Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Monday, 13th December, 1926.

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

Private Business

Standing Orders

STANDING ORDER 32.—(Petitions for Bill, etc., to be deposited in Committee and Private Bill Office.)

I beg to move, in line 11, to leave out the word "also" and to insert instead thereof the words "at the same time."

Hon. Members may think that the proposed Amendments to the Standing Orders are very formidable, but really there is very little change brought about by them. The House will notice that they refer only to Standing Orders as to Private Business—Bills brought in under the Private Bill procedure. They have nothing to do with public business. In one or two cases they relate to pure matters of convenience. For instance, in one case they provide that certain documents in the course of Private Bill procedure should be deposited in the Vote Office for the convenience of Members. In another instance, certain procedure is shortened in the interests of those who conduct Private Bills. In a great number of cases, the Amendments are proposed in the interests of accuracy, because the present Standing Orders have been proved to be not an accurate description of the procedure in practice.

In several cases, where the Standing Order is to be repealed, it is because it is obsolete; because, owing to other changes, the Standing Order does not apply to existing circumstances. The proposed changes chiefly concern the Parliamentary agents who are responsible for putting through Private Bills. They have considered these changes with care, and offer no objection to them. If hon. Members would like to study the Amendments further, I have no objection to putting them off until to-morrow; but I can assure the House that they have been carefully considered by the officials of the House and by the Parliamentary agents, who are most concerned, and no objection is taken to them. It is in order to bring the Standing Orders up to date that I move the Amendments. I do not propose to move the Amendment on the Paper to repeal Standing Order No. 244. I shall move the remaining Amendments.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what way the rights of Members of this House are interfered with by the suggested Amendments, in regard to the method of dealing with private legislation and objections to Private Bills which come before this House?

I do not think they are interfered with in any way. So far as Members of this House are concerned, the only change relating to procedure within the House is that at present when a Bill is first objected to, the Chairman of Ways and Means is supposed to call it for the next day. In practice he does not necessarily call it for the next day, but for the most convenient day some days hence. It is not a change in practice, but only a change to make the Standing Order conform to practice. I can assure the hon. Member, who looks upon Private Bills with so watchful an eye, that he will not find himself in any worse position by the adoption of these slight: technical Amendments.

I hope that I shall: find myself in a better position.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In lines 11 and 12, leave out the word "therewith," and insert instead thereof the words "at the Vote Office."

In line 13, leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the words "and at the Committee and Private Bill Office for the use of any."—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

After Standing Order 56, insert new-Standing Order:

( Percentage to be deposited.)

"On or before the 14th day of January there shall be deposited with the Paymaster-General for and on behalf of the Supreme' Court of Judicature in England, if the work is intended to be done in England, in the case of (a) a Railway Bill or Tramway Bill, authorising the construction of works by other than an existing railway company or tramway company, incorporated by Act of Parliament, possessed of a railway or tramway already open for public traffic, and which has during the year last past paid dividends on its ordinary share capital, and which does not propose to raise under the Bill a capital greater than its existing authorised capital, a sum not less than five per cent. on the amount of the Estimate of Expense or, in the case of substituted works, on the amount by which the expense thereof will exceed the expense of the works to be abandoned; (b) all Bills other than Railway Bills and Tramway Bills, a sum not less than four per cent. on the amount of such estimate or of such excess as aforesaid: provided that in the case of any Bill under which no private or personal pecuniary profit or advantage is to be derived, and where the work is to be made out of money to be raised upon the security of the rates, duties, or revenue already belonging to or under the control of the promoters, or to be created by or to arise under the Bill, no money deposit shall be required."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 57—(Percentage To Be Deposited)

Ordered, That the Standing Order be repealed.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 59—(Cases In Which Money Deposit Shall Be Required)

Ordered, That the Standing Order be repealed.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 100—(Committee Of Selection To Group Private Bills)

Amendments made:

In line 5, leave out the word "in," and insert instead thereof the word "with";

At the end, add the words "and Proceedings of the House."—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 106—(Preliminary Notice To Members)

Amendments made:

In line 3, leave out the word "in" and insert instead thereof the word "with."

After the word "Votes" insert the words "and Proceedings of the House."—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 120—(Order In Which Bills Are To Be Considered)

Amendment made: In line 12, leave out from the word "Committee" to the

second word "and" in line 13.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 139—(Names Of Members To Be Entered On Minutes)

Amendment made: In line 8, leave out from the word "vote" to the end of the Order.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 151—(Proceedings On Bills For Confirming Provisional Orders, Etc)

Amendment made: In line 12, leave out from the word "Promoters" to the end of Order.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 152—(Minutes Of Committee)

Ordered, That the Standing Order be repealed.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 159—(Committee To Fix The Rates And Charges)

Amendment made: In line 9, leave out from the word "Charge" to end of Order, and insert instead thereof the words,

"they shall report specially to the House, explaining the grounds of their omission so to do."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 183—(Committee On Any Private Bill Containing Provisions Relating To The Inclosure Of Land In Certain Cases To Make A Special Report)

Amendment made: In line 6, leave out the words, "make a Special Report," and insert instead thereof the words, "report specially."—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 198A—(Endorsement Of Chairman Of Ways And Means In Case Of Certain Petitions)

Amendments made:

In line 5, after "194a," insert the words, "and every Petition for an Additional Provision."

In line 8, leave out from the word "office" to end of Order.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 204—(Time Between First And Second Reading)

Amendment made:

In line 3, leave out the words "and Second."

In line 5, after the word "Certificate," insert the words

"and the day upon which the Bill is first set down for Second Reading."

In line 11, leave out the words "read a Second time," and insert instead thereof the words "first set down for Second Reading."—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 205—(Petition Relating To Bills To Be Presented To House By Being Deposited In The Committee And Private Bill Office)

Amendment made: Leave out line 5.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 207—(Second Or Third Reading To Be Postponed When Opposed)

Amendment made: In line 7, at end, insert the words, "or such further day as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine."—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 224A—(Extension Of Time For Petitions, Etc, In Case Of Adjournments Of The House)

Amendment made: In line 15, leave out the word "but," and insert instead thereof the words, "Provided always that the provisions of."—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 233—(Custody Of Bills)

Amendment made: In line 4, leave out from the word "office" to end of the Order.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 238—(Notice Of Adjournment)

Ordered, That the Standing Order be repealed.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order 247—(Time For Delivering Notices)

Amendment made:

In line 4, leave out the word "before" and insert instead thereof the words "between Eleven and";

In lines 4 and 5, leave out the words "in the evening of" and insert instead thereof the word "on".—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Orders, as amended, to be printed. [No. 158.]

Adjournment Motions Under Standing Order No 10

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Return be Ordered of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1926 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 202, of Session 1924–25)."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

During a. Debate on the Supplementary Estimates last February, I took occasion to draw attention to what I thought was a waste of public money in the printing of a great many of these documents which it is now proposed should be reprinted. I know that the amount involved is small, but the only way in the long run to effect economy is to protest against minor extravagancies, and for these reasons I desire to call attention to the unnecessary expenditure of public money in the printing of this return and the subsequent returns mentioned on the Order Paper.

I do not think the hon. Member need be alarmed at the amount of the Estimate for printing these returns. He will find that nearly all these returns have been cut down to the absolute limit, and the amount of the expenditure will be very small. The second and third returns are printed in the ordinary way, and are available in the Vote Office. With regard to the other six, five of them are merely historical memoranda of what takes place in regard to private Bills, etc. One of them is in manuscript form. It refers to the sittings of the House and is available in the Library, but is not printed. The total expenditure upon these returns, leaving out the first one, amounts to £67 9s. Considering the amount of information that is given in the returns, I do not think that is an extravagant sum.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what would be the comparative cost of printing these Returns and the cost of printing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the objection raised in the hon. Member's speech?

If the various costs of Returns other than those are to be compared, I might point out that the total cost of the second and third Returns, those dealing with the Business of the House and the Closure of Debate, amount together to less than the cost entailed by two Divisions, each of which costs about £12. If hon. Members are anxious for economy it is easy to see how economies can be effected.

While I realise that the sum involved is very small, may I ask whether there is any continued necessity for these Returns, quite apart from any question of economy. I say nothing about Return No. 4, but if we look at No. 6, it is a question as to whether there is any merit in printing just a number of documents which do not deal with subject matter at all. In regard to Return No. 7 and Return No. 9, I should have thought there was no continuing necessity for these Returns.

It is Three o'clock. The question must be put off till To-morrow.

Oral Answers To Questions

India

Lee Commission Report (Provincial Officers)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if final decisions have now been arrived at in regard to the extension of the provisions of the Lee Commission Report to officers of the provincial services of non-Asiatic domicile; and, if so, whether the comprehensive list of beneficiaries can now be made available?

I have been asked to reply. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for India has to-day received an advance copy of the Government of India's despatch containing their final views regarding the outstanding cases. Consideration of their proposals will be pressed on in advance of the receipt of the official despatch, but in view of the date on which the House may be expected to rise it will not be possible to publish a list of the bene- ficiaries before the end of the Session. As soon as such a, list is available, my noble Friend will be prepared to send a copy to any hon. Member who desires one.

Does that mean that the list will not be published until the House meets again, or during the Recess?

I am not quite sure, but I will ask my noble Friend to communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

Is it possible to publish the list at once, as this is a matter of great anxiety to a large number of deserving people?

I will bring that view to the attention of my noble Friend.

Rupee (Stabilisation)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any protests have been received from Indian corporations or societies protesting against the proposal of the Government of India to stabilise the rupee forthwith at a rate corresponding to an exchange rate of 1s. 6d.; and, if so, how many?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; it is not possible to answer the second part without a reference to the Government of India.

Irish Free State (Civil Service Appointments)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the acceptance of a Civil Service appointment in the Irish Free State by an officer of a former British statutory Board, such as the Intermediate Education Board, invalidates such officer's rights of Voluntary retirement under Article 10 of the Treaty?

The rights conferred on civil servants by Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement are statutory, and as such can only be interpreted, in case of dispute, by the Courts. I have no authority to pronounce an opinion on the subject.

Kenya

Liquor Revenues And Education

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the proposal of the Kenya Legislative Council to allocate a liquor tax in varying proportions racially for educational purposes; and whether such proposal has the approval of His Majesty's Government?

asked whether he has sanctioned the proposal of the Government of Kenya to earmark liquor revenues for education, and to divide three-quarters for Europeans and one-quarter for Indians?

asked whether he is aware that the Government of Kenya Colony proposes to divide the liquor revenues for educational purposes in the proportion of three-quarters for Europeans and one-quarter for Indians; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the proposed division?

I will reply to these questions together. Legislation foe raising additional revenue from wines and spirits was passed on the 5th November. I have not yet received the Ordinance, but I see no reason to suppose that it will be necessary for it to be disallowed. As regards the allocation of the proceeds of the taxes, I would refer to the reply returned to the question by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on the 9th December.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman approves of this allocation?

I understood that the allocation is in proportion to the actual amount of taxation paid, but the Governor informs me that he is going over the figures again in order to make sure that the allocation is a fair one.

My question refers to the allocation of taxation for educational purposes out of a special source of revenue.

I see nothing to object to.

Advisory Land Board

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied with the work accomplished by the Board appointed, at a date prior to 1924, by the Governor of Kenya Colony and gazetted an Advisory Land Board; and whether he can state the number of times the Board has met?

I have seen the references to this Board which appeared in the local Press on the 17th September, 1924, and the 6th November last, but I have no further information. It would appear from the Press references that the Board was appointed for the specific purpose of dealing with a particular class of applications for land, but that its assistance was not found necessary, and that it never actually functioned.

Has the Board met?

I gather that it has not.

Native Retainer's Bravery

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the action of a native retainer at Kijiado, in Kenya Colony, who, at the risk of his own life, attacked singe-handed a lion who was mauling the acting district commissioner and thereby saved the life of this official; and what, if any, action has been taken by the Government to reward the native for this act of bravery?

I have seen a Press report of the incident. I am not aware of any action by the Colonial Government, but I will make inquiry.

Dominions (Locarno Treaty)

11.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any of the Dominions are now associated with Great Britain in her responsibilities under the Locarno Treaty?

If the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the assumption of obligations under Article 9 of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee, the answer is in the negative; but I would refer him to the passage dealing with the policy of Locarno, which appears on pages 28 and 29 of the published Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference (Cmd. 2768). The passage in question, and the Resolution submitted by the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee, were unanimously approved by the Conference.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Resolution submitted by the Imperial Relations Committee has no solid foundation whatever, and has he made any representations to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary that no further obligations should be entered into which will leave Great Britain isolated in this way?

I am not quite sure that I altogether understand the purport of the supplementary question. I do not think that the Resolution passed by the Conference expressing their satisfaction at the policy of His Majesty's Government is not a solid contribution.

May I ask whether the Dominions have agreed to what is known as the Optional Clause?

No, Sir. There is no ratification of the Optional Clause, as my original answer makes quite clear.

Agriculture

Anti-Tuberculosis Vaccine

12.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if his Department has received a copy of the Report of the Geneva State veterinary surgeons recording the success, which they state to be beyond all hopes, of the Spahlinger tests now completed there with anti-tuberculosis vaccine on cattle; and whether he contemplates any further steps to estimate the value of these reported results?

The Ministry's knowledge of the tests of M. Spahlinger's vaccine which have recently taken place in Switzerland is limited to accounts which are published in the Press. In 1924 a Committee was formed under the Chairmanship of Commander Bayley, R.N., which included prominent agriculturists, doctors and veterinary surgeons. I am informed that this Committee had complete plans for experimental trial of the vaccine, but was unable to obtain any vaccine from M. Spahlinger and therefore the matter dropped. I understand that the Committee is still in being, but I am unable to say whether it will be prepared again to undertake the trial of this vaccine.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Committee?

:I will inquire whether it is possible to draw their attention to the matter, but I am sure the hon. Member will understand that it is not easy to get this information seeing that the serum is a secret one.

Foot-And-Mouth Disease

14.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the grounds for the announcement made on behalf of his Ministry to the Royal Agricultural Society that the discovery of a preventive of foot-and-mouth disease may be anticipated in the coming year?

I am informed that no definite anticipation was expressed that a preventive would be discovered in the coming year. The stage reached in the various lines of investigation now being pursued under the direction of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee will be fully explained in the second progress Report now in the Press.

Employment Exchange, Camberwell Green

15.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when he intends removing the Employment Exchange from Camberwell Green?

My right hon. Friend intends to remove the Exchange as soon as a satisfactory scheme of re-housing can be carried out. The Department is at present engaged in the search for the most suitable alternative site, with a view to the erection of a semi-permanent building.

Strangers' Galleries (Speakers' Names)

16.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, before the reassembling of Parliament next year, he can make some arrangements whereby visitors in the Galleries may know the name of the Member speaking?

My right hon. Friend is not aware of a sufficiently, widespread desire for such facilities as to warrant the considerable expenditure that would be involved.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that, whereas everybody in the public galleries will know the name of the hon. Member who asks this question, there are probably very few who will know the name of the interesting hon. Member who has replied to it?

Royal Parks (Attendants' Pay And Holidays)

17.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that the rates of pay paid to the royal parks attendants is £2 13s. 7d. per week; that the London County Council pay similar workmen in their employ £3 2s. 5d. per week; and if he can give any reasons why, in view of the fair wages clause, he has refused to increase the rates of pay to the royal park employés?

My right hon. Friend is aware of the difference between the rates paid to the royal parks employés and those paid by the London County Council. The former rates were the subject of a submission to the Industrial Court in March of last year, and the Department is now paying rates awarded by the Court, which had before it the information regarding the rates paid by the London County Council.

18.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the workmen employed in the royal parks and gardens are to be deprived of the usual half-day holiday in Christmas week; and whether, in view of the fact that the working hours are based on a weekly basis of 48 hours, which in- cludes the early cessation of work on Saturday and that Christmas Day is one of the recognised holidays, he will reconsider the decision, especially as it has been the practice for many years until last year for the workmen to cease work at mid-day on Christmas Eve?

My right hon. Friend is unable to agree that the leave conditions of the royal parks employés should be increased as suggested. The Regulations of the Department state that leave with pay is granted on Christmas Day, and the fact that this year Christmas Day falls on a Saturday is not considered a justification for the granting of an additional half-day.

United States And Panama

19.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the terms of the Treaty between the United States and Panama; and whether it is intended as a consequence to alter the status of the British representative in Panama?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on the 24th November, from which it will be seen that only a newspaper synopsis of the Treaty is at present available. No alteration in the status of His Majesty's representative is under consideration.

Does the Foreign Office not consider that the status of Panama as a State is affected by the Treaty?

I have already stated that we have not yet received official information as to what the Treaty is.

China

Tientsin (Kuomintang Arrests)

22 and 25.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he can now make any statement as to the arrest of certain members of the Kuomintang in the British Concession at Tientsin on 23rd November, and their delivery into the hands of the Fengtien military authorities, against which the Canton Government have protested; whether the arrested persons have been delivered to the military and not to the civil authorities; and whether His Majesty's Government has any information as to what is happening to them;

(2) whether any further arrests have taken place of members of the Kuomintang in Tientsin; and what has been done with persons arrested?

I will answer these questions together. On the 23rd November the police of the British municipal area at Tientsin, acting on information given by the Chinese city police, to the effect that certain premises in that area were the headquarters of a treasonable and anarchist secret society which was a menace to the peace of the community, raided the house in question, arrested 14 persons found therein, and seized inflammatory literature affording prima facie evidence that the house was used for propaganda inciting to viofence against foreigners and against all constituted government. At the time of the raid the British municipal police had no knowledge that the premises were the headquarters of the Kuomintang party, nor did any of the arrested persons claim to belong to the Kuomintang or to he political refugees.

After effecting the arrest, the municipal police then reported the matter to His Majesty's Consulate-General, who directed that the accused should be held in custody by the municipal police while he referred for instructions to His Majesty's Minister at Peking. His Majesty's Minister directed the Consul-General to follow the usual procedure and hand over the accused on production by the Chinese police of a warrant issued by the competent Chinese authority. On the issue and production of such a warrant the prisoners were handed over to the Chinese police on the 26th November. This action was in accordance with the settled policy of British authorities in China that Chinese, by the mere fact of residence in a British concession, should not be sheltered in any way from the jurisdiction of their own authorities.

In Tientsin there are many contiguous areas under different police jurisdiction and it has always been the practice of the police of the various municipal areas—both Chinese and foreign—to co-operate in every way possible to maintain law and order. The local Chinese authorities, to whichever faction they may have belonged, have constantly pointed out that if shelter is given to persons conspiring against them in the foreign concessions they cannot be responsible for maintaining law and order and for the protection of foreign life and property in Tientsin. In order to expedite action in urgent cases the British police are provided with blank search warrants issued by the Chinese city police. In this case the search was carried out by the municipal police at the request in person of the officer of the city police who ordinarily issues such warrants, and therefore it was not considered necessary to complete a warrant before making the raid.

The prisoners have not been delivered to the military authorities, but are still in the custody of the Chinese city police. I have no knowledge of any further arrests of members of the Kuomintang in Tientsin having taken place.

Hankow

23.

asked the Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement with regard to the present position in Hankow?

The position at Hankow remains generally as stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff East en the 6th instant. No further reports of anti-British agitation have been received. As the House is aware, Mr. Lampson;s now at Hankow, and is examining the whole situation.

Are we doing anything to counter the pernicious propaganda which is being spread?

That really does not arise out of the original question.

Canton Government (Recognition)

24.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Canton has been recognised as the de facto Government of China; and, if so, are they fulfilling treaty obligations with Great Britain?

I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Willesden West on the 11th November. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of that reply.

Government Policy (Unauthorised Statements)

47.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the use which has been made for propaganda purposes of unauthorised statements as to the Government's policy in regard to China, an opportunity can be given for a discussion on the subject before the House rises?

I do not know exactly to what statements my hon. and gallant Friend refers. In any case, I am afraid it will not be possible to find time for a discussion.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the fact indicated in the question, namely, that statements have been made by unauthorised persons connected with this House, regarding propaganda and the action of the Government; and does he not think that steps should be taken in order to inquire into this matter and to take the feeling of the House upon it?

There is a great deal to be said for that view, but my hon. and gallant Friend knows how difficult it is to find time now, and he also knows that if we were to devote the time of Parliament to correcting unauthorised expressions of opinion, we would not be able to do anything else.

Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to Lord Birkenhead and his associates?

No, I was not.

Piracy

50.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Canton Government has been approached with a view to joint operations being taken against the pirates in Bias Bay; and can he give the House any information on the matter?

The whole question of measures to be taken for dealing with the Bias Bay pirates is being carefully examined by His Majesty's Gov- ernment, and a final decision has not yet been reached. If possible, it would be desirable that the Canton authorities should themselves take action.

Are any negotiations taking place with the Cantonese Government?

I could not answer that question without notice.

Is it not the case that British commercial supremacy commenced with piracy on the high seas?

Royal Air Force (Officers' Wine)

26.

asked the Secretary of State for Air on what basis the sum of £5 per month, referred to in the Duxford court martial of 8th November as the limit to be expended on wine in the individual mess bills of the officers of the Royal Air Force, is fixed; and whether or not it includes intoxicants other than wine?

