With your permission, Sir, I desire to draw the attention of the House to a paragraph which appeared in the "Daily Chronicle" and in the "Daily Dispatch" of yesterday having reference to me. With your permission I will read it, in order that the House may know what it is. In one place my photograph appears. It is headed: Cheap Jacks at Westminster. One paragraph was headed: By our Political Correspondent, which would seem to indicate that it was written by a Pressman about the place. It says: I am told that someone is doing a roaring trade in the sale of cheap jewellery within the sacred precincts of the House of Commons. It was Mr. Charleton, I believe, who landed on some person with a large number of what really looked like gold watches, price 4s. 6d. He brought one or two in, and soon every Labour Member who did not possess a gold watch (and some who did) was clamouring for four-and-sixpenceworth of 'gold' watches. An astute minor official of the House, with an eye to business, heard of this, and at once bought a stock, which he proceeded to sell to his colleagues at 7s. 6d. each. Now, every policeman and messenger in the House is the owner of a massive 'gold' watch. Incidentally the business man made a reasonable profit. The next boom was in 'gold' sleeve links at one penny a pair, which also had a ready sale. I am told that four ex-Ministers on the Labour Front Bench are now wearing these sleeve links. It sounds suspiciously like sweated goods. I desire to say that I know nothing about this, and that the "Daily Chronicle" has expressed regret this morning. I do not know whether those watches have come in. I have not seen them and know nothing about them. I may say, if I may be allowed, that a number of the officials referred to have come to me, seeing that my name has been mentioned, and they also know nothing of the matter. This is particularly unfair on these officials, as they have no opportunity of bringing the matter before the House. These officials enter our party meetings, and we have implicit confidence in them. I feel deeply hurt at this; and I feel, also, seeing how this is headed, that it seems to be a breach of privilege on the part of the Press to write things about a man—obviously written within the precincts of the House—which are grossly untrue. In order to protect hon. Members all over the House I propose to take advice outside and act on it.

The hon. Member has taken the right course in making a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I myself only refrain from saying anything on the matter because I understand that the hon. Member is going to bring the matter before the Courts.

I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

Perhaps it might save the time of the House if I were to say that, as far as I am concerned, I accept every one of the Amendments printed on the Paper. I think, perhaps, some apology is due from me for the length of this list of Amendments. When I took over this Bill from another hon. Member a few years ago, I was under the impression that it had already received a careful scrutiny from the Parliamentary draftsman. Last year I incorporated in it a number of Amendments which had been put upon the Paper on behalf of the Home Office, and I rather concluded that all the Amendments that were likely to be put forward had been submitted; otherwise I should have taken steps to ensure that these Amendments were considered upstairs in Committee of this House. They are practically all drafting Amendments, and have been so referred to in another place, and unless the House desires any explanation from me in regard to any of them I do not propose to take up the time of the House further when we consider the Amendments, unless, perhaps, to say a few words on one of the later ones in regard to interpretation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Lords Amendments down to page 4, line 22, agreed to.

I beg to move,

"That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment."

This particular Amendment may, perhaps, not be held to be a drafting Amendment. I do not know whether it can be held to be an Amendment of substance. The House will observe that the definition of the word "animal" is being altered so that it shall not include "invertebrates." The effect of that is that it leaves out the performing flea. This Amendment is deliberately intended by its authors to exclude the performing flea from any possible benefit under this Act. I am not sure, but I think that the Home Office must accept the responsibility for excluding the flea from all the benefits which it otherwise might have enjoyed. I believe it was the Home Office that put this Amendment down, and I suppose it acted on the well-known legal maxim—

De minimis non curat lex.

Translated, that means that fleas do not worry the Home Secretary, or that about little things like fleas the law is careless. Of course that lays the responsibility upon the Home Secretary, but hon. Members opposite cannot be held free from all responsibility in this matter. In another place the flea had no friends, and the Members of the Liberal party even in this House are not now present to support it.

As hon. Members know, a flea can jump 30 times its own height, and it displays the greatest possible alacrity in rising in its place. This reason alone, I should have thought, would have commended it to Members of the Liberal party who would have been here when we are considering its hard case. But no! Nor do the other benches of the Opposition come any better out of it. The House is aware that the flea can draw 80 times its own weight. It is the most persistent and wonderful worker in the world. What is more it is absolutely independent of the capitalist, and needs no machinery to help it. I should have thought that this fact would have endeared it to the Socialist. Up to the present it has found no protector either on the Socialist or the Liberal benches. It may be "cabin'd, cribbed, confined" in an environment wholly uncongenial to it and yet we cannot now protect the flea under this Bill. It may be flogged and deprived of its natural sustenance, and yet no Liberal has held out a hand to it; no Socialist has offered it an arm. I am sorry to say that the case is even worse than that, because the Noble Lord who led the vendetta against the flea in another place was your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I trust there is nothing in that Chair to explain the ferocity with which the Noble Lord pursued the flea. Had it been the Woolsack, there might have been something in it.

Perhaps hon. Members may be surprised, and would like to know, why I accept this Amendment. It is only apparently changing the status of the performing flea. No Court of Law could have held under this Act that the performing flea was a performing animal, because under this Bill the animal must be trained, and I am assured that the performing flea is not trained. Hon. Members will no doubt recollect the performing flea, dressed in its little jacket, flourishing a little whip and driving a state coach which was dragged around on a glass surface by six or eight other fleas. To do that, I am informed that there is no training at all required for the flea, because you simply confine it in its strait-waistcoat with silk thread, or perhaps it is artificial silk, and its own struggles to be free agitates the whip and puts the state coach in motion. There is no training required in that respect, and in no case therefore could the performing flea have possibly come under this Bill. On this ground I think we may safely accept this Amendment.

This Bill does not include invertebrates. Perhaps hon. Members would like to know what will be included. The answer is the craniate vertebrates—mammals, birds, reptiles, batrachians, fish and cyclostomes. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that cyclostomes will be protected, because these are animals which, through some constitutional defect, are unable to keep their mouths shut. On all these grounds I think we ought to accept this Amendment. Finally, there is no reason why we should precipitate a conflict with another place over the body of a performing flea.

I think we should all, as far as the Chair is concerned, whether occupied by you, Mr. Speaker, or your predecessor, feel that we need not be anxious about it. What we are anxious about is in regard to fleas that perform on cocks, hens, and even on cockerels.

In view of the general character of the discussion which has taken place on this Amendment perhaps I may be allowed to make a few remarks. There are humane officials dealing with legislation and the administration of the law in connection with performing animals, and therefore we need not show any excessive zeal in regard to the provisions of this Bill. I feel strongly that those workers who earn their living in connection with performing animals should not be subjected to penalties which will inflict upon them a far greater hardship than they inflict on performing animals. I feel that on no occasion of this sort should a man be deprived of his liberty or the means of providing for his wife and family. I think we should be very careful in administering punishment in connection with what might be a mistake in regard to the treatment of performing animals. I hope these few remarks will be noted, and that those who administer this Bill when it becomes an Act will recognice that the rights of man are superior to the rights of fleas or any vertebrate animals.

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

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Before the hon. and gallant Member moves this new Clause, I should like to be quite clear that it does not involve any increased charge on the rates. No Amendment can be moved on the Report stage which involves an increased charge on the rates.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The object of this new Clause is to amplify the provisions contained in Subsection (7) of Clause 22, which provides that compensation shall not be payable under the Workmen's Compensation Acts to any fireman or his dependant who receives a pension under the present Bill. But in addition to the Workmen's Compensation Acts there are two other Acts under which a small number of cases might be included. One is the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 and the other is the Fatal Accidents Act of 1846. There are certain circumstances under which a claim might be made by a professional fireman or his dependants to compensation or damages under either of those Acts, and, although the number of cases may be very small, it is felt that in order to make the Bill perfect those two Acts should be included. This new Clause, therefore, provides for their inclusion. I understand that the Clause will not be resisted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson), who is in charge of the Bill, nor by the Home Office, nor by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are particularly interested in the Measure.

I beg to second the Motion.

I am prepared to accept this new Clause. I do not think that it is really so vitally necessary as the promoters of it think, because we have already, in Clause 22, a provision excluding the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and the likelihood of any local authority placing itself in a position under which it would be sued under the Employers' Liability Act is negligible. But if the local authorities, who after all will have to administer the Bill and be financially responsible for it, feel that there is a likelihood or a possibility of their having to pay double compensation, I am quite ready to accept this new Clause in that spirit. I would, however, like to point out that if the House accepts this new Clause, it will be necessary to move an amendment to leave out Sub-section (7) of Clause 22, because it will become redundant.

I think I ought to say from this side of the House that, while we agree that the obligation under the Workmen's Compensation Act should be excluded in the case of a fireman who receives a pension under this Act equal to or perhaps more than the amount he would receive under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I am not quite sure whether it will exclude the obligation on the part of the local authority to pay compensation in cases of negligence on the part of such authority under the Employers' Liability Act, because, as I understand it, it will still be open to the workman to go to the Courts in case of negligence on the part of the authority. I do not think, however, that there is any likelihood of such negligence on the part of a local authority, and in any case it does not exclude the right of the workman to claim extra compensation under that Act. We, therefore, agree with the new Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

I am afraid that this Amendment involves an increased charge on the rates, and cannot be moved at this stage.

I beg to move, in page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "including chief officers, fire-masters, superintendents, and second officers," and to insert instead thereof the words, "of all ranks."

This is only a drafting Amendment, to simplify the reading of the Clause.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the words "caused by," and to insert instead thereof the words, "resulting from."

This is also a drafting Amendment. In all other parts of the Bill we have used the words "resulting from," and they appear a few lines previously in the same Clause. The mistake occurs because in an Amendment accepted by me the mover used these different words. It is desirable, from the point of view of the reading of the Act, that you should have the same words used throughout to express the same thing.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, after the word "serving," to insert the words "as such."

This is also a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that it is service in a fire brigade, and not in any other branch of the local authority's service.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, after the word, "brigade," to insert the words, "with the approval of the local authority."

A certificate has to be signed by the chief officer of the brigade at the conclusion of a man's service to certify that he is a suitable person to be pensioned. That is all right in the case of big brigades where the chief officer is a man of seniority and responsibility corresponding to a chief constable. There are, however, in addition, several very small brigades in which the chief officer is a very junior person, and it is felt that a certificate of this importance should in those instances receive the sanction and approval of a signature of greater responsibility and seniority.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I. am quite ready to accept this Amendment, though I am not sure that it is really necessary, because the chief of the fire brigade is the servant of the local authority, and the local authority can obviously give him any instructions they desire. I quite appreciate the point, however, that the chief constable and the chief officer of the fire brigade are not exactly in the same position, because in many cases the chief officer of the fire brigade is of a much lower status; and, if the local authorities attach any importance to this Amendment, or to a subsequent Amendment to Clause 6, also in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend, to leave out the words "chief officer of that brigade" and insert instead the words "local authority," I am quite ready to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

I desire to move, in page 15, line 32, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

This Clause deals generally with service previous to the passing of this Measure which may be counted for pension in certain circumstances, as defined in the various stages of the Clause, and Sub-section 2 of the Clause says: Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section, the pension or gratuity granted to a professional fireman who is serving at the commencement of this Act, and whose past pensionable service was not wholly contributory service, may be increased… Instead of making it permissible, I desire to make it obligatory on the local authority to reckon such service in the circumstances laid down in the Clause.

It rather appears to me that to change "may" into "shall" in this Clause might involve an increased charge on the rates, and that is a thing which cannot be done on Report. Can the Home Office help me on the point?

I confess that that point had not occurred to me. The Home Office have no particular objection to this Amendment, but I suppose it is conceivable that it might add to the contribution from the rates.

Judging from experience of these questions, I am inclined to think that the alteration of "may" into "shall" would not be interpreted as increasing the charge, because the word "may" as it stands may involve additional expense. All that is done by the alteration is to enforce upon the local authority pressure to do this.

I am afraid there is no doubt that it would increase the contribution from the rates.

I am afraid so.

May I say it does not seem to me that it would mean any increase in the contribution from the rates? Under the Bill as it stands, the local authority have the right to pay certain pensions, and to levy contributions from the rates for the purpose. They may do that now, and all that happens is that the rates themselves find part of the pension to which the fireman contributes himself. Those rates will be levied in any case.

I myself cannot quite agree that this alteration would involve any increased charge on the rates. The real object of the series of three Amendments of which this is the first is simply to make it clear that if the fireman wishes to get the whole of his back service—he is allowed half in any case—and if he offers to pay for it, the local authority will not have any option in regard to refusing to give it to him. Under the words as they stand at present, the local authority have it in their discretion as to whether they shall give him the whole of his back service, even if he offers to pay his back contributions. The reference to back contributions comes later in the Clause. The simple fact that he offers to pay up his contributions surely makes it clear that it will not make any difference to the rates, so far as the alteration of the word is concerned. That is the way in which I look at it, though I may be wrong.

The word "shall" would turn the possibility which already exists into a certainty, and I think there is no doubt that in practice the contribution from the rates would be increased.

I am sorry I did not anticipate that this point would be raised, as it looks-rather a meagre one, although, of course, it is your duty, Mr. Speaker, to protect the rates. I may point out that in any case it is laid down in this Bill that certain rates can be levied in order that the local authority shall pay their contribution towards these pensions, the other part of which is paid by the firemen themselves. The local authority in any circumstances will have to levy those rates, and all that this Amendment says is, not that they shall raise extra rates, but that, instead of allowing that money to lie in hand they shall use the money which they have already raised to pay that part of the contribution.

On a point of Order. I submit that this Sub-section cannot be contended to allow local authorities to give in certain cases full pensions, even though the fireman may not have contributed for the full period. This is a contributory scheme, and to enable the local authority finally to increase the pension to the full amount, though the fireman may have only contributed to the scheme for part of the period, is clearly to allow them to make an increased charge upon the rates. Therefore, I submit that the word "shall" would make that increase imperative, whereas the word "may" leaves it discretionary.

As I said before, the Home Office have no objection to this Amendment. I take it that it is purely a question of Order. I do not know whether it would put the matter in order if the hon. Member moved a proviso to say, "Provided that no increased contribution from the rates is involved"?

I do not think that that could be done. I am bound to carry out the Rules of the House. I am sorry, but it is clear to me that, in so far as the change would have any effect, it must be an effect that would involve an increased charge on the funds, for which the ratepayers ultimately have the responsibility. I am bound, therefore, to disallow the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 17, line 20, to leave out the words "at drill" and to insert instead thereof the words "while engaged in drill involving special risk."

