I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, after the word "be" to insert the words

"or, in any case where the special circumstances seem to the department to justify an extension of the said period, within such extended period as the department may fix."

I promised in Committee to consider whether it was possible to vest some discretionary power in the education authorities in the case of a teacher who had been suffering from ill-health, and this Amendment covers that problem.

Now that the Secretary for Scotland is in the House, though he had not the courtesy to be here in time to answer my question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I am in Order— I think that we might have a few words before this Bill goes through. Perhaps I might comment on the fact that, when we have a Bill of this importance to be discussed, there are very few hon. Members from Scotland present. There are only two hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches representing Scottish constituencies.

There is none on yours.

Well, I am here. I think it desirable that, before the Bill goes through the Secretary for Scotland should say something as to its scope, and that an opportunity should be given to have questions put.

We are not in this House for the purpose of making speeches, but in order to get work done. If we get the work done in this hot weather in the Committee as it has been done in this case, there is no reason for obstruction afterwards. While the Bill is not all we would like it to be, we are taking the best we can get in the circumstances. While we are making these provision for the teachers we would like to see similar provision made for everyone who gives service to the community. The Liberal benches do not show a single representative from Scotland. Anything which has been done in Committee has been done by Scottish Labour Members and not by Liberals, and it is too early in the morning to begin a row, even if my hon. and gallant Friend is ex-heavyweight champion for the Navy. This Bill might have been a greater measure so far as the teachers are concerned only that we have the dead weight of English education hanging on to us.

I wish to make a personal explanation. I have no desire to stop the passage of this Bill, and only wish it known in Ireland, where certain people have strong feelings, that the Secretary for Scotland was present, and had not the courtesy to come in and answer my question.

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

Under the constitution of the Isle of Man, the Tynwald has considerable fiscal autonomy. But there is a common arrangement with the Customs and Excise of this country, and it is necessary to have an annual Bill to give approval to the arrangement which is provisionally applied to Customs and Excise by the resolution of the Tynwald. This is an annual Bill, which is never amended by the House of Commons, and it is really a formal matter.

May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill a question or two? Can he inform me whether there is any other land in the vicinity which could be used for this purpose, and whether in acquiring this land the Admiralty have been consulted, and have agreed that this is a suitable spot on which seaplanes can be worked with advantage to the combined Air Force and Navy?

The land which it is proposed to take over is for the making of a seaplane station. This seaplane station is absolutely essential for the West aerial defence of the South of England. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is no other land in the neighbourhood which could be acquired for the purpose, and there is no land at all suitable for the making of land aerodromes. The Admiralty have been consulted, and are in entire agreement with the Air Ministry on the subject.

With regard to the breakwater, do I understand that it belongs to the Air Ministry? I notice that in the White Paper it is stated that:

"the average annual cost of maintenance of the breakwater and the light is estimated at £500 and the construction of the road is estimated to cost £1,500 ".

Does that £500 a year go on indefinitely?

The Air Ministry, as a matter of fact, have already been in possession of the breakwater, and the ob- ject of the Bill is merely to transfer the responsibility in a legal way. We have always been under an obligation to maintain this light for the purpose of safety on that part of the coast. The actual cost of maintaining the breakwater is very small.

The breakwater belongs to you?

Yes.

This district happens to be a historic district, and there are certain sites in the neighbourhood which are of very great historic value. Will the Air Ministry exercise every effort possible to preserve these historic sites?

Yes, certainly. We are fully alive to the importance of maintaining the amenities and historic associations of that part of the country, and the hon. and gallant Member may rely on our doing everything we can in that direction.

Have the Ministry considered the possibility of using cliff eaves for the purpose, instead of appropriating land on which food could be grown? There would be greater safety in such a method.

We are considering that, but there are great difficulties in the way of underground hangars, from the point of view of cost. The whole question is being gone into, and I could not now make any statement usefully about it.

This Clause gives an opportunity for an explanation. It says:

"This Act applies to the therapeutic substances specified in the Schedule to this Act, and any otter therapeutic substances which may from time to time be added to that Schedule by regulations made under this Act."

I wish to know what width of powers we are giving to the Executive under this Clause. I am very jealous of giving away to any Government Department a right to add to Schedules by regulation. It is a power liable to abuse and should be very carefully watched. I see that the Undersecretary for Health for Scotland, who is a technical expert, is present, and perhaps he can give us some information as to the progress in science which will necessitate adding to the present list of vaccines, toxins, anti-toxins, etc. Why does not the Ministry of Health put in the Schedule a complete list of the chemicals that it is proposed to restrict or control? Is it that other substances are expected to be discovered, or what is the reason? It may be a perfectly legitimate reason, but the House ought to have it. I am a layman in the matter. I do not even know what dioxy-diamino-arseno-benzol-di-hydrochloride is. I see that it is commonly known as salvarsan. I do not even know what salvarsan is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I am sure there are many Members on the other side who know all about it.

Though I am not quite clear as to what it is, I gather that it is hardly relevant to this Clause.

The Clause says that any other therapeutic substances may from time to time be added to the Schedule. It refers to therapeutic substances specified in the Schedule. The Schedule mentions substances one of which I mentioned but will not repeat. What I am interested in is this, and no technical knowledge is required for it. If the substances the manufacture of which it is required to control are known, they ought to be mentioned in the Schedule, and it is unnecessary to give the Minister of Health power to add various other ingredients or chemicals or substances by way of regulation.

I gladly respond to the request of the hon. and gallant Member. I will give him whatever information I have, to the best of my ability. The Schedule contains a list of the therapeutic substances to which the Bill will apply, and these are the substances, so far as is known at the present time, in respect of which it is necessary to make provision for examination, both as to their purity and their strength. The hon. and gallant Member will recognise the probability, and indeed the likelihood, of other substances being discovered, and it would be unwise for us to have to bring in another Bill for every new remedy that might be discovered. Therefore we have taken power to add by regulation any other substances which it is found necessary to add. As regards the position of this House in the matter, the hon. and gallant Member will see that all regulations are to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made. I think that gives adequate protection, and if any objection is taken to a regulation the usual Parliamentary procedure is provided. I do not think, however, Parliament will be anxious to intervene in a matter of this kind in which we shall have to be guided largely by the Medical Research Council. I do not know if the hon. and gallant Member really desires me to give a definition of the various substances specified in the Schedule. So far as the particular substance mentioned by him is concerned—

I do not want a long and learned discussion, such as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is capable of giving. I wish to know the reason why it is necessary to exercise this control.

I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend has relieved me so far. The position was made clear on the Second Reading of the Bill. At the present time the substances referred to in the Schedule come to this country, or are manufactured hero, without the application of any test whatever as to their strength or purity. The necessity for this Bill is reinforced by a proposal of the appropriate branch of the League of Nations, who have found that it is necessary, in dealing with these substances, that in all the countries of the world proper regulations should be laid down for the protection of medical men and their patients using these substances. At the present moment vaccines and anti-toxins are in use without any guarantee of strength or purity, and it may be that in some critical case, where a substance of this kind has to be administered as a matter of life or death, the doctor has to procure that substance either here or abroad without any guarantee at all as to its quality or its strength. It is essential to the purpose of remedies of this kind that their strength should be of exactly the proper proportion and it is to secure that end that the regulations under the Bill are necessary. This Bill has received approval of everybody interested in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who is associated with the Medical Research Council, knows how vitally necessary is this Measure. At the present moment other countries of the world where high standards obtain—say America—may reject vaccines or anti-toxins, and these may be shipped over here without any regulation and placed on the English market. I should say, however, that our standards here in respect of chemists are, I believe, very high, but it is only fair to those who are carrying out this work and manufacturing these substances up to the proper standard, that they should be protected.

Are these substances what are called "fine chemicals"?

The hon. and gallant Member will see in the Schedule to the Bill exactly what they are. Substance No. 2. to which reference has been made, need not be explained further. This substance is used for the treatment of certain diseases, and it is very necessary that it should come up to the proper standard.

I only asked for information, whether any of the substances described in the Schedule are what are technically known as "fine chemicals."

I do not think so. I will inquire, and let the hon. and gallant Member know.

If the Schedule covers fine chemicals, then a great deal of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the necessity for having the best supply instantly available falls to the ground, because he and his Government support a heavy duty on these chemicals.

Is it the case that substance No. 2 in the. Schedule has a copper basis?

I support strongly the leaving open of the possibility of adding substances to the Schedule. I think it would be quite out of the question to have a new Act of Parliament every time it was found necessary to add to the list of substances to which this Measure applies. Even as it stands it seems to me that there are some omissions in connection with this Schedule. For instance, the United States pharmacopoeia requires cannabis and its preparations, and recommends digitalis and supra-renal extract to be standardised according—

I do not think it would be in order at this stage to propose additions to the Schedule. The question now is whether powers are to be taken to add to the Schedule by regulation. Any actual proposal to add to the Schedule must come at another stage.

Is there an Amendment before the Committee?

The Question before the Committee is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

If I am not in order in suggesting specific additions to the Schedule, I will content myself by stating that, in my opinion, there are omissions, and that an opportunity of adding to the Schedule is desirable.

I beg to move, in page 2, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words "Commissioners of Customs and Excise" and to insert instead thereof the words "licensing authority."

This Amendment is considered appropriate, responsible representations having been made by various members of the medical profession that the proper people to test these substances are not the Commissioners of Customs and Excise but the licensing authority in connection with the Bill, described in Clause 7. That authority has the assistance of the Medical Research Council, and they will decide whether the substances mentioned comply with the standard of strength, quality and purity referred to in the Clause. Obviously the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are not the proper people to decide matters of that kind.

The Amendment is very similar to one that I have down immediately afterwards, to substitute the Joint Committee for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and I should be quite prepared to accept the licensing authority as proposed by the Government. My reason for putting down my Amendment is that we, in this country, are very much behind continental countries in the use of sera and vaccines, and if this Clause is allowed to stand as it is, it would rest with the Customs and Excise authorities to decide or not whether certain substances should be admitted to this country. I, personally, having regard to the object of the Bill, which distinctly says that it is to deal with

"substances the purity or potency of which cannot be adequately tested by chemical means,"

quite agree that the Customs and Excise officers are not the proper persons to decide whether or not a substance should be admitted. I think this matter should be carefully thought out, because, if this Clause is allowed to pass without careful thought, it will exclude from this country supplies of the Spahlinger serum, which we are hoping in a very few months to obtain in large quantities, and that is my reason for putting down my Amendment to this Clause.

I should like to know if the people who will be licensed under this Clause are the persons who to-day have licences to perform what are called vivisection experiments in this country? The bulk of these toxins and other things mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill are really the results of experiments carried out for a long period by those who are popularly, but often inaccurately, known as vivisectors, and I am wondering whether anyone who has a licence at the present time from the Home Office to perform these experiments will automatically get a licence under this Bill without any further trouble.

I do hope my hon. Friend will not drag in the question of vivisection on this Bill. It has nothing to do with this at all. Anybody who desires to have a licence under this Bill will have to apply for it in the ordinary way, and comply with the rules laid down, but I beg the hon. Member not to introduce that question of vivisection today, as this Bill has nothing to do with it.

I want the people who have these licences already to perform these experiments, also to get this kind of licence in the Bill without question, because it is very important that their work should not be hindered in any way.