In reply to the first part of the question, the monthly limit of is fixed as a reasonable maximum when regard is had to the varying circumstances of officers and the amount of entertainment given by them. As regards the second part, the term "wine" as used for this purpose in the King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions for the Royal Air Force is interpreted as including all kinds of intoxicants.

Is it not a fact that the £5 limit is the same in the Royal Air Force as in the Royal Navy?

I am not quite sure, but I am certain that the figure was arrived at after consultation between the three Services.

Post Office

Postal Organisation, Bristol

27.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists with regard to the postal facilities in the Fishponds area of the City of Bristol, also in the district of Two Mile Hill, and that a number of places within the city have to be addressed as near Fishponds or Kings-wood; and whether, as there is a continuity of streets, he will give this fact careful consideration with a view to securing delivery of all letters within the city from Bristol sorting and postmen's offices, to the improvement pf the local postal organisation?

I am considering the postal arrangements in the Fishponds and Kingswood areas in connection with a review of the delivery and collection services in the outskirts of Bristol and I will write to the hon. Member shortly on the subject.

South Louhboisdale

28.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the need for a post and telegraph office in South Lochboisdale, he will make inquiries into the matter?

There is already a sub-Post Office at South Lochboisdale transacting ordinary postal business. I will make inquiry as regards the provision of telegraph facilities, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

London Telephone Directory

29.

asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the new method of printing the names of telephone exchanges in the London Telephone Directory, in which the first three letters are printed in block capitals; if he is aware that this renders the legibility of the name of the exchange obscure; and whether he will consider the advisability of reverting to the usual method of one type?

The printing of these letters in capitals has been adopted in view of the forthcoming gradual introduction of an automatic system for London. The necessity of this particular method of printing will be appreciated as soon as the automatic system is in operation.

When will the automatic service be introduced?

It will be introduced next year.

About when? Will the public have an opportunity of receiving notice?

We hope to open the Hofborn Exchange next summer.

Would it not be possible to revert to the old printing until such time as the automatic telephones are installed?

When the orders for the printing of this issue of the Directory were given it was hoped that the Hofborn Exchange would be ready before the next issue was printed. Now that is not possible. That is why the Directory has been printed in this way.

Cheese, Cream And Ice Cream

31.

asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to obtain a minimum butter-fat standard for cheese, cream and ice cream, in order to safeguard the consumer from inferior foodstuffs?

I have been asked to reply. With regard to cheese and cream I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him in 11th February last, to which I have nothing to add. There is no power under existing legislation to prescribe a minimum butter-fat standard for ice cream.

What is the policy of the Government in the matter?

The matter was carefully considered by the Milk Advisory Committee, which is responsible for these things to the Ministry, and on their advice we took no action.

Canned Foodstuffs

32.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the recent industrial unrest has diminished the demand for canned goods and left traders with stocks which would otherwise have been absorbed; and will he postpone till 30th June the enforcement of the Public Health (Preservatives in Food) Regulations, 1925, so far as concerns canned peas and beans and Californian evaporated fruits?

My right hon. Friend has received representations to the effect stated in the first part of the question, and he proposes to deal with the matter by suggesting to local authorities that during the first part of 1927 they should abstain from proceedings under the Regulations where reasonable attempt has been made to dispose of old stocks.

Poor Law

Pontypool Board Of Guardians

33.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mr. William Barwood, of Pontnewynydd, a man with a wife and six children, and an applicant for relief, received from the Pontypool Guardians, on Friday, the 3rd instant, a note for goods to the value of 7s.; that on making application to the relieving officer on Monday, the 6th instant, pointing out that there was no food in the house and that he and his family were starving, the relieving officer refused to make any further allowance, and that subsequently the officer for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children had to provide some food for the children; and whether he will make representations to the Pontypool Guardians as to the necessity for carrying out their statutory obligation to relieve destitution?

'My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been called to this matter, but he is making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Is the hon. Member aware that the majority of the members of this board of guardians have a very black record, and will he see to it that until the Minister—

I suggest to the hon. Member that he ought not to make a statement of that kind in a supplementary question. Be should only ask for facts.

Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that members of the Pontypool Board of Guardians carry out their statutory duties until such time as the Minister of Labour gives his decision as to whether miners are entitled to unemployment benefit?

I have no reason to believe that members of this board of guardians are not carrying out their statutory duties.

There is this case before you.

This question simply relates to a single case, as to which I have said that we are making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Casual Wards (Dulverton And Williton)

37.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Dulverton and Williton Guardians have publicly stated that they do not intend to comply with the Order of the Ministry with reference to the casual wards of their institutions; and what steps he proposes to take?

My right hon. Friend is in communication with the guardians, but he has no information that either Board has refused to comply.

Contributory Pensions Act

34.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that naval ratings pay 4½d. each week towards the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and that the widows of these ratings do not draw such pension; and if he will look into the matter?

My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. Ordinarily, the widow of a naval rating is entitled, subject to the qualifying conditions, to a pension under the Contributory Pensions Act. An exception is, however, made in a ease where the widow is entitled to a pension, payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, in respect of the death of her husband or of some other person attributable to or connected with his service in the Forces. In the latter case, if the pension is less than the pension, including children's allowances, to which he would otherwise be entitled under the Contributory Pensions Act, it is is increased by the amount of the difference.

Will my hon. Friend say why a man should subscribe 40. per week and get nothing for it?

That is not so. I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better study my reply.

Will the hon. Member say whether he has taken legal opinion as to whether the Government is entitled to deprive a widow of her pension under the Contributory Pensions Act if she is receiving another pension?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have followed what I said. No widow has been deprived of her pension under such circumstances. If the hon. Member will look at my reply he will see that the procedure under the Act is being carried out.

Coal Mining Industry

Mine Workers (Unemployment)

38.

asked the Minister of Labour how many mine workers have presented themselves for registration at Employment Exchanges since Monday, 29th November?

I regret I am still unable to give this information, but I hope to let the hon. Member have it before the House rises.

In view of the tremendous number of applications which are held up pending decisions, are ways and means being adopted in order to speed up decisions?

These are almost entirely decisions which rest with the statutory authorities, and ultimately, of course, with the umpire, and I hope there will be no undue delay.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the past 14 days, civil servants have been dismissed; and does he not think that this is the wrong moment at which to dismiss so many civil servants when there is this extra work to be done?

I was not aware of that, and, in any case, I do not think it arises out of the question on the Paper.

Mineral Transport (Cost)

46.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has yet nominated the Standing Joint Committee of the Ministries of Transport and of Mines which the Coal Commission recommended should be established for the purpose of reviewing the question of mineral transport and its present high costs?

The appointment of the Committee referred to by my Noble Friend has been delayed by the coal dispute, but I hope that it will be possible to set it up very early in the New Year.

Foreign Coal (Imports)

55.

asked the Secretary for Mines how many tons of coal were imported from Germany into Britain since the beginning of the coal stoppage to the latest convenient date; and what was the average price?

I understand from the Board of Customs that from the beginning of the stoppage until the end of November, 6,522,322 tons of coal were registered as imported and consigned from Germany, and that the average c.i.f. value declared was £2 1s. 8d. per ton.

56.

asked the Secretary for Mines how much coal has been bought during the coal dispute from Germany under the authority of the recent Supplementary Estimate of the Board of Trade; and the average price paid per ton?

26,000 tons of German coal was bought by the Government at an average f.o.b. price of 30s. per ton. In addition, some part of the coal bought in Upper Silesia doubtless came from German pits. The total quantity bought by the Government in Upper Silesia was 600,000 tons at an everage f.o.b. price of 33s. 6d.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price paid in Upper Silesia is approximately twice as much as the average price paid for British exported coal in 1925?

No, because I do not know what the average price of British exported coal was.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have any further developments of the "Buy British Goods" campaign under consideration?

No, not now that the miners have been allowed to go back to work.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the coal came in the form of briquettes marked "Kaiser"?

No.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say from memory at what price the Government have sold this foreign coal per ton?

No, I could not possibly say that. We sold it at different prices.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government particularly went to Upper Silesia, where the miners are working an eight-hours day, to make their purchases?

The Government went where the coal was available.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, in this district where the hours are longest, the price is double the price of the exported coal from Britain?

Did the right hoe. Gentleman's statement refer to c.i.f. prices or prices in Silesia?

To f.o.b. prices.

Did the Government make any profit?

The Government did what they said they were out to do. They covered their losses, but they did not set out to make a profit.

Was there an increase in freightage rates?

Yes, the freightage rates went up very considerably.

57.

asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the steamer "Giovanni Flores" arrived at Plymouth on Wednesday, 8th December, with 8,000 tons of American coal; whether this coal has been purchased by the Government; and, if so, what was the selling price of same?

I have been asked to reply. The cargo referred to was purchased by the Admiralty for dockyard purposes and has not been re-sold.

Railway Wagons

58.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether any of the collieries in any district at which coal miners have commenced work are waiting for wagons; if he is aware that there are over 30,000 wagons on one system waiting to be dealt with; and if lie will look into the matter?

Some complaints have reached my Department from collieries which are experiencing difficulties on account of shortage of wagons. In so far as the shortage may be due to transport difficulties my Department is keeping in touch with the Ministry of Transport and the railway companies. There are now no restrictions on the disposal of coal, whether for inland purposes or for export.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of large collieries in South Yorkshire have all had to play for one or more days during the past week, due to the failure to secure wagons, and may I ask, further, if he is not aware that while wagons are privately owned, we can never get the maximum value out of them?

The hon. Member is putting what is a matter for Debate in the form of a question.

Industrial Disputes

39.

asked the Minister of Labour how many working days have been lost in Great Britain during the years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, and the first 11 months of 1926, due to employers locking their workmen out?

The official statistics relating to industrial disputes do not differentiate between strikes and lockouts, and I am therefore unable to give the figures asked for.

Did not the hon. Gentleman inform an hon. Member a fortnight ago, in reply to another question, that if a further question were put down the information would be obtained?

I regret I am unable to give it, for the very obvious reason that the question of whether a dispute is a strike or a lock-out is very often a matter of acute difference of opinion.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the legislation which is foreshadowed on this subject, attention will be given to the lock-out side of the business as well as to the strikes?

Washington Hours Convention

41.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the change in the industrial situation, it is the intention to proceed forthwith with the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention?

44.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that the Ministers of Labour of France, Belgium Germany and Italy, together with himself, reached an unanimous agreement as to the interpretation to he placed upon the Washington Hours Convention and as to its ratification, what obstacles now remain to the British Government ratifying the Convention?

As stated on 8th December, in reply to a question by the right hon. Member for the Central Division of Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), it is the intention of the Government to consider, as soon as they conveniently can, the results of the London Conference and their bearing upon the question of the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention. Until that consideration has been given, I am unable to make any further statement in the matter.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when it will be convenient?

No, Sir. I cannot add to what I have already said. It will be convenient so soon as the pressure of other business makes it possible to consider the matter.

May I point out that on every occasion when this question has been asked for the last three years, some such answer as this has been given; and can the hon. Gentleman not say when he will be prepared to do something?

Is it not the case that the biggest barrier to the ratification of this convention is the miners' eight and a half hours Act?

No, Sir. So far as I am aware that does not affect it one way or the other.

Russia

Trade Agreement

45.

asked the Prime Minister what are the British interests which have led the Government to decide not to take action under Clause 13 of the trade agreement with the Russian Soviet Government?

The position was fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House in debate in the summer and by Lord Balfour in another place on 10th June, and I doubt whether there is anything I can usefully add for the moment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary, in reply to a question put by me a week ago, stated in this House that the Foreign Office were in possession of certain information, not in the hands of ordinary Members, which caused them to refrain from taking the action indicated in that question; and will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House what is the special information which is not within the knowledge of ordinary Members and which induces the Government not to enforce British rights under the Treaty?

is the right hon. Gentleman aware that M. Tchitoherin, in an interview in Berlin on 6th December, said:

"The deciding factor remains that our Government has offered, and still offers, an arrangement without any success."

Yes, and I am sure the hon. Member would believe in that statement rather than in one from this Government.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived for the Government to convene a conference to these people and endeavour to come to some arrangement?

There is another Question on the Paper dealing with that subject.

Are the Government prepared to deny that such a thing was said by M. Tchiteherin, or will it be another 17 months before the statement is either denied or confirmed?

51.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the charges and counter-charges made from time to time against each other by the Soviet Government and His Majesty's Government as to actions inimical to the interests of their respective countries, His Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to summon an AngloRussian conference, with the abject of discussing frankly and, if possible, securing an agreement on the questions at issue between the British and Soviet Governments?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 8th instant to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor).

Mr A J Cook

48.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the appeal which has just been made in Russia by Mr. A. J. Cook, the secretary of the Miners' Federation, for further financial aid from the Russian Soviet authorities for the purpose of making the necessary preparations for a revolution in Great Britain; and whether anything has been done by the Government to prevent money being sent to this country from Russia for revolutionary purposes subversive of our national institutions?

The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to the reports of Mr. Cook's speeches in Russia. I hope they have been noted also by his fellow trade unionists in this country. As regards any further moneys that may be sent from Moscow, I would refer to the very full statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in answer to a question in this House on 17th June last.

Will Mr. Cook be allowed to return to this country with this Russian money intended to promote revolution?

I can assure my hon. Friends that the whole situation is being most carefully watched.

As this is a very serious matter, may I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether his Department are quite sure that they have sufficient power, and if they have not sufficient power will they take power, to prevent British citizens preaching treason abroad and then coming back to this country.

I think it would be in the best interests of the country to leave the matter where it at present stands. We are watching the position very carefully.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that poverty is a national institution in this country and ought not to be overturned?

Women (Franchise)

49.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the present law enfranchises practically only those women over 30 who are either occupiers of houses or the wives of occupiers and excludes the great majority of professional women, three-quarters of whom are under 30 and a large number of whom are in unfurnished rooms, and that if women are to vote on equal terms with men at any General Election which may take place before October, 1928, the necessary legislation would have to reach the Statute Book before June, 1927, he will take steps at an early date to remove this inequality between men and women which does not exist in the Dominions?

I do not know why the hon. Member contemplates an election before October, 1928, but as I have previously stated all the aspects of the question of women franchise are at present under consideration by the Government.

Does the Prime Minister recollect that the Home Secretary stated that we were to have a conference of all parties in 1926 on this question; and is it the intention of the Government to convene such a conference?

I do not remember that, but the hon. Member will also remember that a great deal has happened in 1926 which was not foreseen when that statement was made.

Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary persuaded the House not to give a Second Reading to a Private Member's Bill on the pledge that such a conference would be called?

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

Over Payments (Deductions)

52.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state, for the last 12 months, with reference to cases in which a reduction of final award has been made on appeal, in how many the Ministry have caused a deduction to be made in the reduced pension on account of over payments having been made under the original award after the date of appeal?

In 49 cases altogether during the period referred to the Ministry's award has been reduced by the Appeal Tribunal. Compensation in the form of pension was not in issue in all these cases, and I am unable to say in how many cases recovery was effected, from a lower rate of pension awarded by the Tribunal. The general practice of the Ministry is to take the date on which the man submits his appeal as the date from which the Tribunal's decision is operative, whether that decision is an award of greater or of less value than the award previously made by the Ministry. In the former case arrears are granted; in the latter case steps are taken to effect recovery.

Is it within the hon. and gallant Gentleman's power to remit such deductions, in view of the fact that. it is very hard on a pensioner whose pension has been reduced to take from him arrears of what has been overpaid?

I could not answer the first part of the question. As a matter of fact, it works quite fairly, because, in cases where it is increased, the man gets it from the date on which he applied to the tribunal.

But does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not understand that while one pensioner gets the extra amount, the other pensioner loses it?

One pensioner gets extra because his award has been increased, but the other has beer, reduced.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not understand that that does not concern or help the pensioner from whom the deduction is made?

I under stand that, but I think it works fairly to both classes of pensioner.

Mrs B P Robinson, Bradford

53.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Mrs. B. P. Robinson, of Bradford, the widow of the late Lieutenant. Herbert Norman Robinson, late of the Royal Field Artillery, whose death certificate states that he died of aortic aneurism, a disease which, owing to the length of time it takes to develop, could only have been contracted during his period of Army service which extended from 1897 to 1923, with one short break; on what grounds do the Ministry dispute that this disease was the cause of his death; is he,aware that in the meantime this lady is subsisting on a pension of;£45 per annum with a compassionate allowance of only £16 per annum for her daughter, who is at a secondary School and in view of her schofastic record should he assisted by the fullest educational allowance; and will he see that these payments are' adequately increased?

Mrs. Robinson has already exercised her right of appeal against the Ministry's decision to the statutory Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and both she and the Tribunal were furnished with a statement of all the evidence and the grounds for the Ministry's inability to regard the officer's death as due to disease attributable to or aggravated by his war service. After hearing the appellant herself, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and their decision on this issue is final. In these circumstances, I have no power to make any addition to the pension and allowance which are being paid by the War Office in respect of the officer's service.

Is the Minister prepared to see the education of a girl discontinued for the want of means?

The fact of the matter is that this appeal went to the Appeal Tribunal, whose decision is binding on the Minister as well as on the appellant.

Final Awards (Reduction)

54.

asked the Treasurer of the Household if he will state, for the last 12 months, with reference to appeals against final awards, in how many of such cases has the final award been reduced as a result of such appeal?

During the 12 months ended 3rd December, 1926, 5,355 appeals against final awards of the Minister of Pensions were decided by the pensions appeal tribunals for England and Wales. In 47 of these cases the final award was reduced.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommend that in future deductions shall not be made of sums overpaid?

I cannot recommend anything, but I will inform my Noble Friend of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Rhineland (Allied Troops)

62.

asked the. Secretary of State for War the number of troops, French, British, etc., respectively, on the Rhine; and if the numbers of each nation have been reduced lately?

The number of British, French and Belgian troops on the Rhine at the beginning of December was, approximately, 7,750, 52,500 and 6,700 respectively. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

British Industries Fair

59 and 60.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he can inform the House as to whether the appropriation for advertising the British Industries Fair has been productive of results both from the point of view of selling space in the fair and of securing buyers to attend the fair;

(2) whether he has had a favourable response to his invitation to buyers from our Dominions and foreign countries to visit the British Industries Fair next year, and whether he anticipates an attendance in excess of last year?

In the London section of the British Industries Fair all the available space has been taken up. In the Birmingham section only a few odd sites are still vacant. At each centre some 30,000 square feet have been let above what were required last year. This is due largely to the increased number of trade buyers who visited the Last fair as a result of the advertising campaign. It is too early to forecast the probable attendance of buyers, because replies to our invitations are only now beginning to arrive from firms abroad. More than half of these replies are to the effect that the senders hope to attend in person or through agents in this country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sum provided by the State for advertising this exhibition would be sufficient, if expended on a privately organised exhibition, to pay for the whole cost of the exhibition?

No; I do not hold that view, if advertising is included for the private exhibition. I think the money which we have been allowed to spend out of the public purse has been very economically spent. We have bad very good value for the money, and I have reason to hope that we shall get it back over and over again as a result of the exhibition.

If I give the hon. Gentleman particulars of an exhibition of comparable size run at half the cost, will he look into the cost of administration of his Department?

It does not follow that because my hon. Friend's exhibition costs half as much as ours, the result will be as successful as ours will be.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider next year the claims of the Crystal Palace, which belongs to the nation?

That is a matter for debate.

British Army

Stores (Annual Valuation)

61.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether a Committee has recently been appointed to consider the annual valuation of stores held by the Army; and, if so, how soon it is expected the Committee will be in n position to report?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) on 29th November last. The Committee is actively pursuing its inquiry, and it is hoped that its Report will be made early next spring.

Shell Collectors, Shoeburyness

63.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the fishermen who collect shells for the contractor to the War Office at Shoeburyness are owed money for shells collected both by the present contractors and by previous contractors; and can he take steps to see that these debts are discharged?

I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with my 'hon. Friend in due course.

Crime Detection

64.

asked the Secretary-of State for the Home Department what recent steps have been taken by his Department with a view to secure greater co-operation between provincial police forces and Scotland Yard with a view to tightening up methods of crime detection?

No special steps have been taken, or found necessary, recently. The arrangements under which chief officers of police can obtain, if need be, the services of detectives from the Metropolitan Police, or assistance in the identification of finger prints or other matters are well understood and work satisfactorily; and the Metropolitan Police, on their part, can always depend upon the co-operation of the county and borough forces whenever they require it.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he is considering the holding of a conference between the provincial police and Scotland Yard?

No, Sir, it is not considered necessary.

Criminal Courts (Docks)

65.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the abolition of the dock in Police, Session, and Assize Courts, so as to have accused persons the indignity of such segregation until proved guilty of the offence alleged?

The suggestion has been considered, but my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to propose legislative or other action.

Cruelty To Animals

66.

asked the Home Secretary how many persons during the last 12 months have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, without the option of a fine, for cruelty to animals under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911?

The numbers for the last 12 months are not available. In 1925, 91 persons were sentenced for cruelty to animals to imprisonment without the option of a fine, under one or other of a group of Acts including the Act referred to. The Acts in question are indicated at page 198 of the Criminal Statistics for 1924.

