Sitting of 11 May 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD[MONEY].
Considered in Committee of the Whole House.
[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
Resolved,
" That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board to execute works and exercise powers with respect to the drainage of their catchment area and for the prevention of floods therein and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums which may become payable thereout by reason of the application by the said Act of the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in relation to works authorised by the said Act of the present Session as if those works had been the improvement of existing works and the construction of new works under the said Act of 1930."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take in view of the official statement issued by the Spanish embassy on 21st April that Germany is in control of all operations on the Pyrenean frontier; that the command on the northern front is at present in the hands of the German Generals Wolff and Weitershein; that on 14th and 15th April 63 officers left Munich in Dunker aeroplanes for Spain, 52 of them for Seville, with a view to preparing an immediate offensive against Almeria from Malaga; and that this offensive is to be commanded by General Prager of the
  1552
  Reserve Corps and Colonel Himer of the Seventh German Army Corps?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I have no information confirming these statements.
  Mr. Mander: Have the Government information that there are any Germans in Spain at all?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: Have undertakings been received that German troops will leave Spain after the settlement?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: Are the Government going to ask for any undertakings?
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not a fact that Russian commissars are attached to the Barcelona forces?
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what information is in the possession of His Majesty's Government with regard to the intention of the United States Government to remove the embargo on arms against the Spanish Government?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Export of arms to Spain from the United States of America is now prohibited by joint resolution of Congress, and it is impossible at present to say whether that resolution will be repealed, amended or left unchanged, since the United States Government have not yet announced what are their intentions in this respect.
  Mr. Henderson: Is it not evident that there is a considerable volume of feeling in the United States which regards this arms embargo as a gross betrayal of the Spanish Government?
  Mr. Mander: Is there any foundation for the statement that the British Government are trying to discourage the American Government from taking any action in the matter?
  The Prime Minister: There is no foundation whatever.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the insurgent air raid on Valencia on 5th May; and what protests have been received from British sources with reference to the recent air bombing of the city and port of Valencia?
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he can make any statement regarding the bombing of the British merchant ship "Greatend" at Valencia;
  (2) whether he has considered the protest from a number of captains of British ships at Valencia, supported by their crews, numbering 400, stating that the recent insurgent air attacks on that port have been deliberately aimed at the British ships lying there; and what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. Butler: On 5th May there were two air raids on Valencia, in the course of which, I understand, one British ship was slightly damaged. Two further air raids took place on 7th May, which formed the subject of a protest addressed to my Noble Friend by the masters of a number of British ships then in Valencia harbour. In the first of these raids, which took place at g a.m., the forecastle, bridge and plates on the starboard bow of the steamship "Greatend" were severely damaged, and I regret to say that two members of the crews were injured. Other British ships were slightly damaged. The second raid took place at 9 p.m. when bombs were dropped by an aeroplane flying very low in the neighbourhood of two British vessels, the "Stanhope" and "Stancroft," which were both lying in Valencia roads about one mile from the end of the breakwater.
  As regards the first three raids I have mentioned, His Majesty's Government are not in possession of definite evidence to show that a deliberate attack was aimed against British shipping. As regards the fourth raid, however, the low altitude of the attack and the fact that the master of the "Stanhope" reported that a reconnaissance was carried out on the previous evening by an aeroplane of similar type, have forced His Majesty's Government to the conclusion that these vessels were deliberately singled out for attack. In consequence, instructions have been sent to the British Agent at Burgos to address a strong protest to the Burgos authorities against what appears to His Majesty's Government an entirely unwarrantable proceeding and to request an immediate investigation of the incident. Sir Robert Hodgson has further been instructed to draw the attention of the Burgos authorities to the damage which has recently been suffered by British
  1554
  ships in air raids and to request them to take every precaution to avoid causing damage to shipping by indiscriminate bombing.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that on at least one occasion, the aeroplanes were flying at a low altitude, can the hon. Gentleman say what types of machine were being used and of what nationality they were?
  Mr. ButlersI have not that information with me.
  Mr. Wedgwood Bonn: How can the hon. Gentleman say that he has not that information when he has already told us it was the same type of machine which came on the second occasion?
  Mr. G. Strauss: In view of the fact that the captain has alleged that these were Italian aeroplanes, will the Government inform Signor Mussolini that there will be no ratification of the Anglo-Italian Agreement unless there is an immediate undertaking not to carry out deliberate attacks on British ships?
  Mr. Butler: I have informed the House that a protest has been made and that inquiries are being made. I think we had better await the result.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any satisfaction has been received as a result of previous protests to the Government of Burgos?
  Mr. Butler: I should like notice of that.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that, if these ships at Valencia had been deliberately attacked by these aeroplanes, in all probability they would not have been hit at all?
  Mr. R. Aclandasked the Prime Minister what are the circumstances attaching to the conflict in Spain which are different from those attaching to the conflict in China, which result in it being possible and expedient for His Majesty's Government to present claims for compensation to the Japanese Government as soon as they are received but inexpedient to present such claims to the Burgos authorities until the termination of hostilities?
  Mr. Butler: The circumstances of the civil war in Spain are so different from those of the present conflict in the Far

  1555
  East that it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to take identical action in both cases. The question of the presentation of claims is one in which His Majesty's Government must be guided by practical considerations and they must remain the judges of the most suitable moment for taking action.
  Mr. Acland: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that if no solid reasons are given for this differentiation, public opinion must think it is because the Government do not want to embarrass General Franco?
  Mr. Butler: I do not know whether that is the inference which the hon. Gentleman would draw, but if so he is certainly wrong. The Government press these claims at what they consider to be the suitable moment for obtaining satisfaction.
  Mr. Acland: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Attlee rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Notice has been given that the matter will be raised on the Adjournment.

  SUEZ CANAL.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Prime Minister how many Italian soldiers passed through the Suez Canal outward and homeward bound, respectively, during 1937; how many British warships; how many Italian warships; the total receipts for 1937; and what was the total number of vessels that passed through the canal for 1937?
  Mr. Butler: The information sought by the hon. Member is contained in the Suez Canal Annual Return of Shipping and Tonnage for the year 1937, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. Thorne: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that report reveals the fact that 300,000 troops have passed through in Italian ships and that over 96,000 were bound for Abyssinia?
  Mr. Butler: There are tables in the document showing the numbers of Italian troops on homeward bound ships. These can be found on page 6.
  Mr. Benn: Can the hon. Gentleman say, in a word, how much profit we have derived from the conquest of Abyssinia?

  BRITISH COMMONWEALTH (FOREIGN NATIONS).
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of expressing the willingness of the British Government to enter into friendly discussions with any States which might desire to consider the possibility of becoming associated with the British Commonwealth of Nations on terms of mutual economic and political advantage; in particular, States such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Czechoslovakia, and Greece?
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 16th November last by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if any application of this nature were received, it would be given serious consideration by the British Government?
  The Prime Minister: I would like to see what the application was.

  ANGLO-FRENCH CONVERSATIONS.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement on the recent conference and consultations that took place in London with representatives of the French Government; and, in particular, whether any suggestion was made as to the formation of a four-Power pact and as to the modication of the French treaty obligations?
  The Prime Minister: As regards the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on the subject on 3rd May, to which I have nothig to add. The answer to the second part of the question is, No, Sir.

  STRAITS CONVENTION.
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister particulars of any agreed variation in

  1557
  which consent has been given for the alteration of Article 18 of the convention relating to the regime of the Straits which was signed at Lausanne on 24th July, 1923?
  Mr. Butler: The guarantee contained in Article 18 of the Straits Convention signed at Lausanne on 24th July, 1923, automatically lapsed when that convention was replaced by the convention signed at Montreux on 20th July, 1936, which brought the demilitarisation of the Straits to an end.
  Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether the Turkish Government are satisfied with the arrangements made with His Majesty's Government on this subject?
  Mr. Butler: As far as I know they are satisfied.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Sir John Haslamasked the Prime Minister whether, in the recent negotiations with regard to the Chinese Customs revenue, His Majesty's Government have been able to obtain any agreement with the Japanese Government to put an end to the abuses arising from the examination of Japanese cargoes by Japanese examiners and Japanese tide-waiters, and to restore the former international system of inspection for Customs purposes?
  Mr. Butler: It is true that Chinese and foreign employés of the Customs are excluded from certain wharves in Shanghai, but I would like to make it clear that the Japanese examiners and tide-waiters to whom my hon. Friend refers are regular employés of the Customs service and have received their appointments in the ordinary way.
  Sir J. Haslam: Is it not a fact that the bulk of these cargoes are examined by Japanese although it is an International Settlement; and is that not most unfair to Lancashire and British exporters generally, with whom the Japanese are keen competitors?
  Mr. Butler: I have pointed out that these Japanese are employés of the Customs service.
  Mr. Hannahasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the war in China
  1558
  has largely reached a deadlock, he will consider offering British mediation, or inviting the United States of America to join in mediation, in order to restore peace?
  The Prima Minister: His Majesty's Government would be glad to offer their services either alone or in conjunction with other Powers to bring about an equitable peace beween China and Japan. They do not, however, consider that any useful purpose would be served by offering mediation until both sides have indicated their willingness to accept it.
  Mr. Hannahasked the Prime Minister whether the Japanese Government, in notifying the arrangements relating to the disposal of the Customs revenue in China, have given any assurance or made any statement relating to the repeated complaints that Japanese goods are being admitted into Shanghai without payment of duty?
  Mr. Butler: In the course of the recent Customs negotiations the Japanese Government assured His Majesty's Government that they intend that normal conditions should be restored and that payment of duty by all Japanese importers should be ensured at the earliest possible date.

  ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received a Note from the Emperor of Ethiopia relating to the present situation in Ethiopia; and whether as the Note alleges that over at least half the country there is no Italian military control, he is prepared to further the Ethiopian Government's expressed desire for an international investigation of the real facts of the existing situation in Ethiopia?
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government have received no Note from the Emperor of Ethiopia relating to the present situation in that country, but the hon. Member presumably refers to a pamphlet recently issued by the Ethiopian Legation on this subject. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to support a proposal for an international investigation into the situation in Ethiopia.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that there is direct conflict between the claims of the Italian Government and the view of the Ethiopian Government as to whether the Italian military authorities are in complete possession of the country, should not the real facts of the situation be ascertained before a decision is taken by the Council of the League?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry.
  Mr. Petherick: Would not the claims of the Emperor of Ethiopia be very much stronger if he had remained in Ethiopia instead of having come to this country?
  Mr. Thurtle: Does not the Prime Minister think the victim of aggression still has some rights in this matter?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP ENCHANTRESS."
    Mr. George Griffithsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what voyages have been made by His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress" since she was commissioned, for the purpose of conveying the First Lord of the Admiralty and private guests; and whether these voyages have been a charge on public funds?
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): Since she was commissioned in April, 1935, His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress" has been used to convey the First Lord of the Admiralty on two occasions in each of the years 1936, 1937, and 1938. It has always been customary for the First Lord to entertain private guests on board, and this involves no charges on public funds.
    Mr. Griffithsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the occasion of the recent voyage of His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress" to the Scilly Islands, and from there to Dover; what, if any, naval duties were involved; what private guests made the voyage; and whether the general expenses were a charge on public funds?
    Mr. Cooper: I held an official inspection of the Portland Base on Friday, 29th April, and of the Royal Marine Depot at Deal on Monday, 2nd May. Between the two inspections a visit was paid to the Scilly Isles, such visits being part of the
    1560
    normal duties of an escort vessel such as His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress." I may add that I consider it highly desirable that the First Lord should avail himself of suitable opportunities of going to sea and of becoming acquainted with the Fleet.
    Mr. Griffiths: Did the right hon. Gentleman go to the Scilly Islands for any naval purpose?
    Mr. Cooper: I said in my reply that it is part of the normal duties of the ship, an escort vessel, to visit ports in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. It is a perfectly ordinary voyage for her to make.
    Mr. Griffiths: To what port in the Scilly Islands did the Minister go directly on business?
    Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the base inspected by him is quite safe?
    Mr. Beechman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the population of those enchanting islands have been greatly encouraged by the presence of the "Enchantress" in their midst?
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the generally heavy expenditure on armaments, it is desirable, with the heavy taxation at present, to keep this ship so much in commission for the type of service to which the First Lord referred?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think any change in that respect would make much difference to the existing expenditure.
    Mr. Griffiths: I give notice that I desire to raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment on account of the unsatisfactory answer that the Minister gave.

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, under the married allowance scheme, an officer who relinquishes an appointment in a ship whose home port is Portsmouth and takes up an appointment in a ship whose home port is Plymouth will receive a removal allowance?
    Mr. Cooper: The answer is in the negative; the removal allowance is only applicable in respect of appointments for officers in shore appointments at home.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the expenses incurred by married officers in these cases are identical with the expenses incurred by married officers taking up an appointment from the sea at a home port, and as a matter of equity will he not go into that matter?
    Mr. Cooper: I will certainly look into that matter.
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the notional value at present placed upon the ship accommodation of a lieutenant-commander?
    Mr. Cooper: If, as I presume, the hon. and gallant Member has the recent marriage allowance scheme in mind, the answer is that no value has been placed upon the cabin accommodation provided for a married officer afloat. Indeed, the basis of the recent scheme has been to compensate such an officer for the disability that his sea quarters cannot be used for the accommodation of his family.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the notional allowance, that is, the monetary advance for officers, married or unmarried, on hoard who are given cabin accommodation is taken into account in assessing officers' pay, and, that being so, as a matter of equity and justice should not all officers, either married or unmarried, receive that allowance when they take up an appointment on shore where quarters are not provided for them?
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Is it not a fact that sometimes, owing to the exigencies of the Service, junior officers who are normally entitled to a cabin have to give up their cabin and sling a hammock, and then, surprisingly, receive no increase of pay?
    Mr. Cooper: That may happen on certain occasions. With regard to the point put by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), the position is that this marriage allowance has been given in order that officers when they are at sea should be able to maintain their families at home, an advantage they have not had before. In the past, when they came ashore, they were given a lodging allowance to make
    1562
    up for their cabin accommodation at sea. The lodging allowance has now been swallowed up in the marriage allowance, both when they are at sea and when they are on shore.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: But is not the whole point, as stated by my right hon. Friend, that when they took up an appointment on shore where quarters were not provided for them they received lodging allowance, but now they will not receive it?
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not the whole question want a deal more thought?
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any suggestions or complaints as regards the married officers' allowances from any of the Commanders-ni-Chief at sea or at home?
    Mr. Cooper: It is not customary or desirable to disclose details of communications between the Admiralty and Commanders-in-Chief, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the new scheme of marriage allowance has generally been welcomed by the Fleet.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that for very obvious reasons no junior officers will ever send in any written complaints about these marriage allowances, and will he remember that that is no criterion as to the feeling among naval officers with regard to them?

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (INSHORE FISHERMEN).
    Mr. Beechmanasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now give a favourable reply to the request submitted to him, on the occasion of his recent visit to the Isles of Scilly, by the West Cornwall Fishermen's Council that the association of inshore fishermen with the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve be facilitated by the payment to them of a small retaining fee; and whether, in general, he will consider the serious position arising from the decline in recent years of the inshore fishing industry, seeing that the fishermen concerned are, in the event of war, essential for manning minesweepers, Q-ships and similar craft?
    Mr. Cooper: While I fully appreciate the considerations advanced by the hon. Member in the latter part of his question.

    1563
    I would point out that inshore fishermen are already eligible to join the Royal Naval Reserve, service in which carries a retainer of £6— £10 per annum according to the rating held. A reply to this effect is being sent to the West Cornwall Fishermen's Council.

    NAVAL APPOINTMENTS (MERCHANT SERVICE).
    Sir Cooper Rawsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give consideration to the case of officers and men of the merchant service who served in the European War in cargo steamers and were in most cases exposed to the dangers of submarine attack, some of whom have several years' experience as navigators and hold master's certificates, who are now seeking appointments for which ex-service men only are eligible and being barred because they were not officially serving in the Royal Navy and the Reserves; and will he give consideration to some relaxation of the conditions which cause these men to be passed over and afford to them the same privileges as applicants who served in the Royal Navy or the Reserves?
    Mr. Cooper: If my hon. Friend will let me have details of the applicants he has in mind and the particular appointments for which they have applied, I will see that the matter is investigated.
    Sir C. Rawson: Cannot my right hon. Friend adopt the suggestion as a general principle?
    Mr. Cooper: The suggestion has often been acted on in the past, but the question whether we should adopt the general principle is one on which I should not be prepared to make a statement at present.
    Viscountess Astor: Could not my right hon. Friend really give it serious thought?

    NEW SIGNAL SCHOOL SITE, PORTSMOUTH.
    Commander Bowerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the position, acreage, and cost of the site on which it is proposed to build a new signal school at Portsmouth; from whom this site is being acquired; and for what it has been used in the past?
    Mr. Cooper: The site proposed for the new signal school at Portsmouth is situated between the Northern Parade and Portsmouth Harbour and adjoins the North End Recreation Ground. This area
    1564
    is about 40 acres; it belongs to the Corporation of Portsmouth, and, pending development for building purposes, has been used as allotments. The purchase price has not yet been agreed.
    Commander Bower: Is it the policy of the Admiralty to build these new establishments close to other bomb targets, and would it not be better if, when they are rebuilding such places as signal schools, they should be built somewhere on the west coast where they are more remote from possible attack?
    Mr. Cooper: That is, of course, taken into consideration in deciding upon where to locate these buildings, but we have also to consider the people who live in them and work in them.

    COLONIES (DEFENCE AND SOCIAL SERVICES).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps are being taken in British Colonial territories to improve defences and air depots; what proportion of the cost of this work is being borne by the respective colonies; and whether he can give an assurance that, considering the economies in native welfare work, education, and social services until recent years, grants for such work will continue to expand?
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Colonial Dependencies are responsible for local defence measures, and at the present time they are fully alive to the necessity of improving their defences, as far as their financial means allow. In certain Dependencies where there are Imperial garrisons or defended ports, the local governments assist by contributions towards the cost of the garrisons, by providing land and by raising local units. In all cases, when determining the sums which a colonial Dependency can afford to expend on defence, the needs of the local social services are taken into account.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the very limited resources of many of these territories, and the severe economies which native welfare has suffered in recent years, should not grants be made increasingly available for native welfare work so that it is not stultified by these defence works which are going on everywhere?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think that the answer indicates that social servcies are interfered with as little as possible. They are one of the primary concerns in considering the whole question.

    BARBADOS (DISTURBANCES, SENTENCES).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware of the heavy punishment imposed on those convicted of various offence arising out of the disturbances in Barbados; and whether these sentences have been under recent review?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: My Noble Friend is aware of the sentences to which the hon. Member refers. As the prerogative of mercy has been delegated to the Governor of the Colony, the question of reviewing those sentences is a matter for him.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Is it not possible for some representation to be made in view of the very savage sentences imposed for trade union organisation?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think there is provision in the local law for periodic review of, at any rate, lengthy sentences, and I have no doubt that in due course that review will take place.
    Mr. Riley: Have any sentences been reduced?
    Mr. MacDonald: I should like to have notice of that question.

    MAURITIUS (INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received the report of the Commission on the disturbances in Mauritius last year; whether he proposes to remove some of the causes of political discontent by a more liberal franchise; and what steps are being taken to establish trade union rights and remove the causes of labour unrest?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir, copies of the report of the Commission have now been received from Mauritius. Some time will necessarily be required for consideration of the detailed recommendations
    1566
    which the report contains, but preliminary action has already been taken in various directions. An experienced labour officer has been appointed who will give his whole time to the study of industrial conditions and problems. The Government of Mauritius proposes to enact legislation to set up industrial associations and conciliation boards. The underlying principle of this legislation will be the establishment in Mauritius of provisions for collective bargaining between employers and employés and for the discussion of common problems. As regards developments in the political sphere, the report made no specific recommendations, and I am not in a position to make any announcement. It raises complex issues which will require careful consideration. But the Governor has already taken steps to secure the representation of the small planters and labourers during the current session of the Legislative Council by nominating two representatives of these classes as temporary members of the Council.

    TROPICAL DISEASES.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the estimated loss within the British tropical Empire each year from malaria and other related diseases, giving figures, where possible, of estimated financial loss, of loss of life, and of loss of working time?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am afraid that the statistical data on which any estimate regarding these matters would be framed are not obtainable.
    Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is freely alleged that the very high prices of remedial drugs in the British tropical Empire is a direct cause of much of the loss indicated in my question?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am sure that my Noble Friend is aware of all relevant considerations.
    Mr. Adams: What steps do the Government propose to take in this important matter?
    Mr. MacDonald: That is another question. If the hon. Member will put it down, no doubt it will be answered.

    EAST AFRICA (ROADS).
    Captain Alan Grahamasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he is aware that at present there is no fully-qualified road-engineer for all the area of Kenya and Tanganyika; and how soon will this serious deficiency be corrected;
    (2) whether, in view of the urgent need of improving road communications throughout the various British East African territories, he will consider the initiation of a long-term road-construction policy for the whole area, financially assisted by the Treasury, and planned, controlled, and administered by a technically competent co-ordinating board?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Much attention is devoted by East African Governments to questions of road policy and large sums are spent annually on the roads under the supervision of qualified road engineers. The Colonial Governments are working on what are in effect long-term programmes, but the rate of progress must be determined by the funds available. It would be contrary to the usual practice for His Majesty's Treasury to make direct grants for purposes of this kind to Colonial Governments; considerable assistance has, however, been given to specific road schemes from the Colonial Development Fund. As regards inter-territorial road communications, the Governors of the East African Dependencies constitute an East African Transport Policy Board, and it is considered that regular co-operation between them and their appropriate officers is to be preferred to the creation of a joint staff.
    Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some British surveyors doing some very good work in Kenya at an inadequate remuneration?
    Mr. Leach: Are we to understand from the answer that the fact alleged in Question 33 is entirely without foundation?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think it is a misapprehension. There are qualified road engineers, but they are employed in various works, and this is only one of the employments on which they are engaged. There is no special full-time officer.

  PALESTINE.

    SITUATION.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can give any information in connection with arms seized by British troops in Arab villages near Nablus; the number of rifles and hand grenades taken; whether any proclamation has been ordered, and, if so, for what purpose, in the town of Jenin; and whether any strike has taken place against the Partition Commission?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Since 1st January the quantities of arms and ammunition seized in Arab villages near Nablus have been: rifles, 24; revolvers and pistols, 5; rifle ammunition, 1,431 rounds; revolver ammunition, 68 rounds; grenades and land mines, 24. These figures include considerable seizures made in a surprise search on 28th April. My Noble Friend is not aware of the issue of any proclamation at Jenin, other than a recent curfew order in connection with a strike of shopkeepers. Short-lived partial strikes on the occasion of the arrival of the Partition Commission took place at Jerusalem, Haifa and six other towns.
    Mr. Thorne: Who supplies these things to the Arabs or to the Jews?
    Mr. MacDonald: I cannot add to what has been said in previous answers on that point.

    INTERNEES, ACRE.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has information as to the circumstances under which internees at Acre, including Abdul Hamid Schuman, general manager of the Arab bank, were beaten by troops and police last week; and whether medical treatment was afforded to those injured in the affair or, if not, for what reason it was refused?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: My Noble Friend has received no report from the High Commissioner for Palestine on the alleged incidents.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I have a telegram from the chairman of the Palestine Defence Committee dealing with this question, and there is no reason to doubt his word; and is he also aware that I have a further telegram from a well known authority on colonial affairs

    1569
    in this country who advises me that the Government answers on this question are evasive and unreliable?
    Mr. MacDonald: A great deal of the information which has come to this country has been found to be completely mistaken. If the hon. Member has any information which he thinks the Colonial Office ought to have, the Colonial Office will be very glad to receive it.

    NORTHERN RHODESIA.
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1.) what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to carry out the view expressed by the commission on the financial and economic position in Northern Rhodesia that it is essential that the social services should be expanded, even if it should prove necessary for the Government to receive grants from His Majesty's Government;
    (2) in view of the statement in the report of the commission into the financial and economic position of Northern Rhodesia, that the Government's difficulties in financing necessary expansion would be overcome if it received a larger proportion of the proceeds of the mining industry, what steps he proposes to take to ensure that a greater contribution to the Colony's revenues is made by that industry?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: My Noble Friend is naturally anxious that the social services in Northern Rhodesia should be expanded where necessary; but he will not be in a position to make any statement as to the action to be taken on the report of the Financial and Economic Commission until he has received the observations and recommendations of the Northern Rhodesia Government.
    Mr. Paling: In view of the fact that so many disturbances have taken place lately in various Colonies, arising in the main from the fact that the social services have not been extended, or to the fact in some cases that they do not exist, would it not be better if the Government took the initiative and put these social services into operation rather than wait for another disturbance before they do anything?
    Mr. MacDonald: It is not proposed to wait until there is another disturbance. We propose to wait until we have received the observations on the recommendation of the local government responsible for the administration.
    Mr. Paling: Is it not stated in the commission's report that these social services are lacking? What more is wanted before the Government do anything?
    Mr. MacDonald: It is reasonable that we should wait until we get the observations on the report of the local administration.

  TRINIDAD.

    OIL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Lunnasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement on the disagreement in the Trinidad oil industry and on the submission of the question of an increase in wages to arbitration; and, in particular, how the board of arbitration will be composed?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The employers and employed in the Trinidad oil industry nave agreed in principle to refer the present wages dispute to arbitration, and legislation has now been enacted by the Government of Trinidad whereby any such dispute may be referred to an arbitration tribunal to be set up by the Governor at the request and with the consent of the parties concerned. My Noble Friend has not yet seen the Bill, but it is understood that the tribunal may consist either of a single arbitrator, or of an arbitrator assisted by such assessors or other arbitrators as may be nominated by the parties to the dispute. It is contemplated that in this case the arbitrator (or chairman, if there is a panel) should be selected from the United Kingdom. My Noble Friend still awaits information from the Acting-Governor as to the proposed terms of reference to the arbitrator.
    Mr. Lunn: As there are such horrible conditions existing in Trinidad, will the Colonial Office speed up the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators, in order to settle this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Government to do something?
    Mr. MacDonald: We shall get the appointment made as soon as possible.

    COCOA INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution unanimously passed by the chamber of commerce in the Port of Spain, Trinidad, and sent to him respecting the need of a conference of producers to consider the plight of the Colony's cocoa industry; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: My Noble Friend has not yet received the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, but I understand that the proposal is that an international conference of cocoa producers or the Governments of cocoa-producing countries should be summoned. An attempt was made to summon such a conference in 1933, but was unsuccessful. It is not known whether a further attempt would now be more successful, but clearly a great deal of preparatory work would be required.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to recommend action along those lines with a view to securing a more equitable production and distribution of cocoa?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think that in the first place we had better wait for the actual petition, which I understand contains this proposal, so that we can see what is in it.
    Mr. Sorensen: But I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of it.
    Mr. MacDonald: We have seen reports of what is in it.

    WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY).
    Captain Arthur Evansasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether in view of the cycle of riots and strikes which the British West Indies have experienced since 1935, largely as the result of the present state of the sugar industry, he will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the whole question of the future of this industry and the conditions of the people employed therein?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: My Noble Friend is only too well aware of the series of distressing incidents, of the kind to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, during
    1572
    the last year or two; but he does not share his view that a Royal Commission into the sugar industry is warranted. The economic difficulties of the sugar industry arise from circumstances of a world-wide character and there already exists an International Sugar Council which is charged with the duty of trying to find means of overcoming them.
    Mr. Paling: Is it not a fact that the expenditure of £40,000,000 upon subsidising beet sugar in this country has something to do with the position out there?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Will not the Government try to tackle in some comprehensive fashion the underlying social and economic causes of all this unrest?
    Mr. MacDonald: That is a wider question. The question on the Paper concerns simply sugar, and that is dealt with by the International Sugar Council.
    Mr. Lunn: But does not the last part of the question ask that a Royal Commission should be sent out to inquire into the whole question of the West Indies?
    Mr. MacDonald: It asks for a Royal Commission to investigate the whole question of the future of the sugar industry.
    Mr. Lunn: And the conditions of the people.
    Mr. Harold Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Cabinet whether they cannot do something for the West Indian sugar industry comparable with what is being done for the production of sugar at home, and also assist other West Indian products, because unless something is done to provide a remunerative market it is impossible to pay higher wages?

    WEST AFRICA (COCOA EXPORTS).
    Mr. Alexanderasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what percentage of cocoa exports from the West Coast of Africa for the ensuing six months has been allocated to the firms who are adherents of the buyers agreement and parties to the agreement referred to in the recent ordinance; whether this allocation includes supplies for re-sale by the firms who are parties to the agreement; and what steps have been taken to

    1573
    secure equitable treatment for other independent buyers by ensuring to them supplies at f.o.b. prices not higher than those paid for the supplies allocated to the pool?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: My Noble Friend is unable to give the exact figures requested; but licences for the export of 94 per cent. of the permitted quantity will be allocated on the basis of average exports during the last two years to individual shippers, including both those who were parties to the recent agreement and those who remained outside it. There are no restrictions on the purchase or sale of cocoa.
    Mr. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that means, in effect, that the pool firms get about 90 per cent. of the cocoa exported in the next six months, and that other firms who cannot get supplies will have to pay specially dear for them?
    Mr. MacDonald: The allocation is not confined to the pool firms, it includes on an equal basis firms who were parties to the recent agreement and firms who were not.
    Sir J. Haslam: On a point of Order. May I make a request to you, Mr. Speaker, that supplementary questions may be asked in a voice that can be heard here? For the first time in my experience of this House we are absolutely a united front down here and we wish to hear both the questions and the answers.
    Mr. Alexander: I think I am usually heard when hon. Members are reasonably quiet.

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    AERODROME (BLACKBURN AND PRESTON).
    Sir Walter Smilesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can make any statement as to the proposed aerodrome at Samlesbury between Blackburn and Preston?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): My Department is not establishing an aerodrome at Samlesbury. I understand, however, that land was purchased by the Corporations of Preston and Blackburn a few years ago with a view to the establishment of a civil
    1574
    aerodrome and that the preparation of a portion of this land for aerodrome purposes is under consideration by the local authorities, but that no decision has yet been reached in regard to its full development.
    Sir W. Smiles: In view of the distress in the cotton industry in Blackburn, will not the Government consider giving assistance to this project now, in order to relieve unemployment in that area?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The policy of the Government in regard to civil aerodromes has been stated on a number of occasions. They grant assistance in various directions to aerodromes which are in existence, but it is the policy not to make any grants towards their actual construction.
    Mr. Thurtle: In any case, have not the Government brought prosperity to the country?

