will, wherever possible, stimulate the carrying out of necessary surface improvements?
    Mr. Elliot: If my hon. Friend will let me know the particular cases he has in mind, I will be pleased to make inquiries.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Minister of Health how many women medical officers are available in the northwestern divisional area when women members of approved societies are obliged to submit themselves under the rules of their societies?
    Mr. Elliot: There is one woman medical officer available in the north-western divisional area for the examination of cases.
    Mr. White: Having regard to the fact that on one recent occasion it was impossible to secure the attendance of a woman medical officer, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter and see whether it is possible to increase the staff to carry out these duties?
    Mrs. Tate: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the removal of the marriage bar on medical women would help?
    Viscountess Astor: As long as women in the medical profession when they are married have to give up their posts, will you not always have this difficulty?
    Mr. Elliot: There were, in fact, only six demands from the north-west area to see a woman medical inspector.
    Viscountess Astor: As long as women have to get out of the medical profession when they are married you are not going to get a sufficiency of women doctors for this purpose.

    BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION.
    Mr. Haslamasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the resolution passed unanimously by the Federation of Women's Institutes of England and Wales at their recent annual meeting, in London, in which they ask that further facilities should be provided
    586
    for the registration of births and deaths in rural areas; and whether he will bear the terms of this resolution in mind in considering new schemes for the registration of births and deaths put forward by county councils, especially in the case of those schemes which entail a reduction of existing facilities?
    Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the terms of the resolution referred to. The question of facilities is, however, one which can only be considered in relation to the particular conditions of particular localities. I am sure that county councils will pay full regard to the needs of all parts of their respective areas in the preparation of their schemes. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, any outstanding local representations are considered before approval is given to such schemes.

    WOOLLEN PRODUCTS (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. Sextonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what quantity and value of home-produced wool entered into the manufacture of blankets and other woollen products supplied to the Army, Navy and Air Force by contractors during the years 1935, 1936, and 1937, respectively?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I regret that the particulars asked for are not available, and could only be obtained at disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.
    Mr. Sexton: Will it be possible in the future to ensure that the Fair Wages Clause is inserted in these contracts.

    LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, TYNESIDE.
    Sir A. Wilsonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difference of opinion between the Government, the local authorities, and the Royal Commission as to the action to be taken in regard to local administration on Tyneside, he will now publish the evidence given to the Royal Commission on which all the interested parties mainly base their views?
    Captain Wallace: Copies of the evidence have been supplied to the local

    587
    authorities and others interested, and to the Library of this House, and it is unlikely that there would be sufficient demand to enable any material part of the cost of a printed edition to be recovered from sales. In these circumstances I regret that I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Sir A. Wilson: Will the Financial Secretary consider the possibility of providing an index for the 3,000 pages of evidence now in type in the Library so that we may be able to refer to it by way of index as at present it is quite impossible for hon. Members to do so?
    Captain Wallace: I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

  AGRICULTURE.

    INTERNAL DRAINAGE.
    Mr. Leachasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will say, for the convenience of internal drainage boards, what are his intentions in regard to grants; and whether the regulations affecting them are the same as last year?
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. It is intended that grants shall be available to assist schemes submitted by drainage authorities other than catchment boards substantially on the same conditions as those applicable to schemes approved during the season 1937–38. My right hon. Friend hopes very shortly to issue circular letters to the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Leach: Will there be any change in the regulations?

    HOME-PRODUCED FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to lay before the House his plans for the acceleration and increase of home production of food in time of war?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: Plans for increasing the acreage of arable land in this country in the event of war have been prepared and steps have been taken to enable the necessary central and local organisation to be set up without delay. The plans have, of course, had to be framed on a variety of hypotheses as to the circumstances of any future war and could not, therefore, be published.
    Mrs. Tate: Can we have an assurance that landowners, farmers and farm workers have been advised of these plans and are willing to co-operate in them?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: That is a separate subject.
    Mr. Thurtle: Is there any conflict of opinion between the hon. Member's right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister in regard to this matter?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: None whatever.

    PALESTINE (EXECUTION).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the execution in Palestine of the youth Ben Joseph was carried out before he had considered the appeals for a reprieve; why a retrial was refused; and why the execution was not stayed upon application being made to His Majesty in Council for a reprieve?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I received many appeals for a reprieve; but, as has been repeatedly made clear, the decision in cases tried by the military courts rests with the General Officer Commanding, with whose discretion I am not prepared to interfere. Discretion as to ordering a retrial also rests with the General Officer Commanding, and I am not aware whether a retrial was in fact refused in this case. No application was made to His Majesty in Council.
    Mr. Adams: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the execution of this youth has added to the pacification of Palestine?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: It is clear that justice has to be meted out fairly, whether it is Arab or Jew.
    Mr. McEntee: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the authorities in Palestine that there is a strong feeling in this country that there ought to have been a retrial?

    ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS.
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Attorney-General whether he has considered the terms of the contract of service between the Association of Official Shorthand

    589
    Writers and its employés; and whether he will lay a copy of this document upon the Table of the House of Commons?
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The terms of the contract of service between the Association of Official Shorthand Writers and its employés are a matter for the association which is a co-operative organisation of which all the employés are members. I am not in a position, therefore, to lay a copy of the document asked for before the House of Commons. I have no reason to think that the terms of the contract are other than fair and reasonable.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (COM MISSIONS, FIGHTING SERVICES).
    Mr. Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air how many hon. Members and how many Peers hold commissions in the Royal Air Force Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Eight Members of the House of Lords hold commissions, including honorary commissions, in the Auxiliary Air Force. Seven hon. Members of this House hold commissions, including honorary commissions, in the Auxiliary Air Force, one in the Reserve of Air Force Officers and one in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. In addition one hon. Member holds a commission in the Auxiliary Air Force Reserve of Officers.
    Mr. Mander: Are there any other ranks in the House?
    Viscountess Astor: Why do not you join up?
    Mr. Davidson: Would it be in order for hon. Members on this side of the House to ask for the influence of the Noble Lady to join the Cabinet as others have done?
    Mr. Hulbertasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many hon. Members and how many Peers hold commissions in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Naval Reserve?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): Five Peers hold commissions in the Royal Naval
    590
    Volunteer Reserve, three being on the Active List, and two on the Retired List. There are no members of this House who hold commissions in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and no members of either House are members of the Royal Naval Reserve.
    Mr. Mander: Is there any women's section of the Naval forces which the Noble Lady opposite might suitably join?
    Viscountess Astor: Would it not be right that the Noble Lady should join if she were anxious for the Government to go to war?

    TRAFFIC OBSTRUCTION, CENTRAL LONDON.
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he has any survey made of the obstruction caused to general traffic in the Central London area by crawling taximeter-cabs, and with what results;
    (2) whether he will specify the streets in the Central London area in which taximeter-cabs have been prohibited by regulation from crawling; and whether any and, if so, how many prosecutions have taken place for infringement of this regulation;
    (3) whether he has any figures available to indicate with regard to any recent period the number of accidents in the Central London area attributable to crawling taximeter-cabs?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): The various causes of obstruction to the flow of traffic in Central London are continually under review. The loitering taxicab is only one of the causes and the problem it presents is so bound up with other factors that I do not feel that a survey on the lines mentioned would produce any data of value. Taxicabs are prohibited by regulations under the London Traffic Act from loitering in certain streets between certain hours, and I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate all the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir J. Mellor: Was not a survey made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor about a year ago with regard to loitering taxi cabs?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, I think there was.
    Sir J. Mellor: May we have such information as resulted from that survey?
    Mr. Burgin: I do not think it is at all material to the problem with which the hon. Member is dealing in his questions but if he would like to know what happened in the past, I shall be glad to give him the information.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is it not the case that taxi-drivers are having a very difficult time at the moment, and will the right hon. Member see that no regulations are made which will make it more difficult for them to make both ends meet.
    Mr. Burgin: The traffic problem of London is very much greater than loitering taxi-cabs.
    Mr. Leach: Will the Minister cease using the words "loitering" and "crawling" in view of the fact that these men are engaged in the honourable job of seeking clients?
    Following is the information:
    Between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. taxicabs are prohibited from loitering in the following streets:

    Buckingham Palace Road.

    Kensington High Street—from Royal Palace Hotel to Wright's Lane.

    New Bond Street.

    Old Bond Street.

    New Oxford Street.

    Oxford Street—from Marble Arch to Oxford Circus.

    Regent Street.

    Wigmore Street.

    A similar prohibition applies between 8 a.m. and midnight in the following streets:

    Charing Cross Road.

    Coventry Street.

    Kingsway.

    Oxford Street—from Oxford Circus to Tottenham Court Road.

    Piccadilly—east of Stratton Street.

    Shaftesbury Avenue—from Piccadilly Circus to Cambridge Circus.

    Strand.

    Tottenham Court Road.

    Wilton Road.

    In 1937, 361 summonses were issued against drivers accused of contravening these Regulations. In addition, prosecutions under the London Hackney Carriages Act, 1843, for causing obstruction by loitering in other streets were taken in
    592
    137 cases. No information is available as to the number of accidents in the Central area attributable to loitering taxicabs.

    BRITISH ARMY.

      VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE, ALDERSHOT (EMPLOYÉS).
      Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for War when suitable employment is to be found for one plasterer and three welding instructors who are now definitely unemployed as a result of the closing down of the Aldershot vocational training centre, one of whom has a wife and four children and has just received a notice to vacate his house, which is Army property?
      The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Every effort is being made to place these men, and I am hopeful that the three welders will very shortly find employment. As regards the plasterer, I regret that no opening in War Department employment is available, but similar steps are being taken on his behalf.

      ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY CAMP, STIFFKEY.
      Sir Thomas Cookasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for worm-diggers and others who are entitled to compensation as the result of loss of trade due to the presence of the anti-aircraft artillery camp at Stiffkey, Norfolk, to receive sums on account as contributions towards their ultimate claims?
      Sir V. Warrender: The question whether there is a case for making ex gratia payments of compensation to worm-diggers and others at Stiffkey for loss of trade due to the presence of the anti-aircraft artillery camp is at present being investigated. Pending the result of this inquiry, I am afraid it is not possible to authorise any payments.

      INDIA (DISPUTE, SIKAR AND JAIPUR).
      Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement on the recent dispute between the States of Sikar and Jaipur?
      The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Trouble broke out in April between the Jaipur Darbar and the Rao Raja of Sikar, who is a feudatory of the Maharaja of Jaipur and whose Thikana is part of Jaipur State. The cause appears to have been the degree of control which the Darbar exercises over the Thikana. As a result of the informal intervention of the Resident in Rajputana, the Rao Raja left Jaipur on 29th April. On 25th May the Jaipur Government appointed a commission under the chairmanship of an officer of the Indian Political Service to investigate the causes of the trouble and suggest remedial measures. But the continued refusal of the inhabitants of Sikar to allow the re-establishment of normal administration there prevented this commission starting work on the spot. On three occasions on 5th July, armed supporters of the Rao Raja opened fire on Jaipur troops and police who returned their fire. Two Jaipur police were killed and seven wounded. Fourteen of the Rao Raja's supporters were killed and 30 wounded.
      Mr. Henderson: Is it possible for the Viceroy to use his influence to get a settlement of this dispute?
      Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Crown representative has promised by telegram to send a further report on the situation as it develops. So far it has not been received.

      ASSYRIAN REFUGEES.
      Mr. Ammonasked the Prime Minister whether any arrangements have been made to meet the hardships accruing to the Assyrian refugees accommodated in the Khabur river settlement arising out of the drought experienced this year?
      The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that there has been a prolonged drought on the Khabur this year. On the contrary, I am glad to say that the reports from the Assyrian Trustee Board show that the harvest has been very good. The necessity for any special arrangements does not, therefore, arise.

      JAPAN (DRUGS).
      Mr. David Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether he will inquire whether
      594
      the League of Nations has any reliable statistics showing the extent to which Japan is producing and distributing opium and other narcotics in the Far East generally?
      Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Like other countries parties to the Opium Convention of 1925, Japan regularly communicates to the Secretariat of the League of Nations statistics of the drugs which she manufactures, as well as of her exports to and imports from other countries. It is, however, very unlikely that the League of Nations authorities possess any comprehensive or reliable information as to the distribution of Japanese exported drugs inside the national boundaries of the importing countries.
      Mr. Adams: Will the Minister endeavour to obtain this information?
      Mr. Butler: I think the information could be obtained from the League, and I will certainly investigate.

      SPANISH REFUGEE CHILDREN.
      Sir Nairne Stewart Sandemanasked the Home Secretary the number of Basque children who have been repatriated?
      Sir S. Hoare: The number is 2,006.

      NEW YORK DISTRICT ATTORNEY (VISIT).
      Mr. Kirkwood (for Mr. Gallacher)asked the Home Secretary the reason for the visit of Mr. Lamar Harday, New York District Attorney, to this country?
      Sir S. Hoare: Apart from statements in the Press that this gentleman is visiting Europe for a holiday, I have no information.

      LAND ACQUISITION (CARDIFF CORPORATION).
      Mr. Buchanan (for Mr. McGovern)asked the Minister of Health the total acreage of land bought by the Cardiff Corporation from the Marquess of Bute; what was the price paid per acre; and what was the rateable value in each case?
      Mr. Elliot: I have no record of the purchases of land by the corporation

      595
      from this owner, but I understand that no important purchase has been made in recent years.

      HOUSING (BURY).
      Sir J. Haslam (for Mr. Chorlton)asked the Minister of Health the total of new houses completed up to the end of March this year in the borough of Bury, Lancashire, and how many will be completed by the end of this year, with the estimated number to meet the requirements of the locality?
      Mr. Elliot: By the end of March last 2,110 houses were completed by the town council and 2,950 by private enterprise, making 5,060 in all. I have no information how many houses are likely to be completed by the end of this year by private enterprise. I have approved 480 houses for construction by the town council and I understand that 400 of these are likely to be finished this year. I regret that I have no information relating to the last part of the question.

      ESTATE DUTIES (PRIVATE COMPANIES).
      Mr. Buchanan (for Mr. McGovern)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has formed an estimate of the number of private companies formed by wealthy men and women in Great Britain during the past five years; the names of the families involved in this method of evading death duties; whether he intends to initiate legislation for the purpose of preventing this form of evasion; and whether he will consider introducing a gift tax to operate retrospectively as a method of ending this evasion of death duties by rich families?
      Sir J. Simon: I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with statistics of the kind he asks for in the earlier part of his question. Private companies are of course formed for a great variety of purposes and the number registered annually is very considerable. I may say, however, that it is the practice of the Inland Revenue Department to examine the files of private companies with a view to obtaining information which, either alone or in conjunction with other information they are able to obtain, may be of assistance in connection with their administration
      596
      of the duties entrusted to them. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1930, which are being further strengthened by the present Finance Bill; and I would add that the whole question of tax avoidance, and of the efficacy of the machinery for checking it, is of course under constant review.

      ROYAL AIR FORCE PILOTS (TRAINING, CANADA).
      Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada that the Dominions Government are prepared in connection with their own establishments to help in affording facilities for the training of pilots for the Royal Air Force, if that would be of service, and whether he has any statement to make?
      Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. An offer to this effect has been communicated to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom by the Canadian Prime Minister through the United Kingdom High Commissioner. A reply has been sent expressing warm appreciation of the offer and arrangements are being made in accordance with a suggestion of the Canadian Prime Minister for an officer to be sent immediately to Canada to explore in co-operation with the Canadian Government the possibility of working out such a scheme for training facilities in Canada.

      BOMBING OF BRITISH SHIPS.
      Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a full statement on the reply of the Spanish insurgents regarding the bombing of British ships, indicating the results of the consultations which have taken place with Sir Robert Hodgson, the nature of any decisions the Government may have reached, and the reply to be made to the denial that British ships have been deliberately attacked.
      The Prime Minister: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a full statement, since the consultations on this subject are not yet complete. His Majesty's Government have found it necessary to ask the Burgos authorities to explain the

      597
      exact meaning which they attach to their disclaimer of their intention to make deliberate attacks on British ships. His Majesty's Government have frequently expressed their view that the deliberate bombing and sinking of merchant ships has never been admitted by international law, still less the machine-gunning of their bridges and decks.
      I might add that the Burgos authorities have intimated their intention to make practical proposals with the object of humanising warfare as far as possible, and I need hardly say that His Majesty's Government will give any such proposals their most sympathetic consideration.
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already informed the House of the suggestion made by the Burgos authorities for the establishment under certain restrictive conditions of a safe port at Almeria. Preliminary examination of this suggestion has revealed certain difficulties such as the deficiencies in the facilities afforded by such a plan for the discharge of vessels, communications with the rest of Spain and other factors. The position at the moment is that the Government have under consideration the views of the British shipping interests on the subject.
      The reply to the inquiry which we have addressed to Burgos must of necessity take several days, but I will keep the House informed of any further developments.
      Mr. Attlee: Is there not a danger, in the proposal for a special port which should be safe, of admitting, by that action, the right to bomb ships in other ports?
      The Prime Minister: I think that is a consideration which must be kept in mind.
      Mr. Bellenger: What is the position of Sir Robert Hodgson? Is it intended that he should remain here until suitable replies are received from the Burgos Government, or is it intended that he should return to his post at a very early date?
      The Prime Minister: He is remaining here for the present; certainly until we receive a reply from the Burgos authorities.
      Mr. McEntee: Will the Prime Minister explain a little more fully what he means
      598
      by consultation with British shipping interests? Does that include the men in the shipping unions or merely the owners?
      The Prime Minister: I think it means the shipowners.
      Mr. McEntee: Will the right hon. Gentleman get into communication or consultation also with the people who go into the ships, the seamen, through their unions?
      The Prime Minister: If they could give us any useful help in the matter, I should certainly wish to consult them.
      Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that a written inquiry of the Burgos Government will be able to elucidate matters which Sir Robert Hodgson was not able to elucidate by personal discussions which he had with the Burgos Government before he was recalled in order to give this information to the Prime Minister?
      The Prime Minister: Sir Robert Hodgson brought a written reply from the Burgos authorities, but there was a passage in it which was not clear to us, and we, therefore, addressed further inquiries to the authorities.
      Miss Rathbone: Is there any reason to change the opinion formerly formed by His Majesty's Government that in a considerable proportion of cases, the bombing of British ships was deliberate?
      Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are the Spanish Government being consulted concerning the proposal to establish what is called a safe port, at Almeria?
      The Prime Minister: I think we have not got to that stage yet.
      Mr. Herbert Morrison: May we take it that the Prime Minister and the Government will not be committed to acceptance of the principle of this so-called special port, without knowing the views of the Spanish Government and without giving an opportunity for consideration of the matter by this House?
      The Prime Minister: I am not sure that that is necessary. Certainly there will be no hurried or hasty action.
      Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear from the beginning that this Government will accept

      599
      no arrangement which will involve, by implication, an admission of the legitimacy of blockade by aircraft?
      The Prime Minister: I have already said that we do not admit that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week, and also how far it is proposed to go to-night in the event of the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?
The Prime Minister: The business for next week will be:
Monday.—Consideration of the Report of the Committee of Privileges. It is hoped that the Debate on the Report will be concluded not later than 6.30 p.m. Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday.—Conclusion of the Report stage of the Finance Bill; Committee stage of the Anglo-Turkish Agreement Bill, and of the Milk (Extension and Amendment) Bill; Second Reading of the War Department (Property) Bill [Lords]; Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Road Haulage Wages Bill, which are expected to be received from another place.
Wednesday.—Supply; Committee (15th Allotted Day).—The Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries will be considered.
Thursday.—Second Reading of the Holidays with Pay Bill; the Rating and
Valuation (Air Raid Works) Bill, and of a corresponding Bill relating to Scotland; the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Report and Third Reading of the Administration of Justices (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], if reported from the Standing Committee.
Friday.—Finance Bill; Third Reading.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
With regard to the Motion on the Paper to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night, that has been put down in order to make sure of completing the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Coal Bill. As the House is no doubt aware, there is a Private Bill set down for consideration at 7.30 this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means. In view of the state of the Parliamentary programme it is essential that we should dispose of the Lords Amendments to the Coal Bill at to-day's sitting.
Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the two Rating and Valuation (Air Raid Works) Bills will be available to Members?
The Prime Minister: To-morrow.
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, 257; Noes, 138.

Division No. 279.]

AYES.

[3.55 p.m.

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

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T

Colman, N. C. D.

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

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)

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

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

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Bull, B. B.

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

Aske, Sir R. W.

Bullock, Capt. M.

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

Assheton, R.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

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

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

Butler, R. A.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sulton)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Craven-Ellis, W.

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

Cartland, J. R. H.

Critchley, A.

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Cary, R. A.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Cross, R. H.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

Crossley, A. C.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

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

Crowder, J. F. E.

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

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Culverwell, C. T.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

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

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Channon, H.

De la Bére, R.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Blair, Sir R.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Denville, Alfred

Bossom, A. C.

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

Despeneer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Beulton, W. W.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Doland, G. F.

Donner, P. W.

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

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Drewe, C.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Lewis, O.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Duggan, H. J.

Liddall, W. S.

Salmon, Sir I.

Dunglass, Lord

Lindsay, K. M.

Salt, E. W.

Eastwood, J. F.

Lipson, D. L.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Lloyd, G. W.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Ellis, Sir G.

Loftus, P. C.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Lyons, A. M.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Elmley, Viscount

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Scott, Lord William

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Selley, H. R.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Everard, W. L.

McKie, J. H.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Findlay, Sir E.

Macnamara, Major J. R. L.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Macquisten, F. A.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Furness, S. N.

Maitland, A.

Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

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

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Gluckstein, L. H.

Marsden, Commander A.

Spens, W. P.

Goldie, N. B.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Gower, Sir R. V.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

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

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

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

Grant-Ferris, R.

Mills. Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chlswick)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Morgan, R. H.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Grigg, Sir E. W, M.

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

Tale, Mavis C.

Grimston, R. V.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

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

Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Hambro, A. V.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Touche, G. C.

Hannah, I. C.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Train, Sir J.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Patrick, C. M.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Peake, O.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

peat, C. U.

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

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

peters, Dr. S. J.

Ward, Irene M. B, (Wallsend)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Petherick, M.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Warrender, Sir V.

Higgs W. F

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Porritt, R. W.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Holdsworth, H.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Holmes, J. S.

Proctor, Major H. A.

Wells, Sir Sydney

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Radfod, E. A.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ramsbotham, H.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Unlv's.)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Hulbert, N. J.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Wise, A. R.

Hunloke H. P.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Hunter T.

Reed Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Hurd Sir P. A.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Wragg, H.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.

Kimball, L.

Remer, J. R.

Lamb Sir J. Q.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lambert Rt. Hon. G.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Ropner, Colonel L.

NOES.

Aoland R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

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

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Adams D. (Consett)

Buchanan, G.

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

Adams D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Burke, W. A.

Gardner, B. W.

Adamson, W. M.

Cape, T.

Garro Jones, G. M.

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

Charleton, H. C.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Ammon C. G.

Chater, D.

Gibson. R. (Greenock)

Attlee Rt. Hon. C. R.

Cluse, W. S.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Banfield, J. W.

Collindridge, F.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Barnes, A. J.

Cove, W. G.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Barr, J.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Grenfell, D. R.

Batey, J.

Daggar, G.

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

Bellenger, F. J.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Benson, G.

Day, H.

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

Bevan, A.

Dobbie, W.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Broad, F. A.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Bromfield, W.

Ede, J. C.

Hardie, Agnes

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Harris, Sir P. A.

602

603

Hayday, A.

Mander, G. le M.

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

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Marshall, F.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Mathers, G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Maxton, J.

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

Hicks, E. G.

Milner, Major J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Montague, F.

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

Hollins, A.

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

Stokes, R. R.

Jagger, J.

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

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

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Naylor, T. E.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

John, W.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Owen, Major G.

Thorne, W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Paling, W.

Thurtle, E.

Kelly, W. T.

Parker, J.

Tinker, J. J.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Parkinson, J. A.

Tomlinson, G.

Kirby, B. V.

Pearson, A.

Viant, S. P.

Kirkwood, D.

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

Walkden, A. G.

Lathan, G.

Poole, C. C.

Walker, J.

Lawson, J. J.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Watson, W. McL.

Leach, W.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lee, F.

Ridley, G.

Welsh, J. C.

Leonard, W.

Riley, B.

Westwood, J.

Leslie, J. R.

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

White, H. Graham

Logan, D. G.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Lunn, W.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

McEntee, V. La T.

Sanders, W. S.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

McGhee, H. G.

Sexton, T. M.

McGovern, J.

Short, A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

MacLaren, A.

Silkin, L.

Mr. Groves and Mr. F. Anderson

BILLS PRESENTED.
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY BILL,
  "to enable wage regulating authorities to make provision for holidays and holiday remuneration for workers whose wages they regulate, and to enable the Minister of Labour to assist voluntary schemes for securing holidays with pay for workers in any industry," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown; supported by Mr. Colville, Mr. W. S. Morrison, Mr. Burgin, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Lennox-Boyd; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]
  RATING AND VALUATION (AIR-RAID WORKS) (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to provide for relief from rates in respect of air-raid protection works in Scotland," presented by Mr. Colville; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Wedderburn; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]
  RATING AND VALUATION (AIR-RAID WORKS) BILL,
  "to provide for relief from rates in respect of air-raid protection works," presented by Mr. Elliot; supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Bernays; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Second Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:

  Post Office (Sites) Bill, without Amendment.

  Derwent Valley Water Board Bill, with an Amendment.

  Road Haulage Wages (No. 2) Bill.

  Clacton Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.

  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate the hours of employment of persons under the age of eighteen years employed in certain occupations; to amend the Shops Act, 1934, with respect to the regulation of the hours of employment of persons under the age of sixteen years, and with respect to the determination of the number of working hours of persons under the age of eighteen years; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Young Persons (Employment) Bill [Lords.]

BILLS REPORTED.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (LOUTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVERS BOARD AND GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

  STANMORE UNUSED BURIAL GROUND BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

  SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill to be read the Third time; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  CHICHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MID-STAFFORDSHIRE JOINT HOSPI TAL DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  ROAD HAULAGE WAGES (No. 2) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
  YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Road the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL BILL.
  Lords Amendments further considered.
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 20, after Clause 12, insert new Clause D.—(Provisions as to arbitration):
  "On and after the valuation date, a clause shall be included in all leases of coal or mines granted by the Commission providing for arbitration in the case of any dispute between the Commission and the lessee in respect of any provision of the lease or any matter arising therefrom."
  4.5 p.m.
  The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House has reaffirmed several times that the Coal Commission itself should decide, first, whether leases should be granted; and, second, as to cases of renewal. That was the subject of discussion last night. Now we come to a further and smaller point. This Clause deals with the situation when there is a lease and there is some dispute with regard to some matter in the lease. It is common practice in leases to include some method of resolving difficulties of that kind. It is quite a normal thing in coal leases to make provision for arbitration in these circumstances. We envisage that the Coal Commission should be a model landlord, certainly as good in every way as the best landlords. We think it is reasonable that if there should be a dispute about the carrying out of a provision in a lease, there should be a power of arbitration, as is suggested here. I have no doubt that whether this new Clause is put in or not there would probably be such a provision in the leases, as is generally the case to-day, but it is perhaps desirable that there should he some method of resolving a difficulty of the kind I have indicated.
  4.7 P.m.
  Sir Stafford Cripps: We object to this Amendment on the very simple ground that it is imposing upon the Commission a restriction which is not imposed on the ordinary landlord. It may be that the Commission would wish or would not wish, or that the lessee with whom they are in negotiation would wish or not wish, to have such a provision in the
  622
  lease. If it is part of the general law of the land that such a provision should be included there is no objection to the Commission being governed by that law, but what we object to is a provision such as this, inserted in another place, which puts the Commission in a less advantageous position as landlords than the ordinary landlord. This is only part of the intention to try to cut down and regulate the powers of the Coal Commission in order that they may be in a less free and advantageous position as regards the leases into which they enter. That purpose is shown by the fact that this new Clause was included in a single Amendment with the new Clause C which the House rejected yesterday. That new Clause C was a more stringent form of control imposed upon the Commission, and this is a lesser form. It may be unimportant in one sense; it may not be a matter of very vital importance as to whether the Commission are compelled to do this or not, but the principle of setting up a Commission and then applying to it particular restrictions which are not applied to other people is in our opinion entirely wrong. If you are going to have a Commission and to trust it, it should operate under the ordinary law of the land as regards the granting of leases. It should not be dragooned or hampered by having to include in leases a particular provision which other people are at liberty to include or exclude as they wish. For that reason we shall oppose this Amendment.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: The courts of this country exist in order to do justice as best they can. Parties often agree to arbitration, because in the particular circumstances of cases it is more convenient. Parties sometimes agree to arbitration because they know that the way they propose to carry on their business will not really stand the light of day, and they could not go into a law court. They prefer, therefore, to agree to arbitration. There are two short objections to this new Clause. The first is that it is undesirable that the Legislature should go out of its way to say to an important public body, "Our view is that we had better keep away from the courts and go to arbitration." The second objection is that when noblemen like the particular Noble Lords who are probably responsible for

  623
  this Amendment say, "As we and our like will be taking leases from the Commission and we know that our operations will not stand the light of day, let us have no risk; do not let us trust the Commission about arbitration; let us compel them to put in an arbitration Clause."
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Mitchell: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. I think it is a very reasonable Amendment and I cannot see that the contention of the Opposition is correct. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) contended that the Commission should not be put in a different position from an ordinary landlord. I contend that the Commission is not an ordinary landlord. It is a monopoly landlord and is in a completely different position. For that reason it is most important that people who must go to the Coal Commis
  sion if they wish to have a coal lease, should have a measure of protection. There should be some provision for arbitration. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) objected to an arbitration clause being inserted, and argued that these matters should rather be dealt with by the courts, but as one who is not as familiar with the legal profession as is the hon. and learned Member, and speaking as a member of the commercial community, I say that one of the reasons why people like arbitration clauses is that they find arbitration both cheaper and quicker. As one engaged in the coal industry I personally prefer arbitration. For all these reasons I hope the Government will agree to the Amendment.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 117.

  Division No. 280.]

  AYES.

  [4.14 p.m

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

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

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

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

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

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

  Guest, Lieut.-Coloncl H. (Drake)

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

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)

  Critchley, A.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Assheton, R.

  Cross, R. H.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

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

  Crossley, A. C.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  De la Bère, R.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Denville, Alfred

  Higgs, W. F.

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

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Doland, G. F.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Donner, P. W.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Boulton, W. W.

  Drewe, C.

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

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Hunter, T.

  Broadbridge Sir G. T.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

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

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

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

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Kimball, L.

  Bull, B. B.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

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

  Cartland J. R H

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

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Cary, R. A.

  Everard, W. L.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Lewis, O.

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

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Liddall, W. S.

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

  Furness, S. N.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Lipson, D. L.

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

  Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Loftus, P. C.

  Channon, H.

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

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Goldie, N. B.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  McKie, J. H.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Maonamara, Major J. R. J.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

  Maitland, A.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

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

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

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

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

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Thorneyeroft, G. E. P.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswiek)

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Touche, G. C.

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

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Train, Sir J.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

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

  Salt, E. W.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Munro, P.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

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

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Scott, Lord William

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Owen, Major G.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Peake, O.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  White, H. Graham

  Peat, C. U.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

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

  Petherick, M.

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

  Willoughby de Eresby Lord

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Smiles, Lieut-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Wragg, H.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Radford, E. A.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Major Herbert and Mr. Grimston

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

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

  Price, M. P.

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

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Quibell, D. J. K.

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

  Hayday, A.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Ridley, G.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Riley, B.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Ritson, J.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hicks, E. G.

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

  Barr, J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Batey, J.

  Hollins, A.

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Jagger, J

  Sanders, W. S.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Benson, G

  Kelly, W. T.

  Short, A.

  Broad, F. A.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Silkin, L.

  Bromfield, W.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

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

  Lathan, G.

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

  Buchanan, G.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Burke, W. A.

  Leach, W.

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

  Cape, T.

  Lee, F.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Chater, D.

  Leonard, W.

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Collindridge, F.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Thorne, W.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thurtle, E.

  Dalton, H.

  McGovern, J.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  MacLaren, A.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Marshall, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dobbie, W.

  Mathers, G.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Maxton, J.

  Walker, J.

  Ede, J. C.

  Montague, F.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

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

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

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

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Parker, J.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Grenfell, D. R.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Poole, C. C.

  Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  4.22 p.m.
  Captain Croockshank: I beg to move, "That the said Lords Amendment be
  transferred to the end of line 41,on page 19."
  That is where this Clause should be.
  Sir S. Cripps: I understand that this Motion is necessary because their Lordships did not appreciate where the Clause ought to go. We are very glad to assist them.

  COAL BILL.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Provisions as to obtaining information for purposes of Part I.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 3, leave out from "to" to the end of line 7, and insert:
    "a person having a retained interest and that relate to the premises in which that interest subsists."
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is consequential on the Amendment in page 4, line 32.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Powers of the Commission in relation to underground land other than coal.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 5, after "would," insert" be likely to."
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the following Amendment will change the words in paragraph (e) so that the latter part will read:
    "which, if done, would be likely to cause actual damage other than of a purely nominal amount."
    This Clause refers to the prevention of actions being brought to restrain what would be purely technical trespass through other people's land underground. After consideration it was found that as "substantial" might not prevent a person doing damage of a small, though real, amount, the proper phrase is "other than of a purely nominal amount."
    4.25 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: This is another illustration small in scope, but substantial in reality, of the way in which under this Bill the Commission is step by step being sabotaged, if that is not too strong a word. These words will not so much hamper the Commission as ensure that more money will go out of the public purse into private pockets than would
    628
    otherwise be the case. The position is fairly simple so far as a necessarily complicated Bill like this can make it. The Commission have power themselves, or by licence to give other persons power to do a good many things in the way of underground operations that are necessary. It is then provided that they are not to have the power to interfere with underground operations or with the surface of any land and to do other things provided for in the paragraphs in this Clause, all of which are quite reasonable. As paragraph (e) left this House it was a very sensible and enlightened provision dealing with the difficulties of the law of trespass and, indeed, of nuisance.
    The law of trespass is an all-embracing law which says you can be stopped doing a thing which interferes in any degree with a person or his property. The law of nuisance, while much less strong and definite, is a thing of which great use can be made by adjoining landlords and proprietors of property. Almost everybody knows of the threat of action for nuisance to light, in regard to which the House of Lords gave a sensible decision in another capacity, in which they shine much better, limiting the matter to cases of real damage. For almost half a century the threat of an action for an injunction, designed not so much actually to hold up building operations, but to obtain by something little better than blackmail sums of money from people carrying on building operations, has resulted in the cost of building and rents going up.
    That is a typical illustration of the way in which the law of this country can be used by rich interests to make themselves richer and to make other people poorer. As this paragraph left this House it was really a very enlightened provision. The Commission were told they were not to do any act which, but for this Clause, would be actionable as a trespass or nuisance and which, if it were done, would cause actual damage of a substantial amount. Except that it would have been simpler to say "substantial damage," it was a very good provision. The other place says that you must not do anything which, if it were done, would be likely to cause actual damage other than of a purely nominal amount. That does two things. It gives or preserves a cause of action in a case where the actual damage is likely to cost 42s.,

    629
    because 40s. is nominal damage, so I suppose that 42s. is damage other than a purely nominal amount. It also gives the right not merely when it would cause actual damage, but when it is merely likely to cause actual damage.
    Therefore, the predatory enemy of the Commission being a lessee or owner of some bit of land or interest in land, which enables him in one way or another to come within this proviso, is given the one thing that he ought not to be given. He is given the right to obtain an injunction or the right to threaten to obtain an injunction. Unfortunately, our legal system is so complicated and extensive that to give anybody a right even to threaten an action is to give him a right to hinder and even to hold up the operations of the Commission by threats which he may be willing to withdraw if he is paid a sum of money, provided only that it is large enough. This is essentially a case in which the House ought to stand by its opinions as expressed when this Bill went to another place, and to say, "We made up our minds that the proper thing to do was to get rid of purely technical causes of action, the opportunity of wasting time, of extracting money by threats of action in purely technical matters." This House ought to say, "Persons shall rightly and properly be saved from acts which, if done, would cause substantial damage to them, and not be given the opportunity to employ their lawyers or other agents to hamper the Commission by saying, We do not say it would cause substantial damage; we only say it would be likely to cause substantial damage.'"
    Lawyers ought to welcome it, unless they have some sense of public duty and responsibility, but as it stands it might just as well not be there at all. It enables everything that could be called a trespass or a nuisance—and practically everything can be called a trespass, as practically everybody can be called a nuisance—and so long as the thing is little more than purely nominal the whole dreary business of solicitors, counsel, threats and talk of injunctions, waste of time, and sudden realisation that a plaintiff groaning with indignation is prepared to quench that indignation for £25 or £250, starts its weary round again, as if this House had never expressed an opinion to the contrary. I ask this House to say, "We do not subscribe
    630
    to everything that is selfish, reactionary, and objectionable that another place proposes."
    4.33 P.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: We on this side are getting a little bit tired of never having any answer whatsoever to the arguments put up on these Clauses. Time after time in the course of these Debates we have put up what we consider to be arguments of some value, and then waited, and there has never been a reply upon them, except in one or two isolated cases. Surely when a Minister opens a case of this kind and an argument is put up, as my hon. and learned Friend has put one up, by someone who has at least some understanding of the law, Ministers might at least have the courtesy of pointing out to the House why they think that that argument is wrong, in order that the House might form some opinion upon the merits of the Amendment. This is a case which, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, is a serious matter as regards the future of the Commission. The Commission were protected by this House from having actions and threats brought against them unless there was damage of a substantial kind actually caused, and that is a matter where the onus would have been on the plaintiff to prove his case.
    Now the position is that an act can be done, and it is judged by whether it is actionable or not, and it cannot be done if it can be shown that it can be likely to cause actual damage other than of a purely nominal amount. The Commission would have to show in such a case that purely nominal damages would be done if they did the act. It has shifted the onus from one side to the other, and it has made the criterion, not substantial damage, but other than purely nominal damage. It has made the criterion not whether it would cause damage, but whether it would be likely to cause damage, leaving an enormous area for threats if the Commission want to do something which they consider necessary for the purpose of exerting the rights which this House has given them. It is just this sort of Amendments that one comes across time after time in this Bill, Amendments intended to hamper the Commission and to give a neighbouring landowner a threat of some kind by which he can extort something further from the Commission,

    631
    in order that they may become the mulch cows of the neighbouring landlords, to get what money they can from them. This kind of Amendment is not drafting, but is put in purposely and definitely to benefit landowners who will be adjoining the land of the Commission, and we think Ministers should give some answer to the argument as to the alterations that have been made. Surely prima facie we can assume that the Bill, as it left this House, was a Bill assented to by the Government, and assented to by the House by a majority, but here we find a material alteration, and when arguments are put forward to show the effects of that alteration and that we could not assent to it, we cannot get an answer from the Front Bench opposite.
    4.37 P.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I was waiting until the Debate had concluded, and indeed I was taking down notes of what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was saying. He sees in this an important alteration, but we consider it as merely a change in the form of words to bring them into line with what the House intended. We think this is merely a verbal alteration and that it does not at all affect what is intended, which is merely to prevent any actions being brought to restrain what might be a purely technical trespass of a very minute nature. It has not been put in to hamper the Commission or to assist neighbouring landowners; it has been put in because we thought this was a better form of words to carry out the decision of this House. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will take my assurance that there is no ulterior motive about this, and that we have really tried to bring to the notice of the House any matter which we thought could possibly be of substance.
    Sir S. Cripps: I should be much obliged if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General would advise the House on this matter, as to whether these words do or do not make a difference in this Clause as it left the House.
    4.39 P.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have a fairly clear recollection of the intention of the original Clause when it was before this House on
    632
    the Committee stage, and I think I remember pledging myself—I cannot charge my memory exactly—in the clearest possible terms that the intention of this Clause was to prevent actions being brought against the Commission in what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said was purely technical cases of trespass. The alteration is to the words "would cause actual damage," and surely nobody can pretend that the Commission should be free to do acts which would be likely to cause actual damage. The Committee must have intended that what were to be ruled out were cases in which the act would be likely to cause actual damage. I appreciate the astute eye with which my hon. and learned Friend opposite detects subtle differences here.
    Mr. Pritt: Why put it in?
    The Attorney-General: Because it is a more accurate expression of the intention. The words "would be likely to" carry out the intention which was embodied in the word "would" and carry it out more accurately. With regard to the question of damages "other than purely nominal," I submit that there is no difference, but that it is a more accurate way of framing the intention of the original Clause as it was accepted by this House. What was intended to be done was to protect the Commission against claims of a purely technical kind.
    Sir S. Cripps: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that he would be in the same position if he was told that, on the one hand, he was to receive in a case a substantial fee and, on the other hand, he was to receive something more than a nominal fee?
    The Attorney-General: That just shows the danger of taking words out of their context and putting them in somewhere else. I think it is clear that if we read the word "substantial" in this Clause as it was originally drafted, its meaning was "other than nominal," and the correct words are "other than nominal," because that is the intention of the Clause. I suggest that this is more accurately and more precisely expressing the intention of the original Clause.
    Sir S. Cripps: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman so fully explained the

    633
    Clause to the House on the former occasion, which he remembers so accurately, did he then realise that it was badly drafted and ought to be altered?
    The Attorney-General: No, I expect not. If there is anybody who, on a Bill of this size, magnitude, and complexity, has ever realised all the possible improve-
    ments that could be made in its drafting, he would be a much greater man than I could ever hope to be.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 120.

