Sitting of 10 May 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
London County Council (Money) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time.
Private Bills (Petitions for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petitions for additional Provision in the following Bills the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Ossett Corporation Bill. Workington Corporation Bill.
Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Gateshead Corporation Bill [Lords].
Blackburn Corporation Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Marriages Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
London Passenger Transport Board Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Lee Conservancy Catchment Board [Money].
Committee to consider the question of authorising payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to make grants in respect of works to be executed by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board for the drainage of their catchment area as if such works had been the improvement of existing works and the construction of new works under the Land Drainage Act, 1930 (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    PRICES, WOLVERHAMPTON.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by the Wolverhampton Town Council in obtaining competitive tenders for the supply of coal and that the total increase in the price of coal since the new marketing scheme was started is 4s. 2d. per ton at Cosford, 6s. per ton at Tettenhall, and 5s. 9d. at Dimmingsdale, percentage increases of 29 per cent., 46 per cent. and 62 per cent.; and whether he will take steps to enable alternative tenders to be obtained?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The control of the sale of coal by a central authority involves the absence of inter-colliery price competition, but in the cases quoted by the hon. Member I understand that the increases in

    1385
    price since 1st August, 1936, when the organised selling schemes came into operation are smaller than those suggested in the question. As regards the last part of the question, I would suggest that if this town council considers that it is being treated unfairly, it should complain to the committees of investigation for the districts in question.
    Mr. Mander: Does not the Minister consider that these increases are beyond all reason?
    Captain Crookshank: I have just told the hon. Member that they are not the correct increases, and that the correct ones are smaller.

    EXPLOSION, HOLDITCH.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has given consideration to the report on the causes and circumstances of the Holditch, North Staffordshire, explosion; and what steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations made in the report by the Chief Inspector of Mines?
    Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. The three recommendations in regard to the danger of the ignition of firedamp by the sparking or heating sometimes produced by coalcutter picks are being dealt with as follow:
    (1) The suggestion for further investigation into cutting conditions is being referred to the Safety in Mines Research Board.
    (2) Further tests of the use of carbon dioxide to prevent ignitions will be made by the board and I am informed that a coalcutter modified for the purpose of such tests has now been obtained.
    (3) The recommendation that some means of dealing with fires should be carried on coalcutting machines has been covered in draft general regulations which will be published in the course of the next few days.
    Mr. Batey: How many more of these terrible explosions are there to be before the Government take action in bringing forward new safety legislation?
    Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as regards safety legislation, we are awaiting the report of the Royal Commission set up to advise on this very point.
    Mr. Batey: Is it not time that the Minister spoke in very strong language to the Commission, and told them it was time they were getting a move on? Let us have the report.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Is it not a fact that all the explosions of recent years have taken place where machinery was driven electrically and does not the Minister think the time has come for a drastic revision of the regulations governing the use of electricity in coal mines?
    Captain Crookshank: Those are all questions separate from that on the Paper. If the hon. Member wants a considered reply, perhaps he will put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. E. Smith: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an undertaking that he will expedite the publication of the report and the proceedings, and does not he agree that this is only part of the whole problem?
    Captain Crookshank: That question, again, is wide of the question on the Paper, but the evidence has been published, and as far as the report is concerned, that is a matter for the Royal Commission.
    Mr. Batey: Will the Minister give an answer to my question as to when we may expect the report?
    Captain Crookshank: I thought I had already made that clear. I am in the hands of the Royal Commission, which is now considering its report. I cannot say more than that.

    HERRING DRIFTERS.
    Sir Douglas Thomsonasked the Secretary for Mines the approximate annual consumption of coal used by the fleet of herring drifters working from the United Kingdom?
    Captain Crookshank: I am advised that the Herring Industry Board estimate that herring drifters working from the United Kingdom use approximately 150,000 tons of coal per annum.
    Sir D. Thomson: Has my hon. and gallant Friend considered the statement recently issued by the Government that they were going to give a subsidy for

    1387
    herring drifters driven by motor power, and will not that be very serious to the coal industry?

    SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any instructions have been issued to the representatives of the South African Protectorates on the recently created Joint Conference with the Union Government in South Africa to consider the well-being of these Territories; if so, what is their nature, and whether any consultations have been arranged with the natives concerned; and whether any methods have been worked out for ascertaining their wishes?
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): No special instructions of the nature referred to have been issued. It will naturally be the object of the Resident Commissioners, who represent the Territories on the Joint Advisory Conference, to promote the well-being of the Territories for the administration of which they are responsible. The Resident Commissioners will keep in close touch with the native chiefs in the Territories, with a view both to keeping them informed of progress in the Joint Advisory Conference's work and to discussing with them proposals which may come before the Conference.
    Mr. Creech Jones: If the ultimate purpose of this policy is that the Protectorates should form some part of the Union of South Africa, is it not desirable that definite instructions should be given by the Government to the Commissioners who are serving on this Conference, and should not some more direct contact be kept with the natives concerned?
    Mr. MacDonald: The Conference has nothing whatever to do with the question of transfer. The Conference is simply concerned with co-operation between the Administrations and the Union Government on schemes which may be for the economic well-being of the Territories, without prejudice to the question of transfer or the attitude of the natives towards it.
    Mr. Riley: Will the Conference inquire as to what is the attitude of the natives
    1388
    towards the question of transfer, and the conditions in which transfer might be accepted by them?
    Mr. MacDonald: The Conference has nothing to do with the question of transfer, or the attitude of the natives towards transfer. That question is being dealt with quite separately, in another way altogether.
    Mr. Paling: Is not this Conference intended to pave the way towards transfer?
    Mr. MacDonald: The Conference is purely concerned, as has been announced, with considering schemes which may help the economic development of the Territories.
    Mr. Hannah: Is not this one of the rare cases where hurry is not desirable?

    RHODESIA AND NYASALAND.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will supply statistics of wage rates, amounts annually earned, and proportions of adult male natives working for wages at any one time, in Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Complete and up-to-date particulars in regard to these points are not available here, but the Governments of the territories concerned are being asked for the information, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as replies are received.
    Mr. Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will particularly request the Commission about to visit East Africa to ensure that, should any amalgamation be recommended, the earning capacity and opportunities of natives in particular districts shall not be endangered or reduced?
    Mr. MacDonald: I would remind the hon. Member that under their terms of reference the Royal Commission, which is proceeding to Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, are to have due regard to the interests of all the inhabitants, irrespective of race, of the territories concerned, and to the special responsibility of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for the interests of the native inhabitants.

    NEWFOUNDLAND.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the heavy subsidies to Newfoundland from this country, substantial social and economic progress is being made to warrant this cost and absence of democratic institutions; whether any steps are being taken to create some channels for expressing public opinion on the Island to the Commission of Government; and how soon will representative government be restored in this British Dominion?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the first and third parts of the question, there is certainly no doubt as to the substantial social and economic progress which has been made in Newfoundland under the Commission of Government, but the process of recovery must necessarily be gradual and the Island cannot be expected to be self-supporting for some considerable time to come: in the circumstances there is no present prospect of restoration of the previous form of Constitution. As regards the second part of the question, It is the aim of the Commission to keep in close touch with local opinion both in day to day administration and on major questions of policy, and the best methods of securing this are constantly under review. A variety of contacts have already been developed for this purpose, both through standing bodies and ad hoc conferences, and through trade, labour and charitable organisations.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Are we to understand from that reply that it will now be a principle of government that the test for the preservation of democratic institutions will be the ability of the Territory to balance its budget or to pay its way?
    Mr. MacDonald: We are now considering the particular question of Newfoundland, and we are working in accordance with the wishes of the people of the Island as expressed at the time when this new form of government was established.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Minister consider setting up some advisory committee whereby the people of Newfoundland can express themselves to the Commission?
    Mr. Lyons: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied from the representations he has had from the Island itself that this form of government is, in the circumstances, meeting the need of the people there?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think the answer which I gave to the original question really covers that point. I think that, generally speaking, the good government which is being given by the Commission is appreciated throughout the Island. With regard to the question by the hon. Member opposite, as I have said, the question of the most appropriate form of consultation with the local population is constantly under review, and at present I am satisfied that the methods which are being adopted are the most satisfactory in all the circumstances. Certainly, I have not recently had any complaints on this point from the Island itself.

    SWAZILAND (TOBACCO GROWERS, LOANS).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs particulars of the advances made to the Swaziland tobacco growers, including native growers, in respect of the annual crop delivered by them to the local co-operative tobacco society for disposal for the 12 months ended at the last convenient date; the amount of the funds for these advances that have been provided by loans from the administration; and also of the terms of the appointment of one of the directors of the society who is appointed by the resident commissioner?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not the details referred to in the first and last parts of the question, but I am asking the High Commissioner for the desired information. As to the second part, it has been the practice during recent years for the administration to advance to the Swaziland Cooperative Tobacco Company a seasonal loan of £8,000 to finance the annual crop when ready for delivery.
    Mr. Day: Has any application been made by the native chief or his council for an increase in the grant to tobacco growers?
    Mr. MacDonald: I should like notice of that question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MEXICAN OIL.
    Mr. Liddallasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to allow delivery in the United Kingdom of any Mexican petroleum for sale here to the public as a result of an arrangement by a British subject to purchase Mexican petroleum at a time when His Majesty's Government are protesting against the confiscation of British-owned property; and will he prevent delivery on principle, in the interests of British investors whose property is now being subjected to unfair treatment by the Mexican authorities?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would refer to the answer given on 27th April by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question by the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) which intimated that

    Statement showing the quantities of the undermentioned descriptions of petroleum imported into the United Kingdom during the periods specified and registered as consigned from Mexico.

    Description.

    1935.

    1936.

    1937.

    January-March, 1938.

    Thousand gallons.

    Thousand gallons.

    Thousand gallons.

    Thousand gallons.

    Crude Petroleum

    …

    …

    89,273

    9,220

    9,952

    3,89

    Refined Petroleum:

    Kerosene

    …

    …

    23,640

    14,372

    12,770

    4,682

    Motor Spirit

    …

    …

    62,540

    31,721

    17,326

    4,716

    Lubricating Oil

    …

    …

    11,740

    12,053

    12,372

    3,749

    Gas Oil

    …

    …

    4,748

    14,781

    15,961

    5,081

    Fuel Oil

    …

    …

    90,263

    109,678

    92,287

    35,944

    NOTE—The figures for 1937 and 1938 are provisional.

    GERMAN MOTOR-CARS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade what information is in the possession of his Department as to the subsidies paid by the German Government in respect of motor-cars exported to this country?
    Mr. G. Straussasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will inquire from the German Government what export subsidy is paid in respect of Opel cars imported into this country?
    Mr. Stanley: Up to the present I have been unable to obtain any definite information as to the payment of subsidies by the German Government in respect of motor-cars exported to this country, but I am making further inquiries.
    1392
    the marketing of oil from the expropriated properties would be a matter of embarrassment to His Majesty's Government. I have nothing to add to that reply.
    Mr. George Hallasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of oil imported into this country from Mexico during each of the last three years, together with the imports for the first quarter of this year; and whether there is any interference by the Government with such oil being imported into this country at the present time?
    Mr. Stanley: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the desired particulars of imports. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to-day to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall).
    Following is the statement:
    Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say why certain classes of motor cars manufactured in Germany are offered for sale in this country at substantially lower prices than those at which they are offered for sale in Germany?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will, of course, realise the difference between a direct Government subsidy to an industry and a subsidy which takes the form of an industrial pool which may subsidise exports. It is difficult to get any definite information on a point of this kind, but I am trying to get what further information I can.
    Mr. Bellenger: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department made inquiries from our commercial counsellor in Berlin who is usually well informed on these matters?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to a question the other day, referred to information we have got from our commercial counsellor which had been put in the form of a report.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman notice that the second question asks whether he will inquire from the German Government? Has he made such direct inquiries, and, if so, has there been a refusal to reply?
    Mr. Stanley: I have said that I am making further inquiries, and it was in answer to the question about inquiries of the German Government that I put that in.

    FABRIC GLOVES.
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the extent of the information in his possession as to the export of fabric gloves from Germany to this country being in any way subsidised?
    Mr. Stanley: I have no evidence that exports of fabric gloves from Germany to this country are subsidised. I would add that imports of fabric gloves from Germany have declined considerably in recent years.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the President of the Board of Trade the date of the last decision of the Import Duties Advisory Committee with reference to the application of the British fabric glove industry for an increased protective duty; whether, since then, he has received any representations with regard to the importation into this country of subsidised foreign-made fabric gloves; and what action it is now proposed to take for the protection of all interests of this British industry?
    Mr. Stanley: An application for an increased duty on fabric gloves was rejected by the Import Duties Advisory Committee in December, 1936, and the rejection was confirmed by the Committee in February, 1937. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply I gave to him on 2nd November. I would add that total imports of fabric gloves in the first three months of this year were substantially less than in the corresponding period of last year.
    Mr. Lyons: Would my right hon. Friend consider, in view of the difficulties which
    1394
    this industry is now facing, referring the whole question to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and letting them investigate the conditions and make a report such as they did in the case of the iron and steel industry?
    Mr. Stanley: The Import Duties Advisory Committee have considered the application of this industry on two occasions within the last 18 months and have rejected the application for additional duties.
    Mr. Lyons: Would my right hon. Friend ask the committee in this special case to tell the industry the reasons for the rejection so that the industry may take such steps as may be available to put itself in a position to make a subsequent application?
    Mr. Stanley: I referred in previous answers to one of the reasons for earlier rejections. If the hon. Gentleman will study the figures of the imports of these goods and see how they have fallen steadily over the last four or five years, and fallen even more rapidly in the first few months of this year, he will see that the major part of the problem is not that of increasing competition from abroad.
    Sir John Haslam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties of the Lancashire fine spinning trade is that these gloves are riot being made and imported to this country? If any inquiry is made, will he see that their interests are taken into consideration?
    Mr. Stanley: The Import Duties Advisory Committee on one occasion called particular attention to that and to the effect on the Lancashire cotton industry of any abnormal restriction of imports.

    TINPLATE AND STEELSHEET.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had any consultations with representatives of the tinplate and steelsheet trades in reference to the present depression affecting them and resulting in the widespread stoppage of works, with consequent unemployment; and whether he is taking any steps to assist in the recovery of these trades?
    Mr. Stanley: I have had no representations recently from these trades on the subject; but any proposals they wish to

    1395
    put before me will, of course, receive consideration.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this trade is more depressed than it has been at any time since the end of the War, and will he make inquiries of representatives of the workers and employers in the trade to see what can be done to assist it?
    Mr. Stanley: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is this week receiving a deputation which will deal largely with this subject.
    Mr. Louis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Import Duties Advisory Committee to inquire into this particular difficulty?

    EXPORTS.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the growing concern among those engaged in the exporting trades of the country at the loss of markets to foreign competitors and to the increasing difficulties encountered in maintaining our export trade by the growth of impediments to trade such as quota restrictions, by the uncertainties created by currency fluctuations, and the impossibility of maintaining markets against the subsidised competition of foreign traders; and whether he can indicate whether the Government contemplate taking comprehensive measures to assist the export trade to overcome these difficulties?
    Mr. Stanley: The problems referred to in this question are hardly susceptible of being dealt with within the compass of a Parliamentary answer. I am, however, well aware of the various restrictions and uncertainties which confront United Kingdom exporters at the present time, and His Majesty's Government constantly endeavour to remove or mitigate these difficulties. In particular, it is their policy to stimulate the export trade by appropriate methods, and especially by the negotiation of bilateral trade agreements.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the export trade during the first five months of this year has met with continual new difficulties, that there is a serious decline in coal and tin exports particularly, and in all the export
    1396
    trades, and does he realise it is becoming a serious matter in the areas which are dependent on those trades and that it will eventually become a serious matter for the country; and will he say what he can do to assist?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member asked in his question for comprehensive measures. I do not believe that you can devise a comprehensive measure which will deal with the difficulties of various export trades under quite different conditions to various countries. It seems to me that the right method of approach is to try to deal with individual cases and individual countries.
    Mr. Petherick: In view of the fact that we cannot force British goods into foreign markets, will my right hon. Friend consider replacing foreign markets by increasing the British home market by higher tariffs?

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state whether, and, if so, when, he will be prepared to introduce an Enabling Bill for the cotton industry?
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the representations made to him by organisations in the Lancashire cotton trade regarding possible legislation; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the Government's intentions in this connection?
    Mr. Stanley: I can add nothing at present to the reply which I gave on 22nd March to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton).
    Mr. Tomlinson: The answer given then was that this matter was being considered. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that while this consideration is taking place, and being long-drawn-out, the feeling of despair in Lancashire is growing at the continuous decline in the staple industry there; and, if he is aware of that, will he expedite either this enabling Bill or something else to take its place?
    Mr. Remer: In his consideration of this matter will my right hon. Friend take cognisance of the large number of people in Lancashire and Cheshire who are violently opposed to anything of the kind?
    Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the loss of the markets in the Far East, Egypt, India and West Africa, there has been a staggering increase in the number of unemployed in the cotton trade in the last few months, and that it is in a worse position than any other trade in the country; and does he realise that if anything is to be done it is worth doing it quickly.
    Mr. Stanley: I realise all those factors, and I am in touch with the joint committee of the Cotton Trade Organisation. As I informed the House on a previous occasion, very important matters require to be considered as to the effect of what is proposed as a remedy for Lancashire cotton upon other textile industries outside the area. That is a question which cannot be hurried over.

    SHOES (CANADIAN CONSIGNMENTS).
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that shoes imported into the United Kingdom from Canada, so obtaining advantage of imperial preference, are in many cases only finished in Canada, the actual process of manufacture having been carried on in the United States of America; and what action is being taken in the matter?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. Shoes consigned from Canada are charged with duty unless at least 50 per cent. of their value is derived from prescribed expenditure in the British Empire. There is no evidence of evasion of this condition.
    Mr. Lyons: In view of the unemployment in the boot and shoe trade in this country, will my right hon. Friend consider the disparity that exists between the position of the exporter sending from this country to Canada and the Canadian manufacturer sending boots and shoes to this country?

    MERCANTILE MARINE (PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION).
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ships that have been granted provisional certificates of registry since the issue of instructions, at the end of August last, to His Majesty's Consuls that all applications for provisional certificates should undergo special scrutiny?
    Mr. Stanley: During the period from the end of August, 1937, to 30th April, 1938, 73 ships were granted provisional certificates of British registry.
    Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether any could not comply with the requirements as to title?
    Mr. Stanley: In a number of cases the ships were, in fact, foreign-owned before their provisional registration.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    FOOD SUPPLY.
    Mr. Sextonasked the Secretary of State for War the total weight and value of home-produced beef, mutton, butter and cheese, respectively, issued to the Army for the years 1935, 1936 and 1937, respectively; and corresponding information as to other than home-produced foods?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sexton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures indicate that the farmers of this country will be satisfied that the National Government are encouraging agriculture by feeding our troops upon British agricultural produce?
    Following is the statement:

    1. Beef and Mutton.

    (a) Home killed.

    Approximate Weight.

    Approximate Value.

    lbs.

    £

    1935–36

    …

    14,300

    250

    1936–37

    …

    6,000

    160

    1937–38

    …

    6,900

    210

    (b)Other than home killed(at least 99 per cent. of Dominion origin).

    Approximate Weight.

    Approximate Value.

    lbs.

    £

    1935–36

    …

    39,415,000

    567,000

    1936–37

    …

    44,461,000

    683,000

    1937–38

    …

    39,639,000

    661,000

    The above figures include purchases made at home for the Army and Royal Air Force at home and abroad, and a small quantity for certain naval requirements abroad. Separate figures are not available for beef and mutton, or for purchases at overseas stations.
    In addition, foreign preserved meat is issued, in lieu of ordinary meat, for the

    1399
    purpose of maintaining the Army and Royal Air Force reserves at home and abroad, the cost of Dominion supplies being prohibitive.
    2. Butter and cheese, all of Dominion origin, are purchased by units at home from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes out of a cash allowance, and details of weight and value are not available. For units abroad the following purchases of cheese of Dominion origin were made at home:

    Approximate Weight.

    Approximate Value.

    lbs.

    £

    1935–36

    ‖

    610,000

    14,600

    1936–37

    ‖

    492,000

    14, 400

    1937–38

    ‖

    341,000

    10,600

    DUKE OF YORK'S HEADQUARTERS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has now been arrived at in regard to the disposal of the site of the Duke of York's Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There is no intention at present of disposing of any part of the site in question.
    Mr. Day: Can the Minister say how he reconciles that answer with the answer given by one of his predecessors that it was intended to dispose of this site?
    Sir John Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend undertake that there shall be no disposal of this very important site without the approval of Parliament?

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (TRAINING ACCIDENT).
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Sapper James Matthews, 5,044,786, 41st Anti-Aircraft Battalion 5th North Staffords, met with an accident while training with the Territorial Army in July, 1937; that prior to his accident he received a wage of £4 a week and that he has a wife and two children; and when is compensation to be paid?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I understand that the accident was not reported at the time, but in August, 1937, Sapper Matthews reported that he was unable to work owing to injuries to his back, sustained at the beginning of annual training in the previous July. He was asked to produce a certificate from his doctor of incapacity
    1400
    to work and as to the nature, duration and history of the disability for which he had attended him. This has not been produced to date, although it has been repeatedly asked for. In its absence it is difficult to deal with the claim for compensation.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING.
    Sir D. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been completed in Aberdeen in each month of 1938, including April; and the numbers estimated to be completed in the remaining months of 1938?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): As the reply involves a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Baronet's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Statement showing the number of houses completed by the corporation of Aberdeen during the months of January to April, 1938, and the number estimated by the corporation to be completed in each of the remaining months of the year.

    Month

    Number of houses completed.

    Total

    January

    46

    February

    50

    March

    90

    April

    66

    252

    Number of houses estimated to be completed.

    May

    64

    June

    64

    July

    66

    August

    66

    September

    70

    October

    74

    November

    70

    December

    74

    548

    800

    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is informed of the average housing output in Scotland and its relation to the output required to meet the present problems of overcrowding and housing shortage; and whether any steps are being taken to ensure the provision of an adequate supply of building materials to meet the shortage?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by the Lord Advocate to his question of 3rd May.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer does not show what the Government are doing in order to assure an adequate supply of materials for building, which is the main cause of tilt present housing shortage?
    Mr. Wedderburn: That point has been debated three or four times in the House in the last few months, and I do not think it will be possible to do justice to the subject at Question Time.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: In the last Debate did not the Secretary of State for Scotland promise that steps would be taken further to the steps which had already been taken, and will the hon. Gentleman answer the question as to whether any further steps have been taken?
    Mr. Wedderburn: If the hon. Member will read the speech of my right hon. Friend on 29th March, when this subject was last debated, I think he will find a full statement on the policy which is being pursued.
    Mr. Gallacher: Has the Minister taken any steps to remove the "floating factor" of £70 which bears so heavily on the building of working-class houses?
    Mr. Wedderburn: That is another question which has been debated many times in this House.

    HERRING INDUSTRY.
    Sir D. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the conclusions arrived at by his Department which favour motor herring drifters as against steam drifters also indicate that motor trawlers would be more economical than steam trawlers for near or middle water fishing; and whether, in arriving at these conclusions, the effect of the change on the coal industry of the country was considered?
    Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend had no occasion to examine the relative economy of different types of vessel for purposes of trawling when he was considering the proposals relating to the herring fleet announced in his reply on
    1402
    14th April. As regards the second part of the question, the effect on the coal industry has been borne in mind, but the problem had to be decided with regard to the present circumstances of the herring industry.
    Sir Edmund Findlay: In view of the fact that this change-over will take some time, was it not considered to be in the interests of both the coal industry and the herring industry that some consideration should be given to assisting coal-burning drifters?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The herring proposals are based upon the view that large motor boats are more economical than steam drifters for herring fishing in present circumstances.

    JUVENILES, TEMPLE DISTRICT, MARYHILL.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the statement of the Temple Tenants' Association, sent to him by the hon. Member for Maryhill asserting that the children of that area are terrorised by the police; and will he make inquiry into the charges in that statement?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. From inquiries made there appears to be no foundation for the allegations that children have been terrorised by the police.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular area juvenile crime charges and convictions are three times more than in any other area, although the people there are just ordinary, decent citizens?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The hon. Member's letter was sent to the chief constable, and inquiries were made from the six magistrates who sit at Maryhill police court, and five of them have informed us by letter that there is no foundation for this charge, and the sixth states that he is not familiar with the Temple district.
    Mr. Davidson: Can the hon. Gentleman get the names of the magistrates?

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amount of poor relief paid in Scotland for the years ended March, 193o and 1938, respectively?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The total for the year ended May, 1930, was £3,725,057. The expenditure for the year ended May, 1938, cannot be ascertained until abstracts of accounts for the financial year have been received from the local authorities. This will not be for some months yet.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the figure for 1938 show an appreciable increase over the figure for 1930?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The only figures I have are for the able-bodied poor, which, of course, show a large decrease by reason of the operation of Part II of the Unemployment Act. If the ordinary poor figures were brought in, certainly there would be a considerable increase in the total figure over 1930.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this increase bears more heavily on the local authorities than on the Government, and will he ask his right hon. Friend to take steps to relieve Scottish local authorities of this burden?
    Mr. Wedderburn: That is another question.
    Mr. Davidson (forMr. Mathers)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a Return of Persons in Receipt of Poor Relief in England and Wales of 1st January, which analyses nationally and for each public assistance authority the causes of destitution, is published annually; whether he is aware that there is no such publication, covering similar ground, for Scotland, why Scotland is so far behind England and Wales in this matter; and whether he will give an undertaking that a similar annual statement for Scotland will be published?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question which he addressed to my right hon. Friend on 26th April.

    PRISONER (CERTIFICATION OF INSANITY).
    Mr. Maxton (forMr. McGovern)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the date when Francis Healy was transferred from Gartloch asylum to Perth prison; whether he was then certified as sane; the date of his removal from Perth prison to Woodilee asylum; the circumstances surrounding his removal and certification; and who were the medical men who again certified him as insane?
    Mr. Wedderburn: Francis Healy was discharged from Gartloch Mental Hospital on 7th February, 1938, the medical superintendent being of the opinion that he had recovered from the mental condition from which he had been suffering. He was taken on that date to Perth Prison. Healy's mental condition subsequently gave rise to anxiety and he was kept under observation. On 17th April, 1938, Healy was certified insane by the medical officer and assistant medical officer of Perth Prison. On the following day he was removed under sheriff's warrant to the Glasgow District Mental Hospital, Woodilee. Healy refused to leave the car in which he was taken to the mental hospital, although every effort was made to induce him to do so. He had, therefore, to be forcibly removed.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that, according to the experts in Scotland, instead of this man's case being looked into by two official doctors of the asylum, there ought to have been an independent doctor; and will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why no independent doctor was brought in in order to assist the official doctors in dealing with this case?
    Mr. Wedderburn: He was certified by the assistant medical officer and the medical officer of the prison under Section 6 of the Act, which provides that:
    " When in relation to any person confined in a local prison…it is certified, on soul and conscience, by two medical persons that they have visited and examined such prisoner, and that in their opinion he is insane, it shall be lawful for the sheriff, on summary application at the instance of the administrators of such prison. by a warrant under his hand, to order such prisoner to be removed to a lunatic asylum."
    Mr. Maclean: Which Act is that?
    Mr. Wedderburn: That is Section 6 of the Criminal and Dangerous Lunatics (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1871.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that an Act passed only four years ago abrogated that particular Section, and laid it down that one of the two doctors examining anyone alleged to be insane must be an independent doctor?
    Mr. Wedderburn: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

    OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

    1405
    whether he has considered the resolution forwarded to him by the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society with regard to the Official Secrets Act; and has he any statement to make?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Under-Secretary gave to a question by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) on 2nd May, to which I am not yet in a position to add.
    Mr. Davidson: Can the Home Secretary indicate when he will be in a position to make a statement to the House on this question?
    Sir S. Hoare: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on Thursday.

    AUSTRIAN SUBJECTS (BRITISH VISAS).
    Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary the circumstances in which British visas are in future only to be given to former Austrian subjects who can show that they are in no danger of losing their German nationality?
    Sir S. Hoare: An applicant for a visa who wishes to pay a temporary visit to this country is ordinarily required to be in possession of a passport valid for return to his country, but I have issued instructions that an application by the holder of an Austrian passport who wishes to emigrate and settle in this country will be considered on its merits without regard to the fact that the holder may not be able to return to Austria.
    Mr. Mander: Is the present sympathetic policy in this matter to be continued unchanged?
    Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, certainly.
    Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend always have regard to the fact that there is still very heavy unemployment in this country?
    Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has made any provision yet for the political refugee from Spen Valley?

    TRADE DISPUTE, BIRMINGHAM.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour the position with regard to the trade dispute at Marley Brothers, Wellhead Lane, Birmingham, where a strike has been declared by the National Union of Lock and Metal Workers owing to the unwillingness of the firm to adhere to a recent agreement with regard to wages, overtime, and holidays; and what action he is taking to secure a settlement resulting in the decisions of the Joint Industrial Council being carried out?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): According to my information, 13 members of the union ceased work on 30th April owing to the alleged failure of the firm to put into operation an increase in wages agreed by the Joint Industrial Council, to which they are not a party, and to accept the conditions laid down in the agreement. I understand that the firm would be willing to discuss the position with the men concerned but are not prepared to recognise the union. My Department will continue to keep in touch with the parties.
    Mr. Mander: Do we understand that the firm are refusing to recognise trade union representation and to meet their men through the union representatives?
    Mr. Brown: I have said in my answer that they are not prepared to recognise the union.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that they will not be eligible for any Government contracts unless they conform to the House of Commons Fair Wages Clause?
    Mr. Brown: That raises another issue.
    Mr. Mander: Is not that perfectly true?
    Mr. Paling: Will the Minister not take steps to deal with the situation?
    Mr. Brown: I have pointed out in my answer that my Department will get into touch and that we shall do all we can.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSFEREES, DURHAM COUNTY.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state,

    1407
    in age groups, the number of persons that have been transferred from Durham County during the years 1937 and 1938, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply contains a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    —

    Men.

    Women.

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Total.

    1937

    …

    4478

    1,804

    1,468

    1,553

    9,303

    1938 (January to March)

    …

    810

    284

    163

    272

    1,529

    Total

    …

    5,288

    2,088

    1,631

    1,825

    10,832

    The Department's industrial transference scheme does not apply to Darlington.

    DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. Fleming (forMr. Radford)asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men in receipt of disability pensions are unemployed and registering at Employment Exchanges for employment; how many such men receive unemployment benefit or assistance; and how many such men are classified as suitable for normal occupations, light employment, and sympathetic employment, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: On 4th April, 1938, 29,512 disabled ex-service men were registered at Employment Exchanges as claimants for unemployment benefit or applicants for unemployment assistance allowances, and 1,821 other disabled ex-service men were also registered. Of the total of 31,333, 17,440 were men whose disabilities do not prevent them from following their usual occupations under ordinary industrial conditions, 13,608 were men who are regarded as suitable for employment on work of a light nature, and the remaining 285 were men who were suffering from disabilities which render it difficult for them to secure employment except with some institution specially designed for severely disabled ex-service men, or otherwise by special arrangement. Figures are not available to show the number of those men who are actually in receipt of disability pension or unemployment benefit or assistance.
    Sir Joseph Nall: Has my. right hon. Friend any evidence to show to what extent the degree of disability does prevent these men being engaged?
    1408
    Following is the reply:
    The table below shows the number of men and women over 18 years of age and of boys and girls between 14 and 18 years of age who were transferred by the Department from Durham (excluding Darlington) during 1937 and the first three months of 1938.
    Mr. Brown: I would like to see that on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Fleming: Is it not a fact that when an employer is looking for some new hands he naturally looks for men 100 per cent. fit?
    Mr. Brown: I would not say that. The answer to the next question will show the number employed, and if my hon. and learned Friend will consider the two answers together he will see that a lot of disabled men are now employed by employers not on the King's Roll.
    Mr. Fleming (for Mr. Radford)asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men in receipt of disability pensions are employed under the King's National Roll scheme; and how many such men who are 50 per cent. or more disabled are employed under the King's National Roll scheme?
    Mr. Brown: At the beginning of April, 1938, 316,776 disabled ex-service men were employed by members of the King's National Roll. There are no figures available to show how many of these men were 50 per cent. or more disabled.

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    PILOTS' REPRESENTATION.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken to put into practical effect the general recommendation of the Cadman Report with regard to pilots' representation?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): As regards Imperial Airways, I am informed that a ballot of the pilots is to be held very shortly to determine what form of representation the pilots of the company prefer. As regards British Airways, I am informed that satisfactory arrangements for the representation of the pilots have already been completed, by which a joint committee consisting of three representatives of the management and three representatives of the pilots has been set up.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LTD. (CHAIRMAN).
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air who is the new full-time chairman of Imperial Airways, Limited?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The new chairman of Imperial Airways, Limited, has not yet been appointed.
    Mr. Perkins: Can the hon. and gallant Member tell the House when the new chairman will be appointed, in view of the fact that the Cadman Report was published a few months ago?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am afraid that I could not give the hon. Member a date, but I can say that both the Government and the company are extremely anxious to obtain a new full-time chairman, but that is not always a very easy thing to do. I am sure that the hon. Member will be prepared to wait until we can get the proper man.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that there is not one man in the country capable of taking this job?

    PROPOSED LONDON-BUDAPEST SERVICE.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it was proposed to run an air service as from 29th April, 1938, from London to Budapest; and whether this service is in operation?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I understand that at the date of issue of the time tables for the service referred to, it was the intention of Imperial Airways to run this service as from 2nd May. The company subsequently decided that it was unable to carry out its intention without a further subsidy. In the light of the
    1410
    recommendations of the Cadman Committee, the grant of a subsidy for the proposed service raises a number of questions which are now under consideration. In the meantime, I understand that the service is not in operation.
    Mr. Perkins: Surely the hon. and gallant Member realises that the Cadman Committee recommended that this service should be run by British Airways and not by Imperial Airways?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, but the whole question of European services is being reconsidered, in the light of the Cadman Committee's Report. The service was previously run by Imperial Airways.
    Mrs. Tate: When services like Olley Air Services manage to run financially sound companies, without any subsidy, how is it that these subsidised companies are so inefficient?

    PROPOSED AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND SERVICE.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of additional moneys to be made available for the development of civil aviation, any immediate steps are being taken, in conjunction with other Governments interested, to arrange for the establishment of a service between Australia and New Zealand; and when it is contemplated that such a service is likely to commence operation?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, Sir. A preliminary meeting to discuss this question will take place shortly in Australia between representatives of the companies nominated by the interested Governments. It is not yet possible to say when a service is likely to commence.
    Mr. Lyons: May we take it that this proposal will be one of the first services to be established?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: We are anxious to get the service established as quickly as possible.

    IMPERIAL ROUTES.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of British-Pacific interests, it is proposed to establish art air service from

    1411
    Canada to New Zealand and Australia; and whether any and what steps have been taken in the matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Tentative discussions have taken place with the Dominion Governments concerned, and preliminary surveys have been made of a number of Pacific islands which might be suitable for air bases. The matter will receive further consideration in connection with the development of air routes of Imperial interest.
    Mr. Lyons: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether these conversations will be resumed forthwith?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: A good number of things are being investigated with which the Dominion Governments and the Government of the United States are concerned, and the matter is intimately bound up with the question of the ownership of certain islands in the Pacific, as to which conversations are taking place.