We have already set up Commissioners of Customs and Excise to examine and determine whether certain substances are or are not fine chemicals. There are two or three thousand articles in the tariff, and the Customs officer has to determine whether or not certain things are in that list. If we are going to set up an expert committee to decide on this question—a perfectly proper course— I think we might have an answer to my question. I do not know if the Undersecretary for Health in Scotland could answer the question, but I have not any idea as to what the answer is. Are the substances mentioned in the Schedule what are technically called "fine chemicals?"

I do not think they are, because, if the hon. and gallant-Gentleman will look at Clause 1, he will see that it says

"being substances the purity or potency of which cannot be adequately tested by chemical means."

Therefore, I think, the answer to his question is in the negative.

Without casting any slur on the hon. Gentleman, may I ask if we may take that as an authoritative declaration?

I have not been able really to make inquiries and to get a reply except the one I have given. It is a technical matter, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member will excuse me answering more definitely.

Surely the position is this, that everything that comes into this country is subject to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and if this happened to be a fine chemical, it would come under the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, but this Bill says it will come under the gauntlet of this new committee, and, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is really being helped in his campaign, whatever it may be, because it will have to run a double gauntlet in that case instead of a single gauntlet. This Bill only proposes to give an additional gauntlet to certain substances, whether or not they are fine chemicals.

The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) is well qualified to answer my question technically, but I think he, mistakes my object. I am not in favour of what he calls the double gauntlet, but I am in favour of throwing down the glove. This Clause has a medical justification, but the taxation proposal to which I refer has none.

I beg to move, in page 2, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words, "the substance in question manufactured," and to insert instead thereof the words

"that substance, if the substance is one the manufacture of which is carried on in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or, if such manufacture is not so carried on, with such standards (if any) of strength, quality, and purity as may be prescribed for that substance, or, if no such standards are so prescribed, with such standards of quality and purity as are prescribed in the case of therapeutic substances of a similar class the manufacture of which is carried on."

This Amendment is introduced to deal with the point raised just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Dr. Watts), in relation to the Spahlinger serum. I should tell the Committee that, as the Sub-section was originally drafted, it would have had the effect of prohibiting the importation of a vaccine or serum included in the Schedule which is not manufactured in this country. As a matter of fact, that was really not intended in any event, and the object of the Amendment is to make it clear that, in the case of a serum of foreign origin which is not yet manufactured in this country, it must conform to such standards of strength, quality, and purity as may be prescribed, or, if there is no such standard—and that is the case mentioned by the hon. Member—it must comply with such general regulations in regard to quality and purity as apply to substances of the same class. I think that will meet my hon. Friend's point.

Taking the case of what is called the Spahlinger serum, any Spahlinger serum which may be imported into this country will, I think, quite properly—everyone will agree—be required to conform to such regulations in regard to quality and purity as apply to sera generally, the object of the regulation, of course, being to ensure freedom from toxic constituents. If the Spahlinger serum is prepared with reasonable care, there is nothing, of course, to prevent its importation, but I think the Committee will agree that, in view of the risk that any horse serum may, without proper care in its preparation, be contaminated by anthrax, there must be general regulations of this kind laid down.

I have put in a manuscript Amendment, of which I am sorry I had not time to give more notice, but which I shall be very glad not to move if T am satisfied that my purpose is met by the Amendment of the Minister. Perhaps I might be allowed to read what I have suggested. It is that an additional paragraph be added, as follows:

"(c) or is consigned to a registered medical practitioner by authority of the licensing body for the purpose of testing the therapeutic value of such substance."

There is, of course, the difficulty in this case, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, that there may be a substance with which there is nothing definitely to compare, and for whose strength and other qualities it is difficult in the first instance to get any standard. While the hon. Gentleman's Amendment meets that to a considerable extent, I should like to ask hint if it means that a substance must be consigned to a definite person licensed by the licensing authority? That might introduce hampering considerations. Supposing the serum which has been mentioned was brought into this country for official or unofficial tests, and was to be used by a number of practitioners throughout the country, would there be any great difficulty in that being done? Would there be complicated processes, because it was not consigned to persons already recognised by the licensing body? It seems to me that the paragraph I have suggested would prevent any difficulty, and would only apply, of course, where the substance' was actually going to be tested. After it was once tested and approved, it would then come under the general regulations of the Clause. We would be quite prepared for that, but we are anxious that no substance should be prevented or hindered from being properly tested in this country because there is no similar substance manufactured in this country with which its standard could be compared.

I think the Amendment I have moved meets the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a little difficult, as he appreciates, for me to say exactly, because I have not had the opportunity of reading his Amendment. But I want to make this clear. I rather gather from the terms of his Amendment that it implies that if a substance were sent directly to the medical practitioner, no examination should be made. Really, the whole object of this Bill would go if the examination were avoided, by sending it to a particular medical practitioner. Subject to that, I think he may feel easy that the object, which I know several Members of this House have in this particular matter, will be achieved. If the hon. Gentleman will look at paragraph (b), he will see there that provision is made for such substances if

"consigned to a person engaged in scientific research, holding a special licence"

etc. Apart altogether from the question of this particular serum, it should be known—and quite properly known—that under Sub-section (5) of Clause 2,

"Nothing in this Section"—

and, of course, nothing in the Bill—

"shall apply to the preparation by a registered medical practitioner for any of his own patients or for and at the request of another such practitioner of a therapeutic substance to which this Act applies, if it is specially prepared with reference to the condition, and for the use, of an individual patient."

In other words, this Bill is more designed to deal with the commercial aspect of the matter, and I think the medical practitioners of the country are generally satisfied with that proviso. I have had the opportunity of conferring with one or two hon. Gentlemen upon the suggestion that the hon. Member has just made, and I think they are satisfied that the Amendment I have moved will meet all reasonable requirements such as those to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Does the hon. Member for East Edinburgh move his Amendment?

No, Sir.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after the word "Council," to insert the words "one member appointed by the British Medical Association."

The Committee may remember that, on the Second Reading of this Bill, it was urged that medical practitioners who would be using these substances should have representation on the Advisory Committee. The Committee will observe that Clause 4 provides for the setting up of what I venture to describe as a strong Advisory Committee. It was suggested that medical practitioners generally should have some representation on this body. I think that was a very reasonable request, and in order to meet it I am moving this Amendment. The British Medical Association, of course, covers all parts of the Kingdom, and, therefore, is representative. I have no doubt myself that the inclusion of a representative of the Association will add to the strength of the committee, and we very gladly respond to the suggestion that has been made.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, at the end, to add the words

"one member appointed by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and one member appointed by the Royal College of Physicians of London."

The hon. Member in mentioning this committee, spoke of it as a very strong body. I think it is open to many objections. For example, I cannot understand why the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society should be represented, or why the Council of the Institute of Chemistry should be represented, having regard to the fact that the Bill, in the first Clause, presumes that these are substances the purity of which cannot be ascertained by chemical means. I venture to submit that the committee would be stronger by the addition of a member appointed by the Royal College of Surgeons of England and another member appointed by the Royal College of Physicians of London.

Of course, I quite appreciate the motive which my hon. Friend has in moving this Amendment. I do not think I am concerned with the point as to the inclusion of a representative of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, because there is no Amendment on the Paper to delete that, or to delete the proposal to have one member appointed by the Council of the Institute of Chemistry. I need only say—and I think most Members will agree—that it will be helpful that a representative of the Pharmaceutical Society should be concerned and engaged in an inquiry of this kind. We want, if we can, to get representation of both those bodies with a view to making the very best arrangement we can in this Clause. The reason I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion is this. He is proposing, that on this Advisory Committee, which is a body representing England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, there should be representatives of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and the Royal College of Physicians of London. If I accepted that, I should immediately be confronted with suggestions from Scotland, and, possibly, from Northern Ireland, and if I had to accede to such requests, the Advisory Committee would be of such a size, that I fear it would be perfectly unmanageable, and would not accomplish its work properly. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the representation which we have just made of the British Medical Association, which, I think, really meets his point. We could not accept the Amendment unless we dealt fairly with, other people, and then we should get in such a state, so far as numbers are concerned, that the usefulness of the Committee would be very much reduced. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press the matter further.

I think that this Amendment adds one more insult to poor old Scotland. We have there a splendid College of Physicians and a distinguished College of Surgeons. Why this suggestion and this invidious distinction are made, I do not know. I regret that my hon. Friend has been so blind as to overlook the most important and most modest part of these islands, and I am very glad of the uncompromising opposition of the Parliamentary Secretary.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, at the end, to insert the words

"provided that if an address is voted by either House of Parliament within twenty-one days after such regulations have been laid, being days on which that House has sat, praying that such regulations be modified or annulled, such modification or amendment shall be made without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the regulations".

This is quite a formal Amendment, and I am perfectly certain the Minister will accept it. The regulations, as at present proposed, permit the Minister, for example, to add new substances to the substances set out in the Schedule. It is obvious, I think, to every Member of the Committee that this Sub-section is quite valueless. The intention, of course, as the Minister said earlier, is to give the House some control over the Schedule. That is a very proper thing to do, but this Sub-section does not give us that. There is a general feeling that there should be some modification of this Subsection; if so, the House of Commons ought to give effect to that wish. The form of this proposed proviso has been insisted upon time after time by this House in such matters as this, and I am quite sure that the Minister, on consideration, will accept it.

May I express the hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Amendment? What is it that we are desirous of doing? Simply that, if some other substance likely to be of a dangerous character is put forward, the Minister shall have power to add that to the regulations. We propose in Subsection (3) that all regulations made under this Clause should be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made. I quite appreciate the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but surely the addition of, we will say, a single substance, does not necessitate the Amendment he is putting forward! The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is really not necessary. We are acting in this matter purely for the protection of the public, and if the Minister desires to add substances of this kind for the protection of the people it is as well that he should be able to do it. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

There is some point in the last remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I do think that as a House of Commons we should be jealous on every occasion for the rights and privileges of this House. I am afraid that in the last few months we have been getting rather away from that. Rather more than usual, we seem to have been providing for government by Regulation in a way that tells against effective control by the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that in another connection we have a very important set of Regulations in relation to preservatives in food. The object we have in view is to see that these Regulations can be objected to in this House, and, if necessary, we may be able to debate the matter. I would submit that there could be no real harm in accepting the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). As I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, that we on these benches desire the Bill, and are wishful to do all we can to expedite its passage.

I am not wishful, if the opinion of this House be in favour of the Amendment, to stand in the way of it, and, therefore, I will accept it.

I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary. This is not a party matter.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after the word "Minister," to insert the words

"if he is satisfied that no carcase or any portion thereof has been or will be used for human consumption and."

I have occupied the attention of Members at some length on the subject of this Amendment on previous stages of the Bill. I think I debated it on the Committee and Report stages of the Financial Resolution, and on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am quite unrepentant. As a result of the discussion in the House, a great deal of interest has been aroused in the country, and the Minister of Agriculture admits the question to be a very important one. Last week the Minister said, in reply to my first statement on this question:

"I think I may safely say that no meat liable to be prejudicial to the health of the consumer is allowed at the present time to be sold—at least, not knowingly."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1925; col. 821, Vol. 186.]

According to that statement, the Minister himself is not very certain that no meat which is unfit for human consumption on account of being tuberculous actually reaches the consumer. That is a serious state of affairs. Last Friday we had a technical discussion as to whether, in an animal with a circulating blood system, it was possible for any part of the carcase to be free from infection. I think it would be fair to say that no authority would lay it down definitely, without any fear of contradiction at all, that any part of an animal with a circulating blood system can be free from infection if tuberculosis has been found in another part of the carcase.