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS' PILOTS (DISMISSAL).
    Mr. Manderasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is now able to state the result of the interview on 6th April between the two Government directors of Imperial Airways, Limited, and certain of the dismissed pilots; and what action it is proposed to take with regard to their re-engagement in any cases?
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Government directors of Imperial Airways, Limited, have interviewed any of the pilots dismissed by that company nearly seven months ago; and, if so, with what result?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Government directors, as a result of their interview with the pilots in question, have expressed their opinion that the termination of the employment of the pilots was justified, that it was not concerned with membership of the British Air Line Pilots' Association, and that suitable notice was given them. In certain cases, however, they considered that the pilots merited consideration for re-employment. These views have been communicated to the company by the Government directors.
    Mr. Mander: Have any of these pilots actually been re-engaged yet, or when are they likely to receive information on the subject?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have not been informed about re-engagement. Of course, re-engagement is a matter for the company, and as I have said, the report of the Government directors has been received.
    Mr. Perkins: Will my hon. and gallant Friend press for their re-engagement as early as possible?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: We have agreed with the report of the Government directors who, of course, apart from their association with the Government, are directors of the company, and have a position on the company's board.
    Mr. Montague: Does the Minister know the reasons for the dismissal of such navigation pilots as Captain Wilson, and, if so, is there any reason why the House of Commons should not know the reason?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not think, as a matter of policy, that one can expect all the reasons for dismissal of personnel of a company to be made public. The relation of the Government with the company is that there are Government directors, and therefore the Government, obviously, have an obligation to ensure that matters are properly dealt with. It does not seem to me to be a matter of policy necessarily involving making public the particular reason.
    Mr. Montague: Have the dismissed pilots at last been told the reason for their dismissal?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I never understood that there was any question of their not having been told the reason.

    EUROPEAN SERVICES.
    Mr. Flemingasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number and percentage of British-made aircraft employed on the regular European services of British Airways, Limited?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No British—made aircraft are employed by British Airways, "Limited, on their regular European services. The circumstances in which aircraft of foreign construction are employed on the company's subsidised services have already been explained to the House.
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the -Under-Secretary of State for Air when the
    1576
    joint operating company for European air services recommended by the Cadman Report will be formed by British Airways, Limited, and Imperial Airways, Limited?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am not yet in a position to give the date when the joint operating company recommended by the Cadman Committee will be formed.
    Mr. Robinson: Are active steps being taken in the matter, or is it merely awaiting the appointment of a new chairman of Imperial Airways?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The construction of the joint company is certainly dependent for its success on the reorganisation of the two companies involved.
    Mr. Robinson: In that case, will my hon. and gallant Friend press for the speedy appointment of a new chairman?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: As I said yesterday, both the company and the Government are extremely anxious that the chairman should be appointed as soon as possible.
    Mr. De la Bère: Why is it not done, then?

    AMERICAN AIRCRAFT (PURCHASE).
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why it was necessary for him to permit the purchase of more American aircraft for use on British subsidised air services when over 100 military aircraft of British manufacture have been exported this year?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that none of the military types of aircraft that were exported would have been suitable for use on the subsidised air services.
    Mr. Simmonds: Has it not been stated that the British aircraft industry is too busy building aircraft for the Royal Air Force to provide civil aircraft for subsidised British services; and is it not clear, therefore, that what has been lacking is not production, but co-ordination of supply?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the building for certain foreign countries of certain types of machines which are in very large

    1577
    production for military purposes is quite different from building quite separate types of aircraft for civil purposes.
    Mr. Simmonds: But there are types of civil aircraft in production, and only four were required, while we have exported 100.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not the case that the lack of co-ordination of supply is almost a public scandal?

    CADMAN COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of resignations and the number of dismissals from the service of the Air Ministry as a result of the findings of the Cadman Committee?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The answer to both parts of the question is none.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is it the fact that, although the Cadman Committee made most serious criticisms against the Air Ministry, there have been no resignations, and that the people who stated that there was a case for inquiry, namely, the pilots, are the only people who have been dismissed?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Cadman Committee made a variety of recommendations for improvements in many directions in civil aviation, and attention is being given to those recommendatons, but that does not necessarily involve the resignation of Air Ministry personnel.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Why not dismiss the people who made the inquiries?

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (EVESHAM).
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he can now find time to consider the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to the supply of electricity in the Evesham Parliamentary Division of Worcestershire?
    [That this House views with considerable apprehension the number of villages and farms in the Evesham Parliamentary Division of Worcestershire that have no supply of electricity at all; and, seeing that in an emergency food production within this area would be of great importance and that this food production would
    1578
    be hampered by the lack of facilities for the supply and distribution of electricity, urges on His Majesty's Government the importance of expediting the report of the public inquiry which was held in Evesham on the 30th July, 1937, in connection with the failure of the Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power Company to meet the requirements of consumers in this area.]
    The Prime Minister: In view of the state of Parliamentary business, I can hold out no hope of time being found for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware of the unwieldy and complicated chain of holding companies directly controlled by Edmund son's Electricity Supply Corporation, and will he have an inquiry made in view of the fact that it is impossible, owing to the interlocking of the finances, to determine what the true position is in the Vale of Evesham?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the unwieldy and complicated nature of Parliamentary business.

    DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any indication when the Royal Commission on Geographical Distribution of Industry is likely to conclude its task and present its report?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the Royal Commission have made good progress with the taking of evidence, but that there are a number of witnesses still to be heard. When the evidence is completed a considerable time will be required for the preparation of the report and it is not yet possible to say when the report will be presented.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the task of the Commission will be completed this year, and will he undertake to secure that no time is lost in expediting the publication of what is expected to be a very valuable report?
    The Prime Minister: I think the Commission are pursuing their task assiduously, and I have good hopes that they will be able to produce their report without undue delay.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is nearly a year since this Commission was appointed, and in view of the urgency of the matters with which they are dealing, could he not ask for the work to be expedited?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it is necessary for me to ask them to do anything more than they are doing. I have known Commissions to take six years.

  DEFENCE.

    CHANNEL TUNNEL.
    Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the recent development of aircraft, the present rearmament of the European nations, and the danger that would be caused to shipping, he will consider the immediate appointment of a committee to further examine and investigate the technical, engineering, and economic problems involved in building a Channel Tunnel to connect the Continent with England at the present time?
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on 12th July last.
    Mr. Day: Does not the Prime Minister think that a tunnel of this kind would prove an excellent protection as regards the food supply of the country?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid I could not hear the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. Day: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not agree that a Channel Tunnel of this kind would prove an extra protection to the food supply of this country in case of a future air raid?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I do not think so.
    Captain Graham: Is not the idea of a Channel Tunnel considered to be something of a day dream?

    RAILWAY BRIDGES.
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether any arrangements are being made for the defence of railway bridges against attack from the air?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): Arrangements for the defence of vulnerable points
    1580
    including railway bridges are included in the plans for air defence.
    Sir A. Knox: What Department is entrusted with these plans? Is it the War Office or the Home Office, or it is the stationmaster in the station?
    Sir T. Inskip: This is a matter for the War Office and Air Ministry in co-operation.
    Mr. Macquisten: Why can the Government not take proper precautions with these things?

    HOME FOOD SUPPLY.
    Major Braithwaiteasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the Government regard the production of food at home as an essential part of the national defence programme; and whether he will make a further statement on the subject?
    Sir T. Inskip: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; in regard to the second part I have nothing to add to my statement during the course of the Debate on 9th February.
    Mr. De la Bère: Why not do it now, and grow more food?

    CAPITAL SHIPS (VULNERABILITY TO AIR ATTACK).
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence who were appointed to examine the results of the experiments that have taken place in connection with the defence against aircraft and the vulnerability from the air of capital ships have completed their investigations; and what, if any, further action the Government propose taking?
    Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Member will recollect that the report of the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the Vulnerability of Capital Ships to Air Attack was presented to Parliament in November, 1936, as Command Paper No. 5301. As recommended in paragraph 47 of the report, experiments have continued to be made, and there is the fullest collaboration between the Admiralty and Air Ministry.
    Mr. Day: Has any consideration been given to the general question of vulnerability?
    Sir T. Inskip: Yes, Sir.

    CZECHOSLOVAKIA (AIRCRAFT).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence how many aeroplanes have recently been delivered from this country to Czechoslovakia; and whether officers from that country have recently visited England for the purpose of obtaining such supplies?
    Sir T. Inskip: During the 12 months ended March, 1938, no aeroplanes of United Kingdom manufacture were exported to Czechoslovakia. Particulars of consignments during April, 1938, if any, are not yet available. In reply to the last part of the question, I am not aware of any such visit.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that in the week after Easter there were representatives from Czechoslovakia in this country who actually went for flights in Hawker aircraft and that they came over here with the intention of purchasing Hawker Hurricanes for their use?
    Sir T. Inskip: I am not informed about the business of private individuals, but the inquiries which I have made give me no reason to believe that there has been any business of the sort suggested by the hon. Member.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AEROPLANE ENGINES.
    Sir W. Smilesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many complete aeroplane engines have been produced in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland during the last year in the districts north of Manchester?
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): None, apart from a small number of aeroplane engines for civil aviation purposes manufactured in Yorkshire.
    Sir W. Smiles: Would it not be possible during the coming 12 months to manufacture more of these engines, in other districts like Glasgow and Belfast, where there are good engineering companies?
    Earl Winterton: The first consideration must be to manufacture engines where they can most conveniently be manufactured, and near the existing work, but the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is kept constantly in mind.
    Mr. Macquisten: Are not the best engineering works in Belfast?

    GOODS (TRANSPORT).
    Mr. Holdsworthasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether instructions have been issued by the Air Ministry requiring manufacturers to deliver goods by railway instead of following the normal practice of inviting tenders for the transport of goods?
    Earl Winterton: No, Sir; where the contract price of an article includes delivery costs, the contractor is free to make his own transport arrangements. Where the price does not include delivery costs, the method of transport is decided by economic advantage, and no special preference is given by the Air Ministry to any form of transport.

    AIRCRAFT SUPPLY, UNITED STATES AND CANADA.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to counteract the blow to British aeronautical prestige, especially in South America, caused by the despatch of the British air mission to the United States of America?
    Earl Winterton: My Noble Friend is unable to accept the implication contained in my hon. Friend's question, and does not consider any such action as he suggests to be required.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is not my Noble Friend aware that it has been widely stated abroad that not only the quantity but the quality of British aircraft is disturbing the Government, and can he not, therefore, give a definite assurance to the House that the Government are entirely satisfied with the quality of British aircraft?
    Earl Winterton: I have already answered a number of questions on that point, and I propose to refer to it tomorrow; I can only say that the opinions of my hon. Friend on this subject are not borne out by other critics of the Air Ministry who have been pressing us for a long time.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the British aircraft industry satisfied with the quality of the Government?

    AERONAUTICAL EQUIPMENT INSPECTION.
    Mr. Loftusasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number employed by the Air Ministry as inspectors of production in factories in Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and whether all such inspectors are engineers or skilled mechanics?
    Earl Winterton: The Air Ministry does not employ inspectors of production in factories. The only inspectors in factories are those of the Aeronautical Inspection Directorate of the Air Ministry, who number 824, and whose function is to ensure that material and methods of construction of aeronautical equipment are in accordance with specification. All these men are engineers or skilled mechanics.
    Mr. Loftus: Will my Noble Friend inquire whether there is unnecessary inspection, and whether many skilled engineers are not diverted from production work to this unnecessary inspection?
    Earl Winterton: I do not think that that is the case. My view is the exact opposite. I think it is extremely necessary, where the safety and welfare of the Air Force are at stake, that there should be the closest inspection.

    AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brownasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether complete records are kept by the committee of the Privy Council for the organisation and development of agricultural research or by the Agricultural Research Council of all agricultural research conducted by various bodies throughout this country; and what steps are taken to co-ordinate the work with the object of avoiding overlapping and unnecessary duplication of expenditure?
    Earl Winterton: The Agricultural Research Council, on their establishment in 1931, made it their first task to survey all the agricultural researches aided by the State in Great Britain, and they have since, through special visiting committees, by making themselves familiar with the annual reports and with other published papers, and by interviews, kept the work at research centres under constant review and have submitted reports upon it
    1584
    to the Committee of the Privy Council and to the Departments concerned. By these means, through technical committees of which the principal research workers interested in a particular subject are members, and by a special annual review, made in consultation with the agricultural departments, of the programmes and estimates of all institutes, unnecessary duplication of work and expenditure is avoided and co-ordination of effort is secured. Moreover, through their Budget Committee, the council fulfil the duty laid upon them of submitting to the Development Commissioners a financial statement analysing the whole provision proposed to be charged on the Development Fund for the ensuing year for agricultural research. As advisers to the Development Commission, the Council are charged to give attention in particular to the requirements (1) that any expansion of agricultural research is directed to the most important research needs of the industry, (2) that present and future facilities available at research institutes or elsewhere are utilised to the greatest advantage, and (3) that undesirable duplication of research work is avoided. At every stage of their work the Council are in close association with the agricultural Departments upon whose Votes, with Appropriations-in-Aid from the Development Fund, the major part of the cost of agricultural research is borne.
    Brigadier-General Brown: Yes, but is not the Noble Lord aware that there are bodies all doing the same experimental work, for instance in potatoes, and overlapping, and could not the committee look into the matter so as to co-ordinate their activities under one body?
    Earl Winterton: I will convey that suggestion to my Noble Friend.

    MEDICAL RESEARCH (SUPPLY OF DRUGS).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Lord President of the Council (1) whether he is aware that the Medical Research Council are allocating £13,000, provided by Parliament, for research in chemotherapy; and whether he will satisfy himself that the Medical Research Council, in this scheme, is securing every possible co-operation from industrial concerns;

    1585
    (2) whether steps are being considered to ensure that scientists, medical men, and manufacturing chemists shall all be brought into a scheme whereby research into chemical compounds for medical and other purposes, essential particularly to the tropical parts of the British Empire, and to the whole Empire in case of war, may proceed upon lines similar to those followed with such success in Germany, whereby that country has secured a virtual monopoly of drugs particularly necessary in the British Empire?
    Earl Winterton: I am assured that in applying this additional grant to the promotion of research in chemotherapy, the Medical Research Council will obtain the co-operation of industry as far as may be found possible. The general objects of the scheme now being developed are as indicated in the second question, and steps are being taken to ensure that scientists, medical men, and manufacturing chemists shall all be brought within its scope.
    Sir William Davison: In view of the fact that many essential drugs of the highest importance are obtainable only in Germany, does my right hon. Friend think that a grant of £30,000 is adequate?
    Earl Winterton: I am afraid that I must have notice of this question. My hon. Friend will realise that I answer for the Lord President, but I will certainly look into the matter.
    Mr. David Adams: Are the Government themselves taking any active steps to promote co-operation by these organisations?
    Earl Winterton: Oh, yes, Sir. Perhaps I might call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the object and scope of the scheme is that referred to in the report of the Medical Research Council for 1936–37.

    CARMARTHEN BRIDGE (COST).
    Mr. Hopkinasked the Minister of Transport whether he can now give the total all-in cost of building the Carmarthen Bridge; how much land was taken and for what sum of money; the amount of compensation paid and to whom, and why such payment was made;
    1586
    and the amount of money contributed by the Great Western Railway Company, if any?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): Final figures of the actual cost are not yet available, but the latest estimate is £97,000, excluding the cost of land and compensation. 3.6 acres of land were taken, but no compensation has yet been paid. Compensation in respect of 1.3 acres has been agreed at £4,882. The compensation payable for the remainder of the land may have to be settled by arbitration. The agreement with the railway company provided for the payment to them of £25 for the grant of the necessary perpetual easement for the bridge and £500 in respect of general expenses, including disturbances of traffic incurred by the company during the construction of the bridge; and the payment by the company of £800 in respect of the saving resulting from the elimination of the level crossing and £100 for the relief from liability to maintain a portion of the station approach road.
    Mr. Hopkin: Is any compensation being paid to anyone other than landowners?
    Mr. Burgin: I do not think so.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the anxiety that has been expressed in certain quarters of the House at the growing burden on public authorities, will the Minister make inquiry into the burdens which are being placed on local authorities, as, for example, this burden of £4,000 in a place like Carmarthen, which is remote from any industrial centre?
    Mr. Burgin: We are discussing here the provision of a much required bridge which has been universally admired.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, in a place like Carmarthen, which is a small agricultural town remote from industrial centres, a price of £4,000 for an acre of land is a fair price? Is it not putting a terrible burden on the local authority?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir Charles Edwards: May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the Motion on the Paper for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, what business he proposes to take to-night?
The Prime Minister: We desire to obtain the Second Reading of the Road Haulage Wages (No. 2) Bill and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution; and we also propose to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Post Office (Sites) Bill and the Report stage of the Fire Brigades Money Resolution.
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, 276; Noes, 112.

Division No. 199.]

AYES.

[3.48 p.m.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Culverwell, C. T.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

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

Davidson, Viscountess

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Albery, Sir Irving

Dawson, Sir P.

Kimball, L.

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

De Chair, S. S.

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

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

De la Bère, R.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

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

Denville, Alfred

Leech, Sir J. W.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Doland, G. F.

Lees-Jones, J.

Apsley, Lord

Dower, Major A. V. G.

Leigh, Sir J.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Assheton, R.

Duggan, H. J.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Levy, T.

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Eastwood, J. F.

Lewis, O.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Eckersley, P. T.

Liddall, W. S.

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

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Lindsay, K. M.

Barelay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Lipson, D. L.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Lloyd, G. W.

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

Elmley, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Emery, J. F.

Loftus, P. C.

Bernays, R. H.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Blair, Sir R.

Errington, E.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Bossom, A. C.

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

McKie, J. H.

Boulton, W. W.

Everard, W. L.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Findlay, Sir E.

Macnamara, Major J. R. J.

Brass, Sir W.

Fleming, E. L.

Macquisten, F. A.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Magnay, T.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Furness, S. N.

Mander, G. le M.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

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

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

Markham, S. F.

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

Gledhill, G.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Bull, B. B.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Burghley, Lord

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Burton, Col. H. W.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Butcher, H. W.

Grimston, R. V.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hannah, I. C.

Morgan, R. H.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Carver, Major W. H.

Harbord, A.

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

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

Harris, Sir P. A.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

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

Harvey, Sir G.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

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

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Channon, H.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Owen, Major G.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonal A. P.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Chorlton, A. E, L.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Patrick, C. M.

Christie, J. A.

Hepworth, J,

Peat, C. U.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Clarke, Frank (Dartford)

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Holdsworth, H.

Petherick, M.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Holmes, J. S.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

Hope, Captain Hon. A. 0. J.

Pilkington, R.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Hopkinson, A.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

Horsbrugh, Florence

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

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

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

Procter, Major H. A.

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

Hume, Sir G. H.

Radford, E. A.

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

Hunter, T.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hutchinson, G. C.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

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

Rayner, Major R. H.

Crooke, Sir J. S.

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Cross, R. H.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Crossley, A. C.

Keeling, E. H.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Rothschild, J. A. de

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

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

Rowlands, G.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Warrender, Sir V.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Storey, S.

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Salt, E. W.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)

Wells, S. R.

Samual, M. R. A.

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

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Scott, Lord William

Tate, Mavis C.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Selley, H. R.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Wise, A. R.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

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

Withers, Sir J. J.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Touche, G. C.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Simmonds, O. E.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Turton, R. H.

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

Wakefield, W. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Hayday, A.

Pritt, D. N.

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

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Banfield, J. W.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Ridley, G.

Barnes, A. J.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Riley, B.

Barr, J.

Hopkin, D.

Ritson, J.

Bellenger, F. J.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Sexton. T. M.

Bromfield, W.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Shinwell, E.

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

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Silverman, S. S.

Buchanan, G.

Kelly, W. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Burke, W. A.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cape, T.

Kirkwood, D.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Charlatan, H. C.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

Chater, D.

Lathan, G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Cluse, W. S.

Lawson, J. J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Dagger, G.

Leach, W.

Stephen, C.

Dalton, H.

Leonard, W.

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

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leslie, J. R.

Stokes, R. R.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Logan, D. G.

Summenkill, Edith

Davits, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lunn, W.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Day, H.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Thorne, W.

Dobbie, W.

McGhee, H. G.

Thurtle, E.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

McGovern, J.

Tinker, J. J.

Ede, J. C.

MacLaren, A.

Tomlinson, G.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Maclean, N.

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marshall, F.

Walkden, A. G.

Gallacher, W.

Maxton, J.

Walker, J.

Gardner, B. W.

Messer, F.

Watkins, F. C.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Montague, F.

Watson, W. McL.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

Westwood, J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Grenfell, D. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, D, (Swansea, E.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Paling, W.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Parker, J.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

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

Parkinson, J. A.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Pearson, A.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-

Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.

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

BILL PRESENTED.
HERRING INDUSTRY BILL,
" to amend the Herring Industry Act, 1935, to authorise the giving of further financial assistance to the Herring Industry Board and to herring fishermen, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Elliot; supported by Sir Samuel Hoare and Mr. W. S. Morrison; to be read a Second time upon. Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Scarborough) Bill, without Amendment.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Shropshire Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power Consolidation) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ROAD HAULAGE WAGES (NO. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.58 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "]hat the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a Bill to regulate the remuneration of workers employed by public, private and limited carriers who provide mechanical transport of goods by road. It directly affects 250,000 holders of licences and 500,000 vehicles, driven and attended by between 500,000 and 600,000 workers. It will be, I suppose, described to-morrow as one of the odds and ends of the Session. Nevertheless, it may well be of greater importance from the point of view of the historian than some hotly-debated controversial Measures. I shall describe the Bill as being one to help a rapidly growing modern industry towards settled self-government as regards wages. No one who, in the intervals allowed us from world affairs, has paid any attention to the course of industrial diplomacy can fail to realise that this is a necessary Bill. It takes a form which is new in our industrial legislation, because of the rapid development of this form of industrial transport. It will not be the last Bill, although it is the latest, as development and change are taking place with startling speed in this industry.
  The pace of these changes has brought with it, as all Members know, its own difficulties and its own problems. These are all the greater because road haulage is, on the whole, a service of small units. Its history is so short that it is covered by the span of life of Members who are now in this House. Its legislative history as regards hours is only eight years long, and as regards wages it dates back only to 1933. In order to understand the Bill it will be necessary to look at this recent and fast-moving history. The statutory obligation in respect of wages was first placed on the employers of workers in the road haulage service by the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933. Before that the only statutory obligation was one imposed by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which limited the number of hours any
  1612
  persons was permitted to drive any kind of motor vehicle and provided for periods of rest. This obligation was imposed in the interest of public safety on the roads. Wages and conditions of employment were nominally the subject of collective bargaining, but there was no national joint machinery for negotiating wages. The only agreements in existence were between organisations of employers and workers in a few industrial areas. There was, however, no machinery whatever for linking the results of their work.
  It was because of the lack of voluntary wage regulation that the 1933 Act imposed an obligation to pay fair wages in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons. This was an important step. The requirement applied to drivers and statutory attendants of vehicles authorised under A licences, that is a public carrier's licence; or, B licences, that is to say, a limited carrier's licence. The Act further provided that any organisation representative of persons engaged in the road transport industry could make representations to the licensing authorities of the traffic area concerned, to the effect that the fair wages requirement was not being carried out, and if the complaint was not otherwise settled it was referred to the Industrial Court.
  It is important to note that the element of compulsory arbitration for the limited measure introduced by Part II of this Bill does not bring in any new principle. During the passage of the Act of 1933 an undertaking was given on behalf of the Government that the Minister of Labour would consult with the organisations of employers and workers with a view to setting up a joint voluntary body or bodies to settle wages and working conditions. It was hoped that an agreed basis could be found to which the Industrial Court could refer. This promise was carried out. We—I mean the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Labour—invited experts from the industry to advise us. With their assistance, and following consultations with the various trade organisations of employers and employed, the National Joint Conciliation Board for the Road Motor Transport Industry (Goods) was established for England and Wales in March, 1934. Ten-area boards were established for the purpose of grading the towns and dis-

  1613
  tricts in England and Wales. In Scotland separate joint machinery was set up.
  Thus in 1934 we had arrived at a position where there was the appearance of a complete system of joint machinery for determining wages and working conditions. I say "appearance," for in working the scheme it was found at once that difficulties and disagreements took place, and there was failure to secure observance of wages and conditions which had been decided by the national and the area boards. It became clear that the lack of organisation in the industry rendered the joint machinery largely ineffective. The apparent theoretical completeness of the system was found in practice to be illusory. The result was that in March, 1936, the members of the National Board united in urging me to introduce further legislation to give effective force to the boards decisions. The board also urged that it was necessary for the holders of C licences, that is private carriers, to be subject to the same degree of regulation as the holders of A and B licences. Our investigations showed that the statutory provision with regard to fair wages proved in practice to be almost unworkable in its application to such an unorganised and mobile service as the transport of goods by road.
  In view of the chaotic conditions in the industry—that is not too strong a word—and the complexity of the issues and of the interests involved the Minister of Transport and I appointed a committee known as the Baillie Committee in July, 1936. This committee's duty was to examine the position with regard to the regulation of wages and conditions of service of persons employed in connection with the carriage of goods by road, and to make recommendations. The committee consisted of Sir James Baillie (chairman), Sir Gerald Bellhouse and Mr. John Forster, to whom the greatest credit is due for the thorough and efficient manner in which they tackled a most difficult and troublesome task. After taking evidence in public for many days from all the interests involved they came to a number of unanimous recommendations which are contained in their comprehensive report. The Bill follows very closely the recommendations made in that report.
  Before I deal with the Bill itself I must say a few words about definition. It is
  1614
  important in our consideration of some of the difficulties which we are now seeking to overcome. I would point out that the work in respect of which statutory remuneration can be fixed under the Measure is road haulage work as defined in the Third Schedule to the Bill. The Baillie Committee's recommendations relate only to drivers and statutory attendants. As a result of long discussion we have thought it right to deal with all the travelling staff who accompany a vehicle, either to drive it or attend to it or to its load. The van boy is clearly as much in need of statutory protection as the driver. We have, therefore, included all workers while engaged on road haulage work within the scope of the Bill. There are most important exceptions. We except all workers whose remuneration is the subject of other statutory wage regulation, such as a trade board, workers employed by railway companies whose wages and conditions are determined by the machinery of negotiation which exists by agreement between the companies and the railway trade unions.
  So, also, if and when a scheme becomes operative for the statutory regulation of wages in the retail distributive trades, the transport workers in these trades will automatically be excluded from the Bill and will come under such a retail distributive scheme. At present it is in the power of only four trade boards to fix minimum rates of wages for transport workers. If in future the scope of any of the other trade boards is extended to include the transport work and minimum rates are fixed for it, such workers will automatically fall outside this Measure.. But until such rates are fixed transport workers in trade board trades will come within the Bill.
  Mr. Holdsworth: What are the four trade boards referred to?
  Mr. Brown: Those for milk distribution in England and Wales, for milk distribution in Scotland, the General Waste Materials Reclamation Trade Board and the Cotton Waste Reclamation Trade Board. Those are the four. This system that we have adopted has a most important bearing on the problem of C licences. Those who remember the Debates of 1933 will recall that one of the great difficulties in dealing with C licence holders was that a driver employed by a C licence holder,

  1615
  such as a grocer, might be employed on driving for part of his time and as a shop assistant for the remainder of the time. It was felt to be a very serious difficulty, especially if there was the possibility of such a worker having to be paid as a driver for all time worked. But this has been overcome by our method of limiting the fixing of statutory remuneration to road haulage work, so that a C licence holder who employs a man partly on driving and partly on other work will be under no obligation to pay haulage rates for the other work.
  Let me now turn to the Bill. It is in three parts. Part I deals with A and B licences, and Part II with C licences. A licences are licences required by those who sell transport. C licences are licences for those who provide their own transport, and B licences are licences for those who do both. That is a general statement of the difference between the three. Part I deals with the regulation of the remuneration of road haulage workers who are engaged under either A or B licences, which are required for the carriage of goods for hire or reward. Part II contains provisions dealing with the remuneration of road haulage workers employed on goods vehicles for which C licences are necessary for the carriage of goods for, or in connection with, a trade or business, but not for hire or reward. Part II will not come into operation until a wages Order under Part I of the Bill has come into force. Part III deals with finance, with the special provisions relating to Scotland, and with enforcement of statutory remuneration by a wages Order under Part I or by a decision of the Industrial Court under Part II. Part III follows in general the well tested and tried system of Trade Board enforcement. If hon. Members realise that they will understand the whole structure of the main part of Part III. Part I deals with the remuneration of A and B licence workers. It may be said, speaking colloquially, to apply to the road haulage industry proper. We have adopted here the trade board principle of a board representative of the industry with an independent element. This board will determine the wages payable and recommend them to the Minister who will be empowered to make a wages Order enforceable on all employers covered by this part of the Bill. It provides for the
  1616
  setting up of a Central Wages Board for Great Britain, and area boards for Scotland and the existing 10 traffic areas in England and Wales. Each area board is to consist of an equal number of representatives of employers and workers appointed by the Minister after consultation with the organisations representing employers and workers in the area.
  The Central Board is to consist of 12 representative members, six representing A and B licence holders and six representing workers, to be appointed by the Minister after consultation with any organisations representing such licence holders or workers. Twenty-four members from the area boards, that is, one from each side of each area board in England and Wales, and two from each side of the Scottish Board will also be appointed by the Minister of Labour after consulting with the area board concerned. In addition, there will be not less than three or more than five independent members appointed by the Minister of whom one will be the chairman. The Central Board will, therefore, consist of not less than 39 and not more than 41 members. It will be my aim in determining the representation on the area boards and the Central Board, to see that both the A and the B licence holders are adequately represented, and for this purpose it is expressly provided in the Bill that in making appointments to the boards I must have regard to the types of trades and businesses affected, the number of goods vehicles licensed and the various circumstances in which the vehicles are operated. I must also consult at every point with organisations of employers and workers concerned.
  It will be the duty of the Central Board to submit to the Minister proposals for fixing the remuneration to be paid to road haulage workers employed by A and B licence holders. The Central Board will, however, have to consult the area boards and consider their reports. They will also have to publish their proposals in order to give any persons affected an opportunity of lodging objections before sending the proposals to the Minister. If objections are made the Central Board will be required, after consulting the area boards, to consider their proposals in the light of the objections before finally sending them to the Minister, who will then he empowered to make a Wages Order giving statutory effect to the proposals,