Were any of these convictions concerned with people who have practised cruelty to foxes?

I cannot answer that question.

Film, Seven Dials

67.

asked the Home Secretary the reason why the police intervened and stopped the filming of the British film scene, "London after Dark," at Seven Dials on 8th December?

I understand that on the occasion to which the question presumably relates, a photograph had been completed before the arrival of the police on the scene, Inquiries were made as to the use of police uniform by one of the persons concerned, but the police did not interfere in any other way.

Motorists (Fines)

68.

asked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention shortly to introduce legislation to provide for a statutory audit of fines, under the Motor Car Acts and Road Act, levied at Courts of Petty Sessions?

The question of introducing legislation to provide for a statutory audit of accounts of all fines payable to the Exchequer and some other classes of accounts is being considered in consultation with other Departments concerned, and it is hoped that a decision will be reached very shortly.

Police (Extra Duty)

69.

asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the members of a large number of the police force in colliery districts have had to undertake extended duty and forgo all leave during the time the Emergency Regulations have been in operation, it is proposed to compensate them and pay them for all overtime work?

I am advised that under the provisions of the Police (Weekly Rest Day) Act and the Police Regulations there is no right to compensation for rest days lost during the period of emergency. I hope that annual leave will be granted where it has not been possible to do so yet. The payments for extended hours of duty, which cannot be compensated by "time off," are governed by the provisions of the Regulations.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that, in spite of the fact that it may not be usual to compensate them for the time they put in extra, will he do so?

It is possible that compensation should be paid in certain circumstances.

Cardsharping, Tilbury Line

70.

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the cardsharping which takes place on the Tilbury line of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway; and will he take steps to see that measures are taken to put a stop to it?

I have been asked to reply. Representations in the sense of my hon. Friend's question were recently made to me, and I have called the attention of the railway company to the matter. I have no doubt that they will take such action as the circumstances may require.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that if it were not for so many foolish people. riding in these railway carriages, this trade would not be carried on?

May I ask who is responsible for the detection of these cardsharpers——the police or railway officials; and, if the latter, what kind of railway officials?

I have not gone into that question, but I imagine the railway police.

National Police Fund

71.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is submitting to the Committee of the Police Fund, recently constituted by Royal Charter, proposals to assist from the fund the widows of and pre-War pensioners?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Charter has not yet been granted, and it would be premature for me to discuss the objects for which the fund is to be applied or the proposals which may be made to the board of trustees or the advisory council when they are constituted.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any indication as To when the charter will be received?

I think at a fairly early date.

May I ask whether the Department will then be prepared to consider the question of submitting certain proposals?

I cannot say in advance what will be done, but, of course, it is possible that the hon. Member's point may be met under the present charter.

Deportation Order (H M Cohen)

72.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the Recorder of London in sentencing, on a charge of theft and fraud, a Russian alien to imprisonment coupled with a recommendation for deportation; and whether, as this is the third recommendation made for the deportation of this person, he will state what action the Government proposes to take to enforce the deportation recommendations in the ease of such persons?

I presume that the alien referred to is Hyman Marlick Cohen. Repeated efforts have been made to get rid of this individual, but as he is not recognised as a citizen of any other country, it is impossible to give effect to the recommendation of the Court that he should be deported.

Is it not a fact that this man is not a British subject, but that it is agreed he is a Russian, and, therefore, had he not better be sent back to Russia?

This man has been here 22 years out of his total life of 30 years, and we cannot, by passing legislation in this House, enable a man to be accepted in any other country.

Cannot the Government, as a quid pro quo, prevent an undesirable British subject, who has recently gone to Russia, from coming back to this country?

Business Of The House

May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended to limit the business to that already announced for to-day, and, in the event of having to sit after eleven o'clock, how long does the Prime Minister expect the House to be called upon?

As regards the latter part of the question, it is not my intention to ask the House to sit long after eleven o'clock, even if that should be necessary, and I propose to ask the House to take the first four Orders and No. 7—Palestine and East Africa Loans (Guarantee) Bill, Third Reading; Coroners (Amendment) [Lords], as amended, to be considered; Legitimacy Bill [Lords], as amended, td be considered; Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill [Lords], Committee; and Electricity (Supply) Bill, Lords Amendments.

if the Route is to prorogued on Wednesday, has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind what time we shall meet on that day?

My right hon. Friend says it is not settled for certain yet, but it will probably be noon.

Will there be any opportunity to-morrow of raising the question of the Mandates Commission and the letter of 8th November of the Foreign Office?

I am afraid I cannot answer my hon. and gallant Friend. To-morrow there may be two or three Orders, and a portion of the day has been given to the Opposition by agreement. I do not know how long they will take. If my hon. and gallant Friend is very anxious to raise any question, and will communicate through the usual channels with the other parties, we will see what can be done, but I cannot say more at the moment.

Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to take the Committee stage of the Judicial Committee Bill to-morrow, or do the Government intend dropping this Bill altogether?

Not unless there is a prospect of its going through without opposition.

Then we may take it that if there is opposition, this Bill will be dropped?

Yes, Sir.

Thank you!

May I ask whether the first four Orders are to be taken in the order given?

Division No. 556.]	AYES.	[3.49 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Ht. Hon. Sir James T.	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Albery, Irving James	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Dawson, Sir Philip	Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Dean, Arthur Welleslay	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Drewe, C.	Hurd, Percy A.
Apsley, Lord	Eden, captain Anthony	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Ashley, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Atholl, Duchess of	Elliott, Major Walter E.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Elveden, viscount	Jacob, A. E.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Kindersley, Major G. M.
Berry, Sir George	Falle, Sir Bertram G	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Betterton, Henry B.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Knox, Sir Alfred
Boothby, R. J. G.	Fermoy, Lord	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Fielden, E. B.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Ford, Sir P. J.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Forrest, W.	Loder, J. de V.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Looker, Herbert William
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Fraser, Captain Ian	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Briggs, J. Hareid	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Briscoe, Richard George	Gates, Percy	Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Brittain, sir Harry	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	MacIntyre, Ian
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	McLean, Major A.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Goff, Sir Park	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Buckingham, Sir H.	Grant, Sir J. A.	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Butler, sir Geoffrey	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)	Malone, Major P. B.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Grotrian, H. Brent	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Campbell, E. T.	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Meyer, Sir Frank
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. S. M.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Chadwick, sir Robert Burton	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Moore, Sir Newton J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Chapman, Sir S.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Harland, A.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Harrison, G. J. C.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Cope, Major William	Hartington, Marquess of	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Haslam, Henry C.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Hawke, John Anthony	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Crookshank, Col. C de W. (Berwick)	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Penny, Frederick George
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert	Herbert, S. (York, N. R., scar. & Wh'by)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Yes, Sir.

If the opposition were withdrawn in the case of the Mental Deficiency Bill, would the Government proceed with it?

There seems little prospect of it going through now, there are so many Amendments down. If in a case like that the Amendments were withdrawn, we would see what could be done, but with the Amendments on the Order Paper it would be perfectly impossible, if there were discussion, to get the Bill in time.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 79.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Sprot, Sir Alexander	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ramsden, E.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Rawson, Sir Cooper	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Wells, S. R.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)	Storry-Deans, R.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Remer, J. R.	Streatfield, Captain S. R.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid	Wise, Sir Fredric
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Womersley, W. J.
Sandeman, A. Stewart	Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)	Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Sandon, Lord	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Tinne, J. A.	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Smithers, Waldron	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Wallace, Captain D. E.	Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Grundy, T. W.	Oliver, George Harold
Ammon, Charles George	Hall, F. (York, W.H., Normanton)	Owen, Major G.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Paling, W.
Baker, Walter	Hardie, George D.	Potts, John S.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Harney, E. A.	Purcell, A. A.
Barnes, A.	Harris, Percy A.	Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Batey, Joseph	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Scrymgeour, E.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Hirst, G. H.	Scurr, John
Charleton, H. C.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Cluse, W. S.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Taylor, R. A.
Compton, Joseph	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Cove, W. G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Dalton, Hugh	Kelly, W. T.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kennedy, T.	Thurtle, Ernest
Day, Colonel Harry	Lee, F.	Townend, A. E.
Dennison, R.	Livingstone, A. M.	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Duncan, C,	Lowth, T.	Viant, S. P.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lunn, William	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Fenny, T. D.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Windsor, Walter
Sardner, J. P.	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Wright, W.
Gillett, George M.	Maxton, James
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)	Montague, Frederick	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Morris, R. H.	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Hayes.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Naylor, T. E.

Estimates

Third Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Public Petitions

Fourth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Message From The Lords

That they have agreed to,

Rating (Scotland) Bill,

Births and Deaths Registration Bill,

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, without Amendment.

Small Holdings and Allotments Bill, with an Amendment.

Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Bill, with Amendments. Amendments to—

Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill [ Lords],

University of London Bill [ Lords],

Barnet District Gas and Water Bill [ Lords], without Amendment.

Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities Bill)

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

Orders Of The Day

Palestine And East Africa Loans (Guarantee) Bill

Read the Third time, and passed.

Coroners (Amendment) Bill Lords

As amended ( in the Standing Committee) considered.

New Clause—(Fire Inquests By Coroners)

"It shall be lawful for any county or borough council to adopt the provisions of chapter 38, 51 and 52, Victoria, the City of London Fire Inquests Act, 1888, by Resolution passed by a majority of the members of such council present and voting.

Provided that Section two of that Act shall be construed as if for the words If the coroner be of opinion that proper cause for such an inquiry exists,' were substituted the words If the county or borough council, as the case may be, be of opinion that proper cause for such an inquiry exists."— [ Mr. Gates.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

4.0 P.M.

I would like to explain that the proviso has been added at the instance of the London County Council. Perhaps I ought to apologise for submitting this Clause again, but when it was put forward in Committee the Under-Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill and discharged his duties with his usual charm and skill, rather made fun of the Clause. Owing to unfortunate circumstances I was not able to move the Clause in Committee, but I know that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) did very good justice to the subject. Under the provisions of the City of London Fire Inquests Act, in the case of loss or injury through a fire in the City of London it is the duty of the coroner to consider the report of the Commissioner of Police or the Chief Officer of the Fire Brigade, and a coroner's inquest is to be held if the Lord Mayor, the Lord Chief Justice or the Secretary of State order it, or if the coroner is of opinion that proper cause for such an inquiry exists. That is the law in the City of London to-day, and the City of London is the only place in which an inquest can be held in a nonfatal fire. When the City presented their Bill to this House in 1888, the House of Commons Committee, in reporting on the Measure, said:

"The expediency of holding inquests in cases of fire is so important that the extension of these powers to the whole of the Metropolitan area is, in the opinion of the Committee, desirable on a future occasion."

A Departmental Committee was appointed by the Home Office in 1909 to consider and inquire into coroners' inquests. That Committee reported in 1910, and paragraph 12 of the Report says:

"We have come to the conclusion that the system of fire inquests established by the Act of 1888 has worked well in the City of London, and that the benefit of this Act ought to he extended to the country at large. The operations of the Act are both preventive and remedial. It might be well, however, if the system of fire inquests is to be extended, to begin with an adoptive Act empowering any county or borough council to adopt for its own district provisions framed on the lines of the City of London Act."

It is in consequence of that recommendation that I have ventured to put down this Clause for the consideration of the House. The Committee which made that Report was a very important Committee, and was under the presidency of Lord Chalmers. One of the members of that Committee was Sir Thomas Bramsdon, one of the Members for Portsmouth, and himself a coroner. In a memorandum which he attached to the Report, he says that he only signed the Report on the consideration that the system ought to be universally adopted throughout the country, and that he did not believe that it would be advisable to have it adoptive. Sir Thomas, in his experience as a coroner, thought the system ought to be universally adopted. The Report of the Departmental Committee was considered at many important conferences, and one in particular, at Bristol, of the Professional Fire Brigade Officers, when it was universally approved and endorsed.

May I ask the date of that conference?

Certainly; 1912. In 1913 the Coroners' Society themselves prepared a Bill which contained a Clause providing for the extension of the 1888 Act throughout England and Wales, but, that being a Private Member's Bill, I am afraid it never proceeded any farther. In 1920, the London County Council in their General Powers Bill put in a Clause providing for the holding of such inquests by coroners in the county of London if so directed by the London County Council or the Home Secretary, and that Clause was withdrawn on the understanding that there was at that time pending legislation. The wheels of legislation grind slowly, and we are now six years later, and I suppose this is the legislation in consideration of which the London County Council withdrew their Bill in 1920. I am bound to refer to another Commission which was appointed in 1923. It was the Royal Commission on Fire Brigades and Fire Prevention. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to one of the recommendations of that Commission in Committee upstairs, but I would call attention to recommendation 350, in which the Commission says:

"We are satisfied that in certain cases inquiries into causes of fire, whether or not any fatality has occurred would serve a useful purpose from several points of view. That they have value as a deterrent to crime, and that valuable information might be obtained on technical questions—structural conditions, fire-resisting properties of materials, means of escape, and method of fire extinction."

Then, in recommendation 353, they go on to say:

"We cannot recommend that the coroners' function should be extended to the holding of fire inquests when no fatality has occurred, but that such inquiries should be conducted by persons possessing technical qualifications."

That is the recommendation to which my hon. Friend referred in Committee upstairs, and upon which I have no doubt he will rely again this afternoon. I submit that this recommendation is against the evidence of responsible people, and against the experience of those who are responsible for the working of the Fire Inquests Act in the City of London. May I quote the evidence given by important people such as Colonel Fox, the Chief Officer of the London Salvage Corps, when he said:

"He was of opinion that such inquiries acted as a deterrent, and that it would be a goad thing if the system were extended to the country at large."

Colonel Fox is an officer of very great experience, and I submit that his evidence is of very great value. Then the District Surveyor of the City of London also said:

"I have had considerable experience, covering attendance at fire inquests on nonfatal City fires, during the last 18 years. I agree that- prevention is important, and that fire inquiries are useful, and that they have a deterrent effect with regard to arson, incendiarism, carelessness, and gross negligence, and I am of opinion that fire prevention should he included in the Coroners Bill now before Parliament."

May I also mention the name of Mr. Morrison, the London manager of the Southern Union Assurance Company of Australasia? He said:

"I think these inquiries are most useful, and that all the fire insurance companies approve of them. I am in favour of an extension of these inquiries to the area of Greater London at any rate."

These are all opinions of people of very great experience, and I think they should weigh with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The inquiries, as this witness who has experience in the City of London proves, a-re exceedingly valuable in checking cases of arson and incendiarism, especially when very heavy stocks are carried in warehouses and there has perhaps been a serious fall in the price of those stocks. To unscrupulous people there is a very great temptation to get hold of the insurance money, and, if no such opportunity exists as the Fire Inquests Act of 1888, various frauds may be committed with impunity. I might mention that there is a similar Act and similar inquiries in parts of the Dominions, notably in New Zealand and in Australia. I do not think I need say more. The City experience shows that inquests are necessary only in a very small proportion of the fires. I think the City Coroner, in evidence somewhere, has said that certainly is not more than 3 per cent. of the fires, and the expense, of course, is very small.

The Under-Secretary, as I say, rather made fun of these proposals before the Committee by asking my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End whether he would suggest that there should be a fire inquest if a lady dropped a cigarette upon her frock and set fire to it. That, of course, is really only a matter of chaff, and could not be held to be a reason why there should be any inquiry under the Act. My hon. and gallant Friend is stating an absurd proposition merely to demofish all case for the Clause. He also stated that this was really a matter for general legislation. I do humbly submit to the House that this is the opportunity, if the House will take it, to call upon the Government to make this provision. Six years ago the London County Council withdrew their Coroners Bill because they were told that there was pending legislation. Now my hon. and gallant Friend says in Committee: "This is not the opportunity; wait for some general legislation on the matter." I hardly like to ask him whether he would be prepared to give any pledge that the Government will introduce some general legislation on this point, and will give the House an opportunity of considering whether or not this is in the best interests of the State. But I do submit that behind this Clause stands a very great body of experience and valuable opinion. The City authorities have had the advantages of this Clause with great satisfaction to the Corporation and to all large interests in the City. I want to say that the London County Council, with the addition of the proviso to which I have referred, also give it their support. It follows the recommendation of the Report of 1910, and I do press my hon. and gallant Friend if he cannot see his way to incorporate it in the provisions of this Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend could not be present in Committee when this matter was discussed, but he seems to have read, with a great deal of care, certain of the arguments that I used on that occasion. I do not want to repeat what I said then, but my hon. Friend to-day has quoted from certain observations which were made by certain individuals, generally speaking some long time ago. I admit that he has recent evidence from several associations and municipal authorities which confirm him in the pressure he is bringing to bear upon the House to accept this new Clause. He is quite right in pointing out that at present the City of London Fire Inquests Act of 1888 is a local Act which enables the City Coroner to hold an inquest on a fire whether or not there has been anybody killed as a result of that fire. But he did not tell us that other cities do not require or do not ask for this facility, and one must assume, if they do not ask for it, they are not desirous of having such power. But I would quote from an Association which I am sure he will acknowledge is a great authority in connection with this matter—the Association of Municipal Corporations. On the 27th July this year they wrote to the Home Office as follows:

"I see that an Amendment has been pit down to this Bill to include a provision to the effect that it shall be lawful for any borough or county council to adopt the provisions of the City of London Fire Inquests Act, 1888. May I express—"

I am leaving out certain words—

"the hope that the Government will not support the proposed Clause."

To make certain of their argument in this matter they wrote on the 1st November, enclosing an extract from a report adopted by the Law Committee on the 28th October, and said:

"This subject has been before the Association on several occasions, and they have always objected to coroners being empowered to hold fire inquests, and we see no reason from departing from the view previously expressed by the association."

Although it is perfectly true that some years ago there was a feeling in some parts of the country that there should be fire inquests by coroners even where there was no fatalities, in recent years opinion appears to have swung round in the opposite direction. My hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) has quoted quite fairly from the Report of the Royal Commission on Fire Prevention, and I am not going to deny the fact that sometimes in these cases an inquiry is necessary and desirable. I can quite see that on occasions it may be absolutely essential to have an inquiry in connection with a fire, even though there has been no fatality. My only objection is that a Coroners Bill is the wrong place to deal with an inquiry of that sort. The hon. Member has quoted from paragraph 353 of the Royal Commission on Fire Prevention, and I think it would be well if the House listened to a few more words from that Report:

"Having given full consideration to the whole matter, we have come to the con- clusion that we cannot recommend that the coroners' function should be extended to the holding of a fire inquiry where no fatality has occurred, but such inquiry should be conducted by persons holding special technical qualifications for building construction, engineering, fire prevention, etc."

I think that is the most important thing we could consider. The coroners have not had much experience in connection with the construction of houses. They have not had the necessary technical experience, and however well this particular Act of 1888 may have worked in London and however much a particular coroner may be qualified in this connection, that might not be the case in a good many other parts of the country.

My hon. Friend who proposed this new Clause has given another quotation to show that it is desired by certain other authorities, but I would like to point out that there are many other people who do not desire that the Act of 1888 should be extended in this way. In this connection I should like to quote from "The Justice of the Peace," a very important paper which circulates very largely throughout the country and from which magistrates, coroners and legal people get a great deal of information. They say:

"Why the City of London Fire Inquests Act, 1888, should ever have managed to commend itself to the legislature is a profound mystery, for it violates all the canons of English criminal justice, and nothing like it exists outside the City. Under the provisions of the Act a. City man who is unfortunate enough to have a fire on his premises is liable to be put in the dock on a charge of arson, which is not supported by a tittle of evidence that a Court of law would listen to for one moment."

Admittedly some non-fatal fires should be inquired into and promptly inquired into, but not by coroners. I am not suggesting that no such inquiries should be held; on the contrary, I am advocating inquiries, but I say that general legislation on fire inquiries is not a suitable subject to be dealt with in a Coroners Bill. Any extension of the system of allowing coroners inquisitions on a subject like this would cause duplication and this Bill is largely intended to prevent duplication. What is suggested would cause a duplication of the procedure for coroners' inquests as regards murder, manslaughter and other cases, and Clause 20 is intended to prevent that duplication. I regret having to refuse my hon. Friend's request, and I must adhere to the decision reached by the Committee that this Bill is not the proper place to provide for such inquiries. Fire inquests should be carried out by people who have more technical experience than we have a right to expect a coroner to possess, and for these reasons I ask the House to resist this new Clause.

I confess to a feeling of disappointment in regard to the reply which the Under-Secretary has made to this new Clause. As a matter of fact, the arguments deduced from the documents the Under-Secretary has read are not good ones. He has told us that coroners have no knowledge of building construction, and consequently they should not be empowered to hold fire inquests. The duty of the London coroner, when holding a fire inquest, is not so much to consider the construction of buildings, but to find out whether there has been any negligence in regard to the cause of the fire. Therefore I think the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) is quite a reasonable one. It would not compel all local authorities outside London to adopt this practice, but it would give them the opportunity to do so, and that is why I contend that the proposal is a reasonable one. The Under-Secretary has placed before the House, in opposition to this proposal, one of the reasons which he gave upstairs during the Committee stage. I put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, if the argument he has put forward to the effect that the City of London Fire Inquests Net, 1888, is of no use and has not produced any good results, then he ought to have brought in an Amendment to this Bill to secure those results, or else he ought to repeal the Clause which allows this privilege for the City of London alone. That is the logic of the argument which he has put before us. I am very anxious, however, to see this Bill become law because it is a good Bill, and I trust nothing will be done to obstruct it. We shall, of course, offer some severe criticisms later on certain parts of this Measure. I do not know whether my hon. Friend intends pressing this matter to a Division, but I hope that, whatever happens, this Bill will be passed into law to-day.