    RENFREW AERODROME.
    Mr. Neil Macleanasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has given further consideration to the necessity for continuing the Renfrew aerodrome in view of the purposes it serves; whether he has agreed to the proposal of the Renfrew Town Council for a continuation for a further five years; and whether, if no agreement has been arrived at, he can make a statement of his intentions on this matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: As I explained to the hon. Member in an answer on 3rd May, the difficulty in recognising Renfrew aerodrome permanently as the civil aerodrome for South-West Scotland arises from the fact that the aerodrome suffers from certain disabilities. With a view to meeting the wishes of the town council of Renfrew as far as possible, my Noble Friend has approved of arrangements under which the Royal Air Force aerodrome at Abbotsinch may be used temporarily as a standby aerodrome for Renfrew aerodrome when conditions render it undesirable for aircraft to use the latter aerodrome. Subject to agreement being reached on arrangements for supplementing the resources of Renfrew aerodrome on these lines, he has agreed
    1412
    to undertake that Renfrew shall continue to be recognised as the civil aerodrome for South-West Scotland for a further period of three years. If on the expiration of this period a more suitable aerodrome is not available for the purpose, the question of extending the period of recognition will be considered. The town council has been informed accordingly, and representatives of my Department are visiting Renfrew to-day in order to explain in greater detail to the town council the arrangements proposed.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister indicate that three years is the maximum term? I recognise that it is an advance of a year since the last statement, and that is so much to the good, but is the period of three years a reasonable one to offer to a place which has been steadily developed and is expending money in development? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise that this is the air port for the West of Scotland and has been so for the last five years, that it has never had an accident and fully satisfies the air lines that have been using it; and does he think that three years is an adequate period in the circumstances?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: As I explained to the hon. Member the other day, the Government have to keep in mind the public interest before they give anything like a permanent guarantee that any particular aerodrome should be the aerodrome for a particular part of the country. There are certain disabilities in regard to the Renfrew aerodrome which I understand—
    Mr. Maxton: What are they?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: With regard to surface, site and surroundings—which, I understand, are difficult to overcome. It is therefore not easy to give anything like a permanent guarantee. Since last I answered a question on this subject, Renfrew Town Council and the Air Ministry have been in correspondence, and a representative of the Ministry is now going to the aerodrome to discuss the matter. I believe that these arrangements will be satisfactorily concluded.
    Mr. Maclean: Will the results of the conversations and discussions that are to ensue between the representatives of the Air Ministry and of Renfrew Town Council be made known to the House after they have been completed and reported to the Minister?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: If the hon. Gentleman wishes for further information I should be glad if he would put down a question on the subject.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister visit the aerodrome himself to see how completely he has been misinformed in this matter, and to realise that this aerodrome compares very favourably with Croydon and Speke, and is superior to any other civil aerodrome in the country?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have already told the hon. Member that representatives of the Air Ministry are at Renfrew discussing the matter with the town council. If he has any further information, we shall be glad to consider it.

    IMPERIAL RELATIONS TRUST.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Prime Minister the names of the present trustees of the Imperial Relations Trust set up to administer the sum of £250,000 placed anonymously at the disposal of the then Prime Minister for the purpose of endowing any object best calculated to strengthen the ties between the Dominions and the United Kingdom on the understanding that India should be included; how often the trustees meet; and whether it is intended to publish any report on the work of this trust?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): This question has, I think, been put down under a misapprehension. The Government are in no way concerned with the appointment of the trustees of this trust or with the frequency of their meetings or their intentions as to publication of reports. These are entirely matters for the trustees, and I cannot undertake to answer questions on these matters.
    Mr. Gallacher: Was this granted on the understanding that the Government would have some control over the disbursement of the funds of the trustees, and are not the funds being allowed to slip out of the control of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir; the hon. Member is mistaken.

    BRAZIL (EXTERNAL DEBT).
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to
    1414
    prevent loss of tax revenue on British savings already invested in foreign countries for the extension of Anglo-foreign trade, he has considered the official statement of the President of Brazil that payment of interest upon the Brazilian debt borrowed in London will be resumed when it shall suit Brazil's economy, with the alternative suggestion that this sterling debt shall be replaced by Brazilian currency bonds; and will he say what the attitude of His Majesty's Government is towards this statement?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I can assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to the resumption of payments on the Brazilian External Debt in the currencies provided for in the Loan Contracts, and that they have given, and will continue to give, the fullest support to the Council of Foreign Bondholders in the matter.

    GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (PRICES).
    Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the selling price to the public of the minutes of evidence of the Royal Commission on the geographical distribution of the industrial population so far as yet published; and whether, in view of the importance of arousing public interest, he will arrange for publication at a lower figure?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Up to the present time 14 parts, covering 16 days' evidence, have been published, 12 of them at prices varying between 1s. 6d. and 3s., and two, each covering two days' evidence, at 5s. and 10s., respectively. The selling price is fixed under the pricing scale for Government publications according to the amount of matter contained in the document. It is undesirable to vary the pricing scale in favour of particular documents, and I do not consider that departure from the normal practice would be justified in this case.
    Sir A. Wilson: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the price is now five times as great as was the case before the War, and that at present prices it is practically impossible for any public library to buy the evidence, which is of great public interest?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The pricing scale is designed to secure that, over the whole range of Government publications, the cost shall be recovered without profit being made. To vary creates difficulties.
    Sir A. Wilson: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that one of the objects of publishing the evidence is to enable the public, in libraries and elsewhere, to have access to these important publications?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir; but I do not agree that it would be desirable to depart from the present arrangement, under which absolute impartiality is accorded to the various publications.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would it not be possible to give special terms to public libraries and similar institutions?

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DURHAM).
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Health the number of persons per to,000 of the population of the administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs of South Shields and Sunderland, respectively, who are in receipt of Poor Law relief and the average per 10,000 of the population in England and Wales?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): On 16th April, 1938, the figures for the administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs of South Shields and Sunderland were 639, 436 and 662 respectively, and for England and Wales 256.

    LAND ACQUISITION, KETTERING.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he has given the Kettering Urban District Council his consent to borrow money for buying the site of the Kettering brickworks adjoining London Road and of land near to Valley Walk for the purpose of refuse disposal; and what is the price, the previous rateable value and the area of each of these pieces of land, and who the vendors are?
    Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir. The price of the Kettering brickworks site was £3,000, and that of the land near Valley Walk £2,500. The rateable values were £109 and nil, and the areas 18.995 and 31.358 acres,
    1416
    respectively. The vendors of the Kettering brickworks site were J. F. F. Rowland, R. F. Rowland and J. A. Archer, and those of the Valley Walk site the Boughton Estates, Limited.
    Mr. Smith: Were these prices agreed between the parties concerned, or were they the subject of arbitration?
    Mr. Bernays: The purchase price, I understand, was agreed between the different valuers.

    VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (COUNTY COUNCIL ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health the approximate total amount of capital grants, loans, and maintenance grants made by the county councils of England and Wales to voluntary hospitals during the past 10 years; and the number of beds in such hospitals available to the county councils?
    Mr. Bernays: County councils assist voluntary hospitals in all the ways mentioned by the hon. Member, but I regret that the exact information for which he asks is not available.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to secure some approximate information?
    Mr. Bernays: It would involve, I understand, a questionnaire being sent round to all the hospitals concerned. I will discuss with my right hon. Friend whether that is a practical proposition.

    MENTAL HOSPITAL STAFFS (ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to difficulties arising at mental hospitals through members of the staff joining or desiring to join the Supplementary Reserve of the Army; and whether, in view of the peculiar circumstances and needs of mental hospitals, he will consult with the Secretary of State for War and offer some guidance on the matter through the Board of Control?
    Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir. Consultations are already in progress, and the Board of Control will, I hope, shortly be in a position to offer some guidance on this matter.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will that guidance deal with those men who have already enlisted in the Supplementary Reserve? I understand that a number of men have already enlisted, and are liable to be placed in a very difficult position in the event of war. Will the inquiries cover that question?
    Mr. Bernays: I will consult with my right hon. Friend as to whether that point is being taken into consideration.

    PLAYING-FIELDS.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health the approximate financial assistance made by county councils for the provision of playing-fields during the last 10 years; the acreage made available by this assistance; and whether it is a recommendation of the Ministry that such assistance to private organisations responsible for providing playing-fields should also involve the right of county councils to appoint representatives on the governing body of those private organisations?
    Mr. Bernays: I regret that the information asked for in the first two parts of the question is not available. The answer to the third part is in the negative.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that it is very necessary to secure adequate financial statistics regarding all assistance given from public sources to private concerns, and that, where money is paid out of the public purse in any circumstances the payment should be accompanied by adequate public representation?
    Mr. Bernays: With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, the county councils have had power to give money to voluntary associations only since the passing of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, and this, of course, would be incidental to the administration of that Act.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer at least one of the three points I have put to him?
    Mr. Bernays: I have already answered one. Only two points were put to me. With regard to the other one, I have said that statistics are not available, but I will make further inquiries if the hon. Member desires it.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the county councils
    1418
    give assistance to voluntary associations also?
    Mr. Bernays: The question on the Paper related, not to voluntary associations, but to playing fields, and naturally my answer related to playing fields.

    MAY DAY PROCESSION, WALTHAMSTOW—WEST HAM.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that corporation vehicles were used in the Socialist May Day procession from Walthamstow to West Ham; who paid for the running of same; whether the drivers of the vehicles were paid overtime; and, if so, by whom?
    Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend has no information on the matter, but, if any expenditure for the purposes mentioned is charged in accounts subject to district audit, it will be reviewed by the District Auditor.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as West Ham was concerned, the drivers volunteered to take out the vehicles on the Sunday; and will he inform the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) about that? Does the hon. Gentleman know the object we had in view in going to Hyde Park?
    Mr. Bernays: No, Sir; perhaps the hon. Member will inform me afterwards.
    Mr. Liddall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the use of corporation vehicles for such a purpose as this has aroused the greatest indignation?
    Mr. Gallacher: Was any indignation expressed at Lincoln?

    MALTA.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is now able to make a statement on the constitutional position in Malta, in view of the recent legal decision on the subject of taxation?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my Noble Friend gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 30th March. An appeal has now been lodged with the Privy Council, and the hearing must be awaited.

  ALIENS.

    SUPERVISION.
    Brigadier-General Spearsasked the Home Secretary whether there is any supervision, other than the provisions regarding registration, of the activities of German girls obtaining employment in this country?
    Sir S. Hoare: German girls are in the same position as all foreigners residing in this country. The requirement of registration enables a due measure of supervision to be exercised.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Brigadier-General Spearsasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider distinguishing between refugees for political and racial reasons and other aliens when granting permits to foreign nationals taking up domestic service in this country?
    Sir S. Hoare: An employer in this country who wishes to engage the services of a foreign domestic from abroad is required to obtain a permit from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and to satisfy him that he is unable to obtain the services of a person in this country for the post in question. The employer is, of course, required to state the nationality of the person to be engaged, but I understand that it is not the practice of my right hon. Friend to put questions to the employer as to such person's race or religion. In the case of refugees admitted to this country, sympathetic consideration is given to the question of allowing them to take employment.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that down Evesham way we believe in British girls for British homes?

    MARKHAM COLLIERY DISASTER, DERBYSHIRE.
    Mr. Lee (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary for Mines the latest information he has concerning the explosion at Markham Colliery, near Chesterfield, this morning.
    Captain Crookshank: It is with very deep regret that I have to inform the House that a serious explosion occurred this morning in the South-East District of the Blackshale Seam at Markham
    1420
    Colliery in Derbyshire; and that, according to the latest information I have been able to obtain by telephone from the inspectors, over 70 persons have lost their lives. A number of the bodies have already been recovered and a number of injured taken to hospital, and recovery work is still in full progress. The explosion occurred in the vicinity of the coal face shortly before 6 o'clock, when the night shift men were leaving the mine by way of both the intake and the return roads. It was violent, and its force appears to have extended a long distance along the main road. The inspectors now at the mine will be joined by the Chief Inspector this afternoon, and by the Medical Inspector, who is at present in Northumberland, as soon as possible. Investigations into the cause of the disaster will proceed with all speed.
    The House will wish to join me in expressing our deep sympathy with the families and friends of those who have so tragically lost their lives, and with those who are injured.
    Mr. Batey: I am sure that every Member of the House will echo the regret and sympathy expressed by the Minister. But does the Minister not think that the time has arrived when some more active steps might be taken to prevent these terrible explosions? Might I suggest that when the public inquiry takes place the hon. Gentleman should consider appointing some independent person, rather than the Government inspector—I do not wish to make any reflection on the Government inspector—to preside and make this full inquiry, so that we might get the facts?
    Captain Crookshank: I shall note what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Cecil Charles Poole, esquire, for the County of Stafford (Lichfield Division).

BILL PRESENTED.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND LOCAL GOVERN MENT OFFICERS (JOINT COUNCILS) BILL,
" to make provision for the constitution of joint councils of representatives of local authorities and officers and servants of local authorities and with reference to the functions of such councils; and matters incidental thereto," presented by

1421
Mr. Foot; supported by Sir William Jenkins, Captain Elliston, Sir Francis Fremantle, and Mr. Hutchinson; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 23rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I wish to ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go to-night in the event of the Motion to suspend the II o'clock Rule being carried?
The Prime Minister: We desire to obtain the Business up to and including the third
Order on the Paper. In addition to the Committee stage, 1 propose to ask the House to take the remaining stages of the Eire Bill to-night. I hope that this proposal will be aggreeable to hon. Members.
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, 263; Noes, 118.

Division No. 198.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

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

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Holdsworth, H.

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

Cross, R. H.

Holmes, J. S.

Albery, Sir Irving

Crossley, A. C.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

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

Crowder, J. F. E.

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

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

Cruddas, Col. B.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Culverwell, C. T.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Aske, Sir R. W.

De Chair, S. S.

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

Assheton, R.

De la Bère, R.

Hulbert, N. J.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Denville, Alfred

Hunter, T.

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

Doland, G. F.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Baillie, Sir A. W M.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

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

Duggan, H. J.

Joel, D. J. B.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Dunglass, Lord

Keeling, E. H.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

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

Ellis, Sir G.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Bernays, R. H.

Elmley, Viscount

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Emery, J. F.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Bossom, A. C.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Kimball, L.

Boulton, W. W.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Brass, Sir W.

Erskine-HMI, A. G.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Lees-Jones, J.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Everard, W. L.

Levy, T.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Findlay, Sir E.

Lewis, O.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Fleming, E. L.

Liddall, W. S.

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

Foot, D. M.

Lipson, D. L.

Bull, B. B.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Furness, S. N.

Lloyd, G. W.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Burton, Col. H. W.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Loftus, P. C.

Butcher, H. W.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Lyons, A. M.

Butler, R. A.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

McCorquodale, M. S.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Grant-Ferris, R.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Cartland, J. R. H.

Granville, E. L.

McKie, J. H.

Gary, R. A.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Macnamara, Major J. R. J.

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

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Macquisten, F. A.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Maitland, A.

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

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

Mander, G. le M.

Channon, H.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Grimston, R. V.

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

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Christie, J. A.

Hambro, A. V.

Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Clarke, Frank (Dartford)

Hannah, I. C.

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

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

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Harbord, A.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Harris, Sir P. A.

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

Colfox, Major W. P.

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

Moreing, A. C.

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

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

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

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

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

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

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

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Nail, Sir J.

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

Hepworth, J.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Higgs, W. F.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Crooke, Sir J. S.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Palmer, G. E. H.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Thomas, J. P. L.

Poke, O.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Touche, G. C.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Train, Sir J.

Petherick, M.

Scott, Lord William

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Wakefield, W. W.

Pilkington, R.

Selley, H. R.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Pluggs, Capt. L. F.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

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

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Shaw, Captain W- T. (Forfar)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Warrender, Sir V.

Procter, Major H. A.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Rankin, Sir R.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Wells, S. R.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Rayner, Major R. H.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

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

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

Remer, J. R.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

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

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonal G.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Rose, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Wise, A. R.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Storey, S.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Rowlands, G.

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

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Wright, Wins-Commander J. A. C.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Tasker, Sir R. I.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Salmon, Sir I.

Tate, Mavis C.

Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

Salt, E. W

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

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Grenfell, D. R.

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

Adamson, W- M.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Poole, C. C.

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

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Pries, M. P.

Ammon, C. G.

Groves, T. E.

Pritt, D. N.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

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

Quibell, D. J. K.

Banfield, J. W.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Barnes, A. J.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Ridley, G.

Barr, J.

Hardie, Agnes

Riley, B.

Batey, J.

Hayday, A.

Ritson, J.

Bellenger, F. J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Sexton. T. M.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Shinwell, E.

Benson, G.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Short, A.

Bevan, A.

Hopkin, D.

Silverman, S. S.

Bromfield, W.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Simpson, F. B.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

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

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

Burke, W. A.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Cape, T.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Sorensen, R. W.

Cassells, T.

Kirby, B. V.

Stephen, C.

Chater, D.

Kirkwood, D.

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

Cove, W. G.

Lawson, J, J.

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

Daggar, G.

Leach, W.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Dalton, H.

Leonard, W.

Thorne, W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Logan, D. G.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lunn, W.

Tinker, J. J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Macdonald, G. (Inca)

Tomlinson, G.

Day, H.

McEntee, V. La T.

Viant, S. P.

Dobbie, W.

McGhee, H. G.

Walkden, A. G.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

MacLaren, A.

Walker, J.

Ede, J. C.

Maclean, N.

Watkins, F. C.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Marshall, F.

Watson, W. McL.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Maxton, J.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

Messer, F.

Westwood, J.

Gallacher, W.

Montague, F.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Gardner, B. W.

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

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Garro Jones, G. M.

Muff, G.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Paling, W.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Parker, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Pearson, A.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

Resolution agreed to.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS ACTS (REPEAL).
Sir Arnold Wilson: I beg to move,
" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Chimney Sweepers and Chimneys Regulation Acts, 1840 and 1864, the Chimney Sweepers Act, 1875, and the Chimney Sweepers Act, 1894."
1424
I am asking the permission of the House under the Ten Minutes Rule to introduce a Bill to repeal the four Acts relating to chimney sweepers mentioned on the Order Paper. The Bill will be a one-Clause Measure, which, instead of adding to the Statute Book, will take off about 10 pages. These Statutes are now,

1425
for all practical purposes, completely obsolete, and would have been dealt with by one of the periodical revisions in Statute law long ago but for the fact that they include provision for the sum of half-a-crown a year in aid of the local police pension fund to be paid by every chimney sweeper who employs an assistant. That being the case, it has been utterly impossible to deal with it hitherto in Statute law revisions. The Acts, as everyone knows, arose originally from the necessity of bringing chimney sweepers under control in order to prevent them from employing young children in sweeping chimneys. That necessity has long ago disappeared, and the Acts to-day not only encumber the Statute Book and Stone's Justices' Manual, but they also add one additional duty to the police. Moreover, they are regarded by chimney sweepers, who in England and Wales number about 6,000, as being a slur upon their profession, for chimney sweepers are the only manual workers in the country who have to get an annual permit from the police in order to perform their duties.
Those whom I have consulted and with whom I have been in touch—if I may say so—regard it as high time that these Statutes were removed. Chimney sweeps are people who do more to prevent fires than all the fire brigades in the Kingdom, and that is why I selected this day in order to seek the leave of the House to introduce this Bill. They are people whom it is regarded as fortunate for a bride to be able to kiss. I think it was Shakespeare who likened them in their old age to "Golden lads and girls." They have been alone for the last 50 years under the statutory inability to knock at one's door or to ring one's bell without incurring the liability to a penalty of £5, and they regard themselves as respectable and useful members of society who ought no longer to be under this particular disability. They are proud, as no other profession is to-day, to call themselves on their notice boards "Practical." That being the case, I commend this Bill, which will have the support, as I am assured, of Members on all sides, to the consideration of the House.
Bill ordered to he brought in by Sir Arnold Wilson.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS ACTS (REPEAL) BILL,
" to repeal the Chimney Sweepers and Chimneys Regulation Acts, 1840 and 1864, the Chimney Sweepers Act, 1875, and the Chimney Sweepers Act, 1894," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th May, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]
PATENTS ETC. (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS) BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 115.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FIRE BRIGADES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.5 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) and to the House for giving me such opportune assistance in my task to-day by assenting to the introduction of an important Measure with the unanimous approval of all sides of the House. This is the first Fire Brigades Bill for more than 40 years. I am very much interested in it for personal reasons. I had the opportunity last week of saying good-bye to the Chief Officer of the London Fire Brigade, who was retiring from his high post at the end of 30 years' public service. He reminded me of the fact that I was Chairman of the Fire Brigade Committee of the London County Council, 30 years ago when he was appointed, and it is interesting to note that at that time—I wish it was so to-day—the combined ages of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Fire Brigade Committee was 50. I remember also that the first time I ever appeared in print was in an article that I wrote about the history of the fire brigade, in particular of the London Fire Brigade. It is indeed curious that after 30 years and the changes and chances of public life and certain varied experiences in a good many of its departments, I should come back again to the pursuits of my youth.
  The history of fire protection in this country is one of the most interesting chapters of local history. A good deal of it is very scrappy and rather haphazard. Perhaps the feature of it that is most constant is the fact that we have seldom taken action in the development of fire protection unless we have been stimulated by some calamity or the threat of some calamity. The country began to think about fire protection seriously only after the Fire of London in 1666. It is true that before that time the City of London, being then as always a very progressive organisation of government, appointed a number of
  1430
  bellmen who went about the streets of London and rang their bells at night calling out to London citizens, "Take care of your fire and candle, be charitable to the poor and pray for the dead." I regret to say, however, that those words of warning were inadequate to stop the great Fire of London. Only a few years afterwards the great fire took place, and it is from that date that a good many of our fire precautions really ensued. For instance, the fire insurance companies started after the great fire, and curiously enough the first firemen in London were watermen engaged by the fire offices. The watermen of the Thames, who were put into the liveries of the fire offices, were expected to attend fires, but only to attend fires at buildings that were insured by their particular offices. Then we jogged along in these rather haphazard methods for the best part of a century, thinking a little bit about the protection of property, apparently thinking not at all about the safety of human life.
  In this chapter of the history of fire brigades the outstanding personality was a lady of Hackney named Mrs. Smith, the first great woman worker in London, who used to appear at the fires in the neighbourhood of Hackney hurrying about in her pattens directing the firemen. There, again, you could bring the pump into operation only if she and her gang had been previously paid by the householder whose house was on fire; without that payment they went back to Hackney and did nothing at all. Hon. Members will see the point of this ancient history when I come to the Bill. We jogged along to a further chapter, but we were greatly jolted up by a series of great fire disasters. First of all there was the great Drury Lane fire in 1812, about which, it will be remembered, the brothers Smith wrote a delightful poem called "Rejected Addresses." I wish very much that I had time to quote to the House one or two passages of this picturesque poem. Let me give the House only the first verse:
  " The summon'd firemen woke at call, And hied them to their stations all;
  Starting from short and broken snooze, Each sought his pond'rous hobnail'd shoes, But first his worsted hosen plied, Plush breeches next, in crimson dyed,
  His nether hulk embraced."
  A series of most picturesque passages ending with the tragic death of the leader of one of the brigades that attended the

  1431
  fire, who rejoiced in the historic name of Higginbottom. After the Drury Lane fire came the great fire that destroyed the Houses of Parliament 20 years later, and then 3o years after came the first of the great London conflagrations since the Great Fire of London, known as the Tooley Street fire, at which the Chief Officer of the Brigade was killed, and very extensive damage, to say nothing of serious loss of human life, was the result of the conflagration. That fire must be within the memory of a number of men and women still living, and it is very interesting to note that so short a time ago as the 'sixties of the last century it was possible for the then Commissioner of Police to make the following report on the conflagration:
  " Sir Richard Mayne, Chief Commissioner of Police, stated that parish engines were mostly kept at churches and workhouses, under the authority of the beadle or private persons, who were paid a trifling sum by the parochial authorities. At great fires they were inefficient; at small fires they were not wanted. He thought it rather an advantage that the parish engine should not be brought to fires at all."
  Mr. John Bowring, Clerk to the City of London, speaking of the engine-keepers, said:
  " They call them parochial engineers, but in many cases they are parochial old women or schoolboys who happen to run up with their little engines. With respect to a good many of these engines for which engine-keepers are paid, one of them, I know, is bricked up behind a blacksmith's shop, and in fact, if a fire happened you must pull down part of the house to get the engine out."
  That state of affairs existed within the memory of many men and women now living. There was, not unnaturally, a considerable agitation when these facts were brought to light, and accordingly there was created the Metropolitan Board of Works to deal with the problems of fire protection in London. But I regret to say that a very short time afterwards "Punch" very irreverently referred to the Board as the "Metropolitan Board of Perks." I understand that the fire organisation of the Metropolitan Board of Works was not one of the most efficient sides of its activities. Fortunately, in the course of time there emerged a very great man, Captain Shaw, the first of our great public servants to treat fire problems seriously, Captain Shaw made a great reputation which culminated in an honour which, I imagine, is given to very few
  1432
  public men. Whilst he was attending the first night of the Gilbert and Sullivan opera "Iolanthe" at the Savoy Theatre, the principal lady and the chorus lined up in the front of the stage and sang a song to him glorifying his activities in London:
  "Oh, Captain Shaw,
  Type of true love kept under!
  Could thy brigade
  With cold cascade
  Quench my great love, I wonder?"
  This great man in the course of time came to the end of his years of public service and was able to write to the Metropolitan Board of Works a record of services which should be the envy and the model of every public man. He ended a description of what he had done for the fire services in London with these words:
  " I have completed every reference made to me from committees and answered every letter which I have received, and there are no arrears of work in my Department."
  What a record for any great public servant. What a record for any Minister to aspire to at the end of a long period of public service. These historical odds and ends will have shown to the House that our system of fire protection has grown up somewhat haphazard, has grown up, as many other activities of our public life have developed, very much by uncoordinated public effort, and it has left behind quite a number of anomalies even in our own time which need to be dealt with, and which I am attempting to deal with in this Bill. It is a curious fact, as I have already mentioned, that this is the first Fire Brigade Bill for more than 40 years. During this long period we have had great changes of population, revolutions in the methods of building and, further, the development of the internal combustion engine, with the result that we can now have mobile appliances covering very much larger tracts of ground than was possible with the old hand-pumps of 30 and 40 years ago. Yet this is the first Bill dealing with fire brigade organisation that we have had for more than 40 years. It follows a number of inquiries, the first of which was held more than 30 years ago; then there was a Royal Commission after the War, and within recent years the very important report of the Riverdale Committeee. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Riverdale and his Committee for their valuable recommendations and to point to the fact that the greater part of the Bill is based

  1433
  on the recommendations of this committee.
  The main drawbacks to the present system are two. Apart from one or two exceptional areas, as for instance London and one or two of the Scottish burghs, there is no obligation upon any local authority to provide fire protection. I am aware that in spite of that fact the great majority of fire brigades in the country have brought themselves up to a high state of efficiency. None the less there are areas in the country without adequate fire protection, and there are local authorities that are doing little or nothing in the matter. There is, therefore, a serious gap in our peace-time organisation of fire precautions. There is an even more serious gap in our war-time precautions. Here, as we all regretfully have to acknowledge, we are faced with the new danger of the incendiary bomb in air raids, and if we are to deal with this new and particularly formidable danger we must take special precautions. We must, in particular, make it easier for fire brigade areas to co-operate for common action, and we must make it easier also to obtain new mobile engines and machines in connection with air-raid precautions. Under the Bill we ensure that in every part of the country there will be a statutory obligation upon some local authority to take fire precautions. That is a great step forward. It should have been taken years ago, and it should certainly be taken now without any further delay.
  Secondly, we are making proposals to facilitate joint action between one area and another. It is easier to take this joint action now when fire appliances have become more mobile. It is more necessary than ever to take it now when we are faced with the possibility of air raids in time of war, and great conflagrations. A considerable part of the Bill, therefore, is concerned with provisions for making joint schemes under which areas will work together and come to each other's rescue in times of emergency, or in times when they are faced with a great conflagration. Attempts, I am aware, have been made 'to organise joint action even without the provisions of the Bill. There was an interesting experiment in North Derbyshire on these lines, but the evidence before the Riverdale Committee went to show that without further
  1434
  statutory powers it is difficult for the local authorities to work joint schemes of this kind. So far we have followed almost exactly the recommendations of the Riverdale Committee, namely, in making it a statutory obligation on local authorities to take fire precautions and to make it easier for them to combine together.
  I now come to a point where, although we are following their recommendations in principle, we have adopted a somewhat different method from that which the committee recommended. The Riverdale Committee recommended that for the purposes of this joint action joint committees or boards should be set up over the whole of the country, upon which would be represented the various local authorities within the areas. When we came to discuss 'the question with the representatives of the local authorities, they took the view that they did not like to set up a new series of local bodies of this kind with precepting powers in their areas. They preferred that the question of joint action should be worked out in the first instance by the local authorities themselves, with a power to the Secretary of State to intervene in case of default. It seemed to us that this was essentially a matter on which we should defer to the feeling of local authorities, and, accordingly, we are not in the Bill proposing to set up joint committees or boards over the whole of the country, but we are proposing that the Secretary of State should have a commission to advise him as to the progress of these schemes in the country; that local authorities should be left to develop their schemes and that the Secretary of State should be specially empowered to take over the duties in an area only in the event of default. That was the proposal made by the representatives of local authorities, and we have accepted it in the provisions of this Bill.
  Then there is another direction in which we have taken a somewhat different line from that recommended by the Riverdale Committee. The Riverdale Committee recommended that there should be an Exchequer grant to fire brigade services for the purpose of helping backward authorities, namely, the smaller rural authorities who had not yet made any adequate fire brigade provision, and,

  1435
  secondly, to provide fire authorities generally with emergency appliances for air-raid precautions. It is our view as the result of our investigations of fire precautions from the air raid point of view that emergency appliances must be provided on a much greater scale than was contemplated at the time when Lord Riverdale and his colleagues made their report. They contemplated a comparatively small contribution for this purpose, and I imagine that that was one of the reasons why they proposed an Exchequer grant for peace time purposes.
  We are proposing, under our air-raid precautions schemes, to spend no less than £1,500,000 in this financial year upon emergency appliances which are to be supplied to the various fire authorities in the country. Lord Riverdale's recommendation was a £1,000,000 grant in all, but here now is a grant for appliances alone that amounts to something in the nature of £1,500,000. As regards training, we are proposing to take action, not in the form of a grant, but by establishing a Training Centre at the Government's expense for the higher technical training of fire brigade officers, and we propose to set up this Training Centre in connection with a Research Centre. It is a remarkable fact that, although there is this very large loss from fire year by year, amounting to something like £10,000,000 a year, to say nothing of the consequential losses of wages, business, and so on, up to this time there has never been any centralised organisation for research into fire extinction problems, nor has there been any training centre for the training of the higher ranks of the Fire Service. We propose to set up a Training Centre.
  Mr. Gallacher: Just one?
  Sir S. Hoare: Either one or more, but I am speaking now of the one which we contemplate setting up in connection with the research side of the question. We take the view that work of this kind would best be carried out in connection with the Centre for Research, which we propose should function under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. That Department, has a research station at Watford, tho which the building industry has made a very large contribution, for investigating structural problems, problems of material, ventila-
  1436
  tion, and so on. We would hope that our fire research establishment would be something on those lines and that it would be worked under the wing of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. We think also it would be of great value to the fire service if the training establishment was worked in close connection with the scientific work. Our idea, therefore, would be to set up the Training Centre contiguous to the Centre for Research.
  So far as the Training Centre is concerned, it will be financed by the Government, and I hope to obtain the services of Major Morris, formerly Chief Officer of the London Fire Brigade, as its first Director. Then we propose to have an Advisory Council, upon which the various fire interests will be represented, to advise the Secretary of State upon fire questions remitted to them. I think this will be the means of pooling a good deal of knowledge that now needs much better co-ordination than it receives. As regards the Fire Service Commission, which was recommended by the Riverdale Committee, I have asked Sir Vivian Henderson, who was for several years Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and who has an almost unrivalled experience in these branches of local work, to be the first Chairman.
  Sir A. Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether Sir Vivian Henderson will also have some responsibility for the scientific side of the work?
  Sir S. Hoare: I would prefer not he to precise on that point at the moment. I think the Fire Service Commission will have to be separate, but I am strongly in favour of keeping the closest possible liaison between the Training and Research Centres.
  Mr. Westwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the form in which the Government are going to set up this Research Station?
  Sir S. Hoare: I ought to have said that it is not necessary to take power in the Bill for setting up this Research Centre. We shall do that with a grant from the Exchequer.
  Dr. Haden Guest: And the Training Centre, too?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, both these proposals emerged from the Riverdale recommendations, and that is why I was dealing with them together.
  Mr. Westwood: It was not for the purpose of catching the right hon. Gentleman out that I put my question, but because I wanted to know exactly how the Research Station was to be financed.
  Sir S. Hoare: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I gave him an inadequate answer. We shall finance the Research Centre out of grants under the Vote for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The establishment of the Training Centre is provided for in the Bill in Clause 18. I have given the House a general picture of the policy behind this Bill. Let me finally say a word to hon. Members about the provisions that we have in mind in particular for air-raid precautions. I inspected one day last week a number of the new appliances that we intend to issue under the Air-Raid Precautions Act. It was extraordinarily interesting to me when I remembered that at the time to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, 30 years ago, we had a most bitter and heated debate in the London County Council on a proposal that I made to introduce the first motor appliances in London. I remember the eloquent speeches that were made in favour of the white horses with their long manes which used to rush so dramatically out of the fire stations in those days, and when I saw these appliances in the quadrangle of the Foreign Office the other day I could not help being amazed at the changes that have come over the picture in so short a time.
  Here was a series of comparatively cheap appliances, much cheaper than many of the existing appliances, very light, fitted with all sorts of ingenious devices to make them adaptable in the easiest and quickest way in times of emergency. For instance, there were appliances that took with them very light and improvised tanks of their own; there were appliances that had very happily devised parts so that quite quickly you could adjust one of these trailer pumps to an ordinary car; there was another appliance which could be used in a very small space that went round almost on its own base and reminded me of one of those people whom I sometimes see pirouetting on the ice, going round and round without moving either forward or backward. These appliances seem to me to be very cleverly designed, and I think
  1438
  that, so far as human ingenuity is concerned, they will go a long way towards helping local authorities to deal with the terrible danger of a fire emergency in times of air raids. We are producing them now upon a big scale, and we have already started making the distribution to the local authorities. I think it will be found that they will be of immense value in an emergency. I think also they will be found to be of use in certain circumstances in peace time as well.
  We are not going to be meticulous and pedantic about their use in peace time. Obviously if there is a large number of auxiliary firemen recruited over the country, as we all hope will be the case, it will be a very excellent thing that both auxiliary firemen and these emergency appliances should be used comparatively often and that both the appliances and the men should have regular practice. We are contemplating, therefore, that whilst every local authority will have to make adequate provision for peace-time services, these emergency appliances will be there to be used upon really serious occasions, and I believe that they will be found to be of great help, particularly in areas where large distances have to be covered and where it may be that the ordinary, normal peace-time organisation is very small, but occasionally there comes a day when there is a great conflagration, which, as things are now, strains the resources of the neighbourhood to breaking point.
  I think I have covered the main provisions of the Bill. It is the result, as I say, of a series of inquiries. It is also the result of a series of discussions with the representatives of the local authorities. So far as I know, no highly controversial point has arisen in the course of these discussions, and I very much hope that, apart from the details contained in it, it will meet with the general approval of all Members of the House.
  Sir A. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate how the finances of the research will be arranged?
  Sir S. Hoare: It will be done by grants on the Vote for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
  Sir A. Wilson: Will any contribution be required from the local authorities?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, as far as I know; not at present.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Westwood: I feel sure the House thoroughly enjoyed the opening part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. His personal reminiscences and his historical review of the development of our fire services were not only of keen interest to hon. Members but provided a certain amount of amusement. There was one outstanding statement in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that it was always calamity, or the threat of calamity, which caused us to consider reforms.
  Sir S. Hoare: In the case of fire.
  Mr. Westwood: What applies to the danger of fire, applies also to reforms generally. It is not because of a genuine desire for the improvement of the fire services—which are in drastic need of improvement—that we are introducing this legislation. Frankly, it is the threat of war, which has compelled the Home Office and the Scottish Office to take this action arising out of the report of the Riverdale Committee. I was also keenly interested in another statement in the right hon. Gentleman's historical review. He said that fire engines in the past were usually kept at churches or at poorhouses. That must be the explanation, for which I have often sought, of why those engaged in this very dangerous work were usually so miserably paid and so inadequately provided with equipment. It must have been because these services, or at least the necessary accommodation and equipment for them, were formerly provided by the churches which seldom paid those who did the actual work, or by the poor-houses in which those who did the work were never paid.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill set out to remove anomalies. We on this side will help as far as we can in the removal of the anomalies associated with the equipment and organisation of the fire brigade services, but in removing anomalies we ought to avoid creating new anomalies or fresh injustices. The right hon. Gentleman said that thanks were due to the Riverdale Committee for the effective way in which they had done their work. I associate myself with that statement but I must at the same time complain of the manner in which that
  1440
  committee was set up and also of its composition. There was no Scottish representative on it, and only one representative of the Scottish Civil Service was asked to give evidence before it. No representative of any public authority in Scotland was called to give evidence before it. Yet this Bill, arising out of its report, is to apply not only to England but to Scotland as well. Having lodged that protest against the way in which the committee was limited in its inquiries, I do not withhold the praise that is due to it for the active way in which it pursued its investigations and the valuable report which it has submitted.
  We are told that a serious gap already exists in connection with peace-time precautions for dealing with fire that a still greater gap exists in so far as war precautions are concerned. I hope that as a result of the Bill we shall get a little more "drive" in dealing with fire precautions than we have had up to the present in dealing with air-raid precautions. It is clear that something more must be done by the Home Office and the Scottish Office to jog the more reactionary local authorities who are not at present doing their duty. I believe that I myself belong to one of those because I was appealed to specially to go on the air-raid precautions committee to try to "get a move on" in this matter, and after they had "got a move on" they wasted 10 days in preparing a scheme to send out to the Air-Raid Precautions Department. So, I am not apologising, all through, for the local authorities. Sometimes they require somebody behind them to give them an occasional kick so that they may get on with the job in the interests of the safety of the community.
  No one desires to see the reorganisation of the fire services more than those of us on this side who have had something to do with fire brigade work. I have never had the satisfaction—why I do not know —of having been a fireman, but there are hon. Members behind me who have acted as firemen and I have been convener of a fire brigade committee and I know the difficulty of getting even such a local committee to understand its responsibilities in connection wit hfire precautions. It is not because they do not want to do their duty. It is because no financial provision has been made by the