    Division No. 281.]

    AYES.

    [4.43 p.m.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    McKie, J. H.

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

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Macnamara, Major J. R. L.

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

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Unlv's)

    Elmley, Visconnt

    Maitland, A.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mander, G. Ie M.

    Assheton, R.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

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

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Everard, W. L.

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

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Furness, S. N.

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

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

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chlswick)

    Blair, Sir R.

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

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

    Bossom, A. C.

    Gledhill, G.

    Morgan, R. H.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

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

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Goldie, N. B.

    Munro, P.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Broadbridge, Sir G T.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Woroester)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Gretlon, Co'. Rt. Hon. J.

    Owen, Major G.

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

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Bull, B. B.

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

    Patrick, C. M.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Peake, O.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H.(Drake)

    Peat, C. U.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Petherick, M.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Piokthorn, K. W. M.

    Castlereagh, Visconnt

    Hambro, A. V.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Hannah, I. C.

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

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

    Harris, Sir P. A

    Porritt, R. W.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Channon, H.

    Haslam, Sir J.(Bolton)

    Proctor, Major H. A.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Radford. E. A.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hely-Hutchininson, M. R.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Higgs, W. F.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Remer, J. R.

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

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

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S.(Southport)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

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

    Hunloke, H. P.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Hunter, T.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Hurd, Sir P.A.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Critchley, A.

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

    Salt, E. W.

    Croft, Brig-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Kerr, H.W.(Oldham)

    Samuel M. H. A.

    Crookshank, Capl. H. F. C.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Kerr J Granam (Scottish Univs.)

    Cross, R. H.

    Kimball, L.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Crossley, A. C

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Lamdert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Scott, Lord Willam

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Law, Sir A. J.(High Peak)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

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

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Shaw, Major P. S.(Wavertree)

    De la Bère, R.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shaw, Captain W. T.(Forfar)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lewis, O.

    Shepperson, Sir E.W.

    Denville, Alfred

    Liddall, W. S.

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

    Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Smiles, Lieut-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Doland G. F.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Smith, Braoewell (Dulwich)

    Donner, P. W.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

    Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

    Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Drewe, C.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Spens, W. P.

    Touche, G. C.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Train, Sir J.

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

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

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

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

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Suetor, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Wragg, H

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Wright, wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

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

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Mr. Grimston and Major

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Herbert.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    White, H. Graham

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Poole, C. C.

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

    Hardie, Agnes

    Price, M. P.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hayday, A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Ridley, G.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Riley, B.

    Barr, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ritson, J.

    Batey, J.

    Hollins, A.

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

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Jagger, J.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Benson G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Broad, F. A.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Silkin, L.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

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

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Burke, W. A.

    Leach, W.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cape, T.

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, C.

    Chater, D.

    Leonard, W.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Logan, D. G.

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

    Collindridge, F.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Taylor, R. J, (Morpeth)

    Dalton, H.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thorne, W.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    McGovern, J.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    MacLaren, A.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Marshall, F.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Mathers, G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Ede, J. C.

    Maxton, J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Messer, F.

    Walker, J.

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

    Montague, F.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Gardner, B. W.

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

    Welsh, J. C.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

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

    Westwood, J.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Paling, W.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Parker, J.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

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

    Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 18, line 6, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 8, after Clause 16, insert new Clause E (Coal not to be dealt with to the prejudice of the Commission after passing of this
    Act):
    "As from the date of the passing of this Act until the valuation date, all persons interested in coal or a mine of coal shall be treated as holding their respective interests in a fiduciary capacity for giving effect to the provisions of this Part of this Act, and as being subject accordingly to an obligation to refrain from any dealing therewith (not being a disposition or other dealing which might reasonably have been effected in the ordinary course of business if this Act had not been passed) calculated to give a factitious or artificial value to a holding or to prejudice the
    interests or powers to be acquired by the Commission under this Part of this Act."
    4.53 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    In the Bill there are already two Clauses dealing with what is called the interim period between valuation and the vesting date, and the property is held during that period with certain obligations arising from the sale. This Clause extends to some extent those provisions, of course in favour of the Commission, by saying that from the passage of the Bill the property will be held in a fiduciary capacity, and that really amounts to those

    637
    obligations which come into effect on the valuation date being ante-dated from that date to the date when the Bill passes. I am sure that every one will agree that this is an improvement, and I hope that there will be no difficulty in the minds of anyone about accepting it.
    4.54 p.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: I think this Amendment partially carries out a suggestion which we on this side put forward in an Amendment in another form when the Bill was in Committee, which was rejected by the Government, and we therefore have no objection to this new Clause provided that it is spelt rightly. In the last line but two I presume that the word "factitious" is meant to be "fictitious," because a factitious value would be a very odd thing to come across, while a fictitious value is quite a reasonable thing to find. As their lordships apparently cannot spell we may as well put it right.
    Captain Crookshank: As a matter of fact "factitious" is right.
    Sir S. Cripps: Surely, as it is speaking of value, it must mean a fictitious, or artificial, value. I see that an hon. and learned Member opposite wants to get up to explain the position.
    Mr. Spens: I had the curiosity to look this up in the Oxford Dictionary at lunch yesterday and the two words mean exactly the same thing. "Factitious" comes from facio, and fictitious from fingo, and the meaning in each case is "artificial."
    Sir S. Cripps: If someone so conversant with mining matters and with this legislation as the hon. and learned Gentleman had to resort to the Oxford English Dictionary to find out what the word means I suggest that we put ordinary English into the Bill, and the ordinary English is certainly "fictitious" and not "factitious," and if it means nothing but artificial I suggest that we leave it out altogether, because we have "artificial" in already. I should like to move an Amendment to leave out the words "factitious or."
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid it is too late for the hon. and learned Member to move an Amendment. The Question has been proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Captain Crookshank: To satisfy the hon. and learned Member, the word "factitious," which I understand is perfectly correct in this case, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary means "designedly got up, not natural."
    Sir S. Cripps: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman had to look it up in the dictionary, I may say that I have never come across the word in any legal document or Act of Parliament. I have often come across the word "fictitious." It is really fantastic that we should put into Acts of Parliament words of which nobody in the House knows the meaning until they look in the Oxford English Dictionary. I suggest that we are making fools of ourselves if we do that sort of thing, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of guidance, Is there no way of preventing us making fools of ourselves?
    Mr. Speaker: There are so many that I could not enumerate them.
    Sir S. Cripps: Is it impossible now for anybody to alter this word "factitious" into "fictitious" in this Clause?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that it is too late.
    Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 41, after Clause 17, insert new Clause F—(Power of the Court to appoint receiver and manager on the application of the Commission.)
    "In any proceedings in which the Commission claim to recover possession of premises vested in them from a lessee thereof, or other relief in respect of a breach by the lessee of his obligations under the lease, the Court in which the proceedings are pending may, on the application of the Commission, make such order as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling operations for coal-mining purposes to be carried on on the premises, or for the preservation thereof, during the continuance of the lease and during any period that may elapse between a determination thereof and the granting of a new lease, and the provision to be made by any such order may include the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits of the premises, with liberty, subject to such terms and conditions as the Court may think fit to impose, to manage the undertaking, to use for the purposes of the order any fixed or movable plant or machinery of the lessee in or upon the premises, and to do all such other acts and things as may be or become requisite for those purposes."
    4.57 P.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words:
    "the Court in which the proceedings are pending,"
    and to insert:
    "and in any other case where the premises are or are about to become subject to a coal-mining lease, the Court"
    The object of this Amendment is to assist the Secretary for Mines to attain the objective which he announced yesterday when we were discussing the Amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill by which we proposed to insert the words "continuing employment." He pointed out that it was not necessary to insert those words because this new Clause, put into the Bill in another place, would cover the point we had in view, and he told us that the Commission could at any time go to the Court in a case where a lease was either terminated or about to terminate and get a receiver and manager appointed, and that the manager could then continue the undertaking, and that that provided for the case in which there was sudden termination or the danger of sudden termination of the employment of the workpeople. We put the view—I think the right view—that the new Clause F as drafted did not cover what the Secretary for Mines thought it covered. When our Amendment was turned down by the House, we thought that it was only right and proper that we should put in an Amendment to make the new Clause F actually do what the Minister thought it did, thereby giving him the opportunity of voting for the Clause in the form in which he would like the Clause to be.
    In the original Clause F as inserted by their Lordships,
    "in any proceedings in which the Commission claim to recover possession of premises vested in them from a lessee thereof, or other relief in respect of a breach by the lessee of his obligations under the lease, the court in which the proceedings are pending may, on the application of the Commission, make"—
    certain orders, among them orders for the purpose
    "of enabling operations for coal-mining purposes to be carried on on the premises."
    The Clause at present is limited to cases in which proceedings have been brought before a court by the Commission
    640
    "to recover possession of premises vested in them from a lessee thereof, or other relief in respect of a breach by the lessee of his obligations under the lease."
    The case which we desire to cover is not that in which there are proceedings but in which the lessee, for some reason or other which we discussed at great length yesterday, gives up the lease, and the Commission are met with the difficulty that they cannot continue to produce coal or carry on the operations of coal-mining because they have no power so to do.
    What we suggest in the Amendment is that they should be permitted in such circumstances to make application to the court to appoint a receiver and manager of the empty mine or the mine which may become empty, who should on their behalf be allowed, under conditions made by the court, to carry on the operations so that the Commission would then be able to arrange provisions in the interim whereby the mine might be permanently carried on by a new lessee. It was generally agreed in the House yesterday that that is the only effective way by which you can keep a mine in proper order for letting to a new lessee. If the mine is allowed to become derelict, in the sense that production ceases altogether, you not only diminish the value of the property but you diminish the chance of getting someone to take over the mine for permanent production. This Amendment of ours will get over any difficulty in the Commission permanently carrying on any undertaking. They will be entirely subject to the control of the court as to how long the receiver and manager can continue, and as to the conditions under which he shall operate.
    We suggest this course as a second-best way to getting the Amendment which we moved yesterday. It is a method which will enable the difficulties that we mentioned to be overcome, without any danger whatsoever of infringing the precious principles of Capitalism which this Bill shows to be so inefficient in the carrying on of coal-mining.
    5.5 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given is exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend said yesterday. I have looked at what he said and I see that he started his reference to the Clause which we are now discussing by saying:

    641
    "If there were for the time being a breach of any coal-mining lease."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1938; col. 438, Vol. 338.]
    He made it clear that that applied only in certain circumstances. This is not strictly in order on the discussion that we are having, but I thought it right to make a reference to it.
    In view of some observations which were made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as to the general tendency of the Government in these matters, namely, to limit the power of the Commission, it is perhaps relevant to point out that the Lords Amendment gives the Commission power which they did not possess when the Bill left this House and when there was no power in the Commission to appoint a receiver and manager to carry on the business of coal-mining in any circumstances. It is only right to point out that an Amendment has come from another place which increases the power of the Commission. So attracted is the hon. and learned Gentleman to the lead which has been given to him by another place that he is anxious to carry the matter a little further. I think I can put shortly the position as it was in the Bill.
    Let us take the case of a lease which comes to an end in the normal way, that is to say, at the end of the period for which it has been entered into. The Commission will know in that case when the date is coming, and they will be able to negotiate for a renewal of the lease with the existing lessee; or, if for any reason the existing lessee does not want to continue, and the mine has to continue in working, the Commission will have plenty of time to look round for another lessee to take the place of that lessee. In that case the Bill would operate as it left this House, namely, that no power would be required by the Commission to carry on the working of the mine. The Commission now have a power which they did not have, enabling them to take steps to see that the mine is preserved. The new Clause proposed by their Lordships deals with the covenant in which the lessee is in default. I suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the case which they put yesterday and which we are now considering is that in which the lessee is in default. In all these cases there is a covenant to work the mine, and if the mine is closing down and men are being thrown out of employment,
    642
    there is a breach of the covenant to work. If the colliery is becoming insolvent—it may be in arrear with its rent—and if the mine is continuing in work, there is not a breach.
    Sir S. Cripps: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite right? Suppose these are trustees in bankruptcy?
    The Attorney-General: I am not saying that there may not be such cases, but the normal case contemplated in the speeches made yesterday was that in which there was a breach of the lease by the company. If the mine continues to be worked, men will not be thrown out of employment, whereas if men are being thrown out of employment there will have been a default and a breach of the covenant. There may be other breaches and there may also be arrears of rent. Under the proposed new Clause the Commission will have power to apply to the court for relief against the lessee who, ex hypothesi, is in breach. Relief can be applied for against him and an order can be obtained from the court
    "for the purpose of enabling operations for coal-mining purposes to be carried on on the premises or for the preservation thereof, during the continuance of the lease and during any period that may elapse between a determination thereof and the granting of a new lease."
    That covers the circumstances which were considered yesterday and does, in our view, adopt the right principle, having regard to the principle affirmed in this House that in ordinary circumstances the Commission are not to carry on the business of coal mining. If you find that owing to default by a lessee a mine is not being carried on, any court can order this power to be exercised on the part of the Commission through a receiver and manager.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman would carry it further. He would throw upon the court further jurisdiction, and would provide that where there has been no default against the lessee and where mines are or are about to become not subject to a coal-mining lease, the court might give the Commission permission to exercise that power. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would open up the whole question which we discussed yesterday, because it seeks to cover the period when a coal-mine lease has come to its end in the normal course and when

    643
    the Commission have had months or years of notice to make any arrangements they want to make for the continuance for the working of the coal mine. In those circumstances, their new power would not be exercisable under the new Clause F, in its present form. The other point concerns the words "are about to become." We have to consider in what circumstances, if the lease has come to an end in the normal period, the mine is about to become not subject to a coal-mining lease, because the 60 or 70 years of the lease have run out. The observation which I made just now is relevant. We do not think that in those circumstances a court or anybody else ought to give the power to appoint a manager to work that coal mine. If there has been no default and the lease is about to come to an end, application can be made to the court under the new Clause F as it stands, and if the court thinks it is a proper case—the House knows that application can be made pending proceedings—that position is safeguarded in the Clause as unamended, except in the case which we do not desire to cover, where the lease has come to an end through the effluxion of time.
    I would make one further observation with regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposed Amendment. It would confer, I think, an unusual jurisdiction upon the court. There would be no parties. The Commission would be going to the court to ask the court, on principles on which no particular guidance would be given to them, to decide, without argument or issue or substantial guidance, whether in the circumstances the Commission should appoint a manager. That would be an unusual procedure, because the Order would entitle the manager to use other people's property. For instance, debenture holders might have rights over the property. Very likley the hon. and learned Member would be able to suggest ways of getting over these difficulties, but under the Clause as we have it the parties will be there, and we believe that the Clause, giving this power in case where the lessee is in breach, is a sufficient protection against the evil which has been apprehended of a mine being put out of action merely because the lessee is in default and is unable to continue working. We suggest that the hon. and learned Member's Amendment
    644
    goes far wider than is necessary, that it would contradict a general principle affirmed by the House, and that other difficulties would arise out of it which would make it an impracticable suggestion.
    5.17 p.m.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: We are dealing here with the coal industry, and the legal arguments to which we have listened from both sides of the House indicate that we are dealing with something which is very material. I submit, however, that it can be cut down to very human considerations. I understand that the Attorney-General is prepared to accept the Lords Amendment, which provides for cases in which the lessee is in default. In such cases the Government are prepared to accept the position that the Commission may go to the court, and that the court may, on the evidence, empower the Commission to keep the mine open. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) broadens the Lords Amendment to the extent that, where the lease is expiring or has expired, it would enable the Commission to go to the court for powers to carry on the mine until such time as in their judgment they thought it was expedient to close it, or a new buyer came along.
    I would ask the Attorney-General to look at this matter from the angle from which I am looking at it. It may be that a colliery company decides to give the necessary notice under the lease to discontinue working the mine. That may be due to financial reasons, or it may be due to bad management, but bad management has a very direct connection with financial reasons in the running of any business. The Attorney-General says that in that case the Commission would have sufficient time to look round to get a new lessee. They certainly would have some time to look round, but it does not follow that they would have sufficient time to look round to get a new lessee, and, in the event of a new lessee not coming forward, then, merely because of a fear of putting too much power into the hands of the Commission, the pit is to go out of production, which means in many cases, as some of my hon. Friends on this side know from actual experience, going out of commission for ever. Pumps are drawn, electricity is cut off, everything

    645
    is finished, and the water is allowed to rise. Then it is a matter of great expense to de-water the pit, and you cannot find a lessee willing to come in with sufficient capital to de-water the pit and bring it back into production.
    At the last pit but one where I worked, it was decided, for financial reasons, that it was not possible to carry on any longer. The concern went into voluntary liquidation, a receiver was appointed by the court, and, if I recollect rightly, it was in the hands of the receiver for two years. During that time coal was being produced, everything was kept in perfect order, and then a new lessee came and took the place and we got several more years' work as the result. It meant employment for some 700 or more men and boys, and money coming into the town, which unfortunately, since then, has become more or less derelict. Is the fear of putting too much power into the hands of the Commission a sufficient reason for resisting the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend? The consequences of a pit being closed are only known by those who have been in a district where it has happened. My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would entirely meet such a situation as I have described, and, in view of the fact that the Attorney-General has advanced no valid reason against it, it seems to me that the Amendment should be accepted.
    5.24 p.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: May I, with the leave of the House, make one or two observations on what the Attorney-General has said? As I understand his argument, it is that it is sufficient to make this provision in cases in which a lessee is in breach of his obligations. I cannot, however, understand the mentality that would determine the possibility of the continued employment of, say, 1, 000 men at a pit by whether or not a lessee is technically in breach. That is what it comes to. It means saying to the men, "Your possibility of continuing in work and not being scrapped will depend upon the technical question whether a breach was committed before the lease was given up." That is the attitude of the Attorney-General. Take the case of a trustee in bankruptcy who, perfectly legally, disowns the lease, as he has full right to do, and the rights under the lease are re-vested, at perhaps very short notice, in the Commission. The
    646
    Attorney-General would say that that is a case in which the Commission have no right, the men have no right, nobody has any right, because it so happens that the bankruptcy law has allowed a trustee in bankruptcy to disown the lease.
    If it is right, where there is a breach of the lease, for the courts to have power to order the appointment of a receiver and manager to carry on the mine, surely there cannot be an conceivable objection, if the lease is disowned by a bankrupt, to following exactly the same procedure. There is no difficulty whatsoever as regards the procedure. An application can be made to the court for the appointment of a receiver and manager, and the court will have to be satisfied by proper evidence, as it always has to be satisfied in these cases, that the receiver is the right man, properly qualified to receive and manage the property, able to put up a bond, and all the other things which are necessary; and they will have to be satisfied that the circumstances are such as to entitle them, under the general policy laid down by the Act, to appoint a receiver. Clearly, in a case such as the Attorney-General cites, where a lease runs out in the ordinary course, they would not dream of appointing a receiver, because they would say there were no circumstances which made it necessary or proper to do so. But even in a case where the lease does run out, supposing that negotiations for the new lease are just ready for the new lessee to take on without cessation, and something happens as a result of which the negotiations cannot be completed by the time the old lessee goes out, so that there is a gap of a week, a fortnight, or a month, nothing at all can be done to keep the pit going during that period.
    We are not so concerned with the question of the condition of the property; we are vitally concerned with the men, and we are most anxious, under such safeguards as are considered necessary, to make a provision by which, in such circumstances, somebody has the power to say that the case is one in which it is proper that the men should not be thrown out of work for a fortnight, or a month, or whatever the period may be. If there is no provision unless a lessee is found to be in breach, you are compelled to start proceedings against him, whether you want to do so or not, in order to get a receiver and manager

    647
    appointed. In many cases there may be a technical breach of some kind on account of which you would not dream of proceeding to an action, because it would be perfectly useless and simply throwing good money after bad. But in such a case you would be forced to start proceedings, because otherwise you could not get the relief asked for. We ask the House to insert these words, so that this protection may be given to the men. It will always be under the control of the courts, and it is perfectly certain, in view of the terms of the Bill, that the courts will not be in the least likely in any case to extend the conditions in which they will appoint a receiver and manager so as to allow the Commission to carry on permanently under the cloak or guise of a manager-ship. For these reasons, we ask the House to support the Amendment.
    5.29 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might make a very brief reply to the speeches which have been made. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) put the case in which a colliery company went into liquidation and the mine was carried on by a receiver until a new lessee appeared. That will be just as possible under this Bill as it was when the coal was in private hands. If a colliery company were in liquidation, a receiver would be appointed, who could carry on in exactly the same way, and there is nothing in the Lords Amendment to prevent that happening.
    With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, the one example which he put against my argument was the case of a disclaimer by a trustee in bankruptcy. I cannot think that that is a case which would prevent application under this Clause. Trustees in bankruptcy do not descend, so to speak, instantaneously. They are the unfortunate result of previous events: a process of insolvency, the filing of a petition and so on. I cannot but think that, prior to the appointment of a trustee in bankruptcy and a disclaimer of the kind described, there would have been a default, and investigation would have been made and, one way or another, an arrangement would have been made. For those reasons, I do not think this Amendment should be accepted.
    5.32 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: I would commend this as the lamest explanation given by His Majesty's Government on either a small or a large point. Let us take this case. A man or a partnership is running a pit. They hold on as long as they can without disclosing that they are in difficulties. The last thing they want to do is to ruin their asset—or the asset of their creditors—by closing the pit. Then the crash comes. Everybody who has even an elementary knowledge of bankruptcy law knows that the matter is not made public until it reaches a certain stage. First the bankrupt, before he becomes bankrupt, and then his trustee in bankruptcy, will, at all reasonable costs, keep the pit running. But then they come to a Friday, let us say, when they see that they can no longer keep it running. They give their notices, and finally out they go. At the same moment the trustee in bankruptcy disclaims. The law says that that is an absolutely lawful thing to do. It involves no breach by anybody. There never having been a default—because of the necessary sensible commercial effort to keep going—the law steps in and says to the trustee in bankruptcy that it is right in the general interest that whereas the bankrupt could never say "I am walking out on this lease and dropping it without default," the trustee may say that he is walking out without default.
    The instance given by my hon. and learned Friend was not one which merely might happen or could be avoided. It is practically certain in every case. Therefore, you will get the position that in practically every bankruptcy of a firm or an individual the trustee in bankruptcy will disclaim, and the Commission will have to say: "Thanks to the wisdom of the Attorney-General on 7th July, 1938, we are absolutely compelled to say that this asset shall go to minor, or perhaps major, ruin."
    With regard to the other illustration given by my hon. and learned Friend, what possibility there is of answering that is best gauged by the fact that the Attorney-General, who spoke again with the leave of the House, wisely left it unanswered. What amazes me about the whole thing is that hour after hour, on Amendment after Amendment, it is pointed out to the Government that they are sabotaging this Bill, and the Government

    649
    either say nothing or say, "We do not think we are," when it is plain to everybody that they are. It is perfectly obvious that either they are terrified of Lord Cromwell, terrified of the coalowners, or that they do not know what they are doing.
    5.36 p.m.
    Mr. R. Acland: I intervene with some diffidence in this controversy to say how it appears to me as a layman. Hon. and learned Member on this side say that the words they propose to introduce will, in some cases, be useful. I thought they made out a very strong case from that point of view. The Attorney-General answered them by saying that no circumstances would arise in which the words they propose to introduce could be of any use. While he was speaking I was carried away by his argument. It seemed to me that he was right. Subsequently it seemed to me that the legal arguments on this side were a little stronger.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): That is why you are on those benches.
    Mr. Acland: Someone not versed in the law may be excused if he is carried one way by one hon. and learned Gentleman on that side and then the other way by another hon. and learned Gentleman on this side. But the Attorney-General did not suggest that these words could in any circumstances do any harm. He has once or twice asked us to support the Lords in inserting words into the Bill on the ground that the insertion of those words could not do any harm. If one hon. and learned Gentleman thinks these words may be useful and another thinks they will not, surely the House ought to insert the words unless some argument is brought before us to suggest that the words in certain circumstances could do any harm.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes. 135.

    Division No. 282.]

    AYES.

    [5.38 p.m.

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

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

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Furness, S. N.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. C.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Colfox, Major W. P.

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

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Gledhill, G.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

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

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Assheton, R.

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

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

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

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Greene, W. P. C. (Wercester)

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Cross, R. H.

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Blair, Sir R.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Hannah, I. C.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

    Boulton, W. W.

    De la Bère, R.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Denville, Alfred

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Doland, G. F.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmoutn)

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

    Donner, P. W.

    Higgs, W. F.

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

    Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Bull, B. B.

    Drewe, C.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Elmley, Viscount

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

    Cary, R. A.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Hunloke, H. P.

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

    Errington, E.

    Hunter, T.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Channon, H.

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

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

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Everard, W. L.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Kimball, L.

    Peat, C. U.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Petherick, M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Spens, W. P.

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

    Porritt, R. W.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Procter, Major H. A.

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

    Lewis, O.

    Purbrick, R.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Liddall, W. S.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Liewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

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

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Remer, J. R.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Touche, G. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Train, Sir J.

    McKie, J. H.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Macnamara, Major J. R. L.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Maitland, A.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Warrender, Sir V.

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Walerhouse, Captain C.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

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

    Salt, E. W.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

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

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Scott, Lord William

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Morgan, R. H.

    Shakespeare, G. H

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

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

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Munro, P.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Wragg, H.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    TELLERSFOR THE AYES.—

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Captain Dugdale and Major Sir

    Peake, O.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    James Edmondson.

    NOES.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Montague, F.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

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

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Adamson, W. M.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Groves, T. E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal)

    Owen, Major G.

    Barr, J

    Hardie, Agnes

    Paling, W.

    Batey, J.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Parker, J.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Hayday, A.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

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

    Benson, G.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Poole, C. C.

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Price, M. P.

    Bromfield, W.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

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

    Hollins, A.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Buchanan, G.

    Jaggar, J.

    Ridley, G.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Riley, B.

    Cape, T.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Ritson, J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

    Chater, D.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helena)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lathan, G.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Collindridge, F.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Sexton. T. M.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Leach, W.

    Short, A.

    Dalton, H.

    Lee, F.

    Silkin, L.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Leonard, W.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Davies, R. J.(Westhoughton)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Day, H.

    Lunn, W.

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

    Dobbie, W.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McEntee, V. La T.

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

    Ede, J. C.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    McGovern, J.

    Stephen, C.

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

    MacLaren, A.

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

    Frankel, D.

    Marshall, F.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mathers, G.

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

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Maxton, J.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Messer, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Milner, Major J.

    Thorne, W.

    652

    653

    Thurtle, E.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Tinker, J. J.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Viant, S. P.

    Westwood, J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    White, H. Graham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Watkins, F. C.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Amendments of working facilities enactments.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 8, after "that" insert:
    "(a) This Sub-section shall not apply to the granting of a right required by reason of the subsistence of a retained copyhold interest; and (b)."
    5.48 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is consequential on the Amendment which was agreed to yesterday with regard to a copyholder's rights. Now that his rights in coal, whatever they may be, will not pass to the Commission these rights must be taken out of Subsection (1), which provides that an application in respect of coal can no longer be made to the Railway and Canal Commission.
    Sir S. Cripps: We take the same objection to this as we have to the whole of the copyhold procedure. We do not propose to vote against it nor to delay the House.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Reduction by the Commission of rents.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 8, at the end, insert:
    "any of the following at the discretion of the Commission, that is to say."
    5.49 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    We had considerable discussion at one time as to whether the three kinds of rents which could be reduced, and are in Sub-section (2) of Clause 21, were to be taken in that order or not, and I expressed the view at the time that the Commission could choose which of them they wished. The Amendment is introduced in order to make that quite clear, if there are any doubts anywhere. It
    clears up the point, about which there is some doubt.
    Sir S. Cripps: If my recollection serves me, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not state that it was necessary to put in these words. I do not know whether he has been advised since.
    Captain Crookshank: I stand by the position as it was before. So long as there are still people left in doubt about it, the Amendment is necessary.
    Sir S. Cripps: Again a lower standard of intelligence is expected from the other place.
    Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 38, leave out from "leases" to "the," in line 40.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is consequential on the alterations made yesterday to Clause 10.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Purposes for which the Commission may borrow.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 10, at the end, insert:
    "(c) the payment of the sum payable by the Commission under this Act to the Board of Trade in respect of the expenses incurred by the Board under the Registration Act."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I have to direct the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The provisions of Clause 23 in the Bill as it left us dealt with the expenses of the Commission, and the insertion of this paragraph means that the Commission may borrow for payment, if necessary.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: An entry will be made in the journal of the House.
    Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 22, at the end, insert:
    "(e) the payment of the sums payable by the Commission in respect of assignments to them of debts due in respect of rent payable before the vesting date."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment also raises a question of Privilege.
    5.53 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    We discussed the question yesterday at great length about the assignment of debts in respect of rents payable, and this merely gives power in order to borrow to pay for them.
    Sir S. Cripps: I do object to the Lords dealing with finance in this way. Empowering a body to borrow to pay other people's bad debts seems to be about the most unsound kind of finance. Perhaps it is the sort of finance with which their Lordships who are interested in this Bill are familiar. We shall, therefore, oppose this Amendment on the principle that the Lords ought not to interfere with the Privilege of this House as regards financial matters, and also because it seems to us thoroughly unsound finance.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 140.

    Division No. 283.]

    AYES.

    [5.53p.m.

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

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Hulbert, N. J.

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

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Hunter, T.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    De la Bère, R.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

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

    Denville, Alfred

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

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

    Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)

    Doland, G. F.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Donner, P. W.

    Kimball, L.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Assheton, R.

    Drewe, C.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G

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

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

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

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lewis, O.

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lindsay, K. M.

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

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Errington, E.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Everard, W. L.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

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

    Furness, S. N.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

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

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    McKie, J. H.

    Bull, B. B.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Oiley)

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

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

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Gledhill, G.

    Macnamara, Major J. R. J.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Maitland, A.

    Cary, R. A.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Grant-Ferris, R.

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

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Marsden, Commander A.

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

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Channon, H.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Hambro, A. V.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Hannah, I. C.

    Morgan, R. H.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

    Palmer, G. E. H.

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

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Peake, O.

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

    Higgs, W. F.

    Peat, C. U.

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Holmes, J. S.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Petherick, M.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Cross, R. H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Crossley, A. C.

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

    Porritt, R. W.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southtport)

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Radford, E. A.

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Touche, G. C.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

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

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Reld, W. Allan (Derby)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Remer, J. R.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Water-house, Captain C.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Spens, W. P.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Russell, Sir Alexander

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

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

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

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Salt, E. W.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Wragg, H.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Scott, Lord William

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Mr. Munro and Major Sir James

    Edmondson.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Groves, T. E.

    Poole, C. C.

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

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

    Price, M. P.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Ridley, G.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hayday, A.

    Riley, B.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Ritson, J.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Benson, G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Hollins, A.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jagger, J.

    Silverman, S. S.

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

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

    Burke, W. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cape, T.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Chater, D.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stephen, C.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lathan, G.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Cooks, F. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Collindridge, F.

    Leach, W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Dalton, H.

    Leonard, W.

    Thorne, W.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Day, H.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tomilnson, G.

    Dobbie, W.

    McGhee, H. G

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McGovern, J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Ede, J. C.

    MacLaren, A.

    Walker, J.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Marshall, F.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Maxton, J.

    Watson, W. McL.

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

    Messer, F.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Foot, D. M.

    Milner, Major J.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Frankel, D.

    Montague, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Gardner, B. W.

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

    White, H. Graham

    Garro Jones, G. M.

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Paling, W.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Parker, J.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Pearson, A.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

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

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 27, line 32, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Restriction on working of coal vested in statutory undertakers.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 2, leave out "commencement" and insert "date of the passing."
    6.0 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Sir S. Cripps: Why do the other place object to the word "commencement"? Is it because of its French origin?
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 32, line 4, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 35.—(Limitation of costs payable in case of disputes between adverse claimants.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 7, after "Commissioner" insert:
    "other than the provisions of Section ten of this Act."
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Amendment is consequential on the alteration that has been made in Clause 10.
    6.3 p.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not certain that this alteration is necessitated by the amendment of Clause 10. This Clause makes provision as regards the limitation of costs payable in disputes between adverse claimants, and it is an over-riding provision which covers the whole of this part of this Bill and the Registration Act. The Clause provides that with respect to the payment of costs by the Commission the provisions of this part of this Act and of the Registration Act shall have effect subject to a limitation. That is to say, the liability shall not extend to costs incurred after the date of the passing of the Act that are occasioned by any proceedings for the determination of disputes between adverse claimants.
    I do not see why, because in Clause 10 a code of costs has been laid down, that code should not also be subject to this over-riding exception, that the Commission should not have to pay costs as between adverse claimants. If it is said that cases are not likely to arise under Clause 10 as it is now drafted in which adverse claimants will have costs against
    660
    one another, then there is no reason for inserting this exception. We take the view that there is no reason why the Commission should pay costs as between adverse claimants. They have to pay under various Clauses, but in no circumstances should they have to pay the costs as between adverse claimants. Surely, it is perfectly fair and just to say that, however much they may have to pay the costs of claimants, they should not have to pay costs solely incurred by virtue of two adverse claimants engaging in proceedings one against the other.
    6.6 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: This matter arises from difference of machinery after the Amendment that we passed yesterday. Under the old machinery the conception was that there would be two leases drawn up, one dealing with coal rights and the other with surface rights, and the costs in connection with those leases were to be borne by the Commission, As I explained yesterday, under the new procedure there will be no new leases but an apportionment of the rent under the old lease. In case of dispute it arises necessarily from the vesting under the Act. It is a dispute as between adverse claimants by reason of the vesting of the Act, and it is therefore right that the provision in the present Amendment should be made.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 37, line 25, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 40.—(Interpretation of Part I.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 39, at the end, insert:
    " 'mortgage' includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth."
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    There is no definition of mortgage as such in the definition Clause, and we consider it advisable to put it in.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 39, line 24, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 41.—(Application of Part I to Scotland.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 42, leave out "and 'freeholder' means such a proprietor."
    6.9 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. James Reid): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the following Amendments are intended to apply other Amendments to Scotland and are necessitated by changes made in the substance of the Bill.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 39, line 43, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 1, leave out from "under lease" to "an," in line 2, and insert:
    "and sub-demise means sub-lease; any reference to a lease or,".
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a consequential Amendment.
    Mr. Pritt: Surely, the combined efforts of this House and another place ought to be able to produce something less slovenly than the words:
    "an under lease derived out of another lease shall be construed as a reference to a sublease, etc."
    How can an under-lease be a reference to a sub-lease?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I must confess that I had some doubt about the wording when I looked at it, but on reading it it seemed to me that it was in order. However, I will look at it again.
    Mr. Pritt: The words should be "a reference to any lease shall be construed as a reference, etc."
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The words as now inserted are:
    "Any reference to a lease or an underlease derived out of another lease shall be construed as a reference to a sub-lease granted by a superior lessee."
    I think the hon. and learned Member has omitted to notice that there has already been put in the words:
    "Sub-demise means sub-lease; any reference to a lease or."
    I think that may clear up the matter.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member opposite will be
    662
    satisfied now that he has been assisted to a solution by his brother lawyer.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 40, line 7, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 15, leave out "or the Court of Appeal."
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Gibson: Some difficulty arises here. It is in this Clause that you get any reference to the High Court or the Court of Appeal. In the body of the Bill the reference, so far as I have been able to discover, is to the court, not to the High Court. The term "court" is not defined in Clause 40, and in a previous Lords Amendment it was a reference to the court not to the High Court. In a section of the Clause there is a reference to "the court in which proceedings are pending," and in Clause 9, Subsection (3), there is also a reference to "the court" which makes a declaration. It is not the High Court. Accordingly it seems to me that the Lords Amendment should read "the court" and not the Court of Appeal.
    6.16 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think the matter is plain. Where there is a reference in the Bill to "the court" there is no need to translate, and in Scotland "the court" means the Court of Session.
    Mr. Gibson: It is always a matter of definition.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, I think not. It is plain that where there is a reference in the Bill to "the court," and nothing more is said, there is no need to translate it, because a reference to "the court" in a Scottish Act is an intelligible reference. The difference is where it is a reference to the High Court. It is true that in the Clauses to which the hon. and learned Member has referred, the reference is to "the court," but there are references, particularly in the Schedule, to the High Court. We have no High Court in Scotland and, therefore, it means the Court of Session.

    663
    The reason why the Court of Appeal is taken out of the Bill is because there is no reference in the Bill to the Court of Appeal.
    Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 17, at the end, insert:
    "and for any reference to a receiver of the rents and profits of premises there shall be substituted a reference to a judicial factor.
    (7) Any question which is required in pursuance of this Act to be referred to arbitration shall be referred to a single arbiter agreed on by the parties or appointed in default of agreement by the sheriff;
    (8) In any arbitration in pursuance of this Act, the arbiter may, and, if so directed by the Court of Session, shall, state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in the arbitration."
    6.18 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 7, to leave out "sheriff," and to insert "Lord President of the Court of Session."
    The reason for moving this Amendment is because in a number of other Clauses in the Bill there is a provision for the Lord President of the Court of Session to act as the nominator of the arbiter in certain matters, and under this provision any question in law will ultimately come to the Court of Session, not to the sheriff. Therefore, for both these reasons it is more appropriate that the arbiter should be appointed by the Lord President rather than by the sheriff.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
    Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 30, leave out Sub-section (9).
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, "That this House doth agre with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is, a drafting Amendment made necessary by alterations in the Bill. There being no longer any Clause 5 in its original form, it is not necessary to translate.
    Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 26 at the end, insert:
    "(15) The aggregate of the values of (a) any coal or mine of coal and any property and rights vested in the Commission by virtue of this Act, and (b) any erections or structural improvements used exclusively for the purpose of working or cleaning such coal, entered in any Valuation Roll or Supplementary Valuation Roll for any period ending after the vesting date, shall not exceed the value or values at which such coal, mine of coal, property and rights and such erections or improvements would have been so entered if this Act had not passed, and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section six of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, as amended by any subsequent enactment, no entry shall be made in any such roll in respect of erections or structural improvements used exclusively for the purpose of working or cleaning coal by reason only of the fact, that in consequence of the vesting of the coal in the Commission under this Act, the land on which the said erections or structural improvements are situated is not included in the lease of the coal."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This new Sub-section is rendered necessary by a doubt expressed in another place as to the possible effects on rating of the changes made by this Bill. The doubt was whether the severance of coal from the surface might in certain circumstances render the annual rateable value of the subject higher than it would have been if matters had been left as before. It is not the intention of the Government that the result of the Bill should be to increase the burden of the local rates, end therefore, this Sub-section is put in with a view of obviating any possibility of that occurring.
    Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

    CLAUSE 43.—(Duty of the Commission to reduce number of coal-mining under takings where necessary in interests of efficiency.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 33, after "inadequate," insert:
    "and such report shall set forth the proposals of the Commission in regard to that area and the advantages which are expected to follow therefrom."
    6.21 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    We now pass from the question of royalties to the other functions of the Commission. The House will recollect that the Commission have certain duties cast upon them in regard to the reduction of undertakings, and as the Bill left this House the Commission, if they considered that adequate progress had not been made in that direction, could make a report to the Board of Trade and recommend that their powers to submit amalgamation schemes should become exercisable in the area which they specified in their report as one in which the reduction was inadequate. These words clearly give some idea of what the report should contain. It says that in the report they should set forth their proposals with regard to the area, and the advantages which they expected to follow from amalgamation. As a matter of fact, it is hard to imagine that a statutory Commission of this kind in submitting a report to the Board of Trade as a result of which action is to be taken, would not give in outline what they intended and what they hoped would follow from the action. At some stage it will have to be done, because Parliament itself will want to be satisfied. This makes it clear that in our opinion it is better it should be done at the earliest possible moment.
    6.23 p.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: This seems to go on the principle that "The child wants the toy; why not let him have it." There seems to be no purpose in this Amendment, and if it had been proposed from this side of the House I can tell the Secretary for Mines exactly what he would have been advised to say. He would have said that to pick out two special matters like this and particularise them is quite wrong and very dangerous, because it might be said that they are the only two matters which need be put in the report, and he would beg the House not to pass so foolish an Amendment, because if you limit what shall be put in the report it will become the maximum rather than the minimum. On those grounds he would advise the House very strongly to reject the Amendment. Now as it comes from his master's voice, he says that we had better accept it.
    6.24 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I think the hon. and learned Member misses the point which is really relevant, and that is that under the Bill Parliament has to be satisfied. Therefore, his argument does not really touch the point.
    Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 42, at the end, insert:
    "in manner proposed by such report with such modifications (if any) as the said Board may think fit and within such period as may be prescribed by such Provisional Order."
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is to say that after receiving the recommendations of the Commission the Board of Trade may bring a report before Parliament with recommendations, and it is to make it clear that the Board of Trade may in submitting a Provisional Order to Parliament modify the proposals recommended by the Commission. It also requires that the Order itself shall prescribe the period within which the compulsory powers shall be exercised. That is a reasonable provision, because I do not think Parliament will want to pass an Order and then have it left in cold storage in the offices of the Commission, and people who may be expected to come into the scheme not know whether it was going to be carried out this year or next year. The Amendment is an improvement on the Bill and does not do anything contrary to the intentions of this House.