How is it going to be decided under this Bill whether any part of the carcase can be used for human food? I take it the powers given to the Minister under the Bill are to pay compensation for animals which have been inspected, when alive on farms, found to be suffering from tuberculosis and been condemned to be slaughtered. Where will they be slaughtered? Are they to be slaughtered immediately after condemnation? Are they to be sold to butchers for slaughter, and is the question whether part of the carcase can be used for human food to rest with the sanitary department of the local authority? If so, I can see very grave dangers arising. My own view is that where the State pays compensation for animals so condemned the animals ought not to be used in any way for human food, and that is the object of the Amendment I am moving.

I daresay hon. Members have read the report of the proceedings of the British Medical Association conference at Bath. I saw a report this morning by one very well known to me, who is on the staff of the county council of which I was a member, Dr. Savage, a very eminent authority upon public health matters. He said that in sausages there are constantly found large numbers of live-bacilli which are very dangerous to human beings, especially if the sausage be not well cooked.

I am afraid from what I have heard that very often the bad parts of a carcase of this kind are sold for use by people who make up from the offal of slaughtered animals tasty dishes—sausages and other things—for sale at a cheap price. Here we have evidence by an eminent authority on public health matters that they find in articles of diet very large numbers of germs which would be really inimical to the public health. When an animal is slaughtered in a slaughterhouse, someone can inspect ft and say that this portion and that por- tion are tuberculous, but that they can be cut out, leaving the remainder of the carcase to be used for human food. But there is no provision, so far as I know, for protection against the use of the blood from the animal.

Anybody who has been inside a slaughter-house knows that the blood from the various beasts mingles in one vessel and is used definitely for food purposes. It may be argued that this will be in the hands, not of the Ministry of Agriculture, but of the Ministry of Health, who will exercise all due precautions through the inspectors of the local authorities. There is no provision in the Regulations of the Ministry of Health for compensation in respect of animals condemned by the Ministry of Health after slaughter in a slaughter-house, but in this Bill we vote certain money as compensation where animals are condemned, and if we as a State do that, then surely we ought not to run the risk of continuing to spread infection. In the Debate on the last occasion a medical man said it would be a great waste to condemn the whole of an animal which was not infected in all its parts and of which large parts—especially, I think he said, the muscular parts —might be fit for food. In this matte: I want to take as my motto. "Safety first." When we reckon up what we provide out of State funds for the remedial treatment of tuberculosis, and contrast it with the small additional cost of preventing any part of a carcase for which compensation was being paid being used for human consumption, I think it would be worth while to go on the safety first principle, and definitely lay it down that no part of such a carcase should find its way into distribution for human food. I have seen it estimated that, through all the various agencies, national, local and voluntary, from £12,000,000 to £14,000,000 a year is paid in trying to cure tuberculosis. In this Bill we are voting £67,600 a year with a view to its prevention. We ought to devote more of our money to its prevention rather than trying to cure people who have been subject to the ravages of the disease. I press this Amendment upon the Minister with all the force at my disposal. I am sure he recognises its importance, and that he is not anxious to do anything which would be inimical to the public health, and so I hope he will accept the Amendment.

On the last occasion when this Bill was before the House I raised a point which has been put forward by my hon. Friend who spoke last, and I wish to again reinforce the arguments which have been so well placed before the Minister by the previous speaker. This is a subject which in many of our large towns is receiving a good deal of attention. In Glasgow the whole question has been carefully considered, and I may say that a considerable minority of the Glasgow City Council are in favour of this proposal. On this question I speak with a little inside knowledge, because for four years I served as a member of the Markets Committee of the Glasgow Corporation, which is the largest of its kind in the world and apart from London I should think that more cattle pass through Glasgow than any other place in England.

In regard to the question whether there is danger or not in regard to the consumption of this meat, we have to bear in mind that we should aim to create every confidence that there is no danger in the food consumed by the people. When once the people begin to feel that there is the slightest danger in the food they are consuming, you will be dealing a blow, not only at the confidence of the people but at the trade, because the moment people become suspicious in this way that their food is tainted, you create one of the worst features of this difficulty. For these reasons. I ask the Minister to see whether he cannot accept this Amendment. It may be argued that if you cut out the particular portion of the carcass that is diseased, there is not the slightest danger in regard to the other parts of the animal being contaminated. On that point I have heard different opinions expressed. I have heard people argue that in such cases there is no danger, and on the other hand I have heard people argue with great vigour in exactly the opposite direction.

I would like to refer to another point which has been raised with regard to the use made of blood. In Scotland, as in England, the blood of these animals is more and more every year being used in the preparation of food. What is happening is that this cheap meat is being largely used in sausages, consumed mostly by the working people, and the result is that this blood is being used to a much greater extent. Whatever may be advanced about the consumption of the carcases, I think there in no question about there being every chance of contagious diseases being spread by the consumption of blood. I know I shall be told that we have our public health service to protect us, but all towns are not alike in this respect, and in some cases the public servants are not the best people to do this work, and we want to safeguard ourselves in every possible way.

I think the Minister of Agriculture is in charge of one of those Departments that does not come under the general condemnation of most of his-other colleagues in the Government. I wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, because I think it is of the utmost importance that the nation's food should be absolutely free from any thought even of disease, and even if to be on the safe side the wasting of a few thousand pounds worth of this suspicious food, is involved, it would most certainly be worth it to secure to the community a greater measure of safety and at the same time secure one of the things that matter most, namely, good health.

I can assure the two hon. Members who have spoken on this question that in this matter there is no difference between their sympathies and my own. I have no complaint to make of the manner in which they have presented their case in the two speeches to which we have just listened. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for his kindly reference to the work of my Department, which I can assure him is very welcome. The broad plea put forward by the hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is that no part of a carcase for which public money has been voted should in any case be allowed to be passed on for human consumption. While my sympathy in this matter does not differ from theirs, I think I shall be able to satisfy them that, whatever the merits or demerits of the case may be at this moment, this Amendment is not one which they will wish to press after I have made my statement.

First of all, there is a small drafting point that owing perhaps to wrong diagnosis an animal slaughtered under this Order may be found non-tuberculous and the carcase should not therefore be condemned. I want to take a wider ground than that. The animals that will be affected by this Order, and slaughtered under it as tuberculous, constitute only a portion of the whole total of tuberculous carcases which are discovered after slaughter to be diseased. Hon. Members must be aware that the existence of tuberculosis may be discovered in a great deal of meat not affected by this Order, and I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite, and those who agree with them, would not feel on sure ground in saying that if their case be right at all that it was only right to press the public health argument where only public money is involved. I think they would be ready to press their argument whether public money was involved or not.

That leads me to the general ease as to whether our meat inspection Orders, and the practice now adopted are or are not. satisfactory. I do not speak with authority on this case, which concerns more the Department of the Minister of Health, but after consultation with my right hon. Friend, and on such advice as I have been able to take. and having regard to what was said on the Second Reading of this Bill, I think I am entitled to say that both medical and scientific opinion the whole world over does take the position—I do not say that position is not challenged—that the total condemnation of a carcase on evidence of local tuberculosis is unnecessary and wasteful. I say "the whole world over," because I beg hon. Members to appreciate that we are not alone in this matter.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that because a carcase is not used for human food it is wasted?

Not necessarily. I was only employing the same use of comparisons that the hon. Member for Gorbals had applied to myself. It is obviously more valuable as meat than it is converted into soap, or whatever else it may be used for. I was emphasising that we do not in this matter stand alone. I suppose that two of the most progressive countries, so far as the care for human food is concerned, are Holland and Denmark. In Holland, which is really a model country as regards meat inspection, they have similar laws to our own and condemn only a part of the carcase. I have also before me a report on the health organisation of Denmark, which was furnished, I think last year, to the League of Nations, and there if meat and offals of horses, cattle, sheep, and so on before slaughter or after slaughter show symptoms of disease they must not be offered for sale for human consumption or disposed of in any form unless an authorised veterinary surgeon, according to rules drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture, issues a certificate to the effect that the meat and offals are lit for human consumption. That shows that Denmark and Holland both conduct their business on the practice that obtains in this country, and hon. Members will recollect that that practice, as it exists to-day, was the outcome of a very full inquiry by a strong Departmental Committee in 1921, which itself had had regard to the earlier recommendations of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.

Therefore, for these reasons, I suggest that the extreme proposal of the hon. member for Hillsborough is unsound. Let me recapitulate. First of all, the bulk of medical opinion is that it is an exaggerated view of what "safety first" involves; and, in the second place, even if we put this Amendment into the Bill, it would not cover the whole of the ground that ho and I might wish to cover of ensuring that no meat in any part of any tuberculous carcase should be passed into human consumption, because tin's only covers a small proportion. Therefore, what he is really concerned in is a much larger proposition that would involve the alteration of all meat inspection orders in order to have a general practice which alone would achieve his purpose, if that purpose be justifiable. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals that there is great importance in the avoidance of public suspicion. I do not think that you wholly dispose of the case when you quote medical or scientific opinion, if you have got a psychological state in people's minds giving ground for anxiety and suspicion. I so far agree with him, and I should myself feel it of the greatest importance to take every precaution, perhaps even an excessive precaution, from that point of view.

While I cannot accept this Amendment, I could go some way, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, to meet what I think is the real substance in the argument on this part of the meat business. It is of importance to ensure that opportunity be given to the medical officer of health or his representative to see the animals that are slaughtered, and to make his certificate necessary before the carcase can be removed. That is not at present the case under the Order. I therefore suggest that it would go some way to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite if I promise to issue an Amendment to the Tuberculosis Order somewhat in the sense of saying that the local authority's inspector, acting under the Order, shall send a notice in writing to the medical officer of health of his intention to slaughter an animal under the Order, giving the address and the time when the animal will be killed—that, incidentally, answers the question of the hon. Member for Hillsborough with regard to the time and place of slaughter— and that the veterinary inspector shall not remove the carcase or offal from the premises until he has received from the medical officer a certificate stating whether the animal or any part thereof may be disposed of for human consumption. The effect would be to ensure that every carcase slaughtered under this Order shall be brought under the eye, not only of the veterinary officer who orders the slaughter, but also of the medical officer of health, whose duty it is to satisfy himself with regard to the meat which is to be passed for human consumption. In that way, the carcases of animals dealt with under this Order would be treated exactly on the same basis as are all carcases that are slaughtered at the present time.

If Parliament, in its wisdom, at any time thinks that a. case is made out for a general extension of our meat inspection system, in spite of what I have ventured to quote about the practice of other countries not less progressive in this matter than our own, it will, of course, be within its full competence to do so; but all I suggest that it is wise for us to do in connection with this Bill is to ensure that our practice under it is brought up to and in conformity with the provisions affording opportunity to the medical officer of health to take action under the general moat inspection laws of the country at the present time. If we wish at any time to go further, that will be a matter for my right, hon. Friend the Minister for Health, and I am quite certain—and I am sure that the House will also be certain—that if at any time a case is made out, my right hon. Friend will not be reluctant to take such action as would seem right when the case has been established. I hope that my hon. Friend may feel that I have done my best to go some way to meet him, and that the suggested Amendment I propose to the Tuberculosis Order will perhaps satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite that, as regards this particular Bill, I have done what I can to bring it into conformity with the general practice, and that they will be content to reserve the general case, if on the whole they think they can establish it, as an argument for a general alteration of our meat inspection system. That, however, I venture to suggest, does not arise on this Bill.