We have had a very important statement from the Under-Secretary on this question, and it seems to me that the attitude of the Home Office would entail sweeping away the powers now contained in the City of London Fire Inquests Act, 1888. The hon. 'and gallant Gentleman said quite clearly that a coroner was not the person who should be entrusted with this particular work. I would like to point out, however, that the position is extremely anomalous as between the City of London and other parts of the country. In the City of London the coroner has this particular power. On the other hand, the Fire Brigade in London is under one authority for both the City and the County of London, and it does seem somewhat contradictory if a fire happens to be in the area of one square mile in the City then you can have these fire inquests, but if the fire happens to be just over the border then no such inquests can be held. Either it is right or it is not right that the City coroner should have these powers, and if it is not right then it is the business of the Government to bring forward legislation to take this power away from the City coroner and set up entirely new machinery for the whole country.

Does the hon. Member desire to take away the power now possessed by the City of London, and does he wish to prevent the City of London coroner holding fire inquests?

I do not suggest that, but I am rather surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should condemn these powers being vested in the coroner. As far as my advice goes the coroner in the City of London does this work to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned. The Under-Secretary has taken advice and he speaks with the authority of a Government Department. It is agreed that some sort of machinery is necessary, and as that machinery does not exist outside the City of London it is the duty of the Home Secretary, who is responsible, to give this House a lead in regard to this particular matter. As I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, his lead is that this work cannot he clone by a coroner. Of course, you cannot have it both ways, and I think the Minister should give us a lead. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not Prepared to condemn the administration of the coroner in the City of London, I am going to support this new Clause, because my advice from the London County Council is that as the fire prevention authority for the whole of London they think this power is necessary if you are going to prevent and eliminate arson, and some of those disgraceful things which have taken place where people have deliberately set fire to buildings and fires have been caused through negligence. I think we are entitled to a clear lead from the Home Office in this matter, and without that lead being given to us I shall support this new Clause.

There are two points which I think ought to be made in connection with this new Clause. I desire to oppose the passing into law of this proposal. If this new Clause is passed it means that the authority, which has power to hold the inquest, is to be changed from the coroner to the local authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO"] I want to point out the danger of giving to the local authority the power to hold a fire inquest. At present the local authority is in charge of the fire brigade and it is also the housing authority, and if anything should arise in the circumstances connected with a fire, such as negligence in the construction of the building or faulty staircases, it would he the fault of the local authority. They would be responsible, and they might he interested in doing what they could to prevent such an inquiry being held. I want the coroner to retain all his judicial powers, and such powers as those connected with the holding of fire inquests should not be handed over to the local authorities.

I support this Amendment. I have yet to learn that any time is not a good time to do good. I am rather pleased to find that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) agrees for once that the City Corporation does some good. I am certain that the Act which empowers the City of London to provide for a coroner's inquest when a fire has occurred has clone an enormous amount of good, and, surely, what is good for the City of London must be good for every other place in the country. It has worked extremely well in the City. We have been able to detect how fires have been caused, very often to the benefit of fire insurance companies, and I think that coroners should have this power everywhere. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to say that the coroner is not experienced in building and so on, but he can, and he does, no doubt, call expert evidence, and, if he has that expert evidence to help him, surely the verdict he gives must be a right verdict, and one that is in the interest, not only of the public, but of everyone concerned who wishes to put down fires,. We know that fires are often incendiary, and, if no inquest is held, the guilty people are never brought to justice. I maintain that the addition of this Clause to the Bill would do a great amount of good, and, accordingly, I have much pleasure in supporting it.

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

New Clause—(Superannuation Of Whole Time County And Borough, Coroners Appointed After Commencement Of Act)

(1) Every county and borough coroner appointed after the date of the commencement of this Act who has completed five years' whole-time service and has—

(a) attained the ago of sixty-five years; or

(b) satisfied the council by whom his salary is payable by means of a medical certificate that he is incapable from infirmity of mind or body of discharging the ditties of his office, and that such incapacity is likely to he permanent:

shall on ceasing to hold his office be granted by the council by whom his salary is payable a pension of the maximum amount authorised by the scale contained in the First Schedule to this Act having regard to the period of his service, and shall, as from the date of his appointment, contribute towards his pension, an amount equal to five per centum of his salary, which amount shall be deducted from the salary payable to him by the said council.

(2) A county or borough coroner appointed after the date of the commencement of this Art shall at any time after he has completed ten years' whole-time service and has attained the age of sixty-five years, vacate his office if called upon to do so by the council by whom his salary is payable.

(3) Any pension granted to or other amount payable to or in respect of a coroner under the provisions of this section shall be paid out of the fund out of which the salary of the coroner was payable, and any contribution deducted from the salary of a coroner under this section shall be carried to such fund.

(4) If a county or borough coroner ceases to hold his office for any reason except death before he has become entitled to a pension under this section he shall be entitled to receive a sum equal to the aggregate amount of his contributions under this section.

(5) If a county or borough coroner dies before he has become entitled to a pension under this section the council by whom his salary was payable shall pay to his legal personal representative a sum equal to the aggregate amount of his contributions under this section.

(6) If a county or borough coroner dies after he has become entitled to a pension under this section and before he has received by way of pens-on an amount equal to the aggregate amount of his contributions under this section, the council by whom Ins salary was payable shall pay to his legal personal representative the difference between the aggregate amount which he has received by way of pension and the aggregate amount of his contributions under thisseetion.—[ Mr. Cates.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I am sorry to trouble the House with yet another proposed new Clause, but I am asked to put this forward by the London County Council, as they are anxious that the question of the superannuation of coroners should he duly considered by this House. The object of this Clause, and of a later Amendment which I have down to Clause 6, is to secure that the e hole-time coroners appointed after the passing of this Bill shall provide contributions towards their own pensions at the rate of 5 per cent. of their salaries, and the Clause specifies exactly what they are entitled to receive when they come to retire. Under the Bill as it stands, the coroners will be entitled to superannuation without them—selves making any contribution whatever,, but, at the same time, they will have the disadvantage of having to negotiate, or haggle, if you like, with the borough councils or county councils, as the case may be, as to the amount of that superannuation.

In answer to a question which was raised in Committee by, I think, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), I may say that superannuation would be paid out of the county fund or the borough fund, and the contribution of the coroner would at the same time be paid into that fund or deducted from his salary, and then the pension, according to this proposed new Clause, would be calculated upon the coroner's length of service, That, I think, also answers another point which the hon. Member for Westhougliton raised in Committee. I have no doubt that the majority of coroners who would be appointed after the passing of this Bill would be very glad to join in the superannuation scheme. I have a letter before me now from the coroner for a very important borough, in which he says:

"I think that every coroner would he willing to join a contributory scheme if he were permitted to do so."

The difficulty of the London County Council, and, I have no doubt, of other county or borough councils, if this Bid passes into law in its present form, will be that practically the whole of their staffs and officers are at the present time subject to contributory pension schemes. The London County Council has had to deal at various times with a great number of local government services, and in every case they have enforced, shall I say, or at any rate have arranged, contributory pension schemes on the lines set out in this Clause, namely, a 5 per cent. contribution from officers of the age of 40 or over—I am assuming, of course, that there would be very few coroners who would be appointed at an age lower than 40. For instance, under the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, and the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, superannuation schemes have been arranged by the London County Council, and it will put them in a very awkward position if one set of officers are not subject to contributions for their pensions. I might also call the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the Criminal Justice Act, which was passed last year, and which gave the Home Secretary power to make contributory superannuation schemes for probation officers. I understand that a Report is now before the Home Office which recommends a contributory scheme for pensions under that Act.

There is only one other point that I desire to make. My hon. and gallant Friend stated during the Committee stage that coroners are not really the servants of any local authority, lout are quasi judicial officers, and, therefore, must be brought into the same category as Supreme Court officials. I think I have correctly quoted his words. I cannot help thinking, however, that Supreme Court officers and coroners are hardly comparable people. Supreme Court officers are, I think, appointed either by the Treasury or by the Lord Chancellor; at any rate, they are officials who perform certain duties under, I suppose, the Treasury, but they are in no way servants of, or connected with, any local authority, nor do they draw their salaries from any local authority; whereas coroners are appointed by county or borough councils, and are paid by those county or borough councils. Even in this present Bill, they have always been treated as the officers of such authorities, and in Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 it is proposed to give to county councils or borough councils the power in certain circumstances to call upon a coroner to vacate his office. That seems to me to confirm my view that, even in the eyes of the Home Office, the coroners, if they are not actually officials of county or borough councils, can at any rate hardly he held to be quasi judicial officers.

There is also, as I need hardly remind my hon. and gallant Friend, a dictum in a case which came before the House of Lords on appeal not very long ago, in which the President of the Court—Lord Dunedin, I think it was—specially drew attention to the procedure which had been set up in that case, in which a transcript of evidence taken in a coroner's court had been sought to be used as evidence in a civil case under the Workmen's Compensation Act. His Lordship said that that was a most improper proceeding, and thereby, I think, showed that, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the highest appeal tribunal in the land, coroners certainly could not be considered to be judicial officers. I have been asked to put forward the views of the London County Council on this point, and I have no doubt that their experience is the same as that of many other county and borough councils in dealing with their officers. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will give consideration to this Clause.

Motion not seconded.

Clause 23—(Fees To Medical Witnesses)

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

I do not do this because we do not want doctors to be paid. We do not want to make them work for nothing; on the contrary, we desire that there shall be good payment for everyone, doctors included; but we want to take this opportunity of pointing out to the House a difference in treatment between one portion of the community and another, and to draw attention to the very generous way in which the doctors have been met, and the very poor-spirited opposition put up by the Government to the methods adopted by the doctors or by the medical associations in order to obtain these very generous increases. I am not going to vote against them because they are generous, but in paragraph (a) of Clause 23 we find this:

"for attending to give evidence at any inquest whereat no post-mortem examination has been made by the practitioner, one and a-half guineas for each day on which he is required to attend."

In the Bill before it went to Committee the fee in that case was one guinea. There is, therefore, an increase of 50 per cent. Again, in paragraph (b) we find:

"for making a post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased and reporting the result thereof to the coroner without attending to give evidence at an inquest, two guineas."

I understand that in the Bill before it went to the Committee the fee for this was a guinea and a-half, but I am given to understand that the fee actually paid before that was one guinea, so that that was raised by half-a-guinea in the Bill before it went to Committee, and now it has been further raised to two guineas —an increase of 100 per cent., which is not bad when you compare it with what we in the working-class community have had during the past few years. Again in paragraph (c):

"For making a post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased (including the making of a report, if any, of the result thereof to the Coroner) or attending to give evidence at an inquest on the body, three guineas for the first day."

In the original Bill the figure was twoguineas—an increase of 50 per cent. And at the end of the paragraph:

"one and a-half guineas for each subsequent day on which the practitioner is required to attend."

That was not in the old Bill at all. This is very generous treatment. A Member of our party said in the Committee that in the course of his work he had attended many inquests and he was of the opinion that in some of these cases the doctors deserved an advance in fees, and generally speaking, we said we would not vote against it, and we are not going to vote against it to-day, but we should like to know—I do not know if the doctors will tell us or not—the methods they used in order to impress upon the-Government the necessity for increasing these fees without the Government even putting up a show of a fight.

When it was brought to the Under-Secretary's notice, he said the figures had been put down as a basis for discussion. I can hardly take that in. The hon. Gentleman accused me of always being suspicious, and so I am, in view of the treatment we generally get, but there must have been some consideration given to these fees before the Bill came to Committee, because I believe the hon. Gentleman admitted that in paragraph (a), where the Bill says one and a-half guineas; previously the doctors had only had one guinea. [An HON. MEMBER: "For how many years?"] I am not discussing that at all. I am merely saying that the figure was altered from one guinea to a guinea and a-half, and when we objected the Under-Secretary said the figures had been put clown as a basis for discussion. I dare say the fees originally put down appeared to the Home Office to be sufficient. I hope the doctor Members in the Tory party will come to our aid as fellow trade unionists when we are threatened next year.

We are not trade unionists.

I suppose there is a better term than that —a bourgeois term. At any rate they have a kind of association which has brought some kind of influence to bear on the Home Office very successfully. We have been discussing at Question Time to-day the visit of one of our trade union secretaries to Moscow, the suggestion being that he has gone in order to bring back some ideas wherewith we may fight more successfully. Seeing the success the doctors have made of this, I am not sure that he would not have done better to go to the Medical Association.

He would have learned a bit of patriotism there.

He would have learnt how to get bigger wages for the people he represents, which is the thing that matters for the moment, and I am not so sure, if you talk about patriotism and the way you looked at it from the point of view of the War, that our people would not come out at least as well as the doctors. But the thing that stands out is, that when one section of society comes for an increase, the Government, as constituted at present, did not attempt to put up any effective opposition, while at the same time, on nearly every question that comes before the House, they are asking for economy—in regard to nearly every working-class man in the country, whose wages have been dropping month by month for the last five or six years. When we want an increase we are asked, Can the industry afford it? Is the economic position of the industry such as to warrant an increase I No such question is asked in regard to this. I suppose it will come out of the rates. Again, we are having complaints on all sides of the House of the enormous burden of the rates on industry. No argument of that kind is used by the Government in regard to the increase given to the doctors. They are doctors and the others are working-class people. Again, perhaps, this is a sheltered industry not subject to competition like the mining industry, and the same arguments cannot be applied against it. But whatever may be the argument, the fact remains that these generous increases have been given. It may be the doctors have not been paid all they are worth, but that applies to a good many other people and particularly to the mining community.

The hon. Member appears to be discussing the matter at large. He really must restrict himself to what the Clause will do.

I thought the fact that we had had to suffer wage reductions in the mining industry was relevant to this question whether they should have an increase in the doctors' industry.

I do not object to it being put in a sentence, but the hon. Member is elaborating it many times over.

I hope hon. Members on the other side, when we ask that this matter should be considered on its merits, will vote for it on its merits rather than as they have done in the past few months. If we were to-day exercising the spirit of revenge for what has been imposed upon us we should be inclined to vote against it, but we are not. We are going to support it because we believe the doctors ought to be paid well and I realise, as an ex-miner, that in some of these cases the doctors perform tremendous services when men are injured in accidents. But I thought it was right to point out, particularly in view of what the Government have done in the past 12 months, the difference in treatment exercised towards one section of the community as compared with another.

I beg to second the Amendment.

We have been counselled many times by Members opposite never to mix industry with politics. We have been told that industrial matters ought to be dealt with by people outside the House of Commons. Bills similar to this—small, insignificant and apparently meaningless so far as the great industrial business of the nation is concerned—are the very Bills which might be a guiding influence to members of industrial organisations when they finally made up their minds that to secure even-handed justice at all, they would have to come to the House of Commons and put their industrial and economic point of view before the various Ministers of State if they were going to secure any sort of fair play or justice with regard to their wages. Here is a typical example. The Minister in charge of the Bill inserts certain figures for services to be rendered. I do not suggest that the figure is too large, neither will I vote against any one of these figures, because I feel that the services rendered are equal in value to the price that is to be paid. But immediately the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) and the hon. Member for Derby (Sir R. Luce) submit a case in Committee from the professional point of view that an increase is necessary, that increase is forthcoming with little or no opposition from the Minister. Here we have a definite, typical example of the influence of the medical Members of the House and the services they can render to their professional trade union. If we are to follow their example it is no use shouting in the wilderness of industrial conflicts outside the House if one hopes to secure any sort of reasonable standard of life or reasonable payment for physical or mental work performed beyond these four walls.

The thing to do, if we are to follow the example of the hon. Members for St. Albans and Derby, is to come to the Minister in charge of the Bill and intimate to him the power, strength and determination of the members of that professional organisation and the results are forthcoming in a very short time, as has been the case in this instance. The hon. Member for St. Albans says if we go to the medical profession we shall find some patriotism. He has indicated the kind of patriotism they usually stand for —patriotism at a price. While I have no desire to east a single reflection upon the medical or the legal profession—two of the strongest trade unions in the country —it is fair to point out the power and influence they use in this House and how easily they can exact for the members of their societies what the millions of people who render other service of equal value in its way fail to get notwithstanding our industrial and political efforts in every conceivable direction. I hope the Under-Secretary is going to tell us exactly what he expects members of other trade union organisations are going to do when they fail to get justice outside the House. I do not want him to tell us that the figures were put into the Bill merely as a basis for discussion, because figures are not often put in Bills as a basis for discussion in Committee, but I want him to tell us why he made the change. We will undertake not to vote for the abolition of the Clause or the removal of any one of these increases, but will he tell us how this influence operates to induce him to agree so quickly with the medical people when he would not agree with the industrial workers?

The speeches of the two hon. Members have made me wonder whether I ought to put the Amendment or not. There is a rule against, Motions tendered in a spirit of irony. However, I will put it.

5.0 P.M.

I am not going to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) into the question of the good or evil which one may obtain from being a member of a trade union. I prefer to discuss this Amendment and the effect it would have if it were accepted by the House. The hon. Member for Doncaster quoted something which I said in Committee to the effect that he always seemed to be suspicious of anything that was done on this side of the House. I think, however, that I added that his suspicions were always unfounded, that he never proved them and that they had no foundation in fact. The fees referred to were fixed in the year 1844, and there have been many changes since that time. I do not know if the hon. Members understand the effect of their Amendment. Is it their wish that the doctor should receive no fees at all?

No; we have said that we have no desire of that kind.

Then why did the hon. Members put down this Amendment which would have that effect?

Do you wish me to explain? I said quite definitely that we wished to show that we had a grievance, and to show to the public and the country generally the difference in the treatment given to the miners as compared with that which is given to the doctors.

The effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be that doctors in the future would get no fees at all. The fees are decided under Section 22 of the Act. This Bill repeals that particular Section, but the actual effect of this Amendment, if accepted, would he that the doctors would receive nothing. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) have said that they have no objection to the doctors obtaining remuneration.

Reasonable payment.

And neither of them, I think, would consider this Payment to be unreasonable.

I want to assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Amendment was put down for the purpose of raising a protest against the manner in which this increase of fees was carried out. My two hon. Friends have already indicated that they have no objection to the amount of the fees; we merely protest against the manner in which the fees were increased in Committee upstairs. The Home Office, with all the information at its disposal with regard to foes payable to doctors for attending inquests and post-mortem examinations, inserted £1 1s. in the first instance. Two hon. Gentlemen representing the medical profession, presumably, stood up in Committee and moved an increase forthwith of 50 per cent. in the fees. What we object to is not the sum, which is not too large, but we want, I repeat, to enter a protest against the easy way in which the Government accepted an Amendment of this kind without any valid reason for that increase being given.

I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary to the Home Office whether there was not some negotiation between the Home Office and the British Medical Association, in the first instance, as to the sum that was to be inserted in the Bill? The British Medical Association, being a very powerful organisation, would surely have known full well that this Bill was being drafted in the Home Office, and if they did not they are not as alert as I believe them to be. On the point that the British Medical Association is not a trade union—

Is it in order to discuss what is the nature of a trade union and the British Medical Association on this Amendment? If it is in order, I shall have to ask for the liberty of replying.

May I point out that previously, when this question cropped up, the hon. Gentleman objected to the British Medical Association being called a trade union and designated it by another name?

I did not intend to dwell upon that point.

Before I took Mr. Speaker's place in the Chair, I heard a ruling that this discussion should not be made an occasion for the discussion of something outside the Amendment. I think, therefore, it would be better to leave out this question altogether and confine ourselves to the Amendment itself.

Is it not in order to raise for purposes of discussion the question of the power which has secured this 50 per cent. increase?

I do not know whether that is in order or not until I hear what is said about it, but I think it would be very much better to confine the discussion to the Amendment itself?

I am anxious to keep within the rules of order, but I think we are in order in making it clear that we are not objecting to the sum mentioned in the Clause; that we wanted to move an Amendment to protest against the manner in which the increase has been made. We on this side of the House are very dissatisfied indeed at the easy way in which the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs accepted this Amendment at the instigation of the medical profession.

I think it is necessary to snake one point quite clear to the House in regard to the imputation which has been made upon the medical profession as to the way in which this Clause has been amended, and to relieve them of the suggestion that there has been any negotiation between the Government and the British Medical Association. I would like to make it clear that I came into this House absolutely untrammelled by any responsibility to the British Medical Association in any way, and for years I have intended, and I always intend, to hold myself free from any such action. I will only support the raising of medical fees in so far as I think that that can be justified on the needs of the case, and it is from that point of view that I have raised the question in this particular instance. My hon. and gallant Friend and I did not accept the proposal made by the British Medical Association. We brought forward other proposals, and we had a very hard job to convince my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of the necessity and righteousness of the application which we made. It was on that line that we took action, and it is on that line that we shall act with regard to medical fees.