    CLAUSE 44.—(Powers of the Commission as to obtaining information for purposes of Part II.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 21, at the beginning, insert:
    "Where information is required by the Commission for the discharge of the functions to be performed by them by virtue of this Part of this Act and the Commission consider it necessary for the purpose of obtaining such information to cause an inspection to be made at any premises used in connection with the carrying on of a coal-mining undertaking the Commission may after serving upon the persons carrying on the undertaking a notice showing the general nature of the information required, authorise in writing."
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    We now come to the powers of the Commission to obtain information. Under the Bill as it left this House any member or officer or technical agent appointed by the Commission and authorised by the Commission to make inquiries for the purpose of securing information, could enter premises and take copies of whatever might be necessary, and any person who obstructed him in the exercise of these powers to get information was guilty of an offence. This is a slight limitation and it is a limitation which, as a matter of fact, several hon. Members voiced in this House. They fear that the Commission might authorise some person who would have a kind of completely roving commission and be able to look at all sorts of information of great interest, but which was not necessary for the actual purpose in hand. Therefore, this Amendment says that where the Commission require information to discharge their duties and where they consider it necessary to cause inspection to be made, they shall serve notice on the persons carrying on the undertaking to say what is the general nature of the information required. That would seem to be a reasonable thing to do, and obviously it is what, in fact, the Commission would do. They would not be likely to swoop down on a colliery undertaking without giving any notice. This Amendment would not limit the Commission as to how often it made such an inspection; it would not limit it to any great extent; and in any case, if anybody obstructed the Commission or refused to divulge information, the powers which have been taken under the Bill to safeguard such a position are quite untouched.
    6.31 p.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: Hon. Members on this side strongly object to this Amendment. It was very interesting to hear the Secretary for Mines give all the reasons which were given in a former Debate by other hon. Members and which he so strenuously rejected then as being thoroughly unsound. Now, at the bidding of his master's voice, he becomes the parrot for those very arguments which at that time were turned down decisively by the Board of Trade and the Mines Department. There is one important matter which is contained in this Amendment. The opportunity of ascertaining by inspection
    668
    the particular breach which is suspected—and probably the usual case in which there would be an inspection would be a breach of lease—
    Captain Crookshank: I must make one thing clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are now discussing Part II of the Bill, and the powers of the Corn-mission for purposes of compulsory amalgamations.
    Sir S. Cripps: Where the Commission is the sole lessor, as it will be in the case of all these properties, it will have powers, will it not, as lessor, under its leases, to enter upon the premises of its lessees in order to ascertain whether there has been a breach? This Amendment is cutting that down. It is not in this Clause that they have that power. This is an absolute provision.
    Captain Crookshank: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again. The provision says:
    "the discharge of the functions to be performed by them in virtue of this Part of this Act."
    Sir S. Cripps: It is contemplated that the Commission will have these inspectors. They will operate not only for one Part of the Act, but presumably for the Commission generally. They will not go to a mine on one day and say that they are acting under Part I of the Act, and on another day, under Part II of it; they will go to a mine for the purpose of making an inspection, ascertaining facts, seeing plans, or whatever it may be, in a dual capacity. They will not be able to divide up their functions between Part I and Part II, unless there is to be great expense placed upon the Commission. Therefore, I assume that if one of these inspectors goes to a mine in Lancashire, he will go there to carry out all these functions. He will not go to a mine on one day and say that he is a Part I inspector, and then go again on the next day and say that he is a Part II inspector. If that is done, it will lead to enormously increased expense. What this provision says is that the inspector, or the mineral agent, when he goes to a mine to carry out his functions equally under both Parts of the Act, will have to give notice to the lessee, who will be the lessee of the Commission. Therefore, the lessee will always be told in advance when the inspector is coming.

    669
    If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Commission is going to run its business so that the inspectors will be kept separate and will aways be operating either under Part I or Part II, the point which I am raising will not arise in practice; but if it is to be run as a practical business proposition, the inspector must carry out both functions when he is inspecting a pit. In that case, such an inspector or agent will have always to notify a pit or a colliery company in advance that he is coming and the general nature of the information which, under Part II, he requires. I cannot see why that notification should be given. Why cannot the mineral agent who is going round for the purpose of ascertaining facts as regards Part I or Part II, when he goes to a colliery on Part I business, also say to the manager, "While I am here, you might let me see the plans for the purpose of some amalgamation scheme." He will not be able to do that under this provision. I cannot see the value of this Amendment, except to hamper the Commission in the performance of their duties under Part II, which no doubt is the object of the Amendment.
    I cannot see the object of putting in this requirement that notice should be given in advance not only that the inspector is coming, but also of the general nature of the information that is required by him. When this matter was discussed in the House before, all sorts of limiting suggestions were put forward and the Government rejected all of them, because they said that it was necessary, for the efficient carrying on of the business of the Commission, that they should have powers as in Clause 44, Sub-section (1). Now the other place wants to make it more difficult for the Commission to work Part II, and the Government say that it is advisable to accept this Amendment.
    6.36 p.m.
    Mr. Holdsworth: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made quite clear what he thinks should be the powers of the Commission. Surely, it cannot be suggested that if the Commission send a representative to a mine for the specific purpose provided for in Part II, namely, to make an examination from the point of view of an amalgamation, they should be able to use that power for every other purpose under the Bill. I should like
    670
    to be informed by the Attorney-General whether the Commission would have the right, having got this power for the specific purpose which is made quite plain in this Part of the Bill, to make use of that power for any other purposes. This Part of the Bill deals specifically with amalgamations, and it should be made quite clear that those representatives will not have a roving commission which will enable them to do exactly as they like as regards every Part of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, in the speech which he has just made, made quite clear what are his political opinions; he wants the inspectors, under this provision, to be able to do almost anything. I should have thought that the power which we are now discussing had particular reference to amalgamations.
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. James Griffiths: I think my hon.and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made it clear that, since the Commission are to be the owner of all the minerals, they ought to have the right to examine their own property without going through these formalities. Clause 44, as it left this House, gave to any member or officer of, or technical or professional agent appointed by, the Commission, the power to examine a colliery, and all that was required was that he should be authorised in writing by the Commission to represent it. Having such an authorisation in writing, he could go to the colliery and would be empowered to carry out all the examinations involved in Sub-section (1) or any part of them. Presumably, the Commission would do that when they were considering a project for reorganisation or amalgamation. In such a case, it would be essential for the Commission to have available to it all the information necessary to arrive at a sound decision.
    Therefore, the Commission ought to be empowered to seek their own information in their own way, and to send their inspectors to ask for books to be produced when they arrive, and not to have to write and ask for the books to be produced two months hence. I remember that when I was in a pit, as a boy, there was on one occasion feverish activity; everything was being cleaned up. I asked what was going to happen, and I learned that it was in anticipation

    671
    of an inspector arriving. If the Commission are to be compelled to give notice in advance and to say that in a week's time their agent is going to a colliery to examine the books or to look over the colliery, everything will be prepared. Surely, the Commission ought to have full power to make test audits and test inspections as they require, and I do not think they will be able to do their business properly unless they have such a power. We are setting up this Commission, and I have already expressed very grave doubts—
    Mr. Holdsworth: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Griffiths: I was not doubtful for the same reasons as the hon. Member; he is the only hon. Member remaining who wants no interference with private enterprise. I respect his opinions. He is the only real representative of private enterprise in the House.
    Mr. Holdsworth: I do not object to the hon. Member's description of me, and I make no apology for believing in private enterprise, but I remember that on the Committee stage, the hon. Member was very doubtful about these amalgamations. He suggested to the House that at any moment a person representing the Commission might go to a colliery, take the books, and form an opinion about an amalgamation without the people concerned having a proper opportunity of putting the full facts before him, because they had not had notice beforehand. Seeing that the hon. Member was doubtful about these amalgamations for that reason, would it not be better that notice should be given so that the people concerned would have proper time to get everything ready?
    Mr. Griffiths: I was doubtful about the amalgamations because I did not want the Commission to arrive at a decision on information given to them which they had no means of checking and verifying. The Commission will have very grave responsibilities. They will decide upon schemes, and they will have to send a report to Parliament. Presumably, long before they take advantage of the powers under this Clause, they will have had reports before them and will have considered whether it is in the interests of the industry and the nation that there should be an amalgamation. They will
    672
    have certain information before them, particulars of the output, and so on, and they will want to check that information. If this Amendment is accepted, will there be any power in the Bill which will enable the Commission to send an officer to make an examination on the spot without giving any notice? Surely, it is right that the Commission should have that power. As the Secretary for Mines knows, an inspector, for the purpose of safety in mines, has the right, which is essential for his job, to arrive at a colliery and to go down without asking anybody's permission. Surely, the representative of the Commission ought to have that power as well. Under the Clause, he must be authorised in writing by the Commission, and when he is so authorised, he will be representing the Commission, which represents the nation. I urge the House, in the interests of the Commission and the work which it has to perform that the Commission should have that power. The original Clause provides—
    "Any member or officer of or technical or professional agent appointed by the Commission, authorised in writing by the Commission to make inquiries on their behalf as to any coal-mining undertaking … may for the purpose of obtaining information required by them for the discharge of the functions to be performed by them by virtue of this part of this Act enter any premises," etc.
    If the Amendment is accepted then where information is required by the Commission for the discharge of its functions and where the Commission consider it necessary to cause an inspection of premises to be made they
    "may after serving upon the persons carrying on the undertaking a notice showing the general nature of the information required authorise in writing"
    any of the persons previously mentioned to make inquiries on their behalf. We suggest that it is essential that the Commission should have the power to go to any undertaking and to make a test. Suppose that having asked for and obtained this information they are not satisfied that it is correct. Suppose that it is information about the pit itself, about its equipment, about the coal seams and so forth and that they are not satisfied of its accuracy. Then under the original Clause they would have had the right to authorise a person to make investigations on their behalf but if we accept the Amendment they will have no such right. In that

    673
    respect the Commission will be handicapped. They ought to have the full power intended by the original Clause.
    6.48 p.m.
    Sir Geoffrey Ellis: This Part of the Bill relates to amalgamations and amalgamations alone, and from the practical point of view it is better, both for the person who is making the inspection and for those in charge of the colliery undertaking, that the details should be put down on paper before the inspector arrives. If that is done a great deal of trouble will be saved. The inspectors will not be prevented from getting information. On the contrary they are much more likely to get all the information they want and to get it more quickly if they put down on paper, clearly, what they want. As regards Part I of the Bill there are other powers and other means of getting information, but as regards this Part of the Bill the more clearly the Commission define what they want the more likely they are to get the information.
    6.49 p.m.
    Mr. Tinker: Some of my hon. Friends are not in favour of amalgamations but I am in favour of them, and I am in favour of Clause 44 in the form in which it left this House. This Amendment is merely a delaying action on the part of those in another place. It would compel the Commission to notify the colliery proprietors of the information which they desire to have. Only if that information is refused, can they, under the Amendment, authorise a person to go to the colliery and get it, as they have a general power to do under the original Clause. What is wanted is the power to get firsthand information immediately and this Amendment is merely delaying in its character.
    Further, this House thoroughly examined the Clause in its original form, and I object to another place seeking to exercise its power by putting Amendments of this character in a Clause which has already been fully considered in this House. Clause 44 as it left here covered every point which we desired to have covered in relation to the powers of the Commission. It gave the Commission full power to authorise persons on their behalf to get whatever information was desired in connection with amalgamations. This is one of the attempts which are being made by another place to kill the
    674
    Bill and I am surprised that the representatives of the Government who expressed themselves satisfied with the Clause as it left this House, should now agree that a better way has been found in another place of expressing what they intended. I hope they will be firmer in their attitude, and will not give way on this question. I hope that the House generally will take a more definite stand and resist Amendments of this kind.
    6.52 p.m.
    Mr. H. Mitchell: Far from the other place having altered this Clause in a manner which is contrary to the view of the majority of this House, I believe that the majority of Members here will support the Amendment. I am aware that hon. Members opposite do not agree with the Amendment, but we must remember that the majority in this House do not believe in people being allowed to walk into anybody's office, at any time, without notice and to call for any documents they care to demand. I certainly wish to place on record my protest against any legislation of that kind. I think it forms a dangerous precedent and that all Members here who are not Socialists should oppose such legislation. As a matter of fact, great benefit is being conferred by this valuable Amendment passed in another place. An hon. Member drew an analogy between this case and the case of mines inspectors, who have an absolute right of entry without giving any notice but there is no such analogy.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Member aware that when the proposal was made to appoint inspectors and enable them to visit mines, the gentlemen in another place tried to stop it, but the Government of that day took a firmer stand than the present Government are taking.
    Mr. Mitchell: I submit that that is not what we are discussing at the present time and that I would be out of order in going into that question. As I say I wish to record my protest against any legislation which permits entry of this kind into premises without adequate notice having been given.
    6.54 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) has adduced an extraordinary

    675
    argument. He takes strong exception to Government inspectors being empowered to enter premises without giving notice of their intention to do so, but I wonder what attitude he took when this House decided that inspectors should go into the homes of unemployed people for the purpose of carrying out the duties imposed on the Unemployment Assistance Board. I understand that in pursuance of those duties, those inspectors have to go, even into the bedrooms of the unfortunate people whose homes they are visiting, and I have never heard any protests from the hon. Member against Government inspectors going into the homes of the working class. The hon. Member is much behind the times. There are on the Statute Book many enactments which confer powers on Government inspectors to enter mines and factories, and I assure him that in no case are the factory or mines inspectors required to give notice of their intention to visit a factory or a mine. Those of us who, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and myself, have vivid recollections of the facts of the terrible disaster at the Gresford Colliery, will agree that the trouble there was not that the mine inspectors had not given notice of their intention to visit the mine, but that they had not gone there at all. It will not help matters to require these inspectors to give notice, and I hope the House will reject the Amendment.
    6.56 p.m.
    Mr. Wragg: Surely it is confusing the issue to bring in the case of factory inspections. What we are dealing with here is obtaining information required in connection with compulsory amalgamations. That persons should be authorised to go into offices and demand to see books and documents seems to presuppose that the undertakings already belong to the public instead of being in private ownership. As long as they are in private ownership, I suggest it necessarily follows that notice should be given before a demand is made for private information about these businesses. As an ordinary matter of business and in order to save time, notice should be given in these cases and I suggest that the opposition to this Amendment is all a storm in a teacup.
    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: In view of the spirited protest made by the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell), it seems to me that if he had been doing his duty in the Committee stage he would have voted against this Clause in the form in which it appears in the Bill. In connection with these amalgamations the normal way of doing business will be to give notice of inspections, but cases may arise in which it is desirable that inspection should be made quickly and without notice, in the interests of the Commission, who represent the public. If we accept this Amendment we preclude the Commission from taking that step. Hon. Friends of mine who have a closer acquaintance than I have with mining inform me that it is possible, in a week, to alter the underground conditions so as to cause a pit to appear a much more valuable property than it really is. One can hardly call it "window-dressing" since it is underground, but I think hon. Members understand the idea. I understood that such a practice was not unusual in gold mines in other countries, but until this afternoon I was not aware that it had been attempted in the coal mines of this country. The Commission should be in a position to send in inspectors where they have reason to suspect such practice. If we pass this Clause in the form which satisfied the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick in the Committee stage, we may rest assured that notice will normally be given, but at the same time the Commission will not be precluded from making inspections without notice where they consider it in the public interest to do so.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: It seems to me that those who are in favour of the Amendment may be divided into two categories, and it is somewhat significant that two separate arguments are sometimes to be found in the same speech. The first is that the intention of the Amendment is to facilitate the work of the Commission, and the other is that the work of the Commision ought not to be facilitated in that way because it is an unwarrantable interference with the rights of the owners. The two arguments cancel out each other. I hesitate to believe that those who are responsible for putting in this Amendment did it with the intention of assisting

    677
    the Commission and facilitating compulsory amalgamation. It seems to me in the highest degree unlikely, and from that point of view the interruption which referred to the power of inspection of mines without notice under other legislation was fully justified. It is said that it will be very much better if notice is given, it will allow people to know when the inspector is coming and what kind of information he desires, and time will be saved when he comes. There is nothing in the Clause, as it stands, to prevent the Commission from working in that way. In instances where prior notice will be helpful, the Commission may be trusted to give it. You do not need to legislate in order to compel it to give what is in its interest to give. But if the Commission feels that there are occasions on which it might be better not to give facilities, why should the over-riding power to send an inspector without giving notice be withheld except in the interest of those who do not want the Commission to carry out its work?
    Those who desire the work of the Commission to be facilitated may accept the Clause unamended with a free conscience and a clear mind, and no harm will be done. Those who do not, ought not to be assisted. There are dozens of instances under existing legislation where the power of inspection without notice must be possessed by the State if the intentions of Parliament are to be carried out. Who could imagine an inspector of weights and measures, or one under the Food and Drugs Act, giving notice to a shopkeeper that he is coming on such and such a day to see whether his scales are correct? The power may never need to be used. The more power of that kind there is, the less it will need to be used. But there is no reason why this over-riding right to inspect should not be given. Those who drafted the Amendment do not appear to have done their job very well even from their own point of view, because there is nothing to say when the notice is to be given. A general notice might be served the day after the vesting date on every concern, giving some indication of the general nature of the information that might be required. It is clear that the authors of the Amendment had only one intention in their mind, and that was to obstruct the work of the Commission, as far as they could, in defiance of the will
    678
    of this House. I should have thought in those circumstances that the House would not hesitate to reject the Amendment.
    7.6 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Seely: This seems rather a storm in a teacup. I do not agree with the Amendment. I do not see that it has any great advantage and I certainly do not see that there is any great safeguard in the idea that you are going to stop people prying. The Amendment does not seem very well drawn if that is the intention. We should perhaps be wiser to reject it, because it is all dealt with in Clause 44, and anyone who thinks that it provides a safeguard is being deceived.
    7.7 P.m.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: I was amazed at the simplicity of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) in accepting the point of view that the Commission would only deal with certain books and figures and certain aspects of the mine. If the Commission is inspecting a mine from the point of view of amalgamation, it will have to satisfy its mind upon every aspect. It will have to take in tonnage, the conditions of the mine, the output, and every question that applies to mining operations. This question of amalgamation has been brought forward by the Government because of the refusal of the owners to carry out any successful policy in this respect. The mine-owning interests are more heavily represented in another place than they are here and it is, therefore, right that the Commons, when dealing with Amendments coming from such an interested source, ought to inspect them very carefully and not accept them with the simplicity of the hon. Member for South Bradford, which to me is amazing but consistent.
    Hon. Members opposite talk about a certain brand of Socialism prying into the affairs of people. Socialists have objected most strenuously to interfering with the liberties of people in their houses and in many other spheres of public life. But this is not prying into private affairs at all. It is a question of dealing with a national industry which is necessary for the good of the nation, and we are dealing with a section of the community which has forced the Bill upon the Government because of their refusal to assist amalgamation schemes in the national interest. Now hon. Members are saying that the

    679
    Commission should be restricted so that they must state definitely in writing exactly what they want to see or to do and must not ask questions about anything else. If they did, the owner would say, "Really, in our circle that sort of thing is not done."
    The suggestion that is put forward means that we are to have a Commission composed of people who are either very stupid or who are not going to do their work in the way that the House of Commons desires. I believe the Minister is extremely unhappy. I believe he is divided between standing by the House of Commons and accepting the Amendment. He has placed his arguments before his masters. They have turned him down and sent him back to support a position in which he does not believe. If we want the Commission to be efficient and able to carry out their duties, we ought to extend to them the fullest powers possible.
    7.15 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I should be very unhappy if I thought that the arguments that have been adduced were really convincing, but I am only unhappy because I cannot have made myself clear in introducing the Amendment. Perhaps it is that the word "inspection" has brought a line of thought to hon. Members which it does not really connote. Hon. Members have spoken as though this was a case of somebody wanting to rush down a pit without any notice because he wanted to make an inspection of something or other. The cases of the inspector of weights and measures and the inspector of mines and the like have been cited, but this provision has nothing to do with that kind of inspection. The only point of this Amendment is that the Commission should give notice when it wants to inspect certain things, and that in doing so it should give a general indication of the kind of things it wants to get. The question was asked why notice should be given, and it was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis) when he said that that would be the quickest way of getting what was wanted.
    Let me again remind the House that the Commission have two entirely different functions although they may merge in some directions. First, it will
    680
    be the universal landlord and will own all the coal. In so far as many of the speeches we have heard were concerned with the problems which were raised, I dare say the kind of inspections that the Commission will require as landlord will be governed by the clauses of the leases, I have yet to learn that a royalty owner to-day has any conceivable right, rhyme or reason under his lease or in any other way to go and make inspections of the books and the ordinary financial accounts of the colliery company which is his lessee. He may inspect the colliery for certain reasons, because he is the landlord, but this Amendment deals with information of quite a different kind. The second function with which the Commission starts is the reduction of undertakings, and in order to make up its mind whether it is necessary to close an undertaking, it has to get some of the kind of information on which it would naturally have to rely; and would also want a good deal of other information, financial information and the like. These are rights which the Commission as landlord has not got, and the Clause makes it possible for it to get that kind of information.
    The only question is whether it should do it without notice and without giving any indication of what it wants. The common sense of it is that if there is a question of amalgamation and the Commission wants information of a financial and technical nature, it is not possible to go and pick it up on the spur of the moment. It is, therefore, desirable in everybody's interest for the Commission to say, "We want this information and we are coming down on a certain day; will you please have it ready for us." If that is not enough it can get further information and if there is any obstruction to getting the information, that is provided for in the Clause. Some of the arguments on this Amendment have been based on a false analogy. It does not have the result of hampering the Commission or making it difficult for it to get information. What it does is to remove the fears of certain of my hon. Friends that this Commission will have what they call a roving commission to go and look at all sorts of matters in which it is not directly concerned. I hope it will be convenient for the House to come to a decision on this point now because the business is to be interrupted.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 146.

    Division No. 284.]

    AYES.

    [7.21 p.m.

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

    Goldie, N. B.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Rankin, Sir R.

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

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Assheton, R.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Haslam, Henry (Horneastle)

    Remer, J. R.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Bernays, R. H.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Blair, Sir R.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Russell, S, H. M. (Darwen)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Salt, E. W.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Hunter, T.

    Scott, Lard William

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

    Hurd, Sir P. A

    Selley, H. R.

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

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

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Bull, B. B.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Cary, R. A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

    Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

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

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

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

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Channon, H.

    Lees-Jenes, J.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

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

    Lewis, O.

    Spens, W. P.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Liddall, W. S.

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

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Loftus. P. C.

    Storey, S.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

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

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

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

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    McKie, J. H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Cross, R. H.

    Maitland, A.

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

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Culverwell, C. T.

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

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Touche, G. C.

    De la Bère, R.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Turton, R. H.

    Denville, Alfred

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

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Doland, G. F.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

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

    Donner, P. W.

    Morgan, R. H.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

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

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Drewe, C.

    Munro, P.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Slde)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Errington, E.

    Peake, O.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wragg, H.

    Everard, W. L.

    Petherick, M.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Furness, S. N.

    Porritt, R. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Captain Dugdale and Major

    Gledhill, G.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Sir James Edmondson.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Radford, E. A.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Batey, J.

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

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Bellenger, F. J.

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

    Banfield, J. W.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Barr, J.

    Benson, G.

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Price, M. P.

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Bromfield, W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

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

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ridley, G.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hollins, A.

    Riley, B.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Ritson, J.

    Cape, T.

    Jagger, J.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Chater, D.

    John, W.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Collindridge, F.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silkin, L.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, D.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Daggar, G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Dalton, H.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Leach, W.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, C.

    Day, H.

    Leonard, W.

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

    Dobbie, W.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lunn, W.

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

    Ede, J. C.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McGovern, J.

    Thorne, W.

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

    MacLaren, A.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Marshall, F.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maxton, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Messer, F.

    Walkden, A, G.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Milner, Major J.

    Walker, J.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Montague, F.

    Watkins, F. O.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

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

    Watson, W. M,.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

    Welsh, J. C.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Westwood, J.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    White, H. Graham

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Groves, T. E.

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

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

    Paling, W.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parker, J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pearson, A.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

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

    Hayday, A.

    Poole, C. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr.Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 44, line 26, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment; In page 44, line 42, leave out "the Commission consider" and insert "are reasonably."
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a slightly more important matter.
    It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBU- TION BILL [Lords] (By Order).
  7.31 p.m.
  Major Milner: I beg to move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill—

  (1) For the further and better protection of highway authorities than is afforded by the Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847, in respect of the laying of pipes and mains by the company in county roads and any other roads vested in any local authority, the filling in and restoration of such roads after the pipes and mains have been laid, and the duty and expense of altering the position of such pipes and mains after any subsequent diversion, alteration, or improvement of such roads.

  (2) For requiring the approval of the county council and the local authority to the site selected for the erection of any gasholder or container for storing gas so that due regard may be had to the amenities of the district and to the prevention of interference with air-raid precautions."

  This matter is obviously a non-party one, and I think all of us in this House will agree with the objects of the Bill as set out in the circular which has doubtless been sent to all hon. Members, namely, the better co-ordination of gas supplies, the elimination of small and uneconomic gas manufacturing units, and the fuller utilisation of manufacturing plants. I would, however, point out that what is proposed is not the ordinary form

  685
  of gas undertaking to which the Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847, was originally intended to apply. What is proposed by the promoters, as I understand it, is in effect a merchanting business, whereby the company would not be under the ordinary obligation of a gas undertaking, to supply gas to all and sundry within its area who care to apply for it, but would only be under an obligation to supply those whom it cared to supply, and that makes a very considerable difference. An ordinary gas undertaking is under very serious obligations, but this particular undertaking would not be under those obligations.
  The proposals which are made are in general unexceptionable, but in some matters they are extremely serious. They are that over an area of some hundreds of square miles the company should have privileges of an ordinary gas undertaking and should also have the right of a free wayleave, in effect, over the whole of the roads in that very large area. The proposals would involve interference with public rights, and would inflict, unless there is some control such as my Instruction proposes, great inconvenience and very great expense on the general public. I have no doubt it will be said that the Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847, is sufficient protection, but I submit that that is not the case. That Act, which was passed 90 years ago, laid down a general code relating to the manner in which roads might be broken up by authorized undertakers. I think it would be agreed on all hands that that code was drawn up at a time when the methods of road construction, the character and number of sub-surface works, and the volume of traffic were very different from those existing to-day. I think we should also agree that that code is now almost obsolete and requires very drastic revision.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Why?
  Major Milner: Because it does not fit the circumstances of the present day. It is surely uneconomic and improvident that the road surface which is demanded by modern road conditions should be liable to interference and damage by periodic breaking-up for the purpose of laying or repairing sub-surface pipes. Then there is the question of the modern methods of road construction. As many hon. Members know, when a concrete
  686
  foundation is laid nowadays it is in the nature of a raft, supported both by the ground below and by its own inherent strength. That concrete, for the purposes for which this company is established, may have to be cut longitudinally in order to lay or repair a pipe or main, and the road will then be filled in, in the endeavour to comply with the provisions of the Act, but I think it would be obvious that that interference would affect the strength of the concrete raft and tend to reduce its life.
  For this reason we claim that the restoration of the road should be supervised and carried out in accordance with the directions of the highway authority. The Gas Works Clauses Act does not provide for that protection. It provides for superintendence by the local authority of excavations, but curiously enough there is no provision for supervision by the local authority or the laying-down of specifications or anything of that sort whereby the road may be restored to its former condition. Having regard to the very special methods of modern road construction, I hope hon. Members will agree that that is absolutely necessary in these days, when the state of the roads is of the utmost importance to the general public. This company, as I have indicated, if the Bill receives the approval of this House, will obtain valuable way-leaves over public roads, free of charge, throughout almost the whole of Yorkshire, and I submit that it is not unreasonable, therefore, that greater obligations should be placed upon the company than are contained in the Gas Works Clauses Act.
  The Instruction deals with further and better methods of protection in respect of three points—first, with regard to the laying of pipes and mains by the company in county roads and roads vested in any local authority. If a main is to be laid by the company, for example, in a county, it may have to traverse quite a long distance—9, 10, 15, or even 20 miles—and surely it is desirable that the local authority should have the right, subject, of course, to the usual provisions for arbitration in case of dispute, to lay down the route to be followed by such a pipe line. In Clause 53 of the Bill there is a provision that county boroughs, boroughs and urban districts should have the right to lay down such a route, but

  687
  there is no provision that a county council should have a similar right, and county councils, having regard to the long lengths of road that we all know they have under their charge, clearly ought to have that protection, and ought to have it without the limitation as to increased expenditure in Sub-section (4) of Clause 53, which renders the Clause almost nugatory. It is perhaps not of great importance in urban or borough localities, but it is of the greatest importance in counties, where the roads may be of very considerable length.
  The second point to which the Instruction relates is the filling-in and restoration of the roads after the pipes and mains have been laid. On this point the existing provisions in Section 10 of the Clauses Act are inadequate, and I submit that it is necessary in the public interest that local authorities should have the right to lay down specifications and to superintend and direct the restoration of the roads which have been taken up. That power is not contained in the Gas Works Clauses Act, and the Instruction that I am moving would ensure that protection being given to local authorities.
  The third point is that if the road be diverted, altered, or improved, and for that reason it is necessary to move the pipes and mains, that work should be done by the company at their own expense. In the memorandum circulated by the promoters of the Bill, I see that Section 153 of the Public Health Act, 1875, is cited, but that is not in point. That Act refers to street works in an urban district, but hon. Members know that nowadays there are tremendous road improvements, widenings, and so on, which are being carried out in almost all the counties in the British Isles, and a company which exists for profit and has privileges such as this company is seeking should surely bear the expenses of any alteration required in the public interest.
  I then come to the question of the second part of my Instruction, relating to amenities and air-raid precautions. Many hon. Members in this House are constantly pressing on the Government and on local authorities the necessity of safeguarding amenities, and surely it is only right, unless Parliament shall have sanctioned the site of a gasholder, that a county council should be entitled to veto
  688
  the site if in their view it offends against the amenities. It is also necessary that the local authority should have some say in the location of a gasholder, in view of the possibility of an air raid. If the Bill were passed in its present form, it would be possible for an open space to be obtained and, with the consent of householders within a distance of 300 yards from the proposed gasholder, for the company to put up a gasholder in the middle of a very congested area. I am sure it will be agreed that that would not be a right thing to do, and that the local authority should have the right to say whether a gasholder, either on the ground of amenity or on the ground of precautions against air raids, should be situated in one place or another. That is the purpose of the second part of the Instruction.
  It is suggested by the promoters that the setting-up of a Select Committee or a Joint Committee to consider the question of general legislation on these questions might be an appropriate course to adopt, but the Company refused, in another place, to be put under any obligations which might result from the decisions of any such Select or Joint Committee. I have no hesitation in saying that if the promoters will agree to the protective Clauses, which my Instruction will ensure being inserted in the Bill, now, subject to those Clauses being amended or superseded by any general legislation which came in later as a result of the decision of a Select Committee, the county councils will be perfectly agreeable to that course. This is a special form of company, and in my submission it is reasonable to ask for protection on the lines which I have indicated. In connection with that suggestion about a Select Committee, I need not remind hon. Members how long such a course might occupy. Government Departments would have to be consulted, revisions would have to be considered, and the Government would have to pass legislation. It might well be a matter of years before any general legislation was introduced, and meanwhile the whole of the roads of Yorkshire, and later on, it may be, of other parts of the country, might be open to the possibility of being taken up in the way I have indicated and without the protection for which I am asking.
  I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport

  689
  here. The Ministry have not found it possible up to now to issue any report on the Bill, and so far no very definite guidance has been offered. I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that his Department is responsible for the trunk roads, and that in the West Riding of Yorkshire we have no less than 150 miles of trunk roads, in the North Riding 56, and in the East Riding 20, and that many of those roads are within the area covered by this Bill. The protection which the county councils are asking for should also be a matter of supreme importance to the Ministry of Transport, who must also be interested in the location of gasholders in relation to Air-Raid Precautions.
  Finally, what this Instruction will ensure is reasonable protection for local authorities and the people in their areas, and in my submission that protection is not now afforded by the Gas Works Clauses Act. Hon. Members will observe that this Instruction has the support of Members of all parties. It may be said with some truth that a Yorkshire team is usually able to make a good show off its own bat, as witness the recent match against the Australians, but in this instance I am afraid that Yorkshire needs the support of Members from all parts of the country, and as they may one of these days be threatened similarly I hope I may ask them all to unite to support this Instruction.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: In seconding the Motion I should like to point out that I am speaking for the North Riding, while the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) was speaking for the West Riding. I shall submit different arguments in speaking for a different county council, and my arguments are, if anything, stronger than his, because of the way in which my council has been treated by the promoters of the Bill. The area of the North Riding to which this Bill refers is an area of very small villages and towns and large and important roads. Hon. Members who occasionally go to Scotland, whether to speak, or to shoot, or to agitate, or for any other purpose, will I hope recollect when they are passing through very pleasant country in Yorkshire that they are going through my constituency, and that when they are in less pleasant country it will be some
  690
  other hon. Member's constituency. The North Riding County Council, because of these small villages and important roads, desire to be protected against the dangers of this Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the gas legislation of 1847 is not quite up to date, and that has been recognised by the House of Commons in certain Gas Orders and Bills passed since that date, to which I shall refer later.
  My county council wrote to the promoters of the Bill and asked if they could have that form of protective legislation which is in the Tring Gas Order. They wrote down the heads of the protection they required. The promoters replied saying that they could not agree to all that my council asked for, and made some suggested amendments in red ink. Hon. Members engaged in business, like those acquainted with the law, know that documents written in black ink often bear amendments in red ink, and further amendments in green ink, and, in short, all the different coloured inks. We got to the stage of the red ink. We came to an arrangement with the promoters that we would not oppose the Bill in the House of Lords because we were going to negotiate a settlement. My council wrote to say that although what was suggested in red ink did not meet all that they would like to have, was not, in fact, nearly so much as the West Riding County Council were asking for, they would be content to accept that protection in order to save the county rates the expense of fighting the Bill in the House of Lords or in this House. That would appear to have been an agreement: anyhow, we will call it a "gentleman's agreement." No more was heard, but in course of time the House of Lords turned clown the West Riding County Council. Then, hon. Members will be surprised to learn, the promoters of the Bill, who are now coining to this House with haloes round their heads, went to the North Riding County Council and said: "Because the West Riding did not get what they asked for, although you did not fight the Bill in the House of Lords, and although we had an arrangement that we would try to negotiate a settlement, we will now repudiate that settlement and give you no protection at all."
  Mr. George Griffiths: A "gentleman's agreement."
  Mr. Turton: That was the "gentleman's agreement." That is the gravamen of the charge by the North Riding County Council against the promoters of this Bill. I will state the heads of the agreement. Under the Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847, before a gas company, wishing to interfere with any main under a road, start picking up the road, they have to give three clear days' notice to the local authority; in this case the county council. In the case of a busy county council responsible for many miles of road, it is not unreasonable to suggest that three days' notice is not sufficient, and the first head of agreement was that there should be a longer period—I think it was 14 days, but I do not want to be tied to that. The second head of agreement was that in cases where there had to be a replacement of road surfaces which had been hacked up the resurfacing should be done by the North Riding County Council and not by the gas company. The object of that was to secure uniformity of surface. Those who are road users will appreciate the importance of not having replacements done at different times and in a different manner by a gas company; they ought to be left to the highway authority, in order to secure uniformity of surface. When driving I have often come to places where a replacement has not been done in an altogether happy manner, and there is great danger from skids in wet weather. Those who believe in safety on the roads will agree that what we ask under the second head of agreement was reasonable.
  Major Braithwaite: The hon. Member is aware that these negotiations were carried on without prejudice, and that it is a breach of confidence to refer to them.
  Mr. Turton: I understand that this is the first occasion on which anybody has challenged this agreement. I understand that this was a negotiated settlement, and if that is so then the whole question about prejudice relates to the earlier proceedings and would not be followed in law. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend has put it from a business point of view, but in law we regard it as a negotiated settlement, and my people have a perfect right to say what was the settlement on which they decided not to oppose the Bill in the House of Lords. They did not tell the House of Lords Committee anything of this, because it was an agreed settlement, and if I am not allowed to say
  692
  what has been agreed to, what it is the company are backing out of at the last moment, I think it will be a sorry sort of justice that we get in the House of Commons. Before I was interrupted by my hon. and gallant Friend I was saying that the second head of agreement was that the replacements should be done by the council at the expense of the company. The last head of agreement was that the company should not take up more than a certain length of road at one time. Again, I suggest, a reasonable agreement, because one does not want to have one-way traffic for mile upon mile, as is sometimes the case, and is a cause of great delay to road traffic. Those are the three heads of agreement, and I do not think anyone could consider them to be unreasonable.
  Then there is this much stronger point. In my area of the North Riding we are at present governed by four different Gas Bills or Gas Orders. One part of the area is governed by legislation which was passed by this House in 1927 and in 1936, and in that legislation we obtained the form of protection which comes under those three heads of agreement. The rest of the area is under Gas Orders of good old vintage—of 1871 and 1880. Those orders give no protection for road traffic, which in those days was an entirely different problem. If we are not to have protection on the lines of this Instruction it will mean that one part of the area will be bound by these protective Clauses and the rest will not, and that does seem to be extremely unfair. If we do not get this protection it will not be the county council which is not protected, but the wretched little ratepayers who will have to pay heavier rates because this large vested interest, I was going to say, this large gas company, puts the ratepayers to that expense in order to help its own shareholders. If the House looks at it from that point of view I think they will realise that this Instruction should be passed. When the 1847 Act was passed it was clearly laid down that whenever a gas main is laid under a street the expense of putting in the main should be entirely one for the undertakers, and that the county ratepayers should be entirely free from that expense.
  I have mentioned three heads under which protection is required; I will mention one more, in respect to which we were not able to get an agreement. I may