This raises a question which was raised during Committee stage but not pressed to a division because there was some misunderstanding and I thought it better to hold it over till I could make some further inquiries. As the Sub-section is drafted it means that a man who is injured at a fire, or at drill, gets the higher seals of compensation as laid down in the Schedule. There is all the difference between one form of drill and another in the Fire Brigade Service. The ordinary squad drill is not dangerous, whilst the ladder drill and some similar drills of that nature are really just as dangerous as actual fire-fighting itself. What we want to ensure is that whilst a fireman who is injured in any form of dangerous drill, like hook-ladder drill, should be entitled to the same higher scale of compensation as the man who is actually injured at a fire, that should not necessarily apply to a man injured at ordinary squad drill. I have discussed this with representatives of the Fire Brigade and they quite accept and appreciate the point, as also do the Municipal Corporations. There was some misconception on the subject in Committee because some Members were under the impression that if we put in these words it would mean that if a fireman was injured at ordinary drill he would not get any compensation at all. That is not true. It is simply a question of the higher and the lower scale. In the list of different scales of compensation there is an accidental and a non-accidental scale and all we are trying to do is to ensure that, whilst a man who is injured at really dangerous hook-ladder drill goes on to the non-accidental scale, the man who may have an accident at ordinary squad drill merely gets the accidental scale of pension.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out paragraph (7). [ Lieut.-Colonel Henderson. ]

I beg to move, in page 17, line 38, to leave out the words "and the provisions of this Act shall not apply," and to insert instead thereof the words excepting the provisions contained in Section six of this Act, which shall apply.

This seems to me to involve a matter for the rates. I shall be glad to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

That point had certainly not occurred to me. The object of the Amendment is very simple. Under Clause 6 there are certain definite provisions laid down for the transfer of a man from one Brigade to another with the sanction of the Brigade in which he is and if such a transfer occurs, when the man subsequently retires on pension the local authority from which he retires should be entitled, rightly, to claim on the former local authority for such amount of that man's pension as the local authority have to their credit owing to the fact that the man was paying contributions to the former local authority in which he was. But we found it necessary to exclude the London Fire Brigade from the provisions of the Bill, partly because they asked to be excluded, partly because the Royal Commission on the recommendations of which this Bill is founded suggested that they should be excluded, and partly because they have a statutory scheme which is as good as the provisions of this Bill. We found that if we let Clause 23 stand as it stands on the Paper at present what would happen would be that a man who moved from the London Fire Brigade to another brigade would not be able to gain his back service and vice versa, a man who moved from another brigade to the London Fire Brigade would also not be able to gain his back service. As the whole object of the Bill is to try to get a universal system for the whole country which will facilitate transfers and enable men who are worthy of promotion to take promotion in another Brigade without loss of rights, we thought it necessary in the case of the London County Council that we should put these words in to make it clear that men could transfer to and from the London Fire Brigade without loss of pension rights. I cannot see that that involves any greater charge on the rates than is already laid down under Clause 6 as it exists. It is merely to carry out the provisions of Clause 6 as they were originally intended. We endeavoured to deal with the question in Committee but there was some confusion and we were not able to get a proper form of words.

Looking at Clause 6, I think I might take this under the heading of "definition."

That is what it is really intended to be.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 17, to leave out from the word "Court" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words and the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for the Secretary of State. ( b ) Local authority shall mean a county council or a town council. This is a drafting Amendment on behalf of the Scottish Office.

Surely this requires some explanation. We should not pass it without a single word of comment.

I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will not put any difficulty in the way of the passage of the Bill. I understand this is quite a small Amendment and it is desirable in the interests of the Scottish Fire Brigade that the Bill should be passed.

This Clause has been adjusted with the Scottish Office. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it is in regular form.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 21, leave out from the word "allowance" to the end of the paragraph, and insert instead thereof the words references to the next practicable Court of Quarter Sessions for the county, or burgh, within which the professional fireman last served, there shall be substituted referencee to the sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the professional fireman last served, and for references to Quarter Sessions there should be substituted references to the sheriff.

I beg to move, in page 23, line 1, to leave out the words "a station officer or senior," and to insert instead thereof the words of a higher rank than sub-officer and of a lower rank than chief. This is rather more than a drafting Amendment, and it deserves a word of explanation. The word "senior" has crept into the Bill by mistake in place of the words "second officer," but as the Clause is drafted it does not really make the position quite clear. The Departmental Committee on Fire Brigades laid down very definitely that there was a certain amount of confusion in regard to the ranks held by officers of Fire Brigades and that that confusion should be cleared up by having a definition as to what these different ranks were. We have made some reference to that in the last paragraph of the Schedule. In order to carry out that recommendation we also want to make it quite clear in this part of the Schedule that there is no confusion as to the different ranks. That is why we divide them into the three classes.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 23, line 3, leave out the words "of a higher rank", and insert instead thereof the words "a chief officer".

In page 24, line 5, leave out the words, "a station officer or senior", and insert instead thereof the words "of a higher rank than sub-officer and of a lower rank than chief ".

In page 24, line 7, leave out the words "of a higher rank", and insert instead thereof the words "a chief officer"— [ Lieut.-Colonel Henderson. ]

I beg to move, in page 24, line 18, to leave out the word "sixteenth", and insert instead thereof the word "sixtieth".

The object of this Amendment is to correct a printing error. It is obvious that the expression to be used must be "one-sixtieth" and not "one-sixteenth."

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 26, line 3, after the words "chief officers," to insert the words "including Superintendents-in-charge."

This Amendment is necessary because in some brigades the chief officer is known as the superintendent-in-charge. There is a rank of superintendent which corresponds with that of district officer. We want to make it quite clear that the superintendents-in-charge and the superintendents are of different ranks.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[ Lieut.-Colonel Henderson. ]

This Bill most usefully fills a little gap, and I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) on the ability he has shown in conducting the Bill through to its success.

I should like to confirm what has been said by the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, and to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member. The piloting of this Bill through its stages reflects very great credit upon him. He worked very hard on the Royal Commission and on the Departmental Committee, and he was under no obligation to take upon himself this very burdensome duty. It cannot be said that it was merely a matter of looking for votes, because there is no question in his division or elsewhere of this being a matter of political propaganda. The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to the gratitude of the House and to the gratitude of this section of workers in the country for what he has done purely as a matter of good will towards a deserving class.

I should like to offer an apology to the Solicitor-General for Scotland for having said there was no one here representing the Scottish Office. As far as my knowledge of the Scottish fire brigades goes, which is confined to my own constituency, which has a considerable fire force, they will accept very gratefully this Bill, and they will be very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle for the skill and industry with which he has piloted the Bill through.

12 N.

I should like to thank the House for the way it has helped me in regard to the passage of this Bill. It is entirely due to the forbearance of the House that I have been able to get the various stages of the Bill through at such an early part of the Session. With respect to what has been said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) I may say that all of us are at times actuated with a desire to try to carry through to a finish something to which we first set our hands. It is five or six years ago since I first definitely took up this question in the House, and I felt then that I should like, if possible, to try to get a Bill of this kind on the Statute Book. If it has been my good fortune to do so now, it is due not to any merit I possess, but entirely to the forbearance which the House has shown me in regard to the passage of the Bill.

It may interest the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) to know that I represented Scotland on the Royal Commission and on the Departmental Committee, because at that time I sat for a Scottish constituency. I cannot say that all the local authorities in Scotland have always regarded this Bill as an unmixed blessing. I am afraid that some of them have looked upon it with a certain amount of suspicion. However, the local authorities generally have met me ex- tremely fairly on this question. There has been a great deal of give and take both on the part of the fire brigades themselves, the men in the fire brigades and the local authorities, and I am convinced that if all the difficulties with which we are faced to-day were met in the same spirit of give and take with which this little Bill has been met, we should go a long way towards achieving success.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause is designed to assimilate the law in the provinces with regard to dangerous driving to the law in London under the London Traffic Act of last year. I apologise to the House for only putting down this Clause on the Report stage, but I have not been able to put it down earlier. I think it is non-contentious.

I wish the Noble Lord had explained a little further the purport of this Amendment. I notice that If any person rides or drives so as to endanger the life or limb of any person or to the common danger of the passengers in any thoroughfare, he may be arrested without warrant. There is a Bill in Committee upstairs, the Criminal Justice Bill, where the problem of arrest without warrant has been discussed for days. I feel sure that the sense of the people of this country would not incline to the view that a constable should be entitled to arrest any person without warning. What he does now is to take the name and address of the person and afterwards proceed to deal with him by legal process. I wish to have explained whether the power of arrest without a warrant is now allowed in London and is intended to be extended to the provinces, and whether the Noble Lord has consulted the Home Office on this point? I would be the last person in the world to prevent the police securing power to deal with people who drive negligently, but we must have regard also to the possibility of giving the police too much power in some instances.

My hon. Friend has made a remark which is made very often by the friends of a reckless type of motorist, though I do not say that he is one. They are always in favour of preventing reckless driving to the danger of the public, and then they proceed to object to anything being done to prevent this reckless driving. I hope that the Noble Lord—why the Minister of Education is in charge of this Bill I do not know, though I am sure that he will carry out his duties with his usual ability—will not listen to this plea against giving the constable power to arrest without warrant. I think that when a constable sees a man obviously reckless and inefficient, who does not carry out the instructions contained in this Clause, he should have the right to apprehend him on the spot and prevent him doing further damage. It is all very well talking about the liberty of the subject and limiting the power of the police, but we have to think of the safety of the subject as well.

The whole procedure of law and police as regards motorists—I am glad to see one of the Lords of the Treasury who is an expert in this matter on the Front Bench—requires to be overhauled. We are in the comparatively early days of motoring. The development of the motor car took place only a very short time before the War, and during the War we were thinking of other things. Legislation is overdue to deal with the entirely new problems that have arisen. Our roads are not designed, except the very newest roads—and there we have made mistakes in regard to surface—for modern motor traffic. They are not straight enough, not wide enough, and are altogether not suitable. Still less so are the roads and streets in small villages in country towns, and to a less extent, but to a very considerable extent, this also applies to provincial cities.

In time this will be put right. The country roads will be straightened and widened to be made suitable for the ever-increasing motor traffic. In time perhaps the smaller towns and villages will have to straighten and widen their streets. But that means great expense. They are up against vested interests all the time and the delay is bound to be considerable. In this intervening period we have 2,000 new motor vehicles put on the road every week. The figure given by Sir Henry Maybury the other day, as reported in the press, was 1,000 a week, but some of us went to see the Home Secretary on certain aspects of this problem, and he kindly informed us that the number is 2,000 a week. In spite of the McKenna duties, the public are buying cheap motor cars at the rate of about 2,000 a week. They are paying in many cases by the hire purchase system, and creating a very serious problem

Many of these drivers buy these cars or hire them by the day. There are companies in London, Birmingham and other big cities who hire out cars for the day. As long as you have a driver's licence, which you can get for 5s., you can hire out one of these cars for £2 or £3 a day, and can drive them about whether you know the engine or not. The man is insured when the car is taken out. You have that type, and you have this new type of motor car owner who may not be efficient. Some of them never will be efficient because they have not the temperament to drive. Others have manners which are so atrocious that they become dangerous. They have no regard to anybody else on the road and these include some who technically are the most efficient. They can go into any school which may be set up by the Board of Education, if that is going to be the policy of the Minister of Education in future, or into any school of motor driving and pass any test for driving and yet when they are let out into the traffic they are not only a nuisance but they are dangerous.

In these circumstances the whole question with regard to police powers and motorists should be overhauled. I know that I have the support, from a slightly different angle, of the Noble Lord on the Treasury Bench with regard to this matter. I doubt whether a private Bill on a Friday is the right occasion on which to deal with this matter, but this Clause is very valuable, and I have great pleasure in supporting the Minister of Education on this occasion as on so many others whenever he is moving in the right direction, and, if necessary, holding up the arms of Moses to see that he is not tired when battling with such opposition as he is receiving from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I do not like the amount of the fine being limited to £5. There are many people to whom a fine of £5 is not a deterrent.

I do not want to deal with the obvious case of the very wealthy man, but take the case of the driver of the commercial vehicle who has been ordered by his employer to perform a certain journey, to deliver goods and return within a certain time. The time prescribed often is insufficient. There may be some small delay on the road. There may be blocks in the traffic or the road may be up for repairs, and the man has to make up time. He is clearly going too fast, and he is hauled up and very properly punished. It is not that man who is really to blame, but his employer, who is an accessory before the fact, and when the law is altered I hope that the employer will be compelled to stand in the Court alongside hip driver. To a big firm with 200 or 300 heavy lorries on the roads a £5 fine is no deterrent. In any case the fine is not paid by the driver. Sub-section (2) of the Clause is even more astonishing. It says: If any person rides or drives so as to endanger the life or limb of any person or to the common danger of the passengers in any thoroughfare, he may be arrested without warrant by any constable who witnesses the offence, and shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds. So far so good. It is a mistake to attempt to interfere with these added powers of the police. Take the ordinary man in the street. We are passing a Bill under which a person who drives to the common danger may be arrested and punished. How much should the maximum fine be? The ordinary man would say, "This is a bad case. There should be a fine up to £300, or imprisonment, or both." The ordinary layman would be astonished to find that the fine cannot exceed £5. The amount ought to be increased. I was not a member of the Standing Committee and have not had an opportunity before of drawing attention to this matter, but I say now that this is a weak spot in the Clause. Would it be possible in another place or in another Bill to increase this penalty? This is no party question. It is a matter affecting people all over the country. From the letters which I have received since I and others saw the Home Secretary on certain aspects of this question—the letters were from all over the country, and most of them from motorists in responsible positions—I gather that there is a widespread feeling that the Clause should be very much strengthened in order to deal with a certain type of careless or inefficient motorist. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that it is possible to increase the penalty, or in any case that he will stand absolutely firm on the proposal to give this right to the police of arresting a dangerous driver on the spot without a warrant.

I want to add my word to that of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) with respect to the very grave danger of giving these powers to constables to arrest without a warrant. The last speaker has taken the opportunity of dealing with a very much larger question than that which is contained in this Clause. I would remind him that other deputations have been to the Home Secretary trying to limit what is in operation to-day. I am sure that no Member of this House desires to support reckless driving or the misuse of the road by traffic in any way. It is possible under this Clause for a policeman who is controlling the traffic to take action by immediate arrest, not because a man is exceeding the speed limit, but probably for holding up traffic, which is an entirely different matter. Every motorist, whether a humble motor cyclist like myself or the owner of a Rolls Royce, has found at times that it is necessary to put on speed in order to avoid an accident, and that should not necessarily be an offence calling for immediate arrest.