May I ask where, and in what circumstances, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a difficult job to bring the Under-Secretary for the Home Office to adopt that point of view? It was not in the Committee.

I was not a member of this Committee, but I want to enter a definite protest against the attack which was made on the medical profession by the Mover and Seconder who brought forward in this House comparisons between the treatment which is given to medical men, so called, and miners. I think it is entirely unnecessary. Unfortunately, speeches of that nature are not confined to the House, but are read by the public and they are apt to give a very wrong impression. Anything which militates against a spirit of good will between medical men and their patients is most detrimental, and I regret that hon. Members, for the sake of making a demonstration, should have allowed themselves to make such observations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. H. Davies) was much fairer. He put it that they simply objected to the method by which the increase was given. I would point out that if that fee of one guinea was regarded as fair in 1844 surely at this time there should be some slight increase. I wonder how many increases of wages the miners have had during that period? There is a tendency among the Members of the Labour party to belittle the medical profession whenever they have an opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never!"] In this House they constantly speak against them and the harm that may be done in the country may be very, very great. I think that, out of courtesy to the profession of which they all some time or another have to obtain the services, they ought to be very careful what they say, remembering that their words may spread throughout the land and be read by people who may not understand the whole of the circumstances of the case, and may cause unnecessary dissatisfaction and trouble.

I never heard in Committee or in this House any reflection made upon medical men. The only protest we are making now is as to the way in which this increase was given. We do not say that the amount is too much, and we certainly do not make any reflection upon the doctors as doctors, but we do want to know why this change was made so easily.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 29—(Amendment As To Payments To Or By Coroners)

I beg to move in page 18, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words "twenty-two of the Coroners Act, 1887," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-three of this Act."

The discussion on the previous Amendment has led to the discovery that an Amendment of a drafting character will have to be made. I have been at pains to tell the House that Section 22 of the Coroners Act, 1887, has been repealed by the provisions of this Bill, and instead of referring to the Section in that Act, we will have to refer to the Clause in this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill will remember that in Committee upstairs we were in some difficulty with regard to the provisions of Clauses 13 and 22. Clause 13 deals with the holding of inquests without a jury in certain cases, and it proceeds to give an indication as to what must be done by coroners when inquests are held. The hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated that the Home Office, or the Lord Chancellor at the instigation of the Home Office, will issue instructions to the coroners as to the manner in which they are to carry out some of their duties. I understand that when a circular is issued the instructions are to be detailed and very minute. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a very specific question on this point; whether any arrangement can be made to ensure that, if the deceased person was a member of a trade union or a similar society, that society will be represented, and that its representative will be allowed to examine or cross-examine witnesses at the inquest? We bad a friendly discussion on this point in Committee upstairs. I would like to point out to hon. Members who were not on the Committee, that most coroners welcome the help of representative persons, especially in cases where it is likely that claims for workmen's compensation may be brought as a result of an accident.

I have a further point on almost the same lines to put with respect to Clause 22. That Clause deals with the power of the coroner to request specially qualified persons to make post-mortem and special examinations. When a post-mortem examination is being carried out by a medical man, the result of the examination sometimes reveals reasons why a claim for workmen's compensation or damages at common law should be made. It is very necessary in such a case that a representative of the trade union should be present to follow the whole of the transactions in order that the family of the deceased may he safeguarded in any claim they may make. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary to the Home Office a specific question, whether the trade union can be represented by a medical man in connection with a postmortem examination.

Whilst on the Third Reading of the Bill, I would like to say to the hon. Member for the Royton Division (Dr. Vernon Davies), who is not in his place, that he need not be offended by our attitude regarding the medical profession. We hold that profession in the very highest esteem. I am not sure whether we do not hold them in much higher esteem than they hold us. The way they treat us sometimes would seem to indicate that we have very mach more confidence in the doctors than they have in us. I can assure them, without any hesitation, that the working people of this country have a very high regard for the medical profession as a whole. I am not sure whether the working people have not a very much higher regard for the medical profession than they have for the legal profession.

I am very glad that this Bill has reached its final stage. I feel sure that it will do a great deal of good, because the position of the coroners, especially the franchise coroners, has always been a very doubtful one. As far as I understand it, the franchise coroner has been in this position up to now, that he could be appointed, but there was no power on earth that could remove him from his office. That is a sort of occupation, I suppose, we would all like to have. We would always like there to be no power to remove us us from our positions, especially if they are comfortable ones. This Bill will, undoubtedly, remove that very serious difficulty. I much regret that there is not included in this Bill some provision to deal with the question of fire inquests. In spite of that I hope that the Bill will be passed into law and that all its objects will be ultimately achieved.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) to the fact that, apart altogether from any opposition from a party standpoint, our attitude on this Bill has not been one of hostility to the medical profession. When this Bill emerged from the House of Lords, and as it went to Committee, certain figures were included in the Bill. Consequently, anything that has been said in regard to the figures could be aimed at the House of Lords, because they were charged first with the responsibility for the Bill, and they must have felt that the figures in the Bill adequately met the needs of the medical profession. I make this observation in order to let the hon. and gallant Member see that there may have been, and there may be, no more consideration for the medical profession by certain hon. Members on this side than on the part of the friends of hon. Members opposite who sit in another place.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for having drawn my attention to the two points mentioned. When we were in Committee I made a provisional promise that I would try to persuade the Home Secretary to issue, in the first place, instructions and, if necessary, to frame rules to cover the two points. It must be made quite clear that the Home Secretary can send out, instructions in the first place to coroners calling their attention to certain matters, and if they do not comply with any request contained in those instructions lie would then have the power to ask the Lord Chancellor to frame rules. Such rules would have practically the effect of law. The hon. Member has asked me two specific questions: (1) whether instructions would be sent out in order to persuade coroners to allow trade union representatives to be present at inquests and (2) whether he would also send out instructions encouraging coroners to allow a medical man representing the relatives to be present at a post-mortem examination. I have no hesitation in giving both those undertakings. I think they are both perfectly reasonable. Although it is a fact that the coroners at the present time do in most cases comply with the request that has been put to me this afternoon, I am sure that if effect were not given to the obvious wishes of the. House in this matter, instructions would be sent out by the Home Secretary, and, if necessary, a rule would he made which would be submitted to the Lord Chancellor.

Having given satisfaction on the two points which have been raised, may I say how grateful I am to the Committee upstairs and to the House for having given me so much support in the passage of this Bill into law. Each House is in agreement with the general principles of the Bilk. The Bill has been before the country for a considerable number of years, if not before the two Houses. It is based on the Report of a Committee which was appointed long ago and reported in 1910. The Act is very much overdue. I believe it will be of very great assistance to coroners. It will, I believe, effect a good deal of saving, which is very unusual in any Bill which passes through the House of Commons. It will prevent duplication of coroners' inquests and other legal proceedings. I am grateful to the House for having given their blessing to the Bill, and I am sure that their faith in it will be perfectly justified when the Act comes into operation next year.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Legitimacy Bill Lords

As amended ( in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1—(Legitimation By Subsequent Marriage Of Parents)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out Subsection (2).

The purport of this Measure is to enact legitimation by the subsequent marriage of the parents. The chief object of the Bill is to secure that a child born out of wedlock does not suffer thereby. If the Bill passes in its present form, it will do a great deal of good in hundreds of cases, but my Amendment would clear away what I regard as an extraordinary blemish in the Bill and one which ought to be removed. This Bill has come to us from another place. I do not know sufficient about the Rules of the House to understand exactly how far one may criticise what has happened in another place, but I think I am right in saying that the insertion of the Sub-section which I desire to delete was made possible through the representatives of the Church, namely, the Bishops. These are the words, and I hope hon. Members will give attention to them:

"Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born."

It will be seen from those words that the children to whom I refer are not ordinary illegitimate children, that is to say, they are not the children of two persons who are unmarried and who subsequently marry. The children to whom I refer represent a very small number indeed. The extraordinary position is this, that where a married person begets a child of a single person and then marries that single person on the death of the wife or husband, the Bishops, I understand, desire to rule out the legitimation of such a child. I think the House ought to object to that view, because if the main object of this Bill is to do the right thing by the child, why should we legitimise the child in one ease and decline to in the other? They are both children, anyhow, and no child should be made to bear the sin of its parents.

There are several arguments set forth against my Amendment, and I wish to combat them. It is said that the law of England would be brought into line with the law of Scotland if the Bill stands as it is at the present time, and that if we eliminate Sub-section (2) the law of England would not be in harmony with the law over the Border. I know nothing about the law, but a layman may make this submission: that, if the law of Scotland is based upon the principle of this Bill, as backed by the Bishops of this country, then the law of Scotland ought to be altered in the way I am suggesting the law of England ought to be altered. It is also said that the absence of Sub-section (2) would lead to confusion in regard to the succession to property in Scotland. On this point I have the support of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell), who informed the Committee upstairs—and I should imagine that he is as well versed on this point as most members of the legal profession in Scotland—that there was no point whatsoever in that objection.

We are further informed—and in this respect I do not desire to make any statement that will offend the religious susceptibilities of anyone—that the Subsection, which I propose to delete, follows Canon law. I hope that this House will always respect religious views and give due deference to the views of organised Christianity; but if it finds that the problems which confront it have to be solved in violation of Canon law, then I hope that this House will take that step in defiance of Canon law. As a member of a Christian community myself, I have no hesitation m making that statement. The Committee on Child Adoption which sat for some time considering this question made a recommendation that these children ought to be legitimised exactly in the same way as ordinary illegitimate children. Surely, if a Committee which has studied this problem makes that recommendation, this House should pay some heed to its views.

Now I come to what is, after all, the main opposition to my Amendment. We are told that we should be promoting the highest ideals of family life, maintaining the principle of monogamy and the sanctity of the family, by allowing the Bill to stand in its present form. I do not desire to enter into a dispute with these very good people, but I wish to say that if we legitimise these children we do not destroy family life. It is much too indelicate a matter to make the statement which should be made in this connection, but I venture to make this point, that I cannot conceive any man or woman thinking for one moment, when they are proposing to perform a certain act, as to whether a child born out of wedlock will be legitimated later on. That really is the answer to the assertion that we are trying to undermine family life when we propose to delete this Sub-section. Then we are told that the Clause, as it stands, is a protection to legitimate children; that without it, on the death of the mother, the father would marry his mistress, and soon. I am not, as I have said, sufficiently conversant with the law to argue the legal point, but let me say in conclusion, hon. Members on both sides of the House have worked very hard indeed to bring the Measure to its present stage, and I hope nothing I shall say or do will in any way mar its further progress, but I assert that if it is right for Parliament to legitimise an illegitimate child in the ordinary way, then the second type of illegitimate child, to which I have referred, ought also to fall into the same category. I object to the assumption that Canon Law should prevail against the wishes of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons, which is in intimate touch with the stream of thought among the masses of the people, thinks fit to pass a Bill on the lines I suggest, then no Canon Law of any kind should prevail against its will. I hope therefore the Amendment will be accepted by the House.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope the Under-Secretary of State, before deciding to refuse this Amendment, will consider it, on its merits. This is not a party question. On several occasions the House of Commons has passed this Bill in a form corresponding with that which is now recommended by the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment. Its principle was embodied in the Bill for which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer), now sitting on the Front Bench, was responsible. This House can really approach this question on its merits, and the representative of the Home Office ought to allow it a free vote on the matter. It is one on which many hon. Members feel quite as strongly as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies). The main objection to this proposal, I understand, is that the immorality of the parents is greater in the case of the exceptions than in the case of the general rule. That is not necessarily true. Take the case of a woman with a young family who is deserted by her husband. He disappears, and she lives with another man, has children by him, and then when the news of the husband's death arrives she marries the man with whom she has been living. Can it be said that these parents are worse moral delinquents than those who with their eyes open get a child without going through the marriage ceremony? The moral delinquency of the one is certainly not worse than that of the other. The real point, however, is that the immorality which has occurred is quite irrelevant. You are not penalising any parents for immorality; you are penalising one type of illegitimate child while removing the stigma of illegitimacy from another type of child.

I submit that the morality or the immorality of the parents is an irrelevant consideration, and that what we are dealing with is whether there is a case for differential treatment as between one set of illegitimate children and another. The Rouse of Commons can arrive quite rightly at the conclusion that it is a wrong thing to visit the sins of the fathers wrong thing on the children. Under the Bill, as it stands, one set of children is stigmatised throughout the whole of their natural lives. It is brought home again and again to them. When they wish to take out an insurance policy, to go in for an examination, or to have a passport, they have to disclose the utterly irrelevant fact. of illegitimacy to a third person, and, furthermore, there are concrete and material disadvantages for which there is no justification at all. Take the case of a married man who, after the death of his wife, marries a woman by whom he has had children. The natural family and the other children are brought up as one family. The father dies intestate, and the only children who can succeed are those born in wedlock, although the others have no knowledge whatever that they are illegitimate, and have always been brought up as being members of one family. Differentiation of that kind is thoroughly unjust, and it provokes intense feuds and divisions within the family. I cannot see that there is any warrant for it at all. If the parent makes a will, there is this great difference, that the illegitimate children have to pay a much higher rate of Death Duty.

I do not think the House of Commons wishes to follow the medieval practice of stigmatising one class in the community, from whom the rest of the community imagine themselves separated by a sense of superiority. In the middle ages it was the fashion to distinguish certain classes by outward and visible marks of their alleged inferiority, and the idea that these illegitimate children have to go through life under a perpetual stigma is a relic of medieval barbarism. It does not correspond with our modern idea of the equality of all persons before the law and before God. This exception is only justifiable if it is based upon any difference in morals or status among the children themselves. It is not a question of punishing the parents, but of punishing the children, and I cannot see any ground for saying that one particular set of illegitimate children are worse than another set, and that they must go through life branded by the stigma of illegitimacy with the gravest material disadvantages which that stigma carries with it in law. For these reasons I hope he Amendment will be supported by mare hon. Members on this side of the House.

I desire to support the Amendment. I think the Sub-section in the Bill really spoils the whole Measure. The only justification for a Bill of this kind is that the children now bearing the stigma and disabilities of illegitimacy may be legitimated. If we look at the categories of persons that are likely to be affected We are forced to the conclusion that the prey nee of this Subsection does more harm than good. Take the three classes out of which illegitimate children spring. The first is promiscuous intercourse, and it is quite obvious that the Bill will do no good there. The children remain illegitimate all their lives, the parents never meet again. Take the next class, the boy and his girl, walking out. A child is born. In that case the Bill positively does harm, and I will tell the House why. At present when the child is coming, the man has the greatest possible pressure brought to bear upon him to do the right thing. There is only a short period, and there are the solicitations of the girl's relatives and the suasion of his own affections for the girl. He must do the right thing in a given time, or not at all. In many cases he does do it. But if the Bill is left as it is, the period of nine months is extended indefinitely. There is no need for him to be in a hurry to do the right thing.

The hon. and learned Member appears to be arguing on other Clauses in the Bill.

I am arguing on this particular Clause. I am pointing out that the presence of this Sub-section spoils the Bill, and I think it should be omitted. As long as this Sub-section is there it would do positive harm to the class with which I am dealing, because it lengthens the time. It allows the Devil's advocate to say to the youth, "Do not worry; wait until you get a rise in salary; wait until you tell your father. You need not hurry." The result is, affection dies, the parties drift away from each other and the subsequent marriage never takes place. This third class, which this Bill excludes, is the class from which all the hard cases come. Suppose, as was said by the last speaker, that you have a couple living together quietly. Perhaps the husband or the wife has been deserted, perhaps the husband by his wife. Perhaps living together is wholly impossible. Under these circumstances illegitimate unions are formed, children are born, and they are brought up in all respects as if legitimate. They do not know of the stigma upon themselves. They are educated and properly cared for, but the parents are waiting for the happy day when they can go through the marriage ceremony. That class is cut out completely.

The arguments, as far as I have heard them, are these. It is said, "We cannot afford to condone adultery." Yes, but the Bill, with the Sub-section in, condones the lesser offence. I am rather inclined to agree with the last speaker as to the shades between the two delinquencies. Allow that there is a darker shade of delinquency in the case of the adulterous union. Are we to say, "We will save the child because the delinquency on the part of the parents was not quite as dark as the other form of delinquency"? The truth is that the Bill, neither with the Sub-section in nor without it, is a condonation at all of what the parents have done. If you pass it with this Sub-section in, illicit intercourse will be as wrong before as after. If you pass it without the Sub-section adulterous intercourse will be as bad after as it was before. The truth is this: We say, "For the sake of an innocent child we turn a blind eye upon the failing of the parents." It is all done for the sake of the child. It seems to me a perfectly monstrous thing to bring two classes of children into the world, both illegitimate, and that one is to be able to say, "I have all the privileges of a legitimate child," while the other is to say, "I have none of the privileges of a legitimate child." Yet they are both equally innocent. It is a monstrous thing to do. The Bill is not even logical. Note what it says, for it is very remarkable. The Sub-section says—

"Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born."

Mark you—"Was born." The legitimate child is made by tins Bill to spring out of an adulterous intercourse, and the illegitimate child is made to spring out of a non-adulterous intercourse. That is perfectly illogical. The argument that is brought to bear in order to justify this illogicality and injustice is really very little more than a cobweb spun out of some ecclesiastical head. We are told, for instance, "If you allow legitimation where the intercourse is adulterous, this would come about: Women will succumb to temptation which they now resist. At the present moment the woman will say, 'Ah, well. I cannot give way because if I do my child would not be legitimate.' But in the other circumstances she would say, 'Oh, I will give way.' Why? Because if the child is born it might happen that the wife or the father will die in years to come, or that he will divorce her in years to come, and it might happen then that it would occur to him to marry her, and she would say, 'If all these things come about I know by this Section of the Act of 1926 that my child will be legitimate.'" It is too grotesque to put forward such an argument before men who know human nature and the world. I, therefore, press it upon the House that we ought to take action independently in cases of this kind. If we go to the trouble of passing a Bill which is really intended to save children from an unfair disability and an unjust stigma—the innocent children—we ought to do it in a wholehearted and frank manner, and not bring into the world two classes of persons, equally innocent, but one wearing the brand of illegitimacy and the other free from it.

There is little doubt that a large number of persons in all quarters of the House favour this Amendment, but, at the same time, there is already in the Bill a great deal which most Members wish to be passed into law. The Legitimacy Bill for the last five years has been having rather a rough passage, due to various accidents and so forth. Although many Members would no doubt be in favour of this Amendment, now that we are at the end of the Session it would seem to he a more practical policy to accept the Bill without the Amendment and next Session to introduce a one-clause Bill with the. Amendment embodied in it, and to endeavour to get that passed. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would put us in considerable difficulty if he now pressed the Amendment to a Division. If the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment, we shall have to support the Government against what we believe to be correct in the details of the Bill. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would obtain a great deal more support next Session if he could bring in a one-clause Bill, than if he were to press the Amendment to a Division now, knowing that the Government could not accept it. I throw that out as a suggestion to the hon. Member. If we obtain the Bill with this Clause in it the injustice will he so evident that public pressure, not only in this House, hut outside, will eventually insist upon another place accepting a one-clause Bill embodying the policy contained in the Amendment.

Every Member who has addressed the House has spoken in favour of the Amendment. My position, therefore, is made very difficult, especially when I realise that this Bill is not political, and that the Government would never desire to make it a political Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken described the position accurately. He said that this Bill had been before the House of Commons for many years, and, undoubtedly, it would have been placed upon the Statute Book years ago had it not been for the controversy in connection with this particular Sub-section. I listened with the greatest attention to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Moss-side Division (Mr. C. Hurst). They both took up the line that they were thinking only of the children; both used the expression "for the sake of the innocent child." Of course, every Member of the House must feel for the child, but in this particular case we must consider also the interests of the wife. This is the only time when she really conies into our discussions upon this Bill. We must consider the interests of the wife if, when a man and woman were married, one or the other has had a child born in adultery. The position of the wife in such circumstances would be a very difficult one. One can quite see that on many occasions a great deal of pressure might be brought upon her, if the Amendment were passed, by the husband to divorce her, the husband using the argument that it should be done in the interests of the child.

6.0 P.M.

There is one thing which makes more for happiness to children than anything else, and that is a happy home. You would not conduce to happy homes if you accepted this Amendment. That is, perhaps, the strongest reason why one can ask the House to resist the Amendment. The wife should be protected from being subjected to pressure by her husband to divorce her in order that the illegitimate child may become legitimate. If you were to allow children born in adultery to have the benefit of this Bill in the same way as other children, you would remove a deterrent against adulterous intercourse. That would certainly be prejudicial to family life and thus would not be in the interests of the children as a whole. I admit at once and agree absolutely that it would be in the interest of the child if this Amendment were accepted. It would be in the interest of the particular child, but there is not a very large number of those cases. This Bill as it is now drafted will have the effect of helping a very large number of children. Of course, it would have the effect of helping more if this Amendment were accepted by the House, but if we consider the interest of the wife and the great good we shall be doing by the Bill, as it stands, to a very large number of illegitimate children in the country, then I think we would be foolish if we were to forego this certainty of giving assistance to a large number of illegitimate children in order to grasp at a shadow. For I must warn the House that if this Amendment is accepted, the Bill will certainly become a shadow and in all probability will not be placed on the Statute Book. I think every Member who has spoken in favour of the Amendment believes in his heart that we must have this Bill, even if only as it is at present drafted, and, without wishing to go into deep arguments, that is the main reason why I suggest that we should have the Bill as it stands rather than run the risk of losing it altogether. When this Bill is upon the Statute Book we may, in other Sessions, either by a Private Member's Bill or by other means, bring forward a one-Clause Measure which will meet the point so eloquently made by hon. Members this afternoon.