  693
  point out to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) that in this case I am not talking of anything which was in this agreement. We ask that the cost of moving the mains that belong to the company should not be put upon the backs of the ratepayers who, in many cases, are not taking the gas at all and who are already very heavily rated in North Riding—I do not know about the East Riding. Those ratepayers ought not to have to pay for altering the position of the gas mains. This is a very important matter. Some part of the Great North Road goes through the areas mentioned in the Bill, and will be diverted. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will tell us about that aspect of the matter. He is always very busy about the Great North Road, and it is clear that a lot of diversion is going on. Some of it we do not like, and some of it we do not mind quite so much. The question is, if there are to be by-passes, is the taxpayer or is the gas company to pay for moving these great gas mains which are underneath the road? We ought to know the answer to that question.
  One road goes through Yorkshire to Middlesbrough. I see on the benches opposite an hon. Member who represents one of the divisions of Middlesbrough and he will agree that much heavy traffic goes up that road. We are trying to improve that road, and there have been diversions all the way along it. More will come. Are the ratepayers to pay for moving those mains, or are we to get back to the principle laid down in 1847 that the gas undertakers who put the gas main under a highway without paying any rent would have to pay if they pa it anywhere else on the King's highway, and that they should pay the cost that flowed from their introduction of the gas main?
  I hope that this Instruction will be agreed to by the House for the reasons put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and also for the reason that if the Instruction is rejected, encouragement will be given to large bodies such as the West Yorkshire Gas Distribution Company, to treat local authorities and ratepayers as some county authorities have been treated already. The House of Commons should not tolerate in their private legislation
  694
  that treatment by these big bodies. If that happened, we should always have to fight every Bill in future in every place and to pay more money which would come on to the rates, knowing that we can never take a gentlemen's agreement to be a gentlemen's agreement.
  8.5 p.m.
  Sir Reginald Clarry: I rise to resist this Instruction. If the House will permit me, I will deal straight away with the points raised by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I am amazed to see the interpretation he has put upon the ordinary legal procedure of negotiating an agreement. He has used the term "gentleman's agreement" on several occasions and he states that an agreement was come to. My instructions are—[Interruption].
  Hon. Members: Instructions.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: You made a slip.
  Sir R. Clarry: —that on no occasion—
  Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend has stated that I said something which is inaccurate. Unless he withdraws that statement he should prove it up to the hilt. I gave full details of what happened and of how an offer was made and was followed by acceptance. I always understood from my study of the law of contract that that was to all intents and purposes an agreement.
  Sir R. Clarry: I did not use the word "inaccurate." I do not impugn my hon. Friend's accuracy, but his interpretation of the negotiations. It is certainly not the interpretation put upon it by the promoters. I will give the reason why. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) has said, the negotiations were carried out without prejudice, and they were in the usual form. I have here the original document of the suggested draft clause for an agreement. I have all the coloured inks to which my hon. Friend referred, with the appropriate dates. That document was sent between solicitors, between legal people on both sides, with a view to coming to an agreement. The last one was green amendments from Ellis and Ellis, on 14th May, 1938. In response to that, the promoters' legal advisers promptly telephoned and said they could

  695
  not agree to the green amendments. Therefore, no agreement was ever reached.
  These negotiations were the ordinary negotiations with a view to coming to an agreement, between legal persons, in which certain Amendments as described by my hon. Friend were put in in different coloured inks. The last ink put in was the green ink, which was not acceptable to the promoters. There has never been, in fact, any agreement. I was not accusing my hon. Friend of any wilful inaccuracy but of his interpretation of what has taken place. I think I have disposed of that.
  Hon. Members: Give us the facts.
  Sir R. Clarry: I do not know what other facts hon. Gentlemen want. Here is a document that has passed between us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] What, this lot? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I thought hon. Members wanted to get on with the business. I want to refer to a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), who rather ridiculed the Gas Clauses Act, 1847. I think he will agree with me that that Act was drawn in very wide terms and that several interpretations are equally applicable to it. The words "reinstate and make good" are included in that Act, and if that is done to the satisfaction of the highway engineer, surely nobody will suffer.
  Major Milner: If the hon. Member would look at Section 9 he would see that streets are to be broken up only under the superintendence of the highway authority. The hon. Member has quoted Section 10 which says
  "undertake with all convenient speed."
  and—
  "reinstate and make good."
  There is nothing said in Section 10 about the superintendence of the local authority, and that is the point which my Instruction would ensure.
  Sir R. Clarry: In point of fact, that is always done. It would not prove satisfactory in the period of 12 months which is also provided for, if it were not done to the satisfaction of the highway engineer. By a strange coincidence those
  696
  words were put in before ferro-concrete, tar macadam, all the developments in the surfacing of roads and heavy traffic were ever heard of. It is amazing to think that those words, written in 1847, are generally applicable to-day. As I pointed out, in point of fact, when reinstating and making good take place, they are done with the approval and generally with the superintendence of the local authority. I happen to know, because I have done many reinstatements myself many years ago. There is no cause of complaint, except in the actual words.
  This is a very difficult matter to debate in this House, which is not the appropriate place to discuss the matter which we have before us. If the matter arises at all—I am not considering its merits or demerits at the moment—it should be by Public Bill and applicable to all public utility undertakers and those who use the roads. That comprises not only gas companies but bodies interested in water, electricity, telephones, telegraphs, hydraulics and so on. If an Amendment is needed for them it is not appropriate to a Private Bill. As a matter of fact the House of Lords Committee turned down Amendments that were submitted to them a few weeks ago on this very point. I know that the House of Lords is not in very good odour to-night, for other reasons, but the fact remains that they put their brains to work on this matter, with all the evidence that could be presented to them, and they turned this point down on a question of principle.
  The company, which is asking for certain statutory powers, is the first to link up a national gas grid in this area. There has been a gas grid in Sheffield which has worked very successfully. There are 19 undertakers with four coke ovens. The proposal is that the gas is to be put into this grid, and taken out and distributed by those statutory undertakers who have now powers to distribute. That is a point to which I wish to refer in a moment. Investigation which has taken place in that area shows that there is a large potential industrial demand which is estimated to be at least double the present demand for the area. The situation is that the supply of gas in detail will be carried on by the 19 undertakers who have that power, but their plant is equivalent only to a domestic supply. They did not and have not visualised the potential industrial developments, and the

  697
  need for a cheap gas for industrial fuel—which is coal, our native fuel, conveyed in pipes.
  The gas grid will meet the industrial demand that exists. There are 820 miles of mains in this area, owned by the 19 gas undertakers. It is proposed that the company which is linking up those separate entities shall lay ultimately 75 miles of main. You will, therefore, see that the mileage of mains is very small for the purpose of linking up the actual supply and distribution. I will mention, in passing, that the gas mains in the city of Leeds, part of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman so ably represents, are 1,200 miles in length. It will therefore be seen that the Bill is asking for powers for only 75 miles. On the question of disturbance, I am given to understand that no main will be larger than 15-inch, which is relatively small by comparison with town-distribution size. As there will be no service to the individual consumer, there are practically not more than a couple of dozen consumers from the grid that is being fed from these 75 miles of mains. It is essential to keep that point in mind, because it does not mean breaking up the roads, of which probably hon. Members are thinking in connection with the present arrangement. It is pretty clear that this company will on every occasion, for their own advantage, use private property for the purpose of laying their mains, but the point I wish to make is that they will, in going along a road, use the verge, for their own convenience and the convenience of the highway authority.
  One of the points that I strongly resist in the Instruction is that, if the mains have been laid to the requirements of the highway authority, and 10 years elapse, the Instruction provides that, on the highway authority giving notice to the gas undertakers, they may have to take those mains out and put them in another position at their own expense, because the highway authority, in carrying out its proper functions, may be widening the road. It appears to me that there is an almost complete analogy to that. My hon. Friend builds a house on a building line on a road in every respect to the satisfaction of the highway authority and the local authority. Ten years elapse, and they widen the road. Then, if this Instruction means anything at all, the local authority can make my hon.
  698
  Friend, at his own expense, demolish his house and build it further back.
  Mr. Turton: One does not get one's house rent-free.
  Sir R. Clarry: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point. I will only say that the gas undertakings, if they are not the largest, are among the three or four largest ratepayers in the country.
  Mr. Turton: Gas undertakings do not pay any wayleave rents for their mains; they get them rent-free. If you have your house, you have either to pay rent for it or to buy the land.
  Sir R. Clarry: My hon. Friend is not suggesting that they should pay a rent to the highway authority? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because they are carrying out a public duty. If that analogy is not a perfect one, I hope it will be challenged by subsequent speakers. On the question of amenities and the siting of gasholders, there is no present intention on the part of the promoters of the Bill to erect a gasholder anywhere, but that is beside the point, because they have taken power to do so. If protection is desired for amenities, there is ample machinery for it in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. A local authority which is very keen on its amenities would have no difficulty in preparing a scheme and negotiating with the local undertaker as to the site of a gasholder. If the North and West Ridings still desire to oppose the Bill, they will have their opportunity in the Committee upstairs to put their case and propose definite Amendments, and I submit that it is quite inappropriate to discuss a matter like this on the Floor of the House. If by any chance this Instruction goes to the Committee, it will prejudice the Committee in coming to a fair decision with the full evidence and information before them.
  8.21 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): It may assist the House if I intervene thus early, because this Bill undoubtedly affects highway authorities, and also because what I have to say might—I do not say it will—have the effect of enabling the Debate to be shortened. I would remind the House that my Minister, since the passing of the Trunk Roads Act, is now the highway authority for

  699
  trunk roads, some 100 miles of which might be affected by this Bill. I tell the House this because I think that, in connection with a Bill of this kind, the question of protection of the highways is one which should be considered most carefully by the Committee to which the Bill will be sent. I would also point out that road construction in 1847 was a very different matter from what it is today, and the adequacy of the Gas Works Clauses Act of that year to meet present-day conditions is, I suggest, a matter which deserves consideration. On the other hand, I do not want to prejudice the issue before the Committee and I am afraid that, if we pass this Instruction in the form in which it is on the Order Paper, it will prejudice the position. The words on the Order Paper are:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill—
  (1) For the further and better protection …"
  and so on. My Minister is prepared to leave it to the Committee, after having heard the evidence on both sides, to decide, first, whether further and better protection is necessary; and, secondly, if so, what form that protection should take. I would point out to the House that, if this Instruction is passed as it appears on the Order Paper, consideration of the first of these questions, namely, whether further and better protection is necessary, will not be possible, because we shall be telling the Committee that, whatever they feel after having heard the evidence they must put in certain provisions. Therefore I hope the House will not pass the Instruction, certainly in its present form, because to do so would prejudice the issue. I think it should be for the Committee to decide what, if any, extra powers should be given to the highway authorities in this Bill.
  The Committee may think that, owing to the large area of supply, this is a special Bill, in which special protection is required. But, while this Bill may be a special case, I would point out to the House that the question of the breaking up of streets is one which gives rise to difficulty, not only in the case of gas, but also in the case of water and electricity, and my Minister proposes to- consult with the other Departments concerned about the type of protection which might
  700
  be suitable in future Bills of this character. That, of course, does not prejudice the Committee in dealing with the present Bill after it has received its Second Reading in this House. Further, we are prepared, in the case of this Bill, to furnish the Committee at the appropriate time with a report setting out our views for their consideration. It will also be desirable to add a short Clause to the Bill to give the Minister of Transport the same protection as is afforded to county councils, and to provide appropriate machinery for appeals.
  Mr. Lewis: When my hon. and gallant Friend says that his Minister will consult the other Departments concerned, do I understand that that will be with a view to promoting legislation?
  Captain Hudson: With a view to seeing how far this 1847 Act is still adequate. But we do not want to prejudice the case of the present Bill. If the Committee feels that this is a special Bill, in view of the large area it covers, and that special protection should be given, it is up to them. We feel that the whole question of digging up roads should be reviewed, and we want to consult with other Departments. I cannot at the moment lay down exactly what our procedure will be for the future; but I suggest that the House leave the present Bill to a free and unfettered Committee, which will have had the benefit of hearing this Debate in the House. I hope the House will agree that this is the best way to deal with this important matter. I also hope hon. Members may see it possible to come to some decision without too protracted a Debate.
  Mr. T. Smith: Is it the intention that when this Bill gets to the Committee the Department will state their views?
  Captain Hudson: Yes, I have said so. We are going to send a report to the Committee upstairs.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. Lunn: This is a Bill which affects scores of thousands of ratepayers in Yorkshire—in the West, North, and East Ridings. This House is continually putting extra burdens on the ratepayers, until the rates have become a serious matter. In my own area they are about 20s. in the £and that is not a depressed area. I have listened to an amazing speech by

  701
  the hon. Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry). How in the world a man can forget his public duty, have no regard to the ratepayers or taxpayers, but simply think of his own pocket and vested interest, I cannot understand. I do not think that in a public body a man should be allowed to do that, and do it with impunity, as the hon. Member for Newport always does.
  Sir R. Clarry: Do I understand that the hon. Member is making any implications, please?
  Mr. Lunn: I do not know whether the hon. Member considers they are implications or not. They are true.
  Sir R. Clarry: I do not know whether that is a proper remark to make, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; because if that is to be strictly interpreted, it will apply to every hon. Member on that side who is sent here by a trade union.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I think the old rule should be observed, and that we should assume that whatever an hon. Member says in this House is Said in good faith.
  Mr. Lunn: That is what I am doing. I mean it, and it is the truth. I was as much amazed as the Minister.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. The hon. Member opposite—I did not catch all he said, but he appeared, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to make certain implications against my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry). My hon. Friend appealed to Mr. Deputy-Speaker on a point of Order, and Mr. Deputy-Speaker expressed the view that what he said he said in good faith. The hon. Member then in possession did not seek to take that broad hint but reasserted his observations in respect of the attitude of the hon. Member for Newport. In those circumstances, I would like to ask your advice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether the hon. Member is entitled to make remarks reflecting on my hon. Friend, which I believe were without the faintest justification whatever?
  Mr. Lunn: May I say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before you reply to that point of Order, that the hon. Member who has spoken admits that he did not know what I said?
  Mr. McGovern: Is it in order for the hon. Member to raise a point of Order when just before he rises he calls out to other hon. Members, "What did he say?"
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The last question does not seem to be a point of Order. With regard to that raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), I have expressed the view that we should not impute motives. Beyond that, I did not hear what the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) said. I have expressed my view that in the course of the Debate hon. Members should not impute motives to others, but should assume that what is said is their bona fide opinion.
  Mr. Buchanan: You said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that hon. Members should not impute motives. This seems to me very important. I would like to ask, what is meant by "imputing motives" in this House? Frankly, I must say I do not know. I have often taken part in imputing motives without being challenged for doing so, though at other times I have been challenged.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I used a rather loose phrase. What I meant was that I think we should assume, as a matter of courtesy, that every hon. Member is putting forward in this House his own bona fide opinion, which he is entitled to put, and that we should not suggest that he is putting forward any other view.
  Mr. Lunn: I accept your Ruling in full. I was expressing my own bona fide opinion, in which I believe sincerely, and expressing what I think was simply the truth.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: The hon. Member made a statement which was a reflection on the hon. Member for Newport. [Interruption.] I heard enough to know that. In response to your appeal, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he merely said that he himself is not animated by any motive; but he still continues to apply a disrespectful statement to the hon. Member for Newport. I think he ought to withdraw from that attitude.
  Mr. Lunn: I do not see any point of Order there. The hon. Member does not even know what I said, nor anything that I implied. I have done with the

  703
  hon. Member for Newport, and I have come to the Minister. I was equally amazed at the Minister. He opposed this Instruction, but he was prepared to leave it to the Committee to deal with it, if it cared to do so, and he promised us legislation at some time in the future. When that will be no one knows, because he is not in a position to say that legislation will be introduced in respect of gas, water and electricity and when it will be. Here we have a Bill dealing with a very large area and scores of thousands of ratepayers will be affected by it, and the opposition to this Instruction is that, because of an Act passed 90 years ago, we should not pass the Instruction. The roads of this country, and of this particular area, were much different, less than 90 years ago, from what they are to-day.
  I live in the area affected by this Bill, and I remember, not so very long ago, when you had to have a man walking before an engine which went along the road; but now you drive at 90 miles per hour on the road, and over the man if you like. In those old days even a donkey and cart would be considered to be going too fast because the roads were so bad, but it is not so now. Roads, even in country districts, are marvellously well laid and have cost a tremendous amount of money. If they are to be dealt with, we ought to deal with them from the point of view that they are a new proposition from what they were 90 years ago. These Instructions say:
  "In respect of the laying of pipes and mains by the company in county roads."
  I live in a mining area, and as a member of the local authority I have seen the gas company's balance sheet for many years. That balance sheet used to show an allowance of 25 per cent. for subsidence and leakages. Should not the local authorities have some regard for the places where the mains are to be laid? Is there anything wrong with that Instruction? They cannot lay all these mains along the grass verges nowadays. They have to be laid in the road, and local authorities, whether Socialist or anti-Socialist, must look after the interests of the ratepayers, and so ought Members of this House, instead of looking after their own interests, as they do on many occasions. The conditions on the roads
  704
  nowadays, with motor cars and fast speeds, make things nearly as bad as conditions on the roads of Ireland during the time of the "Black and Tans." The roads are choked up, and if you leave it to gas and similar companies there will be no getting on to the roads, and there will be more danger to people riding in motor cars than is the case to-day. That is another matter that can be dealt with by the local authority. Wherever you go in the area covered by the Bill, every railway bridge or any sort of bridge is the worst part of the road, because the company are supposed to keep it in repair and do not do so. These things are not done unless an Instruction is given definitely that they should do them. This Instruction ought to be carried because of that fact. The roads ought to be made fit and not left as the company might wish to leave them.
  The Instruction also says that they should have some regard, if they are to erect gas works or anything in the area, to the amenities of the district. I live in a village where I have lived all my life, as did my father and many before him. A week last Tuesday an accident happened at the gas works. The gas works is in the centre of the place, and it ought to be taken out of the district right away from the houses and the people. At 2 o'clock, a week last Tuesday morning, an explosion occurred at the gas works. The wind, fortunately, was blowing away from the gasometer or it would have been a serious matter for the village. Villagers went out in all kinds of dress and undress into the fields for fear that there might be a more serious explosion. Should not it be an Instruction that a gas company or any private company, when seeking their own gain, should have regard to the interests of the ratepayers and inhabitants of the locality. The amenities of a district are important and ought to be considered but these gas companies and such like have no regard for these things. Their own personal interests always come before the public interest.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he has in mind as to the additional powers over the existing power with regard to the siting of a gas company? What does he mean by supporting the Instruction?
  Mr. Lunn: I am telling the hon. Gentleman what I mean by supporting the Instruction, and I am not leaving him in

  705
  much doubt as to what I do mean. I never do. The hon. Member need not ask me for an explanation of what I mean. I always say what I mean wherever I happen to be, and on this matter, where private interests are put before public interests, it is absolutely necessary that we should leave nothing out in order to make the position clear. Personally, I hope the general Instruction will be carried. I cannot understand any hon. Member not only in the area covered by this Bill, but in any part of the House representing the public interests, giving his support to a Bill of this sort without this Instruction.
  8.42 p.m.
  Sir Joseph Lamb: I make no apology for taking part in this discussion, although I do not live in the district covered by the Bill. I want to make an appeal to those who have put down the Instruction to withdraw it. I agree entirely with the object contained in the Instruction, but I believe that the better way of obtaining what is required would be by withdrawing the Instruction and allowing the Bill to go to Committee, where the matter could be settled after they had received more evidence and information as to whether the Instruction would be hard to enforce. That, I believe, would be a very much better way. I suggest a withdrawal rather than going to a vote and perhaps having it defeated.
  Mr. T. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) speaking with any authority as to what is likely to be the attitude of supporters if the Instruction is withdrawn and the Bill goes upstairs?
  Sir J. Lamb: No, Sir, I have no connection whatever with either promoters or opposers. I am speaking with the authority of a private Member, which is the only authority I require for the observations I am making. I ask the supporters of the Instruction to withdraw it for this reason. We know how votes are taken in this House. It may possibly be that a Division will be called and Members will come trooping in, and, not having heard what we have heard, the Division may be swayed one way or the other. The impression of the Committee upstairs and the public would be that the House had voted on the merits of the
  706
  case, which would not be so. Consequently it would be very much better to withdraw the Instruction and allow the matter to go for full discussion in Committee. On the merits of the case, it does not go far enough with regard to the make-up of roads.
  In a Bill promoted by the Staffordshire County Council, which was passed by this House, it is possible for the local authority themselves to make up their roads and charge the company. If it is the responsibility of the local authority to make up the roads it will be properly done by the men who understand how it should be done. That is not in the Instruction, and that again supports the suggestion which I am putting before the House. I am sorry that gasometers cannot be put underground. They are an obstruction to the view and interfere with the amenities. They are a necessary evil, but let us see to it that, as far as possible, they are not a greater evil than can be avoided. I appeal to those who are putting forward this Instruction—I agree absolutely with what they are trying to do—to withdraw it, so that we may get on with the business of the House which has to follow.
  8.45 P.m.
  Mr. T. Smith: When I interrupted the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) I wanted to know whether he was speaking with authority for the promoters of the Bill.
  Sir J. Lamb: No.
  Mr. Smith: Some of us who have had experience of Committees upstairs know exactly what takes place on those Committees.
  Sir J. Lamb: After the Committee have finished with the Bill it comes to this House for Third Reading, and we can then deal with it.
  Mr. Smith: I hope the hon. Member will agree that those hon. Members who have put their names down to this Instruction are not doing anything that is not allowed. Viewed from the angle of discussion upstairs it is possible that the wording of the first part of the Instruction may be a bit too definite for some hon. Members, and I have been wondering whether their attitude would be altered if the wording suggested that the Commitee upstairs should consider so-and-so.
  Mr. Croom-Johnson indicated assent.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. and learned Member opposite nods his head, but for the moment I do not know who is acting or speaking with the authority of the promoters.
  Mr. Croom-Johnson: I am acting and speaking for myself and not for the promoters.
  Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Captain Hambro), whoh I understand is a director of the company, give his view?
  Mr. Smith: When a Private Bill is before a Committee of this House there is usually somebody who can speak for the promoters. Not only do I represent part of the county where this company operates, but I know the district very well, and I say quite frankly that we are not opposing the company in that they are going to do this work, but we are seeking a guarantee that local authorities are not to be compelled to pay money when they have no right to pay. Whether or not the hon. and gallant Member opposite is a director of the company, I do not know. I have looked at the Stock Exchange Year Book, and I have seen a name that I know, but I have been in this House long enough not always to take names at their face value. I can sometimes detect interests when points of view are expressed.
  There does not seem to be anyone to speak for the promoters. With regard to the Minister, in giving his views he was about fifty-fifty. Sitting on the fence seems exactly to cover what he said. He said that in the opinion of the Department certain protection must be given and that we must bear in mind so-and-so, and then he went on to say something which was helpful to those who are moving this Instruction. He said that when the Committee upstairs meet to deal with the Bill the opinions of the Department would be expressed. I suppose that opinion will relate to the particular things contained in this Instruction and generally deal with the Bill.
  Captain Hudson: It will be a report to the Committee on the provisions of the Bill as it affects the Department.
  Mr. Smith: I have been a member of a committee on Private Bills and have
  708
  heard the representatives of various Departments telling us exactly what they think of the Bill and the point of view of the Department. With regard to the second part of the Instruction, we say that a private undertaking should not have the right to put up a gasometer where they think fit, without the sanction of the local authority. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asked the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) what he meant with regard to the second part of the Instruction. If he had read the Instruction he would have found out exactly what we want. The Instruction says:
  "For requiring the approval of the county council and the local authority to the site selected for the erection of any gasholder or container for storing gas so that due regard may be had to the amenities of the district and to the prevention of interference with air-raid precautions."
  The hon. Member for South Croydon will agree that in 1847, when this Act was passed, they had not in mind air-raid precautions.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: What are the provisions of the Act of 1847 with which the hon. Member disagrees?
  Mr. Smith: I think I can truthfully say that with all the wisdom that was possessed by the people in 1847 they did not visualise air-raid precautions.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is denouncing the Act of 1847. He wants it to be altered in certain particulars as far as this Bill is concerned. Will he tell me in precise details what it is that he wants to be altered?
  Mr. Smith: If the hon. Member for South Croydon wants to do a bit of kidding, he had better try someone else. What we say is that, however sound the Act of 1847 may be, it does not fit in with modern requirements. What we are asking for is set out in the case of the West Riding County Council. We believe that that case is absolutely reasonable and ought to be conceded. If the House is not prepared to concede it, then there ought to be someone who can speak for the promoters to tell us exactly what they are prepared to do to safeguard the interests of the local authorities when the Bill goes upstairs.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. Croom-Johnson: I have no interest in this matter except from two points of

  709
  view. One is, that I spent a very happy Whitsuntide vacation in driving through a part of the district in question, and the other is that I am very much interested in the question of the way in which legislation in this country with regard to a great many local problems has been allowed to fall lamentably behind the times. I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) for having brought this matter to the attention of the House, because I think it lamentable that in the year 1938 we should have to deal with the question of roads from the point of view of public utility companies by means of a Statute that was passed not merely long before I was born but, I believe, before any Member of either of the two Houses was born.
  The problem which worries me—and I am speaking for the moment to a great number of hon. and right hon. Members opposite who, I am conscious, know a great deal more about local administration than I do or ever shall do—is this, that our legislation with regard to roads and with regard to public utility companies generally is hopelessly out of date. What we are proposing to do if this Instruction is carried is a shirking of our responsibilities as a House. We are not really grappling with this question as we ought to do. I hope the House will not think that I am lecturing them, but during the last four years I have spent a good deal of time considering local legislation in this country. I have spent a good deal of my time outside the House considering the results of exceptions made to the general law by local Bills passed in this House. I appreciate the difficulties in administration which result from there being one system of law in one district and another exceptional system of law in another. That being the situation, this House is engaged now in forcing, as it seems to me, upon a company, with which I have no concern in any way, on the one hand, and a number of local authorities, on the other, with whose work I have every sympathy, the task of examining at their own expense the actual situation with regard to the Act of 1847, and by instructing Parliamentary agents to find out how that legislation ought to be amended.
  I say quite definitely that to put such a burden upon local authorities and upon
  710
  the particular corporation engaged in producing this Bill, is to put a burden upon them which this House ought to shoulder itself. We are dealing with a gas company, and the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the same problem arises in regard to water and electricity. We are going to deal with the problem from the point of view of one locality. When you deal with the same problem as it arises in my county, which is a poor county, or in the case of Montgomeryshire, which is one of the poorest counties in Wales, you have to go through the same procedure, get this same question raised and determined by briefing members of my own profession, and instructing Parliamentary agents, when the House of Commons ought to grapple with these problems itself.
  I have no views about the rival merits of these two contestants. So far as the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) are concerned, I have the utmost sympathy with the statements they have made, but why should these two particular contestants be engaged in a fight upstairs at enormous expense when the real problem is that this House has not grappled with this question so far as gas works are concerned since 1847, and so far as electricity companies are concerned since 1882? I hope the House will not think, in these circumstances, that there is any lack of sympathy on my part for the case put forward. I am not quite sure that the case has always been completely understood. As I understand the Instruction it is aimed at a rather peculiar problem which the Act of 1847 never contemplated. We are engaged in the greater part of the country at the moment in an endeavour to widen and better our roads, and when you do that the existing mains of public utility companies under the roads have to be shifted, and the Instruction, as I understand it, is intended to try and grapple with the problem as to what is the fair thing to do, when you widen a main road enormously, with the mains which already exist underneath the roads.
  I hope that hon. Members will scrutinise this fact rather carefully, because none of us, in regard to a matter which concerns a public utility company and a local administration,

  711
  desires for a moment to do anything which is in the least unfair or which is likely to deprive the people of the utility they desire to have. The problem is not so simple as that put forward by hon. Members opposite. The Act of 1847, as far as it goes, is good enough, but, of course, it does not touch the modern problem of the wide new road, differently constructed, the straight road, as compared with the wiggly-waggly road which a famous English writer once described as having been made, he supposed, by an English drunkard. What the House is engaged in doing at the moment is not in saying that this ought to be considered, as indeed it manifestly ought to be considered, but in saying "shall" to the Committee upstairs. Members of this House who do not happen to sit upon the Committee are perhaps more ready to criticise, but we all know the admirable work done with great care and attention, and we are telling the Committee upstairs what shall be put into this Bill, whereas we ought to be directing the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is high time they considered this whole problem.
  I emphasise this for this reason: The matter was fully discussed by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. But this House is not in the least bound by what was done and can decide to reexamine it anew just as if the decision had never been arrived at. But do let us remember that the case was put in the House of Lords and that they did reach a conclusion. Is it not in those circumstances a little unjust, or may have the appearance of being unjust, if we say, "We do not care whether you won or lost; you shall do so-and-so when the Bill goes to be considered upstairs"? Speaking with the utmost sympathy for those who have moved this Instruction I hope they will be able to adopt the suggestion that we should give a direction to the Committee upstairs to consider this matter in all its bearings. I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that the particular problem of the roads and the public utility things which lie under the roads, is to be a matter to be considered between the different Government Departments. If he will forgive me for saying so, it is high time that was done, but it being high time, I am not going to object to its being done. However, I should like to feel
  712
  that that moment will not be unduly delayed.
  I wish to say a few words with regard to the second part of the Instruction. Nobody desires that public utility companies should be entitled to dump gasometers or any other of the things which beautify our country nowadays anywhere they please, but I think that possibly in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and indeed in the North Riding, there may be such a thing as a town and country planning scheme which may have had something to do with that particular problem, and if it has not, then, in just the same way, speaking as a Private Member, I should be only too happy to concur in the notion that the Committee upstairs should be required to direct their attention to that problem also.
  9.6 p.m.
  Major Milner: Having regard to what has just been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. CroomJohnson) and the obviously substantial measure of agreement in the House, and what the Minister said, I should like to ask for your guidance, Captain Bourne, as to whether, in the event of my withdrawing this Motion for an Instruction, it will be the duty of the Committee upstairs to consider the specific matters set out in the Instruction. I should be very grateful if you would give me your guidance on that matter.
  9.7 P.m.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I understand the position, there are petitions, and two of the three county councils of Yorkshire are against this Bill dealing with the specific points raised in the hon. and gallant Member's proposed Instruction. I am also informed that the Ministry of Transport propose to put in a report dealing with these matters. It will obviously be the duty of the Committee upstairs to consider both the report of the Ministry of Transport on the subject and the petitions which have been presented against the Bill by the county councils concerned; and it will be their very obvious duty, notwithstanding anything which may or may not have happened in another place, to consider that problem there put de novo, in the light of the information to be put in front of them. I think that perhaps, that will satisfy the hon. and gallant Member.
  9.9 P.m.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: I wish to make a few remarks on this matter. I do not represent the company or any of the public authorities concerned, but I happen to be a member of an organisation known as the Conjoint Conference of Public Utility Associations, to which is affiliated, I think, every municipal gas, water, and electricity authority, and every company authority. The problem of the use of the roads for this purpose is one of the greatest possible complexity. For some eight or nine years past, negotiations have been proceeding between the company and municipal-owned public utility undertakings and the highway authorities. The reason I rose to speak was that I want to put it on record that every town council in this country is vitally concerned in this matter in opposition to the highway authorities. That is a point which has to be appreciated. Hon. Members opposite have been discussing this matter as though it were an issue between the public authority and the company. It is a much wider issue.
  The issue is between the public utility undertakings and the highway authorities, and on that issue, if the borough councils—not the county boroughs, because they are both public utility authorities and highway authorities—and the urban district councils, who are proprietors of gas works, electricity undertakings, sewers and water works, were familiar with the situation in the House to-night, they would be almost unanimously in opposition to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). I rejoice that an agreement has been arrived at, but I want to put it on record quite clearly that what we are dealing with now is an issue of principle far wider than the issue in regard to this particular company. The issue which is raised is far wider than has been appreciated in the House to-night. I think that three-quarters of the hon. Members opposite, in certain circumstances, would be subjected to intense pressure from their own county boroughs on this matter to take a line completely opposite to that which they have taken to-night. I want the House to realise that there is an issue of principle involved which is very much greater than that which has been appreciated so far.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. Paling: I want to say a word or two with regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). What I am afraid of is that if notice is taken of the argument which he made, the Committee may with justification argue that we have put it in this House that the question of altering the law and making protection for various things is a question for the Whole House to decide, at some future time, and that therefore, they, as a Committee, have no business to deal with the matter on this occasion. I hope that will not be done. The larger issue might have to be decided by the House, but in view of the Debate which has taken place, it appears to me clearly to be the wish of the House that we should do something in this particular case on this occasion. I hope the Committee will see to that. Finally, I hope the promoters of the Bill also will have some regard to the opinions which have been expressed in the House to-night and will do something to help to get some of the protection for which hon. Members in various quarters of the House have asked.
  Major Milner: Having regard to the assurance which you have given, Captain Bourne, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  COAL BILL.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Which Amendment was: In page 44, line 42, leave out "the Commission consider" and insert "are reasonably."

  CLAUSE 46.—(Amendment and continu ance of Part I of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 24.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 46, line 32, leave out from "which" to "shall" in line 35, and insert:
  "as continued by subsequent enactments, is limited to expire on the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight."
  9.14 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

  715
  This is a purely formal Amendment. Since the Bill was introduced, we have extended the life of Part I of the 1930 Act under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

  CLAUSE 53.—(Reports to Board of Trade.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 12, after "shall" insert:
  "(1) after receiving the certified valuations from the respective Regional Valuation Boards under Sub-section (6) of Section seven of this Act forthwith transmit the same to the Board of Trade, and the Board shall as soon as may be lay before Parliament statements showing the total amounts of the certified valuations in each region in respect of principal and subsidiary coal hereditaments respectively, and (2)"
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I gave a short explanation of this Amendment in the survey which I made of the Lords Amendments. It was explained in another place that it would be quite easy to get the information which will be conveyed under this Amendment by means of putting down a question. In another place for some reason or other they preferred that the information instead of being obtained by way of question and answer, should be obtained by way of a statement laid before both Houses. We have no desire that anybody should be able to say that we are concealing any information which ought to be made public, and which in any case would be made public, and if it is believed in another place that publicity should be given in this way, I am prepared to advise this House to agree.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Procedure of the Coal Commission.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 8, at the end, insert:
  "2. At least two of the members of the Commission shall be persons who have had administrative or other practical experience in the coal-mining industry."
  9.17 p.m.
  Mr. George Hall: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the end, to add:
  716
  "and one of these two members shall be a person who has been a wage-earner in the coal-mining industry."
  I do not think it is necessary to take up time in commending this Amendment to the House, as I understand the Secretary for Mines is prepared to accept it.
  Captain Crookshank: We are prepared to accept this Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."
  Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 31, leave out "or machinery or plant for coal mining."
  9.18 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This paragraph in the First Schedule deals with the various interests or securities which members of the Commission must dispose of before they can accept office. I do not think that these words are likely to make much difference or that the possibility of a member of the Commission holding a few shares in a company which made machinery and plant for coal mining would be likely to arise very often. It is to be remembered that the people who will be appointed to this Commission will be responsible people, and exception having been taken to the inclusion of these words, I think we might agree to leave them out.
  9.19 p.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: These words were inserted in this House by the Government, for the purpose of protecting the impartiality of members of the Coal Commission. I could understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that it was not necessary to have any restrictions at all, but that would be contrary to the practice followed in recent Acts of Parliament. If the aim of that practice is to eliminate corruption—and that presumably is the object of such provisions—then surely the manufacture of machinery and plant for

  717
  coal mining is the most dangerous of all these matters in the present case. The Commissioners will be in close contact with the lessees, and a lessee who desired to get favourable terms could best accomplish his end with a dishonest Commissioner—and it is to guard against dishonesty that such provisions as this are made—if that Commissioner were a person who sold machinery and plant. The lessee in that case would be able to give the Commissioner's firm orders for such machinery, in exchange for the Commissioner's support in obtaining particularly favourable terms.
  I am not suggesting that any Commissioner will be dishonest, but if we are to put in any provision like this, and such provisions as I say have become common form in Acts of Parliament, then the one important thing to avoid here is the risk of having a Commissioner who is intimately connected with a business from which lessees will be large buyers. This business is even more important than the sale of coal or the manufacture in the sale of by-products. I cannot understand why these words, of all the words in this part of the Schedule, should be omitted. I should have thought that it was most valuable to retain them and that if we are to have anything in the way of protection of this kind, we should have the protection given by these words.
  I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation of why they should be eliminated and we shall vote for their retention.
  9.22 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I am sorry to disagree, not for the first time, with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not think that the importance which he suggests is to be attached to these words. It is to be remembered that an alteration was previously made in the Schedule making it possible for a member of the trade union organisation to be a member of the Commission on the ground that that would not affect him in the discharge of his duty.
  Sir S. Cripps: They do not sell these things.
  Captain Crookshank: Just as in the one case, we thought it was desirable to remove any restriction of that kind, so in this case we think the same sort of argument would apply. I do not think it is a matter of such consequence as the hon. and learned Member suggests.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 126.

  Division No. 285.]

  AYES.

  [9.22 p.m.

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

  De la Bère, R.

  Holmes, J. S.

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Denville, Alfred

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

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Doland, G. F.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Donner, P. W.

  Hunter, T.

  Apsley, Lord

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

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

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

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

  Ellis, Sir G.

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

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

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

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Lewis, O.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Everard, W. L.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Gledhill, G.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

  Briscoe Capt R. G.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  MaoAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Broadbridge, Sir. G. T.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

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

  Goldie, N. B.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Hambro, A. V.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Morgan, R. H.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Higgs, W. F.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Petherick, M.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Touche, G. C.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Salt, E. W.

  Turton, R. H.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Radford, E. A.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

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

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Selley, H. R.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Spens, W. P.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Remer, J. R.

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

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

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

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

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Wragg, H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Parker, J.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Pearson, A.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Harris, Sir P. A.

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

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hayday, A.

  Poole, C. C.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Price, M. P.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Batey, J.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Ridley, G.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Hollins, A.

  Riley, B.

  Broad, F. A.

  Hopkin, D.

  Ritson, J.

  Bromfield, W.

  Jagger, J.

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

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

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

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

  Buchanan, G.

  John, W.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Cape, T.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Chater, D.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, C.

  Collindridge, F.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Lathan, G.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Lawson, J. J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Daggar, G.

  Leach, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lee, F.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Leonard, W.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dobbie, W.

  Lunn, W.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Walker, J.

  Ede, J. C.

  MoEntee, V. La T.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Watson, W. McL.

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

  McGovern, J.

  Westwood, J.

  Foot, D. M.

  MacLaren, A.

  White, H. Graham

  Gardner, B. W.

  Marshall, F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Maxton, J.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Messer, F.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Milner, Major J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Montague, F.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Groves, T. E.