The Clause does not mention speed limits at all.

Sub-section (2) refers to danger to the public, and speed is generally accepted as the cause of danger. It is very popular in these days to talk about the high speed of the motorist as being to a large extent the cause of accidents. We can agree to that to some extent. But slow traffic is also a cause of accidents.

I never said a word about high speed. I did not use the word "speed" at all. I was talking about dangerous driving, and the Clause mentions dangerous driving. In many cases it is not a question of speed at all.

Hon. Members will recollect what was stated to be the object of the deputation to the Home Secretary. It was confined almost entirely to accusations against high speed. I want to impress upon the President of the Board of Education that there should be some limitation of the powers of arrest in such cases. On the other hand, I am prepared to agree that the seriousness of an offence may be such that a higher fine than £5 should be allowed.

I must apologise to the House for not having explained this Clause more fully. The fact is that there is no alteration of the existing law, except in points which I will mention. Subsection (1) of this Clause is a provision which now exists in the London Traffic Act of last year. The effect of this Subsection is merely to apply the provision to the provinces as well as to London, and to it no objection has been taken. Sub-section (2) is the present law throughout the country. This power to arrest is in the Act of 1907 already, and all we are doing in Sub-section (2) of the new Clause is to raise the limit of the penalty from 40s. to £5. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) says that is too low. I am not going to argue that particular point, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a Private Member's Bill on a Friday afternoon is not the occasion for a large Amendment of the existing law with regard to motor traffic. All we are trying to do here is to assimilate and consolidate the existing laws which govern motorists, and I do not think we ought to go further in this Measure. The penalty of £5 is, as I say, in the London Traffic Act of last year, and beyond that I do not think we ought to go into this Bill. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that this is a matter which will have to be dealt with in any future legislation as regards motoring offences as a whole, but in a Bill of this kind I think this Clause is about as far as we can fairly go at the moment.

On a point of Order. I understand this Clause is a part of the Criminal Justice Bill now under discussion in Committee upstairs. Is it in Order that one Clause should be considered in two Bills simultaneously?

No point of Order arises there. It is quite competent for the House to deal with the matter now. We do not know what will happen to the other Bill.

While to a certain extent I appreciate the view just expressed by the President of the Board of Education, I support strongly the contention of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that the penalty under Sub-section (2) of the new Clause, even if it has been raised, is still far too low. It is absurd that the same penalty should be inflicted upon a person who, possibly in error, fails to stop when the constable on point duty holds up his hand, as that which is inflicted on the person who deliberately drives to the danger of the public. That the two penalties should be identical seems to be quite ridiculous. The Noble Lord has said quite rightly that a private Member's Bill on a Friday is not the ordinary medium for dealing with matters of this sort. But in view of the fact that this is a very serious problem which brooks no delay, and as we are parting with this Bill, I do not see why, while we still have it before us, we should not take steps to increase the penalty for dangerous driving to a figure more adequate to the offence. The penalty is already being raised from £2 to £5 in a private Member's Bill, and I do not see why we should not raise it to something more commensurate with the offence. Of course I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull that in some cases £300 would not be adequate to the offence, but we have to try to make it certain that it is not worth a person's while to risk committing the offence. The hon. and gallant Member gave one case in point, and I will give another. It is conceivable that a person who has taken his ticket in a sleeping car finds himself pressed for time to catch the train, and it would probably be more expensive to risk losing his sleeping car than to risk being held up and fined £5. If it were in order, I should like to move that this penalty in Sub-section 2 be further increased.

The President of the Board of Trade has stated that the provision of the first Sub-section of this new Clause is already in the London Traffic Act, and I should like to know how this interesting regulation has worked, and whether there are any improvements called for by experience in order to make it more perfect. The second Sub-section is a matter of much greater consequence as it involves the power to make arrests. The Noble Lord has not told us anything about the working of this provision in the previous Act of 1907. We ought to examine this matter very carefully before we continue this power of summary arrest. I look with the greatest suspicion on these powers, and I think we should be very reluctant to continue them unless we have a full explanation as to how they have been exercised up to now. We should know whether the accused person has a full and fair hearing, and whether an opportunity is given for an investigation into the facts for which the summary arrest is made. The dangerous driving of motor cars is a serious thing, and strenuous measures should be taken to suppress all tendency to drive to the danger of the public, but I do not think this Clause is going to be very effective for that purpose, and I can see that in certain cases it may lead to great injustice and great hardship. I think there should be an opportunity of examining the details of the Clause.

While I do not think any Member of the House will object very strongly to the Noble Lord being in charge of this Public Health Bill, I think it remains to be explained why this Bill should deal with the question of traffic safety. Had many hon. Members thought for a moment that this Bill was to be made a vehicle for the reform of the traffic laws, there would have been a greater number of new Clauses put down dealing with this subject The Noble Lord said the Bill was intended to consolidate the existing traffic regulations, but it is a very feeble attempt, and I fear if we are to tackle this gigantic problem piecemeal a large number of reforms will be left out altogether. I understood that the Minister of Transport contemplated the introduction of a Bill to deal with these matters on a large scale, and I appeal to the Noble Lord to postpone the consideration of these questions—however necessary that consideration may be—until a time when a Bill has been brought in dealing with the whole question of traffic reform and regulation.

I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) that this Bill, in Clause 72, deals with matters like persons waiting to enter public vehicles, and in Clause 73 with public vehicles at railway stations, while there is another Clause dealing with streets. The suggestion, therefore, that this question of motor cars is not a proper subject for this Bill, which deals with so many traffic matters and with streets seems an unnecessary comment.

I was fully aware that these points were in the Bill, but they are in a different category altogether from this proposed Clause. These matters deal with the parking of vehicles and with pedestrians about to get into vehicles, which is very different from regulating motor cars in transit.

As one who has had something to do with road work for very many years, it seems to me that this is rather a peculiar place in which to insert police requirements for the control of traffic, whether in the provinces or in London, but, after hearing the explanation given by the Minister that it is not particularly to refer to London, I will now take the question of the provinces. If this is to apply in the provinces, it will also apply to all sorts of vehicles. We find in the first Sub-section of this new Clause that it does not matter what kind of vehicle it is. It might be even a servant girl with a perambulator, and if she did not absolutely follow the line that the police told her to follow, and keep to that particular line, the policeman is given power there to summon or arrest. It seems to me that he would have a decent job in hand if he started to arrest a servant girl for leaving a perambulator and children in the roadway. I am not particularly anxious to give more powers to the police than they have got already, because they are not always correct.

I would point out to the hon. Member that there is no power of arrest in Sub-section (1) at all.

That takes that away then, but she could be summoned and have to appear in Court, and on summary conviction she would be liable to a fine not exceeding £5. One hon. Member has talked about £5, but it would not matter whether it was £5 or £100, as it is always in the discretion of the Court as to what the amount of the fine shall be. Again, we have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) about commercial vehicles. The commercial vehicle driver, it is true, is tightened up and has to keep time as much as he possibly can, but even though he may be tightened up to keep time, if he is coming home and exceeds the speed limit, or is driving to the common danger, and gets stopped by the police, I have yet to find the generous employer who is willing to go out of his way to pay that fine. An hon. Member said that it was a mere nothing for commercial men, with perhaps 100 vehicles, and that the employers paid the fines and could pay £5 or £10 or £50; but will they? It does not happen. At all events, it never happened in my cases. You can be told that you are driving to the common danger if you pull out to pass another vehicle and cannot get by it. That is supposed to be driving to the common danger. You have not struck anyone, or hit anyone, or stopped anybody else, but you have gone too near the policeman.

What I am mostly concerned about is the question of arrest without warrant. I have known many instances of men who have been stopped by the police for being drunk while in charge of a horse and vehicle or of a motor car, and then the policeman has walked alongside and made the driver drive perhaps a mile back to the police station. If he is drunk while he is driving by himself, is he not also drunk while he is driving by the police? Then, when the case comes before the Court, the circumstances are explained, and frequently the man is let off with a nominal fine or probably discharged. Therefore, he has proved that he was not drunk, but you have left it in the power of the policeman, who is supposed to be infallible, but is not, to arrest a person without warrant if he is driving or supposed to be driving to the common danger or does not carry out the instructions of the police.

That is the existing law.

I know that, or else I should not have known of these cases. Therefore, I say I do not think it is necessary to have this power here. I think the regulations that the police have are quite strong enough already, and what we want is a little more care on the part of the people who are crossing the roads. It is the passengers who want looking after, and very often they want a guide. They may have rights, but so have drivers got rights, and if we were prepared to give way a little to each other, I think we should get along in this world a bit better, and I am quite sure that we should get about our streets better than we do at the present time. It is because some people are so covetous and greedy that they want to be over the top of everybody else, and not give others a chance, that there is so much trouble. We have heard from one hon. Member about the bicycle rider who is in trouble with the slow-going traffic. Well, we cannot all fly yet, and it is necessary sometimes to have a little slow-going traffic. If it were not for the slow-going traffic, I do not know how some of us would get across the road at all, but we can just manage to hop across with the slow-going traffic, where we could not with the fast. I claim that a policeman should not have the power to arrest because he thinks a man is driving to the common danger. To take a man's name and address and make him appear before the Court, is, to my mind, quite sufficient.

I cannot speak with the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) in regard to driving through the streets of London, but I can claim to speak with experience of trying to avoid the dangers that men with his past experience have set up in the streets of London and other towns. I am anxious that this particular Clause should be modified. I think that the fixing of the penalties at a maximum of £5 is not consistent with the offences in the different Sub-sections. Merely for disobeying the instructions of the police, a fine not exceeding £5 may be imposed, but another driver, who is imperilling the safety of pedestrians by his dangerous driving, is to be subjected to no higher penalty. I do not share the apprehensions of my hon. Friend as to the number of working drivers of commercial vehicles who will come within the provisions of this Clause. The greatest and most frequent dangers in the streets are not from the commercial vehicle drivers, but from inexperienced and reckless drivers of motor cars, and very often happening after the theatres or clubs have closed, and they are the kind of drivers who will possibly be held in check by Sub-section 2.

If you are not to arrest a man who is, in the opinion of a constable, driving to the danger of the public, what does that mean? Is the man to be allowed to continue to drive? Are his name and address merely to be taken by the constable, and is he to mount his car again, and continue driving to the public danger? That would be the effect. If he is to be allowed to continue to drive, the danger continues, and because he has been allowed to go scot-free on that occasion, some human life may be sacrificed, in consequence of his being free to continue his reckless career on the road. While we all wish to preserve the liberty of the subject in these matters, I do not mind if the constable has got the power of arrest in a case like that. The administration of the law has been too lenient in this respect. Even now, as the law stands, and as it is proposed to consolidate it in these Clauses, it is in the option of the constable whether he arrests a man for reckless driving or not. He is not bound to arrest him. He may be of opinion that reckless driving is going on, but he is not compelled to arrest him. He can take the name and address of the man if he thinks he is incapable of continuing his driving, and when he wants to secure the safety of the public by making it impossible for the driver to continue on his journey, it seems to me the only thing to do is to arrest the man, and put him in a place where he will be no longer a danger to the public.

I do hope the Noble Lord will consider that question of the penalty. It is not right that the two amounts should be the same. I think, for reckless driving, the fine imposed should be much more than the maximum of £5. I am inclined to join with the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) in saying that nothing short of imprisonment is a just penalty for men who are reckless when driving through the streets. We in London, especially in the crowded thoroughfares, know how reckless some drivers are. It is not always the unskilled driver who does the most damage. A skilled driver, over-confident of his skill, and probably exceeding the legal speed limit, does not hesitate to proceed in a manner that very often results in the loss of life. Therefore, I hope that the Noble Lord will make it possible for this penalty to be increased, in order to bring about some modification in the conduct of drivers of this sort.

I understand an Amendment to that effect is going to be moved when the Clause has been read a Second time.

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

Clause read a Second time.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 10, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I would have liked to have seen a heavier penalty, but it will be something if we get £10 inserted, as it differentiates between the man arrested for dangerous driving and the man who does not stop. Perhaps I may say a word with reference to what was said by the hon. Gentlemen who has had such experience in driving in the streets. He seems to think a great deal of trouble is caused by people walking across the roads or in the gutters. There are certain people who seem to think that passengers should be punished for dangerous walking. I want to see drivers punished for dangerous driving.

I never suggested they should be fined for dangerous walking.

Anyhow, I think the penalty should be increased, if only as a warning, and the magistrates may be entrusted not to impose a greater fine than the offence warrants.

I should like to oppose the Amendment, and also the Clause as moved by the Noble Lord.

The hon. Member can only now deal with the Amendment. The opportunity to discuss the Clause will come later.

I will confine what I have to say to opposing the Amendment. If a motorist commits a sufficiently serious offence to justify his arrest by a police constable without a warrant, it is quite clear that a penalty of £10 is altogether inadequate, and I think if powers are to be conferred upon the police permitting them to arrest a motorist for an offence, of this kind, the magistrates ought to have a far wider discretion. Therefore, I hope the House will oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it is altogether inadequate.

There seems to be a misconception as to the relation of this Clause to motor cars. It does apply to motor cars, as to every other kind of vehicle; but the fines imposed on motorists are rarely imposed under this law. They are imposed under the Motor Car Act of 1903. The motorist is subject to a much higher penalty than £5 or £10. On the first conviction under that Act, he is subject to a £20 penalty, and, for a second offence, £50 or imprisonment. Therefore, we are not really dealing with the motorist under this proposed new Clause. He can be dealt with under this Clause, but there are other powers far more generally used. We are dealing here with every other form of traffic. Clearly the people who are likely to contravene the Public Health Act, 1907, generally speaking, are people of very much smaller means. The rich man does not often drive a gig, or even a horse or a bicycle, and, therefore, we are dealing more or less with the poorer class of the population.

I am perfectly ready to consider the raising of the penalty from £5 to £10. I think there is some force in the argument that the offence in Sub-section (2) is much more serious than that in Sub-section (1). That is one of the reasons why we have taken the opportunity to raise the amount from 40s. to £5. I do not think it would be quite fair to ask the Government to assent to a figure of £10 without further notice, but I will undertake, if that will suit my hon. and gallant Friend, to have this matter considered between now and when the Bill is dealt with in another place, and if the appropriate authority decides it is desirable to have an increase in the fine, we shall be prepared to put an Amendment down to that effect in another place.