  1441
  State to enable them to carry out what they believe to be their duties in providing precautions against fire.
  The usual procedure has been followed in connection with this Bill. First, we set up a committee for the purpose of discovering the obvious. Before the Riverdale Committee was set up everybody knew that the fire services were inadequate. Everybody knew that in several urban areas good fire prevention services were provided, but in the counties it was different. Speaking for Scotland I can say that only one county authority had set up anything in the way of fire precautions, and the counties were dependent on the work done in the cities or large burghs to safeguard them against the effects of fire. As I say, we followed the usual procedure in setting up this committee, and, effectively as it did its work, it was too small and too unrepresentative, as I have already pointed out. The committee carried out its work speedily. It was set up in August, 1935, and reported in July, 1936. We have had, therefore, almost two years' delay in the introduction of this Bill, and it would be interesting to have an explanation of that delay. If the existing services are inadequate, as some of us believe, then, particularly in view of the great rearmament programme which the Government started two years ago for the purpose of defending the people of the country from the effects of war, and with the knowledge that it would be necessary to defend them from the effects of incendiary bombs in case of aerial warfare, there can be no justification for this delay in the introduction of the Bill.
  The procedure followed in other cases has been followed by the Government in this case. They have picked out the conclusions and recommendations which impose new duties upon local authorities. It is optional at the present time to carry out fire precautions, to set up fire brigades and to provide necessary equipment. Now the Government are imposing the duty on the local authorities. It is now to be mandatory upon them. The Government have, as I say, picked out the recommendations, which impose new duties on and increase the financial responsibilities of the local authorities, and in many instances weaken the powers of the local authorities. As a rule if there is any recommendation of a Committee set up
  1442
  by a Government Department which gives dictatorial powers to a central Government Department, you usually find effect given to that recommendation in the resulting Bill. Under the Bill which we are now discussing the Home Office or the Scottish Office will determine the standard of efficiency, and if the Departments are to have the responsibility of setting the standard of efficiency, the local authorities have a legitimate claim for a definite contribution from the National Exchequer because of that standard being demanded by the central body.
  Then, we usually find that any recommendation suggesting Treasury assistance towards the fulfilment of new duties is either given effect to in a niggardly fashion or ignored. The right hon. Gentleman skilfully skated over the refusal of the Government to give effect, in principle, to an Exchequer grant for these new services which are being imposed in some cases on the local authorities, or the increased financial responsibility that will have to be borne by practically all authorities under this Bill. I do not wish to be misunderstood about this. It would be wrong to provide the capital cost of the efficient equipment of fire brigades in areas where nothing has been done, but there are local authorities who have done their best to make their fire brigades effiecient. But, having set a standard of efficiency, and compelled reactionary or lagging authorities to reach that standard, it should be the duty of the Government then to provide ample payments towards the maintenance of that efficiency. That is the claim made by the local authorities. I am speaking mainly for the local authorities in Scotland. They are willing and anxious to work the Bill. They realise the danger of prospective war and the use of incendiary bombs, but if we impose these increased liabilities upon them, they claim, legitimately, that there ought to be special Exchequer grants for meeting this increased responsibility.
  This new duty has been imposed, I suggest, as far as the actual provisions of the Bill are concerned, without consultation with the authorities, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said. There were preliminary conversations with the local authorities but they did not get any indication of the real provisions of the Bill. The local authorities in Scotland were un-

  1443
  able to get this Bill before last Saturday and have not had time to discuss its provisions. The Bill was not available in the Stationery Office, George Street, Edinburgh, before last Saturday morning, and, consequently, local authorities in Scotland have not been able to discuss its details. These provisions, therefore, have been introduced without consultation, and without financial provisions to help the local authorities who, unlike the National Exchequer, have only one basis of taxation, namely, the rateable value of dwelling-houses or shops. The land and industrial undertakings to-day are de-rated and any increased cost in the provision of adequate and efficient fire-fighting services will have to be borne by a limited section of the community. It is unfair to place these new burdens on their shoulders without providing an annual Exchequer contribution.
  I often wonder whether this is part of a policy designed to destroy local government, the pride of the British people. In another place this week they will be discussing the increase of local taxation. Members in this House are interested in the question of the increased cost of our local services. Increasing new duties are being placed by this House upon the shoulders of local authorities without adequate financial provision being made by the Exchequer to meet those new duties. Let me refer to one or two new duties which have been imposed upon the shoulders of the local authorities during the last two years. There was the Maternity Act. It is to the credit of the Government that although they did not provide sufficient money they did provide some new money to meet that new service. Then there was the Physical Training and Recreation Act. On that Bill, as on this Bill, I protested against the lack of provision to meet the increased duties being imposed upon the local authorities. Then we have the Superannuation Act which compels local authorities to provide superannuation for its officials but left it optional to provide superannuation for the workmen.
  These are all increased charges for which no additional financial arrangements were made so far as this House is concerned. Last, but not least, there was the Factories Act, which was absolutely necessary, but if its principles are to be given effect to much expenditure
  1444
  is involved. Speaking for the borough on whose council I happen to sit, it will cost us anything from £600 to £700 a year for the additional staff that will be required. That Act was necessary and we supported it because we believed it to be necessary, but there was no additional financial provision made by this House to enable us to carry out the proposals of that Measure. When I consider all these additional costs, and also the costs in connection with housing, I ask the question whether these Bills, including the one we are now discussing, in which the Government make no provision for financial assistance to meet the additional costs, are being designed for the purpose of destroying our local government, the pride of our people.
  I have already indicated that in fire brigade work we have ever increasing costs incurred by local authorities who have been trying to do their duty. The report of the Riverdale Committee gives an indication of those increasing costs. In 1921 the cost in England and Wales was £1,464,500, but in 1935–36 it was approximately £2,500,000, an increase of £1, 000,000. Let me give an indication how this applies to the local authority of which I have particular knowledge. I admit that it had an out-of-date fire brigade service. Some of the conditions in that town were even more humorous than the conditions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. In 1932–33 that town could not call the auxiliary fire brigade up unless the "pubs" were open. That is absolutely true, because the "pubs" happened to have telephonic communication with the fire station. There were no telephones in the homes of the auxiliary firemen, and the only way in which they could be called up was if the fire so arranged itself that it started during the time when the "pubs" were open. At one time that particular fire brigade could not start its work under its methods of training unless the fireman blew his whistle. It is told in the history of Kirkcaldy that a fire took place on one occasion and a fireman, without the instruction of the fire master, turned the water on quickly. He was told at once, in rather strong language, that the water had to be turned off until he blew his whistle.
  I am not defending efficiency of that kind. We want to see real efficiency, and

  1445
  we set out in that town to try and get it. What is the result? The expenditure in 1932–33 was £860, but only a week or so ago, towards the end of last month, we opened a new fire station, and the cost next year, because we have tried to bring our fire-fighting service up to an efficient state, will be £3,100. Our rateable value brings us in only £1,200 on a penny rate, so that for this purpose we have had an increased expenditure of approximately 2d. on the rates. I claim now that, having brought our fire brigade service up to efficiency, we are entitled to ask that the Government should give us an annual grant in order to maintain the efficiency. That is the line I took in the earlier part of my speech and I shall take the same line throughout in asking for efficiency and financial assistance.
  What is the position of the local authorities? I have here a letter which came into my possession last night because I happen to be a member of a local authority. I was there last night instead of being in the House, and the occasion provided me with some of the shot and shell for my speech to-day. A statement has been issued to the town clerks and clerks of urban and rural district councils in England, Wales and Scotland. Two important conferences have taken place, one of which was held in Edinburgh, and they came to certain decisions. They were all in favour of a complete reorganisation of the fire-fighting services but they all wanted financial assistance for the purpose of maintaining efficiency once it had been obtained. The statement says:
  " With reservations, the committee,"
  that is the committee set up at the Cheltenham Fire Brigade Conference,
  " welcome the Bill.
  It substantially embodies the recommendations of the report of the Riverdale Committee and provides for the administration of the fire service by borough, urban and rural district councils in England and Wales, parish councils ceasing to be fire authorities, other than by way of delegation. In Scotland the Bill constitutes county and town councils the fire authorities.
  The Bill makes no provision for Exchequer assistace. For the first time local authorities are placed under a statutory obligation to make provision for the extinction of fires. The Secretary of State may by order prescribe standards of efficiency. Provision is made for the appointment: by the Secretary of State of inspectors, and default provisions are provided. The committee, on urging the necessity for financial assistance, is referred by the Home Office to the assistance for which pro-
  1446
  vision has already been made by the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937,"—
  On this point I have a few questions to ask, which I hope will be answered—
  " towards the emergency fire service and to the provision in the Bill for use in peace time of emergency appliances and equipment lent by the Government, and informed that no other measure of financial assistance could he given by the Government. The committee is disappointed also that no provision is in the Bill to secure a measure of uniformity in service conditions."
  I suggest that the risk to a fireman in London is no greater than the risk to a fireman in Edinburgh and that there is no difference in the risk of a fireman in Kirkcaldy and the risk of a fireman in Glasgow. There should be something in the way of uniformity of conditions affecting the men who are willing—particularly our auxiliary staffs, who give their services voluntarily—to take risks. There ought to be some standard which is common for these men who are willing to risk life and limb in dealing with the fires that so often break out. Therefore, the committee is disappointed that no provision is in the Bill to secure a measure of uniformity in service conditions:
  " The committee has urged the Home Office to give this matter appropriate attention so that, amongst other things, co-operative area working, where appropriate, could be facilitated."
  The statement goes on to say:
  " In the light of the resolutions passed at the fire conferences in Edinburgh in 1936 and at Barrow and Cheltenham last year, the Bill, though otherwise to be welcomed, must in these two major matters, and especially as to the absence of financial assistance, be considered deficient."
  I submit that the Bill is deficient so far as the lack of provision for these two things is concerned. Then there is the Scottish position:
  " The representatives of the Local Government Associations present at the meeting with representatives of the Secretary of State have considered the memorandum of the Scottish Office regarding the proposed Fire Brigade Bill. As it appears to the representatives of the associations, the proposals mean that the fire brigade service, hitherto a service controlled locally without central direction or grant, is now to fall under central supervision. The Government proposals contain no reference to any payment from the Exchequer, but on the contrary would deprive certain local authorities of certain statutory rights of recovery of the cost of extinguishing fires."
  However weak the Bill may be in regard to its omissions, I think it is terribly weak as far as Clause 4 is concerned, in

  1447
  that it will take away certain rights which local authorities have at the present time to charge for their fire services, particularly against the fire insurance companies, who stand to gain most by an efficient fire brigade service.
  " Before they discuss the machinery of administration the representatives feel that the Government should state clearly the extent to which thy propose grants in aid should be paid to local authorities. They also feel that fundamental to the discussion of any legislation the approximate areas should be delineated. On receiving the desired information the Associations will be glad to go into the matter further and give their considered views to the Secretary of State."
  Those were the views of the representatives of the Local Government Associations which met the representatives of the Scottish Office and they remain their view at the present time. There has been no real consultation with them as far as the Clauses of the Bill are concerned. May I suggest, following up the point that I have made on Clause 4, that the Bill will subsidise another form of big business, the fire insurance business? When the Bill goes through there will be no power to claim expenses from the fire insurance companies, whose shares will rise just as the local rates are going to rise under the Bill. I suggest that it is grossly unfair to take that right away from the local authorities. Let me refer to what was done in another Act of Parliament. By the Local Government Act, 1929, it was made possible for local authorities, where they had set up a general hospital, to compel those who received the services from that hospital to pay for those services if they were able to do so. Surely, if it is right to compel sick people to pay for services rendered by a hospital, it is equally right—indeed, more so—to compel fire insurance companies which benefit by the expenditure of local authorities to pay for the services rendered to them.
  What happens at the present time, at any rate in Falkirk, Stirling and Kirkcaldy, is that a charge is made to the individual who calls out the fire brigade. If the premises are insured, the charge made against the person in question becomes a charge against the insurance companies. If the premises are not insured, and there is thus more chance of the man being bankrupt than being able to pay the charge, the local authority
  1448
  does not pursue its claim. Where it is possible to recover the money, and particularly where the premises are insured, the very fact that there is no fire brigade service in the area in question justifies a local authority which has provided the service in charging for it. I submit that between now and the Committee stage it would be wise for the Government favourably to consider some Clause being placed in the Bill giving to local authorities which are providing the fire brigade services the power to charge the insurance companies for the services rendered to them. I understand that that is done in Australia, and that 40 per cent. is charged against the insurance company. If it can be done in Australia, surely we are justified in doing it in this country when dealing with a scheme for reorganising the fire services. In trying to meet the need for efficiency, surely we are entitled to consider minimising the cost to the local authorities.
  I would like to know what is to be done in connection with air-raid precautions. Am I right in assuming that proposals have already been made to Glasgow and Edinburgh? Am I right in assuming that Glasgow, which has 29 fire engines, is to be offered 115? Am I right in assuming that Edinburgh, which has 12 fire engines, is to be offered another 57? If they are to house these gifts and to see that they are kept in good order, ready for any emergency, will they have to provide the additional expenditure at the cost of the ratepayers, or will it be a legitimate charge for air-raid precautions purposes? I hope that, in the interests of the local authorities, those questions will be answered. I would also suggest that in the case of air raids, there will be just as much danger from incendiary bombs to Falkirk, Stirling and Kirkcaldy as to these two cities. I am entitled to know, I think, what are the proposals, with regard to the large burghs, in dealing with air-raid precautions. It would certainly relieve the minds of many of the people who are responsible for the administration if, before this Debate concluded, we could be given some indication of the provision that is to be made in connection with air-raid precautions to enable them to try to carry out, to the best of their ability, their duty in giving as much safety as possible if the horrors of war should come upon us.

  1449
  I wish to ask also that there should be at least a little delay before the proceedings begin in the Committee stage. On previous occasions there has been such a delay. I know that there is anxiety to get the Bill through, but I suggest that we might have a little breathing space between now and the Committee stage, so as to give the local authorities time to consider the implications of this far-reaching Bill, especially in view of the fact that no copies of the Bill were available to the local authorities until after last Saturday morning. In the interests of safety of life, which to me is more vital than the safeguarding of property, the fire brigade services of this country ought to be, and must be, reorganised. Because of the need, if such a horrible thing as war should ever afflict our people, of reducing to the minimum the effects of man's inhumanity to man, by the use of incendiary bombs, it is our duty to see that our fire services are made efficient as speedily as possible. But in doing those things, I urge the Government not to violate all the canons of local government by changing an enabling power, as it applies at the present time in the provision of fire brigades, to a compulsory duty to provide those services, as is proposed in the Bill. With a central department setting the standards of efficiency, undoubtedly there would be a distinct violation of those canons of local government unless, in fixing those standards and in seeing that effect is given to them, the Government provide an annual grant towards their maintenance.
  5.20 p.m.
  Sir Thomas Cook: As one who has been interested in the fire services all his life, and who has, incidentally, maintained a private fire brigade since he left school, I welcome official recognition of this important subject. Undoubtedly this Measure savours of municipalisation, but I feel that the majority of those who are opposed to this principle have only themselves to blame for having neglected this important matter in the past. I wonder why we have had to wait 15 years after the findings of a Royal Commission and two years after the findings of the Riverdale Committee which, in point of fact, reaffirmed the statements of the Royal Commission 13 years previously and brought up to date the facts and
  1450
  figures produced by the Royal Commission. Surely, as has been emphasised already this evening, ever since light and heat became recognised as elements essential to the human frame, the danger and risk of fire should have been apparent. One is forced to the conclusion that the necessity for air-raid precautions has brought to the notice of the powers that be, if they did not realise it already, the desirability of effecting drastic improvements in regard to the British fire service.
  I have always held that the fire brigades, the St. John's Ambulance Brigade and the Lifeboat Institution constitute the greatest trinity of useful service which we possess. Many amusing stories about village fire brigades, most of them, unhappily, true ones, can be told. The one which appeals to me most is the result of happenings in a village in the Home counties just before Easter. A fire broke out in the parish. Upon the wall in the shed which housed the pre-war manual, there was a nominal strength of 14 men. Only two old men answered the call on this occasion. It was later discovered that the remaining 12 had been dead for several years.
  I have explored Europe in order to glean information on fire brigades from an international point of view. In 1935, I organised in conference representatives from 16 different nations, and 12 months ago I organised representatives from 21 different nations for a similar purpose. It matters not whether one is watching brigades at exercise or in action in distant Carpathian Ruthenia or nearby Paris, or whether one is touring large or small countries, one is forced to the conclusion that there is an atmosphere of national support and enthusiasm for "les sapeurs pompiers" on the Continent which is notably absent in Great Britain. Making people fire-minded or fire-conscious is like playing an up-hill game. The average property-owner will secure his possessions from theft and will take precautions against corruption by moth or rust, but unfortunately, as far as the risk of fire is concerned, he is usually wise only after the event.
  My one criticism of this Measure is that it pre-supposes the existence at the present time of sure foundations upon which to build an efficient fire service in this country. When one discusses the

  1451
  merits or demerits of the British fire services, one must of necessity divide one's observations into two categories. On the one hand there are the London fire brigades, the provincial city brigades, most borough fire brigades and many of the town brigades. If I may say so here, I consider that under Major Morris and now under his successor, Commander Fire-brace, London, as a city, is provided with a fire brigade organisation which is second to none in the world. A similar compliment could be paid to other brigades in proportion. But I wish to deal chiefly with the situation in the country, where the arrangements are hopelessly inadequate, where local associations are rare, and where schemes of co-ordination are few and far between. I once spent six months in trying to bring about a scheme of co-ordination in part of the county of Norfolk, and I cannot mention this without paying a tribute to the help and advice which I received from my right hon. Friend's chief advisers on this subject, Mr. A. L. Dixon and Colonel Guy Symonds. Unhappily, this scheme failed to come to fruition, because there were members of some of the local authorities concerned who were not convinced of the wisdom of such expenditure.
  Surely the proceedings of the recent inquiry into the fire fatality at Hendon must convince us that if we cannot have an efficient fire service in Great Britain in times of peace we cannot hope to have an efficient one in time of war. The abolition of the parish as a fire authority under this Bill is not likely to give the average parish councillor many sleepless nights, for 75 per cent. of our parish councils have never made any endeavour to exercise their existing powers. The problem which I believe confronts my right hon. Friend in respect to this Bill is the fact that the new fire authority which he proposes to set up will be comprised of the self same people who, in many instances, have not been overwhelmingly enthusiastic for his scheme of air-raid precautions. They have, of course, under this Bill the added incentive that if they do not perform their statutory obligations they will be superseded by a fire board, which in its turn will have the power to precept upon them for the money which they themselves should have collected and spent. What will be the position
  1452
  where a fire authority is heading for default under this Bill and takes no particular step in respect to air-raid precautions? Is it not likely that as soon as it foresees danger ahead under this Bill it will apply to the fire division of the Air-Raid Precautions Department and obtain from the Government that which they should obtain under this Bill from the local rates?
  I hope it will be the instruction of my right hon. Friend to the fire authorities in their initial schemes and the fire service commission when dealing with these schemes in quantities, that they will use their best endeavours to retain the services of the smaller brigades. There are many of these scatterd throughout the country and isolated from schemes of coordination who owe not only their standards but their very existence to the public spirit and self-sacrifice of the chief officer and his men. I would cite as an example of this the town of Reepham, in Norfolk. When setting these standards there is a risk that the backward brigades may benefit as a result of this Measure. I believe that nothing would be more fatal, because it would place a premium upon inefficiency. The wider schemes which it is proposed to evolve whereby a number of brigades will be enabled to receive a call to large conflagrations, such as dockyards, big mills, food stores and munition works, will come as a long-felt want. I would like to ask what is likely to be the position of private fire brigades under this Measure. I take it that they will not be suppressed unless that is essential. They will, therefore, have the alternative of being augmented or of carrying on in their specific private responsibilities. If the latter is to be the case, will the owners of these brigades be exempt from the general rate which is to be levied for this purpose?
  With regard to Clauses 2 and 3, which refer to water supply, I consider that they are too optimistic. There have been dozens of cases of brigades receiving calls to isolated mansions where, after a few moments' pumping, they have had to stand idly by and see the property reduced to ruin through lack of water. It is this lack of water which, I believe, will greatly retard the putting into practice of schemes to be submitted by the new fire authorities. Would it be possible, therefore. for His Majesty's Government to make a loan to fire authorities which can prove that

  1453
  the cost of the setting up of an efficient water system would be prohibitive? The question of the standardisation of equipment is of paramount importance. Unless, for instance, we are to have instantaneous couplings or adaptors to meet differences in dimensions of the water system, such a scheme in a specific neighbourhood would become unworkable. The best example we have of standardisation of fire equipment in the Empire is to be found in the States of Australia, where the equipment in the city of Perth is adaptable in the city of Brisbane 4,000 miles away. I would emphasise that if we are to have standardisation of equipment in this country, it will not be brought about without considerable expense. Reference is made in the Bill to the question of street alarms, which, of course, apply only to more thickly populated areas.
  I trust that it may be possible for my right hon. Friend to arrange with the Postmaster-General so that the system of dialling "999" is set up throughout the country. At present there are some stations which are on the telephone. Other telephones are housed by individual members of brigades. I hope that this matter will be pursued further so that eventually every member of every brigade will automatically be dialled "999." Such a system would be infinitely preferable to the firing of maroons which only cause undue alarm to the population especially at night time, and which are dependent for their effectiveness upon weather conditions, the contour of the land, and so forth. May I express the hope that when this Bill has reached the Statute Book that cooperation which has existed between country fire brigades and county police will continue? The setting up of this training centre will be a great asset and will have the effect of amassing an amount of useful information in respect of fire brigades throughout the country. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should take this matter one step further and should consider the dispersing of the staff at the training school to points along the coast throughout the summer months, and there set up camps where members of local brigades could receive an intensive course lasting seven days to a fortnight.
  Allusion has been made to the question of insurance companies. I have never
  1454
  thought that the insurance companies of this country have played their fair part in the past history of tire brigades. It is true that from time to time they have made ex gratia grants, but there has always been an atmosphere of "hush hush" throughout these transactions and the details seem to have been confined to the four walls of the office. It is correct to say that when brigades have turned out they have generally been compensated according to arrangements entered into between the insurance companies and the National Fire Brigades Association. As a rule, however, insurance companies are unwilling to subscribe to the activities of local associations and they are reluctant to provide capital for the provision of apparatus. On the Continent the relationship between fire brigades, insurance companies and the government are undisguised. In Norway, for example, the insurance companies pay a tax levied solely for the purpose of fire brigade administration to the extent of 100,000 kroner per annum. Sweden has been provided with two of its finest fire stations in Stockholm solely at the expense of the insurance companies at a cost of 650,000 crowns each. In 1932 the Greek Government accepted a non-recurrent sum amounting to no less than 7,000,000 drachmae for the same purpose. The Dutch, the Danish and the Lithuanian Governments are among those who have definite arrangements in this respect. I want to make reference to two concessions existing in Latvia. One is that all apparatus which cannot be provided within that country is allowed to go in duty free. The other is that functions promoted in support of fire brigades are exempt from entertainment tax.
  I have read with interest the booklet produced by the Home Office entitled, '' Fire Prevention—Hints to Householders." I trust that once this Bill becomes law it will be made possible for every householder to be acquainted with the rudiments of fire fighting. I should also like considerable attention paid to the teaching of this important subject in all our schools. If the fire service of the future is to be the success we hope for, the conditions of engagement must be those which will attract the right men. The hours of labour must be beyond dis-

  1455
  pute throughout the service and there must be a greater esprit de corps than exists at the present time. I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the introduction of this Bill. I feel that by introducing it he is laying the foundations of a great and effective British fire service.
  5.45 p.m.
  Sir Percy Harris: We have listened to an interesting speech by a man who has made fire protection his study for many years. One of the features of the House of Commons is that in it we have experts on almost every subject, and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir T. Cook) has wisely concentrated upon this problem, and as it has now become one of special urgency I hope that his technical knowledge will be made use of by the Home Office in the administration of this Measure. I should also like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his very interesting speech, particularly because I was a colleague of his 30 years ago when we were both new members of the London County Council. During his first or second year he became chairman of the Fire Brigade Committee. I believe he was a member for only about three years. His has been a very different career from mine. I am, unfortunately, always in opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman has always been lucky and had the opportunity of exercising authority in responsible positions. It is a good thing that he served his apprenticeship to this important problem with such a great authority as the London County Council, in those splendid days when the work of a fire brigade was so much more thrilling, attended with so much more pomp and circumstance than in this mechanical age.
  I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman's history was correct on one point. The Metropolitan Board of Works did not come into existence in order to deal with fires. It is more correct to say that it was created to deal with the problem of main drainage, largely because of the perfume from the River Thames which reached the nostrils of Members of this House through our wonderful ventilation floor. At last Parliament was persuaded to take action and created the Metropolitan Board of Works as a drainage authority. The fire brigade was rather
  1456
  incidental. I mention that as an hon. Member referred to insurance companies. Prior to the creation of the Board of Works fire extinction was largely carried out with equipment and staff provided by the insurance companies. Even today the Salvage Corps is still run by the insurance companies and is a relic of the time when the companies, in their own interest, had to finance the business of extinguishing fires.
  I am afraid that it is my business today to be a little critical. I wish I could avoid it, because on the whole this is a good Bill, and I shall certainly support its Second Reading: but it is a belated Bill. That is my criticism of everything which this Government does. This is a belated Government, always a day late. It is the criticism which applies to the air-raid precautions scheme, which is all right in its way but in which the Government has been behindhand. The air-raid precautions scheme ought to have been brought into operation at least a year ago, but it is still, to use an appropriate phrase, hanging fire. This Bill is subject to the same criticism. A Royal Commission reported on the subject 15 years ago. We always say that Royal Commissions are appointed in the interests of procrastination, and it is only now, in 1938, that we have this Bill to give effect to some of the recommendations of that Commission. The Riverdale Committee, whose report is, I understand, the foundation of this Bill, reported two years ago. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Bill was not brought in last year. It is largely a Departmental Bill. I do not think there will be any obstruction as far as my friends are concerned, and I do not think there will be any obstruction by the official Opposition.
  Why did not the Home Office introduce the Bill a year ago? In the present state of affairs the matter has become exceptionally urgent. The weakness of it is that much of its success will depend upon co-operation between local authorities. The time is long overdue for dealing with the whole question of local government—the size of areas, and the like. Many areas are far too small in the light of modern rapid communication and the new problems which are arising in modern life. Of course, we are to have joint authorities. As the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison)

  1457
  once wittily said, the objection to joint authorities is there is always too little authority and too much joint. The great danger with them is that they act slowly. They are all right when the problem does not require rapid action, but when speed is essential and action is vital joint authorities are far from satisfactory. It is questionable whether it would not have been better to make use of the county councils, or to have had larger areas, in order to ensue effective action. If there should be, which God forbid, an attack from the air, the aeroplanes will not recognise any county boundaries or the areas of local authorities. The experience in Shanghai, Barcelona and Madrid —fortunately we have practical examples to guide us—is that as a rule bombing aeroplanes are quite indiscriminate when dropping bombs. In attacking London they will, no doubt, aim at the centre of London, but the suburbs and other outer areas are just as likely to suffer from fires caused by air attack as is the centre.
  Nor will the rural areas escape. I remember during the last War being invited by a friend to go to St. Margaret's Bay for a quiet week-end. I was told that it was a peaceful spot. I arrived in lovely sunshine, all was calm and quiet, there was no sign of war, and I went early to bed, feeling rather tired. At 10 o'clock I heard the loudest explosion I ever heard in my life. A bomb fell and made a hole as deep as a large house, only missing our hotel by a few yards. The air-raider, I was informed, and probably correctly, did not aim at peaceful St. Margaret's Bay but at Dover, which was a military objective. There was then no properly organised fire brigade in St. Margaret's Bay, and I doubt whether there is to-day. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), who has been for many years a resident, will know.
  Sir John Withers: I do not think there is a fire brigade at St. Margaret's Bay. I think the hon. Member is a little wrong in his story about that particular attack. It was investigated, and I have a piece of one of the bombs dropped upon that occasion. What happened was—
  Sir P. Harris: With great respect I think this is a little bit irrelevant to my
  1458
  point. Still, I am quite ready to give way to my hon. Friend.
  Sir J. Withers: I want to say that what happened was that the raiders were not aiming at St. Margaret's Bay at all. A German airman came over, and his machine got out of order or something, and he dropped his bombs to get rid of them, in order that he might be able to get back.
  Sir P. Harris: With great respect to my hon. Friend I think his interruption was irrelevant, although it confirms my point that these air raiders are not too particular whether it is a military object or a town where they drop their bombs. They will drop the bombs somewhere and, unfortunately, the rural areas will not escape. That is why this Bill is so important. I think I am right in saying there are hundreds of parishes in the country which have inadequate fire brigades—often they are voluntary organisations composed of men working in all sorts of jobs—and, further, an insufficient water supply. Attention is called to the inadequacy of the water supply in this Departmental Committee's report, and the question is whether, in the light of that report, it is not vital to speed up the provision of water supplies in rural areas. On page 48 the report states:
  " The question of the adequacy of the supplies of water available for the purpose of fighting fires has been prominently in the minds of a number of the witnesses. We gather that, in the country districts especially, this is definitely a problem which is causing concern to the fire service."
  They go on to express doubt whether there is an adequate pressure of water to extinguish fires. In the rural areas, where there may be a number of munition factories in the near future, something should be done to speed up the provision of water supplies if this Bill is really to achieve its object.
  A point of urgent importance concerns the personnel of brigades. I have a vivid memory of the London Fire Brigade during the Great War. A very large percentage of the men in the London Brigade were naval men, and they were called up—and not only were they called up, but they desired to join either the Navy or the Army. The result was that when there was the greatest need for the efficiency of our fire protection services

  1459
  there was an actual shortage of personnel. I hope that whoever replies for the Government in this Debate will make it clear what the policy of the Government is in this respect. Is it to be made clear to the members of a fire brigade that they have a prior obligation to continue in that service to answering the call as Reservists? In London during the last War we had to improvise a volunteer force. I happened to be responsible for that organisation. In the early years of the War there was a volunteer training corps, and we had to provide a rota of men to take over a great deal of the work of the London Fire Brigade. Fortunately, they proved efficient, and fortunately the demand upon their services was not so very great, but if there should be another war the demand would be greatly increased.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the heavy cost of fires to the community, something like £10,000,000 a year on the average, and he might have added that in an average year no fewer than 1,300 persons lose their lives in fires. What I am afraid of is that on top of the delay in bringing the Bill to the House there will be delay through unseemly wrangling between local authorities and the taxpayers as to who is to foot the bill. One of the causes of the delay is the operation of air-raid precautions. We want to avoid that delay but we cannot blame local authorities for hesitating to embark upon new expenditure when they are already forced to face grumbling ratepayers because of the high rates from which those ratepayers are already suffering. On page 61, paragraph (34) of this report states:
  " The national Exchequer should make a direct contribution to the fire services in future, on the grounds (a) of the urgent need for development of the fire service, mainly among local authorities which would not be in a position to shoulder added responsibilities by themselves, (b) that the new organisation proposed is not purely local in character, and (c) that the fire service has become an essential factor in the scheme of national defence."
  If the Bill is to go through without much friction and is to operate for the purpose for which it is designed we must get the good will and co-operation of the local authorities. The best way to do that is to be generous in finance. We must let the local authorities feel that
  1460
  the Home Office is not their taskmaster but their friend. The best way of proving friendship is to be a partner and it would be wise of my right hon. Friend to make a more generous provision. His Department is to ask local authorities to take on not only new but urgent responsibilities. We do not want to have delay. All we are told is that the world position is serious. Unfortunately we have been asked to embark upon new expenditure of all kinds for air-raid precautions, but I would say: Do not let niggling finance be the cause of a breakdown. I agree that local authorities must pay their part. They have a responsibility for protecting the lives and property of their ratepayers, but the national Exchequer and the State would be wise to show willingness to share the burden and to make the one excuse for delay, that is to say, the excuse of cost, unreasonable, by becoming the real partner in the cost of this great organisation against the danger of fire.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. David Adams: We all enjoyed the Home Secretary's speech, delivered with his customary urbanity and with those mellifluous notes for which he is the most distinguished occupant of the Treasury Bench. Having said that, I have said about all that I desire to say in laudation of the Measure before the House. We all recognise that this is an essential war requirement and, if that be so, modern standards of efficiency in this vital direction are imperative. Nothing is more singular than that co-operation among local authorities in this matter is not a normal feature, except for securing the assistance of neighbouring brigades for extinguishing exceptional fires. If that means anything. it means that the relationships between local authorities in this matter will be very largely of a voluntary character. We may say that lack of that co-operation is the most essential characteristic in this Measure.
  We are glad to observe that research centres are to be set up, as well as training centres; they are a pre-requisite of success for the future, but, as other speakers have observed, they are belated. The Home Secretary expressed the view that local authorities will come together in case of emergency and that the local authorities, unless they appeal to him, are to be left to develop their own schemes. That is a very serious admission, upon