In rising to support the Amendment, I should like to express my appreciation of the sympathetic reception that has been given to it by the Minister. He has certainly gone some way towards meeting the case. I agree, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Derby (Sir R. Luce) on the Second Reading, that if you have merely a local tubercular lesion, you need not necessarily have a blood infection, and other parts of the carcase may be quite sound. At the same time, there may be a lymphatic spread of very doubtful extent, and it is a very difficult matter to delimit the exact portion which might safely be used for human food. It was also pointed out that a cow might have tuberculosis of the udder, for instance, and yet other parts of the body might be quite fit for food; out it is quite well known that in such a case you would almost certainly have a good deal of secondary infection, and of toxic absorption, and I think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin) pointed out in the same Debate, other parts of the body, although perhaps not infected with tubercle, would be so affected by toxins, and so debilitated, that, apart from the question of infection, they would be unfit for human consumption.

The Minister pointed out that at present, apart from this Order, many animals are slaughtered which are found on inspection to have tuberculosis, and he truly declared that under the present system, as under the arrangement he suggests, certain portions may be passed for food and the rest cut out. I would point out, however, that in those cases tuberculosis is not so obvious from a clinical point of view as it will probably be in the case of those animals that are slaughtered under this Order, and, therefore, those cases under the Order would be much more aggravated, and probably the disease would be much more extensive. It seems to me that the real reason why there have not been more bad results from the consumption of such meat has been that such food has been usually well cooked. We know that the thorough cooking of infected moat is a very great safeguard. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) pointed out, those "bags of mystery" known as sausages, which are made up in a very peculiar way, and contain all sorts of things, may have in them portions of infected meat or offal, and they are very often cooked in a very superficial way. It is the same with meat that is minced, a kind increasingly used, which is often very lightly cooked, and, therefore, any infection of which would be a source of danger. With regard to one point that the Minister made against the Amendment, that certain animals would be found not to have tuberculosis at all after slaughter, owing to a wrong diagnosis having been made, that is certainly possible. But it seems to me that, if their clinical condition was such that they were suspected of being the subjects of serious tuberculosis, then, whatever their complaint was, it would not be a bad thing if they were condemned for human food.

The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Medical Officer of Health inspecting and marking-out these carcases is very interesting, and quite good, but would it not mean a considerable addition to his staff, and would it not probably put another burden on local authorities, which we are desirous of preventing? Would there be any great saving of money? At the present time there1 is considerable variation in the examination of diseased animals. In the larger cities there is a very good examination, very strict and very careful, but we know in the country districts that is not always the case. As a matter of fact, people sending animals for slaughter, where they are doubtful of them, very often avoid large towns, and send them to some smaller place where they can get them through. That sort of thing is perfectly well known. This Amendment proposes, as a help to the solution of the general problem, to remove certain definitely suspicious meat and that, as my hon. Friend said, we should go on the principle of "safety first." I do not know whether ho is going to press his Amendment, in view of the advance that the Minister has made. I would just like to express again my appreciation of the Minister's attitude and to urge him to carry on the good work, which I am very happy to say he has already done so well, of attempting to rid our country of this terrible disease of tuberculosis, a great part of which— varying from 35 to 50 per cent. of all cases of surgical tuberculosis—is due directly to the bovine tubercle.

My colleague who has just spoken has, I think, perhaps, given a rather exaggerated view of the danger of tubercle. As I tried to point out last week, I think it is recognised that a largo proportion of the cases of tubercle are eases in which the disease is very localised, and there is a large consensus of opinion in the medical profession which holds that there is practically no danger in the use of a large portion of the carcases of animals which are affected only by the local form of tubercular disease. The question of the blood has been raised. There are, of course, certain cases in which the disease is generalised, but in localised cases there is practically no risk of blood infection, and the blood is no more dangerous for human consumption than the flesh, which is largely used for human consumption.

I quite agree, of course, that in certain cases, in which tuberculosis is generalised, no part of the carcase should be used. The whole question really is whether we are to decide definitely that in all cases the carcase of a tubercular animal, however slightly affected, is unfit for human consumption. It seems to me that it is impossible to decide that those animals which are to be slaughtered under this Measure shall be considered to be tubercular and unfit for human consumption, and at the same time allow the use of those which are slaughtered, not under this Measure, but in the ordinary way, and which are found to have very small affections of tubercle. Both kinds of cases should be brought into the same category. You cannot destroy one set of cases, and not lay it down in the Order that the rest are to be destroyed also, because, if you are going to admit that there is any real risk of tubercle being conveyed by cases that are only mildly affected, public opinion would almost immediately insist upon any cases affected with tubercle being destroyed completely in the same way. Therefore, it seems to me that we have to decide definitely whether or not it is necessary to destroy the whole carcase in all cases affected by tubercle. The general opinion of the medical profession was backed by a Royal Commission which inquired into the subject some years ago, and which came definitely to the conclusion that there was not any danger in the great majority of cases. If that be so, we shall be acting more or less on sentimental grounds, and, as it seems to me, in a very wasteful and extravagant manner, if we pass this Amendment.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. He agreed with another colleague on these benches as to the danger of public opinion when it was going in the wrong direction. I want to ask whether the Ministry of Health will get a chief medical officer to publish a statement that, where an animal is suffering from a local attack of tubercle, that in no way affects the blood stream of that animal. The medical officer who is going to produce that and publish it is going to be a very strong-minded man indeed, because even the elementary education that we get in our schools in Scotland gives us a very fine idea of what is meant by the blood stream, and how, when the blood reaches any part of the body, it comes back, and that would mean that if the heart pumped blood to the infected part, it would draw it back. I have listened to the technical side of the argument of medical men in this House, but they leave me in the dark with regard to that as a common layman, so far as medical science is concerned. As medical men, you have to convince the public that an animal can have a local attack of tuberculosis, and give a medical certificate that that in no way affects the blood stream. That is going to take a lot of doing. If you cannot do that yon are bound to support this Amendment in the interest of public safety. It is no use saying to me "Here is a cow, and I am cutting this part out because it is affected but you can eat the other part." You will not get me to eat the other part. In small towns, where they do not have continuous killing, you find all sorts of malpractices because there are always smart men going about who can even change the colour of the meat sometimes. I hope the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture will have the courage of what they are saying, and get a medical officer to publish a statement that, if a cow is attacked with tuberculosis on the hip, that in no way affects the shoulder, and the disease does not come into the blood stream. I ask the Ministers if they are going to have that published at once so as to allay public opinion.

I do not wish to criticise the Minister's reply, because I am in entire agreement with him, but he foreshadows certain orders or instructions which, it was proposed, might be made dealing with the matter. I should like to know from which Department those orders are likely to be issued, and under which Act, because an order made under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, is not laid on the Table of the House. I have made inquiries in the Library, and cannot find any instruction as to orders being made. I believe, on reference to the Act it is simply orders dealing with the importation of animals which have to be laid.

I appreciate very much the way in which the Minister of Agriculture has approached the Amendment, though I am afraid he is not meeting us to the extent we desire, in some places the carcase may be properly inspected, but once it is ordered for slaughter a great deal of the blood will have disappeared before the medical officer gets near it. Furthermore, I am not sure that he is going to gain anything by the Amendment, because the objection that has been brought against it up to now has been on the ground of economy—the great cost to the nation of destroying all these animals without some part being used for human food. I think we ought to take that risk and I am quite satisfied that in the large centres, where most of these animals are detected and would be destroyed, there are arrangements whereby the greater portion of the cost of the animal would be recovered. As a matter of fact I am not quite sure whether we do not make as much of the carcase in the way of hides and manures and all the rest of it as if we sold it for human consumption. At any rate, there is not so much in it. The cost of administering the Amendment, I am afraid, is rather against it. However, I am satisfied that if the Minister will boar in mind the importance of the subject he could get some Amendment from the other Department and then perhaps we might have done some amount of good by this discussion. I am with my colleague in supporting the Amendment because we feel we ought to take every means to protect the peoples' food. The many learned medical men who have spoken have assured us that there is very little risk in eating the meat from a carcase of this description. I have been interested in public health for something like 20 years and I am satisfied that no Member of the House would touch the carcases I have seen and that no housewife, however ignorant she might be, if she once saw an emaciated carcase which wad affected in any degree by tuberculosis.

The hon. Member refers to tuberculosis with emaciation. Under the existing Order, if any such carcase be found it is always seized automatically. No part of the carcase of an animal that has had tuberculosis with emaciation is allowed to pass for human consumption.

I know all about that, but I know it does come in, and that is why I want it destroyed. Where you leave it open for inspection it depends entirely upon the inspector. You may have to wait until the medical officer of health comes round. That is all right when you have efficient health administration, but health administration is not as efficient as we should like it to be and it is slipshod in certain directions. There are people who trade in this suspicious meat. They know where there is a market for it. We know that you Gentlemen even in your very exclusive restaurants, are getting some of it. When you go to a restaurant you do not Bee the meat that goes into the sausage, and you are as likely to get it as I am Undoubtedly you get a great proportion of it because as a rule it is cheaper than the other. I am sorry the Minister cannot see his way to have this destroyed because I am satisfied that by spending money in this way you would save it in sanatoria and dispensaries, and I would rather spend money in prevention than in cure.

I am not sure that I understand the danger which is apprehended by the right hon. Gentleman. Does he fear the danger of tuberculosis being communicated to other parts by the blood stream, and, therefore, would have the carcase destroyed, because he is afraid of introducing tuberculosis into the human subject? If so, the consensus of medical opinion is definitely against him. If you are going to take up the attitude that if the blood stream carries certain poisons or toxins, the tuberculous cow is to be destroyed or account of the presence of the toxins, you are opening up a big question. Suppose you have a cow which has an attack of indigestion, through eating something which has disagreed with it, and certain chemical poisons get into the blood, and the cow is killed. Are you to condemn it because certain chemical poisons are circulating in the blood just before it dies? Take the case of a cow buffering from rheumatism, or a cold, or kidney trouble. Are you going to destroy it simply because the blood is not perfectly healthy. If you carry that argument to its logical conclusion, it will mean that you cannot kill an animal for human consumption unless it has an absolutely clean bill of health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There are very few animals in this country that could pass such a test, and there are very few human beings who would be able to get such a clean bill of health. The danger which is anticipated from anything circulating in the blood of these animals is very much exaggerated, and I think it may be absolutely ignored. There is no danger of tuberculosis being carried by the blood stream except in the case of a cow with acute general tuberculosis, and that is always destroyed.

We appreciate the attitude of the Minister, although he has not met us. He has made a suggestion that he would propose at a later stage an Amendment of the Tuberculosis Order.

It will not be necessary to bring it before the House because the Order is only an Administrative Order. I propose to issue an Amendment to that Order.

I do not wish to divide the House until I have had an opportunity, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give me, of seeing on paper the Amendment which he is going to issue to the Tuberculosis Order.

Certainly.

If we are not satisfied, we will divide the House on the Report stage of the Bill. That will save time and discussion now.

There will not be any Report stage, but the hon. Member would be in Order in moving to recommit the Bill on the Third Reading.

Am I to understand that we should be out of Order on the Report stage.

When there is no Amendment to a Bill, there is no Report stage. The hon. Member can serve his purpose by putting down a Motion to re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading for the purpose of raising his point.