In view of what the Noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to proposed new Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is a purely drafting Amendment which repeals certain provisions of the Baths and Washhouses Acts, now superseded by the wider powers of part IX of the Act. We want to include in the fifth Part of this Act the provisions relating to penalties, and so on which we have now in Section 79 of the Act of 1907, which has nothing to do with baths and wash-houses. Therefore we are taking these two provisions from Part IX of the Act and putting them into the new Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

1 P.M.

I do this in the absence of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), whose name, together with mine, is on the Order Paper to move the Clause. This Clause is one which has been suggested by the Royal Sanitary Institute, which is the chief agency for the promotion of sanitary reforms, and the official body for the examination and certification of sanitary inspectors in this country and throughout the Empire. Anything, therefore, which they suggest is entitled to the most careful and serious consideration. There is a Parliamentary precedent for this Clause, because in the Nottingham Corporation Act, 1923, Clause 92, is substantially the same as this. The House, I think, will agree with me that it is very desirable that we should take every conceivable step to prevent the contamination of food, and the object of this Clause is to isolate food from the causes of contamination.

It is provided that any room in which food is sold, prepared, stored, or kept for future sale shall be isolated reasonably from any sanitary conveniences, and that it shall not be used as a sleeping place; that any unnecessary accumulation or deposit—refuse or filth—shall be avoided, and that every step shall be taken to secure the cleanliness of the room and of all articles, apparatus and utensils there in. Power is given to the medical officer, the sanitary inspector, or any other officer of a local authority, to enter at all reasonable times, and make sure that the room in which the food is stored or prepared is kept in a proper condition. The occupier shall cause the walls and the ceilings of the room to be whitewashed, cleansed and purified as often as may be necessary to keep them in a clean state. In most cases traders are complying with these provisions already, but you get the exceptional case, and it is desirable the standard of all should be brought up to the standard of those who conduct their business properly. For these reasons, and the others I have mentioned, I beg to move the Clause.

As I understand it this Clause is very necessary. Some years ago we used to hear that some of the smaller traders like ice-cream men took their tin cans and kept them under their beds, and that sort of thing. That was most undesirable, and totally against modern practice in relation to these matters. Although things, we understand, are not nearly so bad now, I still hope that the President of the Board of Education will accept the proposed new Clause.

I am hoping that the Government will see their way to accept this Clause. [HON. MEMBERS "Agreed."] Do I so understand from the right hon. Gentleman?

I will hear what is said.

Then, first of all, let me say that the Royal Sanitary Institute knows exactly what is required in a Bill of this kind so far as the contamination of food is concerned. The points seem to me to be these. There are provisions now for dealing with food that is found in an unsound state, but there is no provision for dealing with food, in the way suggested in this proposed new Clause, intended for human consumption. I welcome very much a provision of this kind and I should like to see it accepted.

I very gladly welcome this new Clause. I hope it will meet with the approval of the House and become part of the Bill.

I welcome this proposed new Clause, I think it is a very important and necessary Clause from the public health point of view. I should, however, just like to ask the Minister if he thinks that Sub-section (4) is sufficiently carefully drawn up. It-states that Any room to which this Section applies and every person engaged in any such room shall take all such steps as may be reasonably necessary to prevent risk of contamination to food. Would this cover a person recovering from an illness, say from scarlet fever, or a person suffering from an infectious skin disease? I wondered whether Subsection (5) would cover the cases to which I refer, which says that The medical officer, sanitary inspector and any other officer or local authority duly authorised in writing … shall have power at any time to enter and inspect any room… Does that mean that these officers have to be authorised in writing for every visit, or will it be taken to mean that any such officer shall receive a general instruction from his local authority and proceed under the Act? The point I want to make is this: The sanitary inspector in going his round of visits or passing a place might see something that is absolutely wrong from a sanitary point of view, and may enter the room without authority. The people may question his authority. By the time he has walked back and got his authority the nuisance or the insanitary condition has been removed, and the case is finished with. Would a general authority given to any officer be covered by this particular Clause?

Let me say, as to the Clause in general, that the Government are quite prepared to advise the House to accept it. As to the point raised by my hon. Friend, I think Subsection (4) would clearly cover cases of infectious disease. I am not prepared off-hand to give a legal opinion, but I think that is so; and with the same reserve as to not being prepared to give a legal opinion, I should say that Subsection (5) does mean that an officer of a local authority has to be authorised in writing. What is intended is that the medical officer or sanitary inspector shall be the ordinary official to do the work. They have not got to be authorised in writing to do it as it is part of their business; but if for any reason it is necessary to put a locum tenens, or some other officer, in charge, he must be put in charge by a definite act of the local authority.

Whilst welcoming the Clause as a whole, I would like to draw attention to the fact that Sub-section (4) will possibly create some difficulty. The obligation to maintain the cleanliness of the room and of the utensils is laid not merely upon the occupier or the employer or the proprietor, but upon any person engaged in the room. As under the Bill the word "room" will include a shop, a shop assistant engaged in a room where food is stored will be liable for the cleanliness of the room and the utensils. It seems to me that is a responsibility that ought to belong solely to the employer or his agent. Supposing a shop assistant failed to notify the manager or the proprietor that a room had not been whitewashed or cleansed. If the Clause went through in its present form, I take it he would be liable to be prosecuted. On the other hand, if his employer took strong objection to any representations that he made, he might possibly lose his job. While appreciating the principle of the Clause, I hope that particular point will be safeguarded.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to

Clause read a Second time.

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the following new Sub-section: (8) Nothing in this Section shall apply to the sale, storage or keeping for future sale of any food so packed or bottled as to eliminate risk of contamination. While welcoming the principle of the Clause as it stands, I think it is so widely drawn that in certain cases it may conceivably inflict undeserved hardship on some small tradesmen or small householder in the neighbourhood of a town, or in a village near a main road, who desires to sell ginger beer or bottled mineral waters. As the Clause stands it would prevent him storing a case of mineral waters in some outhouse which, although not actually used for the purpose of a sanitary convenience, might be connected through an open roof with another part of the same outhouse where a sanitary convenience is situated. I do not think there would be serious risk of contaminating mineral water or ginger beer in such outhouse; in fact, I think there is very much less risk of contamination than there is by exposing water to being stored in a room where there is a sanitary convenience; and, as I read it, under Subsection (7) water for subsequent use in the preparation of food might be stored in a room where there was a sanitary convenience. I hope the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment. It is not intended to try to overcome the object of the Clause, but to cover certain difficulties which may arise in rural districts, for although the Bill is permissive, rural district councils can adopt it.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I cannot quite make up my mind whether to agree to this new Sub-section or not. Superficially, it sounds quite all right and perfectly reasonable; but, on the other hand, if tinned or bottled foodstuffs were stored in a dirty place the tins or bottles might become very filthy, and when they were opened there might be a risk of contamination of the food or drink before it was consumed. I really doubt whether we ought to agree to this addition to the Clause, because I am afraid we might get, in a minor degree, some of the evils we are trying to avoid.

I do not think the Government could advise the House to accept this Amendment as it stands. It would exempt from the operation of the Clause all tinned foodstuffs as well as all bottled fruits. No one wants to subject to vexatious restrictions the small man who lays in a dozen or two bottles of mineral water or ginger ale to serve out at cross roads on a Bank Holiday; but, after all, every power given to a local authority does pre-suppose common sense on the part of that authority. If we are going to confine the powers we confer on local authorities to those which they cannot use unjustly, I think local government legislation would become impossible. This Amendment is, I think, far too wide, but if between now and the Bill's appearance in another place my hon. Friend will consult with me, we will see whether there is any safeguard which can be put into the Clause to meet his quite narrow point. One really does want in these things to follow precedent. As my hon. Friend who moved the Clause has said, it is already in a Nottingham Local Act, it is already in force in Croydon, and it is already in force in that leader of civilisation, Hastings, and I think there is always a danger in attempting to modify Clauses which have been carefully worked by the local authorities.

I am glad to hear the Minister say he will look into this question when the Bill goes to another place. I am rather afraid that this Clause as drawn might prevent small general shops in the country village from selling such foods as are hermetically sealed in tins. Personally I welcome this Clause, and I think it will do much good. I can, however, assure the Mover that we did not intend to go so far, and I am sorry the Clause was not put down at an earlier stage of the Bill, because a discussion shows that it may give rise to problems which the drafter of the Bill does not foresee. I hope the Government will look into this matter in all its bearings in another place.

In view of what has been said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, after the word "application," to insert the words specifying the provisions of this Act in respect of which an order is desired. My only object is to make it quite clear that it is not necessary for rural authorities to adopt all the provisions of this Bill at once, and that they should be able to specify which provisions they intend to adopt.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 14, to leave out the words "to the Postmaster-General or".

This and the next Amendment are purely drafting Amendments, intended to exempt the Postmaster-General from certain liabilities, and therefore these words are not necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 30, line 4, to leave out the words "concert or other entertainment," and to insert instead thereof "orchestral performance."

If this Amendment be carried, three other consequential Amendments will be necessary. Perhaps this is the most controversial item we have to consider. Under the existing law a local authority can provide band concerts and incur expenditure up to a sum not exceeding the produce of a penny rate. This Bill, however, provides that expenditure in this respect may be incurred up to a two-penny rate, and that, in addition to band concerts, they may incur expenses for other entertainments. Then comes a number of paragraphs intended to regulate the conditions of the other entertainment. It was felt by some of the Members of the Committee upstairs that this was going too far, and that ample provision is already made in every town for other entertainments, and therefore it seemed unfair that the providers of other entertainments should be rated in order to provide competition against themselves.

When this matter was discussed before the discussion took place on a day when the attendance at the Committee was not as full as it might otherwise have been, because of the late proceedings in this Chamber, and we were by no means a full Committee, an Amendment of a similar character to this was put to the Vote on the Committee and defeated by 16 votes to 13. In view of that fact, it seemed to be desirable that this question should be raised before the whole House, because it involves a very definite principle. I am inclined to think that the Committee was influenced very considerably by a statement by the Noble Lord (Lord E. Percy) as to what had been done in the other place when he pointed out that some municipalities already possessed these powers, and he said they were possessed by no less than 14 or 15 municipalities. On looking into the matter a little more closely, I find that the powers possessed by those other municipalities are in many cases very limited. The Hastings Corporation, acting for a town which we are told is in the very van of progress, obtained an Act of Parliament only last year to extend their powers, and naturally as a seaside resort they were desirous, and legitimately so, of having greater powers in the way of entertainments than an ordinary borough. In Clause 124 of the Bill they promoted it is true that they obtained certain powers for the provision of entertainments, but Parliament did not take last year the same view with regard to the Hastings Corporation powers that the Noble Lord himself took the other day. Sub-section (5) of the Hastings Corporation Act provides that Nothing in this Section shall enable the Corporation themselves to use any concert hall, pavilion, winter garden or assembly room erected under the powers of this Act for a performance at such places by a professional company of performers, or enable the Corporation to carry on there in the business of a cinema theatre. In view of the fact that the constituency which the Noble Lord represents was not granted last year the powers he is now seeking to confer upon all municipalities—provided the Minister of Health agrees, because this Clause falls in a section of the Bill which can only be applied provided the sanction of the Minister of Health is obtained—nevertheless this provision would confer upon all municipal authorities in this country certain powers which last year Parliament definitely decided should not be conferred upon the Corporation of Hastings. The views of the Members of the last Parliament on matters connected with municipal trading were not quite the same as the views of the Members of the present Parliament, and if a Parliament like the last, which was much more friendly to municipal trading, was unwilling to confer these powers, then I do not think they should be conferred by a side wind in the way which is now proposed. For the reasons I have mentioned, and because it is not fair to the promoters of entertainments, and those employed by them, that they should be prejudiced by this Clause as it stands, I desire to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece).

My name is not on the Order Paper to-day, but I put down this Amendment in Committee, and I am afraid that the Committee upstairs failed to realise the great importance of it. It affects in a very material manner th6 whole of the theatrical profession, and particularly the provincial actor, the provincial music hall performer, and those artists who earn a precarious living by touring throughout the provinces and visiting our smaller cities and towns.

Does the hon. Member second the Amendment?

Yes, I beg to second the Amendment.

Their living is one got very hardly in the very best of times and if they are to be subjected to competition from the municipality or local authority who have at their disposal without any rent the public park or other public place, where at the expense of the people they have railed off a portion or possibly built a bandstand or a stage for the purposes of public performances, a part of the expense of which they are able to pay out of the rate which they are permitted to levy, the chances of the provincial actor, the pierrot company, or the music hall performer of getting an engagement in that town will be very small indeed. This strikes at the very roots of our touring theatrical profession. It might very easily close down small theatres and music halls in our provincial towns. I have here a letter which I received this morning and which will confirm what I am saying. It is from the Theatrical Managers' Association, and they say:— The theatrical interests have already protested to the Prime Minister in writing; they do not accept the suggestion of the Ministry that 15 boroughs possess these powers under the Bill. They contend that where they do there is in nearly every case serious friction if the municipality tries to exercise these powers, and they assert, finally, that, if you extend these powers unsolicited to the hundreds of local authorities all over the country, you will be sowing very serious seeds of friction, and will undoubtedly be leading to unemployment among the staffs of the many houses of entertainment which even now can hardly carry on. That is sent by the Parliamentary representative of the Theatrical Managers Association. I would appeal to the House and to the Noble Lord opposite to consider this matter very seriously. There is no doubt that this will give power to a municipality to compete, not on fair but on unfair terms by reason of the subsidy out of the rate, with ordinary providers of amusements in our towns throughout the country, and for this reason I do beg the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, before this is done, to give the matter his very earnest consideration, and, if possible, to cancel this particular Clause.

I oppose this Amendment. I agree that the question had very careful consideration in Committee, and, while there was not a good attendance there, all the parties were fairly represented and took part in the discussion It was a reasonably long discussion considering the business that was before the Committee. The Mover of the Amendment says that the Bill goes too far. Let us see how far it really goes. It is surprising that hon. Members should get up and talk so long and say so much about small points of this description and make it appear that a tremendous number of people are going to be injured The Clause gives a local authority power to provide or contribute towards providing any concert or other entertainment given in the park or pleasure ground. Surely the time has gone for this kind of talk about this going too far. For a considerable number of years now local authorities have had the power by Act of Parliament to provide band performances. The same arguments used to be stated against municipalities providing band performances in the park, but will anyone get up now and say that these performances should not be provided? The opponents of this Clause themselves say that they will be pleased for the municipalities to continue to provide the class of performance that they have been providing. At the outset, it was objected that it was going to compete with musicians and would impede the progress of private enterprise. Why have hon. Members changed their opinions? It is because the local authorities have provided this class of entertainment and the people have rallied round and supported them in doing so. The ratepayers in the district are in favour of the Clause contained in the Bill, and they entirely agree that local authorities should have the power to provide these entertainments.