  1461
  which the whole Bill might well founder in regard to efficiency. May I quote the well-known findings of the Royal Commission upon Tyneside local government, with reference to fire brigades and fire-fighting questions? The commission dealt with the whole of the local authorities on Tyneside, on both banks of the river, comprising a population of close upon 2,000,000 people. On page 51, in paragraph 178 of their report, the commission stated:
  " Having reviewed the situation, we have formed the opinion that the present system of fire brigades and fire fighting is not only unsatisfactory, inefficient and uneconomical, but that it fails to meet the requirements of the present day. It is our view, that in a case of national emergency "—
  which the Government are anticipating—
  " it should be possible for all fire-fighting facilities to be available for use when the national need is greatest and that this can best be obtained by having one authority responsible for this service over a very wide area. We deprecate the use of police officers as auxiliary firemen as we consider the firefighting service to be of sufficient national importance to warrant a distinct and specially trained personnel. Also, occasions may well arise when both forces would have their own particular duties to attend to simultaneously, and the use of members of the police force at fires might easily create a very awkward and undesirable position. We therefore recommend that, as a national need and in the interests of efficiency and economy, the firefighting services should be co-ordinated over a large field and placed under the control of a single authority."
  The Bill does not do that, and to that extent it fails to meet the imperious needs of the present hour.
  As to keeping personnel separate, and unification, we read, in Sub-section (4) of Clause 1 of the Bill:
  " Every fire authority shall, so far as practicable, enter into arrangements with other fire authorities and persons who maintain fire brigades to secure the provision of assistance by those authorities and persons for the purpose of dealing with fires occurring in the borough or district of the first named authority which cannot adequately be dealt with by the local fire services."
  That relates to cases in which a fire cannot be extinguished by one authority alone, and is a weak-kneed provision for dealing with a most grave situation. The Bill goes in a contrary direction to keeping the police as a separate organisation, because Sub-section (6) of Clause states:
  " Where a fire authority, who are the council of a borough having a separate police force,
  1462
  delegate to the watch committee their functions under this Act, the watch committee may employ the chief officer of police, an assistant chief constable or the deputy chief constable on administrative duties in connection with a fire brigade maintained by that authority and may employ other constables as members of the brigade."
  Clearly that is action which will certainly not bring the very best results from the propositions embodied in the Bill. I hope that the Government will take serious notice of the protest which I am making and which is based upon the judgment of a unanimous and most important inquiry, probably the most important inquiry for many months, and which, after examining technical and other witnesses, came to important and unanimous conclusions on the very matter that we are now considering.
  There is the question of an adequate supply of water in case of fire, and I make a very strong protest that the capital cost of new works established to make provision for that need is to be borne by the local authorities requiring the supply. What an amazing position ! Local authorities will certainly be up in arms against any such proposal. It is unjust and it will be described, I am afraid—I know, rather—as an intolerable and unnecessary hardship. Proper charges may be required for any additional supply, and local authorities would be delighted, as of aforetime, to meet their liabilities in that respect, but why they should be mulct in charges for extensions to water companies I am completely at a loss to understand. I hope that the Home Secretary or some other Government spokesman will enlighten us in this respect.
  If the local authorities are to pay the total costs, will the extensions become the property of the local authorities or not? It would be as reasonable to ask a local authority to pay for a railway extension or for any other extension which might take place for the greater convenience of the local authorities or for shopkeepers engaging in new ventures for the greater advantage of new districts, as to ask local authorities to pay this charge to water companies. Clauses 2 and 3 are a deliberate invitation to trading dividend-earning concerns to inflict financial burdens upon ratepayers and to swell their dividends in that way. Comment has been made in the Debate that the right of local authorities to charge for

  1463
  services in connection with fires is to be abolished under the Bill, but the Home Secretary gave us no enlightenment upon that very important particular.
  We have been advised that some £10,000,000 is the amount of the loss due to fires in this country, and it is to be observed that local authorities must undertake exceedingly heavy burdens from time to time. Why are we, at this time of increasing financial pressure upon local authorities, taking away and destroying their age-long statutory right to make a charge for services which have been rendered? That is certainly putting back the clock; it is a return to a mediaeval point of view. If the local authority is to be debarred, for some occult reason which we have not yet had explained, from making charges, it ought to be an obligation on the Government under some Clause of the Bill, which does not appear to exist at the moment, to reimburse local authorities for the charges which they are occasioned in this direction. I have received a letter from the Consett Urban District Council with reference to this Bill. It says:
  " While the provisions of the Bill will generally he welcomed, my council deplore the fact that no provision is effected for Exchequer assistance and for securing a measure of uniformity in service conditions."
  That is a statement which will be echoed by every local authority in County Durham. The burdens on those authorities have increased during the past year to the extent of 1s. 8d. in the £. Some of these authorities have a rate burden of 24s. 6d. in the £. These burdens throughout the whole of County Durham, as I have mentioned in the House before, fall upon an extremely poor section of the community, about 96 per cent. of the ratepayers being of the poorer working-class type. It is clear therefore, that they cannot bear the additional burdens which are to be placed upon their shoulders in the present Measure. I hope that the Home Secretary will take our reasonable protest, not as any indication of a desire to make party capital, but merely as a request that the elementary rights of local authorities may be preserved in the direction I have indicated, if we are to have. as we ought to have, the good will and whole-hearted co-operation of all the local authorities in the United Kingdom on this most important matter at the present
  1464
  time. The Measure is very belated, but the hour has not yet struck when the Government cannot by generous treatment get the willing co-operation of the local authorities concerned, and so secure the aims which I believe the Government have in introducing the Measure to the House.
  6.19 p.m.
  Sir A. Wilson: I desire to join with previous speakers in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, both on the Bill and on what he said in introducing it. I join equally with those who followed him in expressing the hope that there will be some breathing space before the Bill goes to Committee, or, at least, before it comes back to the House, for the reason that nearly every Amendment that can be proposed to the Bill is likely to impose an additional liability on local authorities, and, therefore, under the Rules of the House, cannot be discussed on Report. Whatever has to be done, therefore, must be done upstairs in Committee. It will not be possible for the Government to say, "We will put this right on Report." It cannot he done, and it canont be put right in another place, so that whatever is done must be done in Committee, and there should be some time for conference and discussion before the Committee stage takes place.
  I wish that somewhat greater emphasis had been laid by previous speakers on the Report of the Royal Commission of 1923. It was a great document, and a great many of its recommendations have been put into operation by the Ministry of Health. But there are a great many which are of general,application, and which are just as important to-day as they were then—for example, the suggestions as to further educational work, measures for fire prevention, and a whole series of measures to make the country more conscious of fire dangers; and legislative action is required in some cases. Apart from that, I regret that the Bill is not more comprehensive, and is not drafted more on the lines of an enabling Bill, so as to enable the right hon. Gentleman to take far more drastic action if he thinks fit. I should have liked to see something on the lines of Sub-section 1, (l) of Section 677 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, giving power to pay the expenses of establishing a research station and of rewarding

  1465
  the preservation of life from fire in such cases as the Home Office may direct, and authorising the Home Secretary to recoup the cost by a levy, which I think might very well be on fire insurance policies by an ad valorem stamp. It would, I am sure, be of immense assistance to him to have at his disposal a fund like the fund which is at the disposal of the Board of Trade, and out of which the Board of Trade have built nip great rocket stations all round our coasts and have, under statutory power, awarded the Sea Gallantry Medal, which has made the name of the Board of Trade known throughout the length and breadth of the Seven Seas. This is not a new idea; it has been on our Statute Book for nearly 100 years.
  I feel that derating has had a profound effect, and will have a much more serious effect upon the Home Office precautions in the matter of fire than perhaps we have hitherto realised. Ninety per cent. of the cost of all fire losses is in respect of commercial premises, and three-quarters of all the serious fires arise in commercial premises which are derated and pay, as I understand, no contribution. The local authorities have to pay. I believe that in the long run this Bill will have to be followed by another Bill authorising local authorities to impose a Ere rate, as they now impose a water rate.
  Mr. Lewis: Do not the figures which my hon. Friend has given include shops, which are not derated?
  Sir A. Wilson: No; I was not including shops, but the great timber and oil establishments, factories and the like, which I believe are three-quarters derated, and, therefore, pay very little towards the expenses of putting out the fires for which they are mainly responsible. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Sir T. Cook) asked what is to be the position of private fire brigades, and I also want to ask that question. There are only 60 of them in the Association of Private Fire Brigades. They are of very great value, and ought to be encouraged. I think that all large and important establishments which have an appreciable fire risk attached to them ought to be required either to pay some part of the cost of dealing with their own fires, or to have an efficient private fire brigade of their own.
  1466
  I have in mind timber yards, which at present are in effect derated and which have a very great fire risk. They are scattered all over areas where they cause great danger to local property, and they are derated, so that for practical purposes they pay none of the additional cost. While I greatly welcome the Bill, I do not think it goes anything like far enough so far as the voluntary fire brigades are concerned, and I hope their position will be further considered. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to scientific research. We are only at the very beginning of our expenditure, and every penny spent upon research will, I am sure, be recoupted 10 times over in economies, if we know what we are buying and if we can ensure a far greater measure of standardisation than is now possible.
  The next point that I wish to make is with regard to Clause 14. I make it now, because when the Bill is in Committee I shall be told that anything I have to say in this regard would impose a charge on the rates. I do not like the words in Sub-section (1):
  " injury received in the execution of his duty without his own default."
  These words, which occur twice in the Sub-section, lend themselves to injustice under the cloak of law. I know that they occur in the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, but my submission is that the protection afforded to firemen by Parliament should not be less than that afforded by the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I should like to see substituted some such words as
  " arising out of and in the course of his employment,"
  instead of
  " in the execution of his duty without his own default."
  I have in mind several cases which have actually occurred. One was that of a man who was told by a foreman to do a job of work, and, as a consequence, received an injury. It was held in a court of law that the foreman in question was not his foreman, and that he should not have taken an order from him. In consequence, he was non-suited in the court, and deprived of his compensation, on the ground that he was in default, because the injury was not received in the execution of his duty. I believe we should do well to amend the Fire Brigade

  1467
  Pensions Act and this Bill to the extent of assimiliating their provisions regarding compensation to those of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I should like, incidentally, to see a beginning made, and I hope it will be possible under the Bill, in driving a carthorse through the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893. At the present moment people employed by public authorities have only three months in which to make their claims. I should like them to have as much time as is given under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I am reinforced in my suggestion that it should be put into this Bill for fire brigades as a token of our good will, because the Lord Chancellor's Committee on Law Revision have already suggested that this particular change is overdue and should be made.
  I would also ask the Minister to consider, and perhaps find some room for it in the Bill, the giving of protection and assistance to men employed in private fire brigades. Under the doctrine of common employment, which is part of our law as it now stands, if anyone receives an injury in the course of his duty as a member of a private fire brigade in extinguishing a fire or saving life on the premises, he is estopped from getting any more than workman's compensation, even if he gets that. It might be held, and I believe it has been held, that if a man cares to join a voluntary fire brigade, which is not a necessary part of his duty, he is not entitled to any compensation at all, because volente non fit injuria,and it is not a necessary part of his duty. Having asked two or three competent authorities, I think that the position of the rescuer and the member of a voluntary fire brigade under the law of England as it stands requires clearing up, and I am reinforced in that by an article in the "Cambridge Law Reporter" by Professor Goodhart on the voluntary rescuer and the voluntary assumption of risk, in which he makes it quite clear that the obiter dictum of the late Lord Justice Scrutton in the case of Cutler versus United Dairies, to some extent modified by the later case of Haynes versus Harwood, has imported into English law a doubt as to whether a rescuer is not, by the mere fact that he endeavours to save life of his own free will, putting himself in a much more unfavourable position than was hitherto held to be the case under
  1468
  the English law, on the strength of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn's dictum in the case of Scaramanga versus Stamp in 1880. I do not suggest that it could be put into this Bill, but I would ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider the possibility of referring it to the competent committee, in order that that particular aspect of law, which has a very close bearing on fire brigade work and on rescue, may receive fuller consideration than it could receive at the hands of a committee of this House.
  I would suggest to the Home Secretary that he should inaugurate this new scheme by establishing a Fire Brigade Medal, independent of the King's Police Medal, both for long and meritorious service and for gallantry. The King's Police Medal, limited as it is to 120 per annum for the whole of the British Empire, is quite inadequate to meet the reasonable needs, for gallantry alone, of the fire brigades of this country. The Board of Trade has had its own gallantry medal since 1864, by Act of Parliament. There are already four or five local authorities in this country which have instituted such a medal, but how much greater prestige it would have if it came from the King himself, and was a nationally-instituted medal, with a ribbon which the world would recognise. The London County Council has had a medal for many years past, the Liverpool Shipwreck Society has had one for years, and the Corporation of Glasgow, greatly to its credit, is the only corporation in this country which has its own medal for its own citizens, presented by the corporation from the common fund. There is the Carnegie Trust medal, the Life-Saving Medal of the Order of St. John, and the medal of the Society for Saving Life from Fire. All these unofficial organisations might be asked to discontinue their presentation of medals, restrict themselves to pecuniary awards, and leave it to the Monarch, on the advice of the Home Secretary, to give these marks of favour. There are at present five official medals for gallantry in the gift of His Majesty—the Board of Trade Sea Gallantry Medal, the Order of the British Empire Medal, the Albert Medal, the Edward Medal, and, lastly, the King's Police and Fire Brigade Medal. Last year there were only five awards of this medal among all the firemen in Great Britain. But

  1469
  there were far more firemen than that who deserved something.
  The authority which is to be set up under this Bill ought to have some fund at its disposal in order that it may bestow awards for gallantry. The London County Council has such a fund—awarded out of the Foot Bequest—and very valuable it is. The Society for the Protection of Life from Fire awards at present about,£120 a year in cash for England and Wales, and also awards bronze and silver medals and silver watches and certificates. I think it is essential, now that the right hon. Gentleman has created a fire authority under the aegis of the Home Office, that that fund should be transferred to the central authority, and that they should be given the prestige which come from the authority both to give money and to award medals. We have, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) said in another connection last week, sometimes neglected
  " the things of the spirit, the things of character…which weigh far more than all the other matters concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1938; col. 1080, Vol. 335.]
  No one suggests that medals are the cause of gallantry, or that men will do a gallant deed and rescue life at the risk of their own in order to get a reward; but, as Plutarch said in his "Life of Coriolanus ":
  " Deep and solid minds are improved and brightened by marks of distinction which serve, as a brisk gale, to drive them forward in the pursuit of glory. They do not so much think that they have received a reward as that they have given a pledge, which would make them blush to fall short of the expectations of the public, and therefore they endeavour by their actions to exceed them."
  I believe there is a cast-iron case that could be made for the Fire Brigade Medal, which would indicate to the public at large and to the individual members of all fire brigades that the Government value their services no less than they do the services of the police. Those who "maintain the state of the world, for all their desire is in the work of their hands "merit, when from the marriage of opportunity with nobility of soul there springs a gallant deed, no less recognition at the hands of the State and of their fellows than those marks of favour which His Majesty is pleased to bestow on people who have served the State in other walks of life. I hope that one result of
  1470
  this Bill will be that the fire services will have as great a prestige as the police, and will be regarded as something in which it is a distinction and an honour to serve, equally with the Forces of the Crown.
  6.38 p.m.
  Dr. Guest: My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) welcomed the Bill but made certain criticisms. I also must welcome it, and if I have certain criticisms to make, they are only made in the hope that they will be of some service in improving the Bill. From the standpoint of air-raid precautions, which is the standpoint from which I approach the matter, I am glad to see it, because, by extending fire prevention all over the country and to small and rural areas, it makes our position much safer. It has been a matter of very grave difficulty to all concerned with air-raid precautions to consider how it will be possible, in existing circumstances, to deal with incendiary bombs, particularly in some of the rural areas; and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said, it is perhaps due to the stimulus of the possible disaster of war that we have the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman dissented when it was suggested from this side that it is only by such a stimulus that reform comes. May I just remind him in an historical excursion, of a kind parallel with that he gave: that, in point of fact, public health administration on a large scale only started after a terrible cholera epidemic, which cost a great number of lives; that it took the horrors of the Crimean War and the heroism of Miss Nightingale to bring about an adequate nursing service for the Army; that it took the horrors of the industrial system of the early nineteenth century to bring about an educational system; and that the Factory Acts, in the same way, evolved from the contemplation of what was realised to be an impossible and inhuman situation in the factories. I think we may reasonably say that it does take a very considerable stimulus to wake up the people of this country to doing something on a very large scale. I am glad we have been wakened up now to bring about the reorganisation—the effective reorganisation, I hope—of the fire prevention services for the whole country. I must associate myself with my hon. Friend

  1471
  the Member for Stirling and Falkirk in his criticism of Clause 4. It seems to me that, rather than greatly restricting the power of the local authorities to charge for services, it would be better to regularise the matter and to have a levy on the insurance companies. Such a levy would be one way of dealing with this matter. There does not seem to be any reason why insurance companies should be relieved of an obligation they have had up to the present time, when the general obligations of the Government and the national exchequer are so steeply increasing.
  An aspect of the Bill which I welcome very cordially is that it provides in a definite way for co-ordination and cooperation between the local authorities in regard to fire prevention. Anyone who has considered the matter of air-raid precautions in detail is bound to realise that this question is one of the most urgently necessary features of air-raid precaution work. An attack, if it occurs, will not be made all over the country, but obviously at that point it may produce effects of such an intense character as to need, for the prevention of fire, the co-operation of fire-fighting apparatus from a considerable area around. Under this Bill, that co-ordination and co-operation will be part of the ordinary business of fire-fighting authorities; and it will be an extremely valuable service. With regard to private fire brigades, I think it highly desirable that they should be linked up with the ordinary fire brigades, as some kind of voluntary annexe.
  The question of compensation in the event of injury or death of members of those organisations ought to be boldly tackled. I do not see why they should not be given a status equivalent to that of Territorials, as it were—looking upon the ordinary fire services as a Regular Army. They should be given all the protection necessary, because it would not be reasonable to except people to volunteer for the dangerous and arduous work of fire-fighting in time of war if their future and the future of their dependants were left unprovided for. I particularly welcome the statement of the Home Secretary on the question of research, because I had looked through the Bill and found no mention of research. It seems that with the extension of the areas of fire-fighting services, the extension of
  1472
  services to volunteer brigades, and the co-ordination and co-operation of firefighting services under the Bill, the crowning of this with research should make this a very effective constitution—if I may use the word in this connection —for the fire-fighting services of the country.
  We have not finished with the question of incendiary attacks in the case of war when we have talked about the present kind of thermite incendiary bombs. There may be others. It has, in fact, been shown by actual experience in Spain that the small type of incendiary bomb weighing about 2 lbs. is not effective from the standpoint of the attacker. It does not cause as many fires as he would wish to cause. Therefore, the attacker has been driven to give that up and to try to cause fires by using bombs of very much greater weight. Whereas there is much value from the attacker's point of view in being able to carry a thousand 2 lb. bombs, with the possibility of causing a very large number of fires by scattering them broadcast, obviously, from the point of view of the attacker, his ability to cause a number of fires is very seriously diminished if he has to carry a number of bombs of much greater individual weight. That has meant, in effect, that the incendiary bomb now has come to be the less feared because either the small bomb will be used and be ineffective or the bigger bombs will be used and there will not be the opportunity of causing so many fires. That means inevitably, in the course of this horrible science of chemical warfare, that people will at once set out to discover other methods of causing fires by using other materials. Our research department under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research will, I hope, counter any such research in the methods of destruction by discovering, also, methods of prevention.
  In view of the fact that in many parts of the country there is a very great dearth of water supplies, and of the urgent necessity of finding some method of putting out fires in the absence of water, I hope that there will be intensive research into the possibility of using methods of extinction of fires which do not depend upon the use of water alone. I have had recently brought to my notice by various people who wish to have

  1473
  them used for air-raid precaution purposes, a number of proposals of various kinds for the extinction of fires by the use of powders, gases and other means. It may be that some of these are useful —it is certain that some are not useful —but it is along these lines that some progress might be made. I hope that research along these lines will be promoted so that, if any means of putting out fires without the use of water can be found, they may be put into use. It is certain that the putting out of fires without the use of water is not so easy as putting out fires with the use of water, but there are conditions under which water is not available. Let it not be forgotten in connection with this Fire Brigades Bill that, if it is necessary to have a fire brigade service everywhere, it is also very urgently necessary to have water supplies everywhere so that fire brigades can make use of them. It might be, in the curious and rather lopsided way in which things sometimes happen in our country, that because we want water to put out possible fires caused by a possible war, we might supply water which the inhabitants of country districts have been wanting for ordinary domestic and human purposes for many years.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Maitland: I will take up the last observation made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), and say that it has been assumed by some hon. Members that there is, in fact, a real shortage of water in the country. I happened to serve two years ago upon the Joint Select Committee, and up to that time until I heard the evidence submitted to that committee, I held the same opinion which has been expressed in several quarters of this House, and which was expressed by the hon. Gentleman in his closing sentence this afternoon.
  Dr. Guest: I was referring to shortage in the distribution of water and not to the shortage of water itself.
  Mr. Maitland: The reference to which that committee was entrusted was the rather comprehensive one of water resources and the distribution of water. It arose out of the great drought which had been experienced the previous year. The evidence submitted compelled that committee to come to the unanimous conclusion that the water resources of this country were much better than had been
  1474
  anticipated, and that the fear of a shortage which had been referred to in many newspapers and in Parliament had been greatly exaggerated. It is true that in certain districts there was a shortage, but the point that I want to emphasise, so as to get the picture right, is that the water resources of this country are quite adequate for all reasonable and expanding requirements of the people, whether for drinking purposes or for the purposes of fighting fires. I make that observation because another hon. Gentleman who spoke also referred to the fact and asked, in terms rather of apprehension, whether or not it was the right thing that local authorities should be charged with the cost of providing water for their own fire services?
  In the consideration of this Bill we are perhaps rather apt to assume that its provisions include entirely new charges upon local authorities. That is not the case. For the last 40 years, as the Home Secretary has said, notwithstanding the enormous loss of life and property from fires, this House has not attempted to deal by legislation with any matters arising from fires. This is the first attempt for 40 years to define the duties of local authorities in regard to fires. I am sure that many hon. Members were as surprised as I was when they first found out that there was no statutory obligation upon local authorities to provide for fire protection. Most of us would have assumed that there was a statutory obligation upon local authorities. This Bill in one respect affirms what is, in fact, an efficient duty carried out already by many local authorities, and the operations of the Bill will not cost them a penny more than they are paying to-day. I entirely sympathise with hon. Members who are averse to the imposing of heavier burdens upon local authorities without having had consultation with them beforehand. I was glad to hear the Home Secretary say that in England, at any rate, conversations had taken place with representatives of local authorities, and that as far as they were concerned they were satisfied that this is a proper Bill to bring before Parliament.
  Unlike an hon. Gentleman who spoke from the benches above the Gangway, I was very glad that the Home Secretary took the view of the local authorities and decided that they should have the first opportunity of making such arrangements

  1475
  as they possibly could with regard to coordination. It is very essential and indeed vital, if we are to have anything like sound organisation in order to fight the terrors which will come from aerial warfare, that we must have as the basis of that organisation a sound organisation in peace times on the best possible basis. I believe that local authorities themselves are quite competent, and, with great respect to the Department over which my right hon. Friend presides, I think that many local authorities will do the job more efficiently if they are given the opportunity of arranging for co-ordination. The Home Secretary has the power under the Bill, where such arrangements have not been made, to set up a new organisation, but I am very glad that, in the first instance at any rate, the authorities to whom we owe so much for so many services in other directions are to have the opportunity of making arrangements for co-ordination.
  We all welcome the fact that there is to be an extension of the research into the question of fire-fighting methods, and that officers are to have additional and better facilities for training. I have had some association with the National Fire Brigades Association and I believe they appreciate the fact that the Home Secretary has considered the representations made to him. I am sure that he has every reason to be glad of the response and reception which the Bill has received. I hope that there will be no delay, as was suggested by one or two hon. Members, but that the Bill will be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ritson: The Home Secretary gave a very interesting historical account of the apathy that there had been in the past, and I was very pleased to note that this Bill means a new beginning. When I was younger I was very often seated on a fire engine, soaked to the skin, and after coming back from a fire had police work to do. I am glad that this Bill has been brought forward. I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) that the words of the Home Secretary at the beginning that we have been driven to this decision by force of circumstances are quite true. In Sunderland, with a population of 150,000 or 160,000, we used to be dependent upon pressure from the hydrants. On one occa-
  1476
  sion there might have been very serious losses had there not been a floating pump in the river that threw about 2,000 gallons of water per minute. I welcome the Bill, but I hope that it will be improved in Committee. On the financial side the administration of the provisions of the Bill will cost local authorities more than is the case at the present time. Ever since the experience to which I have referred we have had the best of everything, and we have a fire brigade that is second to none. The added financial burden will be one of our chief complaints, and it is a matter which ought to be considered by the Home Office.
  Mr. Maitland: If the hon. Gentleman contends that his authority is one of the most efficient in the country with regard to its fire brigade service, can he tell me precisely how this Bill will add to the cost of this efficient service?
  Mr. Ritson: The hon. Member forgets the increased cost of everything. If we are to have a fire service I want the very best, or the money will be wasted. I am very pleased that local authorities are to be allowed to come to some agreement. If there are any people who know their own affairs it ought to be those on the spot. Take a town like my own, which has been called upon to go as far as Durham, or even further, perhaps to protect a cathedral or a place of that kind. We had to say that calls upon us, as an efficient service, could not be expected to carry us so far away geographically from our heavy responsibilities at home. I should be the last to wish to see a beautiful cathedral destroyed. I think we ought to get in touch with the authorities and say, "We are prepared to link up with you on condition that you undertake your proportion of the responsibility and the expense." I am surprised that representatives of rural areas have not taken a keener interest even in the peace time aspect of the question. In scores of places in rural areas you can have the finest materials but, if you have not got water, they are absolutely useless. There was once a fire near a hospital in my area and, to my horror, we found that the fire brigade could not be called upon except by the police. The fire was outside the borough area, and there was no one who could take the responsibility of calling upon the fire brigade unless the policeman was informed, and he had to be found first.

  1477
  Interlocking is going to be a blessing to us in every way. Experienced and practical men are needed in this matter, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put on his advisory committee not some academic mind but someone who has had to turn out night after night in all sorts and conditions of water supplies, having to find the necessary material for his work. There are many canals and rivers on which floating pumps could be kept and in many country areas, if you had good practical firemen on your committee, they could advise where water could be stored, and they would be of great service from their experience and knowledge. I am pleased that we are to have research in the fullest sense of the term. There are many new methods of putting out fires without water. Always give me water to start with but, where you have not got water, chemicals are coming on to the market day by day of a very effective order. There is now wonderful machinery for fire fighting. It used sometimes to be impossible to get an engine anywhere near the fire, but now there is a little trailer which is hardly any size at all, and it is cheap and will go anywhere. I hope the authorities will be given samples of these things. If they are not wanted in wartime, they will be useful in peace.
  It is always wasteful to allow machinery to lie about idle. I once went to a doctor and he told me I had better get out and work. I was rather offended, because I was in the police force. I had just come from work in the mines and was not going back. He was a little man, but he was too big for me mentally. He said, "If I had two engines and took care of one arid oiled it and worked it as it ought to be worked and let the other remain idle, intending to work it in five years, it would be dead before the end of the five years." That is true of machinery everywhere. I have seen a fire engine that was more useful in pumping out of something than pumping on to it. I remember a dam burst and we put the fire engine to work pumping out the flooded cellars, so it was useful not only in giving water but in taking it away. If you only give it that kind of practice you are keeping it in order and keeping your men trained to their job. Some of these little things will be useful to local authorities for dealing with things like flooded sewers.
  1478
  I hope we shall try to stir up rural authorities on this question. Sunderland has agreed to link up with the county of Durham in the matter of air-raid precautions. If I were an enemy of this country I should not always drop my bombs on large towns, but destroy cattle and sheep and cereals and foodstuffs stored in farming areas—a very effective way of putting alarm into the minds of people. I am very anxious that there should be a water supply in rural areas, but there is any amount of facility for using the water from rivers and canals and pools. In the past we have kept hundreds of thousands of police protecting property which fire will destroy in a few minutes; but we have never thought it worth while to keep an up-to-date fire brigade. It is absolutely necessary to have a police force to protect property and life, but, having been in both services, I think it is equally important to have an efficient fire brigade to protect property and life.
  An experienced fireman, who has served his time from the beginning, who has pluck, energy, and foresight, is as enthusiastic in his work as any policeman. If you want to have a good fire brigade you must pick the best men; you must not depend on someone coming in with a voluntary fire brigade. I am not decrying the spirit of the voluntary fire brigade, but I have never known a case where the blending of a public authority and a voluntary association has been satisfactory. There is always professional jealousy, and when a fireman has been in the service for 20 years he is an expert at his work. I hope we shall make provision so that when time hangs heavily on their hands firemen will be given opportunities to prepare and to improve machinery. They will become keen on their job and will not allow someone to come in who hardly knows a fire engine from a dredger. Such men are proud of their profession, and to get them we should train them from the first and give them the same status as the police. Firemen should get the same pension and the same conditions of service.
  We want, and it is necessary that we should have, even in times of peace, the best men, and it is even more necessary with the fear of war hanging over us to obtain the very best men for the fire brigade, and to do that we shall have to

  1479
  pay the price. An expert fireman is as valuable to the community as the best policeman. I hope the Secretary of State will bring in the best practical men to give lectures in these centres. I am not an educated man myself and I have always had my doubts about these academic people. I was working in a colliery hewing coal on one occasion when one of these highly spirited but rather conceited people came to the colliery and complained bitterly that I was making small coal, which was not allowed. Anyone who understands mining conditions knows that before you can get large coal you have to lie on your side in a place 18 inches to 20 inches high and cut away under the coal so that it can be blasted down. This gentleman who had been to the University but had missed something did not know that you cannot get large coal without curving, and the practical manager who was present, but who was a very subordinate person in the presence of the individual who was in charge of five other collieries, forgot that he was speaking to his superior and said, "Ninny, you cannot get coal without curving." The man said, "It does not matter what it is; he must not make small coal." It is well known in mining circles that you cannot get big coal unless you make small coal.
  I am sincere in this matter. I am anxious that the Home Secretary should make this service, with which I have been connected all my life, effective. The joy of a thing is when it is done well, and that is particularly the case where life and limb are concerned. I would say to the Home Secretary that he should bring to these centres anyone with brains and ideas, any practical man who may not be grammatical but who knows the difference between one end of a hose and the other. I wish we could have been granted the means to cover the expenditure of local authorities. I think this is justified considering the very heavy burden local authorities have to bear, but if we cannot have that I hope the Home Secretary will apply this Measure with zest. We have in the police force to thank God that we have had a Home Office able to apply some compulsion to local authorities who otherwise would never attempt to move. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep hold of
  1480
  the reins, and say to these local authorities that they must link up with their fellows in the interests of life and property. I wish him well in his Bill, and I hope in Committee that we shall have an opportunity of putting some things right, and be able to convert him to the belief that if he wants a good job well done he must pay for it himself.
  7.25 p.m.
  Captain Heilgers: We have listened to an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Ritson), an expert on this matter, and I thank him for his championship of the rural areas. I cannot claim to be an expert myself, but I was honoured in succeeding the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir T. Cook), who made such an interesting speech, in the presidency of a number of fire brigades in Suffolk and Essex. I should like to say to the Home Secretary how much we appreciate his bringing forward this Bill. I think it is a very good Bill, and that the Home Secretary has been wise in abandoning the proposal of joint area boards, that is, judging from my experience of catchment boards and precepts. It would have led to a considerable amount of trouble. I am also glad that he has accepted a recommendation in the Riverdale report not to make the county council the area, a proposal which was urged by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). It would have been a great mistake to have had the county council area, as a county area is seldom conterminous with a fire brigade area. The Home Secretary spoke of the local authorities who are doing nothing. I read in the "Evening Standard" about the Lancing Sussex Fire Brigade. It said:
  " The twelve members of the Lancing Sussex Fire Brigade are worried about their engine and uniforms. Both are about 12 years old. The engine suffers from heart trouble and can no longer manage the Sussex hills, while the uniforms do not fit properly. The brigade applied for a new outfit and have been told that they could have new uniforms but not a new engine."
  That is the sort of thing we do not want to happen. In general I think the Home Secretary is wiser in giving up the parish fire brigade, but I hope that in certain circumstances he will not exercise his powers in this direction. I understand that he retains in Clause power to postpone by order, the transfer of any parish fire brigade to a rural district to such a date

  1481
  as may be specified in the order. I urge that for this reason. I have in my constituency the second largest parish in England, with 6,000 acres and a population of 3,500. They have an extremely efficient fire brigade service, and I should be extremely sorry if that fire brigade were transferred willy-nilly to the district council. I hope that in such cases the Home Secretary will exercise his veto. There must be other cases as well because in the report of the Riverdale Committee they say that in the 14 South Eastern counties there are no fewer than 77 motor fire brigades in the hands of parish councils.
  Then as to the rural district councils. It seems to me that they are rather stingily treated in the Bill. The bigger authorities have already had their expenses in providing efficient fire services. Therefore it may be argued that it is only right that rural authorities who have not done anything should now incur the expense, and we are told that it is not likely to exceed the produce of a penny rate. That is quite a large item to some rural district councils, and I would emphasise that it is being provided, not really to meet the needs of those councils, but to meet the needs of air-raid precautions. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but perhaps he will explain the matter later. The local authorities are supposed in many instances to meet their requirements by means of arrangements for the provision of the necessary local fire brigade services by existing fire brigades. What happens if no arrangement can be made? Upon whom does the provision fall?
  Then I would like to turn to the question of air-raid precautions. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who, I believe, is to reply, tell us a little more about the distribution of the auxiliary appliances? I was rather alarmed to hear, according to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), that Glasgow and Edinburgh were going to get such a large proportion. Can he tell us also anything about the number of auxiliary firemen? I want particularly to draw attention to the needs of the rural areas as regards these appliances. The Home Secretary made a point of the fact that the auxiliary fire appliances would be of great help where long distances had to be covered, and I would like to stress that.
  1482
  In East Anglia, where the hon. Member for North Norfolk and I come from, there are the greatest distances, except possibly in Scotland and Wales, that have to be covered, and we are much more vulnerable to air raids than any of the other districts where the population is scattered.
  There are two aspects of the matter to which I think the Home Secretary ought to direct his attention. One is ought to direct his attention. One is the question of corn. During and before the harvest it will be possible for incendiary bombs to be dropped in East Anglia and to set practically one-half to three-quarters of the corn harvest of the country on fire. That may not be likely, but it is a danger that has to be faced. Then, even if raiders were not successful at first in dropping incendiary bombs on the corn crops, we have now in East Anglia a very big forest, which is very nearly as big as the New Forest and which is mostly composed of exceedingly inflammable wood. There is very little water there, and I wonder whether the Home Secretary has any idea of sending the modern mobile appliances to the area of the Norfolk Forest; otherwise, I can see it catching on fire and the flames spreading far and wide and setting the corn crops afire over a very big district. Fortunately perhaps the Fen district is one part of the world where there is a really adequate water supply, but we in Norfolk and Suffolk have no water supply, and I hope the Government will look into that matter.
  The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk made a complaint that no Scottish witness had been called before the Riverdale Committee, and I should like to point out that, although the Home Secretary is a native of East Anglia, no East Anglian witness either was called before that Committee. I would like, in conclusion, to say that we thoroughly appreciate the fact that the Home Secretary has tackled this age-old problem, and I only hope that keenness will be displayed in this matter and that the time will come when the people will be as proud of their firemen as they are of their policeman at present.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. McLean Watson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) has left the Chamber, because I wished to draw his attention to some