  Owen, Major G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Paling, W.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions for defining property and rights with which, and matters subject to which, coal is to be acquired.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 11, leave out from "obligation" to the end of line 15, and insert:
  "either—
  (a) to pay proper compensation for damage arising from such working to that land; or

  (b) with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the person who would otherwise be entitled to claim compensation for that damage, to make good that damage to the reasonable satisfaction of that person and without expense to him;
  which obligation shall extend to buildings and works on that land whether constructed before or after the vesting date."
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is the first of a series dealing with the subsidence problem. Under the Bill

  721
  as it left us there passed to the Commission the right to withdraw support. That was subject to the obligation of making good or of paying proper compensation for damage. The question whether damage should be made good or compensation paid rested within the discretion of the colliery undertaking. In many cases is was a convenience, because they had their own staff of repairers. A good many complaints were made by hon. Members opposite that very often, especially in the case of small properties, these alleged repairs were not always satisfactory. The effect of this Amendment is exactly the same about the obligation of making good or paying proper compensation, but it is put the other way round, that the consent to have the damage made good rests with the surface owner instead of the colliery undertaking. It is a desirable Amendment from the point of view of those who suffer damage.
  9.34 P.m.
  Mr. Spens: I should be less than human if I did not say a few words on this Amendment. I am delighted that this alteration has been made. I have long held, from such experience as I have had, that the right to make good is a fictitious and artificial right. The primary right of anybody who suffers from subsidence is that his loss should be made good by a monetary payment. Only he knows what repairs are required to his house or his property, and his primary right is to have money paid to him by the person who does the damage so that he may make it good in the way in which he wants it made good. I agree that there are a number of cases where possibly a very small and passing damage is done to the structure, where the owner may be willing that the person causing it should come in and do the repairs. These cases are the exception, and my criticism of the original Schedule was that the owner of the houses on the surface had to submit against his will to the Commission coming in and propping up his houses or binding them together or employing the hundred and one devices that have been employed by persons responsible for subsidence in trying to make good damage. This is an Amendment of major substance in favour of those who will suffer from the subsidence which comes within the provisions of this
  722
  Clause, and I hope that the House will realise that it is an Amendment designed to benefit a vast number of people.
  9.37 P.m.
  Mr. A. Henderson: I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will be able to support the Amendment. Although it is in accordance with their interests as landlords that the other place is prepared to take action of this nature, I think that hon. Members on this side will be prepared to accept the Amendment because it secures a measure of justice to the unfortunate victims of mining subsidence. This matter was thoroughly discussed on the Committee stage in this House, and an attempt was made to secure some measure of compensation for those who had suffered as a result of subsidence prior to the coming into force of this Bill. That proposal was unfortunately rejected by the Committee, and therefore it is something to have obtained an Amendment of this nature. It is an advance on the present law and to that extent it is to be welcomed.
  9.39 P.m.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I hesitate to say a word against helping people who have suffered subsidence, but I ought to offer a word of warning that we are saddling the Commission with a burden that might wreck it. Responsibility is now to be placed on the Commission to accept full responsibility for subsidence. There have been many hard cases in the past and in many of them the royalty owners have been able to pass the responsibility on to the coal-mining industry. Colliery companies, many of them small struggling concerns, have had to bear it. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said that he was delighted with this Amendment, but I do not share his delight. I look upon all these Amendments from another place with suspicion because they want to wreck the Commission. This is one of the first big experiments in public ownership. The nation is to become the owner of the coal, and we ought to guard against saddling the Commission, which will represent the nation, with responsibilities which the royalty owners have passed on to somebody else whenever they could. Will the Minister state whether the Commission, in granting a new lease to a colliery company, will be empowered to ask that

  723
  company to accept full responsibility for subsidence?
  Captain Crookshank: There is another Amendment, to which we shall come in a few minutes, which deals with that point.
  Mr. Griffiths: All I am concerned with is that the Commission is not given responsibilities which the royalty owners did not have.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Ritson: I am rather suspicious of this Amendment because of the source from which it comes. This kind of thing can be abused. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has knowledge of a case where enormous claims for damage were made on a colliery company. The first call was made by a shipyard company which claimed £100,000 damages, and got it. That was immediately reflected by a large number of other claims and 600 men were dismissed from the colliery. I fear for the Commission if this responsibility is imposed upon them. The shipyard company which made this large claim never even stopped operations. It claimed merely because there had been a subsidence of three inches. Following that many other people began sniffing round to see if there were claims that they could make for damages, and one man even claimed damages for subsidence in a seam that was below the one where the action was taken. I know of a colliery in Durham which was most generous in the treatment of its men, but a lot of these claims came in and all the things that the firm had been doing for the employés were cut off. One of these claims was by a man who wanted £2,500 damages for his house, and he got it. He said he went to bed one night when everything was all right and that when he got up next morning he could not open the door. He got £2,500 damages. But that was only one claim; the sharks were no numerous you could not count them. All legal men are sharks. This man claimed £2,500 and got it, and two years afterwards he went back to the house and lived in it till he died. The point is that in these cases, where money is to be had, this Commission will find a draught as we did on that occasion.
  Here is another case. The plasterers used to be paid after that for putting up
  724
  people's ceilings that were affected by subsidence. Subsidence was all that was responsible. It mattered not whether there were births, deaths, or marriages; if there was subsidence, that was all that was responsible. It was found, when the matter was taken to court, that every enterprising plasterer went round to houses and asked the people in them whether their ceilings were giving way. They were rather astonished at being so well attended to, and when they asked about it, he replied, "If I were you, I should go to the colliery and make a claim for your ceiling." The result was that he repaired the ceilings of everybody in the town, and the only people who did not grumble were the people in the cemeteries. This thing went on until it was found that not only the plasterers were getting their work paid for in this way, but the painters also, and even people who were carting furniture out of the houses.
  I have joked about the matter, but I am very serious about it, and, as I say, I have seen 600 families who were removed because of the sheer greed of gold. We know from practical experience how claims are made for subsidence. If miners working 1,500 feet below the ground, with millions of tons of water running 600 feet below the surface, where were the miners to be, if these things were happening on the surface? Everything that anybody thought they could get they got—to this extent, that we were ruined for years—out of the most generous colliery that I have ever known. We knew that over a wide area in a large town we suffered to the extent of losing 600 men in the first instance, from a colliery company which was as generous as it could be, and the older men in the colliery felt it very keenly indeed.
  I am afraid of the hon. and learned Gentleman over here, with that clever, incisive, kindly way of twisting your tail when you are not looking. I am never afraid of a blatant, threatening lawyer, but I am afraid of a kindly lawyer. I listened to the gentlemen in the other place till midnight. They can stay till midnight when they like. A Prayer Book or a Coal Bill will keep them up till any time in the morning. Prayer and property work together. But I am really anxious about this. I am convinced that if they are going to get rid of this capital, they see that there is going to be subsidence in

  725
  their land, and they say, "Let us have full compensation for such subsidence as we think there is, and we can provide a lawyer. The Commission will now have a State fund, and it is our turn now to milk the opportunities offered to us to the full." Whenever there is anything to be got for nothing, the gentlemen in the other House are as keen as men sometimes are at a poor soup kitchen, when they have been starved for a few weeks. It makes me rather doubtful when the hon. and learned Gentleman comes along and, with that invisible soap, says, "Thank God for this Amendment." It makes me, although I have to fall in with the majority, wish I had not to do it.
  Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 15, at the end, insert:
  "(2) The Commission shall on the occasion of their first exercising, or granting to a lessee the benefit of, a right vested in them by this paragraph give public notice that they propose so to do by advertisement in the London Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality.
  (3) When the construction of any buildings or works is to be begun after the first publication of such a notice as aforesaid on land liable to be damaged by the exercise of the right to which the notice relates the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect—

  (a) before the construction thereof is begun the person at whose expense they are to be constructed (in this sub-paragraph referred to as 'the building owner') shall notify the Commission of the proposal to construct them, and shall, if so requested by the Commission within fourteen days from the receipt by them of the notice, produce for the inspection of a person duly authorised by them in that behalf plans and specifications of the buildings or works showing the design thereof and the proposed materials for and method of construction of the foundations thereof, and shall, if so requested within that period or within seven days after the plans and specifications have been produced as aforesaid, furnish the Commission with copies of any such plans or specifications;

  (b) at any time within twenty-eight days from the time when any request made by the Commission with respect to the production or furnishing of copies of the plans and specifications has been complied with or within such further period as the building owner may allow, the Commission may make such proposals as to the materials for and method of construction of the foundations as appear to them to be desirable for minimising damage in the event of subsidence, and, if they do so and the foundations are constructed otherwise than in accordance with the Commission's proposals
  726
  the obligation to pay compensation or to make good referred to in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph shall not extend to any damage that would have been avoided if they had been so constructed;

  (c) the Commission shall have the right to have the foundations inspected by a person duly authorised by them in that behalf from time to time during the construction thereof as that person may reasonably require, and if it is alleged by the Commission that the foundations are being constructed otherwise than in accordance with any plans or specifications produced or furnished to them, or otherwise than in accordance with any such plans or specifications as modified in accordance with proposals made by the Commission, as the case may be, the Commission shall notify the building owner of the matter alleged to constitute a departure therefrom and any question arising in relation thereto shall be determined by arbitration;

  (d) the Commission shall pay all costs reasonably incurred by the building owner in the production or furnishing of copies of plans and specifications pursuant to a request made by the Commission under this sub-paragraph, and the amount of any addition to the expense incurred by him in constructing the buildings or works which is attributable to giving effect to the Commission's proposals or to any postponement or interruption of the construction thereof consequent upon an allegation on the part of the Commission of a departure from plans and specifications which is determined not to have been well founded, and any question as to the subsistence of a liability of the Commission by virtue of this provision or as to the amount payable by them in respect of any such liability shall be determined by arbitration;

  (e) if the building owner fails to give notice to the Commission in accordance with this sub-paragraph of the proposal to construct the buildings or works or fails to comply with a request made by the Commission thereunder, the obligation to pay compensation or to make good referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall be limited to damage which could not have been avoided by reasonable and proper precautions taken in the design and construction of the foundations to minimise damage in the event of subsidence.

  (4) On granting to any person the right to withdraw support from any land the Commission shall require that person to give adequate security for the payment of any compensation likely to become payable as a result of the exercise of that right."
  9.53 P.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendment be divided."
  Lords Amendment: In page 54, 15, at the end, insert:
  "(2) The Commission shall on the occasion of their first exercising, or granting to a lessee

  727
  the benefit of, a right vested in them by this paragraph give public notice that they propose so to do by advertisement in the London Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality.
  (3) When the construction of any buildings or works is to be begun after the first publication of such a notice as aforesaid on land liable to be damaged by the exercise of the right to which the notice relates the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect—

  (a) before the construction thereof is begun the person at whose expense they are to be constructed (in this sub-paragraph referred to as "the building owner') shall notify the Commission of the proposal to construct them, and shall, if so requested by the Commission within fourteen days from the receipt by them of the notice, produce for the inspection of a person duly authorised by them in that behalf plans and specifications of the buildings or works showing the design thereof and the proposed materials for and method of construction of the foundations thereof, and shall, if so requested within that period or within seven days after the plans and specifications have been produced as aforesaid, furnish the Commission with copies of any such plans or specifications;

  (b) at any time within twenty-eight days from the time when any request made by the Commission with respect to the production or furnishing of copies of the plans and specifications has been complied with, or within such further period as the building owner may allow, the Commission may make such proposals as to the materials for and method of construction of the foundations as appear to them to be desirable for minimising damage in the event of subsidence, and, if they do so and the foundations are constructed otherwise than in accordance with the Commission's proposals, the obligation to pay compensation or to make good referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not extend to any damage that would have been avoided if they had been so constructed;

  (c) the Commission shall have the right to have the foundations inspected by a person duly authorised by them in that behalf from time to time during the construction thereof as that person may reasonably require, and if it is alleged by the Commission that the foundations are being constructed otherwise than in accordance with any plans or specifications produced or furnished to them, or otherwise than in accordance with any such plans or specifications as modified in accordance with proposals made by the Commission, as the case may be, the Commission shall notify the building owner of the matter alleged to constitute a departure therefrom and any question arising in relation thereto shall he determined by arbitration;

  (d) the Commission shall pay all costs reasonably incurred by the building owner in the production or furnishing of copies of plans and specifications pursuant to a request made by the Commission under this
  728
  sub-paragraph, and the amount of any addition to the expense incurred by him in constructing the buildings or works which is attributable to giving effect to the Commission's proposals or to any postponement or interruption of the construction thereof consequent upon an allegation on the part of the Commission of a departure from plans and specifications which is determined not to have been well founded, and any question as to the subsistence of a liability of the Commission by virtue of this provision or as to the amount payable by them in respect of any such liability shall be determined by arbitration;

  (e) if the building owner fails to give notice to the Commission in accordance with this sub-paragraph of the proposal to construct the buildings or works or fails to comply with a request made by the Commission thereunder, the obligation to pay compensation or to make good referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall be limited to damage which could not have been avoided by reasonable and proper precautions taken in the design and construction of the foundations to minimise damage in the event of subsidence."

  9.54 P.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  May I briefly remind the House of the Bill as it left us? Before I do that may I say that as yesterday I congratulated the hon. Member for Durham City (Mr. Ritson) upon the moving oration he then made, to-night my congratulations are offered to him for an extremely interesting and amusing one. As the Bill left us, the Commission, when they first exercised their right to grant a lease for coal which is at present unsevered from the surface, had to give public notice that they were going to grant it, and after that the obligation of either making good the damage or paying compensation in the case of subsidence was limited to damage which could not have been avoided by reasonable and proper precautions taken in the design and construction of buildings in order to minimise damage.
  This was a point which the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) both discussed, and during the Debate the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) suggested that as it would be difficult to say what were reasonable and proper precautions it might be better to devise some code of what would be considered to be proper precautions, so that

  729
  there should be no trouble when the question arose. It was impossible at that moment to devise any code, but I have made investigations to see what could be done on the lines suggested. We found ourselves under a difficulty from the point of view of housing and Ministry of Health problems. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health pointed out that local authorities had powers regarding houses granted to them under local by-laws, and that it would not be practicable to insert in this Bill a sort of code of particular rules for houses in areas where subsidence might occur which would override the local by-laws. I think hon. Members will see the great difficulties which would arise.
  The Amendment which has been inserted in the other place deals with a considerable part of the problem, and I will try to explain what it means. It provides that the first time the Commission is going to grant a lease for coal which at present is unsevered from the surface it must give public notice. That is the same condition as before. Then, at any time after that notice has been given, anybody who is proposing to build, whether a local authority or a private individual—the "building owner," as he is called—is to notify the Commission of his intention to build, and within 14 days of that, if the Commission ask him to do so, he is to make the plans of the building available to the Commission, that is, they can go and look at them. If the Commission ask to have copies supplied they must be supplied. In that way the Commission will know what the proposed building will be and the foundations which it is intended to put in. Then, within a period of 28 days, the Commission may say to the building owner that they think it is desirable, in order to minimise the possibility of damage in the event of subsidence, that he should put in foundations of a certain type. If they make those representations, and if such foundations are put in, then the liability subsequently to pay compensation for damage shall not extend to any damage which could have been avoided if those foundations had been put in as recommended by the Commission.
  The next question is, Who is to know whether the foundations which are put in are foundations such as the Commission wanted. Paragraph (c) of the Amendement gives to the Commission the right
  730
  to have the foundations inspected when they are being put in, and if they then think they are not in accordance with what they have recommended they can say to the builder, "You are not putting in foundations in accordance with the specifications we approved." If the building owner disputes that contention the dispute can be arbitrated upon then and there, and that will settle once and for all the question whether the foundations are proper foundations.
  Next the question naturally arises, Who is to pay for all this? If the Commission decides that it will be to their ultimate advantage—and they will, no doubt, have to strike a balance of advantages in any particular case—they have to pay to the building owner the extra cost of putting in these better foundations. It may be said that that will be expensive for the Commission, but, on the other side of the account, they will limit, if not entirely eliminate, claims which may ultimately be made upon them for damage from subsidence, because they will not be liable for damage which could have been avoided if those foundations had been put in. It will be a question for the Commission to decide whether, in view of those obligations, it is better worth while to spend money when building is taking place on a contribution towards the cost of better foundations than to do nothing and to be liable for compensation afterwards if the foundations which are put in without their having intervened are such that subsidence takes place. They will have to decide for themselves the balance of advantages. It is not mandatory; it is for the Commission to decide what it is best to do.
  There is one other proviso to be taken into account. If the building owner fails to give notice that he intends to build, or if he fails to comply with any request made by the Commission, the obligation to pay compensation or to make good damage, shall be limited merely to the amount of damage which could not have been avoided if he had taken proper precautions. He is, therefore, in a worse position considerably than he would otherwise have been.
  That is the effect of this new code. It is not the whole picture, because there is still another Amendment dealing with it to be considered, but this is the code

  731
  proposed and it is an optional code, leaving the Commission, if they think it is to their advantage, to pay for better foundations in the belief that it will save considerable expense later.
  10.5 p.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his explanation. The real change which has been made in this Clause is to put upon the Commission a burden which they did not bear before. This is one of that group of Clauses which have been dealt with by their Lordships upon the basis that they no longer own the coal but now own the land, which will be their position after the vesting date. They are now busy, in the Clauses and Amendments with which we are dealing, protecting their position as landowners, no longer concerned with the position of the coal. Therefore, they now load everything on to the coalowners and no longer, as they used to do when they were coalowners, avoid all possible liabilities by passing them on to somebody else, and to the persons who worked the coal.
  It is true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that we made a number of criticisms upon the form of Part II, 6 (2) of the Second Schedule. Some of those matters have been put right by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (3) of the Schedule, as it will now be, especially the matter in paragraph (c) which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned. There will now be a method of determining, at the date when the foundations are put in, whether or not they are satisfactory foundations. When Sub-section (2) of paragraph 6 of the Schedule left this House with the blessing of His Majesty's Government the provision was that no compensation should be paid to any owner of land who built upon the surface of his land with the full knowledge that mining operations were about to start under them, unless he had employed such reasonable and proper precautions in the design and construction of the buildings as to minimise damage in the event of subsidence. The cost of those precautions was to be borne by the owner, he being the person who was, for some reason best known to himself, determined to build on the surface of land where, he knew, there was danger of subsidence. It was, therefore, said quite
  732
  logically that if he wanted to build in that way the extra cost of putting in proper foundations, or whatever it might be, should fall upon him.
  After their Lordships have dealt with that proposal it comes back to us in the form that the Commission shall pay, first of all the costs reasonably incurred by the building owner in the production or furnishing of copies of plans and specifications. That is a curious thing to make the Commission pay for. The building owner must have plans and specifications to submit to the local authority. It is only just another item that I can see in the Bill which will be rendered in connection with this matter by the building owner's solicitors. In addition to that, the Commission have to pay the amount of any addition to the expenses incurred by the building owner in constructing the buildings or works, and attributable to giving effect to the Commission's proposals.
  What that means is that if the Commission request or require for the purposes of safety that he shall take what was called in the original Sub-section
  "reasonable and proper precautions,"
  the Commission shall pay for it. When this House and His Majesty's Government last parted with this Schedule they both recommended that the Commission should not pay for it. In addition to those things, the Commission have to pay for
  "any postponement or interruption of the construction thereof consequent upon an allegation on the part of the Commission of a departure from plans and specifications which is determined not to have been well founded,"
  and any question as to such liability is to be decided by arbitration. We do not see any justification for departing from that part of the Sub-section which laid down that the building owner should pay for the proper precautions to make his building safe, and for loading that cost on to the Commission. Indeed, these successive charges are to be placed upon a Commission who have paid for the royalties on the basis that those charges did not attach. If those charges had attached, the royalty would have been much less in extent than the price paid by the Commission.
  The arbitral committee, when it arrived at the valuation of the royalties, did not value them on the basis of the royalty

  733
  owner having to bear these charges and expenses. If they had, it is undoubted that a very considerable sum would have had to be deducted by way of allowances for these expenses from the amount of the royalties, and the global sum would have been a good deal smaller. If that had been done, it might have been fair and reasonable to say to the Commission that they, having paid a smaller sum for the royalties, must, of course, accept the obligations which had been calculated as a part of those obligations in the purchasing of the royalties; but when that has not been done, and when those obligations were not brought into account, it is not fair to the Commission to say afterwards: "You have paid the price for the royalties as if those obligations did not attach, and now we attach those further obligations to the price."
  It means in fact that you are making the Commission pay twice over for the same thing. It is not the viciousness of these actual provisions of which we complain so much as that the surfacer who has got the money for the royalties for his ownership, on the basis that these obligations did not attach to the royalty part of his ownership, is now to get the benefit of those obligations attaching to that royalty part, and so, twice over, to get payment in respect of those same obligations. That is clearly not fair upon the Commission, and it is not right that those owners of the surface and the minerals below should get this benefit in two different ways. That is the result of assessing the royalties on a certain basis, a factual basis, and then trying to impose upon the Commission afterwards further obligations which were not the obligations assumed by the persons who were receiving the royalties at the time.
  We say, therefore, that it is too late to put upon the Commission this burden which, if it ever was to be put upon them—I am not now discussing whether it would be fair or not in the circumstances—ought to have been imposed notionally before they paid the global sum, but, they having paid the global sum, the only fair thing to do is to say that the Commission shall have no further or greater obligation than the people from whom they purchased the royalties, at the price which was paid.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. MacLaren: The President of the Board of Trade will remember that, when we were discussing the global sum, I called his attention to the fact that, while there was that global sum before the House, there was no sum that might be deemed to represent the total cost of the liabilities in operating the coal, and I asked whether, in coming to the agreement as to the global sum, the negotiators had in mind what would be the capital cost of possible liabilities in exploiting the coal. I was told that no estimate at all had been made of that cost, and the facts are now coming to light. A global sum has been agreed upon, but, if the cost of the liabilities imposed upon the Commission when it becomes the owner had been hypothetically assessed, the global sum might have been nothing like what it has now been agreed to pay.
  It would be well to survey the situation. First of all, the Commission is to own the coal and exploit it to the best advantage. What of the hopes of those who advanced the theory that it was well that the coal royalties should be nationalised, and that the result would redound to the benefit of the wages of the miners and the better operation and exploitation of the coal? The Commission will have to pay off a capital sum to meet the burden of purchasing the entire coal royalties; they will have to pay all rates and taxes; and they are further charged, if they have any surplus in hand over their annual requirements, that it shall be used to reduce rents. I protested against that at the time on Clause 21. They have also to face damages incurred through subsidence. What these will amount to, nobody can tell at the moment. And now we have this latest proposal. What the cost of it will be, no one can say; it is an indeterminate sum. Recently, in the Potteries, we have been trying to extend the housing area, and the Ministry of Health has had to make certain concessions to us, at the expense of the taxpayer, because every house we build in that area has to be built on a specially constructed concrete raft. Now, when the miners are hoping that there will be a surplus to diffuse into the wages bill, the Commission will be faced with the new charge.

  735
  The real fact is that the Bill is an enormous hoax. When you attempt to deal with the land question by cutting it up into stratifications, giving the coal to A, keeping the surface for B, and giving to A, B, C, D, E and F the power to charge damages against anyone they meet, the result is as was described in the speech of one of my hon. Friends about everyone in the village charging up damages to the local mine. Nothing will come out of this Bill but disappointment, and the Amendment we are now discussing brings that fact fully to light. There is a whole list of charges that are levied against the Commission, and the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade know that there will be no surplus left, after all those charges are met, to provide the fruits which the mining communities have been led to believe would come to them. I see no way out of the impasse. When the coal was in the private hands of the surface owners, there was not the same exactitude as to the provisions for the convenience of the surface owner. I am afraid I can add no counsel of wisdom to the perplexity which has fallen upon the House, and which I anticipated from the beginning. The miners are beginning to see how much they are going to get out of the Bill, or how much the State is going to get out of the Bill; and I hope that it will be one lesson, at least, to show the futility of attempting to deal with the land question in this piecemeal fashion.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Spens: I would willingly follow the hon. Member who has just spoken in the speculations into which he invites the House to go, but I will turn to the actual substance of the Amendment. I would remind the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), as he reminded me in Committee, that this particular section of this Schedule refers solely to coal which was unworked at the valuation date. When I founded an argument on a wider view than that he properly brought me back to what we were dealing with. I would respectfully remind him and the House that we are dealing solely with coal unworked at the date of valuation, which at some date subsequent to that the Commission intend to work. On the surface, above that coal, there may be buildings of any sort. The
  736
  hon. Member who has just spoken reminded us that, as is often the case, on the surface, above that coal, there may be a building estate put up by a local authority for the houses of a great number of small persons.
  What was the situation in the Schedule as it was originally before us in this House? It was that in any future building that was to be done those who were proposing to build were to take what the Schedule calls "reasonable precautions" against future subsidence, without any definition whatever as to what those reasonable precautions were to be. I, among others, pointed out that if the Schedule was left in that way, years after the buildings had been put up, and when the subsidence began to occur, there were bound to be disputes as to whether or not those reasonable precautions had been taken. I criticised this Schedule, saying in effect that it was really laying the ground for litigation years after the buildings were put up, when the subsidence began to occur. Therefore, I supported the proposal which came from hon. Members opposite, that we should have definite proposals in the Schedule as to what the reasonable precautions were to be. We have them in the Schedule now, and the only point on which I gather that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol really criticises the Schedule is this: An individual or a public authority may choose one of two options—either going on on their own and having no right to make the Commission liable for subsidence; or submitting their plans and taking precautions, and thereby being able to claim for subsidence years after if those precautions are not sufficient. The hon. and learned Member considers that the Commission should pay no part of the cost of getting out and submitting those plans and taking those additional precautions. It seems to me not a very great insurance premium to charge the Commission to do this, so that it shall not ultimately be liable to subsidence. If that is the only ground on which the Schedule can be criticised, I suggest that it is a very thin ground indeed; and I hope the House will have no hesitation in accepting this Amendment to the Schedule, which, in my opinion, does really put before the House a workable scheme to avoid a great deal of litigation in the future and to safeguard

  737
  all classes of the community from subsidence.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has made our position quite clear in regard to this Amendment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on the previous Amendment stated the seriousness of this new policy with regard to the Commission. I want to support them, and, in addition, ask a few pointed questions of the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines, in order to make the position clearer to myself and to the people I represent. Some people tell me that one of my failings is that I am too prepared to take things at their face value, but, knowing something of the political history of this country, and having sat here during the whole of the proceedings in this Debate and heard my hon. Friends, one after another, indicating their suspicion of anything that comes from another place, despite my failing I am bound to feel suspicious of anything they do. My suspicion has been confirmed by a number of hon. Friends sitting round me who, while the Secretary for Mines was speaking, were making statements something to this effect, namely, that this is a typical example of gamekeepers turning poachers.
  It is from that angle that I approach this question. We have to deal with things as they are. I hold fundamental principles, and I have had a training which convinces me that scientific training is the only hope for humanity, and that at some time and somehow it will have to be adopted. In the meantime, as practical men dealing with every-day affairs, and having to get the best out of things as they are within the limits of our opportunities, it behoves us, if we are to represent the people of this country, to get the best out of anything that is before us at any given time. That has been the attitude of the miners in connection with this Bill. The miners know full well that there is only one hope for the industry—and sooner or later the nation will have to come to it—and that is, the fullest possible nationalisation of the whole of the mining industry and its subsidiaries. The people of this country have not yet been prepared to support us in this policy,
  738
  although it is true that they are supporting us more and more in that direction. For the time being we have a Government who are satisfied with this Bill, but even this Bill has been handicapped by another place. Therefore, as practical men representing the men and women living in the localities from which we come, we have to remember that things are not as we would like them to be, and we have to deal with the situation as it is. Therefore, I want to ask a few questions upon this Amendment.
  Am I correct in my understanding of the purpose of the Amendment? These are the three main points which I understand to be the object of the Amendment. First, it is to place a responsibility on the Commission which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said, the royalty owners have refused to accept in the past; second, the Commission may inspect plans of proposed alterations that they are prepared to pay for; and, third, the liability shall apply only in those cases where the Commission has been consulted prior to the building being carried out. If I understand the Amendment correctly, how will it be administered. The Lords Amendment on page 14 says:
  "The Commission shall on the occasion of their first exercising, etc."
  Then it goes on to state that an advertisement shall be placed in the London Gazette and in one or more of the newspapers circulating in the locality. Is it right and reasonable that that is all that should take place? Is it not reasonable to request that at least the local authority, representing the interests of the people living in the locality, should be informed by the Secretary for Mines that this may apply to their district? The second point arises on page 15, in paragraph (b), which says:
  "The Commission may make such proposals as to the materials for and method of construction of the foundations as appear to them to be desirable for minimising damage in the event of subsidence."
  I should like to ask a question as to the cost of the precautions to be taken to minimise subsidence. Later on, there is the provision that a person may inspect the foundations to ascertain whether the construction is being carried out on the basis of reasonable precautions being taken. When it comes to a matter of administration, the question of what is

  739
  reasonable becomes a matter of opinion, and the matter of opinion is to be determined by arbitration. Some of us have had experience of arbitration, and we know the legal quibbling that constantly takes place where questions are referred to arbitration. On the one hand we shall find that the case will be prepared by well trained legal people. Probably some of the finest legal minds in the country will prepare the case for arbitration on one side, while on the other side poor people, who cannot afford to pay for their case to be submitted to arbitration, will be affected. Therefore, I would ask what will be the attitude of the Secretary for Mines in connection with the question of arbitration. Can he assure us that there will be equal opportunities for submitting the case to arbitration, and that it will not be weighted on one side by great financial interests, while poor people will not have the same opportunity for the preparation of their case? I hope the Secretary for Mines will reply to these pertinent questions so that when this Bill becomes an Act the people in the districts we represent will have on record what their position is.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: There are two speeches on which I should like to make a comment. The first is the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) who seemed to look upon this as a very beneficial matter. Hon. Members would have been more convinced if the Lords had been prepared to include in the Amendment a proposal to take a much less sum than the global sum which is recommended. Most hon. Members will appreciate the fact that if what the hon. and learned Member has said had been practised by royalty owners in the past the global sum would have been considerably less. It is rather significant that landlords should suggest that the sum should be substantially larger and at the same time endeavour to place greater obligations on the Commission itself. It is something that they have not practised in the past, it is something in violation of the tenets they have held in the past whenever we have endeavoured to place financial obligations upon them for subsidences which have occurred in mining valleys and elsewhere.
  The other speech upon which I should like to comment is that of the hon. Member
  740
  for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). I should like to tell him that it is not necessary to convince mining Members in this House that the Bill is a bad Measure. The miners fully appreciate the purposes of the Bill. To-day hon. Members and myself had occasion to visit the Minister of Labour and the Chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board upon the application of the new regulations in South Wales and other parts of the country, and we listened to a statement in which statistics were used showing the enormous reduction in the number of collieries in commission to-day as compared with 1920.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting rather far away from the actual Amendment.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: I was commenting on the speech of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and using it as an illustration. The number of pits which are in commission are slightly more than 400 as compared with 600 in 1920. It is pretty obvious that the royalty owners realise that this contraction is likely to continue and that it will inevitably lead to an enormous contraction in royalty payments. We suggest that they have got a very good deal in the global sum which will be paid and, particularly, as they are to draw royalties for a few years to come. The miners are conscious of and appreciate all that. I want my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem to realise that we were conscious of that on the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the Bill. We know that it is really a bad Bill as such, but we are amazed to find that the landowners in the other place, having for centuries drawn from the mining industry enormous sums of money which have had to be paid out of the bone and marrow and heavy casualties of the miners, should have the impertinence to suggest in this Amendment that a responsibility should devolve upon the Commission which they themselves have never been prepared to bear.
  I suggest that there is one reason for this, apart entirely from the financial reasons. They are out to wreck the functions of the Commission; they are out to demonstrate, if possible, that nationalisation cannot work; they are out to cripple the Commission by placing upon it a financial obligation which even the Government were not prepared to permit them

  741
  to bear. That is the reason for this Amendment. They want to wreck the whole scheme by making it impossible for the Commission to function properly owing to the financial obligations which they will have to bear as a result of the Amendments that are suggested by the other place. I rose to speak in order to make those comments on the two speeches we have heard on this Amendment, and to show that the time has certainly arrived when the people of this country ought at last to be convinced that the other place simply represents vested interests, and that they are prepared even to violate good public intentions that may by accident come from the present Government in order that their own vested interests may be preserved.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. A. Jenkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) said that the other place is a House of vested interests. I do not think there can be very much doubt about that when we look at the Amendments they have made to this Bill. They are the people who, together with their ancestors, have taken out of the mining industry in royalties a sum of not less than £300,000,000. That is the contribution they have extracted from the miners of this country during the last two or three centuries. Now they are asking, in this Amendment, that the Commission shall undertake a responsibility which they themselves have never borne. I do not intend to make a long speech on this matter. I confess that I am tired of looking at these Amendments. I said last night, and I repeat, that I am in very much the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I would have liked to make the Amendments to this Bill a matter of principle in the country. What we have seen in regard to these Amendments, including this one, is that, with a very small number of votes in the other place, they have done their utmost to destroy what little good there might be in this Measure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) rather conveyed the impression that the miners thought they were going to derive very substantial advantages from this Measure. He is entirely wrong. We have recognised the value of this Bill from the beginning. It has had a chequered career. The little
  742
  advantages which might have accrued to the miners from it are now being taken away. I wish to ask the Minister a question which I hope he will answer. Has he or any other person made an estimate of the cost that will be involved in transferring this burden to the Commission? We know that damage has been done by subsidence over a long period and on many occasions we have suggested that much of that damage was preventable if proper packing were carried out in the mines. The divisional inspector for South Wales has suggested to the Department every year for the past seven years that mines should be properly packed. Not only subsidences but on occasion explosions could be avoided, if proper care were taken in that way. Only yesterday we considered an Amendment dealing with the right of the Commission to determine methods of working the mines. The other place have taken away that right from the Commission. Then they were acting for the coalowners. In this case they are acting for the landowners. Practically every Amendment made in the other place has been made with the direct object of benefiting either coalowners or landowners.
  It may be that colliery owners will continue to carry on mining as they have done in the past. I do not know what the Royal Commission will do about it, but if mining continues to be carried on as in the past then we shall have the same amount of subsidence and in years to come millions of pounds worth of damage will have been done. If the Commission has to bear the cost it will be so crippled that not only will there be no reduction in the rents and royalties charged, but very likely there will be an increase. That is the danger which underlies this proposition. An hon. Friend of mine beside me suggests that it will be taken out of wages. Of course, that is what is intended. It will be part of the "other costs" which come into calculation and wages will be reduced in proportion to the expenditure incurred in this way. That is why I ask the Minister for an estimate. If he has not an estimate, why does he accept this proposal without knowing the liability involved? This Amendment ought to be resisted. If there is a liability to be borne in respect of subsidence the people who have been responsible in the past and have not carried out mining according to

  743
  the best practices, are the people who ought to bear it and not the Commission. This Amendment means that more of the power of the Commission will be taken from it and eventually it will be left without power, without authority, without the financial ability to reduce rents and even though we get nationalisation or socialisation of coal-mining royalties, the mine workers will not be a penny the better. It may be, indeed, that they will have a reduction in their wages as a consequence of this liability being imposed on the Commission.
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. Paling: It is ironical that a proposal of this description should have come from the other place. The Members in another place have, with great care, set out in detail all the things that have to be done by the Commission to protect property against subsidence. Yet these are the very people who have been royalty owners themselves, and who for centuries past, ever since coal was worked in this country, have repudiated every obligation of that kind. Stories were told during the Committee stage of what had happened in Stoke and in Lancashire and in various places and of the efforts which had been made to secure some justice in respect of damage to the property of small owners caused by subsidence. The amount of justice that people got was ridiculously small. Now the Commission is the owner and the previous owners have been paid in full. There has been no reduction in the amount paid to the royalty owners because of this obligation. Having been paid in full, they are going to see that the future owner does the right thing.
  It is ironical, but it is tragic at the same time, because the miners in the long run are the people who will suffer the cost of it. One could have understood this better if the Commission had been given the right to do the things that can be done in order to mitigate subsidence and damage to property, but they have even been refused that. All they have to do in the future is to pay at the behest of those who always refused to pay when they were the owners. The people who have done this are still the owners of the surface. In the past land has been of less value if it was subject to coal being worked below it, but the owners will get full value in the future. They will say to a purchaser, "If subsidence
  744
  occurs, the Commission will have to pay you for the damage. If you submit plans to the Commission they will have to pay for that. If they suggest any alteration they will have to pay for everything." If, after all that subsidence occurs, they will have to pay for that also. The land will be worth even more than it was previously. What a glorious bargain the Lords have made for themselves. It is another illustration of the fact that the sooner they are abolished the better.
  10.54 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: May I remind the House that what we are discussing is an Amendment? From the speeches that have been made one might think we were discussing something quite different. If we do not accept this Amendment, the Bill will remain as it now is. It will not contain any of the provisions which some Members have adumbrated. We have passed that stage. It is merely an alternative proposition. Is the House prepared to accept the code laid down in the Amendment or does it prefer that we should stick to the Bill as it was before, and that, when the Commission intend to give a lease in an area where coal has previously not been worked, it should give public notice and the obligation to make good or to pay compensation shall be limited to damage which would have been prevented by reasonable and proper precautions?
  The only issue before us is whether that is a better way of doing it than to lay down as this Amendment does a procedure which is not compulsory on the Commission. I would again remind hon. Members of that because they spoke as if we were placing a compulsory burden on them. The Commission need not take this responsibility unless they choose to accept it. They will take a long view of these matters and, if they consider, generally speaking, that it is better to have these foundations put in at their own expense rather than run the risk of subsequent claims, they should be permitted to do so. We are dealing with a far narrower point than those who have heard the discussion might think. Hon. Gentlemen might think it ought to go a good deal further, but that is not the question on which the House has to make up its mind at the moment.
  The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) asked whether it was enough that

  745
  these notices should appear in the London Gazette and the local paper and whether the local authorities should not be informed. These words are exactly as they were in the Clause when it left this House. We then considered that it was sufficient. I think that in practice what the hon. Member has in mind is generally covered, because most local authorities take the London Gazette as that is the normal place in which appear a great many official announcements which must interest them. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) asked whether there was any estimate of the cost of this. There cannot be any estimate because the Commission do not have to pay for these extra precautions. How can anybody say what will be the building developments in an area where coal is not at present being developed, and where at some future date it may be developed? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see that it is impossible to make an estimate because nobody can tell what action the Commission will take in the circumstances at the time.
  Mr. Jenkins: Is there any estimate of the damage already done during the last
  10 years, and could that be taken as any indication of what the cost will be?
  Captain Crookshank: I do not think it could be, but anyhow I do not know the answer to that question in the middle of a speech. There was a third question the drift of which I could not quite understand. The hon. Member hoped that if there was a dispute and it had to go to arbitration it would not be too expensive. The only occasion under this Amendment when there is likely to be arbitration is a dispute between the Commission and the builders, whoever they may be, as to whether the foundations are being constructed according to specifications. I should have thought that that was a dispute which could not possibly run into any great expenditure. One obviously could not say what the cost would be, for it would depend on the circumstances of the dispute.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 196, Noes, 129.

  Division No. 286.]

  AYES.

  [11.1 p.m.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

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

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

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

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

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

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

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

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

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

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Apsley, Lord

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hannah, I. C

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

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

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  De la Bère, R.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Denville, Alfred

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

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

  Doland, G. F.

  Herbort, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Bernays, R. H.

  Donner, P. W.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Duncan, J. A. L.

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

  Brisooe, Capt. R. G.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Errington, E.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Butler, R. A.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

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

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Everard, W. L.

  Leoch, Sir J. W.

  Cary, R. A.

  Foot, D. M.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Liddall, W. S.

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

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

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

  Furness, S. N.

  Loftus. P. C.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Lyons, A. M.

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

  Gledhill, G.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Clany, Sir Reginald

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Goldie, N. B.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  McKie, J. H.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Rayner, Major R. H.

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

  Macnamara, Major J. R. L.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Remer, J. R.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Rickards, G. W, (Skipton)

  Touche, G. C.

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

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Turton, R. H.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

  Moreing, A. C.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Morgan, R. H.

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

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

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Munro, P.

  Salt, E. W.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  White, H. Graham

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Selley, H. R.

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

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel G.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Petherick, M.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Wragg, H.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Spens, W. P.

  Radford, E. A.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

  Major Sir James Edmondson

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Storey, S.

  and Major Harvie Watt.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Groves, T. E.

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

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

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

  Poole, C. C.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Price, M. P.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hayday, A.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Barnes, A. J.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Ridley, G.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Riley, B.

  Batey, J.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Ritson, J.

  Bellenger F. J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

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

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Hollins, A.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Broad, F. A.

  Hopkin, D.

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

  Bromfield, W.

  Jagger, J.

  Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Sexton, T. M.

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

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Silkin, L.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Cape, T.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Chater, D.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Stephen, C.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lathan, G.

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

  Collindridge, F.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Leach, W.

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

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Lee, F.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Daggar, G.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dalton, H.

  Lunn, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Tinker, J. J.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, H.

  MacLaren, A.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Dobbie, W.

  Marshall, F.

  Walker, J.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Mathers, G.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Ede, J. C.

  Maxton, J.

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Messer, F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

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

  Milner, Major J.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Montague, F.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Garro Jones, G. M.