This is an agreed Bill and this particular Clause had the careful consideration of all the people interested before it was brought before the House. All parties are agreed that the experiment of providing entertainments and band performances has proved successful and that there is a need to extend it. The inhabitants and the ratepayers of the district are supporting the local authorities, and therefore it has been agreed by all parties that this should be brought before the House. The last speaker said something with regard to competition. These entertainments are given in the open air at a time when there is not very much employment for people who are usually engaged in providing entertainments in stuffy rooms. This Clause would allow the local authorities to engage those people who are thrown out of employment because of people refusing to go into stuffy rooms during the weather we have been having, and, therefore, it will relieve the unemployed musician, and. I think that that ought to be one of the main reasons why this House should refuse this Amendment. Is this House afraid to leave it to the local authorities to decide what kind of entertainments they will arrange? It is certain that no local authority will ever attempt to arrange any kind of entertainment that will compete with any of the people about whom the last speaker has been talking. The people in the different districts want this to be done, and they have put their case before those responsible for this Bill. It has been agreed by all parties that this power ought to be granted to local authorities, and I hope that on these grounds the House will turn this Amendment down.

I regret—or rather I should say I am pleased—that I cannot accept this Amendment. We tried in Committee to meet the opposition in every way possible, and we did agree that instead of a 2d. rate being allowed, it should be 1d. I suggest to the House that no corporation will be able to provide very much competition with the legitimate theatrical and music hall proprietors on a 1d. rate, but I am prepared even now to meet them a little, because none of us desire that corporations should produce stage plays or be proprietors of cinemas. If the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) will accept my suggestion that he should leave in the word "concert" and leave out the words "or other entertainment," I think I might, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, be prepared to accept the Amendment.

I should like to point out that the opposition to this particular Clause has certainly, as has been already stated, been engineered by the theatrical managers. They are very fearful as to the future of their industry. They fear the competition of corporations, who have a 1d. rate with which to do it. I suggest that the real trouble of that industry is that there is too much competition amongst themselves. There has been overbuilding of these places, and any competition from the corporations has not very much bearing on the case. I have friends in that business, and am very sympathetic towards their point of view, but I think they need not worry too much about this question of competition from corporations. I heard one of them grumble about the considerable competition he received from the last General Election, when people, instead of going into his cinemas, were going to political meetings; and I have heard them grumble considerably at the competition from the sunshine, and pray and hope for wet weather so that they may get a lot of people in. I do not think, therefore, that we ought to take too much notice of that opposition.

I notice that this Amendment was really down in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece), and I might point out that Ashton-under-Lyne, in which division the hon. Member had some interest at one time, has these powers, and Lytham St. Anne's also has this power. I would suggest, therefore, that, if my hon. Friend went to his own constituency and suggested that they should not have the same powers as Lytham St. Anne's, which is a neighbouring town, they would not like it very much. Bearing in mind the fact that this Bill altogether is a consolidating Bill, to give to all local authorities general powers that are now enjoyed by some, I think this Clause should stand. If the hon. Member for Reading is prepared to accept my suggestion, I think we might settle the matter in a way that would be satisfactory to all parties.

I do not think my hon. Friend's suggestion is satisfactory. The word "concert" is such a wide one, judging by all the concerts I have attended at one time and another, that I think every kind of entertainment might be brought under the heading of a concert.

The definition of the word "concert" in the dictionary is A musical entertainment in which several voices or instruments take part. I do not think, therefore, that my hon. Friend need worry about that.

The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) rightly said, when he moved this Amendment, that the subject was a controversial one. I can assure him that it is a very controversial subject, as I shall endeavour to show. We on these benches are very keen to see that the Bill as it stands now shall go through in so far as it covers this point. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Reading a question. He never explained to us where the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece) is to-day—

May I explain that my hon. Friend's wife is rather seriously unwell, and that is the cause of his absence?

I am sure we are all very sorry to hear that. I want to bring this subject down to a concrete basis. I happen to live in Manchester, and the Corporation of that city is a very progressive one. It provides the citizens of Manchester with music, and, moreover, what is important, music that is other than orchestral music. It not only pro- vides bands in the parks—the best bands in the country, and the best bands in the country, by the way, happen to come from my own Division—but it provides choirs, male, female and mixed, and also children's choirs. I would ask, since when has it come about that this House should have more regard for profit-making shareholders in the entertainment business than for the welfare of the whole community? The hon. Member for Reading said we ought to accept his Amendment because some ratepayers would be providing entertainment against themselves. I do not know who owns the many entertainment places in my city, but I dare venture to say that a number of the owners do not reside in Manchester at all. Their whole concern with entertainment places is not so much to provide entertainment for the citizens of Manchester, but to invest their money in these concerns in order that they may make a profit out of the people. The same applies, I suppose, to all cities and towns in the country.

I would go further, taking Manchester again as an example. If this Amendment were carried, the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education may find his Department in a difficulty. Every secondary school provides an entertainment occasionally, which is very often orchestral, but there are other schools whose pupils provide other kinds of entertainments. They provide, for instance, entertainments by playing pieces from Shakespeare and other authors. If we allow this Amendment to be carried, I foresee that every education authority in the land will be in a difficulty, unless, of course, the 1d. rate mentioned in the Bill would cover the cost of the entertainment, or a collection or admission charge was taken in connection with these entertainments. The Noble Lord shakes his head, but I happen to have been a member of a city council for 10 years, and I know full well that it does not matter very much what interpretation is placed upon a piece of law in this House; it is the interpretation placed upon it by the majority of the local council that matters very often. Let me pass on to another phase of the question. I should like to ask the Mover of the Amendment what he means by orchestral music? I have looked up the dictionaries in the House—and they are many—as to the meaning of the term "orchestra." I do not know whether he knows more about music than I do. He is a fellow Welshman, and we are supposed to know a lot. I find that the meaning of orchestra is: a space in which the chorus dances. I take it that if we took the meaning of orchestra from a dictionary, this Amendment would have no avail at all in law because, when the Judges came to decide what was orchestral music, they would find themselves in a quandary unless they were musically inclined, and I have never heard of a Judge who was musically inclined.

We are to-day faced with the old problem as to whether the community shall prevail against the interests of individuals within the community. This question has been fought over and over again. The arguments used to-day against the extension of the powers of local authorities in this connection were used a quarter of a century ago when the local authorities wanted to undertake the task of providing gas, electricity, water, roads, education and all manner of things for the community. I venture to prophesy that it matters very little what this or the next Government thinks about the issue, the municipalities of this land will continue to extend their operations even to provide for the people entertainment and enjoyment irrespective of the opposition of those who desire to make profits for themselves.

A local authority can, after all, secure better performers than a private company. How many private firms running entertainments have become bankrupt and left their playing companies without anything to meet even their train fare home? Every company, every band and every choir engaged by a municipality is paid for its services, and hon. Members in this House to-day will live long enough to see that municipalities will undertake a still greater part of this work than they have done in the past.

I was very sorry the hon. Member in charge of the Bill gave way at all in this connection. I will return again to the case of the Manchester Corporation. It has recently bought the Free Trade Hall at a cost, I think, of about £70,000, and it provides entertainments of the best quality at about half the cost of that provided by private companies. Let me give an example, because we have to speak from experience of the problem. I telephoned last Christmas for seats for a performance of Handel's "Messiah," and the cheapest seat I could get was 7s. I retorted rather angrily that if the "Messiah" knew that such a charge would in 1924 be placed upon a musical performance of His life, He would never have come to the earth at all.

We are determined on these benches to secure for municipalities the same power to provide entertainments for the people as private capitalists. I feel sure, though I speak for myself, that I can carry every Member on this side of the House with me; and if the Government will not allow the Clause to stand as it is now worded and accept the Amendment we shall go to a division.

I fail to understand the philosophy, the idea, the notion, that has grown on some people that in providing entertainments of any kind all you must have regard for is whether those who provide them will suffer a loss or not. Let me ask what consideration do those people give to the community? I live in a district in my city where the theatre is a good distance away. If I want to hear music I must go to a public park, and I prefer going to the public park. The corporation provides music and calls for a payment for admission, and so far as I know the whole cost is met that way. But I want to lay it down as a principle in municipal affairs that where a corporation decides to do anything for its citizens it shall be entitled to do it by subsidy out of the rates if it so desires. We had a Debate when this Bill was before the House on a previous occasion, on Second Reading, on the question of the title of a municipality to allow free admission to public baths. What is there wrong in a municipality providing public baths free of charge to its citizens? It does so now for school children, and rightly so, because not only is it a question of cleanliness, it is also a question of education, to teach boys and girls how to swim and to behave and discipline themselves. This matter has been fought over and over again. I have seen Resolutions carried in the House against municipalisation, and against nationalisation, but in spite of all the protests and of all that has been written against the idea, municipalisation grows, and in regard to the provision of public enter- tainments by municipal authorities I am prepared to see the day coming when the municipality arranges all manner and types of entertainment, if it so desires, on behalf of its citizens, and I object to the Amendment.

The speech we have just heard may be a very fine statement of principle and faith, but I do not know that it particularly contributes towards the task of getting a very complicated and a very important public health Measure like this through the House of Commons. After all, you cannot get a Measure of this size through the House of Commons unless it is an agreed Measure. This has been an agreed Measure, and I hope hon. Members opposite will not use it as an opportunity for giving us lectures about municipalisation, an issue which is really not raised by the Clause or necessarily by the Amendment. Really, the issue involved is not as to whether municipalities should go in for these entertainments. It is whether you should allow a municipality a reasonable latitude to entertain people in their parks, and only in their parks, with some other form of entertainment than a band. The promoters of the Bill and the Ministry have had to deal with numbers of these points where different interests have to be considered, and we have done it with perfect success and we have produced a very useful Bill. Unfortunately the representatives of the theatrical managers and entertainers never took any interest in it till the last moment, and we have had no opportunity of discussing this thing with them. The difficulty is that I really do not think the theatrical industry understands the purpose or effect of the Clause. What they are trying to do by this Amendment is to rule out what they call orchestral music, whatever that may mean. That does not merely prevent a local authority from providing an entertainment of another kind. It prevents them from contributing towards such an entertainment. It prevents them from letting the park or ground to any person for the purpose of providing the same. It prevents them from letting their park or even giving their park for the purpose of charges to be made for a company which is to give an open-air play.

If you give a local authority some latitude for allowing the use of public places for the purpose of entertainment, you will make the lot of the entertainment profession rather easier. I rather doubt from some of the speeches that I have heard and some of the Amendments which have been put down, whether the people who are opposing this Clause are the actors and the actresses and the managers concerned; whether it is in their interest that the Amendment has been put down, or whether it is in the interests of the people who have halls or theatres which they wish to let. That is a very different proposition. It seems to me that an Amendment of this kind should have some logical basis. It is logical to say you may have no form of entertainment, but it is not logical to say. "You may provide a band and we will make the band sound nicer by calling it an orchestra. You may provide brass instruments or string instruments for the amusement of the people, but you may not provide a park for the purpose. You may not give an opportunity for the various local choirs in the West Riding of Yorkshire, for instance, to come together in one of the parks and give an entertainment."

Is it not rather absurd that where there are associations of professional actors and actresses, such as the association for which Miss Lena Ashwell has done so much in providing Shakespearean plays in the poorer parts of London, that you should not allow these people to give an open-air entertainment in one of the parks, although you may facilitate their taking a hall or a theatre. We wish to facilitate that kind of entertainment. Nobody proposes, as a matter of practical politics, that local authorities should go into the business of cinema or entertainment providers in the parks. The bark of the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is a good deal worse than his bite. He talks about municipalisation, but he does not want to be a cinema proprietor himself.

Does the Noble Lord deal in this Clause with circuses that are sometimes provided in these public places?

2.0 P.M.

Yes, there is the question of circuses. I do not think any local authority wants to provide them. We have had no opportunity of consultation with the Opposition on this Clause, as we have had on other Clauses. I agree with the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) that there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment which was put into the Hastings Corporation Bill. That had escaped my attention in Committee the other day. That is the only case where any such restriction has been put in.

It is the most recent.

Does the hon. Member suggest that that restriction has anything to do with this Clause? It prevents the Hastings Corporation from using concert halls, pavilions, conservatories, winter gardens and assembly rooms. This Clause deals with parks. I suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw this Amendment now, and consult with the promoters of the Bill and the Ministry of Health between now and the time when this Bill goes to another place. We should be perfectly prepared to work out with them a proviso, the principle of which I would suggest on the lines of the latter part of the Hastings Clause, namely, that this Bill should not authorise any local authorities themselves to carry on the business of a cinema or the business of a theatre. I do not think that we ought in an agreed Bill like this to launch out into giving powers to local authorities to become the regular owners and managers of theatres. That is a thing that a local authority might ask for itself under a local Act, but it is not the sort of thing that we should put into a Bill like this. I appeal to my hon. Friend to consult with me and the promoters of the Bill with a view to the insertion in another place of a proviso of the kind I have suggested. We can work out an agreed proviso, and the Government will be prepared to put an Amendment down. If we fail to agree, my hon. Friend could perhaps get it moved in another place. I feel certain that we shall be able to get an agreed Clause.

I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied as a Member of this House who was not a Member of the Committee with the proposal that the Noble Lord has just put before the House, and for the reasons which he has given. He spoke of a special reservation in the recent Act of the Hastings Corporation. What we have to consider in this House is the legislation which this particular Bill proposes to consolidate. This particular Clause refers to the Public Health Acts. Amendment Act, 1907, and I find there that in Section 76, paragraph ( d ), the powers given by Parliament are quite definite. They are: To provide or contribute towards the expenses of any band of music to perform in the park or grounds. The Noble Lord said that this Amendment proposed an orchestra, whatever that might be. A band of music means something quite clear and which we understand. Any other form of music or entertainment is not authorised under the Public Health Act Amendment Act, 1907. I ask the House to go a step further in this same Section. The next paragraph says that the public authority is authorised to enclose any part of the park or ground not exceeding an acre for the convenience of persons listening to the band music and charge admission thereto. That means an open-air concert for a band of music, but in paragraph ( g ) it is stated that they may provide or maintain a reading room pavilion or other building and conveniences and charge for admission thereto subject in the case of a reading room to certain limitations. There are no limitations in regard to the buildings for other purposes. Therefore it is clear that without this Amendment any public authority would be empowered not only to enclose part of the public park but to erect a building and hold in it any form of entertainment.