  1483
  of the things that have happened to-day. I think he was too optimistic with regard to the expense that will fall on local authorities. He claimed that, in so far as more efficient services are concerned, they will not mean an increase of a penny on the rates of the local authorities, but he cannot have noticed some of the points made by the Home Secretary himself, because the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that under the air-raid precautions scheme he is proposing to spend £1,500,000 in providing additional appliances. If it be for nothing more than for the housing of those additional appliances, the burden of that cost will fall on the local authorities, and the maintenance of those appliances will have to be borne by them. How, therefore, the hon. Member for Faversham can maintain that no increased cost will fall on the local authorities is more than I can understand.
  If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is going to reply, I hope he will tell us something with regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), who, in leading off from this side, mentioned that Edinburgh and Glasgow have been promised some of the additional appliances. I suppose they will be part of the £1,500,000 worth of new appliances to be provided by the Government. If that is not the case, I hope the Under-Secretary of State will deny it and assure these local authorities that they will not require to provide any additional accommodation and that no additional cost will fall upon them in respect of these new appliances. I do not know how the Home Secretary expects to get the efficiency for which he hopes, not only the ordinary efficiency for meeting the ordinary requirements of the community, but a service sufficient to tackle anything that may develop out of war conditions, unless the local authorities are to be called upon to bear a great deal of additional expense; and that applies to the local authorities which up to now have provided themselves with what they have considered to be an efficient fire service.
  I want to emphasise what has been mentioned by one or two representatives from South of the Border. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk drew specific attention to the fact that, while it may be true that there
  1484
  is no shortage of water in Scotland, it can be maintained that the water is not distributed by the local authorities at the moment. Although we might have these fire appliances in abundance, there are areas where they would be of absolutely no use. I would like to remind the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that we have recently discussed two Measures in Committee upstairs which have had a direct bearing on the question of water supply. Not long ago we discussed a Housing (Agricultural Population) Bill for Scotland and a Rural Housing Bill for Scotland as well, and during the discussions on both those Measures the attention of the representatives of the Scottish Office was drawn to the fact that in many areas it was useless to provide bathrooms and lavatory accommodation, because there was no water supply for the houses, yet we solemnly placed into those Acts of Parliament provisions in regard to bathroom and lavatory accommodation and we knew very well that in many of those areas there was no water supply available for those houses. This question of water supply is very important, and if the Bill which we are now discussing will compel local authorities which have not up to the present provided adequate water supplies to make such provision, then it may be a blessing in disguise, because unless some of our local authorities are compelled to do some of these things they are not done.
  Personally, I welcome this Measure. I welcome the provision that is made for co-operation between the burghal and county authorities. I think there should he a great deal more of such co-operation than we have had up to the present. Right up to now burghal authorities, on this question of water supply at any rate, have gone ahead to provide a water supply. Outside of these burghal areas, in many cases no provision is made for supplying the rural population at all, and unless a population of considerable proportions is found in any particular area, no attempt is made by the county councils to provide a proper water supply. I should be very much surprised to know that many fire brigades exist in any county, with perhaps the single exception of Lanarkshire, outside the burghal areas. The Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I wrong, but I think I am right in saying that there is hardly a county outside of Lanarkshire that has a proper

  1485
  fire brigade service in Scotland. Outside of Lanarkshire, the rural areas in Scotland have to depend on fire brigades that have been set up by burghal authorities, and in many of these counties the fire brigade service is not adequate—it may be quite adequate for the service of the particular burgh that has set it up—but under this Measure it will be possible to set up fire brigades on a more extensive scale, so long as we can find co-operation between the burghal authority and the county council.
  There ought to be no particular difficulty in getting this Measure to work, and there is just the possibility that the Home Secretary may not require to set up all the machinery that he is proposing in this Bill if we can find the necessary spirit of co-operation between the county and the burgh authorities. I hope it will not be necessary to set up a great system of boards throughout the country. It may be necessary that the Home Secretary should have this Advisory Committee to advise him, but I hope it will not be necessary to set up a great system of boards up and down the country and, in addition, a great system of inspectorates to see that these schemes are properly carried out. I hope there will be sufficient good feeling and co-operation between the county and the burgh authorities to get what they require under this Measure, which is a really efficient system of tackling fires, not only in populous areas, but in the country districts as well.
  There are one or two points that will require to be discussed more closely in Committee, but I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will give us some reply with regard to Clause 4. We, would like to know where the Government stand with regard to that Clause in particular. The idea that fire insurance companies should be relieved from any payment in the future, after this Measure is passed, is not very pleasing to those of us who sit on this side of the House. I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to give us an assurance that this is not a Government scheme to put money into the pockets of the fire insurance companies. In addition to this point there are questions with regard to the type of fire brigade to be established—whether it is to be a part-time system or whether the
  1486
  men are to be those who know the business and have been trained and equipped for the work of fire fighting. Those are points, however, which we can discuss in Committee, but I hope that on the principle laid down in Clause 4 we shall have a definite assurance that the insurance companies are not to be relieved of their responsibility.
  I am prepared to say here and now that local authorities will have to pay a great deal more than they are paying at present if this Measure comes into operation. The ratepayers in the burghs who have their own fire brigade arrangements now will be called on to pay more and the county ratepayers who, up to now, have paid little or nothing for fire brigade services in the rural areas, will also be brought in under this Measure. That is only right, and it is to be remembered that while they will be called upon to make their contribution, they will have the advantage of the fire brigade service when they require it. I hope the Measure will not occupy too long in its progress towards the Statute Book. It is true that the local authorities have not had an opportunity of discussing its proposals. They were consulted on the general principle, but that is a very different thing from the detailed proposals now before us, and while I hope the Bill will have a speedy passage, I also hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing these matters with the local authorities who have the right to examine the Bill and express their views upon its details even before it goes to Committee.
  7.48 p.m.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I rise particularly to ask one question relating to the provision of water for fire-fighting services dealt with in Clause 2 (4). I am advised by persons who have legal training and who are exercised about the effect of this Bill, particularly in certain districts of Worcestershire, that it is not certain how urban district councils who have water schemes at present will be affected by these provisions. It is clear that where there is to be a new water scheme, Clause 3 permits the fire authorities to require that the scheme shall be of such a character that it will be suitable for use in fire fighting in the neighbourhood. Under Clause 2 (4) the authority can enter into an agreement with a water company to secure the provision of adequate supplies in case of fire. The

  1487
  difficulty put to me concerns cases where arrangements exist with a water supplying company, and where the water supply is insufficient for the growing needs of the neighbourhood, apart from the new requirements which will be made under this Bill. In such cases, is the urban district council authorised to demand the scrapping of the existing water supply scheme and the establishment of a new and enlarged scheme of supply? I am not a lawyer, and it may be that the point is covered in the Bill, but I am told it is not clear and that urban district councils are not certain of what their position would be if they found their water supply insufficient, or whether the Bill would enable them to call for a larger water supply which would mean, I am told, in many cases, the scrapping of existing systems. In those cases, who is to pay for the new works? I hope my hon. Friend when he replies will set at rest, on this point, the minds of some people in Worcestershire, and I daresay in other parts of the country, who are concerned about the matter.
  I welcome the Bill, as I think everybody must. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having introduced it, and, incidentally, I congratulate him on the tribute which he paid to a worthy of past days, namely, Captain Shaw, of whom we hear but little nowadays. I would congratulate my right hon. Friend still further on having shown himself to be a keen student of the works of Gilbert and Sullivan. I was delighted by his reference to that charming opera "Iolanthe," but I am bound to say, if the House will forgive the digression, that my own view has always been that Gilbert inserted those lines merely because he could not think of anything else that would suit. I was pleased to gather from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that, in his view, the sole object of those lines was that of paying a tribute to a very worthy citizen. On the whole, I welcome the Bill and I hope the point which I have mentioned will be examined.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Brown: The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) expressed the hope that the Home Secretary would not deal ruthlessly with the rural authorities. He need not have made any special appeal of that kind. I am certain the Home
  1488
  Secretary and the other Members of the National Government will deal very kindly with the local authorities for reasons which are very obvious and need not be enumerated. The right hon. Gentleman opened with a series of interesting historical allusions and went on to describe how all the necessary preliminary steps had been taken in connection with this Bill. He told us about the Royal Commission of 13 years ago and the Departmental Committee of two years ago. All the recognised actions, forms and ceremonies had been gone through, he said, and now was the time for the introduction of the Measure itself. But in spite of the disarming attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, we all know that the real reason for the introduction of a Bill at this time, is the close association between the proposals in this Measure and air-raid precautions.
  I rise for one purpose only. I, too, wish to make my protest against the increased burdens which will be placed on local authorities by this Measure. It is not a case only of what is directly involved. It is also a case of the indirect consequences of what is being done under the air-raid precautions scheme, and by this Measure. The Memorandum refers to the possibility of a penny rate covering the costs which certain local authorities will be bound to incur under the Bill, but estimates of that kind have a way of being exceeded. There is, as everybody agrees, a close association between this Measure and air-raid precautions and what is being done in connection with air-raid precautions is having a direct effect in increasing the burdens on local authorities. Everyone knows that county councils are being asked to prepare air-raid precautions schemes and as regards co-operation with other local authorities, they are proceeding in some cases on what I consider to be rather autocratic lines. Some local authorities will not have much control over the money that is to be spent on air-raid precautions or in other ways. For instance, an air-raids precautions officer will say to a local authority, "Such-and-such an official must carry out certain duties, and such another official must perform certain other duties." It is assumed that those services are to be free. That is the understanding, but what will happen in practice? Those officials will have to perform many of those duties during their ordinary office

  1489
  hours. They will ask for fresh assistance, and thus, indirectly, an additional burden will be placed on the local authority for which the Government will make no special payment at all.
  Consequently, one views with alarm the possibility of increased expenses falling on local authorities under this Measure, and I ask the Home Secretary to give more consideration to the burdens which are being placed on local authorities by various Government Measures. We cannot banish from our minds the fact that protests are constantly being made by hon. Members who support the Government, against the increase in local rates. It is a theme on which they harp constantly. Directly and indirectly the Government are making increasing demands on local authorities which involve increasing the rates. The Government must be responsible for those increases in local rates, and not the local councillors in various parts of the country.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis: I was not clear from the speech of the Home Secretary how far the need of taking precautions against risk of fire resulting from air raids in time of war, was responsible for the introduction of this Bill. But even if there is no connection, even if it is a mere coincidence that this Bill should come before us at this time, it seems to me that its introduction now is singularly opportune. Obviously, it is on our peacetime system of fire fighting that we must build as a foundation, in creating an improved and extended system for dealing with the extra risks involved in war. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir T. Cook) was very gloomy about what he described as the impossibility of making the people of this country fire-conscious. Whatever difficulties might have been experienced in the past in that respect, I think they are very much diminished to-day. The publicity given to the risk of fire in air raids has, I think, made the people of this country very fire-conscious indeed. From that point of view, also, the present seems a very good time for the introduction of a Bill of this kind.
  There does not appear to be anything very controversial in the Measure, except the one point which was immediately seized upon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr.
  1490
  Westwood). He referred to a question which on these occasions is liable to make us a little heated, and that is the question of who is to pay the bill. The hon. Member pointed out that the derating proposals had affected the position, and that it was not fair that the owners of certain classes of property, such as private houses and shops, should bear the whole burden of protection against fire for premises of all kinds, including those which were derated. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said that 90 per cent. of the losses from fire were in respect of commercial buildings, and he said that those buildings were de-rated. I intervened. I think the hon. Member is wrong. That figure of 90 per cent. includes also shop property.
  There is substance in the argument put forward by one hon. Member that all these properties which were de-rated were subject to fire risk, and that if the whole burden of protection against the risk had to be borne only by the owners of certain properties, there is an element of injustice. But that is not the whole picture. The Home Secretary pointed out that the Government are spending large sums of money in respect of fire-fighting appliances, which they are presenting to various fire brigades. He said that in the current financial year that expenditure amounted to nearly £1,500,000. It is evident that this question will crop up on the later stages of the Bill, and it would be helpful if the Government would give us some calculation showing what proportion of the burden of fire fighting is borne by the rates; secondly, the effect of that burden on the de-rating of industrial premises and to what extent the proposal to provide for the cost of certain fire-fighting apparatus for fire brigades may fairly be regarded as a set off against that extra burden. We might reasonably ask for some calculation on those heads so that we may see where we stand.
  The Bill as a whole follows very closely the recommendations of the Riverdale Committee. Where it leaves the Committee's recommendations I think the Government have been wise in their action, notably in regard to the question of area boards. To have set up a complete network of area boards would have been undesirable. In the first place, it would have meant an unnecessary expenditure of time and money, and, secondly, if you had a complete set of

  1491
  area boards throughout the country the tendency would be for the authorities in a given area to feel that it was only in their area that they were expected to combine together. Authorities in the one area would not feel called upon to combine with authorities in another area. There are, of course, areas where some villages lie on the outskirts of the area, and it might well be that the natural people with whom they should combine would be in that other area. The suggestion of the Home Secretary to encourage local authorities to combine as seems best in the circumstances is probably the wisest thing we can do.
  There are two points to which I should like to draw the particular attention of the Government. In the first place, the Home Secretary reminded us that in respect of industrial research very large sums are forthcoming from the building industry in aid of that research so far as it affects that industry. I suggest that if the great fire insurance offices were approached they might be willing to contribute towards research into fire-fighting problems. It seems to me that the parallel is a very close one, and I suggest that the fire insurance offices should be approached and asked to contribute towards research into fire-fighting methods, in which they would be very great beneficiaries.
  The second point is this. It is suggested that the extra appliances which are really to be provided against war risks, and the volunteers who are to work those appliances, should both be used from time to time in the case of ordinary fires in peace time. More than one hon. Member has pointed out how desirable it is in the case of machinery that it should be used occasionally. Obviously, in the case of volunteers excellent experience could be gained if they were used from time to time in the case of fires under peace conditions. That proposal appears to meet with general approval, but I cannot see any provision that has been made for volunteers who are called upon in peace time to deal with a fire, and who may meet with injury or death in the course of that work.
  There is provision in Clause 14 in respect of a limited class of persons, who are described as those who have been professional firemen or members of police forces in the past; but that is nothing like the end of the resources from which we
  1492
  hope these voluntary helpers will be drawn, and I suggest to the Government that some provision should be made for compensation or pension in the case of dependants in the event of injury or death when the volunteers are taking part in these activities. Otherwise, as things stand, that is a most unfortunate gap in the Bill. Were it to happen that there was some prominent or sensational case, widely reported in the Press, where grave hardship resulted from the lack of any such provision, it might very gravely affect, first, the recruiting for this service for war purposes, and, secondly, the use of any part of this service in peace time. I hope the Government will be willing to give favourable consideration to that suggestion, or, alternatively, that they will tell us whether they have definitely decided not to do that, In conclusion, I would add my voice to the voices of other hon. Members in all quarters of the House in congratulating the Home Secretary on having introduced this very useful Bill.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. Sexton: The general principle of this Bill has been accepted by all speakers. It was amazing to hear from the Home Secretary that for the first time fire authorities are to be established in this country in order to combat the disasters of fire. It has been well said that fire is a good servant but a bad master. To prevent the fire getting the mastery we have now for the first time a Fire Brigades Bill. Calamities very often precede the investigation which leads to protection, instead of it being the other way round and investigation and protection preceding and preventing the calamities. It is a deplorable fact that such is the case not only as regards fighting fires but as regards fighting explosions in coal mines. We have the explosion first, the terrible loss of life, and then we have commissions set up to consider safety in mines.
  Previously, the whole question of fire fighting has been left largely to chance, especially in the country areas. In the large industrial centres we have had fire engines and fire brigades efficient in their promptitude and effective in fighting fires. They have shown their value by saving property and human life. The Home Secretary told us that the value of property saved in a year amounts to £10,000,000, while the value of life saved

  1493
  cannot be estimated in money. The victories which fire brigades have won belong to the victories of peace. We all know that:
  " Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war."
  Those victories in the cities and towns have been won because the equipment has been good. The fire engines, the water supplies and the trained men have been available because the finances of the district have been able to meet the expenses. In the cities and towns and industrial areas the rateable value is high, and therefore the rate to be paid in the pound is low, but when we examine what has been done in the rural districts we find a different story. There, we have equipment of a most primitive kind. I remember going into the country district where I now live and finding that when a fire was signalled by the alarm bell in the village school yard, out trundled a barrow, conveying a small pump and a length or two of hose. Our fire engine, if so it might be called, was a mere toy in comparison with what is used in efficient cities and towns. There were no prancing horses dragging our fire engine, there was no motor drawing the equipment, but human hands had to push the barrow and use the pump. Very often when we got to the scene of the fire we found that there was no water within reasonable distance because the water in the rural areas is usually obtained from wells, springs and burns. Even if there was a burn, we found that our hose very often was 10 or 15 yards too short.
  Therefore, I welcome the arrangement in this Bill for the co-ordination of the fire services of neighbouring authorities. Geographical neighbours ought to be true neighbours, and in facing a common foe such as fire, they ought to have no hesitation in helping each other. The fact that water is not available in some rural districts is not due to there being no water there. Ten miles from the place where I live, for instance, a huge dam has just been built, holding up millions of gallons of water. The remarkable thing is that that water is not for the use of the villages, but is to be sent right away to the boroughs in the eastern part of Durham, passing by the very villages which ought to have the first claim on that water supply. It used to be said during the War that when we wanted allotments in rural areas, where we were surrounded
  1494
  by green fields, we had to send to the Minister of Agriculture, asking him to send down a representative, in order to be able to get a small piece of land, whereas in the towns, where there was no land at all, they had no trouble in getting allotments.
  The men who man the fire brigades, if they can be designated as fire brigades, in the rural areas are just as good as the firemen in the towns. They are just as brave and just as earnest, but they are sadly handicapped by their poor apparatus and by the limitation of water supplies. The reason is the lack of finance in the rural districts. In the district from which I come, the firemen are part-time firemen; they are paid at the rate of 2s. for every practice which they put in, and when a fire breaks out the payment which the men receive depends largely upon what can be extracted from the fire insurance company. I see that by Clause 4 the Government intend to take away the little extra finance which the rural districts get from the fire insurance companies. I wish to endorse all that has been said with regard to that Clause. I hope it will receive serious consideration in the Committee, and that some alteration will be made. The rural areas have always been condemned to inferior amenities. In the rural areas there has always been poverty of protection. In the matter of housing, which is protection from ill-health, our people have to live in reconditioned cottages. Why is it that agricultural workers have to have reconditioned cottages, whereas in the industrial areas the workers have new cottages? Why is it that in the agricultural areas the schools are such poor buildings? The protection from ignorance there is limited indeed. In the matter of wages and unemployment insurance, the agricultural workers are on a lower level than the industrial workers.
  So, in the matter of protection from fire, we have for years endured the inferior amenity of very amateur fire brigades. It is because a low valuation is placed on the villages. I protest against that low valuation. I believe that something will be done by this Bin to remove the stigma of inferiority from the countryside. The rural areas are just as important to the community as the urban areas, and rural people are just as valuable as town people. In the Memorandum accompanying the Bill,

  1495
  there is reference to a penny rate, and I should like to hear what some of the rural councils have to say with regard to that matter. I am very doubtful whether they will be satisfied that a penny rate will suffice to provide the efficient fire protection demanded in the Bill. I feel that the Special Areas and the rural districts, particularly owing to de-rating, will be very hardly hit. Hon Members know how much concern there is in the rural districts about the increase in rates due to air-raid precautions. I am afraid that when we open our post-bags during the next few days, we shall find a great many communications from the rural district councils pointing out that they are afraid the penny may rise to 2d. or 3d. In some small rural areas, a penny rate produces only £50, and it is not possible to do much with that sum.
  I wish also to emphasise the remarks that have been made about pensions, allowances and gratuities. I sincerely hope that something will be done for what I may call the amateur firemen. By the 1925 Act, professional firemen are well covered with regard to pensions when they retire, and in the case of death, something is given in the form of a gratuity or a pension to their dependants. In the rural areas, however, we have no professional firemen. What is to happen in their cases if they are injured? What is to happen to their dependants if they are killed? There is no provision for them in the Bill. These amateur firemen may be fighting a fire alongside professional firemen, because by the coordination which is provided for in the Bill, professional firemen may be brought in. If anything happens to the professional fireman, his family will be safeguarded, but the amateur fireman is left out in the cold. There ought to be no difference in treatment between these two sets of persons, who do exactly the same work. I hope that during the Committee stage these details will be carefully considered by hon. Members and the Government for the purpose of making this Bill, the general principles of which are accepted, even more of a blessing, not only to the cities and towns, but to the rural areas for which I appeal.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Leonard: As the general attitude of hon. Members on this side towards the
  1496
  Bill has been sufficiently explained, I intend simply to put one or two questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I hope that if he is not able to reply to them to-night, they will be dealt with at some other time. I think that if an answer were given to these questions, it might eliminate the necessity for putting down a good many Amendments in Committee. I was interested in the statement of the Home Secretary, and the first point I wish to raise concerns the questions which were put to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the research department and its upkeep. If I understood the Home Secretary aright, he stated that it was within his power to meet the necessary expenditure of this department under the same heading as that which covers the Industrial Research Department. I would like to know whether, if the expense is covered in that way, it will be possible to make this a research section—not merely a unit of the Industrial Research Department, but a special unit specialising on fire fighting. No one reads with greater interest the annual report of the Industrial Research Department than I do, but a great deal of their work is confined to the laboratory. I am inclined to think that the application of research will be more greatly needed in the case of fire fighting than ordinary research work of an industrial character. Therefore, I wonder whether it is contemplated that this research department will be a specific section of the Industrial Research Department and not just a sort of sub-section upon which certain research workers from time to time will apply their thoughts.
  Connected with that is the Advisory Committee which is to be set up, and I would like some explanation of it. The Home Secretary, of course, could not have been expected to give every detail of the Bill, and the only term he used to give us any guidance was that the Advisory Committee would be made up from fire interests. What do fire interests cover? It may be that he has in view the recognition of insurance companies as people interested in fires. If that be so, it lends weight to the idea that insurance companies have a place to fill in lending more financial help to the nation in the machinery that will be erected. There has been some discussion on the question of water. I can understand that water is looked upon kindly as a means of fighting fire because it is relatively cheap,

  1497
  but I want to see that the co-ordination of fire services between the poor areas and the financially stronger areas shall be worked to the greatest mutual advantage. I notice that while Clause 3 gives statutory power to force water undertakings to erect whatever works they contemplate in such a manner that the use of the water will be available for fire-fighting purposes, it is contemplated under Clause 19 that the air-raid precautions equipment shall be available.
  The point I want to bring to the notice of the Under-Secretary is that in determining the efficiency of a fire-fighting machine the factor of speed has to be taken as one of the important elements. The Home Office itself has laid it down that in an industrial area with a high fire risk the brigade to be efficient must turn out in one minute and reach the fire in five minutes. In a residential township the brigade should be able to turn out in four minutes and reach the fire in 12 minutes. In a rural district they should be able to turn out in six minutes and reach a fire in from 16 to 20 minutes. It is possible that after the ride of 16 to 20 minutes the brigade might find that water was not available. Could the offer of the use of equipment for air-raid precaution work not be amplified in large districts outwith contact with efficient tire brigades? Could they not be helped to instal chemical apparatus, which is now becoming highly efficient? I would like to see the offer which has already been made to these localities to allow them to use the air-raid precautions equipment for fire purposes extended a little so as to give help to the outlying districts to have efficient chemical firefighting apparatus.
  An expenditure of £50,000 is contemplated for training, and I notice that the Bill says that it is for the training of fire brigade officers. I have had the advantage of being a member of the Glasgow Fire Brigade, and it is, therefore, within my knowledge that we have many men there, and, I have no doubt, many young men in fire brigades elsewhere, who do not come within the category of officers, but who try to make themselves efficient as fire fighters. The Bill should be extended to allow them to be included in the training. May I ask consideration of the possibility of another training centre, say, in Glasgow?
  1498
  That would help considerably in allowing fire fighters other than those within the category of officers to have recognition. I am in a difficulty with regard to the inspectorate. Clause 17 says that the Secretary of State will cover the expense of the inspectors for the purposes of this Bill, but in the explanatory memorandum it says that the cost of the fire brigade inspectors will be borne by the air-raid precautions machinery while the Air-Raid Precautions Act is functioning. There thus appear to be two methods indicated of maintaining the inspectorate, and I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary would clear up that point.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Marshall: The Minister has reason to congratulate himself on the reception his Bill has received from the House. Many points need amplification, and I have no doubt that when the Under-Secretary for Scotland replies some of them will be cleared up. On the whole, the principles of the Bill have received general approval, and I want to associate myself with that approval, with one or two rather important reservations. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Measure, referred to his early work as chairman of the London County Council Fire Brigade Committee, pointing out that he was a young man and that it was the beginning of his public life. The thought struck me that he is not the only young man who in his early days has played with fire, but it appears to have had very few bad effects upon him. He gave an interesting history of firefighting through the centuries, commencing, I believe, with the year 1660. It is now 1938. It has taken a Government Department something like 286 years to recognise the vital and supreme importance of the fire-fighting services of this country. It is only in 1938 that we get a Bill to bring a measure of coordination and to impose co-operation upon fire brigades.
  I sincerely hope that when the Bill becomes operative and we have a thoroughly efficient fire-fighting service all over the country all the fund of good stories about fires will not be dried up. Fires are always supposed to have had a great attraction for the Hebrew race. It is recorded of one member of the race that he said "Nothing succeeds like a good fire" and "A fire in your own house is better than a fire in your neighbour's." There

  1499
  is also the story of two men of the Hebrew persuasion who were talking about fires. One said to the other: "Abe, I see you have a very fine house there." Abe replied: "Yes, it is all right, it is well equipped, and we have beautiful furniture "; at which the other remarked: "Then what are you waiting for? "
  Apparently it has needed a contemplation of the terrific destruction from fire which would result from air raids in war to galvanise the Home Office into activity in this matter. The necessity for a good and efficient fire-fighting service is evident now even to the man in the street, and I am sure that he will look forward with anticipation to what this Bill is able to accomplish. At the earliest possible moment our fire-fighting services should be brought to the highest state of efficiency. In saying that I do not want it to be thought that there is even an implied criticism of even the most primitive of our fire brigades. On the contrary, I want to pay them a tribute. If there are defects in the existing system it is not due to them; the responsibility rests upon the Government, which has never thought it important to impose a measure of co-operation upon the fire-fighting services or to give them a Government grant, but has left them to their own devices. The men of our fire brigades discharge their duties at great personal risk. We are all moved by the accounts we read of efforts to save human life in which firemen have been grievously injured or have, possibly, met death. The courage of the firemen is one of the traditions of the service which is common to all fire brigades. Although some of our rural areas may lack the equipment to deal with an outbreak, courage and determination have never been lacking in the men.
  I am sure that fire brigades themselves would be the first to admit that some uniformity in the service available for all sections of the community is a crying need. A fire burns just as fiercely in the thatched cottage of the farm labourer as in the half-timbered mansion of a millionaire in the suburbs of a great city. It is because it has been nobody's business to bring about co-operation and coordination among the fire-fighting services that one of those houses will have the latest fire-fighting appliances on call in
  1500
  case of fire while in the other case the poor man has to depend upon very primitive equipment. But I am not going wholly to blame the poor local authorities for not providing themselves with those efficient services which we all think are so desirable.
  The Minister has been faced with two alternatives in putting forward this Bill. He could have based his reorganisation scheme upon either a regional arrangement or upon the existing structure of local authorities. Personally I do not like the regional system, because it obliterates local government boundaries and abolishes that keen local patriotism which is the heart and soul of local government. Under a regional scheme the men who administer affairs begin to lose interest, because they have not that keen interest in larger localities, and I think there are definite reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should have chosen local government boundaries as the foundation of his scheme. I see that the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) gave evidence before the Riverdale Committee and what he said is applicable to this particular point. He said:
  " A large number of independent brigades are at present responsible for the fire protection of Greater London. Looked at purely from a fire brigade standard a case could be made out for a Greater London fire brigade, and for the view that the fire protection of London would be more efficient if the means of fire fighting were organised under a single command. It must be borne in mind, however, that equally good cases for a Greater London administration exist as regards other services of the Council, and that the creation of an ad hoc authority for a Greater London fire brigade is undesirable in that it would have grave repercussions on the structure, stability and comprehensiveness of normal local government machinery."
  I think it was the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who suggested that the county should be the area for the new fire-fighting services. The arguments against it are very strong, and provided there is efficiency in the arrangements made for the rural areas I think the smaller the area the better. I am expressing there more or less a personal view, but I am not speaking without some experience of local government. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen the latter method, which will secure the ardent co-operation of the local authorities, and I feel sure that they will

  1501
  ultimately make a good job of it. Up to the present fire fighting has been a purely local government activity, and it is significant and important that the localities have had to bear the whole cost. The service has grown up haphazard, but in spite of that fire fighting in the towns has reached a high pitch of efficiency. If it has failed to give protection to rural areas that is due to the fact that no one has tried to bring about that degree of co-operation which would give the whole country a uniform service.
  There is in this country one very notable exception to that general rule; I refer to the North Derbyshire scheme. There are great similarities between what the right hon. Gentleman desires to do by means of the provisions of the Bill and what has been done in that scheme. In 1934, certain local authorities got together and worked out a scheme that would be applied to the rural areas and to their cities. I have here a description of the scheme; it comprises the City of Sheffield, the borough of Chesterfield, the urban districts of Matlock, Bakewell, Bolsover, and Dronfield, the rural districts of Chesterfield and Bakewell and part of the rural district of Chapel-en-le-Frith. In the whole of the area there is imposed, I believe, a rd. rate, with the exception of a part of Chapel-en-le-Frith. Although brought into being against exceptional difficulties, which were not inherent in the areas but were due to the fact that there were no statutory regulations upon which they could rely to bring such a scheme into operation, the scheme has worked exceptionally well. I will not trouble the House by going into the details of it, but we are entitled to point out to the Minister that his idea of co-operation and coordination has been brought into being in that very large and important area in this country, and that up to the present the scheme has worked very well.
  Many points have been raised about the Bill itself, and I shall not talk about its provisions in detail. For the first time in the history of fire fighting we shall place a statutory obligation upon fire authorities to provide a good service. The law will be consolidated, simplified and extended. I notice that we shall repeal about 13 bits of law which all have some relation to fire-fighting services. Parishes go out, and I agree with the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir T. Cook) that no
  1502
  one will lose much sleep about that, because the parishes are not big enough to tackle such a job as this. For exceptional fires, a certain degree of co-operation will be imposed that will give the necessary service to conflagrations and fires of that character.
  There may be some difficulty about water supply, but I incline to the view that, with an ordinary and normal rainfall, it will be possible in practice to provide water in any rural area in the country for fighting fires. As a matter of fact, when the local authority is the water authority they make provision now in that respect. A water undertaking in the hands of a private company is an anomaly and requires to be attended to very quickly. We shall all agree with the establishment of a Fire Service Commission to review co-ordinating schemes and to take certain action with defaulting authorities. We are investing the Commission with very large powers which need some clarification. I can imagine certain difficulties arising, in a case of a village asking a big local authority to provide it with water and when the local authority have a good and sound reason to refuse that request. Will the Fire Service Commission be able to say to the local authority: "You must do that "? We want to know what these powers are to be and to know much more about the Fire Service Commission.
  I should eliminate from the Bill the idea of fire boards. It may be said that the Bill may be useless without fire boards to put in the place of defaulting authorities, but if the right hon. Gentleman were providing the finance of the Measure or a considerable grant-in-aid, fire boards would be in their proper place. Greater financial burdens are being imposed upon the local authorities. You are telling them that they have to do certain things and are providing inspectors to see that they do them, and you then tell them: "We shall compel you to do all these things, but we shall not provide you with a halfpenny in order to carry them out." This is the first time in the history of our legislation, so far as my knowledge goes, that a Government have placed themselves in such a position. Take the example of catchment boards. Hon. Members know how difficult the administration of those boards has been. In one catchment area we had a first-class row

  1503
  —I am not going into the merits of it because some of my hon. Friends who are interested in the area might fall out with me. That catchment board has the right to precept upon the local authority, but we have representation on that catchment board.
  It is proposed in the Bill to set up a fire board upon which the local authority will not be represented but which will have the right to precept upon the local authority, possibly to the extent of a 1d., 2d. or 3d. rate, notwithstanding that the local authority have no representation upon the board. It is simply saying in effect: "We are going to put our hands in your pocket, and you have no say in the matter." I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look at that position more closely. It has about it a flavour of the Public Assistance Commissioners when the committee of any district have not carried out the terms of the Act. It certainly has a very unpleasant flavour. The Home Office have gone the whole hog in this case, and are taking very drastic powers, of which I should like to see some modification when the Committee stage of the Bill is reached. I should have thought that the Fire Commission would have been able to induce the necessary cooperation among local authorities and, in order to maintain the good will of local authorities, I would have tried out that suggestion first. It may, be that fire boards will not be necessary, but it is like putting a threat into the Bill. I should certainly leave it out. I do not like it.
  In regard to training centres, I notice that the Riverdale Commission did not recommend them in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to establish them. I have some suspicion about them. I do not think they will quite effect what the right hon. Gentleman desires. I should imagine that the best training school would be to appoint a certain number of approved fire brigades in this country, some of the best, including of course London as the star turn. If it were necessary to train officers for fire fighting, the best experience they could have would be to spend a certain number of weeks with some of those nominated or approved fire brigades. That would be much more effective training than the absorbing of theoretical knowledge in a training centre. I believe that something
  1504
  of the sort was attempted with the Metropolitan Police and that very keen criticism was levelled at the proposal. Fire fighting calls out to a great extent the complete resource, enterprise and initiative of man, which cannot be achieved by a mere theoretical education. I have no doubt that Lord Riverdale and his committee thoroughly examined that aspect of the matter, and they came unanimously to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with it was to appoint or nominate certain approved brigades to which would-be officers could go to get their training.
  The question of pensions needs clarification. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) raised a substantial point with regard to pensions, and I want to raise another. There are two types of fire brigades in the country. There is what is known as the police fire brigade, the personnel of which are policemen used for fire brigade purposes, and there are the professional fire brigades. The pensions of these latter are regulated by the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, but the pensions of members of a police fire brigade are regulated by the Police Act, 1921. The Police Act, 1921, both as regards years of service and amount of pension, is far more favourable than the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, and I know that some feeling exists in regard to this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman could look into it and try to see that there is, as there should be, some uniformity of treatment for the whole of the fire brigades of the country, perhaps by the issue of regulations by the Fire Commission, I think it would allay a good deal of criticism, and it certainly would be an act of justice to those people who now, when they retire, receive a smaller pension for the same number of years of service.
  The real effect of this Bill lies in its financial provisions. The Home Office are bringing about a reform at somebody else's expense. It is useless to tell the House that war possibilities have not been the moving influence in the framing of the Bill. Under its Clauses the fire fighting services of the country can be placed on a war footing almost immediately, and we cannot obliterate that aspect from our minds. I should have imagined that there would be a case for a grant-in-aid purely on the merits. You have your police force, many of whom are employed in the fire brigade service