  1617
  unless he considers it necessary to refer them back to the boards.
  The Bill recognises the special position of Scotland. In some quarters there was a desire for a separate board for Scotland with power to fix statutory rates of wages for road haulage workers in Scotland. That desire can well be understood in view of the separate voluntary Scottish Conciliation Board which at present exists, but it must be remembered that transport, unlike a factory, is mobile and the Border is not a transport barrier. For such an industry it is clearly right to have one board with final authority, but in order to meet the legitimate claims of Scotland special provision is made in the Bill for the Scottish Area Board to have the power to initiate proposals for fixing the remuneration to be paid to workers in Scotland.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith:Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain what happens if, after an objection has been taken and the matter has been referred back to the board, the board sends it back to the Minister?
  Mr. Brown: The Minister makes up his mind whether he desires any other remarks.
  Mr. Smith: He "may" or he "shall" do this?
  Mr. Brown: The answer is that it is his duty to deal with it. He must in the end make up his mind whether an Order is to be made or not, or whether he desires any further remarks from the board concerned. In making proposals for fixing remuneration the board will have power to deal with all kinds of remuneration, including, for example, overtime rates, subsistence allowances and commission as well as—the House will find this of topical interest—holiday remuneration. This last proposal is a new and an important step. It will be the first time that the question of holiday remuneration has been dealt with by Statute, and it may prove to be a landmark in our industrial and social history. I must emphasise, also, that this part of the Bill is the outcome of requests made to the Minister by both sides of the industry to provide effective machinery for determining and enforcing proper rates of wages and conditions of service, and these provisions are designed to help the industry to assist itself to escape from
  1618
  the chaotic conditions which at present exist in regard to the regulation of wages for this large body of workers.
  As regards Part II of the Bill, I have explained that it contains provisions dealing with the remuneration of road haulage workers employed on goods vehicles for which C licences are necessary, that is to say, those road users who provide their own road transport. It has been made perfectly clear—and I want to make it abundantly clear to the House—by organisations representing A and B licence holders that the problem of the rates of wages for those employed by C licence holders has relation to the general problem of the road haulage industry. There can be no effective regulation of wages in the industry arid no proper co-ordination of transport unless C licensed vehicles are dealt with as well as A and B licensed vehicles. This is not only the view of A and B licence holders but it is also the policy upon which the Baillie Committee based all their recommendations and also the view of those who have had the difficult task of hearing scores of organisations on this most complicated industry, and of watching the speedy development of this important industry. In fact, it has been made quite plain to me—and I want to make it quite plain to the House—by both sides of the industry—the employers and the workmen—that their request for and concurrence in the proposals in Part I of the Bill is on the definite understanding that there is to be some form of regulation for C licensed vehicles.
  The proposals in Part II of the Bill are based upon a different method from those in Part I. While the C licence holder is in many cases in competition with the A and the B licence holder, the problem of wage regulation of workers employed by C licence holders is for the most part quite different from that of the road haulage industry proper. In general, C licence holders are employers engaged not in the road haulage industry itself, but in one of the industries and trades of the country, for example, in engineering, shipbuilding, iron and steel, gas, and building industries, in the distributive trade, and in such trades as dyeing, laundering, aerated water and scores of others. [An HON. MEMBER: "And coal."] Certainly. Industries of that kind would make a very long list. Road haulage workers in such industries

  1619
  are more often than not ancillary workers and, in general, cannot be regarded as in the same position as haulage workers employed by A and B licence holders. We have, therefore, approached their problems from a different angle—from the point of view of the various industries in which the employers of the road haulage workers are engaged.
  Let me make it abundantly clear to the House that the problem has presented many difficulties and I do not claim that this Bill is the last word on the subject. I am well aware that some would have had us do more and others would have had us do less—some a good deal less. I would ask the House and all concerned outside, to regard the Bill as a practical experiment. I may, however, claim that the method proposed will provide a measure of regulation which is practicable and workable. I believe it, personally, to constitute the fairest solution in existing circumstances of the competing interests of those who have transport to sell, those who provide their own transport, and those who do both. It will do justice to the workers engaged by all.
  The basis adopted in Part II of the Bill is that of ensuring that an unfair wage is not paid. Provision is made for the settlement of complaints of the payment of unfair remuneration and for indicating what is regarded as not unfair. A worker, or his trade union, or—and this is very important—a trade union representing a substantial number of road haulage workers may complain to the Minister if it is considered that the workers' remuneration is unfair. Unless such complaints are frivolous or vexatious, or unless they are withdrawn after the Minister has made representations to the employer concerned, they are to be referred to the Industrial Court. This is, of course, compulsory arbitration which, as I have already pointed out, is not a new principle so far as A and B licence holders are concerned, but was laid down in the 1933 Act. This extension of compulsory arbitration to C licence holders is subject to a very important exception, and I would ask hon. Members to take particular note of it. The Baillie Committee recommended that all such complaints should be referred to a tribunal, but the strongest objection was taken by employers in the well-organised industries
  1620
  having comprehensive voluntary joint machinery for the settlement of disputes in their industries to this widespread application of compulsory arbitration. They contended with very great force that such a system would seriously damage their joint machinery built up as a result of many years of hard work. The force of this contention had to be recognised, and we have recognised it. Indeed, the principle of compulsory arbitration runs counter to our general method of voluntary collective bargaining.
  Accordingly, the Bill provides that if there is in existence, in pursuance of an agreement between organisations of employers and trade unions representative of substantial proportions of employers and workers engaged in the industry concerned, joint machinery for settling disputes, any complaint concerning an employer whose organisation is a party to the joint machinery must be referred to that machinery for settlement, and can only be referred to the Industrial Court at the request of both sides. Both sides must agree if a case is to be referred to the Industrial Court under this Bill. The House will recognise that this is of fundamental importance, particularly from the point of view of preserving and encouraging voluntary joint machinery in industry. The effect will be that in unorganised or badly organised industries all complaints will be referred to the Industrial Court, but in those well organised industries with comprehensive joint machinery only agreed complaints will go to the court. It is rightly anticipated that this will result in increasing organisation in all industries, in strengthening existing joint machinery and in steps being taken to set up machinery in those industries where it does not now exist.
  I wish to make clear that the aim of this part of the Bill, equally with Part I, is also to help industry to self-government. Further, the proposal I have outlined to the House reduces the element of compulsion to the greatest possible extent. The Government are anxious to minimise compulsion and to do everything possible to encourage and help voluntary wage negotiating machinery. The value of our voluntary collective bargaining system cannot be overestimated. The development of individual freedom in this country has gone side by side with industrial freedom, and

  1621
  it is becoming increasingly recognised that our voluntary collective bargaining system is one of the most potent instruments for the stability of our national life. That being so, it is our duty to foster and encourage the establishment of such machinery over an ever-widening field, and it is with this in mind that the proposals of the Bill have been made, and particularly the proposal to refer complaints for settlement to existing machinery where that machinery is adequate. Such a procedure, I believe, will lead to an extension of organisation and to an increasing measure of self-government and, therefore, of stability in industry.
  Let me say a word about what is not "unfair," and point out one or two of the difficulties experienced under the 1933 Act in connection with the Fair Wages Resolution. It is laid down under Clause 4 (3) what is regarded as being "not unfair." An employer will not be deemed to be paying unfair remuneration if (1) he is paying the rates laid down by the Central Board for A and B licence holders; (2) if he is paying in accordance with an industrial agreement to which he is a party; (3) if, although not a party to the agreement, he is paying in accordance with the appropriate agreement operative in the same trade in the same district; and (4) if he is paying in accordance with an Industrial Court decision relating to corresponding work in the same 'trade in the same district. Accordingly, the employer can always protect himself from the charge of unfairness by paying in accordance with the appropriate agreement between a trade union and an employers' association. This is designed to further and encourage the making of voluntary agreements. If, when the complaint is referred to the Industrial Court, the court decides that the remuneration is unfair, it will be their duty to fix the remuneration to be paid, and in doing this they must have regard not only to the A and B rates and appropriate agreements, but also to the general level of wages in the industry concerned. In order further to protect the joint machinery, an employers' organisation or a 'trade union interested in any complaint referred to the court will have the right to attend the court and be heard. When statutory remuneration is fixed by the court it will apply to the case of workers in respect
  1622
  of whom the complaint was made and to other employés employed on similar work by the same employer. The decision will he operative for three years, it will be subject to review quarterly, and the court will have the power to make their decision retrospective for a period not exceeding six months.
  It is only necessary for me to say a brief word about finance. The estimated cost to the Exchequer will be £25,000 a year, and it will be borne on the Ministry of Labour Vote. Account, however, will have to be taken of this cost in the fixing of the fees payable for licences under the Road Traffic Act, 1933. It is only right that the cost should be borne by the industry itself. If the industry were well-organised, there would have been in existence voluntary machinery the expense of which would have been borne by those concerned. The fact that the assistance of the Government is necessary, as it is here, in setting up proper machinery, shows that there is every reason why the industry should bear the cost, which, spread over licence holders as a whole, will be a very small price to pay for the benefits which will in clue course accrue.
  We are continuing to make alterations in our industrial structure to meet the new and changing circumstances, and this Bill is such an alteration. It is intended to assist the building up of the self-government of industry. Much pressure is being brought to bear on the Government for statutory regulation in respect of the large number of workers who have not taken the first step to improve their position by joining associations. The existence of these unorganised and unregulated sections is a menace to those who have achieved good conditions, and employers should no longer be subject to the unfair competition in respect of lower conditions observed by others. It will be only where circumstances demand that the Government will take the responsibility of assisting such workers. The Government have no desire to take the responsibility of fixing and enforcing minimum conditions.
  We are using every effort to assist the extension of orderly and well organised self-government in industry. This Bill will aid responsible trade unions and employers to secure better and more orderly conditions. It will assist in putting road haulage on a sounder basis. It should also be a great asset in industrial

  1623
  diplomacy. The co-operation of transport operators can also have the wider result of assisting them towards that co-ordination which is necessary for the uninterrupted progress of their industry. I believe it is a necessary Bill and a practical one. I believe it is a good Bill, the result of much examination, many deputations, and much stiff and friendly negotiation, and I would like to offer my congratulations not only to the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary, but also to both sides of the industry who have co-operated in enabling me to present the Bill in this form. I have been assured too that their co-operation will be continued inside the House. I thank them most warmly. I believe this is a big step forward in this difficult problem.
  4.41 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have opened his speech by more or less apologising for this Bill and regarding it as one of the odds and ends of the Session.
  Mr. E. Brown: I did not suggest that. I said I was desirous that it should not be so regarded. Personally, I think it is of great importance. I saw the phrase to which the right hon. Gentleman refers used in a newspaper and I did not want that view to be taken outside.
  Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid that is not a complete explanation, but I accept it for what it is worth. I always regard a Bill affecting a large body of workers as important. There have been far more "odds and ends," and particularly "odds," than this Bill. I agree that it is a necessary Bill. The people for whom I speak have desired a Bill of this kind for a long time, and I am glad that the Government have now responded to the demands made by organised labour and other agencies and by certain employers' organisations, regarding the conditions which exist in this rapidly developing and very important road transport industry. I will not be expected to say that I am completely satisfied with the Bill. It would be a break with tradition if I should find myself completely satisfied with anything introduced by this Government. But I do say that the Bill marks an important milestone in the progress of the industry, particularly as regards one aspect. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—and it is not often I do so-
  1624
  that it will do something to improve the efficiency of the industry, and I think it may do a great deal to improve the wages and conditions of the people who are engaged in it.
  I have three major points to make on this Bill. I do not speak as one having authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin) can speak with a closer knowledge of the problems than I possess, but it seems to me that in any licensed industry all should be treated alike. This industry was licensed not in the interests of the contractors or the workers, but in the public interest. If that be so, clearly, the industry ought to be treated all on the same basis, having regard to the fact that the public interest is at stake. Therefore, it is obvious that unfair competition should be stopped. The Baillie Report recognised that. The right hon. Gentleman said the C licence holders were not engaged in the same kind of trade as others, but if the C licence holders were not carrying their own goods, those goods would have to be carried by the A and B licence holders. Secondly, I think fair wages and conditions are demanded in the interest of the workers and in the interests of public safety. In a licensed industry there ought to be a degree of regulation which hon. Members opposite would not accept for the ordinary private industry. The road transport industry is a rapidly developing service. My hon. Friends and I believe that the co-ordination of the whole of our transport services is vital in the interests of the nation, but it is clear to me that you cannot have a co-ordinated transport service in this country until you have integrated and organised the road transport aspect of it. That point was accepted by the Baillie Committee. I do not say that they committed themselves completely to co-ordination but they said it was clear that there could be no co-ordination until the road haulage aspect of road transport was properly organised and conducted.
  My third point is one which the right hon. Gentleman himself made. He used the term "self-government of industry" several times. His definition of self-government would be widely different from mine, but, broadly speaking, without committing myself to details of the statement, I agree with the attitude which he indicated. I believe this country must tread the path of democracy, and democracy depends on the temper and

  1625
  spirit and self-respect of the citizens of the nation. Workers in all industries, especially in such essential industries as transport which is the circulatory system of our economic life, must be treated with dignity. They must enjoy honourable conditions of employment and must have at their disposal adequate machinery for the redress of grievances. They are entitled to that, if our system of democracy is to be maintained. I believe the Bill goes a considerable way to meet my three points of principle.
  As regards the first point about a licensed industry, the C licence holders in this country, who far outnumber A and B licence holders—they are more than twice in number, and judging by an answer given this evening their numbers are growing—enjoy a liberty which the law has taken away from the holders of A and B licences. I do not accept the competitive system. I do not believe it is right for competition to rest on low wages and sweating. A competitive system, as long as it endures, should rest upon efficiency, organisation, foresight and management. C licence holders, unfortunately, are carrying on competition primarily on the basis of unregulated conditions and low wages. The lot of the lorry driver is hard. I should hate to be a lorry driver myself, even if I were technically capable of driving a large and unwieldy lorry. It seems to me unjust that because of an economic accident one man enjoys the advantage of working under an employer holding an A or B licence and another man, because of an economic accident, works for a man who has a C licence, does not enjoy the same advantages and whose conditions of employment may be more onerous than those who are working under an A or B licence.
  Lorry drivers, in my view, are worthy of special consideration. I suppose a majority of hon. Members drive their own motor cars. How would they like to drive a heavy, cumbrous lorry through the crowded and congested areas in our great cities? Lorry drivers have to conform to regulations almost as complicated as those of railway engine drivers. Probably they are never able to remember the regulations, but they can always be quoted against them. I understand that the railway rules are so complicated that whatever a railway driver does he can
  1626
  be proved to be wrong, and I think that is probably true of lorry drivers. There are systems of payment which make it very difficult for the lorry driver always to obey the law. I do not want to go into details, but there are methods of payment by bonuses which encourage the driver to break the law, and indeed may demand that the driver should break the law. There have been law cases, but I do not propose to refer to them. It is undoubtedly true that under the pressure of a bonus system drivers are expected to travel at speeds which are detrimental to the public, and against public safety. That makes it very hard for the lorry driver, because the employer can always bring something which looks like evidence to say that he did not know anything about it.
  For the most part lorry drivers are careful drivers on the roads, far more careful than the owner driver, and I understand more careful than the owner woman-driver. Last year one lorry driver was killed per week in an accident, and nearly 70 lorry' drivers were injured, that is to say, nearly 10 a day. [Interruption.] I think my arithmetic is right. Last year one lorry driver was killed every week and nearly 70 lorry drivers injured every week, which divided by seven is nearly 10 a day. I mention these points because we are dealing with an occupation where the people employed are under some difficulties, because they have to conform to the law and the regulations, they may be persuaded by their employers to depart from the law, and they also are employed in circumstances of considerable danger. It is unfair, as I have indicated, to discriminate between one class of licence and another. Even more important is this point—I make a present of it to employers who have foresight. Where progressive employers are prepared to abide by the results of industrial negotiation they ought not to be penalised by their less reputable competitors who sweat their workers, subject them to long hours of employment, rather than put their minds into increasing the efficiency and organisation of their business.
  I think the Bill goes a long way towards dealing with the problem of this industry. There are, however, what I regard as certain weaknesses in the Bill. I am not going to deal with them in

  1627
  detail, but it is my duty to point them out. The right hon. Gentleman made a brave attempt to defend Clause 4. What is the position in regard to the non-federated employer? I think there are about 160,000 licences now, and 60,000 of these licences are covered by trade agreements. That leaves 100,000 non-federated.
  Mr. E. Brown: The figure is 196,000.
  Mr. Greenwood: Then my case is all the stronger. If 60,000 are covered by trade agreements, it means that 136,000 are outside the scope of any organised agreement. The case has always been that the matter should come before the industrial court. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the industrial court is not capable of carry this burden: it is far too large for it. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider—I do not want to press him too hard at the moment—strengthening the machinery with regard to what he called the odds and ends of C licence holders who are not within the scope of any kind of industrial agreement. They are people who are obviously selfish, who have not got the team spirit and for whom this House need have no special consideration. Then I must draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 7. There has been a disposition on the part of employers to pass the buck to their agents. That seems to me to be unfair. It is not a principle which has been widely accepted in this country, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look at Clause 7, Subsection (3), under which an employer can escape conviction if his agent is convicted, and the agent often enough tries to pass it on to the employer, which seems to me to be unjust.
  In regard to the Clause dealing with the powers of licensing authorities, I am disturbed by the fact that licensing authorities are not working effectively, and I hope something will be done to make them more effective in their operations. My last point of criticism—not of criticism but of comment, is with regard to Clause 11 and the inspectors. I have on many occasions in this House pleaded for an extension of the staff of factory inspectors, because it is clear that the effectiveness of the law depends on adequate supervision, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear this point in
  1628
  mind. I have said that the Bill goes some considerable way. I realise the difficulties which the Minister has had to face in dealing with a heterogeneous group of people in what he called a chaotic industry, but I hope he will reconsider those Clauses of the Bill which I have indicated briefly in no unfriendly spirit. In principle, I commend the Bill to the House as an advance which will be welcomed by organised employers, and especially by the workers who will profit by its provisions.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Holdsworth: I think the Minister of Transport must be a happy man to-day, for I cannot imagine that there is any hon. Member who will not welcome this Bill. After reading the report of the committee of which Sir James Baillie was chairman, I feel sure that everybody who has taken the trouble to read it must be convinced that the machinery at present in existence in this industry is inadequate for the purpose. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) should have assumed that whatever happens to any worker is the responsibility of his employer, because I believe that what we need is real co-operation between the workers and the employers. Driving a lorry at the present time is a verw important job, and there is no employer who does not feel very much aggrieved if anything happens to the driver of his lorry. If we are to have efficient drivers and to assure safety on the roads, it is essential that these men should be paid adequate wages. I am sometimes worried when I see lorries driven by mere boys, very often of small weight, who are probably working longer hours than they ought to be called upon to work. From the point of view of the safety of the public it is right that there should be some assurance that men driving lorries should have a wage that would enable them to be as physically perfect as possible.
  There is another point in this Bill which I like. I remember that when the trade board was introduced in my own trade, I was very strongly in favour of it, and I got into trouble because of that. The reason I was in favour of it was not merely that I wanted to see a decent wage fixed, but I found that the man who was prepared to pay a decent wage was very

  1629
  often knocked out of the market by the man who was not prepared to pay it. I think that to a great extent that applies in the industry with which we are now dealing. From time to time I have been surprised to see figures relating to the transport of goods by road. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield say that people buy lorries in order to save money. That has not been my experience, because I have found that I could hire haulage cheaper than I could get it by having my own lorries. What I have found is that the C licence-holder does not get lorries merely on account of costs, but because, with his own lorries, he can get his haulage done at the time when he wants it done, and very often he gets a privacy which he is not able to get by hiring haulage.
  I am sure hon. Members will agree that a good thing about the Bill is that it will limit unfair competition arising out of the payment of low wages. I claim to be a big believer in private enterprise, but I like private enterprise to start off on a fair basis as between one man and another. It is not fair that one man should gain an advantage because he is prepred to pay much lower wages than he ought to pay. I believe that the payment of fair and adequate wages is in the interests of public safety, in the interests of the decent employer, and in the interests of the decent employé. Anything that I say with regard to the Bill will not be in the nature of carping criticism, but more in the nature of questions as to the working of it. I am a little doubtful as to how the Central Board and the area boards will work. I believe it is true to say that the area boards under the previous machinery were not satisfactory. I wonder whether the initiative with regard to wages ought not to rest with the area boards. The Central Board has to initiate the wage scale which it is suggested should be paid, it is then sent to the area board for remarks, and there is general consultation between the two. I think it will always be found that there are differences between different areas. That has been found to be the case throughout the negotiations that have taken place not only in this industry but in many other industries. Would there not be a great saving of time if the area boards had the power of initiation, as is
  1630
  provided in the case of the Scottish Road Haulage Area Board?
  In putting that suggestion to the Minister, I do not say that it is better than the proposal in the Bill, but I wonder whether it would not bring about some saving of time, since the area boards would have a better knowledge of local conditions than the Central Board could have. I know that the right hon. Gentleman may say that previously area boards have had great difficulties in reaching agreement, but I should be prepared to give to the Central Board final authority to impose their decision on the area boards if the latter failed to come to some kind of agreement. I wish to say a few words also about the constitution of the area boards. I do not see how they will function very well if they are composed of an equal number of employers and employés. I think it would be much better if, as in the case of the Central Board, they contained some independent members. I ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be wise, even on the area boards, to have some independent members. Another point which I want to raise concerning the Central Board and the area boards is the appointment of the members. In the First Schedule, paragraph 4, it is stated:
  " In appointing members under either of the last two foregoing sub-paragraphs, the Minister shall have regard to the types of trades and businesses affected, the numbers of vehicles connected therewith, and the various circumstances in which the vehicles are operated."
  The question I want to ask is whether there will be some opportunity for the representation of small men both on the Central Board and on the area boards? In reading the report of the Baillie Committee, I was struck by the tremendous number of small units in this industry. The report states that the average number of vehicles specified on an A licence is about 3¾, on a B licence 1½, and on a C licence 2. I suggest to the Minister that it will be necessary not only to consult with the organisations, but to give some attention to people who are not in an organisation. Seeing that the industry consists, in general, of small units, does the Minister intend that some regard should be had to the representation of small businesses? I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about voluntary negotiation: it is a great principle, and I was glad to hear the right

  1631
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield refer to it in the same way. There is one thing, however, which we ought to watch in connection with this Bill. Under Clause 1, the railway companies are exempted from the machinery that is set up. The point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that even if there is some kind of negotiating body, it ought not to be possible, when we are attempting to co-ordinate transport—for that is the aim of this Bill—for a railway company, under Clause 1, to get away with paying smaller wages for any men who are engaged in the same employment as is covered by the Clause. I do not say that they do it under the present machinery, but would it be possible to put in some covering provision to the effect that, while recognising that there should be voluntary negotiation, the railway companies should not be allowed to pay for the same work lower wages than would be imposed upon the road haulage industry because of this machinery?
  Mr. J. Henderson: Does the hon. Member suggest that that is done now?
  Mr. Holdsworth: I think I said that I do not suggest it is done now, but that does not mean that it would not be possible. If, for instance, the Central Board decided on a higher wage than is now being paid, that would happen, and I want to prevent it happening. I do not wish to say much with regard to Part II of the Bill, which deals with C licence holders, but I am somewhat doubtful about the machinery. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty with regard to the 100,000 people who are not in any organisation, and on the face of it, it almost appears as though there will have to be individual hearings before the board concerned under Part II. That seems to me to be a very long-drawn-out machinery. I recognise the differences between the holders of C licences and the holders of A and B licences. I do not agree that they are in competition with one another, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield that I think that usually the conditions of service are vastly different. I agree with him that in many cases there are abuses, but very often the driver of a vehicle which carries a C licence has what we call in Yorkshire a standing wage and a guaranteed job which is very
  1632
  often different from what other men employed in road haulage have. Very often holidays with pay are given in the case of such jobs. But I agree with the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield that we ought to make certain that in the case of C drivers a decent and fair wage is paid.
  I would like to ask a question about part-time workers, because that matter seems to me to raise a difficulty. Take the case of a man who spends part of his time driving a lorry and the remainder doing something else. I understand from the Minister that he is to be regulated in so far as his work consists of driving a lorry, but the remainder of his work is not to be regulated. Would it not be possible, under those conditions, for a man to be paid the proper wages for his road haulage work, but paid only a nominal amount for the other work done by him, and in that way the system would really mean the payment of a cheaper rate for the haulage work? Because of the absence of regulation he would be paid only a small sum for his other work, and the total in some cases would be inadequate. I see the difficulty which arises in that connection.
  May I confirm what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield about inspection. I have always believed that trade boards would be far more effective if there was adequate inspection. I find that most employers become fearfully annoyed if they find that they are observing regulations which are not being observed by their competitors. I am willing to say let us try this machinery as far as the C licences are concerned, but what you have to do is to make certain that there is, in being, an adequate standard of inspection to ensure that the regulations are being carried out and fair and adequate wages are being paid. As regards the cost of the Measure surely the people using road transport to-day, the hauliers, even the holders of C licences, are already paying sufficient. Only last week we put another penny per gallon on petrol and the right hon. Gentleman knows how the vehicle duties were raised in 1933. I should have thought that the burden imposed on the industry at present is heavy enough without adding to it, even this comparatively small amount. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider what has been

  1633
  taken out of the Road Fund for the general expenses of the country, and to ask him whether he could not provide the small amount of money necessary for this Measure without adding further burdens to an already over-burdened industry.
  The regulations are to be laid on the Table of the House, and unless a negative resolution is put down they will go through without any discussion. This is a matter which I have raised time and again in connection with other Bills. I have always objected, in principle, to that procedure. It would be much better to require an affirmative resolution. That would make it necessary for the House to take a definite step before the regulations were confirmed. The proposed procedure is really another way of handing over to the Minister powers which, I think, no Minister ought to possess. These Orders usually come before the House in such a way that people do not notice them unless they are particularly interested in the subject with which they deal. It is not treating the House fairly to present a set of regulations and to say, "Take them or leave them, but you cannot amend them." That assumes infallibility on the part of some Department. The Minister has claimed credit for having mentioned for the first time the question of holidays with pay. Let him earn the further credit of being the one democratic Minister who is prepared to give the House an opportunity for adequate discussion of any regulations which he places before it. I hold, therefore, that the Bill should provide for an affirmative resolution and that there should be the power and opportunity of amending the regulations. I end, as I began, by welcoming the Bill and congratulating the Minister on the measure of unanimity which he has achieved for it.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Macquisten: A motor vehicle is far too dangerous a machine to be entrusted to a tired man, or a physically unfit man, or an underpaid man. Those who drive motor vehicles ought to be carefully selected, because they carry the lives of ordinary people in their hands. There are far more accidents on the road than there ought to be, and that is due to the short-sightedness of successive Governments who have adopted the fatuous policy of endeavouring to make the trans-
  1634
  port fit the roads, instead of making the roads fit the transport. All Governments have been equally guilty in that respect. They have all been subject to the sinister influence of the older forms of transport. There has been no endeavour to provide a proper road system, and I do not know whether we shall do as much benefit to the skilled drivers of motor vehicles by this Bill as we could do, if we provided them with splendid roads on which to drive.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) spoke of the innumerable regulations which an engine driver on the railway has to observe. But the engine driver's job is child's play compared with the driving of a heavy motor lorry. The engine driver has only to keep on the rails and he is all right, and he knows that there is little or no danger of goats of sheep, or dogs or hens, or cats or children straying on to the road on which he is driving. He is hedged in and protected. But the motor lorry driver has an infinitely more difficult job, and I should say that the nervous strain of driving a motor lorry or bus is tremendous. That is all because of the folly of successive Parliaments in neglecting to provide proper roads for motor transport. I should think that a man who does an eight-hour day driving on the roads at the present time must come out of it almost a physical wreck. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has probably been engaged in harder and tougher litigations than have fallen to my lot. He will agree that if you spend eight hours in court, especially in a jury trial where you have to watch every point closely, you will be a very exhausted man at the end of the day. The driver has to watch the other traffic all the time, and that must be a tremendous strain. When I see the number of lorries on the roads I am amazed to think that the casualties are not even more numerous than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield indicated, and the fact that they are not more numerous is an indication of the extraordinary skill of the drivers. How many casualties are avoided by their skill it is impossible to say.
  The question of the C licence drivers raised by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) involves a

  1635
  very difficult point. Men usually keep their own lorries for their own haulage. It is not very expensive to-day to get one of the cheaper class of mass production lorries, and it is much handier for a man to have a lorry at his beck and call than to engage one every time he requires transport. Suppose a man only wants his lorry once or twice a week for his own goods, it will be a very difficult thing to adjust this matter, and one only hopes that the wages which he gets for his other work will bring him up to the required standard. It may be that a man is only hired casually for a particular job. The owner of the lorry may have it lying by and may telephone to his casual driver and ask him to drive his lorry for him and carry certain goods, because the saving in conveying goods by lorry, instead of by rail, is enormous.
  The hon. Member for South Bradford also referred to the overwhelming burdens which have been placed upon the road transport industry. Indeed, I was surprised to hear the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield refer to it as a developing industry, because every attempt is being made by Parliament to strangle it and further burdens are now being placed upon it. The circulation of goods and the general welfare of the people are being injuriously affected by all these regulations. It is as if in the case of the human body you were to apply tourniquets to stop the circulation of the blood. Tourniquets of all kinds are being put upon our road transport system and what is the result? Our villages are becoming depopulated; the population is gathering round the rail heads and the people in the country cannot get the supplies of goods which they ought to get. It is a policy which, I fear, has been followed by all Governments. None has been guiltless.
  I hope that the result of this unification of labour conditions will be good for the industry. It will be a good thing if we get all the road transport men under this scheme, into one large unit. The difficulty in the past has been that there were so many small employers that it was impossible to get the men into one large union like that of the railway men. The result was that they had not the political power possessed by the railway men's union. Nor had they behind them a great mass of shareholders ready to
  1636
  get up and say, "Our capital is at stake. We must not be allowed to lose if we are threatened by some new invention. We must have it strangled by Parliament." I have always thought that a contemptible attitude, because the great feature of private enterprise is that it does things for profit. What right, then, has it to squeal if it loses? None of these big combinations appear to be willing to take the chance of a loss. They want it both ways. They are willing to take the profits, but are never willing to take the losses, if they can come to Parliament and get a means of avoiding them.
  One of the advantages of the Bill, as I say, will be that it will get all these lorry men into one large organised unit. Their union will be larger and more politically powerful, and I am sure the reply of the employers will be themselves to organise and the result will be to bring the worst employer up to the standard of the best, for the benefit of all parties concerned. There is a vastly greater sum invested in motor transport than there is in railway transport and a far bigger number of men engaged in it, and if the power of all these interests is brought together, the result may be to relieve the stranglehold that has been put on the industry. When we do that, we may see great roads devoted to motor transport alone, as should have been the case from the beginning. If that had been done, we should never have had these frightful casualties. Far more people are killed and injured than in war, but they are taken one by one on the roads, and so you do not notice them, unless they happen to be your own people. I always say to my people, "Whenever you go out in the morning, the first thing that must enter your mind is that there is some fellow driving a car who will run you down if he possibly can, and you must be a spring-heeled Jack all the time if you want to escape him." If we had had a proper development of our road business, such as I hope will be materially helped by this Bill, we should have got rid of many of these dreadful casualties.
  It is a sad reflection on democracy to think that the old aristocratic, undemocratic Parliaments of the 'thirties, when the railways were instituted, said, "We must preserve human lives and the lives of animals, and if you put these dreadful instruments on the countryside, we must at least protect the people from them."