May I point out that this Clause deals with Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Act of 1907?

Sub-section (1) is the only-one which I have quoted. These are the the provisos in Sub-section (1). The contention which I have made is as to the effect of this new Bill if unamended. We have been told again and again that this is simply a Bill for consolidation, an agreed Bill and so on. Then what is the justification for introducing here an Amendment to the existing law which would undoubtedly do what the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) candidly told the House it was the intention to do, namely, to enable the local authorities to provide in the public park any kind of entertainment which was given by any private enterprise at the present time. The hon. Member for Southwark mentioned circuses, an ominous reminder of the classic example of another Empire that went in the same direction. It is another instance of panem et circenses. A very large proportion of our population, through no fault of their own, are provided with bread, that they are given no opportunity under our existing industrial system of earning at the present time. This is a Bill which is said to be a mere consolidation Bill, but which is to provide the circuses at the public expense and every other kind of entertainment as well. The more things change the more it is the same thing. That is the translation of a very trite old French motto. It is very true. What is true of one Empire going down the hill will inevitably be true of another Empire nearly 2,000 years afterwards.

I do not agree with any compromise whatever on this question. This is a simple consolidation Bill, and the only justification for some 70 or 80 Clauses being put through this House on Report stage on Friday afternoon is that it does not propose any great change in the law. This particular proposal does provide a great change in the law. Stuffy rooms have been referred to just now. Why should we assume that these entertainments will be in the open park? I have just shown that there is nothing to prevent a local authority providing the appropriate stuffy rooms in the public park for every conceivable kind of entertainment which they may wish to give at the expense of the ratepayers. We are told by the hon. Member for Westhoughton that some of these providers of public entertainment are not resident in Manchester, but earn their profits in Manchester. If they earn their profits in Manchester they pay rates in Manchester, and it is unjust that the public authorities should use their rates in order to cut their throats. It is a new principle, and one to which I am not prepared to agree. Summer time and bands go well together, but to provide summer time cinemas and circuses in the buildings erected at the ratepayers' expense—

For the health and recreation of the public.

To keep them away from cricket and other outdoor games, and give them fresh incentives to youthful crime at the public expense, is a principle to which I will not subscribe. I hope that the mover of this Amendment will stand on his Amendment. I do not care about the substitution of the word "orchestra." The plain English word "band" is enough. Most people know what a band means as in the Act of 1907. I think it a pity that we do not stick to that simple word. There has been a, precedent for it for 18 years, but if "orchestra" is considered preferable, then stick to "orchestra" and cut out all other kinds of entertainment, and let those public authorities who want to give these other kinds of entertainments come to this House to get the specific power which I understand 17 authorities have already got. If I am here when other authorities come for similar powers to give all kinds of entertainments at the public expense without cost to those who are entertained, perhaps I may be able to do something to prevent the spread of the number of 17 to a vastly greater number, but here you are asked, in what purports to be a Consolidating Bill, to give power to every public authority throughout the country, without having to come to this House for power, to provide any kind of entertainment which it chooses in the open air or in buildings erected for the purpose in public parks provided with public money without the slightest consideration to those who have to earn their own living by the entertainment of the public.

We are after all discussing this Amendment, and I want to point out to the Minister of Education the great danger of accepting an Amendment so limited as this. I doubt very much whether it would be held by any Judge that a band composed solely of brass instruments is an orchestra. I come from a county where the brass band is not only an institution but a credit to the country and I have never heard a brass band described as an orchestra, so that our municipalities would be in the position, if this Amendment were carried, of having power to give orchestral concerts in the parks but not to have bands like the Black Dyke and the Besses o' th' Barn which have a reputation which is not only national but international. What a state of affairs it would be if, through the action of some private individual interest, a municipality were prevented from having these great bands in its parks.

In Lancashire there are many male voice choral societies composed of working men, nearly always singing music of the highest type. I may give an example. There are two towns in Lancashire, one with roughly 45,000 inhabitants and the other with roughly 25,000 inhabitants. In one of these towns, that with 45,000 inhabitants, a few years ago the working men's choral society went to a competition in Wales and beat the whole of the crack Welsh choirs, with Welsh judges, which made it all the more extraordinary. That choir returned home and was itself beaten by the smaller town with 25,000 population, so that the conquerors of the Welsh choirs were not even the best choir in their own county. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) represents both the towns. It was Nelson that beat the Welsh choirs and Colne that beat the Nelson choir. What a comedy it would be to find that the Colne Corporation or the Nelson Corporation was prevented—

May I point out that Clause 55 adds to the powers contained in Section 76 of the Public Health Amendment Act, 1907, which gives the power for these bands to play, and in future orchestral performances could be given in addition.

This Amendment is evidently intended to prevent anything except an orchestral performance.

My hon. Friend is right in stating that the effect of this Amendment would be that the only additional power, beyond having a band, that the local authority would have would be to provide an orchestra. It would not take away their power to provide a band.

Would this, or would it not, prevent a choral performance and a concert in a public park?

It would certainly prevent a choral performance, but not a band.

Then I am opposed to it absolutely and irrevocably. I am opposed to anything that will limit the power of a municipality to give a high-class concert of any kind in its public parks. Rather do I think the municipalities ought to be encouraged, particularly on fine Sunday afternoons, to give concerts to those who unfortunately are not able to indulge in the games that their wealthier friends are accustomed to play. There can surely be nothing better in this country than to encourage the taste for high-class music, which does not exist in any one class, but which is inborn in the Lancashire people, as it is in the Welsh. Surely it is the one thing we ought to help the municipalities to do above all other things. I would prefer the pressure to be the other way, and that the municipalities should be pressed to provide good music in the public parks on a Sunday afternoon. Those who know well the working people's life in Lancashire know that an average young man or young woman will inevitably find some means of amusement, particularly in the summer time. It is not only good for the health of the people, but in another way altogether, that the entertainment provided should be of the highest possible type, and unquestionably this Amendment is intended to limit the capacity of the municipalities to do what is being done in almost every town in Lancashire now, and that is to give really high-class musical entertainments, or concerts of a mixed character, which are good for the people, good for the town, good for health, and good for morals. Therefore, if the Amendment is pressed, I shall have the pleasure of going into the Lobby against it.

I find myself in a difficult position. I have listened to almost the whole of the Debate, and after explanations and counter-explanations from both sides, am no nearer a solution. I certainly think the Amendment goes very much too far. I want to see a reasonable amount of encouragement in these matters. Again, unless I have very clear and definite advice from the legal advisers of the Government to the contrary, I think the words as they stand in the Clause are equally going too far in the other direction. I would like to see choral performances and local things of a standing character, like the old folk dances, as well as ordinary musical performances, encouraged, and that is why I am against the Amendment. I would like to see these things encouraged in every possible way, but, as I say, the Clause as it stands goes too far in the other direction. We know what some of the local authorities are. Some are fairly good and some are fairly bad, like the rest of the world; but I would like to see their powers limited in this respect. There is a form of infliction, which comes from somewhere north of England, which is called the bagpipes. Are they to be allowed to play all over the country? They are certainly not an entertainment or a concert, and I believe they are a bad form of joke which the Scotsmen have never discovered to be a joke.

It is a matter of opinion.

The hon. and gallant Member says it is a matter of opinion, but it cannot be. I do not think any Englishman can seriously consider that it is musical, and that it is a concert or an entertainment of any sort. [An HON. MEMBER: "They play for the Guards."] They are extremely fine, but that suits its particular conditions. I disagree entirely with those who say that the Welsh people are really a very highly musical race. I do not think they are. I think that English people are very much more musical in every way. They copy us to a certain extent, and they come down here and talk rather more loudly, and have not got the nice, retiring disposition of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), who has just sat down, and I do not think they ought to take that line at all. I say clearly that before we come to a decision on this Amendment we ought to have it defined much more clearly than it is at the present time.

In view of the statement of the Noble Lord, I think it would be desirable that I should withdraw my Amendment, in order that the matter may be thoroughly thrashed out in conference, to see if some form of words cannot be arrived at which will be mutually agreeable. My difficulty is that I have not been acting specifically on behalf of anyone. In Committee, on my own initiative, I put down an Amendment to omit Clause 55, and after that I received communications from various interested parties; but I am not acting for anybody, and in view of the noble Lord's statement, I think an appropriate Amendment can be moved in another place, and I will ask leave to withdraw mine now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The next Amendment on the paper, in page 30, line 28, to leave out the words "one penny" and to insert instead thereof the words "twopence," is out of Order, because it would involve an increased charge on the rates.

I beg to move, in page 37, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "repairable by the inhabitants at large."

This and the following Amendment are designed to extend the power of the local authority to provide parking places from public streets to private streets also, but in the second Amendment that power can only be exercised with the authority of the person responsible for the maintenance of the street. This, I believe, is already the case in London, and we want to extend it to other parts of the country. There can be no objection to the proposal when there are private streets which are more suitable for parking purposes.

Could power be given to enable local authorities to utilise squares in large cities like London, for the parking of cars? There are schemes afoot for creating underground parking places. Such parking places would not interfere with the ordinary street traffic, and congestion would be reduced.

The Clause of the Bill gives power to the local authority to acquire land suitable for use as a parking place; or utilise any lands which may lawfully be appropriated for the purpose; or by order authorise the use as a parking place of any part of a street repairable by the inhabitants at large within their district. I think that gives quite wide enough powers to use the subsoil of a square, as well as the square itself.

I submit that you can hardly define a square as a "street."

Does the parking of cars and heavy vehicles in side streets mean that the local authority will have the right to give permission to park cars without having any claim made for payment of compensation? It is all very well to talk about the West End of London. What about the East End? There we have many motor vehicles, some of them carrying as much as 10 tons. Are they to be allowed to park in the side streets, and are the local authorities to pay the bill for the maintenance of those side streets? In the docks' area we have often as many as 50 or 60 heavily-laden vehicles which cannot get through the main roads because of congestion. Are those vehicles to be allowed to use side streets which have not been built for that kind of traffic, and are the local authorities to pay the Bill for the repair of the side streets, without any compensation, or will the owners of the vehicles be asked to pay something towards the cost of the maintenance? Are local authorities to have some compensation for giving the right to park in side streets?

The Amendment has nothing to do with the repair of streets. All that it does is to enable an authority to use, for parking, a street for the repair of which it is not responsible. Therefore, the only question which would arise on this particular Amendment is whether the owner of the street, the person responsible for repairing the private street, would want to exact some compensation for allowing parking. But that has nothing to do with this Amendment.

That is all very well for private streets. What I am talking about is the dock area, where there are no private streets. Are local authorities to have the same power as private individuals?

The hon. Member is talking about something which is not in the Amendment. This Clause gives the local authority power to provide parking places, but it does not give power to charge for the use of any part of a public street. That is rather a difficult question. If the local authority sets apart a parking place which is not a public street, it may charge for it, but if in the exercise of its own discretion it says, "You must not let your vehicles stand along this road, and I will force you, if you want to let the vehicle stand, to send it to some particular street," it is very doubtful whether the local authority ought to charge for such use of a public street. It is a controversial point with which we cannot deal in this Bill, but the hon. Member may rest assured that we will consider in future the question whether a local authority should be given power to charge for parking places in public streets, as they will have power to charge for parking places out of public streets.

The Noble Lord said that the second of the Amendments which he is to move was consequential on that which is now before the House. I would like to be clear as to the purpose of the two Amendments. Is it to empower the local authority to take any private street, for the repair of which it is not responsible, and to do so without the consent of the owner of the street who has to keep it in repair?

The owner of the street who is responsible for its repair will in all cases be able to give or withhold his consent as he pleases, and the local authority will not be able to use the street unless the owner gives consent.

If the consent is refused and in the opinion of the local authority the space is required for parking, what is to happen?

This Bill gives no additional powers to the local authority. I cannot say off hand, but I am wondering whether there is anything under the general powers to enable local authorities to purchase. I think not. I think local authorities have to "lump it."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 37, line 16, leave out from the word "a" to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words street without the consent of the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the street."—[ Lord E. Percy. ]

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (7) to insert a new Sub-section: (8) The exercise by the local authority of their powers under this Section with respect to the use as a parking place of any part of any street shall render them liable in respect of any damage resulting from such use to any property of the owners or occupiers of premises in the street. I must apologise to the House for handing in a manuscript Amendment at this point. In justification, I am bound to say to those hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee which considered this Bill, that it is a little difficult to follow the proceedings to-day, in view of the fact that the Bill has only just reached our hands. My attention has been called particularly to this Clause. I have not been able to study the whole Bill, but I have given some attention to this Clause. In view of the Amendments which have just been passed, it becomes clear that the local authority is empowered to take part of a private street for the purpose of parking cars. That is a serious power. We have just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that there are 2,000 new cars going on the road every week, and undoubtedly this is becoming a very big question, not only in the towns and cities, but elsewhere. The position is that the local authority may, with the consent of the owners of a private street, utilise that private street for parking purposes. What is to happen if he withholds his consent is not clear. Sub-section (6) provides that a local authority may make regulations as to the use of parking places, and, in particular, as to the vehicles or class of vehicles which may be entitled to use such parking places, as to the conditions on which any such parking place may be used, and as to the charges to be paid to the local authority in connection with the use of the parking place. So far, we have these points—that the owner of a private street may give power to the local authority to use his property for this purpose, and that the local authority may make a charge upon the cars so parked.

The local authority may not make any charge in the case of a street. The Sub-section refers to the use of any parking place "not being part of a street."