I should be sorry if any words of mine were to delay any longer the settlement of a question which has been discussed for 700 years, but I think it is unfortunate that 'Parliament should only have a few minutes to debate one of the most important points involved in this long controversy. It has been my lot from time to time in recent years to have had to consider the law relating to children and the position of children especially in cases such as we have been discussing this evening, and I should be false to my convictions if I did not rise to support the Amendment as heartily as I can. I do so, first, in the interests of morality generally, for there is nothing which requires to be, recognised more clearly as regards morals than this, that if a man be responsible for bringing into the world any child, he should have every possible encouragement to do what he can to make the position of that child as favourable as possible. Anything that operates in favour of a man marrying a woman by whom he has had children is likely to promote the cause of morality. Let me state one or two cases. I only take one or two, though I could give many to show how rank an injustice would be caused and how revolting it would be to morals if this Clause were retained and the Amendment rejected. I will take first a case of a kind already indicated in this Debate. It is not one of those strange imaginary cases in which it is said that people who have illegitimate children would put pressure on their wives to get a divorce.

Let us take the real case of a poor woman whose husband has treated her brutally, has deserted her, and has gone abroad. After some years another man comes along who is willing to support her and who feels pity for the distress in which she is placed and becomes attached to her. He may go through a form of marriage with her, thinking that the man is dead or without doing so he may live with her. Let those who like blame them, but the woman needs help. A man is there willing to help. They may go through the form of marriage or they may not. Then the ruffian who deserted the woman returns. Suppose a child has been born in the meantime? The deserter then dies. What is the right thing in the interests of the child, of the man, of the woman and of common morality. Is it not right that they should be legally married as soon as possible and that the children should he placed in a proper position? That is the kind of case which arises again and again. Take another case where the husband is not a ruffian, but has gone abroad for good reason and is believed to be dead. A case like that of Enoch Arden.

I suppose some people even in these days read Tennyson and know the story. In the case of a man believed to be dead who comes back again, where no blame or guilt attaches to anybody, would it not be far better that a subsequent marriage should regularise the position? No doubt, I am quoting an early Victorian poem which a younger generation do not read nowadays. I commend it for their perusal. Take another case, not of such perfect innocence, of a man whose wife leaves him very soon after marriage, makes it impossible for him to bring friends to his home, spends his money, recklessly puts in her time at Monte Carlo or somewhere else, leaves her husband without home comforts, and breaks every marriage vow except one. Then some other woman meets him, feels pity for the man so really homeless. They come together and the man finds soface in her society. A true and permanent attachment grows up between them. They live together and children are born. I am not justifying their conduct, but I say it is the case in which one ought to be very careful about casting stories, though I fear to-day we have legitimate descendants from that crowd of 1,900 years ago who were so ready to do so. I am not going to say that these two people in living together are doing what is right. I am not going to say they are not breaking certain rules of morality, but I do say that in a case like that, should the parties marry, the law should not declare that the children of such a marriage can never be legitimated.

I have no time to multiply cases but many more could be adduced. I do not contend here that the canon law is in favour of legitimation in such cases or the Scots law, but our Dominions and the United States have adopted laws in favour of the contention of those who support the Amendment. Yet, after all these hundreds of years of controversy on the paint, we are told we have only a few minutes in which to consider this point, or in the alternative that we must lose the Bill. It may be that such is the case, but I think a little more time should have been given to the consideration of a subject which is of such real importance. One of the silliest maxims that is ever used is that "hard cases make bad law." Nothing could be more absurd. Hard cases do not make bad law, but bad law makes hard cases and good law prevents hard cases. Surely this is a case in which the Government ought to leave the matter to a free vote of the House. It is not a matter involving any question of party politics, but it is a question of sound morals and it is a case in which the supporters of the Government ought to be free to vote as they will and without pressure of any kind, to do what is just and best for the interest of children placed in an unfortunate position. How often has an appeal to a fancied morality been put forward as an excuse for injustice and even cruelty, and just as Madame Rofand exclaimed:

"Oh, Liberty, what crimes are committed in this name,"

I feel inclined to say:

"Oh, morality, what crimes are committed in thine."

But however we may differ as to the voice of morality or religion in such cases, let us in the name of common sense be spared the argument sometimes urged, that when people are contemplating an irregular connection they will be influenced in the least by a calm consideration of the law as to the possibility of legitimating the children who may be born from it in the event of their becoming free to marry. Imagine—if we may take a historic case familiar to all in the pages of Dante. Really, does any one imagine Paofo and Fransesca being deterred by the thought that if they had a child it could never be made legitimate? Let us dismiss the idea that in any of these cases in the whole range from the most romantic and true though illicit attachments to the commonest sexual promiscuity in callous disregard of real family ties the idea of considering what the law may be in this particular respect would ever arise. I put forward these points shortly and imperfectly, as time is limited, because I feel very strongly on the subject, and I think this is pre-eminently a matter in which Parliament should be able to pronounce a free and clear vote.

Any outside observer of the proceedings this afternoon must have been struck with bewilderment. We have seen an Amendment brought forward and supported by Members of every shade of political thought. We have seen an unhappy Under-Secretary rising and, in a way which showed he was very ill at ease, almost supporting the Amendment, and yet saying that it could not be allowed to pass into law. There is a reason for that. I do not intend to go into the arguments for or against the Amendment, but I wish to submit very respectfully to the House the course which in my opinion it ought to pursue. This particular question has been debated time and again and upon almost every occasion when the House has given a vote upon it, the vote has been in favour of the Amendment. In the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) I find the Amendment was carried by 27 votes to seven, and the House confirmed that opinion by a vote of 136 to 65. I find that the Parliaments of West Australia, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania adopted the point of view advocated by the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division (Mr. Rhys Davies) and by practically every other Member who has spoken. Similarly, the four Canadian provinces, when this law of legitimation was under discussion, rejected this restrictive proviso and, in America, where, I believe, moral turpitude is held in special odium, 43 States out of 44 who had the law of legitimation under discussion, rejected the view that legitimation should only apply to a limited class of illegitimate children. Similarly, in three other European countries, namely, Switzerland, Austria and Germany, it was not thought necessary to accentuate the stigma on one class of illegitimate children by removing it from the others.

There is only one reason why the Bill cannot be passed into law as the House desires it to pass, and that is that on every occasion on which it has been sent up from this House, the House of Lords has rejected the House of Commons' point of view, and the hon. Member who asks us to allow the Bill to go through as it stands, on the ground that, if we do, another Bill can be brought forward next year, with one Clause only, remedying the defect in this Bill, surely foresees that if the House of Lords will not pass this Bill with this Amendment, it is extremely unlikely that it will pass a Bill which contains the Amendment in a Clause by itself. The House of Commons ought to face this question now. If we send it up to another place, we can ensure in time that it will become law in the only just form. There is only one justification for the Bill at all, and that is that it does justice to the child. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it does not do justice to children as a whole, and I hope the Mover of the Amendment will press it to a Division, in order to secure that full justice may be done.

In the very sympathetic and persuasive speech of the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson), he commenced his remarks by telling us he hoped no words of his would detain the Measure, which had been a matter of controversy for 700 years. I feel certain that the majority of the Members of this House are sympathetically disposed towards the point of view which the hon. and learned Member expressed so well, but I feel that, in view of the ultimatum which has been delivered to the House by the Under-Secretary, we would not, by supporting the Amendment, be assisting any class of child who might benefit under this Bill as it remains at the present time. That is the cold fact which we have to look in the face and to respect. If the view of the sup porters of the Amendment be carried, none of these children will benefit at all. We know that if this Bill be sent up to the House of Lords again without this Amendment, it will not become law, and I feel most strongly that we have to look at it from a practical point of view, and that we are not helping those children with whom we sympathise by saying: "You cannot have the whole of the cake, and, therefore, we are not going to give you any of it at all." I hope sincerely that hon. Members who feel, as I am sure they do, that this is a question which should have the most earnest consideration of Parliament at another time, will not press this Amendment now, in order that at least one section of the children who will benefit will not be deprived of a Measure which is long overdue.

When I spoke on this Amendment earlier, I made it quite clear that this was a non-political question, and I hinted that the Government would not press the matter unduly, so far as placing the Whips on to force the Bill through as it stands was concerned. I am authorised to say that the Whips will not be placed on, and that this Amendment will he left to a free vote of the House, but I want the House to realise exactly what the position is. If we pass the Bill as it stands, that is, without the Amendment that has been moved, we have a certainty of doing something, and many children will undoubtedly benefit. On the other hand, if we pass the Amendment, we run a great risk of doing nothing, especially at this time of the Session, when, as we all know, the other place is very busy with legislation and probably will not have time even to discuss this matter, let alone make up their minds to accept the view of the House of Commons on it. In that event, if we accepted the Amendment, no children at all might benefit, and I would suggest, therefore, seeing that we have these two alternatives before us, that we should make certain of doing something for some children rather than run the risk of benefiting no children at all.

Supposing we pass the Bill in the form which the whole House desires—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well, in the form desired by a majority of the House, and then pass it again next year, and in January of the following year, if this House is still sitting, is it not a fact that we can secure the whole Bill in that way?

Yes, but it is also possible that if we do this amount of good to the children by passing the Bill as it now stands, we shall benefit a certain number of children anyway, and we shall also have the opportunity of passing another Bill containing one Clause—

I apologise for again interrupting, but is it not a fact that. we shall not have opportunity or time to bring in a supplementary Bill completing the good work, whereas if we let the whole Bill through now, with this Amendment, we shall have the original Bill and the supplementary Bill in one, and we shall never have so good an opportunity to get the whole Bill through, as we shall have three years to run?

But you will in all probability lose the whole Bill by putting in the Amendment.

Might I make a suggestion? Supposing this Amendment is not now pressed to a division, will an undertaking be given by the Government to give time next Session for a Private Member's Bill containing this Amendment? Then this Bill could go through now, if the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) agreed to withdraw the Amendment, and we should have a chance of passing the Amendment next year.

It is, of course, quite impossible for me to pledge my raga hon. Friend the Prime Minister as to what attitude he will take up next year, but he has authorised me to say here and now that it is to be left to a free vote of the House, so that I have no reason to think he will change his opinions, and next Session, if a Private Member were fortunate enough to get a place for such an amending Bill in the ballot, I have no doubt he would not force the views of the Government on this question, even if they were united, which is very unlikely, upon the House. I cannot give any more definite pledge than that. I think I understand the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) more clearly than I did just now. He thinks it might come under the provisions of the Parliament Act., I gather?

Yes.

I am assured that it would not come under the provisions of the Parliament Act, so that I think the hon. and gallant Member will now realise that it would be beneficial probably to get what we are certain of getting if we pass the Bill in its present form, rather than run the risk of losing everything.

Why would it not come under the Parliament Act?

I am assured that it would not, though I cannot give the reasons now. In all probability, it would be a question of time. I have consulted my legal advisers, and I am assured it could not come under the provisions of the Parliament Act.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked us to let the Bill go through unamended in the hope of having a fresh Bill next Session. What reason has he for thinking that the objectionable Clause, if standing alone, would go through the House of Lords when it cannot go through if attached to this Bill?

I have no certainty that it would, but possibly between now and then we might be able to per- suade the opposition to this Amendment in the House of Lords that they are not doing the right thing by resisting the Amendment. In my submission, we ought to be satisfied with what we have in the Bill now, and we ought to try—those who are in favour of this Amendment—to promote their views next Session -and hope to achieve their object by placing on the Statute Book an Act of Parliament which would meet with what I consider at the present moment is the view of the majority of the Members of the House. I would go so far as to press that we do not even go to a Division on this matter now, realising that, if we were to pass the Amendment, we could not achieve our ends.

As one who sympathises with the Amendment, I venture to express the hope that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) will accede to the suggestion made by the Under-Secretary, who has, I think, been extremely fair in the matter. He has shown his own sympathy with the Amendment, and I agree with him that it is better to have half a loaf than

Division No. 557.]	AYES.	[6.29 pm.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Chlicott, Sir Warden	Grotrian, H. Brent
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Christie, J. A.	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Apsley, Lord	Clarry, Reginald George	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cope, Major William	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Balniel, Lord	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Harland, A.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Bennett, A. J.	Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)	Harrison, G. J. C.
Berry, Sir George	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hartington, Marquess of
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Dawson, Sir Philip	Haslam, Henry C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Drewe, C.	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Briggs, J. Harold	Ellis, R. G.	Hills, Major John Waller
Briscoe, Richard George	Elveden, Viscount	Hilton, Cecil
Brittain, Sir Harry	Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Bromley, J.	Falls, Sir Bertram G.	Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Fermoy, Lord	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Fielden, E. B.	Holland, Sir Arthur
Buckingham, Sir H.	Finburgh, S.	Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Bullock, Captain M.	Forrest, W,	Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Hume, Sir G. H.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.	Hurd, Percy A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Gates, Percy	Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl't)
Campbell, E. T.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Cassels, J. D.	Gibbs, Cot. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Jacob, A. E.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Goff, Sir Park	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Grace, John	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Grant, Sir J. A.	Kindersley, Major G. M.
Chapman, Sir S.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

nothing at all. We are certain of having something to-night in the shape of this Bill without the Amendment, and I think it would be bad tactics if the Bill were jeopardised by pressing this Amendment. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton is a very practical sort of man, and I hope that, after the statement made by the Under-Secretary, he will accede to his suggestion.

Appeals have been made to me to withdraw my Amendment, but I must confess that those appeals will not bear fruit, for one reason only. If I thought that by delaying my Amendment till next year the other House would be induced to pass it, I would withdraw my Amendment now, but there is no guarantee of that at all, and, in fact, the House of Commons has to face the issue. It will have to deal with this problem, and I prefer to deal with it here and now.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 101.

Knox, Sir Alfred	Penny, Frederick George	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Storry-Deans, R.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Loder, J. de V.	Phillpson, Mabel	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Lord, Walter Greaves-	Pilditch, Sir Philip	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Power, Sir John Cecil	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Ramsden, E.	Tinne, J. A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
MacIntyre, Ian	Reid, D. D. (County Down)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
McLean, Major A.	Remer, J. R.	Waddington, R.
Macmillan, Captain H.	Rentoul, G. S.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. sir Malcolm	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Macquisten, F. A.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wells, S. R.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Malone, Major P. B.	Sandeman, A. Stewart	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Margesson, Captain D.	Sandon, Lord	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Winby, Colonel L. P.
Merriman, F. B.	Savery, S. S.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Meyer, Sir Frank	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)	Womersley, W. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Murchison, C. K.	Smithers, Waldron	Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Oakley, T.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)	Major Astor and Captain Arthur
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Evans.
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

NOES
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Grundy, T. W.	Paling, W.
Albery, Irving James	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Ammon, Charles George	Hardie, George D.	Perring, Sir William George
Attlee, Clement Richard	Harney, E. A.	Ponsonby, Arthur
Baker, Walter	Harris, Percy A.	Potts, John S.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Purcell, A. A.
Batey, Joseph	Hayday, Arthur	Richardson, R. (Houqhton-le-Spring)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Robinson. W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Hirst, G. H.	Rose, Frank H,
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Caine, Gordon Hall	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis	Scurr, John
Charleton, H. C.	Hurst, Gerald B.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Cluse, W. S.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Smith. Rennic (Penistone)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Compton, Joseph	Kelly, W. T	Taylor, R. A.
Cove, W. G.	Kennedy, T.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Dalton, Hugh	Lawrence, Susan	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lee, F.	Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry	Looker, Herbert William	Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Dennison, R.	Lowth, T.	Viant, S. P.
Duncan, C.	Lunn, William	Wailhead, Richard C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)	Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Fenby, T. D.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	March, S.	Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)
Gardner, J. P.	Maxton, James	Windsor, Walter
Gillett, George M.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Wright, W.
Graham, Rt. Hon-Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Montague, Frederick	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Naylor, T. E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.
Groves, T.	Oliver, George Harold

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I think this opportunity ought not to be allowed to pass without drawing attention to the device under which it is possible for the whole of the Parliament Act of 1911 to be nullified. This Bill includes a Clause which has been the subject of controversy between this House and another place for many years. Repeatedly this House has adopted a certain point of view, and as often in another place that point of view has been rejected. This Bill, although it contains financial Clauses, was introduced in another place, and it was extremely likely that this House would only be able to establish its view by sending up the Bill to the' House of Lords in three successive sessions. I trust that in future, when a subject of controversy between the House of Lords and the House of Commons exists, it will not be surmounted to the detriment of the views of this House by sending the Bill to the House of Lords to be originated, thereby nullifying the effect of the Parliament Act of 1911.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Sale Of Food (Weights And Measures) Bill Lords

[PROGRESS, 9 th December.]

Further considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Clause 6—(Provisions Applicable To The Sale Of Bread)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the words "have in his possession" and to insert instead thereof the word "expose."

This provision is in connection with the sale of bread, and if the Clause remains as drafted a baker may be convicted of having a loaf of irregular weight on his premises at some period of its preparation, notwithstanding the fact that there is no intention on the part of the baker to offer it for sale. Take the case of a small baker who is doing what is known as public baking. People send their dough ready in tins to be baked. They do not trouble at all what the weight is. The man bakes it, and it is on his premises. It is just possible, if this Clause goes through as drafted, that an inspector may come along and level a charge against that man of having bread not of the required weight on his premises. The opinion of those in the trade is, that the term "expose for sale" ought to be sufficient, and merely the fact of having a loaf on his premises should not render a man liable to prosecution.

I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment. It was a specific recom- mendation of the Food Council that the Bill should be in this form, and, indeed, the Sale of Food Bill, as drafted, was submitted to the Bakers' Association, and, as appears from the evidence, was accepted by them. My hon. Friend has proposed this Amendment in order that a man who has bread which is of improper weight, but which, in fact, he has no intention of selling, may not be convicted. I cannot conceive in such a case that a prosecution would ever be brought, and, of course, if it were brought, it would fail. If the Bill went through in the form which my hon. Friend suggests—I am sure he has not this in his mind—the only bread which would come within the purview of the Bill would be bread exposed in front of the shop. A man might have a cupboard full of bread or a room full of bread from which he was delivering in the ordinary course of his business, but if it were not actually exposed for sale, that would prevent prosecution. I am sure that was not in the mind of my hon. Friend when he moved this Amendment, but it was just the kind of case that was considered by the Food Council.

I am afraid that I cannot accept either the Food Council or the Bakers' Association as being final on this particular subject. I think we have to consider some other things besides their points of view. There is, for example, the health of the people, and I am informed by a number of eminent medical people that the bakers, in order to get over such a Clause as this, could add a certain amount of water in order to bring the weight of the bread up to the required amount, and so produce a spongy kind of bread—

This cannot be relevant as to whether the word "exposed" should be put in this Clause.

I was going to submit that a baker might have a loaf of bread partly cooked, and, finding it slightly under weight, add water in order to bring the weight up to that required under the Bill.

The question is whether the words "have in his possession" or the word "exposed" should be in the Bill. I do not see what else can arise out of this.

This Bill having come from the House of Lords, we have not really had an opportunity to get to know what the words mean, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, with respect not only to this Amendment, but to other Amendments which come up, that we ought to be given time to consider the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, at the end, to insert the words

"Provided that it shall be competent for any local authority to authorise the sale of loaves of one and a half pounds weight where such local authority is satisfied that there is a demand for loaves of this weight within the area of its authority."

The provision in this Amendment is a very modest one and, further, is permissive in character. The local authority can give this authorisation if there be a demand for 1½ lb. loaves in any part of the country. The 1½ lb. loaf was a very great favourite in Yorkshire before the War, but that size was done away with owing to the operations of the Defence of the Realm Act, and it seems to be only reasonable that bakers should again be allowed to make a loaf which was so popular in that part of the country. We are rather tired of D.O.R.A., and I think we should like to get rid of her.

I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. For the last 10 years the law has been that people are to bake loaves in pounds or multiples of a pound, and I think the Committee will realise that in a Bill the whole purpose of which is to insist on rather stricter conditions with regard to weight it would be an impossible thing to go back on what has been the law for the last ten years. It is not the case that this Regulation has been kept on under D.O.R.A. Each year in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act the House has advisedly and unanimously continued the provisions of the Order, and every party in turn has been committed to enshrining the provisions of the Order with regard to bread in a permanent Bill.

Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out the words "in Scotland."