  1637
  And they did so, and we had all these safety regulations, including fenced-in tracks, with the result that our railways to-day are conducted with an amount of safety that is almost unparalleled in any other part of the world. They are one of the safest forms of transport and are almost safer than going downstairs in your own house. Yet in our democratic Parliaments, with all the people having votes, we have permitted, for all these years, these dreadful slaughterings and annihilations, especially of little children, because I am told that the age of five is the most dangerous age in this respect. We have sat here in Parliament for all these years and done nothing definite to put an end to this sort of thing, and indeed we have accentuated it by refusing, in the interests of railway capital and of railway employés, the means of ensuring greater safety by having adequate roads to meet the needs of the people.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver: I would not like this opportunity to pass without saying a word or two in support of this Bill and adding my meed of appreciation of its introduction. As a general principle, I think there is a consensus of opinion that the Bill is extremely desirable, on the ground that it will endeavour to organise and bring about some form of order in an industry which is notoriously disorganised at the present time. For that reason, I am glad to see that there is to be a board vested with the power of establishing rates of remuneration for the haulage industry, and more particularly of fixing, not only the amount of pay, but the number of hours for which that pay shall be given. In addition to that, there are one or two other aspects of the duties of the Central Board which deserve commendation, and one of them is the question of remuneration for holidays. The Minister has rightly pointed out this Bill is the first to deal with that aspect of industrial life. It will be the duty of the National Board to consider also the health of the driver and his safety, and I think it is about time that that was the case, particularly in view of the comments which have just been made by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) on the appalling death-rate and on the appalling injuries on the roads. Now that there is to be a board, one of whose duties will he the considera-
  1638
  tion of safety matters, I feel sure that they will bring an element of experience to bear on the measures which are essential to make our roads much safer in the future than they are at present.
  The point which strikes me as the most difficulty one in this Bill relates to the C licences. The procedure with respect to A and B licences seems to be fairly simple, but with respect to C licences it would appear to be a very tortuous one, when one considers the enormous number of trades and industries covered by that category. As the Bill is now drafted, it would be possible for a person to lodge an objection to the Minister, and he, being satisfied that it is a bona fide claim, may refer it to the Industrial Court, which will come to a determination. Consider the enormous number of individuals who may make application to the Minister that their wages are inadequate or unfair, and consider the many hearings which must be held by the Industrial Court before the whole of the industry is covered.
  I think it may be possible for a very important revision to be made with respect to C licences. Would it not be better to fix some system whereby employers who are not associated with any federation should be called upon in the first place to pay the wages peculiar to A and B licences? If that were laid down in the Bill, I feel certain that three-fourths of the difficulties of the C licensees would disappear almost at once, because if the employers were compelled to pay the wages paid by the holders of A and B licences, they would take the earliest possible opportunity of becoming associated with the federation to which their own particular industry entitled them to belong. That, I think, would short-circuit to an enormous extent the difficulties which otherwise, I feel certain, will arise when this Bill becomes an Act and the machinery of Part II becomes operative. I feel that that is a matter which can be discussed in Committee, but I hope we may have some indication, in the reply from the Government this evening, as to the probable line that the Amendments may take, because I am certain that Part II of the Bill will not only not meet the needs of the people whom it is intended to cover, but that it will not meet with the approval of the people who will be called upon to work it.

  1639
  There is one other point to which I would like to refer, and that relates to what I regard as the innovation in this Bill of exonerating an employer if he can show that a failure to carry out the Statute is not his failure but the failure of his agent. That appears to me to be rather an innovation in legislation of this character. Why should an employer be immune from a prosecution on the ground that he was not responsible but that his agent was responsible? Surely this is entirely a new feature.
  Mr. E. Brown: That is not so. I would refer the hon. Member to the trade boards and the agricultural wages boards.
  Mr. Oliver: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this important fact, that under the Road Traffic Act many offences are committed for which the driver himself must be penalised along with the employer? It is no defence to the driver to say, "Oh, I am acting under the instructions of my employer, and therefore I have not committed the offence of my own volition; I am merely carrying out the instructions which I have received." Let us take also the compulsory insurance Sections of the Road Traffic Act. It is no answer for a driver to say, "I have been sent out with this vehicle although it is not insured. I did not know it was uninsured until the matter had been investigated." The driver cannot put up the plea that he knew nothing about it. Not only is he fined, but in some instances his driving licence is suspended for a period, although he was totally ignorant that the vehicle which he was driving was not insured. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. Why should the employer escape and his agent be made the scapegoat? I feel that this is a very useful means of diverting responsibility, and I suggest that there should be an Amendment dealing with that question on the Committee stage.
  I heard the Minister say that this is a new feature in our legislation, so far as fixing wages by Statute is concerned, and I notice that there is no mention in the Bill as to the length of time during which the Measure shall be operative. I feel that it is important to fix some period in the Bill, say, five or seven years, so that if the Measure should prove a failure and
  1640
  not meet with the approval of the workers or the employers in the industry, it would automatically come to an end. I think that might be a useful provision, because if it is highly satisfactory, there will be no question arising as to the future, but if it is unsatisfactory to one or other of the parties concerned, I think, as we are breaking new ground and do not know what the prospects are, whether it will be a popular or an unpopular Measure, it may be useful to insert some limit for its operation.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Butcher: I wish to join with previous speakers who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the production of this Measure, which I believe will do much to improve the conditions of road transport in this country. In particular, I believe that one of the most effective results will be that it will bring to the occupation of motor driving a rather better type of employé than has been available for some time past.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith: And employer.
  Mr. Butcher: I trust that it will attract a more desirable type of employé for a more desirable type of employer, and that is certainly the intention of my right hon. Friend. One of the disadvantages of motor transport in the past has been that the conditions of employment and the rates of pay have varied so much between employers and kinds of motor driving that the number of people entering and leaving this particular form of employment has been very large. Therefore people have not taken up the occupation of motor transport as a serious career, but rather as some odd-time job to be filled in while they have been looking for something else. Therefore also I approve the general principles behind the Bill.
  I think my right hon. Friend will have some difficulty in dealing with class C licence holders, and I rather regret that he has not seen his way clear to drawing the distinction drawn by the Baillie Committee between the two classes of C licences, namely, those held by retail distributive firms purely for the distribution of their own goods in a limited area, and those held by people who may have large and heavy quantities of goods for conveyance for long distances, but who prefer to use C licence vehicles rather

  1641
  than employ A and B licence holders because of the privacy and also because they can have absolute control of their goods until they reach their customers. The suggestion put forward by the Baillie Committee of a trade board to deal with the retail C licence holders who largely consist of an entirely different type of people using vehicles under 15 cwts. or a ton shall be adopted; and there should be a distinction drawn between this class of vehicle and the men driving it and the heavy lorry which goes long distances from the manufacturer to the wholesaler.
  Subject to that, the only other criticism I have to make is with regard to enforcement. As an employer I deprecate the setting up of a further body of inspectors. I feel that the number and variety of inspectors who can come to a factory are already too many and that the work of many of them could be co-ordinated with advantage. This inspection of wages and conditions of employment could easily be shared with the factory inspectors on the one hand and the examiners of records under the Road and Rail Traffic Act on the other. A new body of inspectors is, therefore, unnecessary. As this is an experimental measure to a large degree and one on which my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated, he might enable us to make our congratulations entirely wholehearted by charging the small amount which the operation of the Bill is likely to cost not against the industry, which has already had one heavy bill this year, but rather against the substantial sums already being derived from the motor transport industry.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Simpson: I do not want to re-traverse some of the detailed criticisms and suggestions that have been made with regard to this Measure. I want rather to join in the more or less general commendation which it has earned in all parts of the House. Even the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), who is sometimes rather a lonely apostle of private enterprise, has found it in his heart to approve the Measure generally. We rather appreciated his apprehensions, in regard to his railway comparison, that it might be the case that the central board would advance the wages of road operatives to a point beyond which the railway companies were paying. In that connection. fortunately, there is machinery already in existence that would soon re-
  1642
  pair any disparity of that kind, and it is a hopeful sign and symptom of the Measure that any change of that kind is likely to take place. The importance of this Measure is by no means restricted to the immediate interests of the workers for whom it provides. The Bill offers a contribution to the general health and efficiency of transport generally, and as transport is such a vital necessity in a highly developed community, that is a distinct advantage in itself.
  For three-quarters of a century the railways were the primary, almost the exclusive transport service in this country apart from that provided by horse traction. With the arrival of the internal combustion engine we saw the advent of a new and rapidly developing alternative in the form of the road services. In the early stages of that competition there was certainly some dubiety, even antagonism, in some quarters, against this unexpected competitor, but we would agree that that attitude was as short sighted as it was anti-social, because, although the road services have been competitive in part, they have not superseded, but rather supplemented, the railway services. In so far as the conditions of employment are made comparative and other protecting legislation is provided, the arrival of this new form of transport is definitely a social advantage. It is true that in the early history of railway development the financial and other interests connected with that period, particularly in regard to labour conditions, were by no means creditable and it was soon discovered that public control, scrutiny, and protection from the more unscrupulous forms of promotion and management were essential in regard to both the interests of those who were working on the railways and those who were served by them.
  When the road transport industry came into being fortunately, from that standpoint, many standards had already been set and general rates and conditions were already in existence with regard to transport employés. It was, I suppose, not unexpected that in this period of rapid and fiercely competitive transport development many undesirable, indeed, indefensible elements grew up. Those undesirable elements were not only unfortunate in themselves, but they were definitely prejudicial to the other transport standards and to the best interests of the community as a whole. I suppose

  1643
  it is true that there are no inventions or forms of progress that do not carry some counter disadvantage or evils if such are not checked and if the main features of the change are not brought into conformity with public interests. That seems to me to have been particularly the case in regard to the development of the road transport business. Fortunately, the unions catering for the transport workers have played a useful part in the protection and development of the industry up to the present time. Indeed, we recognise them to-day as an integral part of any well ordered industries.
  Again, so far as the railways were concerned the unions made an important contribution to the safety and efficiency of the service and played a useful part in the public interest in addition to their favourable reactions on the conditions of the staff. Apart, again, from the material improvement in wages and hours, the fact that they secured some approximation to justice and fairness in their working conditions is also a considerable social advantage which we are glad to find is carried forward in the proposals we are considering this afternoon. The railway companies are directly interested, of course, in road operations in conjunction with their rail business, and in so far as that is the case they carry forward their trade union tradition of machinery covering that section of their employés. It is imperative that those conditions should be applied generally in order to put their competition on a fair basis and to make the best standards of employment generally operative. We therefore support this Measure. We give it a welcome and hope that some of the difficulties already mentioned will be successfully overcome when they have been considered by the Minister.
  I would offer only one criticism. Apart from the specific provisions in the Bill for the employés for whom it provides, the general argument and implication of the Bill are that other sections of employés not specifically dealt with are provided for by way of negotiating machinery or some other method. It is rather ironical that in the case of one of the big road transport undertakings owned, I think, largely by one of the railway companies, the clerical and supervisory sections of their staff have not the provisions
  1644
  equivalent to those which are now proposed in the Bill for the other sections of operatives. That is an anomaly, especially in view of the fact that the railway companies, in giving evidence before the Baillie Committee, definitely claimed as part of their argument in favour of this Measure that they have provided that machinery and standard conditions for the whole of their employés. They said:
  " The railways claim that no industry possesses a machinery of negotiation more comprehensive or more effective than that described which covers every member of the railway companies' road parcels and cartage staff."
  That statement is important and represents a state of affairs where negotiating machinery is provided for every section of the staff. That is the case broadly speaking, but it is unfortunate that in connection with one big company which is covered by this Bill it is not in other respects conforming to the spirit and essence of that statement and has not given the trade unions the recognition which is so vital to the clerical and supervisory sections of the staff. I hope that the Minister will ensure that in conformity with the general spirit of this Measure he will see that the clerical and supervisory staffs, whose interests are as important as that of other sections of employés in road transport, are covered in this respect, and that the difficulties which have previously existed between the railway trades unions and the management of these firms—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. Gentleman is now going far beyond the Second Reading.
  Mr. Simpson: I bow to your Ruling, but the fact is that the references which I have made were included in the evidence submitted to the Baillie tribunal. I will not pursue the matter beyond the references I have made, but I trust that the Minister will consider this matter in conjunction with the Measure, which otherwise we wholeheartedly approve.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith: The reception which this Bill has received in the House must be a little embarrassing to the Minister of Labour. Most of the matters he brings here are of such a highly controversial character that he must wonder whether he is dreaming or not. This Bill

  1645
  will undoubtedly do a good thing for the road transport industry. While I join with my colleagues in all parts of the House in giving a welcome to it we must not lose sight of the reasons that made it essential for it to be brought in at all. I have been connected with the transport industry, and this section of it in particular, since 1911. I have seen this industry evolve from horse to mechanical transport. I was present, I believe, when the first agreement was made in 1911, when the hours were to be 72 a week and the wages 27s. In 1919 we were successful in setting up national machinery for the industry, but owing to the type of employers who were parties to it at that time —I do not embrace all of them in that statement—that machinery broke down, and for years the employés were in the economic wilderness.
  The Minister said that for eight years we had been dealing with hours in this industry and for four years with wages, in the case of certain sections, but the whole point is that the hours agreed upon have never been observed. One can meet almost hourly, at any terminal point, drivers who will tell you that their job is of such a character that the hours are not observed at all. Every I form of duress has been brought to bear upon workers to falsify records. There is the system of the men not ringing-in on the time-clock in the yard—if there is one—until such time as they have done all that is necessary to get the lorry ready for service and loaded. They start the record from that moment. It is a breach of the law. The law lays down definitely that the time worked on a vehicle includes all loading and waiting. Although those provisions were brought in as a public safety measure employers in general, the good ones being forced by the bad employers, have been dishonouring the Act of 193o and the amending Act of 1933.
  With regard to wages, the Fair Wages Clause has certainly not been implemented even by the organised employers. We have tens of thousands of workers organised in the union I represent, and the employers who sit on committees, national and area, and have agreed to the wages and conditions laid down, immediately circularise their members that they are not bound to pay
  1646
  these wages or meet the conditions or in any way implement the agreements. Therefore, while we agree that it has been a good thing to bring in this Bill, we must point out that the conditions made it absolutely essential that some such action should be taken.
  When speaking of Part II of the Bill the Minister said the C licence that was to be adopted would follow the system of trade boards, agreements with statutory bodies and voluntary agreements. He mentioned gas undertakings and what I may call corporate bodies within the transport industry. He said that, among other things which the board would have to do would be to look to the general level of wages among other employers—not necessarily the central board's agreement on wages and not necessarily the sates of wages agreed to for people employed in transport by various other bodies but that certain other industries might be brought in. So the level of wages may be based upon those in an industry which is not road haulage. The effect of that will be that we shall get people employed in transport who, though working under identical regulations, are getting different wages because they are working for different employers. There can be no real uniformity if that is to be the result of the Minister's effort.
  One thing which I regret is that the Bill does not deal with rest houses on the roads. I think the Minister could have found time for it if he had thought of it. The rest houses, like the lorries, should be licensed, to ensure that they are at least decent, respectable, sanitary places in which men can stay. It is no use the union laying down conditions of subsistence for people away from home at night if conditions on the road make it impossible for them to get decent and respectable lodgings. An hon. Member for one of the Bradford Divisions asked why the area boards should not be the initiating bodies in matters of wages. I think it will be agreed by all acquainted with the subject that the whole trouble in regard to wages has arisen from the fact that area boards have in the past initiated wage conditions, taking the view that the Central Board had no authority. The Acts of 1930 and 1933 met with no measure of acceptance by the employers. When a new area board was set up the

  1647
  Minister wrote a letter in which he said that it was being created
  " in the hope that the board when constituted would find itself able to reach determinations of wages and hours which will generally be accepted in the industry and will form a basis for the administration of Section 32 of the Act of 1933."
  Everybody knows that that hope has not been fulfilled. I was one of those whom a misguided electorate failed to return to Parliament in 1931, but I had something to do with the Act of 1933 in the Committee stage. I told the then Minister of Labour that unless he faced the wages question in connection with C licences we should be back in this House dealing with the matter, because there would be no order or unity in the industry. Now, four or five years afterwards, we have another Minister of Labour who, accepting the advice of the representatives of the workpeople and of the best employers, and of the Baillie Committee, has brought this Bill to the House.
  I have raised with the Minister the fact that the machinery under the road-rail measure has never been effectively used. I asked to be informed of the number of examiners appointed. The number of workpeople is approximately 600,000 and I believe there are fewer than 400 examiners. It is no use introducing Acts of Parliament for the regulation of industry unless sufficient people are appointed to see that those Acts are observed. Under the trade board system there are inspectors and under the road-rail legislation there are examiners, and I have wondered whether those two bodies of officials could not be amalgamated and employed to see that the proper records are kept in connection with road haulage and that the wages which have been agreed to are really paid. In the Commissioner's Report one reads of almost hundreds of cases in which proper wages have not been paid, and yet according to the Baillie Report only two cases concerning wages have been brought before the courts, and no licence has ever been suspended or revoked. I hope the Minister will tell us that it is his determination to see that present conditions are changed and that more effective machinery for the enforcement of agreements is introduced.
  Hon. Members have rather cast aside the point about competition between the
  1648
  holders of C licences and the holders of A and B licences, but there is no question that that competition exists. I have in my hand correspondence from Derbyshire, where there is no restriction on obtaining a C licence. A firm state that previously they had done all the haulage for the quarry people there, and that they had tried to meet all their obligations as holders of A and B licences, but that they are being put out of business because the quarry people have joined in the purchase of a number of lorries which they are running under C licences, with wages and conditions such as bear no reasonable comparison with those imposed upon A and B licence holders. I am sure the Minister will agree that the systems of payment which are in existence are entirely wrong. There is payment by mileage, payment for full mileage and payment for empty mileage, payment per trip and payment per number of trips. All these conditions are an incitement to the men to exceed the speed limit and to break regulations, and if a man fails he is a loser the whole way through, because he loses his licence and his job. I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in asking the Minister not to make up his mind definitely that the machinery under Clause 4 provides the right method. There are about 128,000 C licence holders, or authorised vehicles.
  Mr. E. Brown: 186,000.
  Mr. Smith: But 60,000 of those are already in some form of organisation, with some sort of working conditions, and that leaves 128,000 who are not directly organised and whom it would be very difficult to deal with. The waiting list will almost correspond to the waiting list for the Divorce Court. Could not the Minister say that unless it can be proved that the wages paid, the hours worked and the general conditions of service are comparable with those agreed to by the Central Board they will be dealt with in a summary way, instead of being brought, every Tom, Dick and Harry of them, before the industrial court? If there is a will to enforce proper conditions of service there is the power in this House.
  The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) raised the question of agents being responsible and not the proprietor or the employer direct. I notice that the Minister stated that this is trade board

  1649
  custom. While that may be true, I would point out to him that the difference lies in the fact that in road transport there is nothing comparable to the ordinary factory conditions which have to exist under the trade boards. It is possible for the employer to put up an agent who will take the responsibility, and who may be found some measure of compensation or some job by the employer, provided he saves the licence, which would probably be suspended if the employer were made liable for the acts of his servants. There is the real difference.
  I have a case here relating to Messrs. Reid and Company—this case appeared in the "South Wales Argus "—and it meets all the claims that we make that the employer, and not his agent, should be responsible. The driver left his employment in consequence of a dispute, and then he reported it to the Commissioner. I would observe that the driver who does that sort of thing starts off with a bad book, because when he gets to the court whoever is defending the employer says, "This is malicious." The driver was asked whether he would have handed his records to the Commissioner if he had not been dismissed. He replied: "Fancy ones would have been handed in." He maintained that the drivers were expected to cook their records. O'Sullivan, who would be the agent of Reid and Company, said, regarding the driver: "We reported him to the Traffic Commissioners for using threats and one thing and another before he reported us." The solicitor for the defence argued that the summonses must fail because of the word "cause." There was no evidence, he said, that the driver was caused to make or to commit an offence, that is, to drive excessive hours. O'Sullivan, the agent, said that there was no reason for the driver to break the regulations, and O'Sullivan's manager stated that during O'Sullivan's absence he had rung up a shareholder of Reid and Company, and the shareholder had told him to see that the driver obtained his legal rest, and he was instructed accordingly. Here is the whole gamut—agent, employer and shareholder. The employer was convicted for compelling the driver to work longer hours than he was required to do by law. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to close his mind to possible amendment in Committee that will make the employer liable on such an occasion, irrespective of whether the methods
  1650
  adopted under the Trade Boards Act have been efficient, so far as factory organisation is concerned.
  One or two Amendments will be proposed in Committee and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, with whom everybody is joining, praising him, as it were, for bringing this Bill before the House, will consider them sympathetically. We shall try to make the Bill workable, and I hope that we shall carry that spirit from the Floor of the House into the Committee room. We are trying to achieve a unity, to establish for the first time in this industry reasonable conditions, and to eliminate the general Cinderella attitude that applies to transport as a whole. I often wonder whether hon. Members really understand the conditions under which some of our men work. The men acting under economic duress often bring out upon the road inefficient vehicles that are unworthy to be there and that are grossly overloaded. That is an aspect of the problem at which the Minister might look. Those drivers are subject to all the rules of the road and to the police regulations and are often compelled by the length of the journey and the time at which they begin it to exceed the statutory speed limits, often in fog and, during the winter, on icy roads. These are not ordinary men; they are marvellous to achieve the things that they do. If this House will recognise, as apparently we are going to, the fact that these men are worthy of consideration and support, we, when the Bill goes into Committee, will do our best to make the Measure workable and efficient.
  6.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): The praise which the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) has generously given to the Bill is particularly welcome, because everybody in the House knows of his work for the transport workers in this country. I can assure him that the fears which he has expressed about the possible immunity of employers who manage to overload responsibility on to an agent, which fears have been expressed by other Members of the House, will be carefully examined and sympathetically considered. I ought to point out one or two points which may have escaped the attention of hon. Members who have made reference to

  1651
  this possibility. As my right hon. Friend said, the practice under the Trade Boards Act has worked well in these cases—and in agricultural wages regulation—and it is unlikely that it would not work well in similar cases under the Bill. None the less, the point made by the hon. Member will be considered. I would point out also that the immunity would arise only if the agent had been actually convicted. Both the employer and the agent would be prosecuted, and if the agent had been convicted, and if the employer could prove to the satisfaction of the court that he used due diligence to see that the proper remuneration was paid and that the undertaking by his agent was without his own consent and connivance, he would not also be convicted for an offence of which he had not known and when his agent, who had been responsible, had already been convicted.
  Reference was made by the hon. Member to the ready acceptance of these proposals by those on whose behalf he is qualified to speak. It is a matter of very great satisfaction to my right hon. Friend and to the Government that the Bill commands such a universal measure of informed agreement. It is a matter of congratulation, not only to those officers of the Ministry, who, through many intricate and difficult negotiations, have managed to succeed in introducing an almost agreed Bill, but also to those interests which have collaborated, employers' and workers' organisations, in pooling their experiences and making recommendations. Not least, the gratitude of this House is due to Sir James Baillie and to the other two gentlemen who served on his committee, for their remarkable and illuminating report which has formed the foundation of this legislation.
  I should like very briefly to deal with one or two of the points that have been raised. Where they would more properly be considered on the Committee stage there will be an opportunity then for further and more detailed comment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who spoke first after m37 right hon. Friend, made a suggestion, but did not develop it very closely, that all workers and licensees should he treated alike,
  1652
  whether they hold A, B or C licences. I take it that the House knows the extreme difficulty that would arise if similar treatment were extended to the A, B and C licensees. The A and B licence involves people who are engaged in transport as a business and as an end in itself. The C licence holder is essentially an ancillary user of motor goods vehicles, and the transport of goods in his case forms part of that very industry or business which it subserves. For the C licence workers it is essential that the prosperity of the industry as a whole should be taken into account in fixing the wages of a driver.
  A different approach is inevitable in considering the position of workers under C licences. Their problem must be approached from the point of view of the various industries in which their employers are engaged. The Government, with full conviction, are including C licence workers within the ambit of the Bill. They do not intend, nor did the Baillie Committee recommend, that similar treatment should be accorded to the A, B and C licensees. They are satisfied that the provisions in regard to fair wages, with their very considerable powers of enforcement, will go far—we hope the whole way—to secure that the C workers engaged in this most important side of the industry shall receive fair remuneration. We are satisfied that the difficulties which have confronted the working of the Fair Wages Regulation in the past will be substantially overcome by the provisions of the Bill.
  Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield and the hon. Member for Rotherhithe referred to what they called the large and voluminous army of C licence owners whose cases are bound to be brought before the Industrial Court. I do not expect that any such result will ensue. We believe that a very speedy result of this legislation will be a substantial growth of the number of agreements that will be made before any machinery involving penalties will need to be invoked. I cannot imagine an employer, faced with the possibility of being obliged to saddle himself for three years with the obligation to pay certain wages and with all the penalties that attach to nonconformity, preferring to delay making some arrangement. If he makes his own voluntary agreement at

  1653
  once and it is a fair agreement, he would obviously be in a preferential condition. Both Members rather overlooked the fact that the local conciliation officers of the Ministry will be available as they have been in the past, but now with increased opportunities of useful service, to bring about conciliatory results which will make recourse to the Industrial Court unnecessary.
  An interesting observation was made by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), and I would like briefly to deal with it. He suggested that it would be preferable if the initiative could have rested with the area board rather than with the Central Board as envisaged in this scheme. That suggestion, as the hon. Member no doubt knows, was fully considered by the Baillie Committee. A number of employers urged it strenuously at the early meetings of the committee, but a little examination was enough to show the profound difficulty that would attach to such a solution. I think it true to say that before long some of those who had most strenuously advocated it saw that the difficulties were overwhelming. As the hon. Member knows, the Baillie Committee did not recommend it, but recommended what the Government have accepted, that the initiative should rest with the Central Board. I need sketch only very briefly the sort of difficulty that would arise. Goods vehicles are very mobile. No boundaries operate and the business is highly competitive, not only locally, but nationally. As the hon. Member for Rothcrhithe showed, people who have had experience of the life of transport and other workers, can conceive some of the difficulties that would arise if the initiative were left with the area board.
  The hon. Member mentioned the case of Scotland, and gave the impression that he thought it fair to suggest that, because Scotland was being given the right, through its Area Board, to initiate proposals, a similar right should be extended to the area boards in England and Wales. He will recollect, however, that Scotland for the last two years has had its own separate Scottish Conciliation Board, and, indeed, the capacity for collective bargaining that has been shown in Scotland between employers and workers, and for organisation almost purely confined to Scotland, has been such that we feel that it can safely be left to Scotland to initiate proposals which have application to that
  1654
  area, subject, of course, to the fact that the Central Board will be the deciding authority. The hon. Member also suggested that it would have been better if there had been a provision in the Bill for inequality of numbers on the area boards, and he hinted that the continual deadlock that might arise would prevent the felicitous working of this machinery. It might be that, if the area boards had the initiating power, it would have been advisable to have independent members whose decision might enable a majority decision to be reached, but we feel that, as the area boards have no such power, it is better that the Central Board and the Minister should know exactly what the representatives on the area boards feel, even if they are in disagreement with one another, rather than that a valueless illusion of agreement should be given.
  The hon. Member also made reference to the case of the small man, and I take it that he was referring in particular to the provision in the Bill which says that, in fixing representation, regard shall be paid to the number of vehicles. I think everyone in the House will agree that the small men have a right which it must be the intention of the Legislature to preserve, more particularly because their size frequently makes them less able to defend themselves. I can assure the hon. Member that we have every intention that the interests of the small people shall be protected. I think that what he had in mind more particularly was that if there were in an area, say, 10,000 A licences and 1,000 B licences, obviously that proportion would have to be borne in mind in arriving at adequate representation. The hon. Member referred to the railway workers, and expressed the hope, which I think has been expressed from another quarter of the House, that the railway worker would by Statute be protected against getting wages less than this Bill will secure for road transport workers. I take it that he realises that the union concerned, the National Union of Railwaymen, has no desire that there should be interference with that railway machinery of negotiation which has worked so happily in the past; and I also hope he realises, as I am sure he does, because no doubt he has studied the Bill with care, that, if some such provision as he suggested were included in the Bill, the railways would surely have the right to be represented on the Central Board

  1655
  which would fix wages—a result which, I think, no members of the transport industry particularly desire.
  The hon. Member also made a reference to the possibility that, if a worker under a C licence was employed for part of his time as a driver and for the remainder of his time in some other capacity, his employer might give him a substantial part of his weekly wages by contract in return for what he did as a road haulier, and then pay him some very small, trifling sum, or perhaps even nothing at all, for his non-road haulage work. In practice, of course, such a contract is very unlikely to be made. I cannot conceive that any worker would willingly accept such a division of the reward, nor would public opinion in this country approve of any arrangement under which the worker could be paid nothing for work in his non-haulage capacity. If no particular proportion is fixed in the contract, the result will be somewhat as follows: Assuming that a worker did two-thirds of his work on road haulage and one-third on non-road haulage work, and was paid, for example, £3 a week, then it would be assumed that he was paid £2 of that £3 for his road haulage work, and this would be judged according to the general machinery of the Bill. The next two points made by the hon. Member can, I think, be fairly easily disposed of. He suggested that £25,000 was a large sum of money to spend on this new machinery; but, bearing in mind the fact that it will affect the whole of the quarter of a million road haulage operators, I am sure that on reflection he will not repeat that suggestion.
  Mr. Holdsworth: I did not suggest for a moment that it was a large sum, but I suggested that it should not be added to the heavy burden which the road hauliers are now bearing.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Member reads the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, he will see that it will be taken into account. The last point that he made had reference to the actual procedure whereby these regulations are con-finned. Earlier in his observations he expressed the hope that it would be possible to institute some changes in the general machinery of the Bill whereby expedition could be secured. But, if he
  1656
  desires that there should be an opportunity for a full Second Reading and Committee discussion on every regulation, such as a different procedure would probably involve, I am sure he will agree with me that conclusions would be reached at a far slower speed than under the present procedure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Butcher) also made a very interesting contribution to the Debate. He expressed some disappointment because he felt that the conditions which the Baillie Report recommended for C operatives were not embraced in the Bill. My hon. Friend will, I think, be aware that negotiations are now going on between the Ministry and various interests in the retail distributive trades, and, if those negotiations reach a satisfactory conclusion, the workers in those trades will be automatically excluded from the provisions of the Bill. The same, of course, would apply to those people who now or in the future are covered by trade board or other agreements. It is felt that it would be undesirable, and my right hon. Friend will be ready during the Committee stage to develop this argument further, to exclude those people from the provisions of the Bill at this stage, and we are satisfied that, in the provisions which are included in Part II of the Bill, we are putting forward proposals which are most likely to secure justice to those workers whose employers hold C licences.
  In conclusion, I commend the Bill to the House because I believe that it will bring about a measure of justice to a large number of people engaged in this very important trade; that it will bring about improved conditions for those employers who have been trying to work satisfactory wage agreements and have found themselves subjected to competition from others who were not so inclined; and that it will also—and this will be of interest to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), who spoke earlier—make a substantial contribution to safety on the roads. The need for co-ordination of transport as a whole is universally recognised. That this Bill is a necessary step towards that result was, I think, in the minds of the Royal Commission on Transport, and certainly it was in the minds of the Salter

  1657
  Conference when they held that coordination of transport needed a fair basis of competition. There can be no fair basis of competition if unfair wages are being paid, and this Bill, in so far as it will secure fair wages, fulfils that need. It is not the view of the Government, nor is it, I believe, the view of the majority of Members of this House, that competition is undesirable, but I believe we are all agreed that competition on a basis of unfair wages is very unsatisfactory, and, because the Bill will do much to remove that unsatisfactory condition, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Grimston.]