Then I must withdraw the part of my argument which relates to the charge, but what use a parking place would be, if it were not connected with the street, I cannot understand. I am informed that where streets or squares, whether public or private, are used for parking from time to time damage is done. Railings may be disturbed and, outside London, grass plots and so forth may be destroyed. Obviously, there is a risk, if there is public user, of damage being done, and it seems only reasonable that, if the local authority is to have power to take private property for a public purpose, and if any damage results, the damage should not fall upon the owner of the private property. My Amendment seems a reasonable proposition, and I cannot imagine that the Noble Lord or the House will not agree with it. It seems quite clear that if, in the public interest, the owner of a property allows that property to be used as a parking place he should not be liable to bear any damage which is done to his property as a result of the additional user by the public. It is quite obvious that the local authority, which is the natural authority to provide these public facilities, should undertake the liability for any damage which may occur as a result. We should be introducing a new principle in this Measure—which is supposed to be merely a consolidation of the existing law—if we not only gave powers for the use of private property in the public interest, but if we also placed the burden of any damage caused by any such user upon the owner of the property.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think this Amendment goes rather too far, and I do not think my hon. Friend the Mover realises how far it goes. He has justified it on the ground that if, by agreement with the owner of a private street, the local authority makes a parking place in that street, then the owner should be relieved of any liability in respect of damage done. But the proposal goes much further than that, and places on the local authority liabilities for damage which, in other circumstances, might not be liabilities of the owner of the street at all. The hon. Member's proposal, in effect, is that, if a street is being used as a parking place, and if a certain number of careless or hurried motorists, as they go off from the parking place, run into the railings, the local authority should be liable. But the liability for such damage now is not on the owner or occupier of the street, but on the motorist, and my hon. Friend proposes to transfer that liability from the motorist to the local authority—possibly because it is easier to get the money out of them. I do not think that will do. I can quite easily understand the owner of a street attaching to his consent any conditions which he pleases to safeguard his own interest, but to go beyond that and say that the local authority must be liable for all damage caused by motorists who make use of the parking place is going too far. I do not wish to be monotonous in my repetition of the proposal, but I would suggest here again that my hon. Friend should consult with me between now and the time when this Bill comes from another place to see if we cannot meet his point by a far narrower proposal.

My Amendment distinctly says "in respect of any damage resulting from such use." It is only in a case where the local authority seeks to bring to the street a number of motors which would not otherwise have come near the private property at all, and damage then results that the local authority would be liable.

How is anybody to judge whether the motors would or would not have been there if there had not been the parking place? The result of his proposal, I can assure my hon. Friend, would be, in practice, that the local authority would be liable for a lot of damages for which the motorist is liable now, and he would be putting the liability on the local authority merely because the local authority had, to the best of its ability, provided for the best use of the street, that street being a street which the public is entitled to use. To put on the local authority a liability which ought to be borne by the careless motorist is really going too far.

In view of the assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 44, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (3).

This is simply transferring to a new Clause a provision now existing in this Sub-section (3), which, consequently, can now be omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 45, line 13, to leave out the word "reasonable," and to insert instead thereof the word "such."

This Amendment and the succeeding Amendment hang together, and I should like to argue the two together. The Amendment is designed to overcome the difficulty which has arisen by the decision in another place with regard to what constitutes reasonable wages. The idea of what is reasonable varies, and the object of this Amendment is to take the vagueness out of the Clause, and remove the danger which exists at the present time of authorities being surcharged, because in the opinion of an accountant the wages paid are not considered to be reasonable. By taking out the word "reasonable," as I propose, and inserting the word "such," and, at the end of the Sub section, inserting the words "as in their absolute discretion they think proper," it will give the local authorities the requisite powers, and remove a danger. This Amendment is not designed to allow local authorities to pay any unreasonable wages. That question is safeguarded, as the local authorities are always in the hands of those who elect them. It certainly does seem to me the Clause needs to be rather more definite than it is at the present moment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Amendment is of very considerable importance to those who are concerned at all with local government in this country. To myself it is, perhaps, a matter of first-rate importance, because only about five days ago I received an intimation from the district auditor that, with my colleagues, I was surcharged to the extent of £46,700, which made me feel that I must be rich. The position is very serious for local authorities at the present moment. Possibly the framers of this Bill have tried to meet the question by putting in the word "reasonable." but they are really leaving the discretion in a worse position than it was before, because the question has to come in what constitutes reasonable wages and salaries, and who is to decide? The whole thing seems to be left in the hands of auditors, or different auditors. One district auditor has come along and said that £1 above trade union rates is reasonable. Another auditor has come along and considers that 15s. is reasonable. A third auditor might have still a different view. Local authorities will not know where they are. So far as we in Poplar are concerned, we were acting absolutely bona fide under an Act which said we could pay the salaries we thought fit. Supposing some very powerful trade union, by reason of having a watertight organisation in a particular key industry, is able to demand a tremendous wage, are we to be surcharged when the auditor comes along, because we have paid what he considers to be too high wages, though we have not been able to escape from it because of the industrial conditions?

We do not know where we are, and I hope the Government will consider the whole question of the powers of the district auditor, because they are affecting the powers of local authorities. There is the case, in the London County Council, with regard to school journeys—a very useful educational piece of work—which they had to give up. Then there was the case of Westminster with regard to pensions. Fortunately, the Court decided in favour of this authority. It happened to be Westminster, and not Poplar. Everyone engaged in the work of public administration at the present time, leaving political questions apart, recognises that the decision is an invasion of the rights of local authorities.

May I appeal to the Mover of this Amendment not to press it? As a promoter of the Bill, I do not want to have a battle royal on the Report stage over such a big question as this. It is a question in regard to which one must have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I do not think this is the time to discuss such a large question. A question was raised as to what was considered reasonable, and why we have inserted this in the Bill. Many authorities, I am glad to say one is my own authority, interpret the word "reasonable" as meaning the trade union rate for the district. In my own opinion that is a reasonable rate of pay. I do hope, however, that the hon. Members will not press this Amendment, which must open out a very vexed question, and will cause a considerable amount of discussion and division. Time is getting on, and I am going to make an appeal to the promoters of the Bill to withdraw the Amendment. This is not, in my opinion, the time or the place to discuss such an important matter.

The matter is not quite so simple as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seems to think, or, possibly, I might be inclined to agree with him. It is a most extraordinary thing that whenever this question is raised the time seems not to be opportune; but there has not been a question of this sort raised in respect to the officers of the different bodies. The medical officers of health lay down the rule that we must pay a certain rate, and although we do not agree with them, we feel compelled to pay it, because the medical officers are strong enough to make us. In like manner the engineers come along to those of us who are members of local authorities, and because they are in the economic position to do so they demand that we must pay a rate of remuneration that they have laid down. Is that a trade union rate? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] The doctors, the medical officers of health, and other people in professional positions can almost make us pay, and even go so far as to tell us that they are going to withdraw the doctors from our public institutions if we do not give them what they ask. We are placed, therefore, in relation to the people who are in our asylums, our mental hospitals, our infectious diseases hospitals, placed in the position I have indicated. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] We were threatened in our district of West Ham that all the doctors were going to withdraw at a time when there was an epidemic if we did not pay them the money for which they asked. If you get a sufficient number of people in the one direction they can hold you up to ransom. When, however, it is a question of the men who are doing necessary public work of a menial nature they are not supposed to demand £4 a week. That is too high. The rate is to be just enough to keep the man going for the time being—with the possibility of less later on. The hon. Gentleman opposite, of course, represents Reading. He is a professional gentleman. Perhaps he thinks that dog biscuits are sufficient for some people to live upon?

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member right in imputing motives to another hon. Member?

It is only the humour of the hon. Member for Silvertown.

3.0 P.M.

All I was suggesting was that the hon. Gentleman believes in dog biscuits because he represents the place where they make them. We want to know where we are in this matter. Who pays the wages at West Ham and Poplar? Who pay all these local rates? We get no assistance from London at all, although geographically we are part of London. The whole is to be paid by the people in the locality. Are those outside then to come in and lay down a law that we have not the right to pay wages we consider reasonable? If people in the locality elect the council, and that council says that they are going to pay a reasonable rate of wages to the workmen, well and good. If the men do not agree that the wage is a right wage they strike. We had a local authority mainly composed of Labour men and the Labour men laid down a minimum rate of wages. It is not supposed to be reasonable by some people; but we stand up for the right of the local authorities elected by the people to decide what shall be the wages paid to the people they employ. We believe that we have the same right as a private employer in this matter. No man in his senses will say that £4 a week is too much to pay a man, a dustman or a scavenger, who has a wife and a family to keep, and in London, too! Yet we are told that the neighbouring authorities to us are going to be surcharged some thousands of pounds because they have decided that £4 a week was not too much. Some hon. Members in one day this week put that much on the horses. I am not blaming them for doing that. I hope they lost their money! So far, however, as we are concerned, we want the people to realise where we are. We have a right to say what shall be the rate of pay and conditions of labour in our boroughs. The principle of the Amendment carries that out, so that we may decide for ourselves, as local authorities responsible to the majority of the ratepayers, and for the money of the ratepayers. We have been challenged on this matter. What we say is that we propose to pay what we consider reasonable in these matters, and I am going to see those who object in hell before I will give in to them.

We think the Bill a desirable one in many respects, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In passing, I desire to make one or two comments upon the question which was raised a little while ago in connection with the words "such" and "reasonable" and other words which are on the Paper. I should like to call the attention of the House to Clause 83, Sub-section (1). In that Clause it will be found that the local authority is empowered to let their swimming baths to various people for various purposes upon such terms and conditions as in their absolute discretion they think proper. They can do those things as they think proper. They can let their baths free of any charge if they think proper, or let them at any price they choose, for the Clause gives the local authority power to use their discretion; but when it comes to a question of paying the wages of the officials and employés engaged at the baths or elsewhere the word "reasonable" is nut in, they may pay "reasonable" salaries. Who is to be the judge of reasonable? Is it to be someone from Whitehall or any other place who is to say what is reasonable, or those who administer the baths, who have been elected as administrators by the electors of the district?

The members of local authorities do not walk into those positions without a contest. In the Division which I represent we have very strenuous contests at elections. We get the Ratepayers' Association and the Ratepayers' Alliance, and all the rest of them, putting out their literature and trying to scandalise us ail they possibly can, and doing it very effectively—with the exception of convincing people; that is the only difference. If they do not succeed it is not because they do not use all their efforts, not because they do not have plenty of posters on the walls and plenty of vehicles. They waste plenty of money in trying to get people to believe they are the only virtuous people in the world who ought to manage things; but they do not get elected. We are told that majorities must rule, but it appears to me that majorities cannot rule in local affairs, but can only rule in this House. If that is to be the case, why not alter the laws entirely, so that we may know where we are? If majorities can rule in one instance, surely they ought to in another; and if it is right to have words in one Clause giving an administrative authority the right to let their baths and to make a charge as in their discretion they may think fit, surely the same discretion ought to be given to them when it is a case of paying the wages they think fit.

We are not satisfied with the word "reasonable." Somebody else has got to interpret the word "reasonable," and not the people who are elected to administer the affairs of the locality. There is not supposed to be any discretion when it is the case of a locality administered by a Labour body. It is no use our talking about Whitley Council rates of wages, or trade union rates of wages. We have got councils which are affiliated to the Joint Industrial Council paying less than the awards arrived at by that Joint Industrial Council; but we do not hear of any surcharges upon those councils. That is because they happen to be composed of people who are anti-Labour, of people who belong to the Conservative party. But where we have an authority elected by working-class people and administering things in the interests of those people, we get this kind of thing thrown up at us. When the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was bringing in his Bill the other day on this subject it was said that what had been done was illegal. No one in the Courts has said that what we pay is illegal. All they say is we do not use reasonable discretion—in their view, not in our own view. We would prefer to have something in the Bill which was definite, so that whatever the authority which is having baths or washhouses they may be able to pay the rates of wages and let their servants work the number of hours they think fit. I wanted to get those few words in. because I could not get them in when the Proposer withdrew the last Amendment. I would have preferred that this matter should have gone to a Division, and, although we might have been defeated, it would have given us an opportunity to show that the Conservative party are against the Labour party having any powers to do what they are elected for.

Now that this Bill has passed through all its stages except the Third Reading, I think it is desirable that we should realise its important nature. This is a somewhat unusual kind of Bill, because it is one without any general principle running through it, unless you can call the general well-being of the people a principle. This Measure is a collection of Clauses which have little or no connection with one another, and it is built up mainly upon private Bill legislation spread over a period dating from 1907. I suppose it is true to say that everything in this Bill can be found in some Corporation Bill or another, and it is probably the case also that no corporation possesses all the powers contained in this Bill, and a great many corporations possess very few of these powers.

But although this Bill contains nothing which is fundamentally novel, nevertheless it will confer upon a great many public authorities many valuable powers which they do not possess at the present time. It will be noticed that the Measure is divided into a number of parts, and some of those parts come into operation automatically, while others have to be adopted, and can only be adopted with the express sanction of the Minister of Health. In spite of what we have heard with respect to the rights of majorities, that is probably a reasonable thing. What those critics who have been speaking of the rights of majorities in local councils overlook is that local authorities are not sovereign powers and all the money they spend is not provided by themselves, because a good deal of it comes out of Imperial funds, and those spending it are responsible to the Imperial Parliament. We have a right to see that a local authority possessing those powers does not go beyond the powers conferred upon it by Parliament.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what part of the money expended by borough councils is provided by the Imperial Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman is referring more particularly to Metropolitan boroughs.

No.

If the hon. Gentleman will consider municipal boroughs generally he will find that they receive grants under a great variety of heads. If they happen to be education authorities they receive large grants—

Is it not a fact that the Burnham Committee fixed the salaries of teachers, and we have nothing to do with the settling of that matter?

The fact remains that very large grants are made directly or indirectly for these purposes out of Imperial funds. The London position is peculiar because of the relationship of the Metropolitan borough councils to the county council, but if the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) would inquire in regard to the expenditure on public health by the Poplar Borough Council, he would find that there are grants under a great many headings received by that council from the Imperial Parliament. He would also find that there are certain consolidated fund payments made to local authorities whereby they obtain the produce of certain specified taxes. So long as that is the case, it is perfectly futile to get up and say that a local authority ought to have absolutely free power to do as it likes It carries out those powers which have been conferred upon it by Parliament, and Parliament has prescribed that the Minister of Health, or the President of the Board of Education, or some other Minister, shall have certain powers of control, and it is only those who wish to be free and expend other people's money in a way that other people do not altogether approve of who want to have these absolute powers possessed by municipal authorities.

I do not want, however, to be led away. I want to concern myself with the very important powers which this Bill confers upon municipalities. Let us realise that at the same time that we are conferring these powers the Bill restricts individual liberty. There are in this Bill a great many Clauses restricting the rights of individuals, but the object of those restrictions in the long run is to increase the rights of individuals. For instance, we seek to protect ourselves against the verminous person. We restrict his liberty, but we do it in the interests of the community and of other persons who are not verminous. There are a great many powers with regard to the widening of streets and the making of streets, and there is a great variety of powers which hon. Members who read the Bill carefully may be surprised to find in it. Many of these powers are definite interferences with individual liberty, but, as I understand most of them, they are justifiable interferences, and, because I regard them as justifiable, I hope that this Bill will receive a Third Reading this afternoon.