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

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Paling, W.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Parker, J.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Pearson, A.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 15, at the end, insert:
  "(4) On granting to any person the right to withdraw support from any land the Commission shall require that person to give adequate security for the payment of any compensation likely to become payable as a result of the exercise of that right."
  11.9 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Amendment says that on the grant of a right to withdraw support from any

  749
  land the Commission shall require adequate security for the payment of compensation which may become payable. Of course, it is a completely unworkable proposition, and anyway it is unnecessary because later I shall ask the House to agree to an Amendment dealing with much the same point.
  11.10 p.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: I liked the nice phraseology of the Secretary for Mines: "Of course, it is completely unworkable." Of course, coming from their Lordships' House, it would be. We are getting a choice collection of phrases, starting with the "mischances" of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and we shall find a very fine list of criticisms of their Lordships from the Government front bench. Of course, we agree that this is entirely unworkable, and we are very glad that the Government are asking the House to disagree. It is a little interesting to notice the selection of the Amendments upon which we are asked to disagree. Here there is just a nice balance between two vested interests that support His Majesty's Government, the royalty owners and the coalowners. This would be a grave incubus upon the coalowners, and this time they have won.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: And not for the first time.
  11.11 p.m.
  Major Milner: The House ought to appreciate that this Amendment was carried against the Government in the House of Lords. As I understand, it was really put forward at the instance of the Association of Municipal Corporations in the first instance. In 99 cases out of 100 it may be a very practical and workable proposition, with all respect to my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, to ensure that a private company to whom a lease is given of mines where there is a likelihood of subsidence, shall be compelled to give adequate security for the payment of any compensation likely to become possible as a result of the withdrawal of support. It is all very well to say that that proposal is unworkable. I quite recognise that if the case were one of withdrawal of support from a whole town very large sums of money might be involved, but I do not think that the House should at once disagree with their Lordships on a matter in which their Lordships have
  750
  disagreed with the Government, and which insists that private companies shall give security for possible withdrawal of support.
  This Amendment was introduced into the House of Lords under very responsible auspices, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I think it should be a little further explored before we disagree with their Lordships. If we permit a private company to withdraw support, that company will have no obligation to give security for such withdrawal. It may be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give us an absolute security that in some future Amendment some guarantee is given.
  Captain Crookshank: I have already said that the matter is largely dealt with in a subsequent Amendment.
  Major Milner: The House would be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be more detailed and give the precise proposal which will be in that later Amendment. If he gives the security which I ask, for the local authorities in particular, I shall be very glad to withdraw my opposition.
  11.14 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I do not think that this matter is limited to the local authorities. I do not know on what representations this Amendment was inserted; it does not really have anything to do with local authorities at all. The suggestion in it is that the Commission should first grant to a colliery undertaking which is going to work the coal a right to withdraw support, and should at that time secure from that undertaking adequate security, I presume in the form of some large cash provision, for any compensation likely to become payable at any time, as a result of their working the coal. The hon. Gentleman may say that it is a practical proposition, but I cannot imagine on what basis the Commission could possibly estimate what would be an adequate security against possible claims for compensation over the whole period of the working of the coal. As I have said, there is another Amendment which deals with the same point, but this Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, was carried against the Government in another place, and I cannot see that we are under any obligation to accept it now.
  Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 3, at the end, insert:
  "and such restrictions may be so imposed on the application of, and so as to vest the right to enforce the restrictions in, any company or other body or person carrying on an undertaking primarily for the supply of gas, electricity, water or hydraulic power for public purposes or to members of the public.
  7.—(1) Any person interested in land damaged by the working of coal in exercise of a right to withdraw support therefrom which vests in the Commission under either of the two preceding paragraphs subject to an obligation to pay proper compensation for or to make good damage arising from such working, and which has been granted by the Commission to a lessee, shall be entitled to enforce against the Commission any liability to pay proper compensation for or to make good that damage pursuant to that obligation which the lessee fails to discharge:
  Provided that nothing in this sub-paragraph shall be construed as rendering invalid any provision contained in a lease granted by the Commission requiring the lessee to indemnify the Commission against liability in respect of any such obligation as aforesaid, and the Commission may require the inclusion of such a provision in a lease which they are under obligation by virtue of Section twelve of this Act to grant.
  (2) Any question as to the subsistence by virtue of either of the two preceding paragraphs of an obligation to pay proper compensation for or to make good damage to any land, or as to the rights or liabilities of any person in respect of the enforcement of such an obligation so subsisting, shall be determined by arbitration."
  11.17 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendment be divided."
  Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 3, at the end, insert:
  "and such restrictions may be so imposed on the application of, and so as to vest the right to enforce the restrictions in, any company or other body or person carrying on an undertaking primarily for the supply of gas, electricity, water or hydraulic power for public purposes or to members of the public."
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Paragraph 6 (4) of the Schedule as it left us required undertakings which had
  752
  statutory rights for the mining of coal to apply under the working facilities legislation for restrictions on the working of coal required for their undertakings, and no exception was taken to that provision. These words extend the same power of application to the Railway and Canal Commission for that kind of support to what may briefly be described as non-statutory public undertakings. The point was not raised in this House at all, but in another place attention was called to the fact that, particularly in Scotland, there were various small undertakings which were not in possession of full statutory rights, but existed primarily for the supply of gas, electricity, water or hydraulic power. I hope the House will agree with this very reasonable Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 3, at the end, insert:
  "7.—(1) Any person interested in land damaged by the working of coal in exercise of a right to withdraw support therefrom which vests in the Commission under either of the two preceding paragraphs subject to an obligation to pay proper compensation for or to make good damage arising from such working, and which has been granted by the Commission to a lessee, shall be entitled to enforce against the Commission any liability to pay proper compensation for or to make good that damage pursuant to that obligation which the lessee fails to discharge:
  Provided that nothing in this sub-paragraph shall be construed as rendering invalid any provision contained in a lease granted by the Commission requiring the lessee to indemnify the Commission against liability in respect of any such obligation as aforesaid, and the Commission may require the inclusion of such a provision in a lease which they are under obligation by virtue of Section twelve of this Act to grant.
  (2) Any question as to the subsistence by virtue of either of the two preceding paragraphs of an obligation to pay proper compensation for or to make good damage to any land, or as to the rights or liabilities of any person in respect of the enforcement of such an obligation so subsisting, shall be determined by arbitration."
  11.19 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment provides that any person interested in land damaged by the working of coal in the exercise of a right which is vested in the Commission subject to an obligation to pay compensation for damage arising from the working, and

  753
  which has been granted by the Commission to a lessee, shall be entitled to enforce against the Commission any liability to pay proper compensation, with the proviso, which is important, that this must not be taken as making invalid any provision which the Commission may make for passing on that responsibility to its lessee. This only concerns existing leases the rights under which as between the present surface owners and the present lessees pass, for the duration of the lease, to the Commission, merely with the substitution of the Commission for the actual coalowner. So they are not affected. This deals with the case of all fresh leases made by the Commission. When the matter was raised before, it was pointed out that sometimes damage occurred and the colliery company had, perhaps, ceased working, disappeared, or gone bankrupt; at any rate, for some reason, the damage could not be recovered; and that was a great hardship to the people who had suffered from the subsidence.
  Another point made by hon. Members was that sometimes it could not be found out who had caused the subsidence, as there were two or three undertakings working in close proximity. In the interests of all likely to suffer damage, this Amendment suggests that in the first instance the right should lie against the Commission, but there is no reason why the Commission should not do exactly what has been normally done in the past—that is, pass on the liability to the undertaking—and the proviso enables that to happen. There is nothing in the paragraph which renders invalid any provision which the Commission may make with its lessee in order to indemnify the Commission against such claims. To that extent, I think it meets the point that the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made earlier on; and it provides, in the second part, that any questions in regard to the existence of obligation to pay compensation or not shall be settled by arbitration. That, again, takes up the point made earlier on, that some difficulties were experienced in pursuing this question owing to the high costs. It is in order to meet those points that I recommend that this Amendment should be agreed to.
  11.22 p.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: It is amazing how His Majesty's Government are discovering
  754
  what is fair as regards surface owners. It is now fair that they should have the first right against royalty owners whatever the provisions of the lease. It is a pity they did not discover that 20 years ago. Again, it is a complete alteration of the conditions on which the global sum was paid. It may be a good alteration or a bad alteration, but it is a complete alteration. Again, it is putting into the hands of the surface owner who has sold his coal a better chance of recovering any damage than he would have had in other circumstances. It is, again, in favour of the landowner and against the Commission. It is, again, liable to cripple the Commission in carrying out its work, so far as it has any effect at all. We object to the representatives of the royalty owners coming forward and saying, "This which we refused to do for the last century is really the only fair and proper thing to be done." Directly they have divested themselves of their ownership of the coal and got the cash, they are prepared to load any burdens on the person who has got the coal. It is for that reason that we object strongly to this increase of charge on the Commission.
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Batey: There is a difference between this Amendment and the former Amendment which the House discussed. On the former Amendment some of my colleagues complained that there was a danger of piling up expenditure against the Commission, so that the Commission might be damaged in their work. They felt during that debate that, after all, there was a little something in it because houses might be damaged. This Amendment does not deal with damage to houses but simply with land. The royalty owners have sold the coal and got the royalty rents, and now, as landowners, they are dealing with the land.
  Captain Crookshank: It includes houses.
  Mr. Batey: Where are the houses? Will the Secretary for Mines point out in this Amendment where the houses are? There is not a word in the Amendment that deals with houses. It really means that the royalty owners have got paid for the coal, and now they are the landowners they want to be paid for any damage that is done to the land. The royalty owners say that the Government have forced them to accept a price they do not like

  755
  for the sale of their coal, and now they intend to do everything they possibly can to ruin the Commission. This is one of the ways to ruin the Commission. I do not believe that for the next 25 years the miners will get any relief from the transference of the royalties from the present royalty owners to the Commission. The way that the Government are accepting these Amendments from another place will cause the expenditure of the Commission to pile up, so that they will have to increase the rents. Bad as is the position of the miners at the present time, the proposals from another place which the Government are accepting will make their position worse than it is at the present time.
  The Attorney-General: I only intervene to assure the hon. Gentleman that "land" does include the buildings on the land.
  Mr. Batey: How can it do that when it is not mentioned?
  11.28 p.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: I do not know whether the learned Attorney-General has noticed one thing about the Schedule. It might be said generally that that was the case, but in this case—page 14 of the Lords Amendments, he will notice that where that is intended, in this Schedule it is specifically stated, where it sets out,
  "which obligation shall extend to buildings and works on that land"
  when constructed before a certain date. Therefore, there, land clearly does not include buildings, because it is intended by the definition only to apply to buildings built after a certain date, and would not cover buildings before that date. It is open to doubt as to whether a Clause appearing in the same Schedule using the word "land" will not be held to have the same meaning as land clearly must have in the first part of that Schedule. I suggest that it is by no means certain in this particular text in view of that definition in (b), that land will include works and buildings.
  The Attorney-General: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong, and I have assured the House that the use of the word here does include buildings.
  Sir S. Cripps: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain it?
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: It is no good the Attorney-General telling us that we can accept that assurance from him. He must give us some reasons. Even Law Officers have been wrong in times past. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has given a very cogent argument, but the Attorney-General says we can accept it from him that that argument is wrong. That is a much bigger answer than we have had before. The policy has been to sit still in the firm conviction that anything they did say would be wrong. Everybody knows that land, ordinarily speaking, includes everything on it, even when it is inserted in the Statute at the instance of gentlemen who are generally only interested in land and not in buildings that people put on the land. In one part of the Schedule "land" is defined to include "buildings and works" and on the next page we get the word "land" put in quite simply. There is grave danger of the court construing that as land without buildings, but the Attorney-General seeks to assure us that that is not so.
  11.32 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: If the hon. and learned Member would look again at it he would see that the emphasis is on the words "constructed before or after the vesting date." Those words make it quite clear that "land" does include buildings and works, otherwise they would not draw the distinction as to whether they were constructed before or after that date. I think it is clear that "land" does include buildings.
  11.33 p.m.
  Mr. Stokes: I have been amazed at the number of amendments we have accepted which are going to fritter away the revenue of the Commission. One hon. Member pointed out that the Commission can pass subsidence expenses on to the lessee. That is true, but from the lessee they must go straight to the wage earner. Before we vote on this Amendment I should like the House to realise what we are doing. We are taking £66,000,000 of the hard-won earnings of the workers and handing it over to people who have been milking the country for years, and we are doing that in order to get back for the people what already morally belongs to them. I have been racking my brains to find a suitable simile

  757
  —I do not think hon. Members opposite would accept my statement—for what is happening, and the only thing I can think of is the story of the famous pirate Captain Kidd, who lived in the Middle Ages, and who amassed huge wealth by sinking ships at sea. Instead of burying his wealth as he used to do, suppose he had formed a limited liability company and got a monopoly of piracy and handed the right on to his heirs and successors. And suppose that public opinion rose in revolt and said that piracy must stop, would this House solemnly sit down and decide what sum it should pay to buy back the monopoly.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member cannot raise that point in this Amendment.
  Mr. Stokes: In conclusion, I will only say that surely this is one of the worst forms of subterranean piracy, and I hope that no more concessions will be made.
  11.37 p.m.
  Mr. Acland: I want to put a point with regard to existing leases which contain a clause that the lessee shall be solely liable for subsidence. I want to ask what happens when that particular lease expires, or when the company which is the lessee is wound up or goes bankrupt, and it is a question of drawing up a new lease to the same company or some other company in respect of the existing mine? Will it be competent for the Commission to draw up a new lease containing the same clause in the lease which existed placing the whole liability for subsidence upon the lessee, exonerating the Commission entirely from all liability, or will the Commission be compelled, when granting a new lease to accept the liability for subsidence? If it is possible for the Commission to insist on the same terms which are now attached to that particular mine continuing in all future leases they are getting precisely what they claim, and are not being asked to undertake any new obligation. If, on the other hand, it is the other way round, if on granting a new lease to a new company, or a new lease to the existing company, they will be compelled to take over the whole liability for subsidence, then they are being asked to take on a burden for which they never bargained.
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: A great deal has been said in this discussion about houses; apparently
  758
  they are concerned as well. This is another instance of the many we have had already of the policy which is being pursued in another place of extracting the uttermost of the amount of money which they expect to get or were disappointed with not getting in the global sum. That is the position. If I wanted any confirmation of that I have only to quote from a speech made by a noble Lord or Duke in another place. He pointed out that—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not quote what was said in the Debate in another place.
  Mr. Taylor: It is evident from the temper in which they have approached these Amendments, that they have had a savage determination to get their own back on the Greene Committee for not fixing as large a sum as they thought ought to have been fixed. One hears complaints about the method in which the Greene Committee committed the royalty owners to that sum of money. One hears and reads comments and opinions expressed that if the sum was too small, it had to be accepted, and if it was too large, the Government could resist paying it. But they said they had better accept it, as there might be another Government coming into power which would pass legislation paying much less than £66,500,000. They said, "There is a far, far better way—let us get it by the Amendments." I want to point out that the landlord who now ceases to be the mineral owner will, by these Amendments, be most handsomely safeguarded and most liberally rewarded.
  A large colliery company in Northumberland has raised this point with the Secretary for Mines, and they have been woefully disappointed. They were under the impression, when the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, that something would be done to deal with the leases granted by landowners to colliery companies. The expenses that may come against the Commission can be of a very important nature. Let us assume this position. A landowner has leased 36 acres to a colliery company. The company has no houses, but there is a railway line upon which the company runs its coal. That colliery company and another one are amalgamated: the time during which the two companies were separate, and the time during which they

  759
  were amalgamated, comes to 62 years; during that time they have paid £411,548 in charges for running their coal over 36 acres—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot see that that has anything to do with the Amendment.
  Mr. Taylor: I am using that as an illustration to show that, if there is damage to that land or to that railway line, apart from houses, a tremendous charge will have to be borne by the Commission. And whether hon. Members opposite know it or not, that will all come from the miners. Never mind who pays it—it will come from the people who go down into the bowels of the earth day after day to produce the coal. For that reason, I resist this Amendment, and I hope the House will not accept it.
  11.45 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: A question was asked with regard to a lease coming to an end. The answer is that the Commission would be liable in the terms of this Subsection, but it would be lawful to pass the liability on.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: What would be the position of a colliery company which was in liquidation? Would the burden not then fall on the Commission?
  Captain Crookshank: I was dealing with a new lease. If a colliery company is liquidated, I suppose it will have some obligations outstanding in all directions. If a company goes into liquidation and production ceases, liability to damages is proverbially very great.
  11.46 p.m.
  Mr. Davies: Yes, and that liability if there were no realisable assets, would fall on the Commission, and I cannot understand why the hon. and gallant Gentleman is circumnavigating round a very simple point. As I am on my feet, may I express my opinion on this Amendment, which is one of a whole series of Amendments every one of which reveals to the House the ignominious capitulation which the Government have made to the peremptory demands and threats coming from another place. It has been said more than once from these Benches that undoubtedly the first preoccupation of the other House was to wreck this Bill, but,
  760
  if that could not be done, then to make the work of the Commission the laughing stock of this country. The Amendments that this House has considered this evening present a pitiable spectacle, both of the attitude of this Government and of the noble Lords who have compelled us to consider these demands at this time of night.
  Let us realise how meticulous the other House has been in its attack upon all the details of this Bill. According to this last Amendment, if a piece of land has on it a spring of water that might be of the least public utility or use to an individual, and if in the working of the colliery that water dried up, the Commission would have to pay compensation even for that. It is no good the hon. and gallant Gentleman telling us that in this Amendment we are protecting the Commission. Figures have come from these Benches as to the large number of collieries that have closed down even in South Wales—nearly 250 in a very few years—and most of them have filed their petition. Then what is the use of tabling an Amendment of this kind, saying that the Commission can transfer its potential liabilities under this Bill to the colliery companies? We know of a number of bankruptcies that have been deliberately and fictitiously staged in order that certain individuals might shed themselves of legal responsibilities that they had assumed. The Noble Lords know the game as well if not better than this House does. We have seen the victims of vicious practices of that kind. We are protesting against this open, blatant, brazen exploitation of the people. Hon. Members do not like this picture of ignominy and shame. This is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated in this House for a long time. We have got used to some millions of pounds being doled out—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is getting rather far from the Amendment.
  Mr. Davies: I have not obtruded upon these debates until this moment but the Amendment has given me the opportunity of expressing my protest against this meticulous pursuing of what might have been a great idea by pettifogging and ignominious Amendments of this kind. I only wish the Government had had the courage to act upon the advice of a noble Lord who urged—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not in order to refer to what took place in another place.
  Mr. Davies: I do not apologise for associating myself with the protest that has been made from these benches. We will continue to protest and to expose the shameful position that the Government
  have assumed in a grave and serious piece of public exploitation.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 105.—[Special Entry.]

  Division No. 287.]

  AYES.

  [11.54 p.m.

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

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Morgan, R. H.

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

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Munro, P.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Errington, E.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

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

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Apsley, Lord

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Everard, W. L.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Peake, O.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Gledhill, G.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Radford, E. A.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Ramsbotham, H.

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

  Goldie, N. B.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Bracken, B.

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Brisooe, Capt. R. G.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Butler, R. A.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Salt, E. W.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Scott, Lord William

  Cary, R. A.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Selley, H. R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

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

  Higgs, W. F.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Channon, H.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

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

  Horsbrugh. Florence

  Spens, W. P.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

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

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

  Latham, Sir P.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Law, Sir A. J.(High Peak)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

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

  Touche, G. C.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

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

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Watt Major G. S. Harvie

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  De la Bére, R.

  MoCorquodale, M. S.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Doland, G. F.

  Mokie, J. H.

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

  Donner, P. W.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Macnamara, Major J. R. J.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Drewe, C.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernesl

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

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

  Wragg, H.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Eastwood, J. F.

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

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Mills Major J. D. (New Forest)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Captain Dugdale and Mr. Furness.

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Moreing, A. C.

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Daggar, G.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Dalton, H.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Bromfield, W.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

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

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Burke, W. A.

  Dobbie, W.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Cape, T.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Barnes, A. J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Ede, J. C.

  Barr, J.

  Collindridge, F.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Batey, J.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

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

  Frankel, D.

  Leach, W.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Lee, F.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Silkin, L.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Lunn, W.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Groves, T. E.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

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

  MacLaren, A.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Marshall, F.

  Stephen, C.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Maxton, J.

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

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Messer, F.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Hayday, A.

  Milner, Major J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

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

  Thurtle, E.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Hollins, A.

  Paling, W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hopkin, D.

  Parker, J.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Jagger, J.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Westwood, J.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Pearson, A.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

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

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  John, W.

  Poole, C. C.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Price, M. P.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Ridley, G.

  Lathan, G.

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Lawson, J. J.

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

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Compensation payable under Section Six of this Act.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 26, after "profession," insert:
  "or a person who has had experience in the management of land or with business experience."
  12.2 a.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment deals with the chairmanship of the Central Valuation Board and is inserted in the fear that possibly the Lord Chancellor might not be able to find a person who is a member of the legal profession for appointment to the Board who would be suitable for that appointment.
  12.3 a.m.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: The defence of this Amendment by the Secretary for Mines is very quaint, and I am sure he does not take it seriously himself and will not expect us to do so either. It is a common practice in appointing independent chairmen to select members of the legal profession, and at any rate we have the satisfaction of knowing that lawyers act for both sides, for all sorts of sides, according to the views of the client who is briefing them. Therefore, there is quite a good case for the appointment, if possible, of people with legal experience to positions where independent judicial judgment is required, but it seems to me that it is a new
  764
  doctrine to assume that this kind of judicial independence will be secured equally by the appointment of a person who has had experience in the management of land or who has had business experience. This Amendment has been inserted in another place obviously for a purpose, and the purpose was not because the Lord Chancellor could not find a competent lawyer to discharge this independent function. That really is nonsense, and the Secretary for Mines must not expect us to take that at all seriously. There is no shortage of competent lawyers to fill the appointment that will be required under this Schedule. What the members of another place wanted was to secure a bias in the direction of the landowner on the part of this Central Valuation Tribunal. If they wanted the typical person who is represented politically by members of their Lordships' House they could not have done much better for themselves than making provision for the appointment of persons who have had experience in the management of land, because 70 or 80 per cent. of them are thoroughly reactionary and conservative in their outlook and therefore good representatives of those who put forward this Amendment in another place. When the Patronage Secretary has finished his customary habit of interrupting we can get on with the business. [Interruption.] It is so, and I am entitled to protest.
  This Amendment was not made for the purpose of preserving the independence of the chairman, but with the object of impairing that independence—it was deliberately

  765
  done for that purpose. To a less extent, possibly, but to a considerable extent, at any rate, the same observation applies to the proposal that the person appointed shall have business experience. I will give an analogy. Suppose it were a question of determining the qualifications of the chairman of the Industrial Court, to which is referred cases concerning wages, and suppose an Amendment were submitted saying that the selection might be made not only from those experienced in the law but those experienced in the fixing of wages, as officials of trade unions. Nobody could deny that such a person would know a great deal about the relations of employers and employed and the fixing of wages, but precisely because his knowledge and experience had been gained on one side in the industrial battle rather than the other it would be objected that he would have a bias. In the same way we object to this Amendment. It will not extend the field of choice but is calculated to undermine the basis of the independence of the chairman. For these reasons we object to this Amendment, and we must treat with contempt, as no doubt he does himself, the defence made of it by the Secretary for Mines.
  12.9 a.m.
  Mr. MacLaren: Everybody knows that valuations in the mining industry are the most difficult and perhaps the most highly technical form of valuation, and I do not think it is right that the position should be left as the Amendment leaves it. The Bill says that the Chairman shall be a member of the legal profession, and I have no objection to that, but I know that there are persons who are not only trained legally but trained in valuation work, and I think it is highly necessary that the chairman of a valuation board should know something about the technique of valuation. From that point of view I do not think the Amendment helps at all. I am inclined to agree with the speech of the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), because it has been my experience that gentlemen who have been in the habit of managing land are not altogether, shall I say, up to date in their views on political matters, to say the least of it. I have intervened only to protest that this appointment should not have been kept an entirely legal appointment and should apply to a person of business experience or experience in the
  766
  management of land. These questions of valuation are highly technical and involved, and if it is at all possible the Minister should see to it that the chairman of the Valuation Board should be not merely a legal person but one acquainted with the technicalities of the valuation of minerals.
  12.11 a.m.
  Mr. Davidson: I make no apology for intervening at this late hour, because this Bill affects Scotland arid Scottish interests, and we are entitled to ask the Secretary for Mines or a legal representative of the Government for a further explanation of it. I can speak with particular knowledge of those who, in Scotland, have had something to do with the ownership and management of land. Scottish landlords and those who have had the management of land are, as in England, reactionary individuals who cannot truly represent the nation, and are the type of person that has given rise to the demand for independent chairmen in matters of legislation. They are the reactionary landlords of Scotland.
  I want to know exactly what is meant by this Amendment. For example, the practical intricacies of land management in Scotland are usually carried out by factors; I am sure that the Secretary for Mines will not attempt to tell us that the Lords desire that type of person to be the independent chairman of the Valuation Board. They really mean the landlords of this country, and they are giving them facilities not only to be compensated by the Commission throughout this Bill, but facilities to act as independent chairmen of the valuation boards that will affect to a very great extent conditions in the mining industry.
  With regard to business experience, I was immediately struck by the point—although I do not think that their Lordships meant it—that we could have, under that qualification, as chairmen of valuation boards, either the Cameron of Lochiel of the Highlands, or Sir Harry Lauder, because of their business experience. The Secretary for Mines should recognise that this provision does not deal with the matter as it should be dealt with. I would rather have the Clause as it stands, providing for the appointment of an independent person, being a member of the legal profession, and definitely restricting the chairmanship

  767
  to that particular profession. While the legal profession has many faults, and while there are many black sheep in it who fail to give us proper interpretations of certain Clauses in the Bill, generally speaking, I recognise that the legal profession is an honourable profession. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I grant that to the legal profession. But would hon. Members say "Hear, hear" if I said that the landlords of this country were an honourable section of the community? Would they say "Hear, hear" if I said that the business people of this country were an honourable section of the community? We might have a Hatry or some person of that description, with great business experience, as chairman of such a Valuation Board.
  If I were the Whip of this party, whipping up the mining Members, I would tell them to carry on this discussion until we had an assurance from the Minister that this whole question would be reconsidered. Undoubtedly this Amendment has been inserted by the other House for the purpose of widening the scope of the chairmanship of the Valuation Board, so that certain interests may be represented. The Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade know that perfectly well, and, if they could stand up and divest themselves of their party obligations, they would say, "This is a bad Amendment; it is not the kind of Amendment that I as Minister for Mines or President of the Board of Trade would desire." It is an Amendment that restricts the work, the capabilities and the efficiency of these boards, and can bring all kinds of vested interests into the chairmanship of these boards. It should be repudiated by Members on all sides of the House.
  12.17 a.m.
  Mr. Jagger: One point has not been stressed in favour of leaving the Bill as it is. While I am not prepared to offer the same eulogies as the last speaker with regard to the legal profession, we must admit that at least the legal profession are trained to understand the laws of evidence and to weigh the value of evidence. That gives them their only claim to a position of this kind, and I hope that the Bill will be passed in the form in which it now stands.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker Mr. Deputy-Speaker rose to put the Question.
  Sir S. Cripps: Surely we are going to have an answer. The remark with which this Amendment was introduced cannot have been a serious remark. Surely we are to have some explanation of the reasons why we are asked to agree with the Amendment.
  12.19 a.m.
  Captain Crookshank: It is perfectly simple; it is only a question of one chairman—
  Sir S. Cripps Sir S. Cripps rose—
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to say something, and, before I have finished one sentence, he rises to interrupt me. He appreciates, I am sure, though I do not think that hon. Members behind him quite appreciate, that there is only one Board with which we are here concerned, namely, the Central Valuation Board. It has nothing to do with the regional boards. I am not going to discuss what the Board has to do; this is merely a question of who shall be the chairman. As the Bill left us, it was decided that he chairman should be an independent legal person, and in the other House an Amendment was inserted which is merely an alternative. There is nothing to prevent an independent legal chairman being appointed. But, supposing that for some reason a completely suitable legal person could not be found with the full necessary qualifications, as is quite possible—an hon. Member opposite said he thought it ought to be a landlord—then, since the appointment has to be made very soon after the passing of the Bill, it is desirable that it should be open to appoint someone who is equally independent but is not a legal person. There is no suggestion that:
  "a person who has had experience in the management of land or with business experience"
  may not be a legal person. This Board's functions are very narrow. They have to divide the country up into regions and to draw up rules of valuation which, if a further Amendment is accepted, will come up for approval in this House. It is a comparatively small function they have to perform, and it is just in case an independent legal person with just the qualifications required cannot be found, so that the whole work may not be held up, that the Amendment is worded in this way.
  12.21 a.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: This is, if I may say so, the most fatuous explanation I have ever heard. One man is to be appointed. In the City of London there are 2,500 solicitors, apart altogether from barristers. Out of the City of London alone, is it suggested that it would not be possible to find a chairman of the Central Valuation Board? Then there are the other big cities. There are tens of thousands of people available, and nobody will believe the explanation put forward by the Minister. The fact that he has put it forward shows that the real explanation is too disgraceful for him to suggest.
  12.22 a.m.
  Mr. Pritt: Only a little examination is needed to show how absurd that the Government's case is. Between the Bill leaving this House and coming back with its lordly improvements, somebody has discovered that out of all the lawyers in England there may not be one who is fit to act as chairman of the Central Valuation Board. Therefore, words are proposed which say not that in the event of no lawyer being compos mentis somebody shall be appointed who is compos mentis, but that somebody who has had experience of land management, and will be partial as a judge, shall be appointed.
  Mr. Stanley: What sides are there on the Central Valuation Board?
  Mr. Pritt: The President solemnly asks what sides there are on the Central Valuation Board. There is somebody who wants to have more than he ought to have, and somebody else who wants to pay less than he ought to pay. The other qualification is business experience. It has been often asked why should a person who spends his whole life preferring his private advantage to the public advantage be considered a suitable person to deal with questions of public advantage. But the matter does not stop there. The independent person who has had experience in the management of land would be very likely to be a person suitable to be recommended by the president of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution.
  "The appointments … shall be made by the Board of Trade after consultation, in the case of the chairman of the Board, with the Lord Chancellor."
  You must not ask the president of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution. If you want to find
  "a person who has had experience in the management of land or with business experience,"
  you ask the Lord Chancellor, and later, when you want to appoint other members of the Board, you are to ask the president of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution. This is to go out to the country as the product of the united wisdom of the House of Lords. Representatives of the Government do not get up and produce a reason for this. They do not produce one because there is not one.
  12.26a.m.
  Mr. Ede: In view of the alteration which is now proposed in the wording of this Clause, is there any person now in mind to be appointed? Those of us who recollect the incident about Sir Ernest Gowers, when he was appointed under the Act of 1930, are entitled to inquire whether there is some person who is now being considered for this post who does not possess the qualification that was requisite when the Bill originally left this House.
  12.27a.m.
  Mr. Stanley: Certainly not. The answer is "No," and in any case, I certainly could not dream, before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, of talking in public as to whether to consider this or that person. I can say that there is no truth whatever in the innuendo of the hon. Gentleman that we are already considering, for some disgraceful reason, the appointment of somebody who otherwise, before this Amendment, could not be appointed.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 89.

  Division No. 288.]

  AYES.

  [12.27 p.m.

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

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Bossom, A. C.

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

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Apsley, Lord

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

  Bracken, B.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Radford, E. A.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Cary, R. A.

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hambro, A. V.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

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

  Hannah, I. C.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Channon, H.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Salmon, Sir I.

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

  Higgs, W. F.

  Salt, E. W.

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

  Holdsworth, H.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Holmes, J. S.

  Scott, Lord William

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Selley, H. R.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

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

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  De la Bére, R.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Doland, G. F.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Spens, W. P.

  Donner, P. W.

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

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

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Loftus. P. C.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Touche, G. C.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  McKie, J. H.

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

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Errington, E.

  Macnamara, Major J. R. L.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Everard, W. L.

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

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Furness, S. N.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gledhill, G.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Wragg, H.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Peake, O.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Mr. James Stuart and. Mr. Munro.

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Pearson, A.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Hayday, A.

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

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

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Poole, C. C.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Price, M. P.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hollins, A.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Barr, J.

  Hopkin, D.

  Ridley, G.

  Batey, J.

  Jagger, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

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

  Bromfield, W.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Silkin, L.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  John, W.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Collindridge, F.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Daggar, G.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Dalton, H.

  Lawson, J. J.

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

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Leach, W.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lee, F.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dobbie, W.

  Lunn, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Tinker, J. J.

  Ede, J. C.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Watkins, F. C.

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

  MacLaren, A.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Frankel, D.

  Marshall, F.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Messer, F.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Milner, Major J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Grenfell, D. R.

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

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Groves, T. E.

  Oliver, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Paling, W.

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

  Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 10, after "Act," insert:
  "or to coal or a mine of which a person is entitled to require a lease to be granted to him under section twelve of this Act."
  12.32a.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is consequential on one carried yesterday, and it was then explained by my right hon. Friend. The four following Amendments are consequential on this one.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 66, line 25, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 35, after "Act," insert:
  "or to coal or a mine of which a person is entitled to require a lease to be granted to him under section twelve of this Act."
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is consequential.
  Lords Amendment: In page 68, line 26, at the end, insert:
  "Provided that rules under this paragraph shall not be made until a draft thereof has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament."
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agreed with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Certain rules have to be drawn up by the Central Valuation Board with regard to the methods for securing uniformity of valuation.
  12.38a.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: The only thing I am afraid about in connection with this Amendment is that it will give the other House an opportunity of completely hanging up the whole proceedings. They only have to refuse to approve these draft rules and everything stops. This is a provision by which there has to be a positive resolution of both Houses before the rules can operate. From what we have seen of the other House with regard to this Bill, it seems to me that it is quite wrong that the people who have opposed everything in this Bill should be able to say, "Now we have a simple way of
  774
  doing it. We will refuse to approve the rules of the Central Valuation Board," and the complete Bill is finished. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered, in view, of the complete lack of control that the Government have over their Lordships' House on matters where their Lordships are interested for themselves and nothing else, and what would happen if their Lordships refused to pass these draft rules by a positive resolution. I should also like to know whether he is satisfied that no such circumstances can arise, because, if not, then this Bill would be finished if such circumstances did arise.
  12.40a.m.
  Mr. Stanley: In spite of the mishaps and the slings and arrows of fortune, I still do not despair of a Government majority in another place. A great many people in another place, quite apart from any effect on their own pockets, have felt that this is a question of principle, a principle with which hon. Members opposite may disagree and with which I disagree, but a principle which they hold as strongly as hon. Members and I hold our principles. This, after all, will simply be a question of the way in which this particular valuation is to be carried out, and I do not contemplate the possibility envisaged by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Sir S. Cripps: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, if such an event did occur, he would introduce legislation to solve the problem at once?
  Mr. Stanley: I should, quite certainly. Not in any circumstances would the Government allow the whole scheme to come to naught because of that. If such an event did happen, if it was not simply a question of disagreement with some particular provision that could be got over by some Amendment, and if it was intended to bring the whole Bill to a standstill by the use of this procedure, then most certainly I should take another course.
  Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 10, leave out "all purposes, including."
  12.42 a.m.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is simply a drafting point. As I think I explained when the Bill was in Committee, this Sub-section deals with payments on account and provides that, if a payment is made on account, the person who gets it is debited with 3 per cent. interest, which is subsequently deducted from the compensation. It was desired to provide that no money should actually pass, because the interest would be taken out of the compensation he gets. It was desired to provide that for Income Tax purposes those payments should be deemed to have been made on the anniversary of the day when payment on account is made, but the paragraph as originally drafted says that interest shall be deemed, for all purposes, including purposes of Income Tax, to be paid on those days. It is only for Income Tax purposes that it is necessary or desired, and the words "for all purposes" might raise questions of complication as between life tenants and remaindermen. For those reasons it is better to restrict it to the purposes for which it was intended. This explanation covers the present Amendment and the following one.
  Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 13, at the end, insert:
  "and accordingly shall be treated as a proper deduction from income."
  Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege, because it makes clear what is the proper deduction from income for Income Tax purposes.
  12.43a.m.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  These words arc necessary to make clear what was always intended in this paragraph, namely, that this income, being deducted, and coming off the amount of compensation which subsequently will be obtained, should be entitled to be deducted in the way that interest when paid in the ordinary way is deducted. The necessity for making it clear arises out of a recent decision of
  776
  the House of Lords dealing with the somewhat different circumstances of a banking overdraft where interest went on mounting up, and whether it would or would not be paid in the end was doubtful. In view of that decision, it is desirable to make clear what was always the intention of the paragraph. In this case the interest is bound to be paid, in that it will be deducted from the compensation received.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 21, leave out paragraphs 20 and 21, and insert:
  "Disposal of compensation as between beneficial interests.
  20.—(1) The compensation for a holding when paid by the Commission to the person entitled to receive it from them, including any sum paid on account thereof under the last preceding paragraph, and the income thereof, in order to its being applied as compensation to the persons whose interest are comprised in the holding, be held and disposed of for the benefit of those persons, or their personal representatives or assigns, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) In the case of a holding that consists of or comprises an estate or other interest subject to a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, or to a trust for sale the proceeds whereof are subject to a settlement by way of succession, the trustees of the settlement or any Court having jurisdiction in relation to the execution of the trusts of the settlement, and in the case of the Court on the application of any beneficiary under the settlement may require and cause the compensation, or the part thereof attributable to that estate or other interest, as the case may be, to be laid out, invested, accumulated, and paid in such manner as, in the judgment of the trustees or of the Court, as the case may be, will give to the beneficiaries under the settlement the like benefit therefrom as they might lawfully have had from that estate or other interest, or as near thereto as may be, regard being had to the terms of the settlement and to all relevant circumstances affecting the premises in which the holding subsisted including—

  (a) the terms of any subsisting coal-mining lease and the operation of any provision therein contained as to undergettings, short workings, and other like matters;

  (b) the period within which coal being worked might have been expected to be worked out or coal not being worked might have been expected to come into working and to be worked out; and

  (c) the extent to which, having regard to those circumstances, the premises ought to be regarded as property of a wasting character:

  Provided that—

  (a) where a payment on account of the compensation for the holding has been made under the preceding paragraph before the vesting date, the net income accruing to the trustees before the vesting date from the investment of the sum paid, up to an amount sufficient to make good to the capital of the settlement the interest on that sum brought into account under the last preceding paragraph against the capital of the compensation shall be set aside as capital of the settlement;

  (b) subject as aforesaid no part of the income of the compensation shall be required or caused by virtue of this sub-paragraph to he set aside as capital of the settlement.

  (3) In the case of a holding that comprises an estate or other interest subject to a mortgage, the compensation (other than any part thereof that is attributable to an estate or other interest not subject to the mortgage) shall be held and disposed of in like manner as if it had been money arising under a power of sale conferred by the mortgage.
  (4) In the case of a holding that could have been sold as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph eighteen of this Schedule under powers conferred by the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts, the compensation paid in respect thereof and the income thereof shall be held and disposed of, and the said Acts shall have effect, in like manner as if the compensation had been money paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners upon a sale under the said Acts of the premises in which the holding subsisted:
  Provided that—

  (a) if the holding was a reversion and the rent reserved by the lease was subject, by virtue of a scheme in force under the said Acts, to a direction for the payment thereof to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the benefit of their common fund, the direction shall have effect in relation to the income of the compensation as it had effect in relation to the rent; and

  (b) where a payment on account of the compensation for the holding has been made under the preceding paragraph before the vesting date, the net income accruing before the vesting date from the investment of the sum paid shall be set aside as capital of the compensation.

  (5) Money representing compensation attributable to an estate or other interest subject to such a settlement or trust for sale as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, or vested in trustees on or for charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts or purposes, may, notwithstanding anything in the relevant trust instrument, be invested not only as authorised by law or by the trust instrument but also in or on (a) the stock or other securities of any local authority in the United Kingdom, or (b) the stock, shares or other securities of any statutory undertakers within the meaning of Section thirty-two of this Act, or (c) the debentures or debenture stock or the preference or wholly or partially guaranteed stock or shares of any company incorporated by a special Act of, or provisional order confirmed by, or by or under a public general Act of, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or
  778
  incorporated by Royal Charter, being a company which has paid dividends upon its ordinary capital at the rate of at least three per cent per annum for at least the five years next before the time of investment (of which fact a letter purporting to be signed by the secretary of the company or by a banker or member of a firm of bankers or by the secretary or manager of a joint stock bank or of any branch thereof shall be sufficient evidence) or (d) the ordinary or other stock or shares of any company incorporated as aforesaid, being a company which has paid dividends upon its ordinary capital at the rate of at least four per cent per annum for at least the ten years next before the time of investment (of which fact such a letter as aforesaid shall be sufficient evidence):
  Provided that the power conferred by this sub-paragraph—

  (a) shall not extend to any stock, shares or securities to bearer or subject to any liability for calls or other payments; and

  (b) shall be exercisable subject to any consent that would have been requisite if the money had been proposed to be invested as authorised by law or by the trust instrument.