Thank you. We will do that if necessary. I should like to withdraw my Amendment, on the assumption that the Minister will be kind enough to communicate to me the terms of his Amendment to the Tuberculosis Order.

I will certainly do that. I will show the hon. Member the terms of the Amendment to the Order, so that he may have them before him. In regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb), I have made inquiries, and am informed that a draft of the Order was placed in the Library, so that if he wishes to see it, he can see it there. In regard to his second point as to the proceedings, it would be the duty of my Ministry to make the Amendments to this Order, and to convey those Amendments by circular letter to the local authorities.

Since making my inquiry, I have been informed that the Order has been laid to-day. Yesterday, I inquired from the librarian, and was unable to see a copy of the Order.

I consulted the Order 10 days ago in the Library.

On the Motion to report the Bill, may I remind the Minister of a point on which we were not satisfied when the Bill was previously before the House?

On the Question, "That the Bill be reported to the House," a discussion on the merits of the Bill cannot be raised.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third Time upon Monday next.

I beg to draw attention to the question of the extension of the telephone system, particularly in rural areas. The telephone system is of great value to those people who live in rural areas and who want to get as wide an extension as possible of the system. I refer more particularly to the difficulty in an agricultural division like mine, where, in the first place, there is difficulty in obtaining telephone communication for the parish and, in the second place, the guarantees demanded by the Post Office are in many cases so high as to be prohibitive. I have in mind one case where the guarantee demanded was £50 and the actual transactions for the year only amounted to £14, but it has been a great convenience to the farmers in that area although the guarantee was a great deal in excess. I would press on the right hon. Gentleman that he would bear especially in mind the extension of facilities in the rural areas.

I do not wish in any way to stop the development of telephones. I fully apreciate that any development which takes place will help to lessen unemployment in the country. But perhaps the Postmaster-General will forgive me if I criticise the large amount-over three years. Cannot he reduce the amount to annual demands? Thirty million pounds, whether in Exchequer Bonds or issued as annuities, or if there is no issue at all, must affect the money market of this country. All these large amounts really come out of the savings of the people, whether the amount be an issue, or whether just an annuity to the Post Office. I cannot help feeling that we have got into the habit of thinking in nothing but millions and millions. What was the amount in pre-War days for the issue of which the Postmaster-General used to receive authority from Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman, as a business man, must know that the asking for millions, not only by his Department, but by every Department of the State, must eventually affect the credit of the country.

I do not propose at this stage of the Bill to do more than offer a few remarks on what has been said by the two hon. Members who have just spoken, because I understand that it was thought more convenient to have any general discussion on the Second Reading, where hon. Members will have the Bill before them, rather than on the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, where they have only the White Paper. I mentioned in Committee of Supply the other day that the question of the development of rural telephones has my constant and careful attention, but I do beg the hon. Member for Cardigan. (Mr. Morris) to remember, as I pointed out to him, that rural telephone development is not only not a remunerative proposition, but is a very unremunerative proposition, and while I entirely agree that in a Service like that of the Post Office there ought to be an unremunerative section, there is a limit to the size of that section in justice to the rest of the community. Subject to that, I will do everything in my power to speed up the development of the rural telephone service, and if the hon. Member desires further details I will be glad to give them later on.

With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), I agree with the general proposition that any form of expenditure of this order at this time ultimately reacts on the money market in general, but I do not agree with his criticism as to the time for which the House of Commons is asked to make provision by giving authority for pledging credit. This is not a Bill affecting any Vote money. The taxpayer, except in an indirect way, does not come into this at all. It is entirely a capital expenditure; it is entirely a. credit, and not Vote money. But I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the Post Office ought to budget for one year, and not for a period of years. On the contrary, at a later stage I shall Be prepared to defend the proposition that it is very much better to extend the programme over a period of years. I have deliberately adopted that policy. I believe that it is in the interests of the efficiency of the Post Office and of the industry concerned.

The Bill will contain a request for authority to borrow up to the extent of £30,000,000. I have in hand from the previous Money Bill £9,400,000. That amount, plus the £30,000,000 in the new Bill, gives a total of £39,400,000. The intention of the programme which I am submitting is during the next three years to spend £35,000,000. This will leave a balance on the 1st April, 1928, of £4,400,000 which, at the rate of £1,000,000 a month—which is roughly the expenditure I am proposing —will mean about four and a-half months' supply. So that in the middle of August three years from now, either I or my successor in office will be standing here presenting another Money Bill and asking to have another Resolution passed. But as a mater of convenience, and from the point of view of the efficiency of the industry, it is very much better to have a programme over a period of years than to have a series of annual Budgets, which may vary from year to year, and cause great uncertainty in the industry.

I quite approve of the programme, but I was referring to the very large amount which I feel must affect the credit of the country.

I note that it is the form rather than the merits with which my hon. Friend was dealing. I will reserve the question of the merits to a later stage. I was dealing merely with the question of form.

We have very few opportunities for hearing the Postmaster-General, and it is a great pleasure to all of us to hear him on the few occasions when he does come here. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Commander Eyres Monsell) will not regard my remarks as a breach of any agreement, because he has been doing well with his programme to-day. But I would like to refer to the question of the rural telephone system to which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) has referred. Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything, apart from giving special terms to farmers, to bring before them what expenses will be involved on them annually if they have the telephone? Because it seems to me that in the rural districts of Scotland at least, where practically all the farmers who are of a conservative turn of mind, where you find them adopting the motor car very generally as an adjunct to their work, and where you find them using electrical power about their farms, and innovations like gas engines, there is no reason why they should not also be making general use of the telephone.

I was in a fairly remote part of Scotland last week, in Wigtonshire, about a dozen miles from Stranraer, in a good farming and dairying country. I found practically every farmer possessed a motor car, I regret to say generally of the "Ford" or "Overland" variety, which I understand are of American rather than British make. Presumably they got these cars because some representatives interested in the sale of these cars had gone round among the farmers, or had gone to the markets where farmers congregate, and had proved to them that these cars were absolutely necessary to the efficient carrying out of their work and that they were the best possible cars that could be put on the market. That is what American private enterprise has done. I certainly think that the Postmaster-General could quite legitimately adopt the canvassing methods of American private enterprise in this country. I know also that in the agricultural area where I live, where the electrical supply is in the hands of a private company, that company definitely has its agents going round conducting a house to house visitation, in order to impress upon the people the desirability of lighting their houses by electricity, rather than by gas.

We on this side of the House who hold Socialist views think there is no reason why a State Department, with powers greater than those of any private enterprise, should not be as efficient and as capable in distributing its commodity as any private enterprise. I suggest that the Postmaster-General might consider the desirability of sending canvassers, agents, or advertisers, or whatever he cares to call them, to the farms or to the markets where farmers meet, to get into conversation with them. Farmers on market days, particularly in the late afternoon are very ready for conversation and very open to argument and reason. I am sure that there are available innumerable suitable men who would be ready to give their services for reasonable remuneration in a venture of that kind.

I wish to say a few words about rural telephones. I tried to get an opportunity of speaking the last time this subject was discussed, but was unsuccessful. I am glad to see that the Postmaster-General is asking for this fair-sized sum of money for the develop- ment of the telephone system. In this country we are very backward in the development of telephones. In comparing our system with the use of the telephone in America we realise that fact. That is specially so in the ease of those who have been to America. I think I am right in saying that the Post-master-General realises how far behindhand we are in the matter. The last speaker has said that the Postmaster-General should proceed to excite the appetite of the people in order that they should make more use of the telephone. But what is the use of that when the Postmaster-General is not able to supply the demand? That is the whole trouble It is not a bit of good trying to develop something which the Postmaster-General is unable, to supply. There are to some extent difficulties about skilled labour, but more particularly there is a lack of funds. I am delighted, therefore, that the Government has made this move.

I wish that the hon. and gallant Member would explain to me that statement about the Postmaster-General. He says that it is no good asking the Postmaster-General to do something when he cannot do it. Why cannot he do it? If a farmer asked him for a telephone next week, and was prepared to pay the charges, be would get it. Is that not so?

I rather disagree with my hon. Friend, because I know of applications that have been made and have not been satisfied, and I understood that the Postmaster-General is not able to do all the work, I presume on account of the lack of funds and on account of the lack of skilled workers to some extent. I hope the Postmaster-General will develop more and more the automatic system which is now being used so much in America. Any hon. Member who has been to America, and has used the automatic telephone, must have realised what a tremendous advantage it is in comparison with the use of the operator. We all know the difficulty that we experience when dealing with operators.

The hon. and gallant Member is 6traying rather far. He cannot go into details as to the merits or demerits of operators, but must confine himself to the question of the amount of money.

I am sorry that I strayed, but this is a very interesting subject and I would like to develop it. The present condition of things shows more than anything else how much better off we would have been to-day if the telephone system had been in the hands of a private company. It would have been in the interests of a company to develop the system in a way that the Government cannot do.

You might explain that too.

We must not now go into the question of private enterprise.

Capitalised at 5 per cent. I believe the money in telephones is something like £90,000,000 to £100,000,000. In America there is over £800,000,000 sterling put into the telephone system, and there is one telephone for every 10 inhabitants. Let me come back to the question of the rural telephones, in which I am greatly interested. One or two villages in my own constituency have requested me to ask for the Postmaster-General's help in the matter. He has promised to go further into the question, but it has lain in abeyance for several weeks, and whether he is able to help I do not know. Let me quote one instance to show how generous the Government is in America. A short time ago I was in New Mexico. I was told of a man living in the mountains at 10,000 feet elevation. I made a trip specially to see him because he was an Englishman. I found there, hundreds of miles away from any centre, that the Government had installed a telephone free of expense. I wish to impress on the Postmaster-General how far we are behindhand in these matters. I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) in regard to this amount of money. I am glad to see the Postmaster-General asking for it, and I hope in his programme he will give my division a little consideration in connection with rural telephones, and that he will not ask for guarantees which the farmers are unable to give.

As we are voting a large sum of money for telephone development, it seems a suitable occasion on which to raise a small point affecting telephone subscribers, namely, the regu- larisation of accounts. It frequently happens that, although commercial or private subscribers take the greatest care to record the calls which they have made, they receive accounts from the Post Office which do not in the least correspond with their own records. The divergencies between the subscribers' records and the Post Office accounts are in some cases very wide. Disputes of this kind occur in business constantly, and are capable of settlement, but in dealing with the Postmaster-General one is not dealing with an equal. In his official capacity the the Postmaster-General is an autocrat, and is never willing to go over an account for purposes of discussion and adjustment. The subscriber is informed of the payment demanded, and if he disputes it, he is threatened with the cut-ting-off of his telephone. It is suspected that many calls are recorded which are not effective, and I understand there is a dispute in which an hon. Member of this House is concerned in which it is suggested that such calls represent 30 per cent. of the account. It would tend to allay the anxiety felt by many people if the right hon. Gentleman were to tell us how he makes sure that the payments which he demands by his autocratic powers, correctly represent the. services rendered by his Department.

I desire to raise a matter particularly affecting my constituency. Every year during the winter gales the telephone lines are broken down in various parts of the country. We have our own local telephone system in Hull which is better than the system to be found in any other part of the country, but we are affected in connection with long-distance trunk calls by these breakages. To a business community these interruptions are very serious. As a great manufacturing and shipping area, Hull requires a long-distance telephone service, but every winter lengths of wire are broken down in one part of the country or another, seriously affecting this service. Every time a breakdown occurs the Postmaster-General gets busy, and repairs the damage, and he always says that he is going to place these long-distance lines underground. A certain amount has been done in that direction, but I should like to know what progress is now being made. My suspicion is that when all goes well, the trouble is forgotten, and this work goes on rather slackly. All the long-distance lines should be placed underground at the earliest possible moment. This matter has been brought to the notice of the Postmaster-General by the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Trade of Hull. We have always had very polite answers from the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will now give us a satisfactory assurance.