  ROAD HAULAGE WAGES (No. 2) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the remuneration of persons employed in connection with the mechanical transport of goods by road, and with respect to the making of recommendations and reports, and the settlement of disputes, relating to matters affecting such transport, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment into the Exchequer of all fines imposed in respect of offences under the said Act; and

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Minister of Labour in carrying the said Act into effect and of any expenses authorised by him with the consent of the Treasury to be incurred by any Central Board or by any area board established under the said Act."—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. E. Brown.]

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  POST OFFICE (SITES) (Re-committed) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  FIRE BRIGADES [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  " 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."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  AGRICULTURE (DAMAGE BY DROUGHT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That his House do now adjourn." [Mr. Grimston.]
  6.44 p.m.
  Major Braithwaite: I hope the House will forgive me for taking this opportunity of discussing a most serious matter in connection with our farming community. Everyone who has read the papers during the past few weeks will be familiar with the situation 'which has arisen owing to the unprecedented season that we have had. The last three months have shown a smaller rainfall than at any other period since 1815, and the damage to the agricultural interests of the country is very serious. At this time, when we are considering problems of national Defence, the agricultural interests of the country are very much to the fore.
  I estimate that the loss sustained by our agriculturists during the past three months, due entirely to drought, to setbacks to the crops, and to the necessity for extra feeding because of the scarcity of feed, and extra labour for watering stock, has amounted to something in the region of £10,000,000. These figures are made up in this way:—It is estimated that the loss this year already is: on the hay crop, £1,500,000; on fruit, £1,000,000; on cereal crops, £1,000,000; on milk, £2,000.000; on eggs and poultry,

  1659
  £1,000,000; on cattle, £1,000,000; on pigs, £500,000; on potatoes, £1,000,000; and on sheep and lambs, £1,000,000. There is a deficit on the farming account of £15,000,000 to make up; the milk yield for May will be down approximately 15,000,000 gallons compared with a normal season; hay and concentrated winter foods are now being fed to dairy herds, which should be eating the new crops; and all over the country, even in the most fertile parts, the hope of a reasonably early hay crop has vanished. Frost has added to the farmers' difficulties. Hundreds of acres of early potatoes have been destroyed, and the fruit crop has been irreparably damaged. It is estimated that these conditions are costing the farmers, as long as the rain keeps off, about £500,000 a day.
  No one can blame the Government for these unprecedented conditions: the Minister is not in a position to order rain at a moment's notice; but the Government will have to face, as a direct result of the drought, the precarious position in which the farming community will again be placed. Farmers have never been financially strong during recent years. I and other agricultural Members are grateful to the Government for what they have done to raise commodity prices, but, unless increased turnover results, this is not adequate to maintain agriculture on the scale that the nation desires.
  This afternoon I asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the Government consider the production of food at home was an essential part of the national Defence. He replied that it was. In view of the serious losses that have been inflicted on the farming community because of the drought, and in view of their already precarious financial position, I want to ask the Government whether they consider that an essential part of our national Defence is to be left in a precarious state. I wonder what would have happened if the conditions under which the farmer has to produce had been employed in the production of ships, aeroplanes and guns. The Government, when they contract with those industries, always agree, as an essential part of the contract, that they shall finance production as it goes along. The farmer seems to be the only person in the community who has to finish his production before he gets
  1660
  money for it. [Interruption.] I think I am stating a fact when I say that the farmer has to finish production before he can sell his crops. Therefore, I ask the House whether it is not possible to give the farmer some more generous help.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member cannot propose on the Adjournment anything for which legislation would be necessary.
  Major Braithwaite: I am sorry that I have gone outside the Rules, but I was trying to show that the result of the drought will have to be made up in some way to the farmers if they are going to carry on their industry in the next few months. I should like to know if I am in order in making any suggestions to the Government, with a desire to help.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot see how the Government can do what the hon. and gallant Member wants without some form of legislation. They cannot do it by administration.
  Major Braithwaite: I find it very difficult to bring what I wish to say within the scope of that ruling. I should like to put the matter to the Government in a form which I consider would avoid the necessity for any legislation. Is it not possible for the Government, who have already contractual obligations to the farmers for nearly 50 per cent. of the volume of production, through the various marketing boards, to make some advance to the farmers under the powers which they have in this connection?
  Mr. Speaker: That would involve legislation.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I think my hon. and gallant Friend is slightly in error in saying that the Government have any contractual obligation. What he has in mind is the relation between the farmers and the marketing boards. That is their own affair, and not the Government's.
  Major Braithwaite: The marketing boards may have powers to help the farmers over the immediate difficulties. I suggest that, as this capital is irrevocably lost this year and must come out of the pockets of the farmers, some advance in this direction from the marketing boards, which I understand already have the power, might be of substantial benefit.

  1661
  Then, I understand that the Government have already been purchasing from other countries cereals for storing against a national emergency. These, I understand, are mainly bought for human consumption. In view of the practical difficulties of the farmers, is it possible for the Government to buy from our own farmers substantial stocks of animal food, which might be stored against such an emergency as we are going through now? I think that might be a substantial help. In view of the fact that large numbers of sheep have been placed on the market and sold at unremunerative prices, I would like to know whether it is a fact that a million more carcases have come in from abroad at this stage than was the case last year. If so, I hope the Government will take steps to see that, at a time of emergency—because this is an emergency in the affairs of farming—there shall be some restriction of those imports.
  Mr. Speaker: Legislation would be necessary for that.
  Major Braithwaite: I thought that the arrangements made at Ottawa were already effective and that it was on the basis of them that imports of meat were coming into the country at present. The fanning community last year, with the rise in prices, were hopeful of better times. They view with great alarm the complacency with which this situation is being accepted all over the country, and they ask that consideration should be given to their plight. I have not raised this matter with any intention of overstating the case. I believe that the farmers are suffering to-day as they have not done for some years, and even before this drought occurred their plight was not such as would be envied by many other industries. If we are to show the world that there is determination in our policy of Defence, and if other countries are to be made to regard our preparations as really serious, surely a great industry like this, when it finds itself in difficulties, must look to the Government.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is again proposing legislation.
  Major Braithwaite: I do not want to detain the House any longer. The restrictions against my talking on this matter on the Adjournment are greater than I anticipated. I apologise for the
  1662
  omissions I have made, but I hope that what I have said will induce the Minister to do what he can, within his powers, to help the industry. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) whose views on agriculture I do not always share, may have something trenchant to say on my remarks, but I hope that his party will do what they can to help. I know that in the Minister we have someone who is very sympathetic to agriculture, and I hope that he will do something to help the farmers in the crisis through which they are passing.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. T. Williams: I wish to help the farmers, because, although I doubt whether they have already lost £10,000,000, I agree that at the moment they may, in some parts of the country, be very anxious as to the results of this year's crop. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that he might ask the Minister to do something, without introducing further legislation, by going to the countryside and suggesting to those landowners where crops this year will be valueless that they should not insist on any payment of rent. The hon. and gallant Member and the Minister might carry on an effective campaign as a result of which the farmers might be relieved of that liability, and that might help them over the period of drought. The hon. and gallant Member may not have thought of that.
  Major Braithwaite: I can assure the hon. Member that many provisions of that sort have been made in my own constituency.
  Mr. Williams: If £10,000,000 has been lost this year we might at least expect landowners to forfeit such part of their rent as would leave the farmer in the same position as he was in before the drought came upon him. The hon. and gallant Member said that the farmers have already lost £10,000,000, which implies that output will decrease to that extent, or rather to a n extent far beyond that. For if the farmers have lost £10,000,000 one can estimate that the output will be down by many times £10,000,000. Then he suggests that we ought further to restrict imports. When the output from our own countryside is down by many millions of pounds' worth it is suggested that we ought to restrict imports further, leaving us without any

  1663
  food at all! That is a very curious argument. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is in rather a difficulty. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) pleaded with him to do something more than has already been done for agriculture, and I can appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's desire to do something, but the difficulty is in doing something more than has already been done. I think perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman might have hinted to the Minister just what he thought he might do this year. Already, for instance, there is a subsidy for wheat.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not debate subjects which I have already ruled out of order.
  Mr. Williams: I certainly desire to keep within your Ruling, but I wanted to show the hon. and gallant Member how difficult it was for the Minister. It is almost impossible, without reference to watercress or turnips, to see what more the right hon. Gentleman can do to help agriculture during the present year. I know that to suggest legislation is entirely out of order. There are, however, on the Staute Book certain Measures under which help could be given here and there more speedily than it has been given during the past year or two. I refer to the water supplies on farms. I know that legislation is on the Statute Book. Power is in the hands of the Minister and of the Minister of Health, and I think one other Ministry, to expedite the utilisation of the powers they have for the provision of water supplies in certain rural areas. Beyond that I do not quite see what the right hon. Gentleman could do, unless the Government go down on their knees and pray for rain. They are half way on their knees already; if they would go down fully on their knees and pray fervently for rain, that perhaps would solve the hon. Member's problem. But apart from legislation, involving grants or some more indirect help, I do not quite see what the right hon. Gentleman can do in the month of May when no one knows exactly what the crops are going to be. But if the losses are going to be as heavy as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, there is one way to help the farmers. It has been suggested that the landlords might forfeit their rents. Perhaps the other landlords who are the happy recipients
  1664
  of royalties might mortgage some of their £66,000,000 and hand it over to the farmers who, after all, are the people who make their property worth while.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: I think that when the constituents of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to-morrow read that the hon. Member is absolutely barren of suggestions for the help of the owner-occupiers of the Don Valley, they will have still slighter regard for his agricultural knowledge than they have at present. I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buck-rose (Major Braithwaite) for taking this opportunity to raise the subject of what is in fact a crisis in our agricultural areas. I realise that there are certain restrictions on the scope of this Debate, but I want to put very shortly to the Minister the position of the sheep producers of the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire. They have suffered during the last 10 months from a very rapid fall in prices. The price broke just about November of last year, chiefly I think due to the lower price of wool in Australia. When we came to this drought period we found the sheep producers had already suffered from lower prices, and as a result a lot of them have kept their sheep on their farms and not sold them, waiting for better prices. Owing to this drought there was a shortage of keep, and a great number of farmers put their lambs and hoggs on the markets and the result was that the price went down catastrophically in the last few weeks.
  I do not want the Minister to devise new legislation. I should not be in order in doing so. What I do want him to do is to exercise his existing powers under the Ottawa Agreements Act and under the Argentine Agreement, and also under the Livestock Industry Act, to keep the imports from abroad off the market during this time when farmers are unloading their lambs. There is at the moment a glut of mutton and lamb on the English market—that is why the price has gone down. Surely this is not the time to increase the imports of mutton and lamb from overseas. But that is what has been happening—I do not know why—during the early months of this year. The chilled and frozen mutton imports have increased from something like 200,000 cwt. to 300,000 cwt., and

  1665
  the chilled and frozen lamb imports have increased also very much. That is especially unfortunate at a time when there is an increased sale of home-produced mutton and lamb. And it is no comfort to the consumer. It means that he has a glut at this time, but later on in all probability there will be a shortage. Because, if farmers have not got the feed for their sheep and lambs, they will not be able to put them on the market in the same quantities in the autumn. I think hon. Members in all parts of the House would far rather see ordered supply of mutton and lamb on the English market, which would be for the benefit of the home producer as well as the producer overseas. The Minister has the power under existing legislation. I should like to ask him whether the Livestock Commission have considered the grave position in the sheep industry, and whether they have made any recommendation under their powers dealing with the regulation of imports of mutton and lamb from overseas. I beg him to do what he can to remedy what is a very critical situation in this very important branch of the agricultural industry.
  7.8 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I should like to draw attention to the very great difficulties of the sheep breeders of Lincolnshire, who are losing about £1 a sheep compared with the prices obtained last year, so that a farmer who owns 1,000,heep will have lost about £1,000. This may be due to the fact that grass has been short, possibly to a glut of imports, but it is also a matter of change of fashion whereby more lamb is imported because it is popular with the consumer. We know that mutton comes in from abroad in a small size, available for being classed as lamb, and with the addition of mint sauce it is probably more appetising. There is also another factor, and that is the great drop in the price of wool; the hosiery trade also is not going through a good time. I think there is one suggestion which does not need legislation. Other hon. Members have referred to existing legislation and how that can help. Why do not the big stores—the co-operative stores, for instance, in which hon. Members opposite take an interest—encourage the sale of British mutton and British lamb more than they do? They
  1666
  might have a "British mutton and lamb week."
  Mr. Quibell: Why not encourage the sale of British mutton by feeding the British Army on it?
  Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: By all means bring the Services in. If hon. Members opposite and ourselves were unanimous I think no Government could resist it. But we should like to see the British public themselves help the British farmer now when they see how he is hit. After all, if the stocks of British sheep go down the British public will be more and more at the mercy of rings of foreign importers. Hon. Members opposite as well as ourselves have drawn the attention of the House to the danger resulting from the operations of foreign rings in mutton as well as beef.
  I would like to turn to the question of the drought. It is quite clear that the drought, alternating with floods, makes a very difficult situation in many districts of Lincolnshire and the Fens. I think the Minister of Agriculture and his Department, which deal with the catchment boards, has done a great deal not only to prevent floods but also to conserve water supplies, and it deserves great credit for that. It is a matter of interest to note that some Fen farmers in this year of dry land have been optimistic enough to think that there will be no floods, and are starting to plough some of the land generally laid down to grass for potato and other crops. I do think that with drought and floods more coordination is necessary between the bodies concerned. The Ministry of Health have interested themselves in this matter and have set up a committee to deal with the general water problem in this country. That committee, the Central Water Advisory Committee, is now sitting, and we hope that its report will conduce to the well-being of the countryside.
  When I look back to the time when I entered this House and remember how few of the villages in Lincolnshire had any kind of water supply, and see them now properly equipped in this respect, I realise how much can be done under a capitalist Government. When one also sees how many of these farms and their cottages on the Wolds have been equipped with local water supplies, one realises that

  1667
  the landowner system is not quite as bad as hon. Members opposite seem to think. Owing to the Rules of Order we cannot suggest legislative methods, but a great deal could be done to remedy the present state of affairs if the consumers of this country would support us in the countryside by buying British mutton.
  7.16 p.m.
  Sir Edmund Findlay: I hope that the Minister will not consider most of the proposals that have been put before him to-night. Hard cases make bad law, and one drought should not make it impossible for agriculture to lead a healthy existence. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is wrong when he says that the landlords, of whom I am one, do not consider their tenants sometimes.
  Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I said—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had better not pursue this subject.
  Sir E. Findlay: The question of rainfall is one upon which we cannot possibly decide on a Motion such as this. It is a much bigger question. A mere five weeks' drought is not a reason to ridicule the policy of the Government.
  Major Braithwaite: I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that I have been trying to ridicule the Government at all.
  Sir E. Findlay: I agree, but it is not reasonable to say that the policy of the Government has failed because there has been a five weeks' drought. I am satisfied that the policy of the Minister is such that a drought such as this will not interfere with his plans.
  7.18 p.m.
  Sir William Wayland: I represent a constituency where considerable quantities of fruit as well as hops are grown. The plum crop can be said to be quite a failure owing to the frosts mainly, and not to the drought, and I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that fact. Fortunately hops have not been affected, so that we hope there will be just as much beer as before. Sheep have suffered considerably, especially on our hills, and I agree that the Minister would have great difficulty in dealing with this question adequately without a considerable grant
  1668
  from the Treasury. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) when he states that free rent would help. It would help to a certain extent, but he cannot suppose that it would free farmers from the troubles from which they are at present suffering, with no grass, no plums and in many districts no water. In our district, mostly composed of hills, we are frequently short. With regard to poultry, beef raising, and especially milk, in which I am particularly interested, we are now feeding concentrates just as much as we were during the winter, and that means that, with the summer price of milk having been introduced, the expense of running the farm is considerably greater.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman also seems to be getting out of order. Subjects raised on the Adjournment must be those for which the Government are responsible.
  Sir W. Wayland: I hope that the Minister may be able to find some way in which to help the farmers.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I make no apology to the House for bringing it back to mutton. The position in my county is very serious. The number of sheep in that county is probably greater almost than that in any other county in England and Wales, certainly greater than in any other county in Wales. The sheep population in Montgomeryshire is something like 500,000, and prices have gone down since last autumn roughly from 10s. to £1 per head. It is a purely agricultural county, there being no industry there except agriculture, and it means a capital loss upon the farmers of roughly between £250,000 and £500,000. These people, who have had a very hard struggle since 1929, were just beginning to emerge from the struggle and enjoy a little more success when suddenly they were faced with disaster. The present position is not due so much in my county to weather conditions as to market conditions. Undoubtedly the market began to break last autumn, and it has been affected since by the weather elsewhere because the farmers in other districts have been putting their sheep on to the market.
  This matter has already been brought to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture by the National Farmers' Union, and I hope that he will give the

  1669
  House to-night a more satisfactory reply than he gave to them. It was reported to me that all that the Minister was able to tell them was, "I am watching the position." If he goes on watching long enough either the bottom will fall out of the market or the drought will cease, so that something will happen. [An HON. MEMBER "It will rain. "] It will probably rain, as the hon. Member says, but in the meantime there are measures which the Minister could take. Measures could be taken with regard to imports and in other respects. At the present moment we are concerned not only with rearmament but with the building up of our position with regard to food supplies in case of war. The Government have already expended very large sums in purchasing oil and wheat, but surely they might at least in this crisis come to the assistance of the farmer and relieve the market of a large quantity of the meat which is coining into it, and distribute it at a time when possibly later on there will be a shortage, with prices tending to rise. They could then help to keep a steady market. I appeal to the Minister not merely to give consideration to these matters, but to act, and to act quickly.
  It is no use the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) suggesting that the landlords might meet the situation. In my county there are very few landlords nowadays except the banks. Most of my people bought their land at the high prices which prevailed immediately after the War. They had not sufficient capital and had to go to the banks to borrow money. What is the use, now that they have lost on livestock alone anything between a quarter and half a million of money, of asking the banks: "Please, will you mind holding on?" They cannot possibly do that. The remedy is certainly in the hands of the Government, and I hope that the Minister will act quickly.
  7.26 p.m.
  Sir Joseph Lamb: The Debate has ranged very largely round the condition of the sheep-farming industry, while fruit growing has also been mentioned. I would impress the fact upon the Minister that it is not only one class of stock or fruit crop which is affected, but that the position is general, whether one refers to sheep or other stock, to milk or to arable crops. All are suffering and there will be
  1670
  a great national disaster unless we are fortunately able to obtain rain. I must not refer to anything which requires legislation, and I know of no legislation which could be suggested which would empower my right hon. Friend the Minister to bring down the rain for us. The country is suffering from an absence of rain and moisture, but it is also suffering from a lack of reserves of water, of which the countryside has been deprived owing to existing legislation. Urban areas and cities have taken millions of gallons of water from these districts entirely for the use of the towns. I do not deny that it is necessary to do this, because under housing schemes and sanitary arrangements, which have become more general, more water is required for the large cities. That water has been taken from the agricultural districts very much to their detriment.
  When there is a drought such as that which at present exists, there are no reserves of water for the agricultural areas. Consequently, they are not able to withstand the position as they would do if they had not been deprived of their rightful supplies of water. The shortage of water not only affects the stock of the farmer, but it has a very serious effect upon human beings in the countryside as well. It is all very well to say that a large number of houses and villages are now supplied with water. Legislation has been passed making it possible for water to be supplied to many of these districts, but unless something is done to encourage those in authority to provide water, nothing will be done. I hope that the Minister will watch the existing legislation to see that the rural areas, which are deprived of their natural supply of water for the benefit of the towns, are compensated in some way.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. MacLaren: I have listened to the Debate with a certain amount of amazement. The problem before us is the drought. I should have thought that that was an act of God, which was defined by a Scottish judge as an act which no man in his sober senses would perform. We have a drought. What are we going to do about it? Much as I admire the Minister of Agriculture I think it would be asking too much of him to start shelling the heavens and bursting the clouds in order to bring down rain. The Minister of

  1671
  Agriculture will have to do something beyond the realms of human possibility to gratify those who have petitioned the Government this evening. For years in this House we have heard agriculturists praising the Government for keeping up prices. Here Nature is coming in and giving them a helping hand, and instead of coming here to-day and complaining about the drought, they ought to have been here taking part in a thanksgiving service. We have had the whole process and madness of modern Government action in keeping up prices by checking supplies, and now hon. Members are complaining when Nature has come in to give them a hand.
  Sir J. Lamb: Would the hon. Member advocate having little at a high price or a reasonable quantity at a reasonable price?
  Mr. MacLaren: A little at a higher price and something else at a lower price. Those are relative terms which I cannot handle at the moment. When Nature is fruitful and is responding to the efforts of men and giving us great bulk harvests, we ought to rejoice and to spread that great wealth through the community, but the constant policy of the Government has been to check supplies and to keep up prices, and here to-day when Nature is lending a hand at the thing which they think is political wisdom in the actions of the Government, hon. Members are complaining against Providence and are asking that He should send rain. This House may have great power, according to the Constitution, and we can do almost everything except make a man into a woman or a woman into a man, but there is one thing that we cannot do, and that is to bring down rain to help the agriculturists in their difficulties.
  Hon. Members have used this drought as a little bit of propaganda, which I am glad that Mr. Speaker observed. The drought comes along and if it continues I suppose hon. Members will be suggesting shutting off supplies coming from anywhere. If we get some more protection added to the action on the part of Nature of which hon. Members are complaining, this will be a very happy country. One line of propaganda adopted by hon. Members in order to escape the ruling of Mr. Speaker was to give a lecture to the
  1672
  Minister on how to carry out new water supplies and how to conserve water supplies.
  I would remind hon. Members that I raised that question years ago, and I had the backing of many hon. Members on the other side, but the previous Minister of Agriculture told us that my proposals would cost too much, that they would mean levying rates on local authorities in agricultural districts, and that they could not stand it. Now, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) tells us that the urban districts have stolen the water that should have gone to the agricultural districts, and when the agricultural districts are asked to pay a little towards the conservation of water in time of need they say that they cannot find the money. Mr. Speaker has found it difficult in bringing such a proposition within the confines of the Debate. It is a complaint against the high heavens, and nothing here can remedy it. I hope that what I have said will cause hon. Members to reflect upon the fact that when we have good supplies and Nature is bounteous they adopt artificial methods in trying to check supplies.
  7.36 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): We have had an interesting discussion, which has been characterised by two features. In so far as it has dealt with the very depressing drought, it is a matter which legislation cannot effect in removing the root cause, and in so far as measures to cope with the drought would involve legislation, that is beyond the scope of our Debate. My hon. and gallant Friend in introducing the discussion gave certain figures of estimates as to the losses which the present calamitous drought is causing. I am not in a position to place anything like so precise a figure as my hon. and gallant Friend has done on what has happened or what may happen.
  It is only too evident that the unseasonable lack of rain from which we have suffered in rural districts must damage our agricultural prospects this year, but I think it is too early to estimate what the full effect on our out-turn of crops will be. To some extent the lack of rain in the spring has been compensated for by good conditions during the winter. For example, we had a mild winter and grazing was able to be carried on until fairly late in the year. There

  1673
  was also a good hay crop, which is now being called upon rather earlier than we should like to see that being done. As regards the frosts, they have affected the early fruits, and many of them are irreparably damaged, but there is a hope that some of the later fruits may not suffer to anything like the same extent. As regards the corn crops, it is mostly those sown in the spring that have been affected. In many cases the winter-sown crops are standing up well, and if we get an adequate supply of rain in the next week or fortnight I hope that a good deal of what now appears to be irreparable damage may turn out rather better than some people expect.
  If I say these things I do so in order to make it clear to the House that for my part I cannot place anything like the figures of losses upon the situation at present, but I do ask the House to realise that this has been a very bad season so far as it has gone in regard to water supply and rainfall. It may be that it will turn out better than it now looks, on the whole. This discussion has certainly taught us one great lesson, and that is that the agricultural industry, above all others, is subject to a set of hazards which are imposed upon those who follow it by the climate of this land. In many ways it is a fine climate, but the hazards of frosts, droughts and floods are inseparable from the agricultural calling. If I may point a further lesson, it is that we should at all times view with sympathy any proposals that may be made to reduce the other hazards of the industry, namely, instability of markets and the like.
  It is difficult for me, and I do not propose to try, to discuss any of the matters which have been mentioned which would involve legislation and which would be completely out of order in a discussion of this sort. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buck-rose (Major Braithwaite) talked about credit. The present position on that is that, for example, the Milk Board has power to lend to a registered producer on security not exceeding altogether two-thirds of the total amount of the particular estimate of the amount which the producer will receive for the milk produced by him. That, however, is a matter entirely for the board and not for the Government. If they wish to exercise that power they have to weigh
  1674
  up the advantages and disadvantages of asking other producers to stand the risk of a loan to someone who is perhaps unable to get it from the bank. Short of discussing further legislation there is nothing further that I can say on that subject.
  Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the present sheep position. To some extent that is linked up with the question of the drought. It is true that the present lack of teed has resulted in farmers being forced to sell sheep which otherwise they would have kept, thus bringing an unseasonable pressure to bear upon the markets and tending to have a depressing effect upon sheep prices. It is true to say that the fall took place from the relatively high levels of last summer before there was any question of the present drought. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) diagnosed one of the important factors in that fall, namely, the fall in wool and skin prices. Another thing that has happened is that farmers have held on to sheep on account of the fall in the autumn, with the result that the sheep are now of the larger size which is not welcomed by butchers in these days of gas ovens and small families.
  Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the Ottawa Acts and what could be done under them. The position is that supplies to the United Kingdom are regulated in accordance with the Ottawa Acts and they are now reduced to 65 per cent. of the supplies of a standard year. I have looked into the question of making a. small cut in foreign supplies, and the effect of that would be to reduce imported supplies in our markets by something under 3 per cent., which would have an unappreciable effect upon prices. With regard to the supplies from our Dominions, the only regulation that can be achieved would be by voluntary agreement and, as I informed the House in reply to a question the other day, I am in consultation with representatives of the Dominion Governments with a view to seeing what can be done about the present situation. That is all that I can say on this matter without trespassing on the question of legislation.
  I am sure the House will appreciate fully the object of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose in raising this

  1675
  matter, and the anxiety that is felt in many parts of the House over this very unseasonable weather, and they will join with me in hoping that Providence will soon send us rain in good season, so that the men who work on the soil may reap some reward for their toil. It is obviously difficult for agriculturists to stand up to the vagaries of the weather. The real lesson of this discussion is that we ought to do all we can to see that agriculture is made prosperous to enable it to stand these inevitable hazards and to enable the industry to flourish as much as possible through bad times as well as in plenteous seasons.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Paling: To sum up the discussion, it seems to me that hon. Members opposite have exaggerated the case. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) spoke about £10,000,000 losses up to now and suggested that if the drought continues the loss will be a much bigger figure. The Minister does not believe it. The Minister himself admitted that he could not limit it to anything like that.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: What I said was that the situation is not static. If we were to get rain within the next week or fortnight the whole situation might be changed, and, therefore, as the story is not complete I cannot either confirm or deny the figures of the hon. and gallant Member.
  Mr. Paling: I am saying that the argument of the right hon. Member indicates that the stories told by various hon. Members are exaggerated, and that the ill effects of the drought are not so great. I think that is true. With regard to sheep, that is not entirely due to the drought according to the Minister of Agriculture. But I want to congratulate hon. Members who represent the farming community on never losing an opportunity of coming down here and asking for something they want. If there is a flood they come to the House of Commons and ask what we are going to do about it. If there is a drought they come here and ask what we are going to do. If there is a surplus of food they want to know what the House of Commons is going to do about it. Whatever trouble they are in they come to the Government and ask
  1676
  how much the Government are going to pay them. They seem to have lost all initiative as far as their own industry is concerned. The moment they get into trouble, or even if they are anticipating trouble, they come and ask what the Government propose to do. They are in a sorry state. Hon. Members who represent agriculture have been so successful in the last few years in getting a subsidy for nearly everything that they produce that they have lost the art of fending for themselves. They have been spoonfed so long that whenever they get into any trouble they ask the Govrenment to help them.
  Mr. Turton: We believe in our Government, whereas you did not believe in your Government in 1929.
  Mr. Paling: And in view of what happened in 1931 we had good reason not to. I wonder what would happen if every other section of the community took the same view as agricultural Members in this House and asked for Government assistance. There are other people in the country who are in trouble to-day besides agriculturists. People in the aircraft industry are being dismissed by hundreds, and that means probably that their incomes will be less than half. As far as I know they will not come to the House of Commons and ask for a subsidy because they cannot help themselves. In the coalmining industry the same thing happens. Our people are on short time now and their incomes are reduced, but they will not come to the Government and ask what the Government are going to do. Even the poor coalowner will not, I think, come and ask for assistance. But the farming community have been so spoon-fed, have got so much in the last few years, that whenever anything happens they come to the House of Commons and ask what we are going to do about it. If history teaches anything it is that capitalism and private enterprise cannot do anything in farming. Private enterprise has entirely failed because those who believe in private enterprise come to the State for assistance whenever they are in trouble. Last year it was a flood, now it is a drought, next year it may be a frost, and the year after that Heavens knows what.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Macquisten: I do not know why there should be any disappointment on the part of hon. Members who have raised