  1505
  as well, and your police force, for its activities, receives a Government grant. A policeman, it may be, works for one week in the police force, and the service in which he is working attracts a Government grant. The next week he may go over to the fire service, dealing with equally important matters, the saving of lives and property, and yet the service in which he works in that week does not rank for grant. This is one of the anomalies that need clearing up. There seems to be no good reason, especially in view of this Bill, which imposes upon fire authorities greater obligations, why the fire services should not be placed on exactly the same footing as the police forces of the country.
  Looking at the local government services which attracted grants before the passing of the Act of 1929, one found that education, the treatment of the blind, the care of mentally defective persons, police, various aspects of the health services, housing, and other services, all attracted Government grants. Fire fighting appears to me to be just as important as those services, and I see no reason why it should be treated differently, unless it is that the nature of its growth has enabled the right hon. Gentleman to come here and say, "I refuse that grant." The Riverdale Committee in view of the expansion of the services and the necessity for co-operation, and in order to improve the peace-time firefighting services, definitely recommended that a grant of £1,000,000 should be made from the Exchequer. I know Lord Riverdale very well. He is a man of outstanding ability, and exceedingly well fitted for the task he undertook on that occasion, and I know that he and his Committee would not recommend a proposal of that character without having thoroughly looked into it. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House that he is prepared to look at the matter —I do not want him to make a decision to-night—and to implement the recommendations of the Riverdale Report. If he will do that, I think I can promise him that the Bill will be heartily endorsed by practically every local authority in this country, and I see very little difficulty in the speedy coming about of that expansion and co-operation which will give the right hon. Gentleman and all serious people in the country the satisfaction of knowing that at last the fire-fighting ser-
  1506
  vices of the country have been placed on a proper and efficient basis, and will be of great help both in times of peace and in times of war.
  9.2 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The Riverdale Committee, on whose recommendations this Bill is principally founded, was set up with the purpose of examining the position of fire brigade services in England and Wales. Its terms of reference were:
  " To review the fire brigade services in England and Wales, and to advise whether any steps are needed to improve organisation and co-operation for the purpose of meeting danger from fire."
  The terms of reference do not therefore extend to Scotland. It is true that, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) reminded us, one of the witnesses called was an Assistant Secretary of the Scottish Office; but the hon. Member must not omit to notice the name of Mr. Methven, the Edinburgh Firemaster, who was also one of the witnesses.
  Mr. Westwood: He was not representative of Scottish authorities.
  Mr. Wedderburn: He and the representative of the Scottish Office were called for technical and professional reasons, and the committee's terms of reference had no application at all to Scotland. The statutory provisions for the establishment of fire brigades in Scotland at the present time are the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1908, so far as counties are concerned, and the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, so far as burghs are concerned, with the exception of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and Greenock, which have local Acts of their own. Those local Acts, however, are, with certain exceptions, the same as the Burgh Police Act, 1892, so far as it relates to fire brigades. The powers are, except in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, permissive; in these three cities the provision of a fire brigade is compulsory. No charges are made for the services of a county brigade within the county boundaries. A charge may, however, be made against the owner or occupier of premises beyond the brigade's own area. In the burghs of Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and Greenock, the owners and occupiers of buildings within the burghs in which fires break out are liable to pay

  1507
  half the expenses of extinguishment, up to a limit of £15. Except in the case of putting out chimney fires, there is no power in any other burgh to recover expenses. Charges may be made only for the services of the burgh brigade when it has gone beyond the burgh boundaries.
  As for the position of the insurance companies, it is usual for them to pay such charges ex gratia. Brigades both in Scotland and in England and Wales have derived revenue from these indirect payments. The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1908, empowers two or more county councils to combine for fire brigade purposes, and also empowers the conclusion of agreements whereby the fire appliances of one county shall be available in the district of another. Joint action by fire brigade authorities may also be taken under Section if of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929. As regards the number of fire brigades in counties, about which the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) questioned me, the position is that only four out of the 33 counties in Scotland have so far taken steps to provide their own brigades. They are Aberdeen, Lanark, Renfrew and Roxburgh. The most important of these is the Lanarkshire brigade.
  Mr. Watson: Do these brigades cover the whole of the four counties, or only parts of them?
  Mr. Wedderburn: The Lanarkshire brigade certainly covers the whole of Lanarkshire. In Aberdeen and Roxburgh the appliances, I understand, are not motor appliances. In 13 counties the landward areas are only partly provided with motor brigades. There are also 20 counties where the landward areas are not, except for isolated districts, protected by agreement, though a measure of protection is in fact realised without agreement. As for the burghs, 71 out of a total of 195 have motor brigades of their own, and 65 have non-motor brigades. Eighteen burghs without brigades of their own are now protected under agreement with other authorities; 32 are without a brigade or an agreement for protection by a neighbouring authority. In their case protection is frequently forthcoming without an agreement.
  Although the Riverdale Committee's deliberations were not directly addressed
  1508
  to Scotland, many of the criticisms made by them, regarding defects in the fire brigade services in England and Wales, are also applicable in respect to Scotland. While I think it can be said with truth that most of the fire brigades in the larger towns do reach a high standard of efficiency in fire fighting, the position in some of the smaller towns and in the landward areas is much less satisfactory. There are a good many areas which are inadequately covered, and many districts depend on assistance which cannot be on the spot except after long delay. Nor has enough attention been given to the co-ordination of resources, particularly with a view to dealing with exceptionally serious fires. The provisions of the Bill will go far to remedy these defects, and it is desirable, I think, that Scotland should he placed on the same footing as England and Wales with regard to the principal matters dealt with in the Bill—that is, the obligation on all local authorities to provide fire protection under Clause 1, the obligation to improve water supplies under Clauses 2 and 3, the abolition of charges under Clause 4, and the appointment of a Fire Services Commission under Clauses 5 to 7.
  For those reasons my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that the same provisions should operate in Scotland, and since last November he has been in consultation with the local authorities there. A conference was held on 9th November last year between representatives of Scottish local authority associations and representatives of the Scottish Office, in order to discuss the rough draft of a Bill. It was at that time that the local authorities, among other points, raised the question of a Government grant, and the views of the Scottish Office on that matter were expressed to them on 25th November. We had another consultation in Edinburgh on 8th April, at which the local authorities' representatives had a full opportunity of offering observations on a revised draft of the principal heads of the Bill. They were aware at that time of the main substance of the Bill as it is now published. I do not think, therefore, that they have been at any disadvantage, as compared with English local authorities, in respect of the information which they have received. Of course, nobody, either in Scotland or in England, knew the precise details of the Bill until it was printed

  1509
  last week, but they had equal opportunities of consultation and of representing their views.
  Mr. Marshall: Did the local authorities contemplate any compulsory powers being provided in the Bill?
  Mr. Wedderburn: Yes. That is not a matter which applies peculiarly to the Scottish local authorities. In regard to the composition of fire boards, that was the local authorities' own suggestion. Our original suggestion was that committees appointed by the local authorities themselves should be set up for that purpose. They did not like that, and it was at their instance that the provision in the Bill was adopted.
  Mr. Westwood: Can the hon. Member tell us how many of those representatives represented the cities and large burghs and how many represented the counties? I can understand the counties, with the figures the hon. Member has already given, being willing to agree to anything that would get them out of their responsibilities, at the expense of the large burghs and cities, which already had brigades. I am sure that local authorities in Scotland will be anxious to know how many represented counties and how many represented cities and large burghs.
  Mr. Wedderburn: I cannot, without notice, say how many representatives from the large burghs and how many from the counties attended these conferences. I think that representatives of counties and large cities and burghs must all have been present. I have a copy of a letter sent from the Scottish Office arising out of the first conference on 9th November in which we gave our views on the question of the grant. This letter was addressed to the Clerk of the Association of Counties of Cities in Edinburgh, and it was he who, on behalf of the local authorities, made the representations to the Department.
  Mr. Westwood: If that letter was merely addressed to clerks of counties and cities, on the facts given by the Under-Secretary to the House at the present time, three of these county authorities already have a duty imposed upon them by Parliament to provide fire-fighting appliances, whereas none of these authorities has that duty. It is optional, and
  1510
  surely it was wrong to consult those upon whom a duty is imposed, and not to consult those upon whom no duty is to be imposed.
  Mr. Wedderburn: I think all the local authorities concerned were represented. But the point made to us, and in reply to which the letter to which I have referred was written, was obviously a point made more in the interests of the counties than of the large cities, because the large cities are clearly not going to have their expenses increased very much as a result of this Bill. The main burden of the criticism of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Falkirk and of the other hon. Members who followed him have been centred upon two questions, first, the abolition of charges under Clause 4, and, secondly, the general question of State assistance to local authorities. What the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, I gather, is not that individual householders should be relieved of the necessity of paying these charges, but that the insurance companies should be relieved of making payments indirectly to the local authority.
  There are three ways in which payments may now find their way from an insurance company to a fire authority. There are certain areas where there is a statutory obligation upon insurance companies to make payments to the local fire brigade. I do not think that there are any in Scotland. The principal ones in England are London, Liverpool and Salford, and the position in this respect is not affected by the Bill. There are also certain places in which the insurance companies of their own volition make ex gratia payments to the local authority to help towards the support of the fire brigade. In Birmingham last year the insurance companies paid the city brigade a sum of nearly £3,000, and I believe that the voluntary contributions made in Glasgow were quite considerable. These are not obligatory payments, and are not affected one way or the other by the Bill.
  The third way in which money might find its way from an insurance company to the fire brigade would be indirectly through the insured person whose house was burnt, and who might find himself liable to make a payment to the local authority for the service rendered to him in putting out his fire. If the insurance

  1511
  company decided to make good that payment to him, they would then indirectly be paying that contribution to the local authority. By this Clause all enactments entitling a fire authority to receive payments for services from owners or occupiers of property in which fires occur will cease to have effect. Charges for putting out chimney fires and for services rendered by fire brigades otherwise than by fire extinction, as, for example, the salvage work after a fire, or special services such as the rescue of persons or animals, are not affected by this new provision. In a few local Acts the local authority is empowered to make a charge for the attendance of their brigade at fires inside their own district. I mentioned a little earlier the four Scottish authorities, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and Greenock, and there are also a few in England, including Gateshead, Ashton-under-Lyne, Manchester and Newcastle.
  This system, as was pointed out by both the Royal Commission, which reported in 1923 and the Riverdale Committee, is wrong in principle, because under it the owner or occupier of the premises pays twice over for the services of the brigade, once through the local rates, and again if a fire occurs. Moreover, if a ratepayer knows that he has himself to pay for the attendance of the brigade he may hesitate to call assistance at once when a fire occurs, thus endangering his own and adjoining property.
  Under the provisions of Clause 1 the services of an efficient fire brigade will become available to all ratepayers. The cost of the service will fall upon the local rates, and all ratepayers will be able to summon the brigade maintained by their own local authority, or, if their local authority has decided to make an arrangement with some other brigade for the normal protection of the district, to summon that brigade immediately a fire occurs. They will know that they are entitled to the services of a brigade to the support of which they themselves contribute, and that they need not hesitate to summon it at once if a fire occurs. I do not really see how it would be possible to draw a distinction between the personal liabilities of householders who may not be insured against fire and those who are, particularly since in the ordinary insurance contract it is not obligatory on
  1512
  insurance companies to make these payments. But the Home Secretary hopes soon to have consultations with the insurance companies, in which the local authorities will no doubt take part, in order to see whether, since by this Bill the insurance companies may indirectly be relieved of some of the voluntary contributions that they are now making, they may be willing to make some arrangement by which they will continue to contribute. I cannot at present indicate details of any possible arrangement, but my right hon. Friend hopes to find some means by which the companies may be willing to make a contribution towards the upkeep of the fire brigade system.
  Mr. Westwood: Do I understand that these negotiations have already been opened up with the insurance companies, or do they await the passing of the Bill and, if that is the case, can we have an assurance now that the local authorities who are directly interested in these financial arrangements will be taken into consultation in the negotiations with the insurance companies?
  Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, they will be taken into consultation. It will, of course, have to be a purely voluntary arrangement, replacing, as it will, what is now a voluntary contribution. My right hon. Friend hopes it may be possible that these negotiations may take some definite shape before the Bill has passed through its stages in this House.
  I come now to the question of grants —the question whether local authorities shall receive any grants from the Exchequer. That has been the chief criticism directed against the Bill. But it has to be pointed out that, while the Riverdale Committee recommended Exchequer assistance towards the peacetime organisation of fire brigades as well as towards the provision and maintenance of appliances and personnel for air raids, the situation has fundamentally changed since the Committee reported. The State assistance now to be granted towards emergency fire brigade measures is on so much larger a scale and is so much more far reaching than the Riverdale Committee contemplated as to supersede the committee's scheme of financial assistance, and the Exchequer will be bearing a greater share than was contemplated in that report without making any

  1513
  special contribution towards peace-time expenditure.
  Let me give one or two instances to indicate the amounts that are being supplied by the Government in the way of additional material to certain local authorities. Although this assistance is being given in respect to equipment and personnel required for emergency purposes over and above peace-time requirements, it will confer on local authorities a great deal of indirect assistance in their peacetime measures for providing against exceptional fires and affording mutual support under the area schemes contemplated in the proposed fire brigade legislation. Glasgow, with 25 appliances at present, has been offered no fewer than 115. That is an initial offer only. Edinburgh, with nine, has been offered 57; Paisley, with two, has been offered 14; and the county of Lanark, with nine, has been offered 27. I have quoted these figures primarily to show the scale on which the State is augmenting, at its own expense, the resources of local authorities. But there were one or two questions arising out of these figures. One was whether the expenses of accommodating these additional appliances would be wholly borne by local authorities.
  Mr. Westwood: Before that I asked, if 115 additional machines were being provided for Glasgow and 57 for Edinburgh, could the hon. Gentleman give an indication of the appliances to be provided for other places, and I mentioned Kirkcaldy, Falkirk and Stirling.
  Mr. Wedderburn: Perhaps I was taking the hon. Gentleman's questions in the reverse order. With regard to maintenance, the necessary cost incurred by local authorities in storing and maintaining equipment issued for air-raid precautions will qualify for the air-raid precautions grant, which varies from 60 per cent. in the lowest cases to 85 per cent. in the highest. Nearly all the authorities in Scotland are in the 75 per cent. region. As to other authorities, whether they have been offered additional appliances or not depends entirely on whether a scheme has been submitted. The offer cannot be made until the local authority has submitted a scheme, which Kirkcaldy has not yet done. Stirling, which now, I think, rejoices in the possession of one motor pump as well as two trailers, has
  1514
  been made an initial offer under its scheme of three further appliances from the Government. Falkirk, which has a peace-time establishment of two motor pumps, has been offered five additional appliances.
  Sir P. Harris: Will those areas which are well supplied and equipped with machines have nothing while districts which have neglected their work will have appliances supplied? Is that the principle that we are working on?
  Mr. Wedderburn: No, they will be offered the necessary appliances when they submit their schemes.
  Sir P. Harris: In London and urban districts where they have organisations provided out of the rates there will be no assistance?
  Mr. Wedderburn: London will get a great deal, because in order to resist air raids they will need an enormously greater quantity of equipment than they use for ordinary peace-time purposes.
  Mr. Westwood: I must defend my own constituents. I presume there is no suggestion that Stirling and Falkirk have not done their best to provide an efficient peace-time service?
  Mr. Wedderburn: Certainly not. There is no question of that.
  Mr. Marshall: The Under-Secretary has given the impression that these air-raid machines are to be extensively used for peace-time fire-fighting. I have here a schedule of the yearly calls on the fire brigade and on only two days—I am speaking of 1936—of that year there were eight calls and on six days six calls. My conclusion from these figures is that a fire brigade like Sheffield will not need to use these machines to any possible extent except on one or two days in the year.
  Mr. Wedderburn: Sheffield has a very efficient fire brigade and may not perhaps want to use this additional material for peace-time purposes. If that is so, Sheffield will not be under any additional expenditure under the provisions of the Bill.
  I have taken note of the technical points raised by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) and other hon.

  1515
  Members. I have not the time to deal with those matters now, but I can assure hon. Members that they will be given attention. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) for his most helpful and knowledgeable speech, and the points which he raised will also be considered by the Government before the Committee stage. The hon. Member began by expressing the hope that the results of the Bill would not prevent a peculiar and an entertaining use being made of the fire brigades by the Jewish race. Use has been made of fire brigades by Christians as well as by Jews. A few years ago General Feng-Hu-Tsian, a Chinese Christian general, who was leading a Chinese Army in the war, decided that it was time the troops under his command were converted to the Christian religion, and he accordingly ordered them to parade in mass formation and, having commandeered a fire engine from Tientsin, proceeded to the simultaneous baptism of the whole army.
  While thanking the House for the very sympathetic and helpful reception they have given the Bill, I hope they will now see their way to pass the Second Reading of a Measure whose introduction may perhaps have been hastened by the danger of war, but which is equally necessary for our requirements in time of peace.
  Mr. Lewis: Will the Under-Secretary deal with the question I raised as to the position of volunteers enrolled under air-raid precautions who are asked to take part in fighting fire in peace-time, and who are injured in so doing?
  Mr. Wedderburn: Clause 14 applies only to ex-policemen and whole-time firemen who rejoin the brigade. As to auxiliary firemen and volunteer firemen, their position is provided for by means of an insurance policy taken out by local authorities to cover all their auxiliary firemen against these risks, and these premiums rank for grant under the Air-Raid Precautions Act of last year.

  FIRE BRIGADES [Money].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for fire services in Great Britain and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Secretary of State incurred for the purposes of the said Act in the administration thereof, in the payment of remuneration or allowances to any person appointed thereunder or in connection with the training centre established by him, and of any expenses authorised by him with the consent of the Treasury to be incurred by the Fire Service Commission constituted by the said Act, by any fire service board appointed under the said Act, or by any Central Advisory Council for Fire Services so appointed." (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir S. Hoare.]
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Westwood: We shall not oppose the Financial Resolution, not because we are satisfied with it, but because we are not prepared to oppose a Resolution which will at least provide some money for the purpose of co-ordinating a service for which many hon. Members have pleaded to-day. We shall allow the Money Resolution to go through while lodging our protest, so far as Scotland is concerned, at the betrayal of a pledge contained in Section 78 of the 1929 Local Government Act. That pledge was given by the party opposite in the following words in that Section:
  " It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that, in the event of material additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of new public health for other service after the commencement of this Act, provision shall be made for increased contributions out of the moneys provided by Parliament."
  I did not plead on the Second Reading of the Bill nor do I plead now for the subsidising of inefficiency. I claimed then, as I claim now, that it is the duty of every authority to have efficient firefighting appliances, but having set a standard, as you will under the Bill, every local authority which has failed in its duty in the past should be compelled to provide efficiency. Having once provided efficiency, then a percentage of the annual charges necessary for maintaining efficiency ought to be met by the National Exchequer. I claim that the pledge given

  1517
  in Section 78 of the Act of 1929 is not being fulfilled by this Money Resolution. Undoubtedly it will increase materially the expenditure in connection with these services, and therefore it is right, while not opposing the Money Resolution, to enter our protest against the refusal of the Government to provide for a certain percentage of the recurring maintenance charges in the Resolution.
  m.
  S. Hoarehon. Member has made two such helpful speeches in the course of the Debate that I would not like it to end under a misapprehension. He has referred to a pledge. I can assure him that that is not so. He quoted a Section from an Act which brought into operation the block grant system, and I can assure him that the aditional expenditure, if any, under this Bill will be taken into account under the block grant system, and if, as he thinks, expenditure arises, that would be a factor that would be taken into account when the next block grant was made.
  WestwoodI point out that I know that there is always a lag, under the quinquennial system of settling grants, of practically five years, and, that being so, it creates all those difficulties for local authorities in making the very progress that the Government ask them to make, in connection with Factory Acts, air-raid precautions, or the Bill that has been discussed to-day.
  Question put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  EIRE (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  9.47 p.m.
  Sir Hugh O'Neill: On a point of Order. Before the Committee stage is entered upon, as this is a Bill to confirm an Agreement, am I right in assuming that no Amendment can be made to the Schedule which sets out that Agreement?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. It is a well-known practice of this House that where there is a Bill to confirm an Agreement made between two countries, it is not competent to amend the terms of the
  1518
  Agreement. The Committee can either accept or reject it.
  Sir H. O'Neill: Does that mean that no Amendment can be moved?
  The Deputy-Chairman: Not to the Schedule.
  Sir H. O'Neill: Further to that point of Order, would it be possible to discuss the Schedule, but not to move Amendments to it?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Member would be perfectly in order in giving reasons why the Committee should not accept the Agreement, even though he could not amend it.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 2.—(Confirmation of agreements and provisions for giving effect thereto.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  9.48 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Ross: In this Clause we have a provision to annul Articles 6 and 7 of what is called the Treaty formed between this country and the Irish Free State in 1922 in the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act. That implies that we shall give up the rights which we have up to now possessed for the use of three ports in the territory of what is now to be called Eire. Those ports are Lough Swilly, in the North, and Queenstown and Berehaven in the South. To everyone who is acquainted with naval strategy in the most elementary sense, up till now our safety has depended to a very great extent on those ports being available for the use of our flotillas for the protection of our food supplies.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member's remarks would come rather better on the Schedule.
  Sir R. Ross: Surely I am able to discuss, when certain Articles are repealed in the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act of 1922, the repeal of those Articles rather than the positive form in which the other Agreement comes? Of course, I bow to your guidance in the matter.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can discuss the points either now or on the Schedule, but if he discusses them now, it cannot be done again on the

  1519
  Schedule. I thought they would come better on the Schedule.
  Sir R. Ross: I am content to discuss them now, as there is a lot of other matters to raise on the Schedule. It is, of course, unfortunate, as hon. Members opposite have already noted, that a matter of this importance, dealing with a very large sum of money, should be reached at this late hour, and it is also illogical, because in this Bill I see the sparks which may raise a conflagration, and so appropriately the Fire Brigades Bill should have come after that, and when the Fire Brigades Bill has passed through this House, it has not passed through with the accustomed celerity with which we generally associate fire brigades. These are matters of grave importance, however, and this is the only opportunity that we shall have of raising detailed points upon them. The importance of the ports which I have mentioned has, I think, been increased by the growth of air power, because they are some of the very few ports that should be entirely immune from air attack, and it is very desirable to have ports where ships can work up without being liable to that form of hostility.
  I do not propose to elaborate this matter, which was put very clearly by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on the Second Reading of the Bill, but to his arguments very little reply was made. We were told that it was an act of faith. If it is not an act of faith, it implies a change of naval doctrine. Are we not going to have one word from the First Lord or from any of the Ministers associated with the Admiralty as to the naval reactions that must follow our being deprived of the use of these ports? So far, we have had nothing, and the technical side has been entirely neglected. We are told we cannot depend on being able to use them in the future. The alternatives, in the case of neutrality being declared by the Irish Free State in time of war, are three, and they have already been enunciated. Either we are driven to invading Eire in order to secure the ports, or else we suffer a stranglehold on the life line by which our food is brought to this country, or, thirdly, we shall be approached—and I have little doubt about this—by the Government of the Free State, even by de Valera's Government, which will say, "Oh yes, you may
  1520
  use the ports, but on conditions. There is just one condition precedent, and that is that partition should be brought to an end."
  Let us examine the probabilities of our being allowed to use the ports by any Government of Eire. We are told that our relations are friendly. Well, I have read with some attention the Debates in the Dail on this Agreement, and I cannot see much reflection there of the suggestion that our relations are friendly. In fact, Mr. de Valera spent a lot of his time pointing out how easy it was for him to declare neutrality, and his embarrassment was whether he could still continue to sell food to this country and remain neutral. Some very significant things were said on that occasion. I have in my hand the Official Report of the Debate in the Dail Eireann, on 29th April, when Mr. de Valera, speaking about the cost of retaining the ports, used these words:
  " It is true it is going to cost us something to maintain these ports. Why do we not let them become derelict? We have the right to do so if we wish. There is no condition to the contrary, express or implied. We could let them go but in our own interests we dare not do so. Why? Because in the first moment of war they are of such tremendous importance, either to Britain or to enemies of Britain that if we had not some means of keeping out those who might want them in their own interests, they would be used by them."
  Of course, it is quite clear that those who might want to use the ports in their own interests include this country. To complete the picture we find, turning column 427 of the report, that in the same speech Mr. de Valera went on to show what little fear he has of danger from a foreign Power, that is a Power other than Britain because obviously these ports if they were put in a state of defence could be defended by the British Navy. But the defence of British commerce apparently is a very different thing. He said:
  " As I have often said before, any attack on us by a foreign Power could not be ignored by Britain because if this country was taken by a European Power, if possession of our harbours and territories was taken, then Britain would be in a very parlous condition indeed."
  Mr. de Valera, at all events, realises the importance of these ports. He continued:
  " Britain, therefore, could not ignore that and in her own interests "—
  I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the succeeding words:

  1521
  —" and not for love of us, any more than anything we would do would not be for love of Britain but for ourselves—under those conditions, Britain would have to do her utmost to prevent such an attack so that whether she willed it or not, the force of circumstances would make her an ally of ours in our defence."
  So they are preparing to fortify the ports but not necessarily in order that we can use them. They are counting on Great Britain defending them, in case a foreign Power should have envy of them, but there is the admission from Mr. de Valera that anything that he would do for the British, would not be done for the love of Britain but for themselves—for the people over whom he is Prime Minister. If anything can give away the case which has been put to us as to the use of these ports, I should have thought that statement would do so. It has always been part of the policy of those who desire to put Ulster under the heel of Southern Ireland to wait until this country is engaged in war. They have always said, "That is the time to do it." Hon. Members may remember Mr. Cahir Healy, a very honest opponent of our's, who formerly represented Tyrone and Fermanagh. I challenged him across the Floor of this House whether he did not suggest that that was the correct policy. He did not deny it. He admitted that those were the views which he held. I take next a speech which was made by Mr. Sean T. O'Kelly in 1936. Since then, I may remark, the spokesmen on that side have rather quieted down, but speaking on 19th July, 1936, Mr. O'Kelly, who has occupied the position of Vice-President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, and is close in the counsels of the people with whom this Agreement was made used these words:
  " There will be no cessation of the fight until the people of Ireland are satisfied that Irish independence and Irish unity have been achieved and won to their satisfaction. It Will be well for her "—
  that is England—
  " to realise that she has Ireland to reckon with and that Ireland will not be there as a friend, so long as England countenances partition in this country. England made partition, using Craigavon and the Orangemen as useful tools and until England realised that it would be more profitable to discontinue using these tools, she would probably continue to support partition. It is up to us, to prove to her that it is to her disadvantage and I would personally welcome the opportunity of showing her that it is to her disadvantage, whenever she gets into political
  1522
  and especially international trouble again. In any opportunity that arises, we will use it to show England that it is greatly to her disadvantage to support partition and keep it alive in this country and that it would be better for her, as well as for us, to see unity and complete independence restored in this country."
  That, then, is the policy—" Wait until there is an international war and then you have your chance to bring pressure upon Great Britain." Of course, the form of pressure to be adopted will probably include the use of these ports. We are told to trust Mr. de Valera, but what of his successors? No Government in that part of the country has failed to dishonour the pledges of its predecessors. I should have thought that in the pride which they take in what they are so fond of calling their national spirit and their national institutions, would have prevented that, but we know what has happened? Hon. Members will recall how Mr. Redmond was repudiated by Mr. Cosgrave, and how Mr. Cosgrave was repudiated by Mr. de Valera, and I should think that whoever comes after Mr. de Valera will probably repudiate him if he thinks there is any advantage in doing so. Those are the facts. I should be interested to hear what excuse is to be offered for throwing away vital interests of ours, merely, as far as I could judge from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading, because Mr. de Valera said that these vital rights—vital to the people of Great Britain, as well as of Northern Ireland—we re distasteful to him and his colleagues.
  10.2 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: As a humble Member I shall do my best to answer the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) on the reason for handing over these ports. The hon. Member has been associated with the Admiralty. All my life until I came to this House I was associated with the artillery who were responsible for the defence of these ports, and I think it is within the recollection of representatives of the Admiralty that the artillery were very much against holding on to these ports in the first instance. I would first deal with the case which was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on Thursday last that the Irish delegates who concluded the former Treaty did not want the ports. I can understand that that was so. They did not want to undertake the defence of these ports. They were

  1523
  faced with the task of organising the Government of their country. The ports were of no interest to them then and they were glad to have the responsibility taken from them. But when the Government was organised and the country became settled, it was not I think so much a matter of change of Government policy, as a matter of evolution. The Government of Ireland began to see that the defence of the country was part of their job.
  That is a matter, however, which I will leave to the Committee to decide, and I now come to a matter which is of great interest, namely, the question of the practical defence of these ports. Can the defence of these ports, as far as artillery is concerned, be undertaken with a hostile Ireland behind them? Those hon. Members who have seen fortified ports know that the days have long gone past when it was possible to defend a port with a couple of stone forts at the entrance to a lough or harbour. It is a much more complicated matter now. Huge areas have to be occupied with gun emplacements. That is the first problem which faces the artillery, and it is a problem in which, I think, the Admiralty take comparatively little interest. I go further and say that in some cases the Admiralty when asked to take over the fortification of ports have refused to do so, and have left it to the artillery. I am not complaining of that, because it is the job of the artillery, but I should like to deal with this particular point about the defence of Ireland. If you have a friendly Ireland, which is a Dominion, which is satisfied with the proceedings of this country, then there is no object, as far as I can see, in holding these ports.
  Sir R. Ross: The point of my remarks was that you have not a friendly Ireland, and that they are not satisfied.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Well, wait and see.
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I am trying to deal in a practical way with two points, first, whether you have a friendly Ireland and, secondly, whether you have a hostile Ireland. I am a little more optimistic than my hon. Friend in thinking that some day we may have a friendly Ireland. Dominions have control of their own ports. What would happen if we had a
  1524
  hostile Ireland and we retained the ports? With a hostile Ireland, and these ports in our possession extending to two, three or four acres, with their gun emplacements in various parts, the ports would be absolutely untenable. A few howitzers planted in the hinterland, which the forts could not touch, would make the ports absolutely untenable. That is the artillery point of view, and I think that anybody who has any knowledge of the matter must realise that fact. When you get into the whole complicated system of the process of sighting guns as they are nowadays, the difficulty is very much increased. As a comparatively humble officer of the Royal Artillery I know that the problem of defending these Irish ports exercised the minds of the artillery to a very considerable extent. Some of my colleagues who were themselves Southern Irishmen and who served in the artillery were very much worried about the defence of the ports. I should like, in conclusion, to express my thankfulness that the problem of the defence of ti le ports has been so satisfactorily settled.
  10.8 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: In saying a few words on this subject I must confess to a feeling of very deep sympathy with Ulster and all that she has stood for, and will continue to stand for. Nevertheless, I feel very strongly, speaking professionally and from other standpoints, that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) are not necessarily groundless but they must be received with great sympathy and understanding, in view of all that has happened between this country and Ireland. As far as my own personal experience of these ports goes, and it goes back to the year 1890, I should like to say that they are vital to us in regard to any menace which may come against our trade and the safety of this country.
  Arguments were put forward the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), with his usual skill, but he did not provide any solution whatever. He frightened all of us, or he frightened a good many of us, but he provided no solution. How have these ports been utilised since 1922? The British Fleet which used the ports for a century or more with the greatest possible effect from the point of view of training the Fleet, has never used the ports during all

  1525
  the years since 1922. They have been under care and maintenance parties, and have not been of the smallest use. The Southern Irish attach such great importance to them that there was a fear, and not an unnatural one, that if the ports were used there would be a very serious and perhaps a very deplorable incident, which would make conditions between Ireland and this country even worse than they have been. That only goes to show that Ireland has been unfriendly in consequence of our retention of the ports.
  As the ports are now useless and have not been used for many years, the least that we can do is to make an effort once more to approach Southern Ireland and make her friendly to this country. If the ports remained in our hands as they are at present and Ireland was not with this country in any crisis that came along, it would be impossible for us to use the ports. Take the port of Berehaven. It is surrounded by hills in such a way that we should need a large military force in order to control it. That in itself is quite sufficient to put the idea of retaining the ports under present conditions entirely out of our thoughts. I see very grave risks. The argument which is put forward that Ireland may like to use these ports as a means of bargaining with us on the subject of partition, must be given close consideration. I am fully prepared to accept that and to go forward with this act of faith, whatever it may bring about. Let us see whether we cannot start a new era of friendship with Ireland. I see no reason why that should not come about. Personally, I am prepared to face any of the risks that have been suggested rather than the risk of leaving the ports in their present condition.
  Sir David Reid: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether the approaches to these ports from the North to the South can be adequately defended against submarines or other naval attack if the ports cannot be made use of?
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: I am asked whether we can defend our trade routes and so on without the use of these ports. The answer is that if we did not have them under our complete control we should be in very great difficulties in defending our interests. There can be no possible shadow of doubt about that. I said in my short speech that they are
  1526
  vital to our interests when our trade and our safety are menaced.
  10.13 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) has raised a very important point, but I think the argument which he put forward has been effectively answered, first, by my hon. and gallant Friend the,Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), speaking from the point of view of an artilleryman and, secondly, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), speaking as a sailor with great naval experience. Both those hon. and gallant Member spoke from the point of view of naval and military requirements and strategy, which are of such concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry. In order to explain the attitude which the Government have taken up I might add a few words of further reply. My hon. Friend is concerned with the security of these islands. It was with the security of these islands that the Government were mainly concerned when they examined this problem during our recent negotiations with the Ministers from Eire.
  I do not deny for one moment the great importance of the three ports of Berehaven, Queenstown and Lough Swilly from the strategical point of view. If the Government had had the opportunity of maintaining our occupation of those ports, and of maintaining our other rights under Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty, with the good will of the Government of Eire, we should not have sought any alteration in the position as it was left by the Treaty. But that was not one of the alternatives before us. This Government, as is well known, is a Government of realists. We had to consider the two real alternatives which were presented to us. If I may put those alternatives very briefly, they were as follows. In the first place, we could stay in the ports, we could maintain our other rights under Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty, but not with the good will of the Government or the people of Eire. Hon. Members, with the exercise of a little imagination, will appreciate that our occupation of those Irish ports touched the Southern Irish people at a point where they feel very strongly and

  1527
  where they are very sensitive. They regarded that occupation as an infringement of their national freedom and as a continuation of the old subjection of them to their more powerful neighbours across the Irish Channel. They resented the continuation of that occupation and those other rights contained in Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty. To quote Mr. de Valera himself, speaking a few days ago in the Dail, he said:
  " I know of nothing that menaces the possibility of permanent good relations with Britain so much as these Articles."
  I think we have to face the fact that we could have maintained these Articles, but with an increasing resentment of them on the part of the Irish people. They would have been a permament barrier to those good relations between our two peoples which we desire to see and which are so very important from the point of view of strategy and the security of this island in time of emergency and in time of war. Therefore, the other alternative which we had to consider was that of withdrawing from the ports, of abrogating Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty, and of removing that obstacle to good relations between the two peoples, with the faith that by that.act of withdrawal and abrogation we might create conditions which would produce a new friendship, a new trust, and new co-operation between the peoples of the two islands. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Londonderry is rather sceptical—and he quoted speeches to support his scepticism —as to the possibility of that friendship growing between the two peoples. I can only say that the Ministers who were concerned in these negotiations, after discussing this question very closely and very thoroughly with the Irish Ministers who were in London, got the impression that the removal of this obstacle would be a real contribution towards the establishment of better relations between the Southern Irish and ourselves. Just as my hon. and gallant Friend can make quotations from speeches, some of them dating a long way back when conditions were rather different, which seem to support his contention—
  Sir R. Ross: Some of the speeches were made last week.
  Mr. MacDonald: I said that some of them dated a good way back—so also I could give quotations to show that, I believe even in the last week, this action has tended to establish better and more friendly relations. I shall not weary the Committee with the quotations now. I only want to say this. These were the two alternatives put forward. My hon. and gallant Friend has spoken about the view of the Admiralty when he had every reason to know what that view was. When we were considering the two alternatives, we took the advice of our naval experts and the Chiefs of Staff. We put these alternatives before them from the purely military point of view, and we were advised that if the choice lay between staying in the ports and maintaining these rights and having thereby a permanently resentful and hostile Ireland, and coming out of the ports and creating conditions of friendship and cooperation, then it was in the interests of the security of this island that we should choose the latter alternative. From the military and political point of view we decided that this was the right course in the interests of that very security about which my hon. and gallant Friend was so concerned.
  10.21 p.m.
  Colonel Gretton: The hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) made a large assumption when he spoke about the Irish ports having no background of friendly support and discussed their fortification with guns with a hostile people behind them. My hon. and gallant Friend the \leather for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) pointed out that these ports are vital to our defence. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister said the alternative was either vacating the ports with the good will and co-operation of the Irish people behind us, or retaining the ports and having a hostile people and Government of Southern Ireland. In choosing the first alternative on the advice of the Admiralty the co-operation and good will of the Irish people are exactly what the Government have not got in this Agreement. They have not any undertaking of co-operation and support, and there is no indication of it. They are assuming that they have bought something by these great concessions which is not apparent in the Agreement, and the House has been told nothing except the very sanguine statements