The Bill has been very materially altered in Committee upstairs, and it has also been altered to some extent during the Report stage this afternoon. A great number of new Clauses have been added to it, and a great number of Clauses in the Bill as it was read a Second time have been amended by the introduction of safeguards for the purpose of protecting the legitimate interests of a great variety of persons, corporations, public authorities, and the rest of them. I think most hon. Members who will trouble to compare the Bill as it is now with it as it was when it left the House to go upstairs will agree that the bulk of the Amendments made in Committee are very useful Amendments, and that the Measure now is more workable than it was when it left the House.

I would like to draw attention to some of the new Clauses which have been introduced, and, notably, to Clause 61, which deals with tuberculous persons who are in an infective condition. No one who has been brought into contact with conditions which affect many people suffering from tuberculosis can have failed to be perturbed at finding people in an acute state of infection living in small houses and infecting the rest of their family. It is sometimes the case that these persons are removed to a sanatorium for a limited period and then brought back to their homes, and the general administration, in my opinion, is in many respects far from satisfactory. This Bill does take one definite step forward, and, again, it is a violent interference with the liberty of the subject. It is an interference which will be resented. It will not be popular, because it means that in some cases a person will be removed from his home against his will to a public institution, but he will be moved in the interests of his wife and his children. I would draw the attention particularly of those Members of this House who are engaged in municipal administration to the important powers conferred upon municipalities by Clause 61. There is, of course, the safeguard in that Clause that, before an Order is made, where it is a compulsory removal, the Court is in a position to decide, and if the Court is of opinion that the conditions under which the infectious tuberculous person is living are such as not to justify removal, then, of course, the Court would not make an Order.

That is not new.

It is not new in some municipalities, but what the hon. Member does not appear to realise is that this Bill confers upon all municipal authorities the various powers which some of them have obtained by Private Bill legislation. The object of this Bill is to save municipalities from great expense in promoting Private Bills in future, because many of the powers which they desire, and which otherwise they might seek to get by a Private Bill, they will get under this Public Bill. The fact that the hon. Member is acquainted with a municipality which has this power which I am describing does not alter the fact that it is a new power so far as a great many municipalities are concerned.

Under Clause 65, which, again, is a new Clause, power is conferred upon authorities to take proper steps for the prevention of blindness. It is one thing to treat those who are already suffering, but it is very much better to prevent, and prevention can be secured in many ways. I am not a medical expert; there are medical experts in the House who may be speaking; but I believe it is the case that quite a considerable proportion of the blind persons in this country are blind because their mothers happened to be suffering from a particular disease at the time the child was borne, and I believe it is the case that proper medical treatment applied shortly after birth will prevent blindness in such cases. If it be the case that we can prevent the calamity of blindness, then it is right that the municipalities should have the power to do so, and very considerable powers are conferred upon them in that direction.

Under Clause 66, important powers are conferred upon local authorities in connection with health; they are authorised to arrange for the publication within their area of information on questions relating to health and disease, and to arrange for lectures and for the display of pictures. That is, of course, a power that is possessed by some authorities, but not by all. It is a valuable power, and it can be carried to a very considerable extent. It may, as we realise, be carried by some authorities to an extent which will give rise to acute local controversy, because it raises matters which have been the subject of deputations recently to the Ministry of Health. I merely mention the fact that very full power is conferred upon municipalities to deal with these matters. Then there are other Clauses which I think are not new Clauses. The power, for instance, is conferred of dealing with the modern problem of the parking of vehicles, and power is conferred upon local authorities which do not already possess such powers to arrange for sports grounds for cricket and football. Again, power is conferred upon local authorities to arrange for the queueing of people waiting for public vehicles. Some authorities possess these powers while others do not. I am not going on to describe the very numerous and valuable powers contained in this Bill, but have mentioned the few matters that I have mentioned in order that hon. Members who have not been serving on the Committee on the Bill upstairs may appreciate that the Bill is a comprehensive Bill, and I hope the few words I have said will induce those who may have felt in doubt to give it hearty support on the Third Reading.

Now that this Bill has reached the Third Reading stage, I desire to say just a few words upon it. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) has taken the trouble to deal with the Bill almost Clause by Clause, and it is not necessary for me to give any extended explanation of it. I rose to congratulate, if I may, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) on the success which has attended the great trouble he has taken upon himself in piloting this Bill through all its stages. It has been a very onerous task, and he has done it wonderfully well. I did want to say, however, to the Minister in charge, that a promise has been made here to-day to look into the question of the Amendment which has been discussed dealing with the powers of municipalities to provide entertainment other than by bands. I trust that the Minister in charge will see to it that this controversy, which will raise a considerable amount of heat again if it is raised at all on the Floor of this House, will be avoided, and that the Bill will now as a compromise go forward as it stands.

With regard to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) on the power of the district auditor to declare that a certain wage rate shall not be paid by the municipality, I fail to understand the point of view of the hon. Member for Reading. I could appreciate, however, the title of the central Government to intervene in all matters where it contributes anything towards the administration, but in the case of Poplar, so far as I understand it, the central Government has intervened in connection with the payment of wages out of the rates, where it has not provided a single penny, and to that we object.

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in London there is such a thing as the equalisation of rates and the Common Poor Fund?

I understand the principle has been enunciated on that side of the House and I want to combat it very strongly. The Central Government has no title whatever to do more than merely audit for accountancy purposes the expenditure of the local authority where it is provided merely from the rates of the local authority. Let me show that the State does not do this in all cases. The State contributes extensively to the funds of approved societies. The Treasury provides its auditors to audit the accounts of approved societies, but no single approved society has ever been questioned yet as to the amount of salaries and wages paid to the people who administer its affairs. Consequently, if the State has not intervened in regard to approved society administration, where it contributes extensively, surely it should not intervene in the case of a municipal authority, as it has done in regard to Poplar. This Bill consolidates the local legislation on Bills which have been passed from time to time, I think, for the last 10 or 12 years. I am hoping that some means will be found by Parliament and by local municipal authorities whereby the large amount of expenditure involved in coming to Parliament for these local Bills will be avoided. It appears to me ridiculous that large municipal authorities like Liverpool, Manchester and others should come to the House of Commons to secure powers for the most trifling things imaginable. That to me is the greatest thing that emerges from a Bill of this kind. I feel sure I can speak on behalf of all Members on this side of the House in saying that we welcome the Measure.

One has only to listen to the speech which has just been delivered to realise the very fundamental difficulties and disputes which are likely to arise in the domain touched by the Bill. It is certain that some of the utterances of the hon. Gentlemen opposite are fundamentally opposed to the views entertained on this side, and, I trust, to those of the Government I support. This Bill, take it as you will, is one involving the most serious issues. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), in which Clause by Clause he gave reasons, at some length, for supporting it, but pointed out certain difficulties. He explained what it is. He says it is a Bill to give to all authorities powers which Parliament has thought proper, after due examination, to give to certain local authorities. Our legislation in this House is divided into two classes. Why do we divide Public Bills from Private Bills? Is it not because in regard to Private Bills we know that there are peculiar circumstances and peculiar conditions and desires prompted by the wishes of that one locality, which require certain regulations which other localities do not want and do not ask for? That is why we have established in the wisdom of our legislature what we call Private Bills. There are other Bills, Public Bills, which make general regulations applying over the whole country. Parliament has been extremely jealous that Private Bills should not interfere with or override that supreme power of this Parliament to decide upon questions that regulate every part of the country. That is a distinction which we ought not to disregard.

The hon. Member for Reading says that this Bill is perfectly innocuous, that it simply gives to all localities, without asking whether they have asked for them, powers which they have not asked for, and which have been found in peculiar and particular cases to be suitable. This means, in reality, overriding the whole fundamental principle upon which our legislation is based. If we are to have a consolidating Bill of this kind, spreading broadcast over the country, without definite local inquiry, powers which have, perchance, been found suitable in one place, then, the only power that ought to institute such legislation is the Treasury Bench. I tell the Government that if they thought that this consolidating legislation was necessary, it was their duty to bring it forward, and not to accept a Bill thrown at them by Members, three-fourths of whom belong to the Labour party.

No.

Yes. The hon. Member may say "no," but he has only to look at the back of the Bill, and he will see that this is a Bill not only promoted by the Labour party, but a Bill which embodies principles which over and over again they have asserted, and which have been combated by the party which the Government pretend to represent. I wish it to be understood that if the Government is to throw their ægis and protection over Measures which embody the views of the other side—of course, they are views which hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to hold, and which they may have very good reason to hold—they have no right to act in that way. They have no right to adopt a Bill thrown at it by the Labour party, and adopt it practically as their own. That is a false positron for the Government to take up, and they had better understand that many of their followers feel that to be a false position.

Who represents the views of the Ministry on this Bill, and who is it that has been throwing the power of the Government on to the side of this Bill? The Minister of Education. What has the Minister of Education to do with this? We all know the personality of the Minister of Education. I happen not always to share his views. Are the Government to send down as their representative a Noble Lord who has certain views, which some of us do not share, and to direct him to give the full strength of the Government support to a consolidating Bill, embodying principles which. hon. Members opposite will admit are their principles?

It may be a right Bill, and if they thought it a right Bill, why did they not bring it in? A consolidating Bill is a matter for the responsibility of the Government. If they thought that the powers given to a small number of local authorities throughout the country ought to be spread broadcast and indiscriminately over the whole country, then it was the duty of the Government to come forward and give that consolidating Bill. I am very glad that the Minister of Education, who has been acting as the protagonist of the Bill, is now present. I am sorry that I cannot repeat what I have said. This Bill is described as a consolidating Bill, and if it is necessary in the interests of the country, it should have been promoted by the Government. It is not fair either to the right hon. Gentleman's own party, or to hon. Members on the other side, who have been fighting for this principle, that the Government should adopt it and pretend that the principle is theirs. I feel a great difficulty as to many parts of the Bill. The hon. Member for Reading, who has helped the Bill with very great skill, told us, I admit, that the Bill interferes very largely with the individual liberty of private citizens.

The Bill contains a provision dealing with verminous persons.

Even verminous persons have their rights. Are we not entitled to inquire into a Bill which interferes very largely with private liberty? Are we to take such a Bill on Friday afternoon with scarcely any discussion, and because it is supported by a Government which has not yet openly professed that it wishes to make itself the chief protagonist of this principle, to pass it without inquiry? Many of us object to this interference with individual liberty. Some of us take a kindlier view, that a little more attention to individual liberty and a little more persuasion might, perhaps, be better than to pass these 70 or 80 Clauses interfering with every corner of our life, telling us exactly where we are to place our motor cars, and how much of our land is to be seized upon by the local authorities, and at our expense used for purposes which they may happen to think useful. All this is embodied in a Bill promoted by a private Member on the benches opposite.

Let me say that I, the promoter of the Bill, am as good a Tory as the right hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman has chosen some curious associates. Do not let the Government claim the credit for this Bill, because it has sent down the Noble Lord, who happens to be the Minister of Education and who has no connection with health, to throw his ægis over the Bill, and, I presume, to claim hereafter, with his colleagues in the Government, to be the author of a Measure which finds its chief supporters on the benches opposite.

May I appeal to the House not to talk out this Bill? In answer to the last speaker, I would mention that as the promoter of the Bill I have sought the assistance of all parties in the House and I have received great consideration from Members of all parties. I have interviewed scores of people who objected to certain Clauses, and I am glad to say that we have been able to clear away the opposition and that the Bill has bad a fairly easy passage though Committee. Whatever the last speaker thinks, I, as a Member of the great Conservative party, am proud to have been the sponsor of this Bill. The Bill will confer undoubted benefits upon the people of the country. I believe that my leader and many Members of my party are just as keen for the social welfare of the workers of the country as are Members of any party. I am proud to be associated with the Bill. Particularly am I proud to be associated with the Clause which gives local authorities power to spend money on the prevention of blindness. Prevention is always better than cure and this Clause will do a humane work.

I wish to thank all Members of the House who have supported me so loyally during the passage of the Bill. I thank the Noble Lord, the President of the Board of Education, for the help which he has given. I would point out to the last speaker that the Noble Lord served a term of office at the Ministry of Health under the last Conservative Government, and he certainly showed in Committee on this Bill that he thoroughly understood the subject under discussion. I wish to thank certain officials of the Ministry of Health, who have been helpful to me in this matter, and also the Secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations for doing a large amount of work in connection with the Bill. I hope without much further discussion the House will give a Third Reading to the Bill, and that I shall be able to say that I have done something which will be of value to the country and to the working people of the country in this my first Session of Parliament.

I welcome this Bill as a member of the medical profession. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) described it as a Socialist Measure brought in by the Socialist party. I feel very pleased indeed that Members of the Labour party should have put their names to a Bill which makes such a marked improvement in the health services of the country. There is one remarkable innovation which I welcome very heartily, and that is with respect to tuberculosis. In this Bill powers are given for the compulsory removal of tuberculosis cases to hospitals. There is great danger at the present time in connection with the treatment of consumption in the cottages of our industrial towns. Sometimes the rooms are very small, and there is great difficulty in obtaining the necessary accommodation for the patient. Perhaps in the course of time, through the activities of the tuberculosis authorities, we may be able to remove cases from these surroundings to the sanatorium, where, after three or four months of treatment the patient may be much improved in health and may have received certain definite training as to the prevention of infection. But when these poor people go home again to the same confined accommodation they resume their life under infectious conditions, and in practically all such cases the patient dies. The percentage of cures in such cases is particularly small. As a medical officer have always thought that these cases should be taken up as early as possible—an early diagnosis is essential to a cure—and removed to hospital or sanatorium and kept there until recovery. It is no use sending patients home again unless they are absolutely cured, because there is the risk of infecting others in the house and it is impossible to stamp out consumption—the greatest curse in the country, if this practice goes on. Therefore I welcome a Bill whether it is the product of the Labour party or the Conservative party or of all parties combined which is making a definite effort to deal with this scourge. If the powers conferred by the Bill are adopted and ached upon by every municipality then I think we have some definite hope of stamping out consumption in this country. For that great reform whichever party is responsible I think that this Bill should receive the support of every Member of this House who has a horror of consumption and who knows the tremendous toll it has taken of the life of the people of this country, and the great amount of misery it has caused. I hope that this Bill will get an uninterrupted Third Reading, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities will recognise that a very great move towards improving the health of this country has been made. This Clause with reference to the com- pulsory moving of tuberculous patients marks an epoch in the treatment of the disease.