This Amendment has to be taken in conjunction with another Amendment later which inserts the words "in Scotland." I think if we make this change we shall be doing exactly what is desired by the President of the Board of Trade.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think this Amendment makes better drafting, and, therefore, I am prepared to accept it—of course, on the understanding that the words "in Scotland" are put in the Bill further on.

I should like to understand where we are. Does this Amendment bring the English system under the same exemptions as apply to Scotland?

No.

In this case England is in advance of Scotland—that is the point I wish to emphasise.

The intention of the Clause as it stands is to leave the English position exactly where it is, and I think it makes it plainer to put the words "in Scotland" in the Clause three lines lower down.

I wish the President of the Board of Trade would explain to the Committee what is the difference, and whether Scotland is getting an advantage on this occasion. I have every regard for Scotland but, with all due respect to Scottish Members, I think Scotland has been getting advantages all along the line lately. If the right hon. Gentleman is giving advantages to Scotland, why leave out Wales?

I am only maintaining the law where it stands at the present time. I do not wish to argue the idiosyncracies of Scotland in relation to bread—I beg pardon, I do not wish to argue the tastes of the people of Scotland in relation to bread.

I think I must rise to protest against the remarks of the bon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Edwards), and also the strange use of the word "idiosyncracies" by the President of the Board of Trade.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 27 to 34 inclusive.

We do not quite understand why this provision in regard to 1¾ lb. loaves should apply to Scotland any more than to England. We cannot see why what is good enough for England should not be good enough for Scotland, and we think that if this Bill is for the benefit of the English people it should be for the benefit of the Scottish people also. I am now given to understand there are special circumstances applying to Scotland which explain the reason for this Clause.

I hope the right, hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will not agree to accept this Amendment. Scottish customs in regard to the baking of bread differ from those of England. We have always had the 2 lb. batch loaf, and the housewife in Scotland did not buy this bread because of its weight, but because it was the loaf which she desired. This Clause has been agreed upon by all concerned in Scotland, and it will be of immense advantage not only to the bakers but to the people themselves, because for the first time they will have the weight impressed upon the loaf.

I think the few words of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Henderson) have shown the Committee clearly that no party question is concerned here, that we desire simply to allow, so far as possible, a long established trade custom to prevail, if it is made quite clear that justice is to be done to the housewife. Provision is made for seeing that justice is done to the housewife in that we shall now have impressed on the loaf or the wrapper what the weight of the loaf is. The just weight will be established and clearly laid down, so that there can be no mistake about it; and if anyone desires to change that system I think the onus of proving that a change is desired must rest upon them. We desire to allow the present custom of making 1¾ lb. loaves to remain, while safeguarding the housewife by letting her know the weight of the loaf she is purchasing. This has been agreed upon by all interests, and particularly by the great co-operative societies, and I hope the Mover of the Amendment will not further press it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 3, line 29, after the word "that," insert the words "in Scotland."—[ Sir C. Cobb.]

In line 35, leave out the words "by retail."

In line 36, leave out the words "by retail."—[ Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, at the end to insert the words

"() In every case in which bread is weighed by an inspector, either in a shop or in the course of delivery, the inspector shall deliver a notice or certificate signed by him as to the result of such weighing, whether or not any deficiency is alleged."

This Amendment is not designed to weaken the Bill in any way, or to affect the protection which it gives to consumers. The sole object is to provide a reasonable protection for the baker. All that the baker asks is that when his bread is weighed by an inspector a certificate shall be given to him stating what the weight of the bread is, and then he will know if there is to be a prosecution or if his loaves are all right. We recognise that the general body of inspectors are very reasonable men, but here and there one gets a certain officious type of man who can make himself very objectionable. In many towns what is asked for by this Amendment is already in operation, the local authorities having felt that it was a right and just thing to give a certificate. It is done in the great city of Birmingham. We think that in the interests of the trader, and of the honest trader in particular, this Amendment ought to be included in the Bill.

At first I was inclined to think these words were reasonable and helpful, but there are two reasons why I think we ought not to carry them. If a provision of this kind is to be inserted at all, it ought to be inserted in regard to all articles, and not bread only. That consideration would not affect the proposal on its merits, but on its merits there is also this objection to it. It has been represented to me that it might easily happen that some trader might be visited by an inspector because of complaints that he was not delivering full weight, and if it was found at the time of inspection that the particular loaves inspected were up to weight he would then have to be given a certificate to that effect. The result would be that this man, who was really a less reputable trader than hundreds of others of whom no complaint had been made, would use the certificate of the inspector to give his shop a cachet, as it were, and it might be represented that the really reputable trader was the one who had got the inspector's certificate. That has been represented to me as a practical difficulty, from the point of view of the majority of traders. Quite obviously we do not want that sort of thing to happen. If a local authority, after consulting with traders, finds that the proposal suggested in the Amendment is desirable, there is nothing to stop them from doing it; but for all the reasons I have given, it would not be in the interests of traders generally to make it compulsory.

Amendment negatived.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

I would like—

The hon. Member is too late: The Question has already been put.

I was standing when you rose to put the Question.

I thought the hon. Member was rising to move an Amendment on another Clause.

No, I was rising to speak on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I am afraid it is too late now.

Clause 7—(Provisions Applicable To The Sale Of Milk)

Amendment made:

In page 4, line 7, leave out the words "by retail."—[ Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 8 ( Savings) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9—(Power Of Board Of Trade To Make Regulations)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, after the word "such," to insert the words "associations of local authorities, and."

7.0 P.M.

Since I put down this Amendment a further Amendment has been tabled by the President of the Board of Trade to leave out the word "trade," and to some extent this tends to meet the difficulty which my Amendment was designed to deal with. Nevertheless, I should like to move my Amendment, because I desire to point out that in the view of the local authorities they should be consulted by the Board of Trade with regard to any regulations or rules issued in connection with the administration of this Act. Local authorities claim that they are as much interested as traders in the administration of this Act, and that they are as much entitled to consultation as the other interests involved in it. Moreover, they claim that they will have a first-hand knowledge as a result of the practical working of these Acts of the difficulties, as and when they arise, and that therefore they will be able to give practical assistance when amending Regulations are being considered and framed. I would like further to point out that there is a precedent for an Amendment on these lines, for under an Act passed in 1922 the following words appear:

"And after consultation with such associations of local authorities, as appear to them to be concerned."

Therefore, with a precedent of this kind, it is not unfair or unjust to ask for a similar provision in this Bill.

As the hon. Member has pointed out, I propose to move immediately afterwards to delete the word "trade." I entirely agree that the local authorities ought to be consulted, both in framing Regulations, or considering additions of new articles to the list. We had great assistance from them in the framing of this Measure, and they have to administer the Act. Undoubtedly, we should consult with representative bodies of local authorities, both associations and same of the more important of them individually, and we should also consult with the Food Council. I did not wish in the Bill to specify particular bodies in order that any expression should not be held to include the one and exclude the other, and I propose to cut out the word "trade" and leave the wording general in the Act. The associations of local authorities will most certainly be consulted.

In view of the assurance which has just been given by the President of the Board of Trade, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made:

In page 4, line 20, leave out the word "trade."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

On a point of Order. I would like to suggest that it would be convenient to discuss together the next Amendment and a later Amendment in Clause 11; both standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), as they raise the same point.

Would the second Amendment he covered by the first Amendment?

No. If we agree to insert the first Amendment then the second Amendment will require to be inserted, because that is consequential on the first.

If we are to discuss both Amendments at the same time, I would like to ask the sanction of the Committee to move the second Amendment, standing in my name, in a somewhat different form. It would have practically the same meaning, and I think it would meet with the same reception. I do not know whether I should he right in reading this Amendment now, but I should like to move the second Amendment in the following form—

I think the hon. Member had better deal with one Amendment at a time. Very much depends whether the first Amendment is accepted or not.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at the end, to insert the words

"and the manner of re-sealing wrappers and containers broken open under this Act."

The primary object of the Bill is to provide for the better protection of the public, and to see that the housewife, if she does not get full measure pressed down and running over, at any rate gets good weight and measure. It is claimed by those who will be charged with the difficult duty of administering the Bill that if their administration is to prove effective, there must be power to re-seal packets, where those packets are opened, in cases where they can be so re-sealed without damage to the contents. If this power be not given to local authorities, it is feared, and I think on very good grounds, that the expense entailed under the administration of the Bill will be such as to make it almost a dead letter, and that fewer articles will be purchased and that the primary object of the Bill will be defeated.

Under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, inspectors are restricted as to the number of packets they can purchase by financial limitations, and we do not want to be up against similar financial limitations in the working of this Bill. Local authorities, on behalf of whom this Amendment, and the other Amendment referred to, are being moved, feel that if the re-sealing is done in this way by a sealing label, in cases where it can be shown that no damage has been done to the contents, the value of the article will not be lessened and it may be that it will even be increased, in that the re-sealing will in effect be a guarantee that the contents are as stated. That is not a new principle. It has been advocated before, and under the Sale of Tea Act, 1922, resealing is permitted and undertaken, and I have some confidence, therefore, in submitting this Amendment to the House.

I am roach obliged to the hon. Member for intimating to the Committee that when we come to the later Amendment he will move it in a modified form, because I think in a modified form the Committee will be pleased to accept it. We should then be following what is a regular precedent, for where under previous Acts the action of the inspector would necessarily lead to the goods being damaged, then it is incumbent on the local authority to buy the goods. That is so where the samples are taken away for testing under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. But on the other hand, under the Sale of Tea Act, where it has been proved that the packet can be opened and then re-sealed without damage to the contents, there is no obligation on the local authorities to purchase. Therefore, on the understanding that when we come to the second Amendment, it will be moved in a form which will oblige the inspector to re-seal where re-sealing can take place without injury to the contents of the wrapper, and be limited to such cases, and that there will be an obligation, if the retailer so requires, that the goods should be purchased where they cannot be re-sealed without damage, then I shall he glad to accept the Amendment, and the later Amendment in that modified form.

Do we understand that the Amendment, as now suggested, leaves it to the discretion of the inspector as to whether the request of the trader that the goods should be purchased is legitimate or otherwise?

No. That would not be so, and the words proposed will mean that where the wrapper or container can be re-sealed without injury to the contents, the inspector will re-seal the wrapper or container. If the inspector does not so re-seal the wrapper or container, there will be a right to require purchase. Those will be the words of the Act of Parliament, but the construction of the Act and the decision as to whether the action of the inspector or the trader is reasonable must, in cases of dispute, rest with the Courts. I do not think that the discretion as to whether one party or the other is acting reasonably should rest with the local authorities, but should, in cases of dispute, rest with the Court.

Is it the case that where the container is opened and the inspector re-seals it, the correctness of the contents is stated.

That is exactly what this Clause is intended to provide, namely, that where it can be sealed up without damage it shall be so sealed.

And stated?

And stated. That would be under the Regulations, but there is the right to require purchase where damage is done to the contents.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 1, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert instead thereof a new Sub-section:

(2) Before any Regulations other than Regulations under paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of this Section are made the draft of the proposed Regulations shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the Regulations shall not be made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the Regulations may be made in the form in which they have been so approved.

Regulations made under paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made.

The Committee will remember that I gave an undertaking on the Second Reading of the Bill that I would introduce an Amendment in this form in order to ensure that where, as a result of the draft Regulations, any article was brought within the scope of the Bill which had not hitherto been inspected under the Bill, or where any article now within the scope of the Bill was taken out, that Regulation should not be effective without a positive Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The House has approved the principle of this Bill, and now both Houses of Parliament will have, by the simple means of a positive Resolution, control over whether we should increase or reduce the burdens which this Act imposes. That will mean that paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of Subsection (1) of Clause 9 will require a positive Resolution and that only paragraph (d), which relates merely to administrative Regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act in regard to articles already included, will be dealt with by an Order which will not require a positive Resolution.

In the case of paragraph (d) under the original Bill, it became operative by laying the Regulations on the Table, and it was then in the power of the House to amend those Regulations. Under the amending scheme, however, in regard to the other three paragraphs, the Regulations require a positive Resolution of the House, but under paragraph (d) they are merely to be laid on the Table, and there is no power for us to move that those Regulations may be set aside. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade has some explanation to give on this point.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct in regard to those particular Regulations. I would point out, however, that they are only Regulations in accordance with the general provisions laid down, and they are dealt with in a form according to the existing practice.

But it is quite a different thing to authorise a Department to make Regulations which have the force of law over which this House has no power.

This is merely carrying out the orders of the House, and I shall be careful not to introduce anything which interferes with the powers of the House of Commons.

I would like to know if a positive Resolution of this kind is introduced, will it be taken after Eleven o'clock.

I think the consideration which has just been urged by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is very important. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could place paragraph (d) along with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I understood that on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman was anxious that the House should maintain its control over all these Regulations, and it seems to me that in regard to paragraph (d) he is taking away the power he previously gave in reference to them.

If I put paragraph (d) in the positive Resolution, it might seriously hold up the working of the Bill because it might involve considerable debate. If it were an important matter, of course the House would insist upon a full debate; but I ask my hon. Friends to draw a distinction between a new legislative enactment and a mere making of an effective order which is really only following the common form of what has been done under existing Acts. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) of course this would be exempted business.

I do not think Resolutions of this kind should be taken after Eleven o'clock at night. If we are to have a method of shorter and more brief legislation by affirmative Resolutions of this kind, I wish to express the opinion that in my view the House will have to consider whether the Standing Order should not be amended so as to prevent Resolutions of this kind being exempted from the Standing Order.

I think we must welcome the expression of opinion on this point which has just been stated by the last speaker, and I hope he will bear that in mind when in future any proposition is made under the Emergency Powers Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made; In page 5, line 10, after the word "Regulations," insert the word "made."—[ Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 10—(Special Provisions As To Wholesale Dealings In Agricultural And Horticultural Produce)

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

This is the Clause which enables the Minister of Agriculture to prescribe certain units of sale for wholesale dealings in agricultural and horticultural produce. The Committee will remember that the Food Council really did not go into the case of wholesale transactions in regard to this class of produce, and they only heard evidence about the retail trade. Since the Bill was drafted, however, we have had a great deal of information on this subject which was not available to the Food Council when it considered this subject, and I have convinced the President of the Board of Trade that it would not he reasonable to include wholesale transactions except in regard to the trade in pre-packed goods. Therefore, this Clause has become unnecessary, and that is why I move its omission.

I gather that the Minister of Agriculture thinks that it is not important that the same safeguards which are to be given to the retail trader as are given to the general public in the ease of the wholesale trader. I think it is more important that the retail trader should have the same kind of protection. Now, that this Clause has been withdrawn, the retailer is not secure in regard to his protection. I know many retailers are very dissatisfied with the withdrawal of this Clause. Do we understand that, although the Minister withdraws this Clause now, at some future date he will give that protection to the retailer to which he is entitled?

I do not think the same kind of protection is necessary in both cases. I did not explain the reasons for my proposal more fully because I thought they would come better on the new Clause which the President of the Board of Trade proposes to move in regard to the application of the Bill. I wilt briefly state the reasons for the change. There is a great difference between the retail and the wholesale trade. In the retail trade the delivery usually takes place in the presence of the purchaser, but in the wholesale trade, in regard to agricultural and horticultural produce, especially for sale on commission, the delivery takes place far away from the consignor perhaps long after the goods have left his possession. The goods on their journey are liable to all kinds of accidents, such as pilfering, loss of weight through mud being shaken off potatoes or carrots, evaporation of spinach, and accidents of various kinds. The produce is generally packed after a very hasty preparation because certain trains have to be caught, and the goods are subject to deterioration by the weather. As a matter of fact, we are told that it would be impossible, if this Bill passes in its present form, to go on packing and sending goods in bulk under the system which now obtains. To bring in the wholesale trade in agricultural and horticultural produce would involve a very unfair handicap on the home producers, because their foreign competitors would not come under this law. It is necessary to protect the consumer in the retail trade, but it is quite a different thing to apply the same rule to the wholesale trade, and to bring them in would cause a very grave injustice.

For quite different reasons I am sorry that it has not been found possible to introduce a Clause of this nature which would have helped onwards the standardisation of agricultural produce. Many of us are looking forward to more standardisation and better marketing methods, and although the Clause as drafted would not have proved acceptable yet a Clause which would induce the home producer to take more trouble in regard to standardisation would have been most helpful. We believe it is in that way that the producer can get a better return and a larger measure, of prosperity.

While I appreciate the reasons given by the Minister of Agriculture for the omission of this particular Clause, his arguments are not conclusive in relation to the retail dealers, and I wish to associate myself with the remarks made to the effect that if this Clause is omitted, a very serious injustice will be done and a great number of retailers dealing with fruit and other things of that kind will suffer. Unless the Minister is prepared to give some assurance to the House that this matter will be reconsidered either at this stage or at a later stage, I shall have to consider whether it is not necessary to go into the Lobby against this proposal.

I still remain unconvinced as to the necessity for the withdrawal of this Clause. This Clause which it is proposed to omit confers upon the Minister power to make Regulations in those cases where it would result in giving to the retail trader such a measure of protection as it is desired to give to the consumer. I fail to see that the Minister of Agriculture has given any substantial reasons why this Clause should be withdrawn, because, quite obviously, its operation would be limited to cases where it could be suitably carried out. It is only a permissive power, and does not compel anyone to do anything unwise or unreasonable, or cause any considerable amount of ex- pense to fall upon those who are engaged in the wholesale trade. On the other hand, it would give a measure of protection, where it is possible and practicable to do so, to those who buy from wholesalers, and I think the Minister ought to advance very much more substantial reasons if this Clause is to be withdrawn.

This Clause would really be quite inconsistent with the new Clause which my right hon. Friend is going to move, and which will exclude wholesale transactions in horticultural and agricultural produce.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clause 11—(Powers Of Inspection And Entry)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, after the word "Act," to insert the words

"then, where the wrapper or container can he resealed without injury to the contents, the inspector shall reseal the wrapper or container with a label certifying that the weight or measure of the contents has been proved to be correct, and if the inspector does not so seal the wrapper or container."

For the reasons I have already stated in relation to my previous Amendment, I trust the Committee will agree to the insertion of these words.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, at the end, to add a new Sub-section:—

"(4) All weights, measures, weighing and measuring appliances used by an inspector of weights and measures in pursuance of this Act shall be made of such material, and in such form, as may be approved by the Board of Trade, and shall be verified and periodically reverified in such manner as the Board of Trade may from time to time direct."

The object of this proposed new Subsection is to ensure that the inspector, acting on behalf of a local authority and making tests, shall use instruments of real accuracy in his work. I am sure that that will be in the interest of the administration of the Bill, and I think it is only fair to the trader upon whose premises the tests are made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ( Penalties) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13—(Safeguards To Traders)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 7, after the word "accident," to insert the words

"or other causes beyond his control and."

The object of this Amendment is to protect traders who have acted bona fide where a deficiency has been due to no act or Volition on their part. As the Bill now stands, it exempts the trader where a deficiency was due to a bona fide mistake or accident, but there may be other reasons for a deficiency of which the trader is perfectly innocent For instance, in the case of articles like peas or flour, loss by evaporation is apt to occur, and such evaporation could not be described as either a mistake or an accident. It is to cover such cases as this that I am moving that these words be inserted.

I am certainly prepared to accept this Amendment. It really ought to have been in the original draft of the Bill, and it was in terms recommended in paragraph 36 of the Food Council's Report.

I am sorry that the President is accepting this Amendment; it appears to me to cancel any value possessed by Clause 13. One can easily see that a trader, under this Amendment, could establish practically any case outside the provisions of this Bill. I am surprised that the President is accepting the Amendment, and, Personally, I shall oppose it.

I should like to point out, again, and to put it on record, that this was recommended in the Report of the Food Council. In paragraph 36 they say:

"We recommend that certain safeguards should be included in the proposed new Act to protect traders from prosecution in cases where the deficiencies are the result of circumstances beyond their control."

Those are practically the exact words of the Amendment.

The point I wish to emphasise is this: I claim that that recommendation of the Food Council is carried out by these words of Sub-section (2) of Clause 13:

"if the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the Court that such deficiency was due to a bona fide mistake or accident in spite of all reasonable precautions being taken and all due diligence exercised by the said defendant."

All who have had experience of prosecutions under Acts of this description know that the Court always interprets such words with the fullest possible leniency. If this Amendment be carried, it will destroy very largely the utility of the Bill so far as prosecutions are concerned.

I hope the President of the Board of Trade will adhere to his offer to accept this Amendment. I would point out to the hon.