  1529
  made by Ministers on the Front Bench. What has taken place this evening only emphasises the very uncertain position in which we are left in the matter which my hon. and gallant Friend, speaking from the naval point of view, has shown is vital to the defence and safety of this country. The Government have made great concessions hoping that all will be well, but there are no undertakings. We are told that there are no secret agreements, and there is nothing settled between the Government in Dublin and the Government in Whitehall except what is set out in the Agreement. I am afraid that this Debate will only add to the disquietude and discomfort which have already been created on this question in many quarters.
  Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Agreements between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Eire.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
  10.26 p.m.
  Sir R. Ross: The only portion of this Schedule to which I shall address myself to-night is the Trade Agreement. It is an Agreement of extraordinary application which, if it had come before the House in the form of a Bill, would have taken weeks of discussion before it was settled. It is an Agreement of considerable commercial importance to every part of the United Kingdom, and therefore I make no excuse for discussing it shortly, hoping to get some assistance from the hon. Member who is to reply for the Government on these trade matters. The Trade Agreement, although it is important to every part of the country, is of much greater importance to Northern Ireland than to this island, because much the larger proportion of the trade of Northern Ireland used to be with the Free State, and the hope which we have all had was that when a settlement or agreement came to be made with Southern Ireland as many as possible of those duties on both sides would be abolished, that there should be freedom of trade throughout Ireland, and that partition in a Customs
  1530
  sense and as regards the restriction of trade might be abolished to a greater degree to please us.
  What we also hoped was that this Agreement would be upon a basis of strict mutuality, that the advantages would be equal for one side and for the other. The duties which were put on as a reprisal and which have been alluded to as the penal duties which are abolished by this portion of the Schedule were put upon Irish cattle and agricultural produce with a view to raising from the Customs the moneys which the Government of this country said at that time were due from the Irish Free State, as it then was, to us. Not unnaturally, the Irish Free State put on a lot of duties in reprisal. Those duties affected us in Northern Ireland far more than they affected anyone else. They naturally affected Northern Ireland's trade because that was the part of the country which did the greater proportion of trade with the Free State, and we suffered very serious losses. No sort of compensation came to us for that, because although we were gaining financially in this contest between the Free State and the United Kingdom the profits went into the Treasury here and the losses on our side came out of the pockets of traders in the North of Ireland—also traders in the United Kingdom, but particularly in Ulster, where we suffered very considerably. Therefore, we had hoped that the least we should get would be restoration to a position which was no worse than that in which we had been before this trouble began. I do not question the policy which produced it; it was an absolutely proper policy, and one which was necessary at the time and possibly is still necessary. I do not wish to suggest that there are no good points in the Trade Agreement, because I think that the part of it dealing with agricultural imports is admirable. The principle of control of agricultural imports from Ireland is good and is admitted. I do not say that it is entirely in our favour, possibly there are greater advantages to the other side in connection with agriculture, but it is not one on which we can make any complaint, and we are very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and those who have acted with him in working out such a sound Agreement.
  Even on the other side, the Board of Trade side, there are points of ad

  1531
  vantage. Particularly I would allude to the obolition of the Customs Emergency Duties in Article 5, the modification of the package duty in Article 6, and to the other directions in which obstacles to retail trade have been quite materially lightened. So far as I can judge in construing an extremely technical and complicated Agreement—it is not long since this Agreement was published, and there has not been much time to get technical advice from people interested in the various duties with which it deals—nearly all the goods which were normally supplied from Northern Ireland to Southern Ireland have now a higher duty then they had in 1932. That is a great injustice. For instance, linen has a higher duty and so have shirts and collars. They are all in Schedule V with many other things which generally come from us; whereas, the things which are normally supplied from Great Britain and not from Northern Ireland seem to have got off much better. I do not say that they should not have got off better, For instance, boots are, I think, in a better position than they were in 1932, and, of course, coal is in the best position of all.
  It is said that this was necessary to some extent in order to protect new Irish industries. We are told that people have been encouraged to support factories in what was the Irish Free State and that, having been so encouraged, a reasonable chance must be given of carrying the factories on profitably or with success; but I do not think that this is so. An instance which I should think would occur to one fairly soon is that of biscuits. Biscuits were subject, upon import from the United Kingdom to Eire, to a duty of 3½d —that is to say sweetened biscuits. If you exported a ton of them into Eire the duty payable would be £32 13s. 4d. whereas if you imported a ton of Irish biscuits into the United Kingdom the duty would be only£5 They are, therefore, in a six-times better position. As regards the new industries, Jacob's biscuit factory is one of the largest biscuit factories in the British Isles and has been going for some years, since well before the War, and they have brought biscuits into this country in large quantities. In his reply I should like the Minister to address himself to this point, because it seems entirely at variance with the statement
  1532
  that such protection as they have is entirely in connection with new industries.
  I cannot, at this late hour, deal with the various items about which nothing can be altered, but I would like some explanation of why, in addition, there are various small but irritating restrictions which work only in one way. For instance, commercial travellers going from Eire into Northern Ireland do not have to pay any duties on their cars, but our commercial travellers are subjected to irritating restrictions if they take their cars, even for a temporary period, into Southern Ireland. Take the case of furniture removal; it has been arranged that furniture which has to be removed from Eire into Northern Ireland can be taken only by an Eire firm. One would think that the reverse would apply, but it does not. Furniture moved the other way about can be moved only by an Eire firm. So they get it both ways. That is a most astonishing thing.
  It is said that the Prices Commission will put many of these matters right, but the Prices Commission is a body in which I cannot say I have very much confidence. I have already suggested to the Dominions Secretary -hat there was a time when one of his clan would not have cared to be judged by a member of the clan of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell), because there was a certain amount of mutual criticism between the two clans. I do not think that our chances, in front of a committee of gentlemen in Dublin set up to see that they take care of Eire industries, are going o be any better; and we have no representation whatever on that Commission, as far as I know. If, therefore, that is held out to us as a hope, it is going to be a very faint hope. This agreement has been a bitter disappointment. The enormous sum of nearly £1,000,000 of public money has been forgiven to Eire, and one had hoped that we should get an equitable result from that, and that, having stood the brunt of the economic war for six years, we should be put back in at least as good a position as that in which we were before it started; indeed, I think it would only have been common jus-ice to put us in a better position. It seems to me, judging as best one can a long and complicated agreement, that we are in a definitely

  1533
  worse position, and that it is not likely to get any better as the result of this agreement.
  10.37 p.m.
  Sir P. Harris: Naturally we on the Liberal benches, and certainly I myself, do not view with favour any restriction of trade. We would like to see a free exchange of goods between Great Britain and Ireland, and the removal of all these barriers, whether between Great Britain and Eire, between Great Britain and the Dominions, or between Great Britain and foreign countries. But we have to he realists, and to recognise the principle that Ireland, as I still prefer to call it—the Irish Free State—is a Dominion.
  Sir D. Reid: Are you sure that it is?
  Sir P. Harris: This is a step forward in that direction, not only from the point of view of Great Britain, but from the point of view of the Irish Free State. We have to recognise that, although these tariffs may be put on in Eire against this country, they are equally put on in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, and also in the great Indian experiment. In these cases there is the principle of preference, and the very fact that the Irish Free State also is accepting that principle means that she is willing and anxious to come into that great family of nations, the Commonwealth of the British Empire. That is a great step forward. We recognise that we have to take this agreement as a whole, for better or worse. We recognise that it has been brought about after a long and bitter struggle lasting over two years, and, that being so, I think that the Government and the Dominions Secretary are entitled to get this Bill through as, if you like, part of the price that we have to pay for a very valuable contribution to the peace of the world, a step towards good will between this country and the Irish Free State.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: If I, as a Welshman, have the temerity to intervene in this discussion on the dispute between the Irish people and the English people, it is only to point out that the people of South Wales have had to pay heaviest of all for that dispute. There has been no difference at all between the Welsh people and the Irish people. We recognised that the Irish people were entitled to get the rights of nationality.
  Mr. McGovern: And the Scottish people.
  Mr. Griffiths: And the Scottish people too, when they ask for it. It is actually the South Wales miners who have very largely paid for the dispute, because the result of putting on those very stupid duties against Ireland was that Ireland put on heavier duties on South Wales coal. As a result, pits closed down and men were put out of work. The Board of Trade records show that as soon as those duties were put on, when that stupid quarrel began, the miners began paying the full price, and continued to do so until a coal-cattle agreement was made, to restore some of the markets. One thing we welcome in this Bill, which we hope will pass very quickly, is that it does restore something like a decent relationship between the Irish and the Welsh people commercially. The natural market for Welsh coal, which is the Irish market, was cut off overnight. Now it has been, for some time, restored, and in so far as it makes that an assured market, I want, as a Welshman, to welcome the Agreement.
  10.42 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred to the coal-cattle agreements. I am sure he will recognise that, very shortly after this unfortunate dispute began, we in this country tried to minimise its effects on the coal trade in general, and the Welsh coal trade in particular. These coal-cattle agreements have been going for some time, and it would not be unfair to call them the forerunners of this very fine Agreement which my right hon. Friend has made. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) has made some general criticisms of the Trade Agreement. I do not propose at this late hour, and in view of the discussion there has been on Second Reading, to inflict on the House any general review of the trade situation between ourselves and Eire, or the general objectives at which the Trade Agreement aims.
  Sir D. Reid: What we want explained is why the Welsh miners were restored to the pre-1933 position and we in Northern Ireland were not.
  Captain Wallace: I intend to come particularly to the position of Northern Ireland under the Agreement. I was just going to say that I do not propose to discuss the general objectives of the Trade Agreement, but to confine myself to the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, which deal with the effect of the Trade Agreement on Northern Ireland. He started by referring to the special duties, and he expressed, if I understood him right, some disappointment that the Government of Northern Ireland did not secure some share of the proceeds. The answer is that these duties were authorised by this House for the specific purpose of making good any direct loss to the revenue of the United Kingdom on account of the refusal of the Government of the Irish Free State to pay the annuities.
  I think the House will recognise that it would be entirely inconsistent with the expressed intentions of Parliament that any share of those duties should have been made available for payments to people who suffered indirectly; and, what is more, I do not believe that the Government of Northern Ireland have ever put forward a claim in that regard. I am glad to say that my hon. and gallant Friend went on to admit that there were some good things in the Agreement. There are even some good things in that part of it which has been negotiated by the Board of Trade. He was perfectly right in saying that Northern Ireland will derive great benefit from the abolition of these irritating little taxes which have been taken off under Article 6.
  But I must attempt to controvert the contention of my hon. and gallant Friend that, while we ourselves in the United Kingdom will be, as a result of the passage of this Measure, better off than we were before the trouble, Northern Ireland will be worse off. He referred in particular to boots and shoes on the one hand, which we in this country send to Eire, and shirts and linen goods of that kind on the other, which Eire gets or used to get from Northern Ireland. One answer to his contention—and it is the same one that he advanced on Second Reading—is that while reductions of duty are obtained under the Agreement in Article 10 and the Fifth Schedule both on boots and shoes and on linen goods and shirts, the former, that is our boots and shoes, are still liable to quantitative re
  1536
  striction which did not exist before the economic war, while my hon. and gallant Friend's linen goods and shirts are entirely free from any such restriction. In the case of boots and shoes there is no guarantee that there will be any expansion in that trade until the quantitative restrictions are removed under the Prices Commission review, while the trade in linen goods and shirts is free to expand immediately and to obtain all the benefit to be derived through the duties on these particular goods being halved.
  In the second place it is true that while now Great Britain exports boots and shoes direct to Eire, and the trade from Northern Ireland is small, the chief reason why we included boots and shoes in the Fifth Schedule is that Northern Ireland formerly enjoyed a very substantial entrepot trade in footwear and it was actually the Government of Northern Ireland which included them in the list of goods upon which they would like immediate concessions to be obtained. I do not think therefore that it is too much to say that it was at the wish of Northern Ireland that these things were put into the Schedule.
  Sir D. Reid: It is not a question of the Government of Northern Ireland. We are here representing our constituents. The Customs duties are not the province of the Government of Northern Ireland but of this House. We are here representing our constituents and the Government of Northern Ireland is out of it.
  Captain Wallace: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view, but I do not think that he would really blame His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for paying some considerable attention to the views of the Government of Northern Ireland during these intricate negotiations. Northern Ireland will also benefit particularly from the coal provisions in this Agreement. Under the coal-cattle Agreement only coal which entered a Free State port secured the benefit of the special terms. From now onwards it will be perfectly open to Northern Ireland to take any advantage they can from an entrepot trade in coal which happens to enter the whole island of Ireland through an excellent and well-equipped port on the Northern side of the boundary.
  Probably the best short answer that I can give to my hon. and gallant Friend's

  1537
  contention is to quote five things that the Agreement has done for Northern Ireland. First of all, there have been certain adjustments in the financial relations between the two countries which have not been wholly to the disadvantage of Northern Ireland. Secondly, there have been immediate modifications of duties on certain goods of special interest to Northern Ireland. Thirdly, it has been agreed that the Government of Northern Ireland will enjoy what I might describe as some measure of priority before the Prices Commission. Fourthly, we have agreed that, if the Government of Northern Ireland finds itself in difficulties over this trade Agreement with the Government of Eire, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will invoke the consultation provision which exists in the Treaty, and that will enable us to appear as the friend and ally of Northern Ireland in these discussions.
  Finally, I may, I hope, be forgiven for referring to the advantages which we think the Agreement will confer on Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom which are not really found within the four walls of the Agreement itself. We heard a good deal in the Second Reading Debate of the new feeling which we hope this Treaty will engender. As far as the trade side of it is concerned, it is only fair that I should say, speaking for the Board of Trade, that during the whole of the negotiations that we have had with the Irish Free State Government during the coal-cattle Agreements we have always found that they and their officials were not only as good, but better, than their word. Therefore, I think there are considerable advantages to be obtained which cannot be set down in Clauses or Schedules; and in enumerating those five benefits which Ulster will derive from the Agreement, I was only quoting from a speech by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland on 26th April.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That the Bill be now read the Third time "
  Sir R. Ross: It is no fault of mine that I have the exhausting task of addressing the House again and again on the same evening. I had hoped that the Third Reading would have been postponed until to-morrow, as was originally intended, and as I think would have been preferable. However, much as I regret having to keep hon. Members a little longer, I do not think they will ever get rid of about £I,000,000 of public money with greater despatch than at the present moment. This Agreement has been greeted with pathetic optimism by the British Press. On every occasion when all the differences between this country and Ireland have been settled once and for all it has always been greeted with optimism and satisfaction by the British Press. That has happened on numerous occasions within our memory, and it will happen again.
  The peculiarity of the discussion on this Bill is not so much what has been said as what has been left unsaid; and the first of these factors is: how was it that we have not a better bargain in the circumstances? Mr. de Valera was in a position of the very greatest difficulty. He had started to get markets other than this country. He had ried to get coal which was better than Welsh coal; and had failed. He was dependent on the Labour party in Ireland for his majority, and hon. Members opposite know how poor the social services are in Ireland. Mr. de Valera has supported Franco and the Italians in Abyssinia, and organised labour in Eire has boycotted the Senate elections under his new Constitution. It strikes me as peculiar that we should have been driven into achieving what the Bill has achieved, considering the great advantages which I should imagine His Majesty's Government in this country had over the representatives of Southern Ireland who came to see them.
  We must not forget one thing, and that is that the opposition to Mr. de Valera has been destroyed. The great point in their policy was always that an agreement of this kind should be come to, and certainly no Government of that part of the country could have hoped to have had an agreement which was more favourable to what they wanted than this Agreement. The people who are put out into the wilderness and who were on the point of securing a majority in the Dail at the

  1539
  next election are the people who have always stood for honouring the conditions of the Treaty, and the party favoured by this Agreement are those who have torn the Treaty to tatters.
  An interesting speech was made on the Second Reading Debate by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell), who knows Southern Ireland and the county of Cavan as well as anyone. He said with perfect truth that an end of the trouble would come at a time when the people in the South of Ireland realised their common interest with the United Kingdom. The whole argument with which this Bill has been supported has been that it may be a bad bargain, but that at all events it secures the good will of the people of Eire. Good relations can generally be secured on one of two bases, either the affection or the respect of the other people. I do not think that you have the affection of the people of Eire or of Mr. de Valera, and I rather think that by making a financial bargain which is almost unexampled—
  Mr. J. P. Morris: The hon. Member has mentioned the word "bargain" several times, but is he aware that two Royal Commissions, the Bryce Commission and the Primrose Commission, reported in 1892 and in 1898 that Ireland had contributed to the Exchequer £2,000,000 a year more than she was liable to contribute over a great number of years?
  Sir R. Ross: My hon. Friend is going back to the Bryce Commission, entirely ignoring all the Land Purchase Acts on which this debt was produced. The debt was acknowledged by everyone in authority in Ireland and by Members representing the Irish constituencies here as a sacred debt, and it was after the Bryce Commission that it was contracted. If the hon. Member cannot think of a more effective interruption than that, I think it would have been better for him to have remained in his place. As regards the question whether we have succeeded in getting their affection and in gaining friendly relations, Mr. Lemass, another of those who were parties to this Agreement, went back to Ireland and did not say, "We have come to an Agreement generous on the part of the British Government." No, he said, "We have won the economic war." As a matter of fact, they had lost it, but they were given
  1540
  the fruits of victory. As regards the question that this Agreement, if it is to be of any good, must produce friendly relations, I will read Mr. de Valera's own words in the Dail last week, when he said:
  " First and foremost of those matters in dispute was that outrage to which Deputy Larkin referred—the Partition of our country. No Irishman who wanted to establish good relations between Britain and ourselves or between ourselves and Britain could ignore that. Remember that promises between Governments are not the things that matter. Treaties and signed documents are not the things that matter.
  What matters most in the relations between countries is the fact that those countries have common interests, and that there are no disputes which prevent those common interests from getting their full attention. No Irishman could hope to establish good relations with Britain, really and fundamentally, as long as that outrage on our nationality and on our people persists."
  There you have, from the mouth of Mr de Valera himself, the statement that good relations have not been established between this country and the country which he represents. As to his further grievance, in regard to Partition, no one throughout this whole Debate—and many have spoken about the Bill being a step towards the end of Partition—has mentioned the decisive verdict of Ulster on that point, the general election which was so definitely against any question of Partition being considered that it was surprising even to the most optimistic of us. There is nothing which we in Ulster would wish for more than to have a "good neighbour" policy with the people who live in the same island, and with whom we are perfectly content to be on the friendliest terms we can get, in spite of the constant spate of criticism, and the encouragement of every disloyal element in the country.
  I could say much more, but I do not want to prolong the Debate. If there should be any hope on anybody's part that this Bill is a step towards putting Ulster under the control of any Dublin Parliament, I can assure hon. Members and those in other places, that our determination to preserve our liberties will stop at no sacrifice. [An HON. MEMBER:" Is that friendly? "] Am I not friendly? If I wish to preserve my own liberty have I not a right to do so? The hon. Member opposite will take care to preserve his. He will fight for his, and so will I fight for mine if I have to do

  1541
  so. This is the old procedure of trying to get the friendship of the people of Southern Ireland by means of British generosity. It was tried in the old Nationalist days again and again. Things were done for Southern Ireland which were not done for Northern Ireland or the people of this country. Then there was the Treaty in which great sacrifices were made by this country. After the Treaty there was the release of Southern Ireland from any responsibility for their share of the National Debt, much of which had been incurred in their interest. Then there was the Statute of Westminster which, in effect, released them from the Treaty. Now there is this Agreement. We are told that it will lead to good relations. No one hopes more than I do that that will be the case. No set of people have more to gain than the people of Ulster from being able to live quietly and on good terms with the people in the rest of Ireland. If this Agreement leads to that end I shall be glad, but that it will do so, I have the gravest doubts.
  11.7 p.m.
  Sir H. O'Neill: I wish to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) has just said, namely, that those of us who represent Northern Ireland have no other wish than that this Agreement should prove successful and bring about better relations between the United Kingdom and what was formerly the Irish Free State. Of course we who live rather near to these things and who recollect former controversies cannot help remembering that there have been many agreements in the last generation between Great Britain and Southern Ireland. Each has been hailed at the time as the end of an age-long controversy, but something has always happened and more extreme parties have arisen, and none of those agreements has lasted. I hope this Agreement will have a more fortunate career. There is just one point with regard to the question of partition to which I should allude. One should remember, and I think the British people and even Members of this House sometimes forget it, that the present partition of Ireland is not based on any one-sided arrangement made by this country. It is based upon agreement freely entered into by the three parties concerned in the partition—the Governments of the United Kingdom, of
  1542
  what was the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland.
  Partition was recognised and provided for in the Treaty of 1921. It was there provided that if Northern Ireland wished for separate treatment it had the right under the Treaty, by an Address to His Majesty, to vote itself out of the Treaty. It did so. Furthermore, the Treaty provided regular machinery for defining the boundary between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland. That machinery for defining the boundary was eventually, after some difficulty, set into operation, but before the boundary was finally settled, there was a tripartite agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Free State and Northern Ireland. When that agreement was made it was prefaced by the words, "United in amity," or words of that kind. That agreement in 1925 by the three Governments finally determined the boundary between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland.
  In other words, the Partition which exists to-day is the result of free, open agreement between the three parties concerned. Consequently, when it came under discussion the other day between the British Ministers and the Southern Irish Ministers, it was utterly and completely outside the province of the British Government even to discuss the matter, and they quite rightly said that this matter could be dealt with only in discussions between the three parties who had formerly reached the arrangement which at present exists. Any other reply on the part of the British Government would have gone to the very foundations on which our Empire is built up, namely, the free and unfettered decision of any self-governing unit within the Empire. Northern Ireland has been created by the United Kingdom Parliament as a subordinate self-governing unit within the United Kingdom and as such no change in its status can ever come about except by its own consent.
  11.13 p.m.
  Sir P. Harris: It would be unfortunate if this Bill passed from this House without a few words from these benches. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that a Bill of great constitutional importance should go through the House of Commons at 11.15 p.m., but there is a desire that, for

  1543
  the good effect it may have upon the relations between the two countries, there should be no unnecessary delay. The responsibility for the terms and conditions of this Bill must rest with the Government. The Chairman of Ways and Means has, quite rightly, ruled that we cannot amend the Bill. It is not customary to amend a Bill which is part of a treaty; it must either be accepted or rejected. We on these benches are not attracted by many of the details of the Trade Agreement, but the fact that it is going to improve the trade relations is something in its favour.
  One characteristic of this Bill which makes it different from almost every other Bill dealing with the Irish problem is that it has been brought about, not as the result of pressure, but as the result of an agreement voluntarily arrived at by both parties in a spirit of good will. I think that is the approach which we should make to the Bill. Let us hope that it will be a new dispensation. Hitherto, for two or three hundred years, a policy of resolute government and of pressure has been tried, and tried in vain. For years, this country resisted the appeal for self-government for the Irish people. For years, it was a controversy which divided the two great political parties in the State, and which was the cause of fundamental differences.
  Let us now hope that Ireland, or Eire as they like to be known in these new times, will become a contented part of the British Commonwealth. I do not suppose that Eire will be prepared to accept that phrase, but I hope it is a step in that direction. As far as hon. Members on these benches are concerned, we recognise that mistakes have been made within the last two years on both sides, and we would have liked an ending of the bitter controvesy about the annuities at an early date; but we are prepared to give the Government credit at any rate for an attempt to create a better spirit between the two countries, which we hope will be an example to Europe of the strong being generous to the weak, an example perhaps which will be followed by some of the great Continental nations.
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. Harvey: As one of the two or three Members now in the Chamber who were here when the Home Rule Bill was introduced by Mr. Asquith 26 years ago, per
  1544
  haps I may be allowed to contrast, with thankfulness, the change in the attitude of our discussions, the change in the spirit of the House, and, I hope it will be, the change, too, in the relations of this country and Eire, and the whole of the relations of the British Commonwealth, which is marked by the way in which this Bill has reached this stage. At that time, feeling was so intense that ordinary Members of the two parties in the House would hardly have any dealings with one another. To-day, we have listened with respect to the criticisms of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) and other hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of Northern Ireland. Those who remember the debates of those days must feel, from the altered spirit of the hon. Members' criticism, and especially from the hope expressed by the hon. Baronet for good relations in Ireland, a great hope for the future. I think all hon. Members, even those who have doubts, feel that this House should part with this Bill with a profound feeling of hope. We all desire that this better relationship which is coming into being shall be permanent for the good of this country, for the good of Eire, for the good of the Imperial Commonwealth, and for the peace of the world.
  It is an act of faith, but it is even more, I believe, an act of good will. We must all be grateful to the Dominions Secretary for his patient labour in this cause, to the Prime Minister for the eminent part he has taken, and, may we add, to Mr. de Valera and his colleagues and all others who have contributed to make an Agreement which will surely be a landmark in the history of the Empire.
  11.21 p.m.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: Perhaps I may be allowed as an Irishman representing a large English constituency to say a final word in relation to this Bill. I would like at once to express my appreciation of the kindly sentiments which have been uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill). His speech is an indication, I hope, of the spirit which will prevail in the future between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State. I also appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry has said, and I hope that the natural doubts which he entertains regarding the operative effect of this great constitutional

  1545
  change will not be borne out. We have in this House of Commons for two generations been battling over the settlement of this Irish question, and for the first time in this long and tragic story the Prime Minister of this country has taken his courage in both hands and dealt with the question on constructive, hopeful, and inspiring lines. Having given many years in my early days to Ireland, I would like to express, on behalf, I believe of the mass of my fellow countrymen throughout the British Empire and in the United States, profound appreciation of the way in which this difficult, embarrassing, and thorny question has been handled by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State during the recent conversations.
  Those of us who have been identified with the Irish question for so many years and who desire that this long controversy should be brought to a happy and satisfactory conclusion will rejoice to-night in the Third Reading of this Bill.
  In my early days I was one of the hon. secretaries of a movement which aimed at what was called the establishment of devolution in Ireland. My right hon. Friend will perhaps remember the days when Lord Macdonnell was Under-Secretary in Dublin. A whole series of efforts has been made from that time to this. All these bitternesses and asperities have been roused again and again by controversies which, I hope, will now pass into the oblivion of historical obscurity. We in the House of Commons are, I hope, putting an end to this long, outstanding series of differences, thus telling the world that at last British statesmanship has risen to a full sense of its responsibility in regard to Ireland, and that this question has been brought, on a judicious examination, to a conclusion which will gain the respect of the whole world. Those who have been familiar with Irish affairs will recall how much in the War and subsequently British statesmanship was embarrassed by the interference of Irish discontent in a thousand directions throughout the Empire and in foreign countries. We hope that this great measure of amelioration, this great measure of friendship, will now at last settle these long-outstanding differences.
  Speaking as one engaged in British industry I look forward to the Trade Agreement embodied in this Bill as the beginning of a more vitalised and rapidly
  1546
  expanding trade between the two countries. We have lost millions of pounds in trade between Ireland and Great Britain during the last 10 or 15 years. So far as I can ascertain, the feeling in Ireland is undergoing a most happy and hopeful transmutation. The attitude of the Irish people, according to every source from which I can get information, is becoming more friendly, and more anxious to develop better relations, and we look forward to more helpful trade relations in the future.
  We in this country have a great deal to gain by making our trade situation with Ireland better; Ireland has much to gain, also, by the opportunities afforded by the relief from the duties imposed by this country. I am confident that we are beginning a new regime in the relationship of the two countries, and the effects of that relationship will not be confined to the limits of Eire and Great Britain, but extend throughout the world. Nations will see that British statesmanship is at last competent to deal with a domestic situation in its own Commonwealth to the betterment of the two peoples concerned.
  11.28 p.m
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The Government deeply appreciate the friendly words which have been used about this Bill on its Third Reading in so many quarters. We appreciate especially the sincere good wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill). The hon. Member for Londonderry and his friends have been critical of certain aspects of this Agreement. We all know how keenly he feels about this matter. We all know how closely it touches his constituency and neighbouring constituencies, and I am certain that no one in the House resents his making these speeches on the subject at this late hour. We admire his persistency in speaking and his restraint in not speaking a great deal longer or more often.
  I want to say only one or two sentences on the question with which he was concerned in his last speech, that of partition. He has said that while it is being claimed for this series of Agreements that it is going to establish a new friendship between Eire and this country, that will not be so, because we have already been

  1547
  told by the leaders in Eire that there cannot be friendship as long as partition lasts. The House has got to face the facts; certainly we on this bench do not wish to run away from them. It is true that Mr. de Valera, in the course of our negotiations, said, "There cannot be any complete and permanent friendship between the peoples of the two Islands as long as partition continues." Well, partition is not altered in any way by these Agreements or by this Bill. The attitude of this Government to that question was made perfectly plain, not only in the negotiations, but also by the Prime Minister in his speech the other day, when he said that we could not consent to any modification of the position between Eire and Northern Ireland which had not the consent not only of the people and the Government of Eire, but of the people and the Government of Northern Ireland. Therefore, this Bill makes no alteration whatever in the relations between this Island and that other part of the United Kingdom, the six counties of Northern Ireland.
  Nevertheless, in spite of what my hon. Friend has said, the Bill makes a difference to the relations between Eire and this Island, because, besides partition, there were three other outstanding questions, three other major matters of dispute between the two countries, when these negotiations started. They were our occupation of the Treaty ports, the financial dispute, and the tariff and trade. Every one of those points of dispute will be removed if this legislation goes through the two Parliaments, and removal of these disputes is bound to improve very considerably the friendship, trust and co-operation between the two peoples.
  In conclusion, I would only echo the words which were spoken by the last speaker; I do not think that the good effects of this Bill will be confined to these two Islands. The greater friendship which will flow from these Agreements will be extended to people who live far beyond these Islands. In some parts of our Dominions there are large populations of Irishmen, and to-day they are rejoicing in these Agreements. Our relations with those Dominions have always been excellent, but they will be a little more excellent as a result of the
  1548
  removal of ancient matters of dispute between Eire and the people of this Island.
  There are other countries outside the Empire; there are the United States, where Irishmen take a great part in foreign affairs and in politics, and in moulding the international relations of that country. One has but to read the American Press to see how this series of Agreements has resulted in improving the friendly relations which exist between the United States and this country. It is because of the very wide and far-reaching effects of this legislation that I am confident that the House will give it now an unopposed Third Reading.

  HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, it is ex-pedient—
  A. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional sums as may become payable thereout under section four of the said Act of 1926 by reason of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a) substituting the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-two for the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, as the date before which an application for assistance must be received by the local authority in order for their power to give assistance under the said Acts of 1926 and 1931 to be exercisable;

  (b) authorising, in the case of a dwelling in respect of which a grant was given on application received before the second day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and which is overcrowded, the giving of a further grant exceeding the amount which, apart from the said provisions, would have been permissible, but not exceeding two-thirds of the estimated cost of the works or one hundred pounds, whichever is the less, and not so as to exceed a total of one hundred and fifty pounds for all grants in respect of the dwelling;

  (c) providing that any contributions made in respect of any grant given by a county council in the Highlands and Islands on application received after the twenty-ninth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, shall, in lieu of being an amount equal to one-half, be an amount equal to three-quarters of the

  1549
  estimated average annual payments referred to in Sub-section (2) of the said Section four.

  B. To authorise sums repayable to the Minister of Health or to the Department of Health for Scotland, under the said Act of 1926, on a breach of conditions applicable to a dwelling under that Act or on exercise of an option to repay conferred thereby, to be ascertained by reference to a part, in lieu of by reference to the whole, of the contributions made by the Minister or the Department in respect of the dwelling."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  WHALE OIL (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  WHALE OIL (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (PONTYPRIDD).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (PONTYPRIDD).
  ROYAL NAVY (OIL-TANKER FLEET).
  ROYAL NAVY (OIL-TANKER FLEET).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
HARWICH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HIRE-PURCHASE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF BLINDNESS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIDGWATER EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Provisions as to registration.
4.—(1) If the landlord of any dwelling-house let as a separate dwelling immediately before the passing of this Act, being a dwelling-house of which the rateable value on the appointed day did not exceed the respective amount mentioned in Section two of this Act, claims that by virtue of the provisions of Section two of the Act of 1923 the principal Acts had ceased to apply to the dwelling-house before the passing of this Act, he shall within three months after the passing of this Act make to the council of the county borough or county district in which the dwelling-house is situated application in the prescribed form for the registration of the dwelling-house:
Provided that …
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "twelve months" for "three months." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. He is unavoidably absent, and is down in his country place, I believe, watching for the rain which does not seem about to fall. This is a very simple Amendment. In Clause 4 the period specified is three months, and this Amendment is intended to increase the period to twelve months. The clause was not much discussed in another place. Under it landlords of pre-War houses of a rateable value between £20 and £35 in the Metropolitan Police District and City of London, and between £13 and £20 elsewhere in England, must within three months register such houses if they are let and have been decontrolled by the landlord regaining possession after 1923. It seems rather a short period, because many of these landlords are small persons and not well acquainted with the intricacies of the law. If they do not register, they are heavily penalised. The clause provides later on that
"if, on application to the County Court of the district in which the house is situated,

957
the Court not later than one year from the passing of this Act certifies that there was reasonable excuse"—
then everything is put into order. I fail to see the reason for retaining three months as against twelve months. If they have failed to register, these men will be brought into Court—no doubt a very good thing for the lawyers, but rather detrimental to the landlords. Many of them own only one or two houses. I think the Government might concede this Amendment. It is not very important in regard to the main provisions of the Bill, and it will certainly be in the interests of these smaller people.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("three") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Jessel.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend's Amendment. The penalty—and a heavy penalty it is—for not registering in time is the complete forfeiture of the owner's rights of decontrol unless he can prove special circumstances, when the Court gives permission to register after three months. Your Lordships might easily assume that the tenant who registers out of time will be in the same position as a tenant who has registered normally, but that is not so at all. The house, if registered in such circumstances, changes its character and is controlled in all respects, except that it is not quite permanently controlled. It is, however, controlled for the lengthy period of the life or lives of the tenant in occupation, of his wife, and even of some of his family after him, if any of them chooses to obtain possession of the house as against the landlord. Surely there can be no justification for so wanton a dispossession of an owner who, for good reason, has registered after the three months.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Before I deal with this Amendment, I should like to say one word which applies to several other Amendments. We all know that the Rent Restrictions Acts are a compromise, and when any alteration is proposed in the general law the Government are almost bound to be attacked on both sides. When this Bill was being considered in another place, attempts were made to amend several of the clauses which noble Lords want to amend here, but invariably in the contrary direction. We successfully resisted those attempts to
958
give the tenants considerable advantages at the landlords' expense. I hope, therefore, that this Committee will not think it unreasonable if we resist attempts to upset the balance at which we have arrived, unless there is a quite overwhelming case. In these very complicated matters, consequential results are apt to be somewhat unfortunate.
This first Amendment seeks to upset a recommendation of the Ridley Committee which has been adopted by the Government. Perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Bertie has brought in a somewhat different consideration from that originally raised, I had better refer to the origin of this clause. When this system of registration was set up in the Act of 1923 it provided, as we do here, that three months should be a normal time for the registration of houses which were alleged to be decontrolled. The Court, however, was given an almost indefinite authority to allow subsequent registration: that is to say, that if the owner applied to the Court he was nearly always given permission to register. That absence of any limit to the Court's discretion has worked extremely hardly, and even now, five years after the passing of the 1933 Act, houses are still being so registered with the result that the tenant has found himself ejected on to the street without any warning whatever. The noble Lord is quite right; we have had to put in a special clause to protect such tenants in the future.
With regard to future registration under this Bill, the Ridley Committee quite definitely recommended a considerable tightening up of the procedure. They said that, as under the 1933 Act, three months should be the normal time for registration, but that in the case of these late applications not only should the authority of the Court be limited in time, but also there should be laid down fairly strict rules as to what claim should be admissible or not. My noble friend behind me wants to extend the three months' period which has been enforced ever since 1933, and which in the large majority of cases gave ample time to register, and he wants to give everybody, irrespective of whether there is good reason or not, a whole year in which to register these houses. In another place an attempt was made to cut down the nine months' discretion which Courts have now got, and the Government had to resist that be

959
cause we thought there would be hardship on the landlord. Here it is proposed to go right against the intention of the Ridley Committee and leave the whole matter in doubt for a year. We think this would work very hardly against the tenants, and therefore we cannot accept it. I am given to understand that the majority of owners do follow very clearly what is happening in Parliament.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I rather regret to hear what has fallen from my noble friend. It seemed to me that his general proposition that it might make difficulties if we made Amendments did not meet the case. I have the greatest sympathy with the general principles of this Bill, but I have come across one or two cases of really exceptional hardship, in which control has been carried on really when it was not the intention of Parliament that it should be. I have actually got a case in my own neighbourhood in which control was asked for with regard to a house which had been granted as a kindness, at a very low rent, to an old servant, and then allowed to be carried on by his widow, again out of pure kindness. Actually, although the fact was not known, after the widow had herself died her daughter succeeded in paying a few instalments of rent, and then claimed to continue to occupy the house on the ground that she was the tenant, although really it was wanted for the use of the estate and no other house was available. As the three months' period hold goods, and she had paid rent for three months, nothing could be done. I would ask my noble friend to remember that this is a very big question, and I cannot help thinking that some concession should be made, if only that the three months should be extended to six months.
LORD JESSEL: I am very sorry that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has distinctly told us that he cannot accept these Amendments which appear on the Paper. After all, this House exists, and one of its great functions is
revision. Also, I think it has the right to look into the Reports of various Committees and Commissions which are presented to this House. If we are to be told that we are not to revise anything, what is the use of our existing? After all, there are not many Amendments on the Paper, and to say that we are not to have any of them at all appears to me to be most unreasonable. I should like to re-echo the proposition made by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. If the Government are adamant as regards the proposal to extend the time to twelve months, we are quite prepared, as my noble friend has said, to compromise at six months. I think that is a fair proposition, and I hope it will be accepted. If not, I think we must go to a Division.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I point out that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, did not reply on the point which I raised—namely, whether he is prepared to put people who registered out of time owing to some disability in the same position as those who registered normally.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I must apologise to noble Lords. I did not know that we had such control over this House. All I intended was to make a respectful appeal to them, having regard to the difficulties of the Government on these complicated matters. With regard to what Lord Bertie said, it is a different proposition to that which is put down on the Paper. He asks for special consideration for those who are suffering from disability, and I do not think I can answer that without consultation with my right honourable friend. I think it is provided for in the Bill itself, which allows the Courts discretion. I again apologise to your Lordships, but I am afraid I must adhere to my attitude. I may conclude by saving to Lord Midleton that there is in the existing Acts special provision for obtaining possession of a house which is required for estate purposes.
On Question, Whether the word "three" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Munster, E.