I cannot resist the manner in which the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen have couched their appeals, and I respond at once in so far as I can. As regards the checking of accounts, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is incorrect in supposing that the Post Office are not prepared, where reasonable cause is shown, to discuss the question of the amount charged. That is certainly contrary to the fact. It is done in many instances, and where it is clearly demonstrated by the subscriber that the amount charged is incorrect, the necessary adjustment is made. That is a matter of constant occurrence. But the hon. and gallant Member has indicated a very serious difficulty. The cleverest technical minds all over the world have been trying for years to discover a means by which, with the manual system of exchange, we could incorporate some form of automatic recorder. Nobody has been able to do it. Telephone calls are recorded by the operator pushing a button, and nobody has been able to invent, in connection with the manual exchange, any better system. If any hon. Members are at all interested in this matter, I give them now an invitation to attend at a telephone exchange and see the process. There is another part of the apparatus, called the cancelling key, which enables the operator to cancel a call. She does not press the button until the call is effective, but in case for any reason a wrong number has been called, she uses the cancelling key, and the call is cancelled from the record against the subscriber.

It will be seen that there is a difficulty inherent in the system of working, but in no country has a substitute method of recording been found. But there is a better state of things at hand. It is coming. The automatic telephone en- ables us to dispense with that part of the system altogether, because the automatic telephone provides an automatic record which is necessarily and absolutely correct. If you get a wrong number on the automatic telephone, it is your own fault. You will not get a wrong number if you work the apparatus properly Therefore every call is an effective call and is automatically recorded. As regards the question raised by the hoc and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), progress in underground construction during the last few years has been very considerable, and it will continue. I do not say so with great confidence, but I think I am accurate in saying that, in comparison with the total length of our system, we have now as high a proportion of underground line as the United States, if not a higher proportion. During the next year, of the £12,000,000 which I am proposing to spend, not less than £2,500,000 is allocated to this purpose.

I should like a word or two of explanation on this Resolution. I presume the Minister of Agriculture will reply for the Government, and I should like to know if this Resolution involves any charge on the Exchequer. Are we surrendering any tithe on Crown land or anything of that kind? Secondly, what is the actual sum of money involved, and particularly I would like to know what effect it will have on the rates.

In regard to the first point put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy), this Resolution in no way lays or relieves any charge on or from Crown lands, except, of course, as the hon. and gallant Member will recognise, that if there be any tithe rentcharge on Crown lands, it will fall to be dealt with in the same way as other tithe rent-charge in the Bill. With regard to what extra charge this imposes on the Exchequer, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find full details set out in the White Paper which accompanies the Financial Resolution.

I was told there was none, when I asked at the Vote Office.

I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman was misinformed. It is Command Paper No. 2446, but the upshot of it, as regards the charge on the Exchequer, is that the total new Exchequer charge under the Bill is estimated at a sum not exceeding £292,500, a full explanation of which is given in the White Paper, and in regard to which I gave a supplementary explanation when this Resolution was introduced, I think last week, on which occasion I was not, perhaps, fortunate enough to count the hon. and gallant Gentleman among my auditors. With regard to the effect on the rates, the object of the Resolution is to transfer from the shoulders of the ratepayers the extra burden thrown upon them under the Act of 1920, and that is all that it does. The Act of 1920, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware, made certain alterations, in connection with the rating, of tithe, which had the effect of increasing the burden on other ratepayers. The burden has proved heavy, and, therefore, in con- nection with the general scheme of redemption of tithe rentcharge, it has been thought wise to transfer that extra burden, which Parliament never intended to lay on the ratepayers.

Does not this provision throw on to the taxpayers all rates that may be put on to ecclesiastical corporation tithe above £16? The ecclesiastical corporation titheowner has still got the advantage of only paying half tithe. All the lay tithe, of which the bulk is the collegiate tithe held by the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, is still liable to full tithe. They have, by the Tithe Act, the total value of the tithe stabilised, but they remain liable to full rates, and they remain liable to any increase of rates that may take place in the future. Under the Bill, the ecclesiastical corporation tithe remains only subject to £16, which, I take it, is the assumed present value of half the tithe on the ecclesiastical corporation tithe, and I should like to know what is the reason for that, and why these collegiate and charitable institutions should be left to bear their full tithe.

I cannot help thinking that this is a matter of policy under the Bill, and hardly a matter for this Resolution. If I understand this Resolution, if I am not misinterpreting it, it merely throws on to the Consolidated Fund the amount of rates which are variable under the present Bill, and no Amendment of this Resolution or failure of this Resolution to pass would affect the relief granted under the former Act to ecclesiastical tithepayers.

On that point of Order. This Financial Resolution, of course, affects the burden that will be thrown on the Consolidated Fund under the present Bill, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) is quite right in his main contention that the effect of the present Bill is to continue a rating position that is temporary at the present time. I do not discuss that, of course, at this stage.

If that be so, of course, it is in order to discuss it.

May I, in one sentence, answer my hon. and learned Friend? He asked me why we make this provision with regard to £16 in the case of the ecclesiastical corporations. The principle on which we try to proceed in this Bill is to preserve the status quo as far as we can in the matter of rating. I think it will be seen that the £10 does preserve the status quo so far as these ecclesiastical corporations are concerned. My hon. Friend asks, Why not do that also in the case of colleges and collegiate tithes? That is another question, which we may have other opportunities of discussing. I will only give the short explanation now, that it would be impossible to extend the same treatment to colleges without at once introducing a new principle, and would be departing from the broad basis on which I would proceed, and am asking the Committee to proceed to maintain, as far as possible, the status quo in all these matters.

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

This is a Bill designed to carry out recommendations which were made by the Committee set up in 1922 under the chairmanship of Lord Dunedin, in order to advise on the procedure to be adopted in future to assist the Prime Minister in making recommendations for honours. The House will remember that that Committee ultimately reported, making two main recommendations. One was that a Committee of three members of the Privy Council should be appointed for the purpose of scrutinising the list of persons whose names it was proposed to put forward for an honour on account of political services, and reporting thereon. That did not require legislation, and the Committee was duly set up. The second recommendation was that an Act should be passed imposing a penalty upon anyone procuring, or endeavouring to procure, an honour for any pecuniary or other valuable consideration, and upon any person promising such payment in order to receive an houour. This Bill is designed to carry out the second recommendation. The Committee, as the House will remember, contained, among other members, the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), and he did not agree with all the recommendations of the Committee. He took the view that its scope was wider than the majority thought, but he expressly said that he concurred in this recommendation, and that it was a proper Measure to enact.

The Bill was introduced in another place, where it received the assent of all parties, and I hope it may be equally fortunate here. I do not suggest that the mere passage of a Bill is going to put an end to traffic which all parties condemn, but I think the fact that Parliament makes it a penal offence to engage in traffic of this sort, is calculated not only to mark the feeling which, I believe, is general in the country with regard to traffic of this kind, but also to make it less probable in future that persons will engage in a traffic that is dishonourable to themselves, and discreditable to the country to which they belong.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has reminded the House that I was a member of the Committee which investigated this question of honours. I did not see eye to eye with the remaining members of the Committee in the findings that they retched, but I did concur in an effort being made to deal with what I considered to be a very serious abuse in connection with the administration of honours, and to deal with it in the way that this Bill proposes. I am not sure that I was not actually responsible for the suggestion that this punishment ought to be inflicted upon those who were guilty of what, I think, the Committee were satisfied existed, namely, a form of what we. call touting for the purpose of receiving payment as a result of an honour being conferred. Those of us who took the line I did, said that some of the very best service in this country was rendered by people who had no idea of receiving an honour of any kind. Then we took the line that, if political honours had to be given, it was absolutely essential that the administration of those honours should be associated with the highest standard of virtue. If it could be proved that there was a departure from the high standard of virtue, as I think it could be proved—indeed, I did my very best to have brought before the Committee some who were known to have been guilty, or, at any rate, were said to have been guilty, of the very bad practice of almost making their livelihood out of this very objectionable business, and if it had to be stamped out, as we knew it existed, it was necessary for some penalty to be imposed. The Bill, in my judgment, is belated, because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has reminded us, I think we reported some time in 1922, and I had hoped that one of the first things that would have been done would have been to place this Bill upon the Statute Book. However, better late than never, and I hope the Bill will have the support of the whole House.

The speech of the. right hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly one of the most remarkable speeches ever made by the Attorney-General. I do rot think I do him any injustice when I say the speech roughly was this: All parties in the House concur that this practice of trafficking in honours is one that should be condemned, and condemned by universal opinion of the House, and the best way of doing it is to be obtained by this Bill It is true that the Bill cannot be enforced, that it cannot be put into practice, but in order to pass some kind of Resolution that we condemn the traffic in honours, we pass this Bill. How this Bill is going to be enforced when passed puzzles me. The Bill says:

"If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person or for any purpose any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour …"

As hon. Members know there are elaborate methods resorted to in some of these matters. How is the law going to be set in motion? How are the parties going to be found out? However, in so far as the Bill marks the view of all parties in the House that this traffic is one which is to be deplored, and put a stop to, as far as it can be done, we on this side support it.

In supporting the Bill, I also, like the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken, and other speakers, have some doubt in my own mind as to how far this Bill will be effective in combating this abuse. It seems to me that there is implicit admission in the Bill that in the past very highly placed persons in the political life of this country have been carrying on a very disgraceful traffic, because as I understand it, this sort of thing could not be done effectively except by any one who had a considerable standing in the public and social life of the country. If that is so, one imagines that the penalties suggested here are much too light for persons who ought to have some sense of public responsibility, and not use their public position for the sake of personal financial gain. I could have wished that either the Attorney-General or my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) could have given the House, and thereby the country, the knowledge that they quite obviously have. The free use of a few names would probably have a more deterrent effect than the very, very moderate penalties that are laid down in Sub-section 3 of the first Clause of the Bill. I hope that when the Bill goes to Committee the penalties will be altered considerably. Two years' imprisonment is a very common sentence given to ignorant and unlettered persons convicted of minor crimes. When a public man of some standing has been guilty of a disgraceful act of this description the penalty seems to me far too small; the period of imprisonment should be considerably extended, and the option of a fine absolutely removed.

2.0 P.M.

Further, I think it would be absolutely wrong for those of us on these benches to allow this Bill to pass through the House without expressing the view that the real solution of this problem lies in the abolition of these honours and titles altogether. In this era of so-called civilisation surely we are beyond the stage of these tinselly, baubly honours which have absolutely no significance whatever, and which do not enhance the character or the dignity of the man to whom they are attached. In many cases it is a humiliating thing to the men who have rendered great public service during their lives under their old names to be buried under some new title in the declining years of their life. It would be raising the whole dignity of public life in this country if people retained their own names without prefix or affix of any description. I hope the Attorney-General will at an early date bring forward a Measure, such as the one my right hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Ponsonby) introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule some time ago for the abolition of all hereditary titles. The Attorney-General could take that as the basis of a wider Measure, and he would thus have achieved something at a particular stage of this matter. I know his Government is very, very anxious to do anything that they can that does not cost money.