  1677
  this question, or on the part of the Government on account of the drought because their whole policy has been directed to a restriction of supplies, and now that the Almighty has looked down and said "I can do that far better than you can," why should they complain? Seeing that the Lord has helped us in our good work of restricting supplies we can now dispense with all our marketing boards. I am perfectly amazed at the disappointment which has been expressed. We shall get high prices for what is left. We could have had more food supplies if we had planted a bigger acreage, but we have not been allowed to do that.
  Sir W. Wayland: The hon. and learned Member has mentioned high prices. May I draw his attention to the fact that the price of milk was reduced on 1st May while it is costing more to produce?
  Mr. Macquisten: That may be, but it is still far too dear for working people. How can you expect a working man to pay 2s. or 2s. 4d. per gallon for milk; and what he gets is wretched half-boiled milk. The whole thing has gone wrong. It is the invariable result of interfering with enterprise and producing schemes in order to get a shortage. We have got a shortage, and why should we complain About it? The other day I planted some potatoes—I hope I shall not be fined £100 for so doing—but the drought has come and there is a little frost on the top. If we do not produce as much foods as before the result will be that we shall get more from Australia, which will help shipping and also help the coal industry, which has got far more than agriculture out of this Government. They are an excellent body of men, the salt of the
  1678
  community, and I sympathise with everything that the miner gets. I have been down a pit and I did not like it. They get their share from the Government. The only man who really is never much considered is the taxpayer, but he will be exterminated in time.
  7.53 p.m.
  Sir Ernest Shepperson: I want to reply to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), who complained that agriculturists always came to this House and asked for help. It is a wise man who does not wait until the horse has bolted before he shuts the stable door. He said that when the coal industry or the iron and steel industry were doing badly and men were discharged, they lost half their income. May I point out to him that agriculturists in circumstances like those will not be getting half pay, but will be absolutely losing money. An industry like iron and steel can close down its factories if it is losing money, but the agricultural farmer cannot close down and wait until conditions are better; he must carry on. I would like the hon. Member to realise what agriculture is suffering. Since February up to May we have had less than one inch of rainfall, and the average rainfall in my part of the country during that period is 11 inches. We have, therefore, received 10 times less than the average amount of rainfall.
  Mr. Speaker: The lion. Member cannot suggest that the Government are responsible for that.
  Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Eight o'Clock.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (MEMBERSHIP).
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (MEMBERSHIP).
  ACQUISITION OF LAND (KETTERING).
  ACQUISITION OF LAND (KETTERING).
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
  ADULT EDUCATION, SCOTLAND (GRANTS).
  ADULT EDUCATION, SCOTLAND (GRANTS).
  PETROL PRICES (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  PETROL PRICES (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  DEFENCE (OIL STORAGE, PURFLEET).
  DEFENCE (OIL STORAGE, PURFLEET).
BRITISH ARMY.
  RESERVE OFFICERS (REFRESHER COURSES).
  RESERVE OFFICERS (REFRESHER COURSES).
  TERRITORIAL RESERVE OFFICERS (TRAINING).
  TERRITORIAL RESERVE OFFICERS (TRAINING).
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).
  SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE LABOUR).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE LABOUR).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  TOLL-BRIDGE, SELBY.
  TOLL-BRIDGE, SELBY.
  MOTOR VEHICLES (A, B AND C LICENCES).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (A, B AND C LICENCES).
  BY-PASS, MICKLEHAM.
  BY-PASS, MICKLEHAM.
  FERRY, JARROW.
  FERRY, JARROW.
  FELLGATE BRIDGE, DURHAM.
  FELLGATE BRIDGE, DURHAM.
  TRUNK RAILWAYS (CASUAL LABOUR).
  TRUNK RAILWAYS (CASUAL LABOUR).
  OIL INDUSTRY, THAMES-SIDE.
  OIL INDUSTRY, THAMES-SIDE.
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.
  SIR CHARLES BRESSEY'S REPORT.
  SIR CHARLES BRESSEY'S REPORT.
  MOTOR VEHICLES LICENCE REVENUE (WALES).
  MOTOR VEHICLES LICENCE REVENUE (WALES).
  POST OFFICE VAN DRIVERS.
  POST OFFICE VAN DRIVERS.
  ADULT EDUCATION GRANTS.
  ADULT EDUCATION GRANTS.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  RADIO OPERATORS.
  RADIO OPERATORS.
  GREENOCK-LONDONDERRY STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
  GREENOCK-LONDONDERRY STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COTTON INDUSTRY (COLOMBIA IMPORTS).
  COTTON INDUSTRY (COLOMBIA IMPORTS).
  LAID-UP TONNAGE.
  LAID-UP TONNAGE.
  PIG IRON IMPORTS.
  PIG IRON IMPORTS.
  POST OFFICE (ROBBERIES).
  POST OFFICE (ROBBERIES).
  WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION, GREENOCK.
  WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION, GREENOCK.
  ROYAL NAVY (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
  ROYAL NAVY (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
  CIVIL AVIATION (WEST AFRICA AIR SERVICES).
  CIVIL AVIATION (WEST AFRICA AIR SERVICES).
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  ABYSSINIA.
  ABYSSINIA.
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  ANGLO-FRENCH CONVERSATIONS.
  ANGLO-FRENCH CONVERSATIONS.
  ANCIENT HOUSES (PRESERVATION).
  ANCIENT HOUSES (PRESERVATION).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
LORD GOWRIE.
Brigadier-General the Honourable Sir Alexander Gore Arkwright HoreRuthven, V.C., G.C.M.G., C.B., D.S.O., having been created Baron Gowrie of Canberra in the Commonwealth of Australia and of Dirleton in the County of East Lothian—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
EIRE (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Sea Fish Industry Bill over the Motion standing in the name of the Earl of Liverpool.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIDGWATER EXTENSION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, the measure to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is rather different in its subject from the Agricultural Bills for which I usually stand sponsor in this House. The sea fish industry, like many others, has in the last half-century undergone not only a phenomenal expansion but also a fundamental change in character. Forty-five years ago about 6,000,000 cwts. of white fish, having a value of about £4,000,000 were landed every year. In 1913 the quantity had almost doubled, whilst the value had risen even faster—from £4,000,000 to £11,000,000. Last year the yield reached 16,000,000 cwts. and the value 13,000,000. These figures will give the House some idea of the growth of the industry, a growth which has been due not only to a complete transformation of the fleet which catches the fish, but also to a vast expansion of the area from which the fish are caught.
Until the 'eighties the sailing trawler was in undisputed possession of the seas, and even after that, when steam made its appearance, sailing trawlers still made up the greater part of the fishing fleet until about the end of the last century. Between then and 1913 the number of first-class sailing trawlers had decreased from about 2,000 to 860; and in 1936 as much as 90 per cent. of the catch was landed by steam trawlers, the number in that year being 1,600. Along with the change over from sail to steam and the great increase in individual tonnage there has been a steady development of the power and efficiency of the trawl; and yet another fact is that whereas the North Sea was once the main fishing ground of Europe and yielded the greater part of the total landings, nowadays less than a quarter of the catch comes from the North Sea and more than half from far distant Northern regions.
Unfortunately, although the sea fish industry has expanded and developed at such a tremendous rate, its expansion has not been entirely healthy, and its condition to-day, as no doubt your Lordships
986
are aware, is far from prosperous. During the War, owing to the enforced limitation of fishing, the stock of fish had time to replenish itself, and the result was that as soon as the War was over there was a great boom in fishing. In fact a competitive race began. Other countries, which fish in the same waters as ourselves, also increased their fishing activities on parallel lines with the consequence that very soon the nearer fishing grounds began to fail. That did not mean a decline in the quantities caught, because the larger and more powerful ships that were being built could stand longer voyages and could explore more and more the far distant waters. But it did mean a very great decline in quality. By the time the distant-water fish reached port a great deal of it was stale and uneatable. With more fish of poorer quality being landed, prices naturally came down with a run. The wholesale index figure for fish to-day is practically down to the level of 1914, whereas the producers of food from the land are getting about 30 per cent. more.
While the price which the catcher gets for his fish has gone down, the cost of all the commodities necessary for catching it has gone up. Coal, the most important, will serve as an example. Between 1934 and 1937 the price per ton of coal went up about 2s. 6d., and in addition I understand that there was a further substantial rise in the early months of this year. Not a penny of this increased cost has been passed on. A perishable commodity like fish has to be sold at once for what it will fetch. Nobody has gained by this vicious circle of over-building, over-fishing, depleted stocks, constant widening of the sources of supply, increased landings, poorer quality, lower prices and the attempt to recoup losses by ever-increasing expansion and greater production. Employers and workers have suffered alike. While the producer gets no more than before the War, the consumer, largely owing to a higher wages bill on distribution, pays twice as much.
In 1933 two measures were taken to meet the economic crisis which had arisen in the industry. The Sea-Fishing Industry Act of that year provided in the first place for some measure of regulation of supplies, both in quantity and quality; and secondly it set up a Sea Fish Commission—known as the Duncan Commission—to investigate the position of the

987
industry, with particular reference to the question whether some scheme of reorganisation was needed. The first great object of the Bill which we are considering to-day is to implement generally the recommendations of the Sea Fish Commission in regard to reorganisation; but before I come to that I ought to mention the other measures which have been taken under the 1933 Act. These are: the regulation of landings of foreign-caught sea fish; the restriction of landings in the summer months from the distant waters; and the fixing of minimum sizes for the meshes of nets and for the actual fish which may be sold. These measures have led to some improvement in the general quality of fish and also to a modest rise in price, from an average of 18s. 7d. per cwt. in 1933 to 20s. 3d. in 1934. In the absence of any internal organisation of the home industry, however, there was nothing to prevent the improvement being wiped out by still more building of trawlers. That is in fact what has happened. New trawlers of the largest type have been built, and this increase in catching power has led to record landings, which in turn have been reflected in a fall in price. In 1935 the price was 19s. 3d., in 1936 it fell to 16s. 9d., and in 1937 it fell even further to 15s. 11d.
The powers for which the Government are now asking are powers for this industry to help itself. The present Bill not only provides for the reorganisation of the whole industry on the general principles contained in the Duncan Commission's recommendations, but will also enable a scheme, on the lines of one that has already been put forward by the Trawlers' Federation, to be brought into operation as soon as possible. Part I of the Bill follows, to a great extent, the Agricultural Marketing Acts, and enables each of the many sections of the industry—catchers, wholesalers, fishmongers and fish friers—to attain self-government by means of a marketing scheme. There is, however, a difference from the Agricultural Marketing Acts, and that is caused by the fact that there exist so many different branches of the industry, each with its own particular problems. There has to be some outside body to see that the interests of these various branches of the industry are co-ordinated and that
988
their schemes fit in with each other. There will also be matters of general concern to the whole industry which could not be dealt with appropriately by the individual marketing boards set up for each branch.
So in this Bill we propose to set up a White Fish Commission with five independent and non-representative members appointed by Ministers and paid out of public funds. The Commission's functions will be to register all persons engaged in the various branches of the industry; to submit marketing schemes prepared either by catchers and distributors or by itself after consultation with the representatives of those bodies; to ensure co-ordination in the schemes and their operation; to make regulations governing matters outside the operation of the schemes; to administer a voluntary fund for purposes of common benefit; and generally to keep the industry under review and advise and assist Ministers. There is one other function which it will be necessary for the Commission to perform—the submission of co-operative schemes for inshore fishermen—which perhaps I may be allowed to touch on later. We believe that these supervisory and co-ordinating functions can best be performed by an independent body; but that does not mean that the Commission will act without knowing the full conditions within the industry. Like the Livestock Commission, it will be assisted by a fully representative body, to be known as the White Fish Industry Joint Council. The members of this Council will he appointed by Ministers after consultation with the appropriate organisations, and naturally they will represent the various interests concerned. Ministers may also appoint representatives of any other interests likely to be affected, including, of course, those who are the real backbone of the industry, the fishermen and the other workers employed in the various branches. I should explain that as this Joint Council, like the Livestock Advisory Committee, will be advisory only and there will be no question of its taking decisions by vote, the actual numerical representation of the various sections will not, therefore, be of great importance.
The necessary first step in dealing with a largely unorganised industry is to obtain registration. A number of branches of

989
this industry lack even a reasonably complete census of their members. Under the registration proposals there will not be any restriction on registration; the Commission must register any applicant. When a marketing scheme has been prepared, the machinery for its adoption will consist first of the publication of the scheme, the consideration of objections by Ministers, and if necessary, the holding of a public inquiry; then a poll of persons covered by the scheme; then, if at least half those on the register have voted and at least two-thirds of the voters are in favour, the scheme will be submitted to Parliament for an affirmative Resolution and, if that is given, Ministers will finally confirm the scheme. The boards which will administer the schemes will be made up mainly of elected members, but not less than three, nor more than one-third of the total number, will be independent and appointed by Ministers.
Under Clause 8, the chief powers which may be conferred on a producers' marketing board will be the regulation of marketing by producers, including the limitation of quantities and the fixing of prices. I should here say that the intention is to give power to fix low minimum prices only. The other powers for the regulation of marketing will be the licensing of boats, in order to check uneconomic expansion of the trawler fleet: the power to limit landings both by number and quantity; to require the temporary laying up of boats in order to prevent excessive landings; and lastly, the power to encourage the landing of fish in better condition. Distributors' marketing schemes under Clause 10 may empower the boards to regulate the equipment and condition of premises and vehicles, and the manner in which white fish may be offered for sale. Under this clause there will be no licensing or price-fixing powers in these schemes. Marketing boards may also have certain development powers, connected, for example, with such matters as research and experiment, advertising, and the collective purchase of such things as stores, gear and equipment. In the Bill there are ample safeguards both for consumers and for sections of the industry not concerned in any particular marketing scheme. Besides the presence of independent members on each board, there will be a Consumers'
990
Committee and also a Committee of Investigation, with functions similar to those set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, and Ministers will be able to act as they have under the Agricultural Marketing Act on the recommendations of the Committee of Investigation.
Inshore fishermen, whose ports cannot accommodate the large steam vessels which land most of our white fish supplies, need special treatment. They could not be included—for practical reasons—with the deep-sea trawling industry under a producers' scheme, and provision is therefore made in Clause 18 for the Commission to submit co-operative schemes on their behalf. Ministers will not be able to proceed with a cooperative scheme unless they are satisfied that there is a preponderating opinion in favour of it among those who are concerned. Each scheme will require an affirmative Resolution by Parliament, and will be administered by what the Bill terms an authorised body. This authorised body may set up a central selling organisation in its area, and may also undertake the collective purchase of supplies and equipment. We expect that when these co-operative schemes are in operation they will be self-supporting, but the inshore fishermen have little or PO financial reserves, and we therefore propose to give the schemes an initial impetus by loans from public funds up to a maximum of £10,000 in all.
Now I turn to Part II. The main object of this Part of the Bill is to implement the International Convention for the Regulation of the Meshes of Fishing Nets and the Size Limits of Fish. This Convention was signed by the representatives of ten Governments in March of last year. In some respects the Convention goes rather further than the provisions which we had already adopted in the Act of 1933, and in order to enable effect to be given to the Convention it is therefore necessary to amend that Act. The Act of 1933 relied for the protection of small fish on the prohibition of sale, and the most important of the amendments has the effect of prohibiting the landing of small fish and their retention on board ship after capture. We have also taken the opportunity of making various other amendments to the Act, into which I need not go in great detail here, but I ought to refer to Clause 39,

991
which formally discharges the Duncan Commission. I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the great obligation under which the Government have been placed by the excellent manner in which that Commission discharged its important task.
Part III may be said to do for whales what Part II does for fish: that is, it aims at preserving the stock. Whaling takes place mainly in the Antarctic, and it used to be conducted entirely from land stations in British territory, so that it was possible for us to regulate the taking of whales by conditions in the leases of the factories. But, later on, great factory-ships were built, and these, by lying outside territorial waters, were able to do what they liked. As a result there was an enormous increase in the destruction of whales, and in 1931 an International Whaling Convention was signed at Geneva. The Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act was passed in 1934 to implement this Convention. But since then it has become clear that the regulations in force do not go far enough; so another conference met in London last June. The principal measures which it decided to adopt were first the entire prohibition of the killing of grey whales, secondly the power to limit the number of whale catchers, and thirdly, the power to close certain areas in the Atlantic and Pacific which are known or believed to be breeding grounds. Experiments are in progress in some countries with electric harpoons, with the object of making the process of killing whales a much quicker one than it is now, and thus to avoid the cruelty which results from the present methods. Accordingly this Bill gives power to prohibit, if thought fit, the killing of whales other than by a particular method.
Part IV of the Bill is a very important Part, designed to implement a number of recommendations made by the Duncan Commission in regard to the pay of the crews of trawlers and the powers of Board of Trade superintendents to check the correctness of the accounts. The welfare of fishermen is of course bound up with the welfare of the industry as a whole, and they therefore will benefit as much from the reorganisation provisions of Part I of the Bill as the trawler owners themselves. The Commission found that
992
there was a good deal of dissatisfaction among the men with their present conditions in regard to payment by a share in net earnings, which is at present regulated by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and it is the object of this Part of the Bill to remove those grievances. The seagoing personnel engaged in steam trawling at present numbers about 21,000. The Commission recommended that the Board of Trade should have additional powers of inquiry into the process of distribution of the profits, so as to remove any doubts that may exist on the question whether the profits are being properly shared out. The Board of Trade have had discussions with the men's organisations and the Trawlers' Federations and have in the main reached agreement.
It is hardly necessary for me here to go in great detail into the provisions of Part V, which makes various amendments to existing legislation. The main changes are concerned with the constitution of the local sea fisheries committees set up under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, and the extension of their powers and functions, and of the Minister's powers in relation to the Committees. It also imposes a liability on the owner as well as the skipper of a vessel in respect of illegal fishing offences and provides for an increase in the penalties; there is also a simplification of the procedure for making shellfish orders under the Sea Fisheries Acts of 1868 and 1884. Part VI contains provisions of a formal character and definitions.
I hope I have not wearied the House with this description of a measure which I believe to be worthy of your Lordships' sympathy and interest. This Bill, with its six Parts and 62 clauses, is a Bill with a greater number of Parts and clauses than the Coal Bill which we discussed at great length only last week. The fishing industry's importance in our national life is, as your Lordships will remember from the experience of the War, far more than a merely commercial one. I believe that this Bill will go a long way to restore prosperity to the white fish industry and to the crews of our trawlers; to reconcile the interests of the various branches of the industry; and, what is equally important, to ensure an abundant supply of good fish in a form and at a price attractive to the public. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am sure I shall carry your Lordships with me if I say we are greatly obliged to the noble Earl who has introduced this Bill for the very lucid way in which he has helped us to understand its many clauses. I think the Bill provides an object lesson to the country and to the Socialist Party of the degree of success with which a Government Department is likely to handle a competitive industry which requires imagination and initiative. I shall not oppose the Bill; I shall vote for it, but with no enthusiasm. I shall vote for it grudgingly and, lest that may sound impolite and ungracious, I would say I bear in mind that honourable members in another place spent sixteen long days in careful, conscientious, and expert examination of the Bill in Committee and at other stages, in trying to mould it into a form which would provide a successful remedy for the problem with which the white fish industry is confronted.
It was found 3,000 years ago that you cannot make bricks without straw, and from the start this Bill never lent itself to being moulded into a form which would prove a remedy for the problem with which we are confronted. In order to justify my grudging support of the Bill I shall, if your Lordships will grant me a little patience, try to point out the necessary remedies for the difficulties of the industry, which are omitted from this Bill. I know that this Bill has nothing to do with the herring fishery. It deals with demersal fish such as soles, plaice, turbot, halibut, cod, and haddock, but the pivot in the difficulties of the herring fishery, whose sales are mostly in the export markets, principally in the Russian and Baltic ports, and in the difficulties of the white fish industry, whose sales are mostly in our own home markets, is the same—the turning into money of the results of the fishermen's labours. Here in this Bill I see nothing in practical form which will help towards that.
We have bad many legislative enactments dealing with the herring fishery and the other fisheries during the past twenty years and if I am not out of order I would merely mention that I have taken part frequently in the fishery discussions in another place. None of these enactments has proved successful. Year after year we have had enactments to help the herring fishery, and year after year we have to all intents and purposes scrapped
994
them by giving amended forms to those enactments, with subsidies, helps and grants; but, notwithstanding all the help we have given with the best will in the world, to the North Sea herring fishery, I believe the herring fishery to-day is in no better state than ft was fifteen years ago—probably worse. And to-day there was in the public business Papers of the other House a notice to say that the Minister would introduce legislation to amend the Herring Industry Act of 1935—only three years old. In that measure they are going to change the constitution of the Herring Industry Board by providing that the Board shall consist of members of a different status. There will also be grants for larger motor boats: in other words the Minister is adopting a polite means of putting the enactment of 1935 asleep. Five years hence the Government will have to do the same with this Bill, whichever Government may be in power.
The Government will never find the remedies for the white fisheries by the means which are here spoken of with such elaboration. Take the first clause, and listen to the elaborate language:
"There shall be constituted a Commission to be called 'the White Fish Commission' (hereafter in this Act referred to as 'the Commission')"—
no doubt it will be scrapped five years hence—
"which shall have the functions of keeping generally under review matters relating to the white fish industry, and of advising and assisting the Ministers in such matters as aforesaid, and such other functions as are entrusted to the Commission …"
Here is a great elaboration of language. It reminds me of what we call in my native county a "Norfolk hackney," which picks up its feet with much ceremony and puts them down in nearly the same place.
There are sixty-two clauses in the Bill and a number of Schedules; it presents, I think, a perfect sample, in the idiom used by Sir Thomas Browne, of "platitudinous ventosity." From these elaborate and platitudinous clauses no remedy will come. Let me examine the aims of the Bill—I think we should keep the aims in mind. We wish to provide employment for what as we all know is one of the most industrious sections of our wage-earners. I noticed that my noble friend mentioned there were 21,000 engaged in

995
the industry. I suppose he meant seagoing.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Yes, sea-going.
LORD MANCROFT: I should put it rather higher for the industry. I should put it at 50,000 altogether. In the boats and probably including the quays—I say nothing about railwaymen—I suppose 50,000 get their living out of this industry. That seems to be a very small number, because I am given to understand that another island nation, Japan, has 1,500,000 engaged in the fishing industry. We want to provide employment for these men. That is on commercial grounds; but on national grounds there is a greater necessity that we should keep the fisheries going. The fishing industry is the nursery of the Royal Navy, and noble Lords who have served in the Navy will tell that these deep-sea fishermen are most valuable men in handling the King's ships when there is difficult weather. There are no better seamen and no braver men in the world. We know what they did in mine-sweeping during the War, and we know what they do in the lifeboats in winter time when ships are in distress. On national as well as on economic grounds it is therefore of the utmost importance that we should keep this industry alive and provide employment for these excellent men.
How do we hope to attain this end? By making it possible for them to make a living out of the fish they catch and offer to the public—in other words, turn their labour into money. As the Minister has explained, the method by which to attain that end is to provide a continuous supply of fish in good condition and at reasonable prices in the markets of this country and create an increased sale as a result. I may be telling your Lordships something you already know, but I am under the impression that the general consumption of fish of all kinds—white fish, herring and other fish—per head per day in Britain is no more than two ounces. There is plenty of room for expansion. The pivot of the whole policy and the solution of the difficulty we are in is to increase sale in our home markets. We must keep that point in mind throughout our consideration of the fishery problem. You may catch and land fish by Parliamentary regulations,
996
but this Bill and its regulations will not sell the fish or provide more wages for the men. Such things as bridges, textiles and fish do not sell themselves. They have to be sold through human ingenuity, and unless initiative and imagination can be used, while catching may be regulated, landings regulated, and the size of the mesh regulated, if you do not sell the fish and turn them into money you will not be able to pay wages to the men who catch them. More markets are the paramount consideration. Therefore this Bill fails in its basic conception.
In the first place I have a suspicion that there is an attempt to reduce the number of trawlers and men. That is the very opposite of what we should aim at. If the Bill does that, it defeats its own object. If it does not control foreign competition by foreign-caught fish it will reduce the number of trawlers and consequently the number of men. I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that some of the Scandinavian boats which land fish in our ports receive direct or indirect subsidies. You cannot compete with foreign competition of that kind when other nations subsidise their boats. There is nothing in the Bill to deal with that. The London wholesale market for cod and haddock is mainly supplied by Scandinavian boats. Very few British trawlers come into the Thames with deep-sea white fish. The Scandinavians have somehow beaten our trawlers out of the Thames market, with the result that the number of British vessels coming into the Thames with white fish has been reduced to a minimum. There is nothing in this Bill to remedy the malady which has resulted from British trawlers being beaten out of the Thames wholesale market by foreigners.
True, there is our international agreement dealing with foreign trawlers and foreign-caught fish. But we shall be told that nothing can be done now, in this type of legislation before us, to meet the subsidies which foreign countries give to their trawlers, and that nothing can be done to deal with the competing methods of Scandinavian boats; they are not controlled by our regulations once they are outside our territorial waters, unless by international agreement. That is so; but upon what does our international agreement rest? It rests upon the demands of the coal trade. The white fishing in-

997
dustry is in some degree sacrificed to the coal trade. We say to the Scandinavian nations: "We want certain things done about coal. You must take so much coal from us." "Very well," say the Scandinavian nations, "but we shall insist on your giving better facilities to our fishing vessels in the British market."
As to the quota which comes under this international agreement, that is in practice almost a farce. A certain quota of weight is allowed. If the weight is not per month but per year, the consequence is that foreign vessels can bank up a quota, not using it for a small number of months, and at the end of an aggregated number of months use the quota in such a way as to dump foreign caught fish into our market and probably smash the prices to pieces. The quota arrangements need alteration. There is another way in which the quota agreement operates detrimentally to our own fishermen. I speak under correction, for I have no connection whatever with the trade—I have merely an academic interest in it—but the quota lays down a certain weight. What do the foreign trawlers do? At sea they will head, gut, bone, and fillet the fish, and instead of landing whole fish weighing a larger number of pounds the weight of fish landed will be probably 30 per cent. lighter and of greater money value than was assumed when the quota was introduced. They get round the quota by reducing weight by discarding the offal, and thus increasing the market value per pound. What does the Bill provide against this? Nothing.
Then what is provided in this Bill for research? It is only voluntary. Clause 23 provides that if someone likes to give a sum of money, or if one of the boards wishes to vote some money, that money can he used for research. Is an Act of Parliament needed to empower a Commission to receive gifts for research? It is necessary to operate research about the life-history of most white fish. It is necessary to know more about the manners and customs of fish. We know nothing, for example, about what happens to the herring after it leaves the West coast of England and Ireland in the early spring till it: reappears in the Pentland Firth about the first week in June. In the case of the herring it does not matter very much, because the herring are avail-
998
able in such myriads that we are not yet concerned whether they are more or less. We did not know until quite recently the life history of the eel; it was only during the War that we learned for the first time that eels bred off the Bahamas. We know nothing about where most of these white demersal fish breed, and it is time we did find out what happens to them. We are told that the North Sea is being overfished. We do not know whether that is true; we ought to know whether we are overfishing the North Sea. My noble friend mentioned that fishing ceased during the War with the result that when peace came we found large volumes of fish easily catchable in British areas in the North Sea. No one knows whether most of these white fish breed only in the shallow waters off our own and other coasts, and whether those shallow waters are overfished.
We do not know whether the shortage of fish is not due to uncontrolled destruction. It may be so. No one knows whether demersal fish breed only in shallow water or both in shallow water and deep water. We know they breed in the shallow waters from Cape St. Vincent up to Vigo and off our coasts right up towards the Shetlands. There is a shallow shelf off our East and North-East coasts on which undoubtedly large numbers of prime white fish do breed and when they are small they leave that portion of our waters and go round off the Belgian and Dutch coasts and make for deep water; on the way, although useless for food, they are caught and exterminated. There is no control, although there has been some international undertaking between ourselves and the Dutch and the Belgians about immature fish. There is, however, no certainty as to whether the arrangements made are put into operation. The small foreign craft which catch shrimps off the coasts of Holland and Belgium capture myriads of small immature plaice, turbot, cod and haddock. They are probably killed before they are brought to the surface; if they are it is no good then putting them back. If they are pot put back they are taken ashore and made into fish meal. There is lax control there. We have no control at all outside the territorial waters, and this Bill applies only to territorial waters.
In referring to Clause37 my noble friend dealt with the matter of mesh. I have no faith in mesh regulations for this