  (6) Subject as aforesaid the compensation for a holding and the income thereof shall be held and disposed of in such manner as to confer on the existing owners whose interests are comprised in the holding, their personal representatives or assigns, the like benefits so far as may be, as they would have had from their respective interests in the premises in which the holding subsisted if those premises had not been acquired by the Commission."
  12.46a.m.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is rather a lengthy Amendment. It arises from certain suggestions and representations made when the Bill was in Committee, and it was then suggested that the provisions of the paragraph—paragraph 20 on page 73, as it then was —were not sufficiently specific in describing how compensation was to be apportioned as between the life tenant and the remainderman or between mortgagor and mortgagee in cases where those persons with those rights had interests in the compensation sums. This Amendment deals with both cases where the interest vesting in the Commission is subject to a settlement. Paragraph 2 provides guidance for the trustees, and gives them power to make an apportionment on the lines there laid down, and it also gives power to a beneficiary to apply to the court, if any beneficiary so desires. Subparagraph (3) deals with the case of mortgage. Sub-paragraph (4) deals with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and

  779
  really reproduces the provisions applicable to them as they were in the original Bill. Sub-paragraph (5) is an investment Clause giving fairly wide powers of investment in respect of compensation money. It is not unreasonable that there should be a wider latitude than the ordinary latitude given to trustees for investing proceeds of the compensation. Sub-paragraph (6) is a general provision to provide for any cases which may not be specifically covered otherwise.
  Lords Amendment: In page 74, line 41, at the end, insert:
  "Expenses of Surface Damage Claims.
  The Commission shall pay the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by any person after the vesting date in connection with a claim for compensation in respect of damage arising from the working of coal to the land, buildings or other property of such person and to which he may he entitled under the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Second Schedule to this Act."
  Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
  12.48 a.m.
  Mr. Stanley: I beg to move: "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  There is some difference as to what this Amendment actually means. I think that perhaps it is my fault, my obstinacy. I am advised that its actual meaning is that the Commission shall pay the cost and expense which are incurred by somebody in prosecuting a claim for compensation in respect of damage from subsidence, which is successful. That, on the whole, is the view which my advisers take of it. If that is the meaning of the Amendment, I can say that it is unnecessary, because I am also advised that, anyhow, the compensation awarded will include the proper cost of prosecuting the claim. I, perhaps with some temerity, have been trying to differ from that, and to think that the words "to which he may be entitled" extend this rather further, and would in fact compel the Commission to pay the costs and expenses even if the claim to compensation was unsuccessful. That is clearly something which no one could contemplate. Whichever meaning is to be attributed to this particular Amendment,
  780
  it need not, I think, worry us very much, because the noble Lord who moved it in another place made it quite clear during the course of his speech that he meant something quite different from either of these things.
  Mr. Pritt: It is something to have made something clear.
  Mr. Stanley: Clearly, this House ought not to shelter itself merely behind some misunderstanding in drafting, but, if there is a serious grievance behind the actual intention of the Amendment, we ought to be prepared to deal with it. The meaning of the Amendment as explained by the noble Lord was that at present, when the landlord is also the mineral owner, he is probably employing a land agent who looks after the surface and a mineral agent who looks after the working of the coal. The mineral agent is able to tell the land agent of the stages which are being worked or which have been reached in the working of coal, putting the land agent, therefore, on his guard as to the possibilities of subsidences on the surface. Now it is claimed that, when the coal is severed from the land and taken over by the Commission, there will no longer be a mineral agent employed by the landowner, but only a land agent, who will be unable himself to judge when any of the workings are likely to be dangerous to the land above; and that there will have to be employed what was described, I think, as a watchman to keep a watch on the surface in case of any sign of subsidence. It was further argued that it was only right that the Commission should be called upon to pay these expenses.
  Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but are we not getting perilously close to mentioning the unmentionable speeches in another place?
  Mr. Speaker: I have not heard any speeches definitely quoted.
  Mr. Stanley: On that point of Order. Surely it reduces our proceedings here to very great difficulty if one is not allowed, in explaining an Amendment, to say what was the interpretation placed upon it by the Mover in another place? Surely it is for the convenience of the House that we should be allowed to discuss that?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon Gentleman will have noticed that I said I had not heard any speeches definitely quoted. He is perfectly in Order.
  Sir S. Cripps: Further on the point of Order. This question was raised because of a Ruling given yesterday—when you, Sir, were not in the Chair—by your Deputy, against an hon. Member reading from a paper an extract of something that it was reported had been said in another place. He was stopped from reading a comment on or a paraphrase of that speech because it was a paraphrase of a speech delivered in another place. That is why the question has been raised on this occasion, because the right hon. Gentleman just now was giving a paraphrase. I quite agree that it is a very convenient course in Debate, but it did seem to be contrary to the Ruling given yesterday.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: I was called to Order when I was paraphrasing what a Noble Lord said in another place. I wondered how far the right hon. Gentleman was going, because I thought that perhaps I should learn how it can be done without getting out of Order.
  Mr. Speaker: Each paraphrase must be treated on its merits.
  Mr. Stanley: If I may now continue with my paraphrase of paraphrases, I should like to take up the threads of the rather complicated argument I had embarked on, though perhaps it may not be easy. I come now to the argument which I have heard advanced in favour of a claim of this kind. It is in effect that the cost of this man, who has been referred to as a watchman, would be taken into account in these management costs which were deducted before arriving at the £4,430,000 on which finally the price was decided. With regard to the argument as to the watchman, I would remind hon. Members that there are a great many occasions" after all, when the land is separated from the coal, and I should be prepared to wager, if it were in Order to do such a thing, that in not one single instance has it ever been known for the owner of the surface to employ specially a man to do a job of that kind. If he wants a man to watch to see if there is any danger of subsidence, he tells his landlord to watch it, and does not do anything more.
  782
  With regard to the question whether this is a cost which was included in the costs which had been deducted, hon. Members will recollect that the cost deducted was based upon the allowance made in respect of Income Tax. I have made inquiries from the appropriate quarter, and am informed that, as for the purpose of Income Tax these claims for compensation are treated as capital returns and not as income, and, therefore, do not come into the Income Tax returns at all; so that any costs incurred in prosecuting these claims would not be allowed to be set off in the Income Tax return. For these reasons I ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
  Sir S. Cripps: We are very glad to support this disagreement. It is apparently a case of cupidity so gross that even the Government reject it.
  Lords Amendment: In page 75, line 35, leave out "of this Schedule".
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is a drafting Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 28, at the end, insert:
  "(v) Paragraph 20 shall have effect as if for any reference to an estate or other interest subject to a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, there were substituted a reference to an estate or other interest subject to a trust within the meaning of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, or to an entail or to a liferent and any reference to the trustees of the Settlement shall be construed accordingly."
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is the Scottish adaptation made necessary by the long Amendment which I moved just now.

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for separation of vested and non-vested premises that are demised together by a subsisting lease.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 79, leave out the Schedule.
  12.56 a.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is consequential on a preceding Amendment.

  FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Lease Consolidation Schemes.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 81, line 26, at the end, insert:
  "or deprive him of the benefit of any covenant condition or provision of a subsisting working lease affecting or relating to any premises other than coal."
  12.57 a.m.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment completes the paragraph which says that the lease shall not impose any liability not being a liability to which any person would have been subject by virtue of a subsisting working lease. I think it is correctly drafted.
  Lords Amendment: In page 81, line 38, leave out from the beginning to "any," in line 22, and insert:
  "The said lease shall, notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section eleven of this Act, not include".
  12.58 a.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is a drafting Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In page 82, line 1, leave out paragraph (3).
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is consequential on a previous Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In page 82, line 36, leave out "Board of Trade," and insert:
  "Lord Chancellor in the case of England or the Lord President of the Court of Session in the case of Scotland."
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  784
  This is the Schedule dealing with consolidation schemes, and provides that, if there is no agreement, then the Commission or person concerned may refer the matter to an arbitrator. As the Bill left us, it said that the arbitrator should be selected by the Board of Trade. During our debates the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) was very anxious that the person who should nominate this arbitrator should be the President of the Law Society. We did not consider that would be suitable, and the other House has sent down, in this Amendment, the suggestion that the Lord Chancellor should be the person who appoints the arbitrator. I see no reason why that should be resisted in this case.
  1 a.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: This is not a very important point, perhaps, but I do not see any reason why we should give way to the House of Lords in regard to it. It is a matter of the settlement of the standard amount of rent. It is not a question of law, but of valuation, and surely the Board of Trade, who are the customary people to deal with mining matters in this country are the more suitable body to name the arbitrator to settle the standard amount of rent. The Lord Chancellor, poor fellow, as we have heard, cannot find one by going to the Central Valuation Board. It is hard luck to put on him the onus of finding an arbitrator. The Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines would far better be able than the Lord Chancellor to select a suitable person for this purpose. It is not as if there were any legal point to be settled, and I suggest that under this Clause, as the hon and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) says he agrees with me—
  Mr. Spens: No.
  Sir S. Cripps: Then I must be right.
  Mr. Spens: This is one of the most complicated legal matters. This is a scheme for the consolidation of a number of leases into one lease as a result of the transference to the Commission of the whole. I hope the Government will still support the Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In page 83, line 2, leave out "Board of Trade" and insert:

  785
  "Lord Chancellor in the case of England or the Lords President of the Court of Session in the case of Scotland."
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Sir S. Cripps: This is the case to which the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) referred. Here is a complicated matter to be settled, and we should have no objection in this case—this being a legal matter—to the Lord Chancellor appointing the arbitrator.
  Lords Amendment: In page 83, line 3, leave out "who is competent to grant a lease in the terms of a draft" and insert:
  "whose grant or concurrence is requisite to the taking effect of a lease."
  1.2 a.m.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment and the next two Amendments are minor drafting alterations.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 83, line 6, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 83, line 17, leave out paragraph 9, and insert:
  "(3) The provisions of section ten of this Act shall have effect in relation to a severance effected by the determination of a subsisting working lease under the last preceding sub-paragraph as regards a part of the premises comprised therein, as they have effect in relation to such a severance as is mentioned in that section of the reversion on a lease subsisting on the vesting date, so however that the apportionment of the rent reserved by the subsisting working lease shall be made on the basis of the apportionment made for the purpose of the determination under this Schedule of the standard amount of rent."
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This part of the Bill deals with the consolidation scheme before the vesting date. There may be some problem with regard to the severance of coal and surface rights. That matter is dealt with in Clause 10. This Amendment is simply the necessary paragraph to enable the provision of that Section to be applied to the problem when it arises under the consolidation scheme, which under the old
  786
  rule would be referred to the Fourth Schedule.
  Lords Amendment: In page 84, line 21, leave out from "Commission" to the end of the Schedule, and insert:
  "under and subject to the provisions of this paragraph:
  Provided that, in relation to costs payable by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 8 of this Schedule, the provisions of section ten of this Act shall have effect to the exclusion of the provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) In case of difference as to the amount of the costs other than costs of a reference or award, to be paid under this paragraph, the Board of Trade may direct in what manner they are to be taxed.
  (3) An arbitrator may direct that the Commission shall not be liable to pay any such costs as aforesaid, being costs of a reference or award incurred by a party to a reference who appears to the arbitrator to have been guilty of any such unreasonable failure to agree with the Commission or any other party, or of any such negligence or default, as to disentitle him to payment thereof."
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This, again, is a purely drafting Amendment. These provisions originally occurred in the Fourth Schedule and were incorporated in this Schedule by reference, the Fourth Schedule having been abolished. This is the first time for them to appear here.

  SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Grant of Leases to freeholders in possession of coal immediately before the vesting date.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 20, leave out paragraph 4, and insert:
  "4. Subject to any agreement between the parties named in the draft of a lease substituted security or other instrument settled under this Schedule, it shall be the duty of each of those parties, on being required by any other of them so to do, to execute a lease security or other instrument in the terms of the draft."
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This, again, is necessary by the fact that the Fourth Schedule has been deleted. It has been previously done by reference.
  Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 32, leave out "5 of the Fourth" and insert "11 of the Fifth".
  1.6 a.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is consequential.

  SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 34, s. 13.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 86, line 4, leave out "not otherwise" and insert:
  ", except in so far as may be otherwise agreed between all the transferor companies and the transferee company, only out of such securities,".
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This matter has been raised in various quarters, and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) has made this suggestion. We did not think it was entirely practical, but the matter was then further considered and another place has put in this Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In page 87, line 17, leave out from "with" to "schemes" in line 18, and insert:
  "the enactments relating to the matters which are required to be provided for by".
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is a drafting Amendment.

  EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 34, ss. 5 and 8.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 88, line 4, at the beginning, insert:
  "1. After subsection (1) of section five there shall be inserted the following new subsection:
  (1A) If it appears to the Board of Trade to be expedient that more than one district committee of investigation should be constituted for any district with a view to the investigation of complaints relating to different matters or to different localities by different committees, two or more such committees may be constituted therefor and shall be charged respectively with the duty of investigating any complaint with respect to the operation of the district scheme for that district made in relation to such matters or to such localities as the Board may direct."
  Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  We are now on that part of the Bill which deals with committees of investigation which investigate complaints. It was considered in another place that it might be desirable to increase, possibly in some areas—not in all areas—the committees of investigation. At present it is laid down that there should be one for every district. Hon. Members know that the Midlands is a very large district and there might be several complaints. In order to save delay they should be dealt with more expeditiously. This provision gives power, if deemed necessary, to appoint more committees.
  Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 89, line 6, at the end, insert:
  "3. At the end of subsection (5) of section five the following words shall be added—
  'and the complainant also shall furnish the committee with such returns, accounts and other information as the committee considers relevant to the investigation.' "
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House may recollect that under the Act of 1930, Section 5, the committee of investigation may require such returns and accounts as they think relevant to the investigation. The committee can call upon the colliery interests for their accounts and figures. On the other hand, they have no power to ask those who complain to give the figures which might justify, in the view of the committee, their case. In certain cases we have had an expression of grievance on the part of the coal side that they have to give all this information to the committee, and that the people who complain are not asked questions. I think, on the whole, it is a reasonable proposition.
  1.11 a.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: This seems to me a very dangerous Amendment. I can understand the point which the hon. Member made, but, unfortunately, the words of this Amendment are very wide, and are likely gravely to embarrass a complainant. The words do not say that they are to be his

  789
  returns and accounts. Suppose he makes a complaint regarding a particular quality or class of coal, he may be asked for details of that complaint by the committee, who may say that unless he furnishes these proposals, they will not go on with the complaint. That may put the complainant in the difficult position of being refused a hearing unless he complies with the request of the committee to furnish accounts and other information, which he might be wholly unable to obtain. This is a very complicated matter, and he may not be able to give particulars until after discovery, and the committee may say that they will not continue with the investigation until after they obtained particulars which might, in fact, defeat the complaint. It would be possible to attain the object by using other words, but the words used here are far too wide to cover the point which the hon. Member has in mind. The danger is that the complainant will be asked to give information as regards his complaint which he will not be able to do, and then the committee will be able to say that,
  having failed to give the information they cannot proceed with the investigation. We feel, therefore, that it is far too dangerous to allow this to go forward.
  1.13 a.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in this matter. I think the committees of investigation exist to be a protection to the consumer, and under the Bill the chairman is a legal chairman, and you have on the committee representatives of both sides of the industry. The whole function is to protect the complainant, and it seems to me rather farfetched that the committee should have the duty to refuse to hear a case by demanding information which exhypothesi the complainant could not provide.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 79.

  Division No. 289.]

  AYES.

  [1.16 a.m.

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

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Ellis, Sir G.

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

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Apsley, Lord

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

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

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Errington, E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Moreing, A. C.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Everard, W. L.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

  Furness, S. N.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Gledhill, G.

  Peake,O.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Goldie, N. B.

  Radford, E. A.

  Bracken, B.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Cary, R. A.

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hambro, A. V.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

  Hannah, I. C.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Channon, H.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

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

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Salt, E. W.

  Colville. Rt. Hon. John

  Higgs, W. F.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Selley, H. R.

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

  Holmes, J. S.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

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

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

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

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Spens, W. P.

  De la Bèra, R.

  Latham, Sir P.

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

  Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

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

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Doland, G. F.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Donner, P. W.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Touche, G. C.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  McKie, J. H.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

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

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Wragg, H.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

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

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Mr. Munro and Major Sir James Edmondson.

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

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

  Paling, W.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Poole, C. C.

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

  Hayday, A.

  Price, M. P.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Ridley, G.

  Barr, J.

  Hollins, A.

  Ritson, J.

  Batey, J.

  Jagger, J.

  Silkin, L.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Bromfield, W.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Burke, W. A.

  John, W.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Collindridge, F.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Daggar, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

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

  Dalton, H.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Leach, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Dobbie, W.

  Lee, F.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Lunn, W.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Ede, J. C.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

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

  MacLaren, A.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Frankel, D.

  Marshall, F.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Milner, Major J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Groves, T. E.

  Oliver, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 90, line 39, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 90, line 44, at the end, insert:
  "or where the appointment is of the chairman of a district committee of investigation for a district in Scotland, after consultation with the Lord Advocate."
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is really formal. The reason is that the chairman is appointed after consultation with the Lord Chancellor, and it appears in the case of Scotland more proper that the Lord Advocate should be consulted.
  1.24 a.m.
  Mr. Davidson: I should like to warn the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this question is one on which it would delight me very much to make a speech for about an hour and a half on the subject of Scottish self-government. However, I will spare hon. Members that calamity. I am glad that in another place they recognize the right and wisdom of the Scottish people and the Scottish representatives to elect their own particular chairmen of district committees, and as this will probably be the last word I shall speak on this Bill, may I say that
  I feel this is a decided improvement. I know that the chief difficulties of the Commission and these committees will be the lack of finance, because of the operation of the Bill as coming from another place, and I believe that what has happened in the past can happen in the future. If in order to save this Bill the Lord Advocate and his appointee have to put their heads together, they will establish, perhaps, a flag day in Scotland to raise the finance to save the Bill from the fate that the other place and the Government have brought upon it.
  1.28 a.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: I understand there is something rather mystic about the hour of half-past one as far as the Bill is concerned, and I therefore propose, if I may, to detain the House until that time arrives. This Amendment is putting into the hands of the Lord Advocate the appointment of the chairman of a district committee of investigation for a district in Scotland. The similar appointment in Great Britain is to be made by the Lord Chancellor, and, of course, the position of the Lord Chancellor with regard to this country and the Lord Advocate as regards Scotland are very different positions. And one rather wonders why the appointment in Scotland

  793
  is not given to someone in a position more equal to that of the Lord Chancellor in this country. On other occasions in the course of the Bill where an appointment has been made by the Lord Chancellor in this country, it has been made by the Senior Judge of the Court of Session in Scotland, and one would have thought that a more true analogy of the position of the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary in Great Britain. The Lord Advocate, although he occupies a very high office is only comparable with the Attorney-General.
  I cannot imagine anybody suggesting that the Attorney-General should appoint the chairman of a district committee under this Bill, and I am quite sure that if anybody had, it would have been at once said by those on the other side, "How dangerous if you had a Labour Attorney-General. Think of the terrible people he must appoint, so protect yourselves for someone who must be appointed if Labour were elevated to office." The same argument would apply as regards the Lord Advocate, because he would be in much the same position as the Attorney-General. Those are the observations which I desire to lay before the House on this very important subject as a constitutional problem, but we feel that on the whole it will perhaps be satisfactory to save the House, at the hour we have now reached, for dividing.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 90, line 45, agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for
  794
  disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of, Mr. Stanley, Captain Crookshank, Captain Briscoe, Sir Stafford Cripps, and Mr. Paling.
  Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Stanley.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Stanley.]

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (No. 2) BILL.
  Order [5th July] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Sir R. Gower.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before Two o'Clock.

  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
  PRISONS (DATE OF CONSTRUCTION).
  PRISONS (DATE OF CONSTRUCTION).
  KNIT-WEAR FACTORIES (ALIEN CONTROL).
  KNIT-WEAR FACTORIES (ALIEN CONTROL).
AGRICULTURE.
  BACON INDUSTRY.
  BACON INDUSTRY.
  WITHAM CATCHMENT BOARD.
  WITHAM CATCHMENT BOARD.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MOTOR VEHICLES (PROSECUTIONS, LONDON).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (PROSECUTIONS, LONDON).
  DEBT-COLLECTING AGENCIES.
  DEBT-COLLECTING AGENCIES.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS ("GREEK MEMORIES").
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS ("GREEK MEMORIES").
  HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.
  HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.
ACQUISITION OF LAND.
  NOTTINGHAM.
  NOTTINGHAM.
  ROTTINGDEAN, BRIGHTON.
  ROTTINGDEAN, BRIGHTON.
  LICHFIELD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  LICHFIELD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  NUNEATON.
  NUNEATON.
  MENTAL HOSPITAL, DERBYSHIRE.
  MENTAL HOSPITAL, DERBYSHIRE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, COWCLIFFE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, COWCLIFFE.
  VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  POST OFFICE (LONDON-SCOTLAND TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE (LONDON-SCOTLAND TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  UNIVERSITIES (ENTRANTS FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS).
  UNIVERSITIES (ENTRANTS FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS).
WEST INDIES.
  SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  UGANDA-KENYA RAILWAY.
  UGANDA-KENYA RAILWAY.
ROYAL NAVY.
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYéS (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYéS (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WORK CENTRES.
  WORK CENTRES.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (LANCASHIRE WEAVERS).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (LANCASHIRE WEAVERS).
  COTTON INDUSTRY.
  COTTON INDUSTRY.
  WORKING DAYS LOST.
  WORKING DAYS LOST.
  BENEFIT AND ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURE.
  BENEFIT AND ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURE.
  INSURANCE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS (STATISTICS).
  INSURANCE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS (STATISTICS).
  LABOUR DISPUTE, HULL.
  LABOUR DISPUTE, HULL.
  BRITISH ARMY (UNDER-AGE ENLISTMENTS).
  BRITISH ARMY (UNDER-AGE ENLISTMENTS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (STANTON HARCOURT).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (STANTON HARCOURT).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SEWERAGE) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with tae Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CLACTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make respecting the business of the House.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for this opportunity. If the other place gets finished with the Amendments on the Coal Bill before the House rises, then we shall be able to receive these Amendments to-night, and they can be put on the Paper to-morrow, but if that does not occur I propose that there should be a formal sitting of the House to-morrow at eleven o'clock to receive these Amendments from another place. Then perhaps they could be put down on the Paper for consideration by your Lordships on Thursday of next week. I think that is all I need say as regards any business not on the Paper.
But, as your Lordships will observe, there is a good deal of business on Monday next. There is Lord Amulree's Motion regarding the Perth and Kinross Educational Trust Scheme, 1936, and
618
there are two important Second Readings—the Bacon Industry Bill and the Essential Commodities Reserves Bill. Therefore it might be advisable for us to meet on Monday at three o'clock. The following clay, Tuesday, there are three Second Readings, Lord Addison's Motion on agricultural policy, and in addition—this has not yet appeared on the Paper—my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is taking the Report stage of the Limitation Bill. Again I suggest that it would be advisable for us to meet at three o'clock. On Wednesday I suggest that we should meet at the normal hour, because I do not think there is a great deal of business on that day. On Thursday, however, there is considerable business, including, of course, the consideration of the Amendments to the Coal Bill as returned from another place. Therefore, on Thursday, I suggest we should meet at three. If your Lordships agree to the proposals which I have made we shall meet on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday at three o'clock, and on Wednesday at the normal time of a quarter before four.
LORD SNELL: Does the noble Earl anticipate that the proceedings on the Coal Bill will take more than one day?
EARL STANHOPE: I hope not. I do not think there will be many Amendments for consideration; but, as your Lordships know, any one of them may entail a very long debate in your Lordship's House, and I am no more able to make a forecast in regard to that than the noble Lord opposite.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
WEST THURROCK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

LOCHABER WATER POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg

619
leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Lochaber Power Company.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LIMITATION 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Special provisions in case of settled land and land held on trust for sale.
7.—(1) Where any person is entitled in possession—

(a) to a beneficial interest in settled land the legal estate in which is vested in a statutory owner, or

(b) to an interest in the proceeds of the sale of land held upon trust for sale,

a right of action to recover the land shall, for the purposes of this Act but not otherwise, be deemed to accrue to him in the like manner and circumstances and on the same date as it would accrue if his interest were a legal estate in the land.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words down to the end of paragraph (b) and insert:
"Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of Section nineteen of this Act, the provisions
620
of this Act shall apply to equitable interests in land, including interests in the proceeds of the sale of land held upon trust for sale, in like manner as they apply to legal estates, and accordingly."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a most distressing topic, but I am afraid it is my duty to give some explanation of this particular Amendment and some six or seven consequential Amendments in order that the topic may be intelligible to lawyers. The general purpose of this Amendment and the group of Amendments to which I have referred is to extend the provisions of the first four subsections of the clause, which at present only apply to settlements within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and to trusts for sale, to particular cases where land is held on trust—for instance, a case where land is vested in trustees to hold for a person or an estate in fee simple. It may be desirable to explain why this is necessary, the fact being that Clause 7 as it exists is a new provision designed to clear up difficulties in the operation of the law of limitation in relation to what are called equitable interests in land.
Subsection (1) of the clause makes it plain that a beneficial interest in settled land, or in land held upon trust for sale, is to be treated for the purposes of the Bill as an independent interest in relation to which the Bill operates as if it were a legal estate. This provision will secure that a person entitled to such an interest will have the benefit of Clause 6 of the Bill, which postpones the operation of the Bill until his interest falls into possession, and of Clause 22 which has a somewhat similar operation in the case of a disability. Except for this provision it is probable that the interest of a beneficiary would always be barred after twelve years adverse possession, even though his interest had not yet vested in possession, because the estate of the trustee would then be extinguished and the beneficial interests would fall with it. Accordingly it is desirable for the sake of clarity to make this Amendment, and to make subsection (1) extend to all equitable interests falling within the definition of "land" in Clause 31 of the Bill. This result is effected by this Amendment and the next Amendment, on page 6. I do not think I need further explain the object of the Amendments, or at least the general nature of them and indeed I

621
feel that I almost ought to apologise for taking up the time of your Lordships with so distressing a subject.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 36 to 41 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("him") and insert ("a person entitled to such an equitable interest").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, after ("Where") insert ("any land is held upon trust including a trust for sale, and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("land by trustees for the sale of the land") and insert ("the land by the trustees").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, after ("interest") insert ("in the land or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is conseqential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, after ("trust") insert ("including a trust").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("for sale").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, leave out ("for sale").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Extension of limitation period in case of disability.
22. If on the date when any right of action accrued for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, the person to whom it accrued was under a disability, the action may be brought at any time before the expiration of six years, or in the case of actions to which the last foregoing section applies, one year from the date when the person ceased to be under a disability or died, whichever event first occurred, notwithstanding that the period of limitation has expired:
Provided that …
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given Notice of two Amendments—namely, after "Act," to insert "other than the period of limitation prescribed by the last foregoing section," and to leave out "or in the case of actions to which the last foregoing section applies, one year." The noble Earl said: The two Amendments standing on the Paper in my name have been put down on behalf of the London County Council, and as they both have exactly the same purpose I will state my arguments in full on the first Amendment. I should like to make it perfectly plain that we are in entire agreement with the proposal to extend the time limit within which any civil action can be brought for damages. We regard that as a very fair and reasonable proposal both as it affects local authorities and ordinary private citizens. What we take exception to is the special treatment that would be meted out to those who are suffering under what is legally termed a disability, the disability of infancy, lunacy or mental deficiency.
As the Bill now stands an action can be brought by a person who has been suffering under any of these disabilities up to a year after the disability is removed. The consequence to the London County Council is roughly this. The London County Council has about half a million children in its schools and a very large number of inmates of its mental hospitals. Under this Bill, if it becomes

623
law, any of those people may bring a civil action for damages, possibly for a very considerable sum of money, possibly fifteen, or twenty or twenty-five years after the event occurred which gave rise to the litigation. That is to say, the child will be able to take action after it has grown up and the lunatic after he or she has been restored to normal mental health. That is a very serious matter for the largest local authority in the country. We have every year three or four hundred actions brought against us in the courts on the ground of accidents that happen to children on the premises of our schools. Suppose some of those cases were deferred for a very considerable time. If ten or fifteen years passed it might be quite impossible to trace the principal witness for the defence. The school teacher who might have observed what transpired might be dead or might have gone abroad.
This provision puts us in very serious difficulty from the point of view of our legitimate interests. What we hope is that any person suffering a disability may be able to make a claim through the instrumentality of a parent or next friend or some other representative. That is the present position and we hope it will continue. We profoundly desire that the noble and learned Lord should take notice of this injustice which local authorities will suffer if an alteration of this kind in the law is effected.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 14, after ("Act") insert ("(other than the period of limitation prescribed by the last foregoing section)").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I would like to support the noble Earl's Amendment. I speak not on behalf of municipal authorities but on behalf of the dock and harbour authorities throughout the country and on behalf of the Port of London Authority in particular. Like municipal authorities, dock and harbour authorities are changing bodies. Their composition varies every few years, and their staffs, too, are of course constantly varying. After a lapse of twenty years many of the more important members of the staff will have gone into retirement. It is obvious that after the lapse of twenty years or more it would be extremely difficult to produce evidence necessary
624
to rebut a claim made for damages sustained at so great a distance in the past. Everyone knows that public authorities are often thought to be fair game for what are sometimes unreasonable claims, and I suggest that it is undesirable that their vulnerability should be increased by their exposure to claims which may be made, not perhaps on good grounds, so many years after damage may or may not have been suffered. The Bill as it stands has given those for whom I speak very great concern, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord may see his way to accept the Amendment.
LORD AMULREE: I am speaking this afternoon on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations who take a very deep interest in this Amendment and also in regard to the Bill to which the Amendment relates. Protection is given by the Bill to local authorities generally in respect of actions for breach of contract or in connection with the sale of goods. All that is dealt with by the law of limitation, and this Amendment only relates to cases of negligence. Negligence is the chief cause of many actions and, as the two noble Lords who have spoken have said, unless steps are taken in such cases within a limited time all evidence is lost. I do not think I can emphasize the argument more than by simply repeating what they have said. Another point with regard to limitation of actions against local authorities is that the old idea was that the burden of any one year on local authorities should be discharged by the ratepayers of that year. In an action for negligence there is a good deal of burden in the matter of damages which might be recovered and the expenses of litigation, which would fall, not upon the ratepayers of to-day, but on the ratepayers of some subsequent year.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must admit, and I do frankly admit, that there are strong primâ facie arguments in favour of the present Amendment, and it is quite natural to see that public authorities have, so to speak, mustered together, quite rightly, in defence of the interests of those people for whom they are concerned. But I should not like your Lordships to think that there is nothing to be said on the other side. This Bill was prepared by the Statute Laws Amendment Committee. While they were considering the matter, or shortly after they had first reported,

625
these considerations on the other side were submitted to them, and they continued to hold the view that something of this sort was necessary in regard to infants, and other persons under disability, who might have a claim against public authorities.
What I feel about it is this. It may be quite true that if an infant, or other person under disability, is possessed of a parent who can bring an action on his or her behalf, there is strong ground for thinking that that action should be brought within the limited time prescribed by Section 21—namely, within a year; but I am rather concerned to hesitate in relation to infants and lunatics who may have nobody who can bring an action on their behalf. It does seem to me that in regard to public authorities, who have so many advantages, and a very short period of limitation—namely, one year instead of the six years limitation that applies to other similar causes of action—it is too much to ask the Committee to accept the view that they should go scot free, if there are infants who may have suffered very serious injury, by reason of the negligence, we will say, of people who have been in charge of that child, merely because there is no one to bring an action. It is a serious thing to bring an action on behalf of a child. It not only very often involves expense of a considerable character, but it also means a great deal of trouble and worry, and although I can quite concede that a parent ought to be willing to bring such an action on behalf of his or her child. I do not for a moment see how we are going to protect the many infants to whom the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has referred, who are under the charge, for instance, of the county council and a number of other organisations throughout the country, and who have nobody to speak up for them.
That is my trouble. I know that the arguments that he has put before your Lordships are powerful, but there are arguments on the other side which relate at any rate to a special class of infants and other persons under disability, whom. I am concerned to protect by something in this clause. I do not know whether it would be possible to make some sort of agreement or compromise between us, and to safeguard the public authorities in every case where the infant is in charge of a parent. For my part I should be quite willing to accept that, but I have a doubt whether you may not
626
be doing very grave injustice, and putting great hardship on some of the infants who have nobody in a position, or who can properly be expected, to bring an action on the infant's behalf. That is, as far as I can see it, the whole case
There are arguments on one side of great strength, and there are arguments on the other side which do apply to some of these infants. Where there is anybody who can bring an action on behalf of an infant who has suffered wrong the action will undoubtedly be brought at once, for the reason, as Lord Ritchie pointed out, that evidence disappears in the course of time. If you have such a cause of action and if you have the witnesses, you would not wait, if you were truly interested in the infant's injuries, until the infant attained the age of twenty-one, but you would bring your action at once. Limited in the way that I suggest, I think this clause would really not hurt any public authority except to a very minor extent. I do not know if any arrangement can be made on that footing, but, if not, it think noble Lords should indicate their own views on which side of the scale the balance lies. It is not a matter on which I can say any more, nor will I, so to speak, exercise any powers that I may have to induce people to vote one way or the other. I want them to take the matter as it stands, and to do what they think is right and fair.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the careful consideration which he has evidently given to the Amendment, and I am sure your Lordships are indebted to him for stating what might not inappropriately be called the other side of the case. I think the noble and learned Lord has appreciated the weight of the arguments that have been supported by Lord Amulree, speaking for the Association of Municipal Corporations, by Lord Ritchie, speaking for the dock and harbour authorities throughout the country, and by me, as representative of the London County Council, and I think that the way in which he indicated that the case was a good one was that he suggested a compromise. If I understood him rightly, his proposal was that some Amendment might be framed to exclude all actions from being brought at a later date, provided that there was a parent or next-of-kin who would be in a

627
position to bring the action within a reasonable time of the event from which it arises.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Within a year. I did not mean next-of-kin, because that might go too far. I said a parent.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: A parent, who would be in a position to bring an action within the year, which is the time allowed as a general rule for an action of that kind against a local authority. If I might take advantage of that proposal, and enter into negotiations between now and the Report stage, it might be possible to produce an agreed Amendment to cover at any rate a large part of the really legitimate grievances which these local authorities have voiced this afternoon. In view of that, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Interpretation.
31.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them:—
"Duty" includes an instalment of an annuity within the meaning of the Tithe Act, 1936, and a royalties welfare levy within the meaning of Part III of the Mining Industry Act, 1926;
"Land" includes corporeal hereditaments, tithes (except tithes belonging to a spiritual or eleemosynary corporation sole) and rentcharges, and any legal or equitable estate or interest therein, but save as aforesaid does not include any incorporeal hereditament;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the definition of "Duty," to leave out "an instalment of an annuity within the meaning" and insert "any debt due to His Majesty under Section sixteen." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment cures a slight defect in the present definition of the word "duty." The definition is intended to include the liabilities into which tithe rentcharges were converted by the comparatively recent Tithe Act of 1936. I need not go into that with any
628
particularity, but the Amendment brings the actual payment which has now become payable, as well as the payments of annuity, within the definition of "duty." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 36, leave out from ("includes") to ("of") in line 37, and insert ("any debt due to His Majesty under Section sixteen").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential on that which I moved first.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 9, after ("therein") insert ("including an interest in the proceeds of the sale of land held upon trust for sale").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 6 [Enforcement]:
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, this Amendment is consequential and the three others which stand in my name are drafting. They do not alter the substance of the Bill in any way whatever. I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, after ("paragraph") insert ("(d) or").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Young persons to whom Act applies]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 31, at the beginning insert ("Save as in Sections three to five of this Act expressly provided,").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Option to apply either this Act or the Shops Acts in certain cases]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move this drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, after ("employed") insert ("at, or").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("four and") and insert ("three to").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Privilege Amendments be now agreed to.
On Question, Privilege Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ROAD HAULAGE WAGES (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose to draw attention to observations in the recent Report of the Unemployment Assistance Board on anomalies and problems which arise from the insufficiency of wages to meet the primary needs of many households with children, and to move to resolve, That a Committee be appointed to inquire into and to report on proposals for a national policy of family allowances.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, last month the Unemployment Assistance Board issued a Report which I think is of quite exceptional importance. It was described in The Times as "modern annals of the poor." It gives in great detail a large number of facts concerning the circumstances of those who have applied for poor relief. The whole Report is a document of real social value
630
and importance. I do not, however, propose to wander over many pages of this Report, but shall confine myself to two or three paragraphs. The Board, in making the assessment of assistance, are governed by the Regulation which lays down that, in the absence of exceptional needs for special circumstances, the assessment of an applicant's needs shall be less than the amount which will ordinarily be available for the support of the household out of the earnings of the applicant and of the other members of the household whose needs have been included with those of the applicant.
A number of applicants, however, especially those with small wages and large families, are paid so poorly that the amount which is due to them under the scale of assessment is above the wages which they are ordinarily earning. The Board have therefore found themselves confronted with a dilemma. They either have to make grants the total amount of which would enable the man to receive out of work more than he would receive in work, or they have to reduce the amount which is regarded as generally necessary for a family and go on a lower scale. As a matter of fact the Board have compromised, as a rule. They have given rather less than they might have given, and in many cases rather more than the man would have earned if he had been in work. The report gives one or two cases showing how this works out. For instance, there is an applicant with a wife and seven children. The scale allowance would be 48s. 7d.; his normal wages would be 40s. 6d.; the allowance actually paid was 43s.
The Chairman of the Board, Lord Rushcliffe, in his introduction says:
"In about 6 per cent., or over 30,000, of the cases the applicant is receiving an allowance from the Board which is within 4s. of his normal wages. An unemployed man is saved various items of expenditure which an employed man must necessarily incur, and in these cases, therefore, it can be said that the applicant is as well off on the Board's allowance as he would be in employment.
"This position is one which must give rise to anxiety. The Board's obligation under the Act is to provide for the needs of applicants and their families. The Regulations have prescribed the scale by which such needs should be met, subject to the discretion vested in the Board to deal with special and exceptional cases. The applicants whose allowances approximate most closely to the amounts they would earn if in work are mostly men with large families of children. The needs of such

631
households are not necessarily less because the father's normal wages are low having regard to his domestic responsibilities. While, on the one hand, the Board are aware of the importance of maintaining a reasonable relationship between allowances and wages, they cannot disregard their primary duty of meeting need. I think it right to draw attention to these facts and considerations, as they have far-reaching implications and obviously raise questions of very serious social consequence which go beyond the problems which the Board alone are in a position to solve."
These conclusions are confirmed by another report, the report of an unofficial committee which was published a few years ago. This was a report drawn up at the request of the Pilgrim Trust, and published under the title of Men without work. It is a very remarkable document. I think nothing of recent years has been published on unemployment which is so interesting and so searching as this unofficial report. Those who are responsible for it, in referring to one of the districts in Wales, say:
"The difference between unemployment assistance and possible wages is probably negligible for a man with three children."
They find that about one-fifth of those on unemployment assistance are as well off as, or better off than, they would be at work. I need not stress the grave consequences of that. Quite clearly an incentive to look for employment is removed in certain cases. The majority of men out of work would seek most earnestly for work for the sake of having it, but there are a number of men who would feel some hesitation in seeking for work if they knew that while they were out of work their weekly income would be more regular and rather higher than that which they would receive if they were actually in work. Moreover, there is a certain sense of grievance engendered among those who are actually in work when they see those who are out of work obtaining a rather higher income.
But that is not the reason why I am bringing this question before the House. The real reason why I am moving this Resolution is that this problem which the Board have had to face brings to light a very serious cause, the cause of poverty, and that cause is that there are a large number of working people with considerable families who are paid such low wages that they cannot possibly meet the primary needs of their households. This is true, I think, of a large number of
632
unskilled labourers with families of two or three or more children. The position, therefore, is really due to the low wages which so many are paid, and this Report throws a strong light upon the problem. It is very difficult to say how many are actually suffering in this way, but one thing that I think is perfectly clear is that where there are children the children are the worst sufferers. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree tells us after very careful investigation that about one-third of the children in Britain during five or more of their most critical years are insufficiently provided for and that researches on Merseyside and also at Bristol have shown that the children are the worst sufferers. These 30,000 cases to which reference is made in the Report, the 30,000 applicants who are out of work, are only samples of a much larger number of men with equally large families and with equally low wages when they are actually in work. The whole problem of low wages is therefore raised by the question with which this Report deals.
A very interesting inquiry was made some little time ago by Mr. Fraser Brockington into the influence of the growing family upon the diet in urban and rural districts. In speaking of the rural districts he says:
"We are left with the conclusion that rural workers are able in only a small number of instances to provide an adequacy of diet for their growing families. Where a wage is below forty shillings this would appear to be impossible after the birth of the first child. As the wage rises the date at which insufficiency must occur will be progressively postponed, but it would appear to be inevitable in the largest families of which country dwellers are capable."
All the facts point to a very large number of children who are suffering through these conditions. I do not mean for a moment to say that these children are actually starving, but they are deprived of a large number of the necessities of life. They are unable to make the fullest use of the educational facilities which they are offered, and they are undoubtedly unable to gain full benefit from the physical training which is now offered them.
I was watching the other day a rather remarkable display of what are called physical jerks and when I expressed some admiration to a man who was sitting near me, an inspector of schools in one of our industrial centres, he said to me: "It is