This might cost a lot!

I am not talking about party funds, or anything of that sort. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should take his courage in hoth hands, because—let hon. Members mark it!—we have been told in the country that this was not one of the old Conservative Governments, but that is was a new democratic Government; that this Government were friends of the people. Such an action as I have suggested on the part of the Government would be making a great gesture—to use a phrase which is now used—towards letting the people know that they were wishful to abolish all titles, to strip everybody of these trimmings, and let us all be plain Mr. John Smith. I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that suggestion very seriously, for while willing to support this Bill with considerable amendment in Committee, I think we ought to take a further step forward.

This Bill, I need hardly say, will meet with no opposition from any hon. Member on these benches. It does mark a considerable advance in the attitude of Governments towards this honours question. This Government appears to be inspired by what Mr. Disraeli said, and I should like for the information of the House to read what that was. Mr. Disraeli, writing in 1858 to Sir John Pakington, about the distribution of these honours, said:

"The spirit of a party depends greatly on the distribution of patronage …. The interests of the party never require an improper appointment. An improper appointment is a job. Nothing injures a party more than a job. But at the same time there is nothing more ruinous to political connexion than the fear of rewarding your friends, and the promotion of ordinary men of opposite opinions to qualified adherents".

That was the opinion of Mr. Disraeli as to the proper use of patronage in the building up in a position of strength of a Government. This Bill carries out some of the recommendations of the Commission that was appointed, as the Attorney-General has told us, about two years ago. That Commission made altogether six recommendations. First of all they said that a Committee of three Privy Councillors should be appointed by the Prime Minister for the time being. That, I understand, has been done. It was done by the late Government. It has been done by this Government. The names recommended for honours were to be sent to this Committee for approval. I understand that also has been followed. Again the Patronage Secretary for the party organisation had to certify to the Committee—according to the recommendation of the Royal Commission—that no money consideration had been received in respect of any honour that was recommended. I do not know whether that recommendation is being carried out. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury can tell us.

indicated assent.

That is very desirable. Further, the Commission recommended that the names of the sponsors of anyone recommended for honours should be supplied to the Committee. Fifthly, it was recommended that the Committee themselves should not initiate a grant of honour; and, sixthly, that there should be penalties for doing so. This, then, is the purpose of the Bill. These are all precautions which have been recommended after great consideration by persons of wide experience and ripe judgment for the prevention of this very objectionable traffic in honours. In point of fact, I agree with, the hon. and learned Gentleman below me that no legislation of this sort is likely to be effective in the long run. My own feeling is that the best thing would be to abolish at any rate hereditary honours altogether. The hereditary honour is more attractive to a man who wants to buy an honour, because he feels that when his son succeeds people will not remember how the honour was secured.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that a man is not really dignified by having a title attached to his name. It would be best to do what has been done in our Dominions, in Canada, in South Africa and, I think, in South Australia. I believe that in South Australia no honour can be given unless a Resolution is passed by the Parliament of the State to that effect. In South Africa, I think, they have passed a Resolution against having honours; and it is six years or more since Canada passed a similar Resolution. There is no reason why, in this democratic age, we should not take the advice given to us by the hon. Member for Bridgeton and abolish altogether signs of distinction, which add nothing new to the glory of a great name, and do not obscure mediocrity or push or squalid ambition. The only real way to get rid of the taint of money payment is by publication of the list of party funds. Resolutions have been passed by both Houses, certainly by the other House, to that effect. I remember a Resolution brought in by Mr. Belloc during a Liberal administration. I am not quite sure what the result of the vote was on that occasion, or how I cast my own vote, but I remember the Motion very well, and the House of Lords passed one in the same sense.

It is not necessary in the case of our party.

Then the hon. Member's party would not oppose it. That is the real cure, not that we should have these more or less futile and ineffective Bills against touting, but that the parties themselves should be compelled by law to publish to the world the sources of the supplies for the party organisations. If that were done, it would be far better than any Bill for attaining an object on which all sides of the House are agreed.

I would like to ask the learned Attorney-General this question. Supposing this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and an individual is given a title, and it is afterwards ascertained that the same individual contributes £1,000 or £5,000 a year, towards the headquarters' funds of a political party, would that be deemed to be a breach of the Act and an offence? Will the learned Attorney-General also consider the fine of £50 which is mentioned in the Bill? I know there can be other penalties, but they could let him off with a fine of £50, and a fine of £50 in the case of a rich man simply makes the Act a farce. Either titles ought to be entirely done away with, and I believe in that, or any man should be able to buy a title—we should sell titles, the State to receive the financial consideration paid for them.

None of us wants to oppose this Bill. I agree with those who are trying to prevent the traffic in honours, and my only regret is as to what the Bill fails to do. If we are to deal with honours we ought to be given a chance of dealing with the matter thoroughly, and particularly given the chance of saying whether we agree with honours or not. So far as I am able to gauge the feeling of the rank and file of the Labour movement, it is totally opposed to honours and would abolish them altogether. It is not good for any man to have an honour. After a man is made a Sir or a Lord he immediately begins to think himself as being of different clay to the ordinary man, regarding the ordinary man as something beneath him. Some time ago, when this matter was rather prominent in the public Press, we were told that men were prepared to pay something like £25,000 to be made a Sir, and something like £40,000 to be made a Lord. A man who is prepared to pay any such sums for an honour has far too much money. An hon. Member suggests to me that the man ought to be in a lunatic asylum, and I am rather inclined to agree that he ought to be examined by a doctor.

At the beginning of the Session a campaign was waged by Members of the party opposite, being carried on with keenness and bitterness, in which they attacked the Members of the Labour party on the subject of the sources from which we derive the money for the purpose of sending us here. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that honours are given to men for the purpose of obtaining funds for the political party that is in power. We believe that is not a good thing for a party. It would be better for a party, instead of getting its funds from the sale or the giving of these honours to men with too much money, to depend instead on the pence and shillings of its supporters. I am sorry that when we are discussing this question that we have to discuss it in this limited way. I would prefer to deal with it in a bigger way on a Motion put down to abolish honours altogether.

I agree with the expressions of opinion to which we have been listening on this question, which has bean frequently ventilated in recent years. What has transpired reflects great discredit upon those who are in society and are reckoned to be the shining lights of the nation. I have been trying to picture the spectacle suggested by the proposal of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts) for selling honours to the highest bidder. It reminds one of Christie's. I am quite confident that some would plunge their last penny in order to secure a title. We know the tendency perfectly well, and it is a disappointing feature of our public life. There is one name identified with the statesmanship of our land, the name of William Ewart Gladstone. Whatever may be our views about his line of action as a politician he was truly a great man. He was all the more marked as a great man because he definitely declined all your honours. Another man of this character was one of our own Scotsmen, Thomas Carlyle, and it is one of the important records we find in his old-time home at Chelsea that that distinguished statesman, Mr. Disraeli, who led so ably the party opposite, had communicated to the Scottish philosopher the kindly idea of arranging that he should be recognised in such fashion by the State, It is still more interesting to find the characteristic way in which Carlyle responded in declining the offer that was then made. Whatever party we may belong to the real idea of public service is to render it to Him alone who does give and can give honours for all time and eternity. It is that loyal service which we can render to those less fortunate than ourselves, and our loyalty and steadfastness in that direction which will stand the test in that hour when we shall be called upon to give an account of our stewardship and we shall have no reason then to claim honours for ourselves, but to crown him Lord of all.

I am not going to vote for this Bill or any other Bill of its kind, because I have always been taught that honour is something that can neither be bought nor sold. What we are discussing to-day is the question of the regularisation of the sale and traffic in honours. What I want to know is why anybody who is capable of committing such abuses as those which are mentioned in this Bill should have honours conferred upon them? Why should such men be brought into this sphere, when there is no honour about them? The man with real honour about him is the man who refuses all these things and keeps clean for life.

May I have an answer to the question which I put to the Attorney-General?

If a man contributes to party funds, and makes that a condition of getting an honour, he would come under this Bill.

But how are you going to prove that?

On the general principle of honours, I would like to say to the House that some change has come over public opinion of late years, with regard to what is and what is not honour. There was a distribution of honours during the War, and I think this illustration will show to the House how the majority of the workers look upon such things as honour. In one large shipyard on Clydeside it was intimated to a certain section of the workers that one of them would be entitled in the distribution of British Empire honours to a C.B.E. They had a meeting about it, but they could find no one who was anxious for this particular honour, and they were asked to make a recommendation, and the man they recommended for this honour happened to be the lavatory attendant. From this, hon. Members will see the high regard the shipyards of the country have for these honours.

With regard to the distribution of honours, and its effect upon party organisation, I always keep in mind what I read before I came to this House in a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who used a very pregnant phrase. He said:

"If the giving of honours is abolished, the party system will collapse."

There can be no more pregnant words than those on this subject, and I commend them to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), and I hope he will draw the attention of his Leader to them. The strength of the party on these benches lies in the fact that we have no such corrupt source for our own funds. There may be things that are rightly complained of in regard to our organisation, but the sources from which we derive our funds are not corrupt, and in that our strength lies. The subsidising of any party, political or religious, is not a source of strength, but weakness, and I believe the success of our cause in the future lies in the fact that we do raise our funds in a legitimate way, and the party opposite and the party below the Gangway could not do better than emulate our example in that respect.

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

All hon. Members who come from Scotland are well aware of the importance of this question of establishing a National Library, and I make bold to say that there is no one in this House who knows the circumstances who will not welcome the Measure which I have the honour now to introduce. The Advocates' Library in Scotland has continued for a long period of years, and all through that time it has done great service for the public. The difficulties which have come upon the country generally as the result of the War and more stringent times, brought this question to a head in 1922, and it was then found desirable and necessary that Government support should be sought. At that time, the Government were not in a position to accept the responsibility of taking over the library, but they did make a grant from public funds of £2,000 per year towards it. Subsequently, there was a united effort on the part of those interested in this problem in Scotland to raise a fund by private means which would place the library upon a sound foundation, and it was through the generosity of the owners of the library in offering it upon very favourable terms and also through the generosity of Sir Alexander Grant, who contributed a gift of £100,000, that it became possible, on a subsequent date in 1922, for the Government to accept this gift to the nation. I will not enlarge upon the matter beyond saying that I am satisfied that the board of control, who will have the management of this library in the future, is representative of many interests, both educational and of those bodies which are publicly elected in Scotland. I trust that the House will be good enough to pass this Bill through all its stages to-day. I can only say, in support of that appeal, that it is an urgent matter, both from the financial point of view and from the point of view of getting on with the necessary alterations to the building.

I can assure my right hon. Friend at once that, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, there will be nothing but a desire to promote the early passage of this Bill. I rise for only one minute, because it so happens that this is a matter not only of great importance to the Scottish people but also, if I may say so, to the Central Division of Edinburgh, which includes practically every building of historical importance in the city, with the possible exception of Holyrood Palace, which by an accident strayed a few yards outside the constituency. Among the most important of these buildings is this Advocate's Library and all that that has meant to Scottish law and Scottish character. I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a remarkable change in what I may call the provision which we make for the intellectual progress of the Scottish people, because what is here proposed is the transfer of a great and a very important library from the worthy but still exclusive use of the Faculty of Advocates to the ownership and use of the Scottish people. In other words, what the Secretary for Scotland is proposing this afternoon is in my judgment the highest form of Socialism in this or any other country, because he is bringing the means of learning directly to the owner ship of the Scottish people under a representative board. That is a remarkable departure in the case of a Conservative Government, and it is one, of course, which we are bound to encourage.