999
reason. Your Lordships will have seen in the old days those beautiful, elegant, dandy-rigged trawling vessels under sail; fishing smacks with a trawl beam. To-day we do not use that kind of trawl net or smack. We use the otter net, a deadly destructive trawl net. It is a bag with side pockets and with a sack or cod at the end, and steam trawlers. It does not matter if under this Bill you have meshes 5 inches square. These otter nets are drawn along the bottom of the sea perhaps 400 yards down as against the sixty yards depth into which these sailing smacks used to fish. These otter nets are let down a quarter of a mile deep by steam vessels which drag and bump the otter nets over the bottom, filling them not only with prime fish, which of course should be done, but with small fish which are smothered by the big fish. The nets are drawn at some speed because the vessels are steam vessels. The mesh as the net is dragged forward closes itself, and the small fish cannot get out, with the result that the small fish are destroyed, notwithstanding the fact that the mesh may be a very big one. These steam trawlers catch seven times as many fish as the old sailing vessels. There is nothing in this Bill to deal with the problems of destruction by the use of otter trawl nets with big meshes, side pockets and rough passage over the surface of the bottom. No wonder big white fish are crushed and bruised and immature fish destroyed.
We are told that it is necessary to have fish which are in prime condition but these fish come up bruised, many of them in poor condition, and the immature fish also are destroyed. Is not this one of the reasons why there is a scarcity of prime white fish on the Dogger Bank? Is it that the North Sea near our shores has been overfished? Is that the only thing that we have to consider? Have we not also to consider the uncontrolled destruction, notwithstanding the mesh being big? Here is need for vigorous research. We know that the fish which do come to market in good condition fetch more money. The line fishermen who catch white fish off the Shetlands obtain a very much higher price for their well-conditioned fish in the Glasgow market than is obtained for the fish drawn up in a trawl. I submit that there must be a
1000
new method invented to catch these fish other than by the otter trawl.
New methods of preservation also must be invented. Imagine what our markets would say if New Zealand lamb were sent here after six or eight weeks or more in transit and store here, and out of condition, bruised or crushed. The fish which can be soonest brought here are taken five, six or ten days previously in the fishing ground and when they are brought into the markets they are often broken and in bad condition. Why is that? It is due to the method of catching with the trawl and to the mesh and the out-of-date methods of preserving. There must be an improvement on the crude methods of ice and boxes and even the landing from the net, to the hold, to the quayside. There is nothing in this Bill to deal with that. Neither do I see anything, except advice "and other functions" as in Clause r, to set on foot a movement for treating the fish as it is brought on board so that it does not suffer from bacteriological infection. Fish decomposes very quickly. There is some disinfection of the storage equipment, but there is not sufficient disinfection of these receptacles, with the result that the fish easily deteriorates on board.
I have troubled your Lordships with rather a tiresome explanation of why I think the Bill is not of great value, because it does not meet the case in relation to the points I have just made. With regard to Clause 11 we are told that the Commission will allow advertising. But advertising will not of itself increase the sale of fish. Advertising is a spearhead but useless unless there are proper shops or places where fish can be bought in the inland towns and villages of England in good condition, with an assurance of regular supplies, for the housewife to cook and put on the table. Unless that is done not much good will be done by advertising. Sir Alfred Jones, of Elder, Dempster and Co., about thirty-five years ago, by advertising and by propaganda, induced the people of this country to regard the banana as a fruit and not as a vegetable. Having done that he arranged that every village should have a plentiful and regular supply of bananas in good condition, as they have to-day, ready for people to buy at a reasonable price. After the banana had been thoroughly advertised and people had been made con-

1001
versant with that fruit's name bananas were obtainable in every greengrocer's shop and thus they have become an important item in the food trade. They were obtainable: that is the essential point. The same can be done for fish, not by advertising alone, but by providing outlets in the villages and towns in the interior of England so that the people can get it regularly and become accustomed to buy it regularly.
As I said in my opening remarks the consumption per head of fish is very small, there is plenty of room for expansion beyond the average of two ounces per head a day. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is connected with Hull, knows very well that the fish which comes to Hull is mostly sent to the West Riding and the Northern Midlands and is there used as fried fish. It is not in a very good condition. When it conies into Hull it has usually suffered a good deal of the knocking about which I have described, but it is suitable and makes a very wholesome food in the form of fried fish for the large populations of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Bradford. These people have learned from the foreigners in their cities the benefit of fish done in fat, in cotton-seed oil, in lard and in meal. A cheap food has thus been provided and is used widely in the North. I believe that the greater part of the Hull landings go to the Midlands and West Riding for the purpose of fried fish sale. Nothing to extend the sale of fried fish where it is not a regular item of diet is provided in this Bill. It has never been thought out so far as I can see to ascertain whether in the South of England or the West of England there is an outlet for fish in this form. In this Bill we have nothing that is active, and based on imagination and initiative. The first thing I think which should be done would be to try fish supplies to small inland towns on the railways in refrigerator vans with fish at railway stations of the inland towns. These vans would be to all intents and purposes trial and only temporary shops for fish to be sold in those towns where fish is not regularly available. This would be merely to introduce and accustom fish to the consumers.
I have tried to explain the defects of the policy disclosed in this Bill. It provides no plan for an increased sale of fish and an increased sale of fish is the keystone of the whole of this problem. I feel
1002
great disappointment. If I wanted to be rude I should call it a Bill of quack remedies. Those who drafted it may know a great deal about otoliths and the science of fisheries but they seem to know nothing about the necessity to devise means for selling fish. Your Lordships will remember Butler's Hudibras. Butler laughs at the quacks of 250 years ago. In one of the instances he satirized, quack doctors had recommended as a cure for warts that the patient should wash his hands in an empty bowl in which the moon had shone. This Bill is an empty bowl in which the moon has shone. As remedies for our problem its sixty-two clauses are not very far short of moonshine. They will not remedy the difficulties of the white fish trade. But after the careful examination in another place and consideration by the trade the Bill will test the views of the Ministry in a trial run. Five years hence there will probably have to be another Bill whatever. Party may be in power. I think the discussions which have taken place and the criticisms which have come from people who wish the Bill well and know the trade's requirements will gave an opportunity for the next Bill to be drafted in such a way as to contain practical remedies. I hope I have not bored your Lordships with my views about this Bill, but it is a Bill that gives me no enthusiasm and I shall vote for it grudgingly.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships by speaking at any length. I do so as a member of a local sea fisheries committee appointed pursuant to the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act of 1888, which as your Lordships are aware deals with matters relating to inshore fishing. The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees representing all the local committees have already assented to much of the Bill, but exception is taken to several matters in connection with the inshore fisheries of the country. In due course it is proposed to submit for your Lordships' consideration a number of Amendments to Clause 37 and also to Part V of the Bill which is wholly connected with this subject.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, originally I meant to confine my remarks to that portion of the Bill which deals with the whaling industry, but I

1003
should like to dissociate myself from the wholesale denunciation of the measure in which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has just indulged. I disclaim any knowledge whatever of the ramifications of the white fish industry, but it does seem to me that, whether all the noble Lord's criticisms are well founded or not, most of them are of a character which could not be remedied by Act of Parliament—certainly not in the present state of our knowledge. He talked about research into the breeding places of fish. That would require a good many years before we acquired accurate knowledge. He talked of the lack of methods of preventing bacteriological infection on board trawlers. That is surely a question for regulations by the Board of Trade rather than for clauses incorporated in an Act of Parliament. I was a little disappointed in view of his stringent criticisms that he did not produce a few more constructive suggestions as to how this Bill might be improved. I have no doubt whatever that it will be necessary, as the noble Lord said, to bring in another Bill five years hence, but at the same time I think this Bill, whatever failings it may possess, is at least a commendable effort to improve conditions, which are at the moment admittedly unsatisfactory in the fishing industry.
What I really wanted to do was to express the great pleasure which it gives to all naturalists as well as industrialists to see some further protection afforded to certain species of whales, because the pursuit of whales, especially in the last few years, has driven a number of species if not to the verge of extinction at least dangerously near it. It may be argued that it would not matter, provided a few were left, if we carried on the destruction up to that point. That is not the case, however, because whenever a species, be it of mammal, fish or bird, is persecuted to such an extent that its numbers are very greatly reduced, even if the process is reversed and persecution stops and may be actual protection is given and encouragement afforded, that species in too many instances seems to be unable to recover. The heart seems to be knocked out of it and for reasons that are not yet known the species seems unable to recover its former status and indeed very often becames extinct. That is why I am very glad the Government
1004
are insisting upon further protection. I hope that they will co-operate and try to persuade other nations to co-operate more in the future than in the past in the preservation of the largest mammal still found in the waters, not merely in the interests of naturalists but also as part of the efforts to improve the industry.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for missing his speech in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It was due to inadvertence on my part. I had overlooked the early time of meeting and I also thought that the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, might occupy a little time, as I had not realised that this Bill would be taken first. I apologise also to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for having missed the first part of his speech. That is all the more regrettable because I so enjoyed the part of it that I did hear. If he will allow me to say so, I think, in opposition to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that his criticisms were completely justified. I am only sorry that our gain in this House is loss to another place and that the noble Lord was not present at the sixteen meetings when this Bill was considered in Grand Committee in another place. He might have knocked some sense into the Government on this particular measure. But although I did not hear the whole of these speeches my noble friend Lord Snell has given me the main points of them, and I have followed this Bill from its inception through all its various stages. For some years I had the honour of being chairman of the committee of my Party on sea fisheries, and for a number of years I represented in another place the most important fishing port in this country. Therefore I make no apology for making a few observations on this Bill, and in doing so I speak on behalf of my Party.
The Bill as originally introduced in another place has been improved there in Committee, despite the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. For example, Part IV, giving certain security to the fishermen themselves, is in our opinion valuable, and so is the direct representation of the fishermen on the governing body. That we think a very good thing. But this Bill in principle, I submit, is basically wrong. The Minister in charge of the Bill in another place,

1005
summing it up on Third Reading, said its objects inter alia were to check the excessive landings of fish from distant waters, and further on he said that the object was to impose a limitation on the quantity of fish to be caught by different vessels. This is in line with the Government legislation on coal and milk, and potatoes, and in regard to many other industries. It is utterly wrong, criminally wrong. It is limiting the output of necessities at a time when there are great poverty, hunger and distress in large sections of the community. Your Lordships are aware that a limitation of catchings and landings has been in voluntary operation for some time. That does not make it any better. It appears to us very wrong in principle to give official sanction to, and to legalise, that system.
From the naval point of view you cannot have too many experienced fishermen, nor can you have too many seagoing fishing vessels. Both in men and in material they are an invaluable reserve for the Fleet. I do not know how we should ever have gone through the last War without the assistance of the fishermen and the fishing vessels. Your Lordships are well aware of the services performed by the fishermen in the anti-submarine campaign, in mine-sweeping and in many other activities. This Bill will reduce the number of fishing vessels and of prime fishermen. It cannot help that; it is intended to do so. It is therefore hitting at the most valuable portion of our naval reserve and is a blow to the efficiency of the Fleet.
Another aspect of the Bill which I must criticise is that no compensation is provided for the crews who will be put out of employment, although there is compensation for trawler owner companies who have their licences taken away or suspended. A great many of these fishermen are not entitled to any unemployment insurance, because they are on shares. That is particularly the case in Scotland, where often not only the skipper and the mate but also the third hand are on shares. They are partners in the industry, and I am not sure that they will get any compensation at all under the Bill. As I read it, they will not, and I think that is a serious blemish.
At the same time the Bill has some good features, on account of which my honour-
1006
able friends in another place did not oppose it on Third Reading and we in this House have no intention of opposing the Second Reading to-day. One of those good points is the power which is given to check minor abuses. The real trouble, however—and here I hope I shall have the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—is the difference in price to-day between what the fisherman gets for the fish and what the housewife has to pay for it in the shop. The average price of fish landed in the ports last year was about one penny a pound.
LORD MANCROFT: About twopence.
LORD STRABOLGI: My figures are from Hull, and I believe that in Scotland, and particularly in Aberdeen, the price was about twopence a pound. The average price to the housewife is about tenpence. There is far too wide a gap. Obviously there is a great need of organisation on the marketing side. But if you limit landings, if you prevent the men from going to sea and reaping the harvest of the sea, I do not understand how you will avoid in the long run a still further increase in price due to shortage of supply. Limitation of output is economically wrong and in the long run injurious to the industry. I venture to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that after a few years this Bill will have to be radically amended. I believe it will do a great deal of harm, and I cannot speak too strongly against the principle which underlies it. In conclusion, may I say how glad I am that the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, made a contribution so soon after his successful maiden speech the other day, and that I only regret it was not longer.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, we have had a severe indictment of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is an authority upon the sea fishing industry, for at the conclusion of the War he published a book called The Herring, and its Effect upon the History of Britain, which I have read and found most attractive and interesting. As, however, we learned from the noble Lord's speech, several of his comments and condemnations of this Bill applied to the herring industry, which is of course excluded from these provisions. The chief complaint of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strabolgi, and of Lord

1007
Mancroft, against the provisions of the Bill, which they say is basically wrong and which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, described as a quack remedy, is that they believe that it provides for a limitation of production. Further investigation of the Bill will undoubtedly prove that there will not be a limitation of production of edible fish. The Bill is designed to enable wasteful production to be limited.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has referred to the trawlers, of the largest types and fitted with the most modern equipment, that go to the far distant waters of Bear Island and come back after a fortnight or three weeks' trawl to the port with which Lord Strabolgi is associated—Hull—with much of their fish spoilt, bruised and inedible. It is that which we wish to prevent. The provisions of the Bill would result in landing less of the poorer quality fish which is now sent to meal and manure works, and the quantity of fish available for human consumption would not be reduced, while on the other hand its quality would undoubtedly be improved for the consumer. Lord Strabolgi has implied that, by the provisions of the Bill, under the producers' marketing schemes there will be a severe limitation of trawling and consequently a great loss of fishermen, who, as he properly and rightly says, are such an important and essential feature of our national life, our country being an island. It is true that for a great number of years the white fish industry has been in an unprosperous condition. The purpose of this Bill is to save the persons who are to-day engaged in the industry. Unless action is taken which will provide in the first place for organisation, the position which the noble Lord deplores will continue, and might even grow worse.
The Bill will limit wasteful catching, provide for keeping up stocks of fish in the sea, and make it possible for the Commission to require by regulation the proper grading, packing, processing and distribution of fish, and for the distributors' marketing board to regulate the condition of premises and the manner in which fish is offered for sale. Lord Mancroft has said that the root of the trouble lies in the fact that the cost of distribution is extremely high, with the result that the wholesale price of fish is
1008
more than doubled by the time it reaches the consumer; but the Bill should give a consumer better value for his money, without reducing the supplies available. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to the fact that research was an essential feature for improving the condition of the industry, and he implied that Clause 23, under which the Commission are empowered to administer a voluntary fund for the purpose of conducting research, would be of no advantage because it was only on a voluntary basis. I would point out that it is not only individuals who can voluntarily contribute to the fund, but a marketing scheme can contribute collectively, and if, as Lord Mancroft says, it is important that at this juncture there should be further provision for research, I feel there is no doubt whatever that the promoters of a marketing scheme will provide for contributions to be made for that important purpose.
LORD MANCROFT: I forgot to mention that when the trawl is brought up it brings up with it bucketsful of spawn from the bottom, and if there should be research, as I hope there will be, I hope there will be some research in order to find some way of constructing a net which will not destroy the spawn on the bottom when bringing up the fish.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on the regulation of the size of the mesh of fish nets, which I would remind your Lordships was agreed to by an International Convention of March of last year. That Convention was signed by ten countries, and I think there can be no doubt whatever that improvement has been made which we are trying to implement in the part of this Bill dealing with the regulation of meshes of nets. Lord Mancroft said that little good would come by marketing organisations under a producers' scheme unless there was some improvement in the equipment of the trawlers themselves, and he referred to the necessity of the provisions for ice boxes. But I would remind the noble Lord that under the marketing scheme for producers it is possible, and even probable, that in the process of organisation the board will make regulations which will cover the very points to which the noble Lord has referred. I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, who has intimated that he

1009
wishes to move certain Amendments to this Bill on behalf of the Sea Fisheries Association. I hope that the remaining points to which reference has been made will be clarified during the Committee stage, but on the main question of principle I believe there is no real ground for thinking that the supplies of fish will be limited, or that the industry will suffer by these reorganisation proposals.
It may be said, my Lords, that we have not implemented all the recommendations of the Duncan Commission in regard to licensing under a distributors' marketing board. Before we consider taking that step it seems that it is first necessary to obtain organisation and to obtain registration, for at present we do not know the numbers of those engaged in the industry in this country. Having done that this industry will be on an analogous basis to the bacon industry, which has been reorganised under its marketing schemes, and now the time has come for further steps to be taken which are being laid before Parliament during the present session. Similarly, in the case of milk, we have had a few years of experience, first in the organisation of the milk industry and the marketing schemes, and now, under the proposed legislation for milk, it is provided that the distributive side of the industry should be tackled. So this Bill is the initial stage of reorganisation. It may be found, as Lord Mancroft has indicated, that in five years' time it will be necessary to take a further step to control to a greater degree, and assist, the distributive side of the industry, in order to reduce the retail price to the consumer, but I submit to your Lordships that that time has not yet come.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND RATES.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the heavy burden which has been placed on the community from increased rates, they would consider the question of appointing a Commission to inquire as to—

(1) The increased cost of living;

1010

(2) The urgent necessity of limiting the extent whereby rural areas are absorbed by urban authorities;

(3) The position from the financial side, especially with reference to the investment of British capital in foreign countries;

and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, those who have asked me to raise this question in your Lordships' House, to-day, have done so because they feel that something should be done as regards the inequality which is apparent in the rating by local authorities. I cannot but think that it is a rather appropriate day on which to raise this Motion, and I am sure many of your Lordships will agree with me on this subject, for down in Kent I sec they had ten degrees of frost, and that must contribute to reducing very much the earning power to pay rates in the county. I am afraid we are in for a very bad time, not only in the South but all over the country. This is no new question, this question of the inequality of rating. As far back as 1906 Lord Haldane, then Mr. Haldane, had a Committee sitting for the reorganisation of His Majesty's Army, and I think Lord Lucan will recollect that on that Committee there was raised one point, and a very big point, about the question of the production of food. It was urged that everything should be done to stop the migration of the rural population into the towns. It was also pointed out by the Chairman himself, Mr. Haldane, that there was a great tendency on the part of all Government Ministries to place further burdens on the local authorities, and that at some time or other there would have to be some kind of review into the basis on which the burden was put upon those authorities.
Well, that is thirty-two years ago, and if it was necessary to do so then how much more necessary is it to do so now, when I notice that the expenditure by local authorities has increased from £555,000,000 in 1920 to £2,000,000,000 at the end of 1937. The individual contributes his share from two sources—that which he earns and any savings and investments he may have, and if those two sources are reduced in any way he has necessarily less with which to discharge his liability for the rates. I have in my hand papers showing that the cost of

1011
living—not only food, but other commodities also—has increased from the March quarter, 1936, to the December quarter of last year by no less than 33 per cent. I do not propose to go into detail upon that, it would only bore your Lordships, but I have taken the figure from authoritative sources and this large increase is a very serious matter to the community at large, and especially in agricultural counties. Not only has the cost of those commodities largely increased, but all the commodities which are necessary in industry have gone up likewise.
I will pass from that to the main respects in which the budgets of county councils have been so largely increased in the last few years. I was a member of a deputation which went to the Minister of Education not very long ago to point out the hardships which we had to face as an agricultural county owing to the new Education Act. I went away somewhat disheartened, though I frankly say we were most courteously received, and if I had been the Minister myself I could have given no other answer than that which he gave. He could not possibly distinguish between one county and another. But the fact remains that if we are going to keep the population in the rural areas at all it means a very heavy burden on agricultural counties. The Minister on that occasion gave us the figure of 480 as the economic unit for a senior school. Where the population is sparse and distances are great it would be absolutely impossible to build those schools on an economic basis. Distances would prevent it, and other things too. In this case I must take my own County—one of the administrative Counties of Lincolnshire, Kesteven. On an economic basis we should require for that County only four senior schools, but to carry out the Act on the proper basis and keep the population on the land we want twelve, and that would cost a county with 112,800 inhabitants a sum of £400,000. I am quite aware that a very large proportion of that would come back in grants from the Education Department, but at the same time it is a very heavy burden to bear. I hope the noble Earl who leads the House will not think for one moment that I am finding fault. Parliament in its wisdom or unwisdom passed that Bill, and we have to bear it.
I will come to another expensive item —the roads. Here again I quote my own County. A penny rate yields £1,833. We have about 1,600 miles of all classes of roads and we get from the Minister of Transport 60 per cent. for first-class roads, 50 per cent. for second-class roads, and nothing for district roads except for improvements. In Bedfordshire, which has nearly the same population, a penny rate produces £6,600 and that County has 1,300 miles of road to maintain. In Lincolnshire we have a good deal of the Great North Road, which earns 100 per cent. but we have also some very tiresome roads which take the whole of the holiday traffic from Birmingham and Leicester to the coast, and those roads have to be kept in very good condition to carry that traffic, and, as a corridor county (because it amounts to that), the burden is extremely heavy on the rates. There are of course other things which build up this large budget of the county council. The increase in the cost of living, 33 per cent., of course affects all the articles which have to be provided for public assistance and mental hospitals, but as regards the question of public assistance, I do not propose to deal with that at all. I do not see how you can get much further there.
But I will say a word on the question of police, the cost of which has become a very great burden. I saw in the organ of the County Councils' Association that the remark was made that owing to the present mechanical age the burdens are becoming almost intolerable. The police on their part are finding all kinds of new devices to track down criminals, and the cost of these devices must ipso facto fall on the counties concerned. When I discuss the rates I am only speaking of the county rates. A lucky County at present is Surrey. It has the smallest rate of all, but it has a large population and a penny rate produces something over £44,000. There is a good deal of difference between that and the produce of a penny rate in Kesteven. I suppose that Surrey carries out its duties just as efficiently as any other county council, and it is due of course to its very large population and rateable value that the rates are so low.
I come now to the question which is a burning one in the counties at present, and that is the everlasting desire of the

1013
boroughs to seize the best parts of the counties for their own purposes. I think a great many of your Lordships will agree that when the boroughs come to your Lordships' House or to another place for Private Bills, a good deal of money is wasted, and the only gainers are the legal profession. I was told by the predecessor of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, that the Parliamentary Bar were lamenting because there were so few local authorities coming to dispute on that particular question, but I am afraid that latterly the number has grown again. I am sure the Lord Chairman guards the interests of the counties very carefully, but I think that in a great many cases—I do not say unfairly—portions of counties are handed over to the boroughs without due consideration being given to the circumstances.
I come to the question of investments which, as I have said, are one of the means by which the ratepayer contributes his share of the rates. Has the time not come when the Government of this country should say that British capital is not to go to insolvent countries? It is no good saying, as has been said, that the Foreign Bond Holders' Association are responsible. There are lots of other investments with which the Foreign Bond Holders' Association are not concerned at all. Some of these small people—tradesmen who have retired, small farmers, and so on—see a most attractive investment at 7 per cent.—say, a Greek Refugee Loan. They never look for a moment at what they have to pay for it; they only look at the interest which is coming. They buy it, and what is the result? For a year or so everything goes on all right, and then some day a revolution breaks out, and their shares are clown to 20 or 3o and no dividends are paid at all. We have just had an example of that today. I see there is a revolution in Brazil. A few days ago the whole of the oilfields in Mexico, where there is an enormous amount of British capital invested, were seized. Is it not time something was done in the direction of saying to these countries: "Look here, we have done our best to assist you in the past. It is up to you to pay what you owe us, and not always on all occasions to repudiate.
It is for these reasons that I have brought this Motion forward. It has not
1014
been an easy one to put down on paper. My noble friend Lord Stanhope rightly remarked to me that these are very large questions; but I am not here to combat the Government. I am asking the Government for their help, and I hope they will be able to say something that will encourage those who have sent me here to speak to-day. In conclusion, I should like to be allowed to thank the noble Earl who leads the House for the courtesy he has extended to me on every occasion, particularly when I was not able to speak here on March 30, and it would have been very scant courtesy on my part if I had not provided him and Lord De La Warr with the material of my arguments. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I am sure a great many of us will welcome the Motion which the noble Earl has so ably put before us. I rise to support the Motion, but I would ask the noble Earl whether he would consider making the scope of the Commission for which he asks a little broader than the words on the Paper would indicate. I would suggest that he should embody in the instructions to the Commission he proposes the words that already appear in his Motion—that is, to put in at the beginning of the Resolution for the Commission "to consider the heavy burden which has been placed on the community from increased rates." The words would then read:
"A Commission to inquire as to—

(1) The heavy burden which has been placed on the community from increased rates;

(2) The increased cost of living;"

and so on. I would suggest to him that if there is to be an inquiry into this matter at all, it is better that it should be as thorough an inquiry as possible. The change I suggest would give every opportunity to make the inquiry a really thorough one.
I cannot say that I am speaking on this Motion on the instructions of the County Councils' Association, because I do not think they have met since the Motion has been on the Paper, and at all events they have not had an opportunity of considering it. But I have spoken in the course of the last few days to several leading members of the County Councils' Association, and I find general approval of the terms of this Motion, and I may

1015
say on behalf of the Association that they would welcome such an inquiry as is proposed. With regard to one particular point to which the noble Earl referred—namely, the extent to which rural areas are being absorbed by urban authorities—that is a matter which the County Councils' Association have under consideration. A special Committee has been appointed to go into it and is now sitting.
As to the general terms of the Motion, it is generally acknowledged that the increased rates are in a good many ways a danger. They are, though people do not realise it, one of the causes of the increase in the cost of living. The rates, whether they are on houses or on premises, and whether these premises are for manufacture or are shop premises, are part of the overhead charges and, as everyone knows, overhead charges form a not inconsiderable part of the ultimate cost which the consumer has to pay. Therefore it is quite true to say that the increased burden of rates comes, in the shape of increased charges on almost every commodity, eventually out of the pockets of the consumer, whether rich or poor. I am sorry to say that this last year rates have been increasing almost all over the country. If you look at the table of rates charged by local authorities throughout the country you will find that in something like go per cent. of the cases there has been an increase in the rates for the coming year.
That causes discontent with the local authority, not always reasonable discontent. Sometimes, it may be, the discontent is quite unjustified, but there is no doubt it makes for criticism and discontent with the bodies that have to levy that rate. In my own county, where there has been not a large increase, but still an increase, we have been having from all directions protests from public bodies against the increase which has occurred. Where, as has happened in some parts of the country, the increase is excessive, where the rate is very heavy indeed, that fact prevents people from coming to live in that particular district, and it also prevents manufacturers from starting works in that district, thus increasing the very evil which was the first cause. Another thing we ought to consider is that this burden of rates will get more acute as the population falls. As we all know, the symptoms of a fall
1016
in population have already begun to appear, and there is every evidence that they will accelerate. As the population falls the number of people who will have to pay the rate will get smaller, and so the burden will be greater.
I should like first of all to say one word about the general cause of this increase in rates, and then, if the House will bear with me, I would come to more particular instances and take them very shortly in detail. The cause in general is, I think, that people all over the country expect everything to be done a little better than they did a few years ago. That is the first reason. They expect to have everything a little better than it used to be, and if you have a thing a little better you have to pay for it. The second reason is the number of new services that have been imposed, are being imposed, and are likely to be imposed upon the local authorities. The last one has been, it is true, a small one, the air-raid precautions. I attended a committee only two days ago considering this matter. We had to see what it was likely to cost. Remember, you have to split your county into districts, each district has to have an organiser, and the first thing that organiser asks for is an office, and the second thing he asks for is a clerk. It is not a very large charge. For a county of the size of my own we find it would come to about £5,000 a year, or almost exactly a halfpenny rate. That is in addition to the grant that is going to be given to us by the Government. That is only one instance of these new services which are being imposed one after another every Year.
Now let me take the principal matters on which the local authorities have to spend their money. They are police, education, roads and the Poor Law. The police system is, I think it must be generally admitted, an anomaly, and if any inquiry is set up that is one of the things which ought to be inquired into. The standing joint committee is a body independent of the county council, though it is true that half of its members are county councillors. The other half consists of representatives of magistrates, and it is a body independent of the county council. It is not directly elected in any way, but it orders very considerable expenditure. It orders new buildings for one thing, and it sends in the bill to the

1017
county council. The county council cannot even question the details; it has to foot the bill. That is one thing, at all events, which shows, I think, there is a case for inquiry.
Then as to education. The education rate is one of the heaviest that we have to pay. The standard all through is laid down from above. The whole scale on which the thing has to be done is dictated by the Board of Education, and the actual administrative body is partially co-opted. A large proportion is appointed by the county council, but the remaining members are co-opted from various people with knowledge and experience of education. Those people are very valuable, but my experience has always been that the co-opted member is more in favour of expenditure than the elected member. The result is that the conditions under which schools are built nowadays are, in the opinion of a great many people, extravagant. I do not want to express a personal opinion, but I was at one of our great public schools myself, and when I think of the form rooms in which we sat then I can only say that we were living in a state of absolute squalor compared with the village child of the present day. Is that altogether necessary? I want to see children well housed, and decent conditions in their schools, but have we not gone a little too far? Have not we gone beyond the requirements of decency and infringed upon the precincts of luxury?
There, again, it is not the local authority but the Board of Education that controls the standard of school that we have to build, and it is the Board of Education that also is controlling—I will not say by order and I will not call it by bribery but by financial inducement—the time in which the schools have to be built. They are pressing to get these new big schools to which the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, referred just now done by a certain clay, and the method of pressure is by saying: "We will give you a grant of so much per cent. if you complete them by a certain time. If they are not done by that time we cannot promise what grant we shall give you." They are really pressing a standard of expenditure upon the local authorities which I do think at all events merits reconsideration. It is a thing in regard to which a local body might very well look to the Board of Education itself
1018
to give them a helping hand in keeping down expenditure. I think we ought to look to the Board for all the economy that is possible in the present state of things. Again, when these schools are being built, I do hope that the Board will take into account the certainty in the future of a drop in the birth-rate. We do not want to see very large sums of money spent on schools which before long are going to be half empty.
Now I come to the next item, that is the roads. They, after all, are the biggest item of all. I think in almost every county the expenditure on the roads is the largest item of its budget. There may be some countries in which there are better roads than there are in this country, but I do not think that taking them as a whole we have much to complain of in the standard of quality. In making a comparison with other countries we have got not only to take quality but also quantity into consideration, and I think it is a fact that for the area of this country we have got a very much larger number of roads of one sort and another than they have in any other country, and of course that means that the expense is on a larger scale. Here again the Ministry have adopted a system of grants, but their grants have been regulated, first according to time and then according to quality. All those who are connected with local government have heard of the five-year plan of the Ministry of Transport. That means a promise to give you a big grant on condition that you put through a big and very expensive programme within the next five years. This action is something which I think is a very good subject of inquiry. Is this the right time, when we have this enormous national expenditure on armaments going on, to spend very large capital sums upon the big main roads of the country?
Another matter in which I think there is at all events a case for inquiry in regard to the action of the Ministry is the standard to which they insist that a main road should be made before they will consent to give their grant. I am all for having good roads, but we do not want such wide roads or such expensive roads in a county like my own, or in a county like that of my noble friend, as are wanted in the counties immediately around London. You do not want the