633
all very well doing this here, but it is quite impossible for this kind of thing to be done adequately in the poorer districts. The children have not the nourishment." The children are not starving. It would be an exaggeration to say that they are starving; yet they are suffering, sometimes from under-nourishment, and sometimes from living in overcrowded conditions which are due to the inability of their parents to pay a higher rent. From these children there may come a C3 population. They may easily later on join the ranks of the unemployable, and it is a serious matter for the future industrial position of this country. The industrial position of this country, its efficiency even, depends largely upon the efficiency of the labour, and that efficiency will be seriously impaired in the future if the present generation is brought up in unfavourable surroundings.
Well, admitting those facts, what are the remedies? I put aside the suggestion that all wages should at once be increased. However desirable that may be, it is quite impracticable. No Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whatever Party he belonged, would really propose an immediate all-round levelling up of wages. It would be a crushing burden on industry. Moreover, for our particular problem it would be unnecessary. It would mean that we should be providing for 17,000,000 non-existent children. The number of children for whom provision has to be made, children of families of the low paid wage-earners, are comparatively few in relation to the whole population. Another suggestion is that the welfare associations should be strengthened, that more free milk, free meals, should be given to the children. Of course all that would be good. I should welcome a considerable extension of our welfare services. But this, after all, would not really go to the heart of the problem. It would mean that children while at school would be given more food, but they would not have this extra food during their holidays, the youngest children would not receive it, and this policy would not provide 'or better accommodation or for clothing and so on.
So we are driven back to the policy of family allowances—that is to say, that to the employed labourer with a family there would be extended the policy which already is in operation in relation to the
634
unemployed. An unemployed man is given an additional allowance for every child that he has. The family allowance policy would mean that an additional allowance would be made for every child the employed labourer has. There is nothing new in this. Miss Eleanor Rathbone has advocated it for years—I think she is the protagonist in this country. The noble Viscount opposite, Viscount Samuel, ten years ago, in the Report of the Commission of which he was Chairman, recommended it for the mining industry. This proposal has been supported by men like Sir William Beveridge and Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, and lately it has had a most vigorous supporter in Mr. Amery both in another place and in the columns of The Times. Nor can it be said that this is simply a vain, unpractical, untried theory. This system is already at work in various countries. In France it has been in operation for some years. It was brought in by the employers. At first it was watched with a considerable amount of suspicion by the trade unions of France, but eventually, with the full support—I believe at the request—of the trade unions it became compulsory throughout France. It is in operation in Italy, it is in operation in Belgium, it is in operation in New South Wales, and in a less degree it is in operation in New Zealand. It is also partially in operation in a number of other countries—Holland, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and others, Therefore we are confronted with a scheme which has already been tried in a number of countries, and tried with a large amount of success.
What are the main objections to the scheme? Quite frankly, the difficulty I have always thought to be that it might encourage a large family where people could not afford a large family. But that has not been the result on the Continent. The birth-rate on the Continent is still declining in those countries where the system is in operation. After all, I am very doubtful if the fact that the man would gain an extra five shillings a week for a child would make him decide to have another child. Human nature does not work that way. But supposing it does mean an increase in population, is that anything to be regretted at the present time? Some years ago we were afraid of over-population. To-day all the anxiety is in the other direction. I am not sure that even now it is sufficiently realised

635
that unless the decline in the birth-rate is arrested, within sixty years our population will have fallen from forty-one millions to eighteen millions. There is surely nothing, therefore, detrimental in a policy which might possibly lead to some increase in the birth-rate.
Another argument which I sometimes hear against this proposal is that there will be great expense. It depends entirely on the scheme which is adopted. There are several schemes, and some of them undoubtedly would be expensive. It depends also on how far it is to be applied. Is it to apply to every child, or only to the second or third child? It depends also on the way it is introduced. It can be introduced slowly and progressively. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree estimates that for every child over the first three children an allowance of five shillings a week would mean an annual expenditure of £5,000,000 a year—not a crushing amount. But that is exactly the kind of question which ought to be worked out by a Committee. If the noble Lord who is replying for the Government asks me a number of questions of detail about this policy I should be quite unable to answer them. I can only tell him that there might be this or that answer. That, I think, is the position in which a large number of people are who accept this policy in principle. There are a large number of questions which need working out—the kind of scheme which would be most suitable in this country; should the money be raised, as in France, from the employers; should it be raised by taxation and be paid for by the State, or should it be raised by a system of mutual insurance in which the State, the employer, and the employed ought to take their share? Then there is the question of the amount which should be paid, and so on. It is for these reasons that I am asking for a Committee.
I am not asking the House to commit itself to this proposal; I am only asking for a Committee to inquire fully into the matter. Here we have an undoubted problem, a problem which has been brought out in this Report, and a problem which has been stressed time after time, about the inadequacy of the wages of many families to support their
636
children. We cannot indefinitely allow matters to drift on as they are. Therefore we ask for this Committee to inquire into this proposal which may have in it very great possibilities. There are a number of social investigators of the first class, if I may use that term, who believe that this proposal is thoroughly practicable. This Report, Men without work, to which I have already referred, says that the case for some such policy is unanswerable, and you find Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, very cautious as a rule, declaring that the case for it is overwhelming and unanswerable. Therefore we think there is a case for very careful consideration of this proposal. I am as reluctant as anyone to ask for an additional Committee. The multiplication of Committees is one of the curses of the twentieth century, but there will be no waste of time in a Committee of this nature if this Committee really thrashes the matter out, and if it finds that this policy will help to bring health and happiness to a large number of children who at present are living in most unfavourable conditions. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That a Committee be appointed to inquire into and to report on proposals for a national policy of family allowances.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friends and myself are extraordinarily grateful to the right reverend Prelate for introducing into your Lordships' House the Motion which he has just moved. I should like to acknowledge with great gratitude his sustained interest in this and kindred matters that affect so closely the life of the working classes. The facts that he has given at least show that a problem does exist which your Lordships should take into very serious account. It is, however, one that is not always admitted. Whenever we have from these Benches or from this side of the House ventured to urge the need for attention to these matters, His Majesty's Government have first of all seemed to deny that the problem exists, and, secondly, to say that even if it does things are far better in our own country than they are anywhere else, that we spend far more on our social services, and so on. All that may be true, but the fact remains that there is under-feeding both of parents and of

637
children in considerable sections of the population. We know that unemployment is increasing and, therefore, lack of nourishment will become increasingly acute. Until quite recently His Majesty's Government denied that there was any deterioration in this matter, and that we were more or less under a delusion, but both the figures that are published and the Report to which the right reverend Prelate has referred prove that wages are not always sufficient to enable people to buy the food which will keep them in a fit condition to take their part as citizens of this realm.
Sufficient food cannot be bought out of the family incomes that many people receive, and sometimes the food bought has to be of poor quality so far as nourishment is concerned. Now it so happens that in one of to-night's papers, the Star, Professor Mottram, who is acknowledged as a great expert on this matter, tells us that it costs 7¾d. per day or 45. 6d. per week per head to keep a family even fairly well nourished on the cheapest kind of food that can be obtained, and he also tells us that 4,500,000 of the people in Great Britain spend only 4s. or less per head per week. And the Unemployment Assistance Board allow only 3s. per week per child, although a child over ten years costs nearly as much to feed as an adult. Therefore we may lake it, I think, that the problem does exist, and our whole attention should be devoted not to securing any kind of Party advantage out of that grim fact but to seeing how we can try to find a remedy.
I think a part of our difficulty is that for a century or inure English manufacturers and the English political temper have always favoured the policy of low wages. A labourer was a commodity which an employer was entitled to buy in the cheapest market he could find just as he would buy a girder or a load of bricks. Therefore there has never been any conscious desire to sustain the population in a condition of physical fitness. Some years ago I happened to be staying in America with a manufacturer, and I saw his workmen driving up to his factory in their Ford cars. That was to me an astonishing thing. The idea of an English workman driving up to his employers factory in a car would, I think, have created something of a shock, but this manufacturer said to me: "I am pleased
638
to see it. Do you think I would have people see half-starved and shabby workmen coming up to my plant? It would reflect upon my capacity as a business organiser, and I should not like it to be seen." What would have been the position in England if a manufacturer had seen his workmen driving up to the factory in their own cars? First of all he would have been subject to an attack of apoplexy; secondly, he would almost surely have gone immediately to his ledger to see whether wages could possibly be reduced. Now I think it is that attitude of mind towards the wage-earner that has produced this condition. We have never realised that high wages mean an increase to the home market, which is less precarious in all probability than an overseas market.
I only wish to say in conclusion a word about the old argument of population to which the right reverend Prelate has referred. I, too, remember that whenever we pleaded for higher wages the argument both from the employers and the political pundits of the time was: "Well, if you do that the poor will marry earlier, they will have larger families, and the pressure of population on subsistence will reduce conditions to the old level. You cannot do anything; it must be accepted as one of the facts of the world which cannot be altered." Well it has been proved that they were wrong, and out of their own mouths we can judge them, because they are now scolding the working classes because either they do not or will not marry, or if they do marry they will not take the trouble to have children. And now for some years the working classes are going to be lectured because they are not going to produce sufficient children to maintain a surplus of population out of which profits can be made.
There we are. I do not quite know what is to be the outcome. I hope the right reverend Prelate is under no delusion as to what would happen if this Committee were appointed. It would sit and give very earnest attention to the problem, some day it would issue a report, that report would be carefully docketed in the appropriate Department, and unless the right reverend Prelate again introduced the subject it would be forgotten and we should hear nothing more about it. I do not know what else we can do except to lecture His Majesty's Government as they have so frequently lectured

639
us, and to say that this is a human problem as well as an economic and political problem and one worthy of their sincere and immediate attention.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I would join with the noble Lord who has just spoken in expressing gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for having brought this exceedingly important matter to the attention of your Lordships' House. He based his case in the first instance on the Report of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and reminded us that there is there a very clear and definite problem which needs solution in some way or other. Obviously, if a man who has a large family has a financial advantage in being out of work abuses may arise in the administration of the Unemployment Acts which were very far indeed from the intentions of their promoters, and if it is the case that a considerable proportion of the working classes would receive unemployment allowances hardly less than they receive in wages, one must ask the Government what proposals they intend to make in that regard. If they reject this Motion, and will not consider the question of introducing family allowances as part of the wage system, what do they suggest? I trust that whoever replies from the Government Bench will give an answer to that very simple question.
But the right reverend Prelate proceeded to base his plea on far wider grounds than that. It is the case, as everyone knows who is acquainted with the social conditions of our people, that in spite of the progress in recent generations there does still exist in our great cities, and in our villages as well, a degree of grinding poverty among large sections of the population which is not compatible with a high state of civilisation of the nation as a whole. That is due unquestionably in some degree to the fact that our wage system, the growth of centuries of the development of our industry, does not pay any regard to family circumstances. In the main, it considers in fixing wage rates a normal family, what is considered an average family. If the average family receives a wage which is supposed to be adequate for the customary standard of comfort then the economic requirements of the situation are met. But where you have
640
a large family you have hardship and poverty.
Calculations made a few years ago—and I do not know that present conditions will have altered the results very greatly—show that if the normal family is taken to consist of two adults and three children and wages are based on the requirements of a family of that size, there would be in the nation about one and a quarter million children unprovided for. That is to say, there are 1,250,000 children in families with more than three children for whose sustenance the average wage scale makes no provision. Also there are 3,000,000 wives and 16,000,000 children who are provided for statistically who do not exist. This normal average family does not bear any real, proper relation to the facts of the present situation.
Every working-class family in which there is a number of children passes through a period in its life of great strain. The young unmarried workman lives in comparative ease. I do not say absolute ease, but comparative ease. He has few responsibilities as a rule and his wage is ample for his personal requirements. If he marries, during the years when the children are coming and when they have to be maintained before they earn, the working-class family passes through a period of strain which falls with particular hardship upon the wife and mother. She is subject during those years, not only to the physical strain of childbearing, and not only to the amount of heavy work which she has to do in the home, but also to the great strain of having to maintain her whole family on a weekly income which is really not sufficient. It is desperately hard on the wife in a great many working-class families, and it is not surprising that many of them are prematurely aged by the strain. If during those years there comes a spell of unemployment the family exhausts its savings and often runs into debt, and for a long period afterwards is in a position of insecurity and even greater anxiety.
It is no answer to say that on the average and on the whole the working classes of Great Britain are better off now than they have ever been, or that they are able to put by large savings in the Savings Bank and other receptacles of national thrift. It is no consolation to the large family struggling with poverty and debt to say that on the whole and

641
on the average the working classes are better off than they used to be and are better off than those in other countries. Furthermore, when one considers the question of national fitness, to which the right reverend Prelate has drawn attention, the question becomes exceedingly acute and urgent. Playgrounds are important; but good food and drink for the children are much more important, and the question of poverty becomes a matter of great national urgency.
When there was a much lower standard of civilisation in bygone generations these things did not matter. Great numbers were improvident and reckless and their circumstances had no effect on the population. The birth-rate was high and people did not care. Now, with a more educated population and a higher standard of requirement generally, with a population more provident and thoughtful, we find that these conditions, coupled with the invention of methods of birth control, are having an exceedingly marked effect on the numbers of our population. The figures are to some extent speculative as to what future results will be; different experts give different totals, and very possibly present trends may not continue in the future on the same lines. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if present causes operate and if no new factors are brought in, then within a generation or so our population will become, first stationary, and then subject to a very considerable decline. That must have an immense effect upon our whole economic system. It will affect the building industry and all other industries concerned with capital goods. It will affect all industries concerned with the production of consumers' goods; and it will affect the numbers able to go to build up the Dominions and Colonies in future times. It will affect our whole position and status in the world at large. Therefore, I am sure the right reverend Prelate has rendered good service to your Lordships' House and to the country in inviting close attention to this matter.
There are many precedents for taking into account domestic circumstances in dealing with questions of income. He has mentioned a number of examples abroad. In this country our system of taxation recognises that the family is an institution of the first social importance and that family conditions ought to be taken into
642
account. When the Income Tax was low there was no special need for differentiation, but with a high rate of Income Tax it is found, as everyone acknowledges, that equal rates do not fall with equal pressure. So we have in the Income Tax system a most elaborate machinery of allowances and deductions in respect of families and children. Then again in the remuneration of our Army, Navy and Air Force there are marriage allowances and separation allowances. When we have to deal with the unemployed, as your Lordships have been reminded this afternoon, there is a difference between single men and married men, and families in proportion to the number of children. That is one of the difficulties. You have two systems in operation. When a man is employed he receives a wage which has no regard to his domestic circumstances. When he is unemployed he receives an allowance which has regard to his domestic circumstances. As a consequence you find in certain respects two systems which are incompatible with one another.
With respect to the police—a matter with which I was brought into touch when I was Home Secretary during the War—family allowances were paid during the War as in the case of soldiers. They did not continue in precisely the same form, but at the present time a single constable who is not housed in the section house receives a rent allowance of 6s. a week, whereas the married constable is given his actual rent and rates up to 17s. 6d. a week. There you have two men doing the same work, employed upon the same duties, yet one will get 11s. 6d. more than another, and no one raises objection to that system, or says it is wrong because the two men are doing the same work. It is recognised as reasonable and right that a married man, who has to pay more in rent and rates, should receive payment on an increased scale. Similar provisions apply in the higher ranks of the police force and in police forces outside the Metropolis.
Then there is a second point which was referred to by the right reverend Prelate, who was good enough to make reference to the Report of the Commission on the Coal Industry. On that Commission we took evidence on that question, and went closely into it. The Commission included Sir William Beveridge, who may be described as a leading national authority on these matters, and

643
two of the leading figures in the world of finance and industry, Sir Herbert Lawrence and Sir Kenneth Lee. We came unanimously to this conclusion:
"Irrespective of the level of wages, we regard the introduction of a system of children's allowances—to be paid for out of a single pool, either for the whole industry or for each district that adopts it—as one of the most valuable measures that can be adopted for adding to the well-being and contentment of the mining population."
Yet no progress has been made in this matter in general, and that is, I think, partly due to the fact that it does not command the support of the trade unionists.
The noble Lord who has just spoken did not in terms tell us whether the Labour Party, as a Party, support family allowances as a principle, but certainly trade unionists have not given any special encouragement to the movement advocated with so much zeal and consistency by Miss Rathbone. Trade unionists are often very conservative. To Socialists, a principle such as this should appeal, because it conforms to one of the principal maxims of the early Socialists: "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs." Yet one does not hear very often from the Socialist Party any very active advocacy of this proposal on the ground that it conforms to that principle. But before anything can be done effectively on a large scale it will be necessary to carry working-class opinion with us.
The attitude of trade unionists rests, I think, on two grounds. Many working people say that whilst a married man has to provide for his family a single man or woman has to put by money, and to save, in order to provide himself or herself later on with a home, or very often has to help parents or younger brothers and sisters. They therefore reject the argument that there ought to be differentiation between the family man and the single person. Secondly, they very often hold the view that the relationship between the workman and the employer is a purely business relationship; that the workman does the work and should be paid for it according to its economic value, and that his own domestic circumstances are irrelevant. They object to questions being brought in, and inquiries
644
made, as to whether a man is married or unmarried, and whether he has children or has not. These things, they say, are no concern of the industrial system but are the man's own private concern. Those arguments no doubt are cogent, and I think they account for the reason why this movement has not made, as yet, great progress among working-class opinion.
They are cogent arguments, but not conclusive, and in my own view the arguments on the other side, which have been already mentioned in this discussion, outweigh those to which I have just referred. Of course it is the case that any question of family allowances ought not to be a matter between individual workmen and individual employers. Obviously, if individual employers were required by law to give higher wages to a man who was married than to a single man, or higher wages to a man who had a large family than to another man who had a small family, those individual employers would have the most obvious financial interest in not employing married men or men with families. It is clear that if any system is adopted it must be on the lines followed in France and other countries. The allowances must be paid into a pool for the industry or for an area or perhaps for the whole nation, and such allowances should be paid out of that pool.
A number of questions arise then for consideration. The first is whether there should be an element of contributory insurance or not. Secondly, whether there should be a State contribution. That is an open question. Some say that there should be a State contribution, and some that there should not. I hope His Majesty's Government, to-day, will not reject this Motion on the ground that this is not the time at which to ask for a grant from the State, because the system can be brought into being without any contribution from the State. There is a great deal to be said in my view against a State contribution. Thirdly, there is the question whether it is possible that this system might be brought into operation first of all for State and perhaps municipal employees, without being applied to private enterprises. Lastly, in this connection, there is the question whether it might not take the

645
form at the present stage of the preparation of a scheme to be brought into operation when wages are rising; and so to give a model or incentive to private industries to establish family allowances, not accompanied by a reduction of the present wages rates, but rather, when trade conditions allow, as an addition to wages, instead of a distribution over the whole of the employees of any benefits which might come from an improvement in trade.
Those are considerations that I venture to lay before your Lordships' House, and I would repeat that it is essential, before anything effective is done, that we should be able to carry with us the general body of working-class opinion. To that end it is most desirable that there should be an inquiry such as is suggested by the right reverend Prelate. We should then obtain an impartial statement of the arguments on both sides. We should have submitted, possibly, alternative plans—a great variety of plans have been proposed, and possibly many of them will be found worthy of consideration—and we should have the Report of that Committee, so that whether their conclusion be for or against this proposal, the nation would be able to arrive at a well informed and fully considered opinion.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I think all who are interested in the physical and mental welfare of the people of this country, and all those interested in maintaining the stability of this country, should be grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing forward this Motion to-day. The noble Viscount who has just been speaking has not only supported the case for family allowances by giving precedents, but has also indicated the desirability of having an inquiry, in order to put before your Lordships and the country at large the different ways in which a scheme of family allowances could be dealt with. The mover of this Resolution brought it before your Lordships as a result of the publication of the Report of the Unemployment Assistance Board. He has quoted some passages therefrom, and has indicated the very serious situation which was brought out in the preface of the Chairman of that Board, Lord Rushcliffe—namely, that something like 6 per cent. of those who are drawing benefit are as well off (if not better off) when they are drawing benefit as they would be when at
646
work. In the words of the Chairman of the Board, "this position is one which must give rise to anxiety"; anxiety not only due to the fact that a large number of children cannot possibly be getting what is necessary, that the family income cannot meet the needs of the family when these people are in work; but anxiety also in that the incentive to return to work is diminished, if not removed, in something like 30,000 cases by the fact that a man out of work is getting as much as, and may be getting more than, when he was in work.
The right reverend Prelate also supported his case by referring to Mr. Seebohm Rowntree's book The human needs of labour. When that book was published two years ago Mr. Rowntree made out an overwhelming case for action and inquiry. He then estimated that something like £6,000,000 a year would be required to give 5s. a week for every child in a family of more than three. He estimated then that a man living in a town needed 53s. and a man living in a rural district needed 48s., and I think he has increased that figure since by 2S. I refer to that estimate to give some sort of indication of what the possible cost of the scheme might be. If it were necessary to quote additional evidence that the present situation is unsatisfactory, one might refer to the report of Sir John Orr. He there brings up the fact that nearly one-quarter of the nation's children are to be found in the group whose income per head is less than 10s. per week—that is, the poorest classes. I had an opportunity of studying this question when for some two years I was Chairman of a League Committee on malnutrition. We brought out the real evils of malnutrition and its extent even in countries, such as ours and the United States of America, where there is a relatively high standard of living. After spending two years on deliberation we were quite emphatic and clear that the main factor in producing malnutrition was poverty—ignorance in some case4, but mainly poverty.
There have also been a certain number of local surveys, and the right reverend Prelate referred to two: the Merseyside one and the Bristol one. We had one at Plymouth not very long ago, an impartial survey. I should like first to quote a couple of sentences from that report:

647
"From the point of view of a social survey of this kind, the really interesting question about incomes is, of course, how far the household receipts are sufficient to meet its minimum needs."
And then those who were responsible for this survey tried to define what was meant by the phrase "minimum needs," and they took the "poverty line" used in a recent London survey. The result of their inquiry was substantially the same as that in the other two surveys I have mentioned—namely, that 16 per cent. of the families examined were below the poverty line thus defined.
That indicates that in a large number of cities there is a state of affairs which nobody can consider satisfactory. Things are better. Whenever I have taken part in a debate on malnutrition I have been told afterwards that those of us who criticised the present state of affairs did not make enough allowance for the improvement which had taken place. Let us make full allowance for the improvement; let us make full allowance for everything which the Government have done; even then there is still a problem which cannot leave us in any state of complacency. That is a point which needs to be brought up. A previous speaker has referred to the campaign for physical fitness. It is very serious when we find that of the children who enter school at the age of five, 16 per cent. show some physical defect. The fact that this is too high a figure is shown by a comparison with the figures for those children who have been through open-air nursery schools, where they have been more properly fed and looked after. Of the children who have been through open-air nursery schools—that is to say, who have been receiving a ration of food in addition to what they were getting at home—only 7 per cent., instead of 16 per cent., show physical defect. That is to say, we could enormously improve the physical condition of infants if we were either to give them more food or enable their parents to' give them more food.
It is also serious to know that 35,000 children die under the age of one, that 14,000 die between the ages of one and five, and that 25,000 are born dead. I understand that the more this question of maternal and infantile mortality is examined, the more evidence accumulates that malnutrition is a substantial and a
648
real factor; that if we can remove malnutrition we shall reduce the maternal mortality rate and the infantile death-rate. I will only quote one very small experiment, that of Lady Rhys Williams. There it was found that among mothers who receive extra food the death-rate is 0·45, whereas among mothers who do not receive extra food the death-rate is 3·5, a very much larger proportion. If you take the death-rate of infants, where food is given the death-rate is 54 per 1,000, whereas if no food is given the death-rate is 83 per 1,000. Figures such as these—and one could go on quoting many others—prevent us from being complacent, even after making full recognition of all that is being done.
Another point which I think was touched on by the noble Viscount who has just spoken was our falling birth-rate. Professor Carr-Saunders has brought out the fact that, if we go on at our present birth-rate and present mortality, in the year 1976 the population of this country will be 32,000,000 instead of something like 45,000,000, and that one hundred years hence it will be well below 20,000,000. If that is the case—and I have no doubt that something like that is true—then it is doubly necessary that we should take every step that we can to improve the physical condition of the remaining population. Anything that we can do to make it easy for parents to bring up large families should be faced. A good deal of discussion is going on in the public Press now about stimulating migration to the Dominions. What is the good of trying to evolve a large-scale migration policy to the Dominions when the prospects are that in a hundred years our own population will be more than halved?
I was reading the other day a very interesting speech made by the present Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1935. He was then dealing with the Budget which he had introduced, and was explaining the proposal for giving relief from taxation to people with families. This is what he said:
"I have a feeling that the time will not be far distant … when the countries of the British Empire will be crying out for more citizens of the right breed and when we in this country will not be able to supply the demand. I think that if to-day we can give even a little help to those who are carrying on the race, the money will not he wasted."

649
As I understand it, what the right reverend Prelate desires is a scheme which will enable us to discourage the present very serious trend towards a large reduction in the population. There are roughly three ways in which this can be dealt with. One is by an increase in wages; another is by subsidising the feeding of school children and the mothers at maternity centres; and the third is by a system of family allowances. As regards wages, which I understand is the remedy advocated by the noble Lord who spoke as representing tip. Labour Party, I thought that what Mr. Rowntree brought out very clearly in his book was the fact that there would be much dislocation of industry, whether organised industry or unorganised trades, if in a short space of time it was expected to provide adequate incomes so that large families could be properly provided for; delay would ensue and a great dislocation of business and trade. That being so, it seems to me that we must rule that out as the sole remedy for the present unsatisfactory situation.
Then we come to the next alternative, that of subsidising the feeding of young persons. It is very interesting that in the last published Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education on "The health of the school child," the opening chapters are devoted to the problem of malnutrition, emphasizing the fact that there is a problem of malnutrition. The Medical Officer of the Board of Education urges local authorities to deal with this, either through subsidising school meals or in some other way. A great deal of evidence could be quoted in support of this. The advantage of subsidising school meals or feeding children in open-air nursery schools—that is, the pre-school child—is that there is no waste of public money. It is sometimes said that if you give a cash payment some of the money would be wasted. If you give the help in kind instead of in cash the prospect of waste of public money would be diminished.
Then we come to the third alternative, that of family allowances. Previous speakers have pointed out that there is no cut-and-dried scheme now before the country. It is possible to give an allowance either after the first or the second or the third child. It is possible to have a flat rate per child, or to vary the rate. I have been examining some of the
650
schemes in other countries. In France, where there was a great deal of suspicion when the system was first introduced, I understand that five and a quarter million workers are covered by the scheme. That is to say, it is apparently working very satisfactorily, and I understand that it has the very general support of the trade union movement. In Belgium it is the same. In New South Wales and New Zealand there is also a universal scheme. In Germany and in Italy great help is given by the totalitarian Governments to large families. In Germany there is an allowance for the third and fourth child and a bigger allowance for the fifth and subsequent children, and there is also a bonus given in case of a birth. In Italy there is a flat rate for each child, and there are other provisions.
I understand the results abroad, in democracies such as France or Belgium or New South Wales, are satisfactory, and I am convinced myself that in the totalitarian States the fact that the Governments are doing so much to help large families, to assist mothers with the feeding of children, is inducing a large number of people to accept the system perhaps more gracefully than they would otherwise do. So what we have to face is that our system here is on trial. We have to produce as satisfactory results for families and for children as is done in totalitarian States. We have to see that we provide as good benefits, as good a standard of life—I am not now talking of freedom and liberty and that sort of thing, I am talking purely of the physical side. Our system is under challenge, and it is up to us to see that we do as much to supply the physical needs of young persons and of families as is done in the totalitarian States. I think we are apt to forget sometimes the sense of insecurity felt by the wives of manual workers. It would be a great benefit to them if they could have something like family allowances. People are apt to forget the close inter-dependence which there is between mental well-being and physical fitness. One of the gravest hardships of the very poor is the frightful sense of insecurity, and therefore mothers particularly tend to get worried, to get tired and run down, and physically unfit. Family allowances, even small ones, would be a tremendous boon from this point of view, and would be of inestimable benefit in removing one cause of worry.

651
As regards policy, I have indicated that as far as I can see there are various alternatives—either family allowances, or increased subsidies for the feeding of children, or a combination of the two. I myself think that probably the right policy would be a combination—increased assistance to local authorities in feeding children, and also probably some national system of family allowances. But I agree entirely with the mover of the Resolution that before anything is done there ought to be an investigation. I cannot see that there is any objection to that, though it would, of course, take a little time. We should then he in a far better way to judge what was the right way of tackling this very real and substantial problem, and I hope very much that when the noble Lord speaks on behalf of the Government he will be able to indicate that the Government are open-minded to the extent of contemplating the possibility of an impartial investigation into the merits of the different schemes, so that the people at large may be able to form a proper judgment.
LORD HOLDEN: My Lords, I rise with natural diffidence, as this is the first time that I have had the privilege of speaking in your Lordships' House, and I hope that I shall have your indulgence in the few remarks that I want to make. The right reverend Prelate has powerfully advocated the need for family allowances, and I would like to emphasize one point. It is clear, I think, that we are applying to our wage-earners two entirely different and indeed contradictory systems of benefit. With the unemployed receiving allowances, inadequate though they may often be, we have, as Lord Snell has said, treated labour as a commodity and assumed that the wages are sufficient on which to raise a family. This has proved in many instances to be far from the case, and each additional child has meant a lowering of the whole standard of family life. The problem is very much a question of the size of the family; and the raising of the school age during the last fifty years from twelve to fifteen, and the very desirable limitation of working hours for children, have naturally increased for each parent the cost of rearing a child. As the result, as the right reverend Prelate has shown, by 1998 the
652
population is likely to be reduced to 18,000,000.
Apart from the national and imperial danger of this state of affairs, it will bring very serious social problems. To start with, you will get a shifting of the weight from the young to the old, which will place the burden of old age pensions on a smaller industrial population. The number of consumers on whom industry relies will be decreased, and presumably there will be a decrease in the number of taxpayers on whom the burden of social reform and defence rests. Therefore, from the point of view of the future welfare of the country as well as from the point of view of fairness to the worker living to-day, a scheme of family allowances should be introduced as soon as possible in this country. I am told that the existing social machinery is adequate and, as has been suggested by several noble Lords this afternoon, the money could be found by a joint contribution from the employer, the employed, and the State in the same way as is done in many foreign countries.
Until this policy is in being, a start might be made in the direction of relieving some of the burden from our wage-earning population if every child in our elementary schools could be provided with one good mid-day meal to be taken on the school premises. I do not put this forward as an alternative policy, but only as an initial move in the right direction, which would also be a direct attack on malnutrition. A further advantage would be that it would ensure that the money is spent on the child, and it would ensure that the child would have a good meal and would probably acquire a taste for wholesome food. It would also mean that the child would be able to rest in the middle of the day instead of, as now happens, going backward and forward to its home. Besides these advantages to the child, the education authority would benefit by being able to buy foodstuffs wholesale and at special prices, as the Government do to-day in regard to milk. Possibly the Potato Board and the Herring Board would be pleased to have such a guaranteed market in schools.
I do not propose to go into the question of expenditure at any length, but I might say that assuming there are 5,000,000 children at school for two hundred days in the year, and the cost of a meal is

653
fourpence, that would cost the country £17,000,000 a year if the Government bore the whole burden of the expense. Four-pence may seem a very low sum for a meal, but it is higher than is charged in many of the schools to-day, although lower than in some. Undoubtedly many of these meals are not of a very high quality, but if a great many meals are served, it would be possible to cut the overhead charges and thus increase the quality. The cost of such a scheme in comparison with the benefits it would bestow is small. In conclusion, may I say that in my opinion the time has come when justice demands that encouragement should be givers to the wage-earner with a large family. I am grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence, and I beg to support the Motion.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, not for the first time the right reverend Prelate has brought a Motion of the deepest social interest before your Lordships' House, and I am sure I am speaking for His Majesty's Government and for the House when I say we are all most grateful to him for so doing. In a way I am especially pleased, because he happens to be my own Bishop at home. Therefore it is a great pleasure to me to be able to answer him on this first occasion on which I am speaking for the Ministry of Labour. If I do not please him to-day, no doubt he will find a further opportunity in his diocese of taking notice of my conduct!
The debate, in addition to the speech of the right reverend Prelate, has given rise to a most interesting discussion. We have had contributions from the noble Lord opposite, Lord Snell; from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, representing the Liberal Party; a most interesting address bringing in the subject of nutrition, in which he is particularly interested, from the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, Lord Astor; and, finally, a very interesting contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Holden. I must congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech, and express the hope that he will come here and let us hear him a great deal more often. I must take exception to one remark which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, made. He said that if his Party brought forward these problems to the notice of the Government, whoever was replying from these Benches denied that there was any problem at all. I absolutely deny that. I have heard many speeches made
654
by my noble friend the Leader of the House and other noble Lords from these Benches on these questions, and in former years from other noble Lords who have led this House—Lord Londonderry, Lord Salisbury, and others—and never once have I heard that remark made. We know that there is a problem, and a very serious problem, although we do not always try to deal with it in the way the noble Lord opposite might perhaps like.
The right reverend Prelate, in his address, took very much the line which was taken by Mr. Amery in the article which he contributed to The Times on June 24, and in which he advocated family allowances and brought forward some very interesting statistics. I notice that Mr. Amery had a further letter in The Times on this same subject yesterday, The right reverend Prelate divided his speech into two parts. In the first place he dealt with the fact, which we all deplore, that in many cases these people who are unfortunately unemployed are better off under unemployment benefit than they are when they are at work. The second part of his speech was his recommendation of the system of family allowances. The right reverend Prelate quoted from Command Paper 5752, the Report of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and I have another document here which still more brings out what he was proving to your Lordships. It contains Reports of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee made in accordance with the Unemployment Insurance Acts. This document as to the conditions of the funds was issued on December 31 last. It is worth while reading to your Lordships something of what they say.
In paragraph 51 on page 21 they say:
"Allowing for the fact that a man when unemployed saves certain expenses which fall on him during, employment, and may have greater opportunities for subsidiary earning, it is estimated in the Memorandum that of 411,191 men claiming in August, 9,510, or 2·3 per cent., were as well off or better off on benefit than in their last employment; among 138,220 women the number was 7,24o, or 5·2 per cent. of all claimants. These numbers and proportions in the whole body of claimants are small but appreciable. If, instead of taking benefit rates all together the different rates are looked at separately, the proportions of those who are as well off on benefit as in employment rise steadily to large percentages. Of the 5,293 men on 41s. benefit 530, or to per cent., are as well off unemployed as employed. At a 50s. rate of benefit the proportion as well off unemployed as employed exceeds one-third."

655
In a later passage, in paragraph 55, the Committee say:
"Unless the standards of subsistence adopted by the Unemployment Assistance Board are too high, a considerable number of large families must be appreciably below the standard, even when the father is in work, and could not be brought up to it by any raising of wages generally that is at all likely to occur."
My point in reading this is to point out to the right reverend Prelate and your Lordships that the situation which exists in relation to unemployed assistance is matched by a similar situation in unemployed benefit.
The Government and the country are of course perfectly well aware that it is a very serious state of things, and that it does encourage a certain proportion, I think largely of the younger people who have not been brought up to work hard like their fathers and mothers, possibly to prefer to remain on unemployment benefit instead of taking jobs that they might take. Now these facts show the existence of a serious problem, but there is a wide diversity of opinion as to the lines along which its solution should be approached. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, made various suggestions this afternoon, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, from the Cross Benches, though I think the latter's remarks were chiefly aimed at his particular subject of the nutrition of the people on which he is an acknowledged expert. I did not, however, come prepared to deal with that aspect of the matter.
In the view of the Government there are at least five possible lines of approach to this subject. In the first place there is the question of an increase of wages, but the Government do not think that there is any early prospect of such a change of the wage level as would meet many of the difficulties to which the Statutory Committee of the Unemployment Assistance Board have drawn attention. Secondly, apart from any change in the general wage level, it is possible that employers in increasing numbers might be induced to grant family allowances to such of their workpeople as have large families. There, again, that solution would not, I think, have the approval of the Party to which the noble Lord opposite belongs, and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, reminded us, in
656
order to do any good you must have working-class opinion on your side. I do not think that at any rate at present the Labour Party approve of that solution. In a few cases British employers have adopted such schemes, but their wide extension is not very probable, and any compulsory requirement to adopt such a scheme would in general exclude fathers of large families from employment.
Thirdly, there is the method adopted in certain countries abroad to which the right reverend Prelate referred, under which employers in each of the different industries contribute to their own fund out of which normal wages are supplemented in the case of men with large families. Fourthly, there is the suggestion recommended by my right honourable friend Mr. Amery in a recent article in The Times—namely, the creation of a National Family Allowances Fund out of the contributions of employers, workpeople and the Exchequer. Finally, there is the possibility of the direct provision of family allowances out of the Exchequer. The last two suggestions have not been canvassed very widely, and opinion is, I think, not yet fully formed upon them.
I have dealt with this question and answered the right reverend Prelate as well as I can, and in conclusion I would say again that I thank him for bringing this subject before the House. Not only is it full of interest to all students of politics, but it is of particular interest to anyone who is fortunate enough to have a seat in either House of Parliament as, of course, it directly concerns the life and well-being of many thousands in this country. As regards the Motion I am afraid I cannot accept it. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate saw that this question was brought up in another place about a week ago. A member of that place asked the Prime Minister a question in very similar terms to the Motion of the right reverend Prelate, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said he did not see his way at the moment to set up a Commission. Further than that I cannot go. This is a matter upon which, in the opinion of the Government, public attention may be expected to concentrate, but they do not think it has yet reached the stage when it would be useful to set up a formal body for its examination.

657
The right reverend Prelate will not, I hope, conclude from our inability to accept his Motion that the Government do not appreciate the importance of the subject both from the point of view of the individual and of the community. I would again thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing' up this matter, and I would also express gratitude to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As debates in your Lordships' House so often do, it has been instrumental in fixing public opinion on this very important subject.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I rise only to thank the noble Lord for the fullness and courtesy of the reply, and to express my disappointment that the Government are unable at present to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter. I would emphasize the words "at the moment" which the noble Lord has just used, and I hope that possibly if I raise this question again later in the course of this year I may get a more favourable answer. In the meantime I can only ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Motion.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn may I with your Lordships permission say that the
658
position now seems clear. The Government admit there is a problem; they say that there are five methods of approach to the solution of that problem, and they propose to take none of them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (HIGH COURT JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (HIGH COURT JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (ADAPTATION OF LAWS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that Orders be made in the form of the drafts approved by the House on Tuesday last.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Green Belt (London and Home Counties).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TUN NEL AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SEWERAGE) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Guildford Corporation Bill and another Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Middlesex County Council (Sewerage) Bill: Read, and agreed to.
660
All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BILLERICAY URBAN DIS TRICT ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section r of the Act to the urban district of Billericay:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (CLACTON-ON-SEA) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHOLDERTON AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CALNE WATER) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.