Zetland, M.

Onslow, E.

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

Stanhope, E.

Airlie, E.

Carnwath, E.

Mersey, V.

Northumberland, D.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

O'Hagan, L.

Forester, L.

Rennell, L.

Addington, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Amulree, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Strabolgi, L.

Bayford, L.

Hindlip, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cautley, L.

Holden, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Lawrence, L.

Templemore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teynham, L.

Clwyd, L.

Marley, L.

Woodbridge, L.

Eltisley, L.

Merthyr, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Grey, E.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Abinger, L.

Midleton, E.

Jessel, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after "dwelling-house" and immediately preceding the proviso, to insert "and for the purpose of such registration subsection (3) of Section two of the Act of 1923 shall be construed as providing that possession of the key by the landlord shall be deemed actual possession within the meaning of the section." The noble Viscount said: Unfortunately for myself, and more unfortunately perhaps for your Lordships, my noble friend Lord Mount Temple cannot be here to-day, so that the duty of moving the three Amendments which stand in our joint names devolves upon myself. The object of this Amendment is to clarify the law, and I think your Lordships will agree that that is a desirable thing. I know it was argued in another place that it was unwise to make a change of this sort, on the hackneyed excuse that it was at the eleventh hour, being at the end of decontrol; but this argument does not hold water, because there are still many cases, and there will be more, in which controversy exists over the time and method of decontrol in the past. Such controversy exists even in the case of Class C houses which have been decontrolled. At the present time there seems to be great confusion in the Courts as to what actual possession is, and what this particular subsection really means. In Hall versus Rogers (1925 Times Law Reports) Lords Justices Scrutton and Bankes said that actual possession means actual physical possession, so that where a tenant left and the owner by his agent inspected the premises, ascertained they were empty, but having no key made no entry, the house was held to be controlled.
On the other hand there have been various decisions where it has been held
962
that actual entry was not necessarily essential, and actual possession may exist where the tenant vacates and hands the key to the owner or agent. This Amendment is in the nature of a compromise between the two extremes. On the one hand there is the extreme where the tenant hands the key to the new tenant. That is sometimes held as decontrol, and sometimes not. At the other extreme it is held that the landlord, to establish decontrol, must enter and keep the house vacant while he has it painted and scrubbed before the new tenant takes over. As to the key being a symbol of possession, the 1923 Act provides that the expression "possession" shall be considered as actual possession and that an owner is not deemed to have come into possession by reason only of a change of tenancy made with his consent. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, when Lord Chancellor, speaking during the passage of the 1923 Act, said that what had been actual possession had been the subject of decisions in the Courts, and he was sorry to have to say that the Courts had left the matter in doubt. If this Amendment is accepted the matter will be placed beyond doubt.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: This Amendment refers to registered houses, and therefore to houses which have been, or which are alleged to have been, decontrolled in the past through obtaining vacant possession. Your Lordships will understand that we are not proposing to decontrol any more houses, except some of the subdivided houses, in this way in the future. Therefore I think we ought to consider what effect, if any, it would have on those houses mentioned by my noble friend over which there has been some dispute

963
before the Courts in the past. An owner might say it was quite true that he had tried to get possession of a house and failed, but with this new provision he might try again and possibly succeed. It seems to me that that might give rise to some confusion because there has been a great deal of litigation in the past as to what has constituted actual possession. And it is quite true that there has been considerable difficulty. But I understand that now the practice of the law is fairly well established. The second type of house to which the Amendment refers consists of houses which have been decontrolled in the past but have not as yet been the subject of any dispute. It would not be a case there of reopening litigation. Although this Amendment pm-ports to be a simplification of the law, I am not sure that it is. What for instance would happen if it were proved there were two keys to the house? I do not feel very convinced at present with what the noble Viscount has said, but I will certainly look into the question very carefully, and if there are any legal conundrums which can be solved, I feel sure we shall do everything we can to meet the position. But for the time being we think the Amendment might cause more trouble.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: After what my noble friend has said I would not think of pressing the Amendment, but I hope he will give it his best consideration so that litigation may be avoided.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
Increase of rent in respect of replacements.
" .For the purposes of subsection (1) of Section seven of the Act of 1933, fixtures and fittings shall not be deemed to include new fixtures or fittings provided to replace existing fixtures or fittings in pursuance of an order of the sanitary authority, or replacements of fixtures or fittings due to the disrepair of the fixtures or fittings replaced."
The noble Lord said: This is a relatively small point. We are anxious to have a new clause inserted after Clause 5, which deals with the right of the landlord to add 25 per cent. to the standard rent in order to cover repairs. There
964
has been a good deal of difficulty about this. When the Committee over which I presided inquired into the question of repairs, we found that there were many cases in which the 25 per cent. increase was being paid, though repairs were not in fact being done. One of the reasons for that was that the cost of repairs had gone up very much during the years immediately following the War, but by the time the Committee over which I presided inquired into this matter we found that the cost of repairs had come down so considerably that, in fact, the allowance was ample to cover the cost of repairs. The Report of my Committee pointed that out in these words:
"It is, however, clear that the permitted increase, though not excessive, is now, owing to the fall in costs, sufficient to enable a conscientious landlord to carry out all necessary repairs on an adequate scale."
Then we went on in our Report to say:
"We are satisfied that owners can no longer claim that the permitted increase is not adequate for its purpose. The evidence which we have received, however, shows that in many districts repairs are not being adequately carried out although the law provides ample machinery of a varied character for securing that they should be."
The law is not, of course, clearly understood by tenants, and I suppose that in only 10 per cent. of the cases in which rent might be withheld because repairs have not been carried out is a reduction of the rent made, because the remaining 90 per cent. of tenants are not aware of their rights. The effect of this is that if over a long period repairs are not carried out year by year, premises tend to fall into a state of such disrepair that the houses are no longer in good and tenantable condition and become a danger to health. The result is that a sanitary certificate is issued for perhaps quite large repairs in consequence of the neglect over a number of years. The sanitary authority makes an order. The object of this Amendment is to secure that when such repairs are carried out as the result of an order by the sanitary authority the landlord should not have the right to charge 8 per cent. extra rent on account of the cost of repairs ordered by the sanitary authority because of neglect in the past.
A similar, but not at all the same, Amendment was discussed in another place, and there was a full and very sympathetic debate. The Solicitor-General,

965
who spoke for the Government, in refusing to accept the Amendment then proposed, which, as I say, was not the same as the Amendment now before your Lordships' House, used these words:
"I say with regret that I cannot accept this clause because something of art apparent case can be made for doing something of the kind which the new clause seeks to do."
And he went on to say that he hoped he was revealing no secret when he said that for a very considerable time recently the Government had been wrestling with the problem as to whether anything could be done along these lines. That is of course no secret. We know that the Government wrestle with these problems continually, and even the Committee over which I presided were not able at that time to suggest a remedy.
As the Solicitor-General pointed out, it is extremely difficult to draw the line between what is an improvement and what is a repair, but in the concluding stages of that debate the Solicitor-General used these words:
"I should like to add one thing. I do not intend to give any undertaking at all, but in the light of the discussion which has taken place we will look into the matter again and see whether there is any reasonable way in which effect can be given to some of the desires expressed by honourable members on all sides of the House. I do not intend, (and I hope the House will not misunderstand), to give an undertaking that the Amendment will be made in another place. I have no reason to think that the discussion has removed our difficulties, but we will look into it again, and if it should prove a more attractive problem we will see what can be done in another place."
We believe we have made it more attractive by modifying the Amendment which was moved in another place. We have removed from our Amendment all reference to improvements so that now it deals only with repairs. There is no question of improvements involved in this. The landlord's right to charge extra rent is limited only in the case of repairs and not in the case of any improvements which may be made. That was perhaps the fault of the Amendment in another place, and that has been corrected in your Lordships' House in order to make this Amendment more attractive anti more reasonable. I feel certain that the use of this House as a revising Chamber will appeal to very many of your Lordships, and that the Government will desire to accept a provision of this kind on this occasion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Marley.)
LORD JESSEL: Before the Government reply, I should like to ask the noble Lord, who so eloquently moved this Amendment, at what stage was the original Amendment moved in another place, and also whether any further discussion took place on the Report stage.
LORD MARLEY: The Amendment was moved on the Committee stage on April 12. I am not aware whether, in fact, any further discussion took place on this particular clause.
VISCOUNT GAGE: As the noble Lord has said, the Solicitor-General in another place did promise to look into this matter, and, as he said, the Government have wrestled with it, but, I am afraid, we have wrestled in vain. Although the noble Lord did give a survey of the existing law there are one or two things that I think he omitted. Standard rent is made up of a number of factors, one of which is an allowance for repairs. I know the allegation is that the landlord takes the allowance and does not do the repairs. The answer to that is that the tenant ought to use his statutory right, go to the local authority and secure a certificate that the house is not fit. If he does get that certificate, as the noble Lord knows, he can withhold the 40 per cent. increase.
The noble Lord said that the tenants did not avail themselves of that provision because of ignorance. All I can say with regard to that is that we have up to a point met that in this Bill by saying that in future every tenancy and the conditions of the tenancy shall be recorded in the rent book, which shall be compulsory, and in the rent book has to be put the address of the sanitary authority to whom application should be made. I think, therefore, that we have covered the tenants as far as we can against that particular form of abuse. We must leave something to the initiative of the tenant. Then the law goes on to say that if the owner puts improvements in the house he can charge the tenant an extra 8 per cent. of the value of the improvements. But the improvements must be of a reasonable nature, and if they are not, the tenant has the protection of the Court. In spite of what the noble Lord has said about limiting this new

967
clause to repairs, I do not think it is possible to exclude improvements in considering repairs. I think we all agree that owners ought to improve their houses as well as keep them in repair. The whole object of this 8 per cent, increase was to encourage owners to improve their houses.
The question arises, supposing an owner replaces some derelict fixture by something which is both a replacement and a fixture, and an improvement results, ought the extra rent to be allowed for that improvement or ought it to be entirely considered as a repair? It seems to me that it is a bit of a repair and a bit of an improvement, and, theoretically, an apportionment ought to be made, so much being allowed in respect of repairs and so much given to the owner in respect of the improvement. But as your Lordships will understand, it is difficult to devise any formula to put into an Act of Parliament which would act as a sort of automatic guide in these matters. If any real grievance is felt by the tenant he can at present take the matter to the Courts. I agree that causes of litigation ought to be removed, but I am not entirely convinced that the proposed new clause would reduce litigation.
It is quite true that if a local authority orders a thing to be done they are confirming that there was something unsatisfactory going on, but the fact of their wanting something to be done to put right some defect does not necessarily rule out the fact that the owner might replace it with something a great deal better and costing much more, and in respect of which he would be entitled to extra rent. I realise that this Amendment is limited to repairs, but it would affect improvements as well, and would tend to deter owners from doing the very thing that is desired—namely, gradually to improve their houses. We think that it would be undesirable to have that deterrent at the present time when decontrol, as we believe, will become possible in the course of the next few years. I would also like to suggest to the noble Lord that if some formula could be devised the sums involved would very often work out in rather a ridiculous way. Supposing, for instance, that fixtures to the value of £20 were put in by the owner, 8 per cent. of £20 represents a weekly additional rent of 7½d. Suppose we were to
968
apportion this and say that 4d. was to go to repairs and the remainder to improvements, is it really worth all this trouble? The tenant would have an extremely small advantage, and there would be great risk of discouraging other owners from making improvements. For these reasons, and because of the safeguards that have been put in the Bill to protect the tenant in the way of giving him information as to what his rights are, I would suggest that the law had better remain as it is.
LORD MARLEY: I am very disappointed at what has been said by the noble Viscount, although I must acknowledge his sympathetic treatment of the point we have put. I cannot help thinking that some formula might be found, and even though £20 were the sum and the amount of weekly rent additional is only 7½d. it does make quite a difference when there is very little money available to pay the rent. The noble Viscount knows as well as I do that 7½d. extra per week does really mean so many fewer pints of milk each week, or so much less to spend on food, and it really might make quite a difference to these very low rented people if £20 were spent to put right years of neglected repairs. I hope that it will not be thought that I am suggesting that all landlords neglect their repairs. I am dealing only with a few special cases of people who do in fact neglect repairs. £20 represents a failure to repair of only perhaps £1 a year over a number of years, or something of that kind. Therefore it will not seem unfair that the landlord should be to a small extent penalised even to the extent of 7½d. per week when he has neglected repairs over a number of years, which neglect has in fact finally made the house uninhabitable. I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division—that would be absurd—but I am going to ask the noble Viscount, because of the sympathy of his reply, whether he would look into the question before the next stage of the Bill and still see whether some formula may not be arrived at to help in this matter. I hope very much that I may have the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on this point, though I do not know what he feels about it. If it were possible I am certain the new clause would bring about an amelioration in conditions to a number of suffering families.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I know that this particular matter was not actually mentioned in the Report of the Committee, but it was nevertheless discussed during the meetings of the Committee at great length. I think that members of the Committee appreciated, as your Lordships will also, the difficulty, the real difficulty, that exists in this matter, but so far as the new clause which has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, is concerned I rather doubt whether it would in fact achieve the object at which it is aimed. In the first place, one must make a distinction between the difficulty of the tenant being able in fact to get his house repaired, or failing that to get the permitted increase of rent withheld, and the difficulty of hat would be a fair portion of any increase which might or would be made legal on account of a repair to the house which might include an improvement. If the fittings are new ones they may be of an improved type and then it might be arguable that there was an improvement. Having in mind that the general effect of the Rent Restrictions Acts is not to improve the quality of houses—your Lordships will know that many houses do deteriorate because it is difficult to improve them while they are under control—I think that any Amendment which would result in reducing the amount of repairs to houses, which might well he kept in reasonable condition for some time if landlords were encouraged to repair them, would be a misfortune. I agree that there is a difficulty, but I am afraid that I do not know the remedy.
LORD MARLEY: May I point out that this only applies to repairs carried out by order of the sanitary authority? The landlord would have to do them in any case.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): That no doubt is quite true, but it is desirable that we should not do anything to discourage the modernising of working-class houses by the landlords. While it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Marley, says, that this only applies to prescribed repairs, it is very often desirable that repairs should take the form, to some extent at any rate, of an improvement.
LORD MARLEY: And the landlord can charge extra for that.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: If you make this Amendment the landlord will be discouraged from making any improvements and will merely make the absolute minimum of repair which he is bound to do under the order of the sanitary authority. At any rate, that is how the matter strikes me. On the other hand, I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view put before your Lordships by the noble Lord, and a great deal of sympathy was expressed on behalf of the Government in another place. The Government then promised that they would see whether it was possible to find a formula which would meet the case as submitted to them. They have, I am assured by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, done their very best to do so, but they have failed to find a formula which did not give rise to more trouble than it disposed of. Nevertheless, since the noble Lord has pointed out that the form of his Amendment is not precisely the same as the form of an Amendment moved in another place, I am quite willing to give an assurance that we will give further consideration to this matter in the light of the particular form which his Amendment now takes, with a view to seeing whether it it is at all possible to meet him in any way. I am afraid I cannot say more than that, but I willingly say that.
LORD MARLEY: I am very greatly obliged to the noble Marquess for the sympathetic attitude he has taken up, and I am quite sure your Lordships and the country will be glad of that sympathy. In the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Miscellaneous Amendments.
(2) In computing whether any and, if so, what increase in the rent of a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply is permissible under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section two of the Act of 1920 (which paragraph relates to increases of rent corresponding to increases in rates) the amount of any allowance made to the landlord under any of the enactments relating to allowances given where rates are paid by the owner instead of by the occupier shall be treated as part of the amount payable by the landlord in respect of rates.
(6) The period fixed by subsection (2) of Section eight of the Act of 1923 for the recovery by a tenant or mortgagor of certain over-payments is hereby extended, in relation to payments made not earlier than six months before the passing of this Act, to two years from the date of payment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have a manuscript Amendment handed in by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, to insert at the end of subsection (2) the following proviso:
"Provided that this subsection shall not come into operation with respect to any dwelling-house in England until the date on which a demand for the general rate in respect thereof is first made on or after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, not being a demand for a sum which had already been demanded before that date."
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg to move this Amendment. It is a perfectly simple one, and I think a non-controversial one, but nevertheless as by reason of a combination of departmental circumstances it is brought before your Lordships at very short notice, I may perhaps be allowed to explain it. If any noble Lord thinks that it ought to be given further consideration I would be prepared to withdraw it now on the understanding that I should be at liberty to put it down again at a later stage. The Amendment is simply devised to save trouble to the owners—trouble which may arise because of the date at which this Bill is clue to become law. As your Lordships know, the owners pay the rates of certain controlled houses—that is, houses below the compounding limit—and add a proportionate amount to the rents which they collect. It therefore follows that whenever the rates go up or down the rents also go up or down. Rates are usually made in April and October and calculations of the alteration of the rents obviously follow. But owing to the introduction of subsection (2), reversing the Nicholson versus Jackson decision, if this Amendment were not made an extra calculation would have to be made forthwith right in the middle of a rating period. To save owners the trouble of making several million calculations now and sending out an equal number of notices, we suggest that this Amendment should be accepted and the whole thing postponed to October when it would be normally done.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I have no wish to make myself obstructive in any way, but I should like to consult those representing small property owners in this matter, and I hope that my noble friend will not take exception, should I find that they are against this proposal, if I put down an Amendment to leave it out on the Report.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I have already promised that if anyone wants to have the Amendment postponed I will postpone it.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I understand that the noble Viscount does not suggest postponing the Amendment. I gather that he is quite willing that the Amendment should be made, but that if, after consultation, he finds the Amendment is detrimental to owners, we should not take it amiss if on Report stage he moves to omit it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: That is so.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: It occurs to me that this only applies to England, and that therefore in one year you have in England rates covering only half the year while in Scotland it will apply to the whole year. That does not seem quite fair.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The answer to that is quite simple. It does not apply to Scotland because the Nicholson versus Jackson decision does not apply under Scottish law. Therefore this particular calculation will not have to be made in Scotland.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) The making up or sewering by a local authority after the date of the passing of this Act under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Private Street Works Act, 1892, of a street or part of a street which provides a means of access to a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply shall be deemed to be an improvement to the dwelling-house within the meaning of Section two (1) (a) of the Act of 1920 and the amount of the apportionment or final apportionment in respect of the dwelling-house shall be deemed to be expenditure on such improvement and the provisions of the said Section two (1) (a) of the Act of 1920 shall apply accordingly."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to fill a gap in the Rent

973
Restrictions Acts which I do not think would have been left there originally if Parliament had foreseen how wide that gap would grow. Under the law as it now stands the landlord may increase the rent of a controlled dwelling-house by an amount not exceeding 8 per cent. of the capital spent on improvements. The Acts of 1920 and 1935 made no allusion to the making-up of roads by public authorities under the Private Street Works Act, 1892, or the Public Health Act, 1875. It has therefore been held that the compulsory road charges which fall on landlords cannot be accepted as improvements in respect of which increased rents may be charged. This ruling disregards the fact that a house on a good road is more valuable than a similar house on a bad road. Undoubtedly by improved access the house is itself improved, and the whole cost is at present left on the landlord with no power to recover any of the expense to which he has been put. I suggest that, if town planning and public municipal improvements had been as common in 920 as they are to-clay, provision would have been made to prevent that from happening.
At the beginning of our discussions this afternoon the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill suggested that, as this was a very evenly balanced Bill, it would be extremely difficult for the Government to accept any Amendment which might interfere with that balance. This particular Amendment, however, though it would undoubtedly help landlords in one respect, would help tenants in another, and therefore escapes that condemnation. As the Act now stands, it undoubtedly handicaps properties with low rental incomes from obtaining good roads. Many subsidiary roads on private estates which might be more rapidly improved are long unmade. I speak with some experience, for during the last thirty years I have been a director of a company which has developed estates on the outskirts of many large industrial towns, and we know what a handicap this position has been to us. I do not know that it is a very serious result, but if it handicaps a large company, it must handicap small owners much inure in the correct development of their estate. It not only makes more financial difficulty for the landlord, but it also prevents good roads
974
from being built for the benefit of the tenants on these estates. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Grey.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I entirely agree that it is quite possible to prove a real evidence of hardship to the owners. I was trying to think out whether it was not possible to take a very extreme case where the amount of the road charges, plus the amount which the owner had to spend in repairs, would exceed the controlled rent which he was entitled to charge. Having agreed, however, that there is a hardship, I should like to turn for a moment from the owner to the tenant and take a case which does not always occur but is not entirely unheard of. I would ask your Lordships to take the case of a tenant of a cheap house, a humble sort of house, with a piece of garden attached to it, possibly rented at four or five shillings a week. By reason of this garden it might have a rather longer frontage than usual, and if it stood at the corner of a road, which is again not unheard if, it might have a hundred feet of frontage attached to it. The cost of making up roads and putting in sewers, as your Lordships are aware, works out roughly at about £1 a foot, so if there are one hundred feet, the road charges would be £100. Eight per cent. of £100 is £8. That would in itself nearly double the tenant's rent, and in addition he would have to pay extra rates, because the rates would probably be increased owing to the improvement. It would be a serious matter for a labouring man to find his rent put up by that amount. I quite agree that it would be an improvement, but is it the sort of improvement of which the tenant would feel that the benefits were equivalent to all the extra money he was paying?
I quite realise that the reply is that, even if these improvements were not appreciated by the tenants, they would be still less appreciated by the owner, because he would get no advantage from them at all for the time being, and he would have to find £100 down. Of course that is a temporary hardship. But the difference surely would be that, although that hardship exists for the time being, when the house becomes decontrolled the value of the land on which it stands becomes very much increased,

975
because the owner will be able to sell the house, or replace it and perhaps build more houses and sell the land to somebody who has enough money and is willing to pay for the improvements. The cost would be in the nature of a capital charge on the land. You cannot consider these improvements in the same way as repairs; they are a permanent addition to the capital value of the land. I suggest that the admitted hardship of having to wait for decontrol, which after all is to-day a feasible possibility, is not so great as the hardship which might be caused to the poor tenant by doubling the rent for improvements which he probably does not desire at all. Therefore the law, imperfect though it may be, had better stand. I should like to emphasize that this point has been made before, and at a time, too, when the argument of the noble Earl would probably have had greater force, because many more houses were under control and decontrol was much further off. Nevertheless, Parliament never has allowed it, and the time seems late now to make this highly controversial innovation.
EARL GREY: The noble Viscount has chosen a rather extreme case, in which he suggested that the rent of the cottage might be doubled if this were allowed. But there is always a happy medium, and if the Government thought that that was going too far, they might easily put a limit beyond which an increase of road charges might not go. It might even be a very moderate limit. The only satisfaction the noble Viscount holds out is that we should wait for the cheapest class of houses to be decontrolled. I do not know whether he is thinking of his grandsons or his great-grandsons! It will not give us a great deal of comfort if we are in the position of having to wait.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I will certainly consider the matter further, but I do suggest that houses of this character would be semi-rural houses and not in the hard core of the towns. I think the noble Earl might be a little more optimistic.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: This was one of the matters discussed very carefully at the recent Committee, and I do not doubt by the Committee presided over by Lord Marley, and the conclusion was reasonably come to that this is one of the many problems involved in rent restriction on
976
which it is impossible to find hard and fast reasons for a decision one way or another. If this Amendment were accepted to remedy hardships in one case, it is probable that it would cause hardship in another, and on balance would impose greater hardship all round. Most important factors have been mentioned by Lord Gage, and I hope your Lordships will remember this in connection with general rent restriction, that the law as it stands is very much in line with the spirit of this Bill; that is to say, that although it may be held to be unfair to restrict one form of property rather than another, it is on the whole necessary. I think the most consistent way of dealing with this matter is to leave it as it stands at present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "two years" and insert "twelve months." The noble Viscount said: In moving this Amendment I would point out that in another place the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Health endeavoured to justify the extension of twelve months, which was the period originally in the Bill, to two years for the recovery of over-paid rent, because "the Government was most anxious to meet the wishes of the Opposition on this question and," to use his own words, "make this very substantial concession." Nothing more, no argument, no explanation was given. It is certainly a very substantial concession, and one which I hope to prove is unjustifiable, which probably accounts for the fact that the Under-Secretary was so sparing of his own words in giving way to the Opposition.
My noble friend below me just now relied upon the Ridley Committee. The Ridley Committee, therefore, proves to be a double-edged sword, because the Ridley Report says that hardship may be caused to landlords who have quite innocently calculated the permitted increase of rent on a basis which may subsequently be held by the Courts to be wrong. The Committee were unwilling to suggest any alteration of the law which might operate harshly, and pointed out that the landlord was not entitled to recover under payments. At most the Committee recommended the extension to twelve months, but now the Government

977
have accepted two years. It was suggested in another place that landlords were experts in housing legislation, and that tenants were not, but I think I can fairly say that all Housing Acts are extremely difficult to comprehend, and that view is borne out by the fact of conflicting decisions in the Courts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, leave out ("two years") and insert ("twelve months").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: It is quite true that we are here departing from the recommendations of the Ridley Committee, but not, I suggest, on a matter of principle. It is also suggested by my noble friend that we did so without giving any reasons, except fear of the Opposition. I have some reasons which I hope will persuade your Lordships, and I assure my noble friend that we usually have reasons besides mere terror of the other side. I will ask your Lordships to take this matter back a little way. In the early days of rent restriction, I understand, if an owner was discovered charging his tenant more than he was allowed to charge under the Act, that amount was treated as a debt due from the landlord to the tenant, and accordingly was recoverable, under the Statute of Limitations, up to a period of six years. We all know that these Acts are very complicated, and as time went on it was found that this procedure was causing great hardship to certain owners, who quite ignorantly were breaking the law and suddenly found themselves called upon to pay comparatively large sums of money.
That situation was reviewed by a Committee presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and in 1933 Parliament agreed to limit the liability very considerably, and it reduced the period during which an overcharge might be recovered from six years to six months. The Ridley Committee found that this very considerable reduction led equally to abuses, because some of the less scrupulous owners, using very flimsy excuses, overcharged, with the idea that even if called upon to refund by the Courts they might get away with a good deal more than they were called upon to repay, because of the long period during which they had overcharged. In other words, the Ridley
978
Committee found that the period of six months was not acting as a sufficient deterrent in cases of this sort.
I think your Lordships will agree that the law ought not to be evaded. It is obviously wrong, if there is a law, that it should not be maintained, and the question is what is the best period which will act as a sufficient deterrent to unscrupulous owners, and at the same time not act with undue harshness against the purely ignorant owner. It is a matter for compromise, and by a majority the Ridley Committee recommended twelve months. The minority wanted to go back to the original six years. In another place there was a general feeling that an increase to two years would be appropriate, because it was felt that by this time owners as a class know fairly well what are the proper rents to be charged, and that there would not be many cases of overcharge arising from ignorance, although there might be through—I will not call it deliberation but some intention to evade the Act. By that period of two years we propose to stand, and I would like to point out that we resisted a proposal made by the Labour Party in another place to take up the Minority Report and extend the period from six months to six years.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The Committee over which I had the honour to preside having been used to-day as a two-edged sword, I find myself in rather a difficult position. I will not trouble your Lordships with a quotation from the Report, because it would be rather long. Briefly, I think the only thing to remember is that there is really no reason why there should be any limitation for this period, except for the one fact that the complications of these Acts are so great that many landlords have honestly and genuinely made mistakes, and even without making mistakes have found themselves in error owing to certain judgments delivered from time to time. As a result of those judgments very often it has been found that large blocks of houses have been paying higher rents than they should have done. In that case it is reasonable that a very great deal should be paid back, even though the higher rent was not charged dishonestly and there was no intention to profiteer. The decisions which are known as Nicholson versus Jackson and Gregory versus Strood

979
Estates would both in different ways automatically cause corrections to be made in the rents of a large number of houses.
There is one clause in this Bill which has the effect of reversing one of those decisions, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the same thing might happen again. The problem is therefore to try to fix such a period as will deter a landlord who wishes to take more than he is entitled to take, and a period which would not really be unfair or too hard on the well-meaning and honest owners of property, who for various reasons might nevertheless be overcharging. As to whether it should be two years or one I find it very difficult to have a firm opinion. One must remember that what we are considering is the right to reclaim money which has been paid illegally. On the face of it I think one should incline to the opinion that the longer period is probably the just and fair one. I do not think that your Lordships should accept this Amendment, although it is in the same sense as the Report which was made by my Committee.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert at the end of subsection (6):
"Provided that such extension shall not apply to premises to whose decontrol no objection has been raised during the previous five years."
The noble Lord said: I first propose to quote the salient features of a case which has recently been brought to my notice and which I am told is typical. In 193o a block of about forty houses was bought from executors. It was managed by a firm of house agents. At the time of completion a firm of solicitors, at the request of the purchaser, furnished a list of houses which the firm said were decontrolled. On the assumption that the list was given in good faith the purchaser asked for no proof of decontrol. But to satisfy himself he looked at the Voters List for 1923 to see if there had been any change of tenancy and, although that is no proof, it is certainly a kind of prima facie evidence. He also marked in red ink all the rent books of such houses as being decontrolled. In spite of that, only last year a tenant claimed that his house was still controlled, on the ground that when he entered in 1923 he received the key from
980
the outgoing tenant, and that consequently the owner or his agent never legally went into possession. How is it possible after the lapse of thirteen years to prove decontrol in such a case, especially as during the last five or six years no objection to the claim had been raised, although the tenant had had notice of the claim, since the rent book was clearly marked?
Then again, Class B houses which have been decontrolled by possession since July 31, 1923 (almost fifteen years ago), will have to be registered, and records may have been lost owing to various causes, such as death or change of ownership. If registration as in Class C is no proof of decontrol, of what use is it? Even with present Class C houses it has been extremely difficult to satisfy County Court Judges on decontrol. One case reported was to the effect that an agent produced the office books showing a break in tenancy and, although in that case the house was registered, the Judge would not admit decontrol unless the man who actually decontrolled the premises was brought into Court. It might be impossible to produce him, as he might be dead or untraceable. A more recent case dealing with a Class B house claimed that the house was decontrolled and the claim was not questioned by the tenant—who, by the way, had only paid two or three weeks' rent in twelve months. The Judge asked the agent applying for possession if he had decontrolled the premises and, on being told that he had not but that the office books were in Court to confirm the claim, the Judge simply non-suited the applicant without reason or explanation. Every tenant of a decontrolled house—whether registered or not it makes no difference—is in a position to dispute the validity of decontrol and put the owner to the trouble and expense of furnishing sufficient proof to satisfy the Judge. The whole scheme is bad and unfair, and I do not think it works as it was intended. I hope I have shown your Lordships the difficulty of proving decontrol sufficiently to persuade you to support this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 43, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My noble friend has put his case very persuasively, and I quite admit that there is again in this

981
matter a very strong probability that hard cases arise, but I must again ask your Lordships to turn to the effect in the other direction. On the last Amendment I had occasion to explain that one of the objects of extending the period for which overcharges might be recovered was to circumvent the unscrupulous owner. I understand that cases of this sort are brought to light as often as not when, for instance, the tenant falls into arrears with his rent and an action arises in the Court, and during the course of the action it is discovered that for a considerable time past the owner has in fact been overcharging. In such cases it seems to me that if those overcharges have been made over a long period that is all the more reason for reimbursing the tenant.
The noble Viscount has suggested that it is unreasonable to reopen these cases if the tenant has been a long time in possession without apparent discomfiture. I agree that if tenants were often moved in this way to take the owners to Court after so long a period, and if they had had no reason for the delay, it would seem unreasonable; but, as I have explained, I do not think that is the way the majority of these cases arise, and whether it is or not, one has to consider these other cases. They are discovered, as I have said, fortuitously and indirectly, owing to some other action, and I cannot see why the noble Viscount should want to apply the rule that the greater the offence the less the penalty. The owner who has been overcharging for an exceptionally long period would apparently get off scot-free. A very good reason also why the Amendment should not be accepted is that the word "objection" is, I am informed, rather vague in its effect. Would some casual remark be evidence of objection or would it have to be recorded in writing? For that reason and for the much more important reason I at first adduced I am afraid we must resist this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, it would be to the convenience of the House if we met to-morrow at three o'clock and I put down a Motion that the Sea Fish Industry Bill should be the first business, followed by the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. I have consulted my noble friend Lord Liverpool, and it is to his convenience and to that of other noble Lords that this course should be followed and that I should put down a Motion that Lord Liverpool's Motion should come second, and not as it appears on the Order Paper at this moment.
  NATIONAL AND LOCAL DEBTS.
  NATIONAL AND LOCAL DEBTS.

OXFORD CORPORATION ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
Petition of occupiers of houses in certain wards within, and in a certain parish adjoining, the City of Oxford, praying that provision may be made for the inclusion of their wards and parish within the limits of supply of the electricity undertaking of the Oxford Corporation: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
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 Bills have been complied with:

Irwell Valley Water Board,

London Midland and Scottish Railway,

Romford Gas,

Swinton and Pendlebury Corporation,

Crewe Corporation,

Bradford Extension,

Brixham Gas and Electricity,

Clacton Urban District Council,

Guildford Corporation.

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Poor's Allotment in Hanwell.

And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petitions for additional provision in the following Bills:

Ossett Corporation.

Workington Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
Examiners Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.