1019
same class of road in Hereford or in Cornwall as you do in Kent or in Surrey. The Ministry might well take into consideration the question whether it would not be in the interests of the country that roads made in the more distant counties should not be of such an expensive character as those on which the Minister insists in counties nearer London. Again I do not want to dogmatise, but I think it is a matter on which it would be very well worth while having an inquiry. I expect the experience of the noble Earl is the same as my own and the same as the experience of most county councils. There is perpetual pressure for improvements—small improvements which may cost £2,000 or £3,000 each, but they all mount up. I do not think that this is a time when we ought to make them. Most of them can wait a bit, and while the present large national expenditure is going on we ought only to make those improvements for which there is absolute necessity.
Another matter that is coming up all over the country, and a matter that we cannot shirk, is the rate of wages and provision for superannuation. That will probably be urged upon us from above unless we deal with it ourselves before very long. It is something that everyone wishes to see done, but it does mean expense. We were going into it the other day in my county and found that to provide the roadmen alone with a system of superannuation will cost something like an extra penny-halfpenny rate. These are all things that are pressing on the county councils and making it very difficult for them to keep the rates down at the present time.
Then there is the Poor Law. Like my noble friend I do not wish to say much about that. I think that on the whole the system of taking the administration of the Poor Law away from boards of guardians and putting it into the hands of county councils has been a success and has been more economical. It is very hard to assess the pecuniary results exactly, but what evidence I have seen tends to show that on the whole there has been a decrease in cost. On the other hand, you have to bear in mind that people are living longer than they used to. If people on Poor Law relief live longer there are consequently more of them at any one time.
1020
And next we have the health services. First of all there are nursing and midwifery, two very important subjects. There again, we have had the charge for midwifery forced upon us by the action of the Government. The Board that controls midwives' salaries has insisted upon those salaries being raised to such an extent as to need an extra penny rate. We have sanatoria for tuberculosis, and isolation hospitals. That is an expense which we must incur, and they are institutions that must be kept up properly. We saw in Croydon only the other day what an outcry there was directly there was any suspicion even that anything was wrong with the medical services. Lunatics are about stationary, but mental defectives are a very growing charge. That is a new service and the Ministry demands that provision should be made for that new service on a very expensive scale. The cost for mental defectives comes, I believe, to something near £300 a bed, which is a great deal larger charge than most of these people were accustomed to in their own homes.
I think that concludes the services for which the county councils are responsible, but I should like to say a word about district councils because housing comes under their care. The same danger has to be faced there as in regard to other items of expenditure I have mentioned. With regard to housing more than perhaps anything else, we have to remember the danger of a falling population. The time may come when we shall have all these houses built at the expense of the community and we shall not get tenants for them. Then there is the most difficult question of water supply and drainage. The finance of that service is most extraordinarily difficult because it has been done hitherto either by a district council or in respect of a small area in the jurisdiction of a district council. To get a good system the area ought to be a very much larger one. You ought to have the service spread, if not over the whole county, at any rate over a very considerable portion of the county. What has happened, however, is that it has been done by very small detachments of the county as I may call them. Those who are most progressive have done it long ago, have borrowed money to pay for it, are paying off that money and in some cases have nearly paid the whole of it. Then the less progressive places come along and they are beginning to spend

1021
money on the same object when the others have nearly finished paying. It is extraordinarily difficult to pool the lot when some areas have paid a very considerable proportion of their loans and others are only just starting. It is a very difficult question on which inquiry such as the noble Earl suggests might be of the very greatest value.
This is a Motion to set up an inquiry which ought to decide two or three things. It ought to give the Government a chance to explain things that seem to the outsider, or to the interested observer, to be unreasonable. It ought to reveal how far local authorities are responsible for the expense which they are at present incurring; and it ought to show the grumblers who are complaining of all these "local extravagances," as they accuse them of being, whether they are right or wrong. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting the suggestion of the noble Earl. I hope he will consider the suggestions I have made to him as to the terms on which his proposed Commission should be set up. I hope the Government will give the matter favourable consideration. All we are asking for is some inquiry into matters that are causing much trouble and grumbling. If anything can be clone to get them right, it would be well worth the time of any Commission that might be set up.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House ought to be grateful to my noble friend for introducing this Motion, which ought to be of prime interest to a great many noble Lords. He compressed his remarks into a very small compass, but the noble Lord opposite, Lord Bayford, speaking with the greatest authority from his knowledge of local government and his position as president of the County Councils' Association, was able to develop the question with a number of most acute and searching observations, to which I am sure your Lordships listened with the utmost interest. Those of us who can recall the leadership of the late Lord Salisbury here will remember how often, when some project was advanced of which he in any way disapproved, used to point out with urgency what a damaging effect any such legislation would have on the rates, more especially in rural districts. I cannot help wondering what the reaction of Lord Salisbury's intensely practical mind would
1022
have been if he had been here to-day and had witnessed the state of things described by my noble friend and by the noble Lord opposite.
My noble friend began by mentioning the cost of living as one of the elements involved in this inquiry. I was very glad that Lord Bayford was able to say that this question is absolutely germane to that raised by my noble friend. It is quite evident that anything which tends to increase the general cost of production must also increase the cost at which a commodity can be sold. But my noble friend's main point—and I am sure it is one with which the noble Earl will desire to deal—is the singular inequality which exists between different local authorities who have to carry out the duties imposed on them by various Statutes. He specially alluded therein to the cost of education, and mentioned the interesting points of difference which the institution of central schools—admirable, no doubt, in themselves—is apt to make in the cost to some counties as compared with others, his own county being one of the chief sufferers. These matters, of course, all come back to the whole question under dispute, if dispute is the right word: what ought to be the local charge, and what ought to be the charge to the Central Government, of various local improvements and the carrying out of local duties. Of course, it is a platitude to say that where administration or the form of government is left to the local authority, they will not carry out their duties with the greatest efficiency unless they are themselves liable for part of the cost. That, of course, is the merest common sense. But the allocation of portions of the charges in particular instances must always remain a difficult matter and one which is liable to give rise to certain degrees of friction.
Both noble Lords dealt with one of the principal questions, and perhaps the most: important: that of the roads. The greatest social revolution which has ever taken place in this country has been caused by the invention of the internal combustion engine. In the generation before mine the railway system of the United Kingdom came into operation. That was in a sense a revolution, but it was a very gradual revolution and its effects, though large and in a way permanent, were not appreciated in a moment. But the revolution caused by

1023
the universal adoption of motor cars and of tractors has come like a flash of lightning. It is practically since the War that our whole social system has been affected by it. As a result, it has been found impossible to bring our system of roads into conformity with the need—or at any rate with the supposed need—of those who use them in the modern manner. I am not going to dilate on the whole question of the great roads which it is sometimes proposed to make in imitation of those which are being made in various parts of the Continent of Europe, but it is interesting to note, as Lord Bayford said, that considering the relatively small size of this country we are more largely provided with roads than any country on the Continent of Europe, and of course that is even more true of the rest of the world. Therefore I am sure that it is wise to approach with caution, and with a great deal of thought, the whole question of improving our national roads, and to be rather shy of sudden remedies, which are proposed in some quarters, and which might, I think, if carried into effect, prove disastrous from many points of view.
I cannot attempt to follow all the points which have been raised, but I would just say one word on the question of the absorption of our rural districts by the ambition of boroughs, and of course, in a degree, of urban rural district councils, to enlarge their areas. The noble Lord opposite spoke of the attempts from time to time made in Parliament by a town to bring the question of enlargement before the Committees in another place and here. I think it is quite true that this has been sometimes overdone in a rather unprincipled way; that is to say, by a sort of Oriental system of bargaining, in which a town has claimed almost fabulously large areas outside its boundaries, in the knowledge that it will not get all it asks for, but in the hope that having made a rather large demand it will get much more than it would have got if it had asked for less. I am very glad Lord Bayford alluded to that particular matter.
My noble friend touched on the question of foreign investments, as having a certain bearing on this question. When he stated that the noble Earl opposite, Lord Stanhope, had remarked—I do not say
1024
complained—that my noble friend's Motion covered a somewhat wide field, I think it is possible that he might have been alluding to that particular item. However that may be, and whatever the noble Earl's views on that particular point may be, I do hope that he will be able to do something in regard to the matters raised by the Motion. I feel sure that it would be a distinct comfort to those local authorities who are represented by the noble Lord, the Chairman of the Association of County Councils, if the noble Earl were able to say that some form of inquiry into these points should be made. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl will be able to give not merely a sympathetic but a hopeful reply to my noble friend's Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I want to detain you only for one brief moment. Lord Liverpool, in introducing his Motion in a most interesting and able speech, referred to the question of the absorption of parts of the counties by county boroughs, by means of extensions, and I have no doubt he had in mind the creation of county boroughs, although that is not a matter which often comes before us at the present time. If it were to do so I should remind your Lordships that the population limit had been increased from fifty thousand under the Act of 1888 to seventy-five thousand under the Act of 1926, but I do not think we have, or are likely to have, very many county borough extensions. Indeed I hear that there are some towns and municipal boroughs which are approaching, or which may approach in the near future, the seventy-five thousand limit, which would prefer to find themselves in the proud position of remaining the chief town of the county, rather than go out of the county and become a borough. I myself would welcome such a decision on the part of many towns, and I think that the community in most cases would benefit by such a decision; but you have a large number, some eighty, of county boroughs which throw out houses round about and who are constantly applying for leave to extend their boundaries.
My noble friend said he hoped I would see that attention was called to any such endeavours, but in my position I have very little to say on the question of county borough extensions. I only have

1025
anything to say if such proposal is unopposed, and it is not within my recollection that a county has not opposed such an extension. If there has been an extension Bill I think I am right in saying that the county council has always had a petition against it. I must remind your Lordships, if I may, that the whole of this question was reviewed some twenty or thirty years ago, and there was considerable opposition on the part of the counties to what they considered the unfair methods by which the county boroughs were able to absorb some of their most valuable rateable areas. In consequence, Parliament, in the Act of 1926, took certain steps. The county boroughs objected to the method of procedure by Provisional Order, because they said that when the Local Government Board in those days—the Ministry of Health in these days—sent down for a local inquiry the county borough really was in a better position as promoters than the county council as opponents. Whether that was the case or not I do not know, but it was certainly an opinion which was very generally held—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, will agree—among the County Councils' Association. Parliament made a very considerable alteration in the law in the Act of 1926, because it abolished the procedure by Provisional Order in any opposed case, and insisted upon procedure by Private Bill; so that now any county borough which wishes to absorb a portion of a county has to proceed by Private Bill.
A great deal of attention was given to the question of whether you could by any means restrict the extension of county boroughs. After a most exhaustive inquiry the conclusion was reached that it was impossible to lay down a rule whereby you could curtail the extension of county boroughs, and that the only method was that proposals for such extensions should be subjected to the statutory test as to whether in the opinion of the proper authorities such extensions were desirable. I may say I have had a certain amount of experience, and have gone into this question pretty carefully, and I do not think there is any other way of settling it. The situation all over the country varies so much that it is only by subjecting the point to a competent authority that it can
1026
be properly dealt with. The competent authority should take the views of the inhabitants who are going to be included in the borough, and then strike a balance and, if they find it desirable, give to the county borough the extension, or such part of the extension as they may think proper. I think that is the only means whereby you can possibly adjudicate on these demands.
My noble friend (Lord Liverpool) in most touching terms referred to the demands made on agricultural counties, and in fact all counties, although I think he excepted my own County of Surrey, which he spoke of with some envy. I would remind your Lordships that when a county borough applies for an extension and it is granted there is a financial adjustment. In 1913 a strong Committee sat, presided over by the noble Duke whose loss to your Lordships' House and to the country we all lament: I mean the late Duke of Devonshire. That was just before the War. They laid down, and it was embodied in the Act of 1913, that fifteen years' purchase should be given for financial adjustment for the added area. Of course after the War the altered value of money caused that period of fifteen years to be inadequate, and by the Act of 1926 it was raised to twenty-one; so at the present time the financial adjustment is made on a twenty-one years' basis.
The noble Lord very truly observed that Parliament piles more and more expenditure on the counties. We notice it wherever we go. You have only got to look at the county halls. Every one of them in this country seems to have got a new wing, or is building one. That is to accommodate the officials to do the work that Parliament puts upon them. It may be that by now this period of twenty-one years is inadequate, but there is no means that I can see of altering the method of county borough extension except possibly by some change in the proportion of financial adjustment. The counties have enormous expenses put upon them, and they very justly say, when most valuable rateable area is taken from them, that it is a great hardship, but the only remedy is some means of financial adjustment.
I think I ought to say a word on the subject of the authorities who adjudicate on the question of whether or not an

1027
extension is desirable. These matters—I am speaking of your Lordships' House, and I have no doubt the same is true of another place—go before very strong Committees. Those Committees have the advantage of counsel and witnesses and reports by the various Ministries, and they are eminently competent, I think, to adjudicate on these questions of extension. My noble friend Lord Crewe has said that he had heard that some county boroughs may ask for rather more than they expect to get, and that sometimes they are successful. But I would say this, that the noble Lords who sit on those Committees—and I have no doubt the same is true of another place—are very wary, and if such matters were to come before them I feel pretty sure that the question would be examined very closely. I really do not see how you are going to alter for the better the law as it stands at present. The only thing that can be urged on Committees—and I should like, most respectfully, to do so—is that they should use the utmost vigilance and really make up their minds that the extension demanded is desirable before granting it.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, having spent many years in local government, I should like to say a few words on the subject raised by the noble Earl, whose speech I regret to say I did not hear on account of having been called out of the House. But I should like to join the noble Marquess opposite in expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, for the very illuminating facts he put before the House. With regard to roads, I think that the Ministry of Transport insist on county councils spending far more money than is necessary on what might be called the touching up of new roads. For example, they refuse to pay a grant unless the county council puts a stone kerb all along the road. I am hoping that the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Alness, will convince this House and the Ministry of Transport that that is not the safest way of providing for traffic conditions on our main roads, though it adds enormously to the cost of construction, as also does the insistence on a pathway being made along all these main country roads—to be used by nobody, because nobody is going to walk a long distance on these
1028
country arterial roads; they would rather use a bicycle or some means of public transport.
With regard to housing, which was touched upon by Lord Bayford, I do not think it is realised that a great deal more money is spent, comparatively, on housing in rural areas than in urban areas. It costs much more, relatively, to bring the same services to a few houses per acre than to houses in an urban area. The result is that an enormous amount of money is spent on services to which rural inhabitants are not necessarily accustomed. The private owner finds it practically impossible to meet the cost because, curiously enough, although the cost of building has gone up enormously, yet the limit under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act which attracts a grant has not increased, so that if you spend £401 on putting a house right you would get no grant. When the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was first in operation, £400 was an ample sum, but now it is not ample. Therefore you penalise the private owner as well as the county council by raising the cost of building houses and not meeting that increase by Government grants, and thereby increase the rates as well as the costs to the private builder.
The same applies to water. Recent legislation treats the country house in the same way as an urban house, but obviously a water supply in a thinly populated area costs very much more than it does in an urban area. Again, when a county council creates a water district, it creates a rate only for those who live in that district. Lord Bayford's argument on that point seems to me irresistible. Such a rate ought to be spread over a larger area, and I am not at all sure that the same conditions should not be insisted on in the depth of the country as in urban areas. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind in these days that there is often not a water supply. An insanitary house supplied with water which does not flow is much more insanitary than one which is not supplied with water at all.
With regard to the rural aspect of this whole question, the State and the municipalities between them take all the labour, especially at the present time. Nobody says it is wrong to use all the labour you can get for social improvements, but it is an extraordinary thing to go full force

1029
with your social programme and at the same time go full force with your rearmament programme. The two cannot go together. There, again, the ratepayers suffer. The most serious point about the rising rates is that at the same time as the rates are raised the assessment rises also. If you have an increased assessment the extra amount of money raised in that way ought to be sufficient without increasing the actual rate. There seems to be no reason for an increased assessment as well as an increased rate. The Government could by a little more careful administration so arrange their legislation that the national cost and the local cost should not clash and go up together, and therefore make the state of both the taxpayer and the ratepayer almost impossible, especially in the case of the private owner who tries to do his duty towards the legislation passed by Parliament. There is every reason why the noble Earl should be congratulated on bringing this question before the House, and I hope something may be clone in the way of an inquiry whereby this ever-increasing local expenditure may be curbed.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I would like to support the noble Earl, and I shall not occupy your Lordships more than five minutes. I am a member of the Scottish County Councils' Association; we are affiliated to the English County Councils' Association and know a good deal of what they are doing. There has been a tremendous increase in the rates during the last few years, and that increase is one of the reasons why this Commission should be appointed. There is another reason, and that is the tremendous demands which are going to be made on county councils in future. That it just as important a reason to my mind. Lord Hayford, in his most interesting speech, spoke about education and roads. If your Lordships will allow me, I will approach these particular questions from another angle.
With regard to education we have, I suppose, one of the best educational systems in the world. We have the finest lot of teachers, women and men, in the world to carry on the work of education, but the whole of our education is marred by one thing. and that is the size of the classes. It is impossible in a class of sixty pupils—and I know classes of sixty
1030
spupils—to get at the children properly. That is a question that must be met some time in the future. Of course it means a great many more teachers and very considerable expense all round. We know that the population of the country is said to be dwindling, and perhaps pupils will decrease in number, but I cannot help thinking there will be a great demand for teachers in the future.
The other point is about roads. The Government have taken a very good step in taking over the trunk roads, but let your Lordships visualise the traffic we are bound to have throughout this country in the future. I have been shown the possible traffic we may have in fifty years' time; it is enormous. I have not the figures with me, unfortunately, but they are enormous. When you go to Germany and Italy and see their marvellous roads going right through the country, you must recognise that such roads will be necessary in this country. I recognise that the Government have taken over the trunk roads, but when I visualise the future I look forward to the Government more than the county councils, and if this inquiry is carried out it might consider the question of the State taking over the first-class roads of the country. There are certain roads in our country which, as your Lordships know, carry a tremendous amount of traffic and are not included in our trunk system. The traffic over them is increasing day by day. It is absolutely necessary that something should be done about these roads. What I suggest would be to raise the grant we get now for roads in the counties and allow that extra grant to be applied to the roads to which we consider it necessary it should go. Those are the two points which I really wished to make to your Lordships as reasons why this inquiry should be held. I hope that the Government will take the matter into their very serious consideration.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I think after the debate to which we have just listened the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, should be feeling very satisfied with the result of putting down his Motion. May I first of all thank him for his courtesy in letting the Government know the main points which he intended to raise. This debate has really established that there are a great number of points of agreement.

1031
The first point on which we are all agreed is that the subject is a very important one, and that His Majesty's Government must take this discussion most seriously, as they do. Then we are all agreed that the rates have increased very largely during the last few years. Yet it is perfectly true that during the last five or six years, since 1932, the actual rate in the pound for the country is lower than it was in the nine preceding years. I do not stress that point, because, as we all know, assessments have gone up.
There are one or two points that have not really been very much stressed. I expected a certain amount of discussion in regard to the incidence of public expenditure as between rates and taxes, a point the importance of which it has sometimes seemed to me it is very possible to exaggerate. When a sum of money has to be obtained for public expenditure, if it does not come out of one pocket then it comes out of another. While taxation raised by a system of rates may to some extent seem to be a worse burden on the cost of production than the Income Tax, it is no doubt inevitable that a great amount of public expenditure must be borne locally for the simple reason that the majority of us in this country are very satisfied with our system of local government and desire it to continue. I think very little has been said about the actual amount of the rates. The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, did deal with the question of the increase, and said he would like that question to be included in any inquiry that might be set up, but I think he recognised fully that with our rates we, as the public, do in fact buy certain services. We buy our roads, our police protection, our sewage system, our lighting, the better health of our people and the greater intelligence of our people. Those are all things that Parliament and the local authorities between them have laid it down that it is desirable the public should enjoy.
The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, mentioned a number of specific points. He said, for instance, that there was extravagance in our expenditure on education. He mentioned the new schools. I wonder if he is right there. I believe that if he and I sat down to criticise the results of our present educational system we should probably find ourselves in very considerable agreement. We complain that that
1032
system has turned out far too many black-coated workers from our villages where we should like to see our children being taught something about the countryside. We are turning out far too many typists and clerks, but how are we going to adjust that? Surely that question is bound up with the question of more expensive schools. As long as you are satisfied with having in the school a number of little boxes, which you call rooms and in which you enclose children for the purpose of pumping into them a certain amount of information out of a book, you can do it very cheaply, but you get a kind of education which the noble Lord and I dislike. It must be remembered that we have to have a woodwork room, a metalwork room, school kitchens, a gymnasium, school gardens and so on. Those are the things that are adding to the cost of education, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that they are undoubtedly the cause of the cost of the new buildings being greater than the cost of the old buildings. At the same time we are getting very much better value for our money. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, who made the point that the luxuries of one generation become the necessities of the next generation. That is inevitable, and it is a subject in which I think he and I, and also the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, would be mutually interested.
Then there is the question of an adequate supply of agricultural labour. We are all concerned about the shortage in the supply of agricultural labour. We have to face the fact that unless we increase—and it has inevitably to be done at the expense of the rates—the amenities of the countryside we are not going to get the necessary supply of agricultural labour. The wives of the agricultural labourers go into the towns, they see their friends' houses, they see their electric light, they see the water laid on to their houses, they see the far more convenient sanitary arrangements, and they go back and tell their husbands to try and get a job in the town. There, again, is an example of how inevitably the costs are bound to run up. These burdens grow and these costs run up. May it not be because we as members of Parliament and as members of local authorities think that certain services have to be extended?
And exactly the same applies with regard to loan expenditure as with regard

1033
to current rate expenditure. We know that year by year the amount of the loans outstanding by local authorities is growing. Nobody has mentioned it to-day, but I think your Lordships should welcome the last circular of the Ministry of Health in which all the local authorities are asked to plan their capital expenditure for five years ahead. There has been far too much spasmodic expenditure in the past, and I think this question of planning for the future is particularly important from the point of view of the future trend of population to which the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has referred.
Those are certain remarks on the general side of the subject, but a number of more specific points have been raised, and are particularly raised in the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. The noble Earl has referred to the question of the cost of living. Over a certain period, making comparison between 1931 and 1932, the period of slump, and to-day, it is perfectly true that the cost of living has risen considerably. But is it really fair to take a comparison of those years? Did not every single one of us of every political Party in 1931 say that if we were ever going to escape from the trough of that depression prices had to rise? If we compare 1929 with 1938 we find that the index of retail food prices is down by no less than 11 per cent. and that wages are up on an average 6½ per cent. I can also tell your Lordships that the rise in the cost of living has been definitely checked, and we are actually down 2½ per cent. as compared with the end of last year. This is a question that is under continual review by the Government, and your Lordships will realise that the Food Council is continually watching the price of food. You may also have noticed with interest that we have just set up a committee of inquiry into the cost of coal distribution.
Now I come to a point about which a great deal has been said to-day—an extremely important point; that is, the absorption of rural areas by urban areas. If unfortunate Ministers are allowed to have personal opinions perhaps I might be allowed to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said on this matter. On that point the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made some very interesting remarks. I cannot see any solution for this problem in the future simply in terms of accepting the
1034
present basis of local government areas and refusing to certain urban areas extensions for which they ask. I believe that ultimately—I use the word "ultimately" because I am making no statement about immediate Government policy—we shall have to look at the matter from a much wider point of view, the sort of point of view that was seen in the report of the Tyneside Commission, and the point of view which I think was hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, when he talked about adopting a very much larger area, for instance, for water supplies and other services. We have to think possibly in future far more in terms of the region and far less in terms of the small and in some cases rather out-of-date local government area.
There was one other point which noble Lords have raised, and that was the question of inequality in the incidence of rating between rural and urban areas. I do not think it is quite fair, as the noble Earl suggested, to say—
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: I do not wish to interrupt, but I should like to point out that I purposely did not touch on the urban question.
EARL DE LA WARR: I apologise to the noble Earl if I did not quite catch his point, but I think the remarks which I intended to make are equally applicable. I do not think it is quite fair to say that nothing has really been done during the last few years in the matter. Of course nothing can be final, and certainly the present system need not necessarily be final, but a very great deal has been done with regard to this specific point. As your Lordships know, during the last year or so a very big alteration has been made in our rating system. No fewer than 4,500 miles of trunk roads have been taken right out of the sphere of local government expenditure and responsibility for them has been assumed by the State. Then in respect of the smaller roads very full allowance for differences between one rural area and another has been made in the block grant. I wonder if the noble Earl realises how much the assistance given to different areas is varied by the block grant. I find that last year the block grant paid to Lincolnshire was equivalent to a rate of 12s. 4½d. and to Montgomeryshire 12s. 3d. East Sussex, of which I am a proud resident, only

1035
got is. 7½.d. Kent, the home of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope—I think it was referred to—only got 8½d. Surrey, to which the noble Earl referred, got nothing at all, and from what he said I am sure he thinks that that is quite right. The noble Earl must admit that a very considerable attempt has been made already by the Government to bring about some measure of justice as between different areas. The question of education has been referred to, but I am not going to deal with that because at present my noble friend the President of the Board of Education is engaged in discussion with local authorities in order to get adjustments of what he admits to be certain inequalities and injustices.
One last point to which the noble Earl referred was the question of British capital being driven abroad—I think that was his point—by the incidence of rates.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: Forgive my interrupting, but I only quoted that as one of the results. If capital is invested abroad and comes to nothing we become the losers. But I only put it as a side issue.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Earl may feel that it is a side issue, but it takes rather a prominent part in his Resolution. We all recognise that foreign investment is frequently more risky than home investment. Against that, however, we must ask ourselves where we should be to-day if in the past we had made no foreign investments. The whole basis of our prosperity to-day is those foreign investments. The noble Earl asks why we do not take a strong line with some of these defaulting countries. I think he is aware of what the Government are saying to Mexico at the moment, and he will agree that we are doing everything we can. I am not quite clear how this matter comes into the question of rates. It might be, of course, that high rates would drive British capital away; that would be more likely were it not that productive industry is exempted from the charge of rates to the extent of no less than three-quarters. The noble Earl mentioned the Kent fruit-growers. They do not come into the matter at all, because they are completely derated.
I am afraid I have only been able to touch on a few of the points that have
1036
been raised, but I hope what I have said will convince your Lordships that His Majesty's Government do take this subject very seriously. They do not feel that a Commission of the very roving type which has been suggested by the noble Earl would help in the solution of these problems, but they feel rather that the continual review and revision of our system of rating and local government which is taking place from day to day, and by which all these matters are under the constant consideration of the Government through the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport, the Board of Education and so on, is a better way of meeting the need for possible adjustment in the future. Although we do not intend to adopt the method proposed by the noble Earl, we certainly admit the need for this continual review. I will close by once more thanking the noble Earl for bringing up this question and for ensuring such a useful debate.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, does the noble Earl suggest that the county boroughs as they are at present should remain static and that there should be no further extensions or creations?
EARL DE LA WARR: I was purposely vague on that point. I merely said I felt some sympathy with the noble Earl, but in that I was speaking as a county-man, and not as a member of His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I will not say that I am entirely satisfied with the reply of His Majesty's Government, but I certainly do not intend to divide on the Motion. These matters seem to be receiving the attention of the Government. I would thank Lord Bayford for the very able way in which he seconded me, and also my noble friend Lord Crewe for supporting me. I quite agree with Lord Bayford in what he said on superannuation. I am afraid I omitted that subject in my first remarks. I would go further and say that the increase in the staff which we have obtained in the county councils has substantially contributed to the large sums we have to pay in superannuation. I think I read in his speech in a paper which is beside me here that the size of our staff is eight times what he originally knew it to be. Our county building has become almost a

1037
small town in itself. The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, spoke about footpaths. I am afraid I do not entirely agree with him. I agree in regard to the kerbings; although they are not used, I grant that it is necessary to place them there for the safety of the younger people, especially those going to school.
I purposely avoided differentiating between the two kinds of taxation, as I was trying to keep to my Motion, National taxation is one thing which, disagreeable as it always is to everybody, we share alike. We all grumble like anything, and I suppose the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, grumbles no more and no less than anyone else. I certainly am in the same condition. But: the rates are calculated on quite a different basis and, especially in agricultural counties, naturally operate unevenly. That is the point which I particularly wanted to bring out to-clay. I found no fault even with the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, for courteously sending us away after saying nothing. I quite agree with him, and I should probably have done the same if I had been Earl Stanhope.
EARL STANHOPE: I think I told the noble Earl that one of the reasons why he had to look forward to a large expense now was that his county had not done these things earlier.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: The noble Earl said that, but whether he was right or not I cannot at the moment say. But the inequality of the incidence of rates on varous counties was the point I chiefly wished to raise. I particularly did not want to question the necessity for the various enactments which impose expenditure on county councils. That is quite another question. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that something has been done to lighten rates, but I do not think that touches the whole point. Rates are only subsidiary to all the other expenses of the county council, many of which I omitted and Lord Bayford put in. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on business?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that to-morrow we have an important debate on the Air Service. I propose that we should meet on Monday next to consider the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Bill—Ireland, as it is more familiarly called—and take the Second Reading then. On the following day, if your Lordships will agree, I propose that we should take the further stages of that Bill, suspending the Standing Order for the purpose. As your Lordships know, we cannot touch the Agreements themselves, and therefore I do not think that any of your Lordships is likely to wish to have any debate on the Committee or Report stage. I anticipate that debate will be entirely on the Second Reading, which we shall take on Monday. On Tuesday, therefore, we shall have the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Bill, in its Committee stage, the Report stage of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, and one or two other small measures. On Wednesday, the 18th, we shall have the foreign affairs debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, when I think it is very likely, from what I understand, that we shall sit after dinner, as there are a fairly large number of speakers. On Thursday, the 19th, there is the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on going into Committee on the Coal Bill, and that Bill will take the whole of the rest of Thursday. I do not think I need look further ahead, except to tell your Lordships that I may have to ask you again to sit on Monday week, May 23. I hope I have made the proposed business clear.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Earl did not say whether we shall meet at the usual time on Wednesday next, or at three o'clock.
EARL STANHOPE: If your Lordships agree I think it would be much better if we met at three o'clock. There are nine speakers down already, and other names are coming in. If your Lordships agree

1039
I think we had better meet at three o'clock.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: Is it proposed to take the Coal Bill on Wednesday?
EARL STANHOPE: No, we shall take the Coal Bill on Thursday, as soon as Lord Hastings' Motion has been disposed of.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Second Report by the joint Committee, being a report upon the Shropshire Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.] made, and to be printed. The Proceedings of the Joint Committee laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
SHROPSHIRE WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
COLLECTING CHARITIES (REGULATION) BILL. [H.L.]
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to members of the Committee and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.

HASLINGDEN UNION GAS ORDER, 1938.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Haslingden Union Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.