I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. I understand that the annual grant of £2,000 which we make from public funds to the Advocate's Library will disappear with the coming in of this Act, and I notice that there are Clauses in the Bill dealing with the financial proposals. Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea of the charge upon public funds, and whether it will be necessary to have a Financial Resolution to cover it? I merely ask that question for the purposes of information, because I want to make it clear. I do not think that any right hon. Member would grudge anything from public funds for this very important object in Scotland. There is only one other point. We have got the transfer of the Advocate's Library under, I think, generous conditions, but the next thing we require for the Central Division of Edinburgh and Scotland is an appropriate building in which to house this great institution. That will be the next step, and I venture to throw out the suggestion that, if there is anybody who wants to reduce his liability for annual taxation or the liability which follows death, there is no better way of achieving that object than by making a substantial gift which will enable us to house this library for public use in appropriate form.

I am glad to learn that this Bill, which receives universal support in Scotland, is so ably and cordially backed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I do not think it would be right to pass the Bill without one word of acknowledgment of the very great public spirit which has animated the Faculty of Advocates in handing over to the public an age-long privilege which they have possessed exclusively.

When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has had better opportunities of access to these sources of learning which are now most generously being placed at the disposal of the public he will be in a better position to appreciate the relative historical merits of the various divisions of the great capital city of Scotland. It is a little under three years since the citizens of Leith were themselves in possession for a short time of the castle, and, I presume, of the building in which this Library is now housed. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert), who once contested Leith and in whom Leith lost a very valuable representative, had studied the history of Leith a little more, he would know that for a short time it occupied the castle in Edinburgh. I only refer to this fact to show the value of placing at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh and others all the sources of learning that can be made available. As a Scottish Member, I would join in the general chorus of approval of this Bill, and I desire nothing except to facilitate its passage.

I should like to add my congratulations to those which have been offered to the right hon. Gentleman on being able to introduce this Bill into the House to-day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has introduced a somewhat discordant note by his arrogant claims for Central Edinburgh, but I was very much obliged to him for leaving me Holyrood Palace. I am not disposed to be critical on that point, although I sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member, in regard to the historic claims of that charming part of the town of Edinburgh, the Port of Leith, which I am afraid, perhaps, the citizens of Edinburgh do not appreciate at its true value. I should like to add to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh said with regard to a new building. I do hope that, now that this transfer has been achieved, no time will be lost in getting an appropriate and suitable building. We shall have again, I suppose, the usual battle of the sites. There is a number of admirable places available, and I hope the matter will be gone into by the Commissioners of Works as soon as possible. I should also like to ask, if I may, a question as to the freedom of access to this library. In the past, privileges have been granted to various people to inspect the Advocates' library and consult the books, but it has not been a free library in the ordinary sense, and if the Government could give us any information as to whether the library is to be free of access to all Scottish people, it would be very interesting. I certainly think it is very desirable that it should. I have nothing more to add except to express my great pleasure at seeing this Bill brought in.

A mistake is sometimes made in being a little too diffident in this House, and, as all those hon. Members who have spoken have expressed their tribute to the generosity of the gentleman who is really practically the founder of this new movement, I think I ought, as he happens to be a constituent of mine, to join in, or someone will think that I, as the representative of the greatest constituency in Edinburgh, do not fully appreciate the generosity of Sir Alexander Grant. I only rise to say that the whole of Scotland realises the generosity with which that gentleman on this, as on many other occasions, Has started a movement which will result beneficially to the literary and historical associations of Scotland.

I only rise because I have a feeling that, while this Bill is proposing to establish a National Library for Scotland, the fact that the Edinburgh Members seem to be claiming the special right to give it their blessing might lead to the conclusion that they think this is a library for Edinburgh; and, when one reads the Schedule to the Bill and the composition of the board of directors, one comes to the conclusion that Edinburgh—which, if the truth be told, is one of the minor cities of Scotland—is having an undue share in the control and setting up of this new National Library. I should be glad if the Secretary for Scotland could consider, before we reach the Committee stage, whether some changes might not be made in the large board of directors which he proposes to set up under this Bill, and I would like him more particularly to consider this point: I do not know why the omission was made—I am sure it was only an omission—among the persons to be elected to the directorate, but, while he has one from the Convention of Royal Burghs and one from the Association of County Councils of Scotland, he has not considered it fit to include one from the education authorities of Scotland. It seems to me that they have a much greater interest in the library movement than either the Convention of Royal Burghs or the Association of County Councils, and that the Association of Education Authorities could very easily provide another representative who would add something to the dignity of and the public interest in the board of directors. With these words from the proletarian West to mingle with the more dulcet tones of the cultured East, I give my blessing to the Bill at this stage, without prejudice to what action I may take when it reaches the Committee upstairs.

There seems to be some thing suspicious about this unanimity amongst Scottish Members. It seems to me, as far as I can discover, that they have just been presented with a gold medal and now want a gold watch-chain to add to it. It seems to me that this library is, possibly, going to be a very costly thing for the nation, if we have to provide a new building now that we have the library. I do not, however, want to place any obstacle in the way when I see the lion lying down with the lamb, but merely to express the hope that it may long continue.

I only want to put a question to the Secretary for Scotland. Can he tell me whether there has been any consultation with the University of the City of Dundee? I see that the city is recognised municipally, but I would have it remembered that it also has some credit as a seat of learning. It is closely connected with the University of St. Andrew's, and I should have thought that the University would have liked and would expect to be recognised by way of representation on the board. I am quite confident that this sort of Government grant will be appreciated from any Government that happens to be in power.

In rising by leave of the House to make a brief reply, I have to admit in the first place that the request that I ventured to make that all stages of the Bill might be taken to-day is, I find, practically impossible because of the Financial Resolution. I am encouraged, however, to think that when this Bill goes to the Scottish Grand Committee, as I suggest it should, every facility will be given for its rapid passage and for its further stages in this House. The Financial Resolution, of course, will be before the House, when the House will be able to see its exact terms. No doubt, in course of time, we shall hope to add to the building because of the growth of the Library, which is continually increasing. So far as regards its general purposes and control, it will be a public library in the fullest sense, and as freely open to the general public as any such institution can be. There should be no doubt about that. With regard to Dundee, I am quite certain that the University of St. Andrews has been consulted in the matter.

Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he could do something on the point I suggested, in regard to the education authorities?

I will certainly give careful consideration to that, and the hon. Gentleman will notice that there is a certain number of nominations in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland. I will certainly consider the point.

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

This is a Bill which, though formidable in bulk, ought not to occupy the time of the House very long. The Statutes relating to the administration of justice in the English Court of Judicature are spread over a series of years beginning as far back as Edward III's reign and coming down to the present year, and for a long time past there has been an increasing demand among those who practise in the Courts to have the Statutes consolidated. Of of course, that involves no alteration in the law, but you would have it in one Statute, so that your law may be more easily and more certainly ascertained. There are, it appears from the Schedule to the Bill, no fewer than 105 Statutes which at present have to be consulted. In future, if this becomes law, they will all be in one Statute. When there is a Consolidation Bill it is necessary that it should go to a Joint Committee in the first instance, which considers it and reports that it is merely consolidation and not alteration of the law. That course has been duly followed in this case, The Bill has already passed another place, and I am hoping that if I get the Second Reading now it may be possible to take the Committee stage forthwith, so that we may get it passed into law in sufficient time to enable textbook writers, and those whose business it is to make themselves acquainted with the law, to familiarise themselves with the Statute before it becomes operative at the end of the year.

The main objections which have been taken to the Bill have been met by the Amendments in Committee and, particularly with regard to the objection of coursing, the Bill more than complies with the regulations of the National Coursing Club.

I should like to protest against the Bill being taken to-day. It was understood that we were going only as far as Order No. 9. There is by no means unanimity in regard to the Bill, and there is a feeling in many quarters against it. A great many people are perfectly prepared to talk against the Bill, but did not think it was coming on and are not here. There is a very strong feeling among people who take part in rabbit coursing that this is legislation against the poor man's rabbit coursing, while the rich man's hare coursing is not touched at all. I did not know the Bill was coming on, and have not prepared a long speech, nor am I prepared to speak for an hour and ten minutes and talk it out. But I should like to protest against it coming on, and I hope other Members will do the same.

I think we ought to have a little more notice before dealing with this Bill. I am not prepared to say whether it should be supported or opposed. There are very grave objections to rushing business through in this manner, when the House had not reason to expect that the Bill would be reached, and there is no opportunity of giving it that consideration that such a Measure deserves. I should like to join with my hon. Friend opposite in suggesting to those who are supporting it that it is very undesirable under the circumstances to push it through in this way.

Rabbit coursing is a very common pastime among the miners in the North of England, and I should like to have some time to consider the matter before the Bill is brought forward.

We have got through a very good portion of Government business to-day, and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will say that we have been unduly factious in our opposition. We have assisted the Government in what we recognise to be necessary Bills. At the end of Government Measures there were two or three Private Members' Bills on the Paper. It is generally recognised in this House that Friday, unless it is required for Government business, is a Private Members' day.

indicated dissent.

I said when it is not required for Government business. It is recognised that on Friday an opportunity is given for private Members, and such an opportunity now presents itself. It would be much better to give hon. Members an opportunity of placing before the House their views on matters which do not happen to be Government business The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury raised no objection to facilities being given for a Private Member's Bill, the Protection of Animals Bill, the Debate on which the House has decided to adjourn. But immediately the figures of the Division were announced, adjourning the Debate on that Bill, the Government bring forward a, Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I think it is rather hard lines on other private Members whose Bills follow. I hope that as far as possible—and I ask hon. Members to join me in this view—on. a day like this, when time permits, opportunity should be given for private Members to have a chance of discussing their Bills.

I think there is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member. On this occasion I acted through the usual channels and approached the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to know whether he would have any objection to Order No. 17, the Protection of Animals Bill, being discussed, provided that the other business went through in reasonable time. That was done in consultation with the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) and the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, (Mr. W. Graham), who at that time were the only right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. They agreed to that course. Therefore, it is not fair to say that this arrangement was not fully discussed and arrived at. I should have been as anxious as anyone to see the next two Orders taken—in fact, my name is on the back of the Bill which stands at No. 18 on the Order Paper—Employment of Disabled Ex-Service Men Bill, and has done for three years. I am very sorry that it cannot be discussed, but a bargain is a bargain, and, as it was made, I am going to advice my friends to keep to it.

These bargains are becoming a little trying, particularly when they are made by such an entirely unofficial person as the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

I happen to have been the acting emissary, but I acted in full co-operation with the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) and the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), two "Whips of my party.

It will be a very difficult thing if these usual channels are going to begin to flow in unusual places. I wish as much as anyone to preserve a reputation for a high standard of honour. But it is going to be very difficult to be chasing round all the various corners to which we are supposed to go in these days. I was not interested in the Protection of Animals Bill, or in the Employment of Disabled Ex-Service Men Bill, but I was keenly interested in the Trusts and Combines Bill, which is a matter of vital importance, and I think that the House, if it had time, might reasonably have devoted a half-hour to its further discussion and tried to carry it a stage farther. I regret very much that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has moved the Adjournment, and I hope that the House will not accept the Motion.