Division No. 558.]	AYES.	[7.40 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Knox, Sir Alfred
Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Fenby, T. D.	L'ster, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Fermoy, Lord	Little, Dr. E. Graham
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Fielden, E. B.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Finburgh, S.	Loder, J. de V.
Balniel, Lord	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Looker, Herbert William
Barclay-Harvey C. M.	Fraser, Captain Ian	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Barnett Major Sir Richard	Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.	Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Gates, Percy	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Bennett, A. J.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	MacIntyre, Ian
Berry, Sir George	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	McLean, Major A.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Macmillan, Captain H.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Goff, Sir Park	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gower, Sir Robert	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Grace, John	Macquisten, F. A.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. w.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Briant, Frank	Greene, W. P. Crawlord	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Briggs, J. Harold	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Malone, Major P. B.
Briscoe, Richard George	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Margesson, Captain D.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Merriman, F. B.
Bullock, Captain M.	Hall, Vice-Admlral Sir R.(Eastbourne)	Meyer, Sir Frank
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Caine, Gordon Hall	Harland, A.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Campbell, E. T.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Moore, Sir Newton J.
Cassels, J. D.	Hartlngton, Marquess of	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennlngton)	Morder, Col. W. Grant
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Haslam, Henry C.	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Chapman, Sir S.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Murchison, C. K.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Neville, R. J.
Christie, J. A.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Newman, Sir B. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Clarry, Reginald George	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Cobb. Sir Cyril	Herbert. S. (York, N. R.,Scar. & Wh'by)	Oakley, T.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Hills, Major John Waller	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Hilton, Cecil	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)	Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Perring, Sir William George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Holland, Sir Arthur	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Pilditch, Sir Philip
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)	Howard-Bury, Lieut,-Colonel C. K.	Power, Sir John Cecil
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Hume, Sir G. H.	Ramsden, E.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Hurd. Percy A.	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Hurst, Gerald B.	Remer, J. R.
Drewe, C.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Rentoul, G. S.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Jacob, A. E.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Elliot, Major Walter E.	James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Rye. F. G.
Ellis, R. G.	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Elveden, Viscount	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Everard, W. Lindsay	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Gentleman who spoke last that there are circumstances, such as a malicious or fraudulent act on the part of a servant of the shopkeeper, which are not covered in the Bill as it stands, at any rate in the opinion of high legal authorities There may also be pilferage, say, from a van, either by the vanman or by some outside person. Those, surely, are circumstances over which the trader ha, no control, and I think the President is right in accepting this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted,"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 79.

Sandon. Lord	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Wells, S. R.
Savery, S. S.	Storry-Deans, R.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)	Streatfield, Captain S. R.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Shepperson, E. W.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Slaney, Major P. Kenyan	Tinne, J. A.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Womersley, W. J.
Smithers, Waldron	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Sprot, Sir Alexander	Waddington, R.	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)	Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)	Major Cope and Mr. F. C.
		Thomson.

NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hardie, George D.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)
Ammon, Charles George	Hayday, Arthur	Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hayes, John Henry	Saklatvsla, Shapurji
Baker, Walter	Hirst, G. H.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Scrymgeour, E.
Barnes, A.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Sitch, Charles H.
Bromley, J.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Buchanan, G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Stephen, Campbell
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Sullivan, Joseph
Cluse, W. S.	Kennedy, T.	Sutton, J. E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Lansbury, George	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Compton, Joseph	Lawrence, Susan	Thurtle, Ernest
Connolly, M,	Lee, F.	Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh	Lowth, T.	Townend, A. E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lunn, William	Vant, S. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Day, Colonel Harry	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Dennison, R.	March, S.	Whiteley, W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)	Montague, Frederick	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gardner, J. P.	Naylor, T. E.	Wright, W.
Gillett, George M.	Oliver, George Harold	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Paling, W.
Groves, T.	Ponsonby, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, T. W.	Potts, John S.	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)	Purcell, A. A.	Charles Edwards.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Richardson, R. (Hounhton-le-Spring)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, to leave out the words "butchers' meat" and insert instead thereof the words "articles of food."

The object of this is to extend the provisions of the Sub-section to other articles of food than butchers' meat. A butcher is excused in the case of deficiency of waste caused by unavoidable evaporation or drainage. Butchers' meat is not the only article of food that is subject to both those matters, and it is thought desirable to extend the protection afforded by the Sub-section to other articles.

I think this is a reasonable Amendment, and I invite the Committee to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 24, after the word "modifications," to insert the words "additions and amendments."

I am advised by my experts that this is not good drafting, and with regard to the invoice in the Schedule dealing with warranties, I have an Amendment down, and there is a further Amendment in the name of another hon. Member which I also propose to accept.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, to leave out from the word "Act" to the end of line 34.

There is a further Amendment in my name which is consequential, and I should like to argue the case on the first Amendment. I hope the Minister may find it possible to give some explanation of the reasons which have prompted him to insert these words. I find this Clause is a repetition of Section 5 of the Margarine Act, 1887, with the exception of the words I propose to omit. That Act was passed for the purpose of dealing with the, sale of a single commodity which, by its nature, rather lent itself to fraud in a way that cannot be said to be true of the long list of commodities now covered by this Bill. Since 1887 there have been considerable developments in the distributive trade, and conditions have been considerably altered. You have had the great growth of the trustification that is going on generally expressing itself in the retail trade through the great growth in the number of shops owned by limited liability companies having branches in most of our large towns and thousands of employés—a totally different set of conditions 'from those that operated when the Margarine Act was passed. The result is that certain practices have grown up in the distributive trade as the result of the constant pressure put upon the managers, and through them upon the assistants, to make up their stocks and to prevent complaints with regard to leakages. A letter reached me on Thursday morning from the executive of the Shop Assistants' Union. I will hand it to the right hon. Gentleman, if he desires to see it, but I propose not to use the name of the firm or the individual who sent it. This is what it states:

"Mr. … of … has reported that he this week left the service of Messrs. … Limited, on account of the unsatisfactory manner in which the firm wished to make him responsible for stock. Rather than remain in the firm's employment he gave a month's notice, but two or three days afterwards was summarily dismissed. He states that there are constant changes of management, and it is impossible, under the system adopted by the inspector of the firm in dealing with stock, to bring out satisfactory results to the stocktaker. Frequently goods are reduced in price after being invoiced at the branch, but no credits are given. He states that he has written evidence of the firm's refusal to give credits. In one case jams and tomatoes were reduced by a penny, and had to be sold at the reduced rate and dealt with on this basis for stocktaking, but no credit was given. Bacon would sometimes be reduced 1d. or more per lb.—also butter. All boxes and bags are charged up, but would not realise anything like the price they were charged at when they were sold as scrap. One method of dealing with reduced prices is illustrated in the following. Loganberries were selling at 1s. 1d. per lb., and they were reduced to 10½d., but no credit was allowed. The manager objected to this drastic reduction, and was told they would be credited at 1s. in the stocktaking."

In addition to that one might go on with a whole list of things which would tend to show up this point, that there 's constant pressure upon the managers and the assistants, particularly in the combined shops, to make up their stocks by short weight or perhaps by overcharging.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that in a system of this kind where the old relationship between the individual employer and the assistant has disappeared, it is only reasonable that when an assistant is to be charged with an offence under this Act it should only be after a proper inquiry and with reasonable and adequate safeguard. The Clause, as it stands, seems to me to he a direct incitement to an employer to avoid the consequences of a prosecution by transferring the prosecution to the employé. The experience of the working of the Section of the Margarine Act has been very unsatisfactory even from the employers' point of view. I have here a Memorandum issued on 18th November by the Federation of Grocers' Associations of the United Kingdom.

"Provision is made under Sub-clause 5 enabling the employer to bring the person whom he charges as the actual offender before a Court. Similar provisions are made under existing Acts of Parliament, but are not widely used because it is felt to be an unpleasant and undesirable course for an employer to lay an information against his own assistant, and practically act as prosecutor."

8.0 P.M.

The reasonableness of that contention is really quite evident. If the employé is the one who has committed the offence, without the knowledge or connivance of the employer, and it has been a deliberate act of fraud, the employer is now placed in the position that a prosecution can only take place on an information laid by him after the matter has been taken to Court. That seems to me a very invidious position in which to place the employer, and an altogether unwieldy and unwise way of meeting the difficulty. In the case of a dishonest trader the Clause is so drafted that it is almost a deliberate incitement to getting out of a prosecution by connivance. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the terms of the Amendment, perhaps he will give the matter his consideration between now and Report so as to meet the point. Instead of the assistant being placed in the position that he may have pressure put upon him by the employer to accept responsibility for an offence under this Bill and dragged into Court and the onus of the responsibility transferred from the employer—and that is a, very difficult position for the assistant as well as for the employer—under the terms of the Amendment the situation would be that when the offence had been proved in the Court the inspector could, if he so desired, launch a prosecution direct against the employé. I suggest that that is a more satisfactory position both for the assistants and the managers and also for the employers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, even if he cannot accept the terms of this Amendment, will give some sort of a undertaking or pledge that between now and the Report stage he will try and meet the point which I have raised.

This Amendment must be taken into consideration along with the succeeding Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). In the first place, think the Mover of the Amendment overlooks the fact that what he wants to do would necessitate two separate trials, whereas the Clause as it will be amended by my right hon. Friend will seek to bring about a decision by one hearing. That is obviously what is desired. The Mover of the Amendment made a great point about the danger under the Clause as it stands of collusion being brought about between an employer and his employé. I think that point of view is exaggerated, and I cannot imagine anyone outside a lunatic asylum resorting to collusion to avoid any of the risks that would arise under this. I am not versed in the law, but I should suppose that persons would lay themselves open to the most serious penalties and odium, beside which any penalties or odium which would come to them arising out of the danger they wish to avoid would be insignificant. Furthermore, I do not see that collusion, if it were resorted to, would be any more difficult under the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I think he exaggerates the danger and I think he has exaggerated this point of collusion. I am afraid my right hon. Friend will not be able to accept the Amendment.

May I again press this point on the Parliamentary Secretary 7 Would it be fair, under the Clause as it now stands, to bring a shop assistant into Court and let a trial take place against a shop assistant and at the same time to allow a large measure of immunity to be given to his employer? How many employers or principals in any of our large shops, and in establishments belonging to multiple companies, would be brought up and convicted under this particular Clause? It would be the man who serves over the counter, and to a very large extent the employer would be absolutely immune. I am not speaking as a lawyer, but I believe that an employer is liable when an employé acts against his orders, but in this case you are practically giving immunity to the employer and putting the onus of the responsibility on the person who serves the goods over the counter. That is a very unfair position. Let the responsibility be on the persons who are getting the benefit of any error which the shopman may commit. Any error, short weight or overcharging, would undoubtedly go to the advantage of the company. It would not go into the pockets of the shop assistant, and while it would be easy for the principal to show that he did not authorise this act, on the other hand, he would have any advantage which might accrue from delivery by short weight over the counter. For these reasons I appeal for further consideration in regard to this particular Clause. If it cannot be accepted in its present form, I suggest that it might be considered in a modified form.

I have told the hon. Gentleman that it would not usually be the man serving over the counter against whom proceedings would be taken, in most cases, and in any case an inspector already has the right to proceed against the man or the employer. It must not be supposed that the Amendments which my right hon. Friend is going to move are going to cause a prosecution if the employer likes to lay the blame on the shoulders of somebody else. This Clause, as amended, is being brought into line with other legislation and notably with the Merchandise Marks Bill, which we passed in this House the other day, and is the best way of dealing with the matter.

If a publican servant sells beer to a man who is drunk, the publican is responsible for the act of his servant. In this particular Clause, if a shop assistant sells butter over the counter which is of short weight, although the advantage may go to his employer, it will be the assistant who will be responsible and not the employer. I submit that there is no equity in that position.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give the Committee a little more information on this point. Generally, provisions of this description are employed in Bills of this kind for the purpose of meeting the position where an employer hands out or gives a quantity of any particular commodity, food or milk or whatever it may be, to an employé. The employé works under managerial supervision, and if he is moved away from managerial supervision, adulteration may take place on the part of the individual employé. I am sure that the mover of the Amendment is not moving it from the point of view of eliminating the prosecution of an individual like that, who deliberately adulterates when moved away from supervision. But my hon. Friend is desirous that any responsibility of an employer for various reasons shall not be placed upon the shoulders of an employé. We have to realise that the economic position of certain employés in relation to their employers can be made very difficult, and if the line of the offence is not altogether clear perhaps a provision of this description does induce or hold out a certain amount of temptation to the employer to urge an assistant to assume his blame and to go into Court and to take the odium which a prosecution represents. I do not want to support this Amendment if it cuts in the other direction and places a consumer or an employer at the mercy of an employé who has the goods properly given to him and then adulterates them after he moves away from supervision, but I should like, before the matter goes to a Division or is finally settled, to have an assurance a-to what the legal result would be.

I think there has been a little misunderstanding on the part of one or two of the speakers as to what this Clause does. This Clause does not say who is to be prosecuted—the employer and not the servant or the servant and not the employer. The Bill lays down that anybody who sells wrongly is liable to be prosecuted and the first duty of the inspector is to find out, if he can, who is the proper person to prosecute. That is one of the reasons why I do not want to accept the Amendment. The inspector has to decide, if he can, who is to be prosecuted and, as a matter of fact, in nine oases out of ten, the inspector will prosecute the employer and not the servant. When an employer is prosecuted he has the defence open to him that the Act was committed by a servant without his authority and after his taking all proper precautions. The only thing that would happen if I accepted this Amendment would be that there would be two trials instead of one which would be very inconvenient. It would not relieve the employer of what the hon. Gentleman calls the odium of having to cite a person in his service to stand his trial. Instead of having one hearing you would have two hearings, which would he a very inconvenient matter. If the hon. Gentleman will look he will see that this Clause as amended, in the way I propose to amend it, is a model Clause which the experts have drafted after going into this difficult ease. This Clause is drafted in the light of the experience which has been gained and it only deals with a case where an employer says that he was not at fault. Observe what the employer has to prove. He has to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he has used due vigilance, and that the act has been done without his consent, connivance or wilful default. He must not only prove that he did not know about it, but that he took all proper steps to make sure that the Act of Parliament was carried out on any premises under his control. It shall be open to the prosecution to cross-examine anybody who is brought there and gives rebutting evidence. When we consider what we are doing under this Clause, that we are only dealing with the proper provision to be made where an employer who is prosecuted sets up a defence that it is not his own fault but the fault of somebody in his employ, I think that on consideration the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Clause as amended, as I propose to amend it, in the way in which the experts are agreed, is the best form for the purpose.

If you bring the employé into Court and he is summarily convicted, not only will he be compelled to pay the fine imposed upon him, but in addition he may lose his job for having violated the Act. In consequence, the man would be penalised twice by having to pay the penalty under the Bill and losing his employment.

We cannot legislate and say that if an employé commits a criminal offence he is only to be fined by the Court. We must leave the employer to deal with him. I cannot say whether the man will get the sack or not. We cannot possibly put into an Act of Parliament a provision to say that a servant shall be convicted of a criminal offence but he shall not lose his job. There will be cases where he ought to lose his job.

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I cannot see why the employé should be brought into Court at all. Whilst he is working for a company or a firm the employer is responsible for his act, and if his act is an illegal act, then the employer will be able to deal with him, because he holds the man's employment in his hands.

That is going a great deal too far. Take the case of a Co-operative Society, where the responsible people, the directors and managers, have published the Act and have instructed the employés exactly as to what they are to do to comply with the Act, and have given them the right to deliver, and the servant for his own purpose, in, say, a milk-round as in the evidence of the Essex County Council, where he takes a little out of a pint of milk, and goes on doing that; obviously, the man ought to be prosecuted, and convicted. If he could not be prosecuted and convicted, no reputable firm would have a proper hold upon their men. Surely, the hon. Member would not say that in such a case where it is wilful default on the part of the employé and done for his own advantage, that he ought not to be prosecuted.

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to understand that it is not the object of the Amendment to remove responsibility from the employé in those cases where it is a wilful default, for his own personal benefit. Nothing is further from my thoughts. The most vicious part of the Clause is the power which it gives to the employer to have a prosecution transferred at his instigation by laying an information against his own employé. He can under this Clause have the prosecution transferred from himself to the employé. That is altogether an unreasonable power. The employer ought to be in the position of having responsibility for the acts of his servants, so long as it can be shown that that is the normal custom of the occupation, and the employer should only be entitled to relieve himself of the odium that would attach to the prosecution where he could show to the satisfaction of the Court that it was the employé's deliberate intention to defraud the public for the benefit not of the employer but of the employé himself. That is a very different matter from the kind of practice that is carried on with regard to overcharge or the giving of short weight.

I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that the proper and legitimate course would be the course laid down in the Amendment, namely, that when the offence had been proved, there should be no penalty attaching to the employer if he were able to prove that it was done without his knowledge and consent, and was the wilful act of the employé, seeking to profit himself. In those circumstances, if the Amendment were carried, the inspector would simply prosecute the employé. That seems to be a much more reasonable position than to leave the employer in such a position that the prosecution could he transferred from the employer to the employé.

Not "transferred." There is no obligation on the employer to do this. If the hon. Member looks at the Sub-section, he will see that it provides that where the employer is charged with an offence, he shall be entitled, on information duly laid by him,

"to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for bearing the charge."

They are both there.

The employer is charged with the offence, and then by giving days' notice, he can have the employé brought before the Court, and if he can show to the satisfaction of the Court that the act was the result of the employé's disregard of his instructions, the charge will be transferred to the employé. I say that that is a power given to the employer which conduces to all kinds of trickery with a view to avoidance of the penalties of the Act, and places the employé in a very unsatisfactory position. The proper course would be for the employer to rid himself of his liability and responsibility before the court, and then for the prosecution to take place, not at the instigation of the employer but rather through the inspector, who is the normal instrument for seeing that the public are protected.

I support the Amendment and press the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider the matter. It is probable that the employé in cases like this would be put into a very difficult position. The employer is going to lay an information if he thinks it is against his employé. He will go to the Court and prosecute his employé, while he himself is defending a charge against himself, and endeavouring to bring about his own acquittal. I submit to the President of the Board of Trade and the Solicitor-General that it will put the employé into a very unfair position. There is the difficulty of the employé not being able to provide a suitable defence for himself. He is not in a position to employ such eminent legal authorities as the Solicitor-General or other well-known counsel. The employé is therefore placed in an inferior position. At the same time, he has a consciousness that if he is to make out his case against his 'employer, he is likely to get into a very unfortunate position with regard to the whole section of employers in the district. If a well-known employer was being charged under this Act, the employé might be placed in a very awkward position.

This point is of very great importance to men and women of the working class who, unfortunately, have to work for other people in order to obtain their livelihood, and it is the business of this House to try to give these people as adequate protection as possible. I do not think we shall do that by the emendation suggested by the President of the Board of Trade. Let the prosecutions if necesary, be started, but do not let them be part of one prosecution, one of the parties trying to unload the burden on to the other.

I submit that the employé is not getting a fair trial as compared with the employer. There is need for the alteration. The right hon. Gentleman took the case of someone delivering milk and taking so much out of each measure. In that case the employer has his remedy. He can charge his employé with theft, but in the Bill, as it stands, there is no adequate protection for the employé. If we were dealing with people of equal standing, if the employé were a person of the same economic security as the employer, there would not be very great hardship in the matter, but you have to 'el-umber that working men have always to take into account their prospects of employment in the future, and if an offence is committed, possibly one for which the employer is fundamentally responsible, it is going to be a difficult matter if the employer can come to the Court and lay the whole blame on the assistant. If the employer is able to make out the case that he himself is not to blame, and that his employé has acted counter to his instructions, then it is within the power of the inspector to take action in the matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to be more considerate in his treatment of the Amendment. No attempt has been made to delay this Bill, and we expect a member of the Government to give full consideration to the points that are brought for ward. I hope he will explain his views with regard to the unfair position of the employé as against the employer when the case conies into Court, and how his proposed Amendment is going to do anything to alleviate the position so far as the employé is concerned.

There are a number of other Amendments dealing with the same subject on the Paper and I believe many hon. Members, and the President of the Board of Trade, are desirous that a Clause should be evolved which will be fair to employer and employed. The position under the Amendment which has been moved appears to be this, that the onus of charging the assistant will be on the employer. That is a very undesirable thing. In the retail trade generally there is a very good feeling between employer and employed, and to insert such an Amendment as the present one would be very detrimental to the relations which now exist between the two. I suggest that later Amendments on the Paper will amply meet the point that has been arranged without this objectionable feature of the prosecution being on the employer. It is much better for the inspector to decide who is the guilty person, to charge him, and then prove it. Otherwise you will have all the employers going to the Courts to prove that they are not responsible, and in that case the employé would be in an absurd position.

I support the Amendment. I think the employer and not the employé should have the onus of proving that there has been no default under the terms of this Bill. Any member of the Shop Assistants' Union will inform the hon. Member who has just spoken that owing to the pressure brought to bear on shop assistants, particularly by the large multiple stores, the employés in many eases are obliged to do things in their normal work that otherwise would not be done. If the onus is placed on the employer, I am convinced that the illegitimate pressure on the part of employers would no be so harsh as it the moment. Let me quote from a case recently submitted to the Shop Assistants' Union, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to pay particular attention to this point. This was in connection with short weight:

"In connection with the question of short weight, an interesting revelation was made to the Legal Department of the Union (Shop Assistants' Union) during the past week by a member who had Voluntarily given up his situation rather than continue to work for a firm who made the giving of short weight a deliberate policy. The member in question had been acting as manager and stated that the firm were in the habit of sending representatives actually to give instructions to the staff as to how best to carry out this policy of short weight."

It will he seen that. unless the individual who received these instructions from the big multiple firms, I do not refer to the ordinary small retailer, refuses to carry them out, he must become a Voluntary thief on behalf of the employer or else he must leave his employment if he hopes to maintain his moral character:

"This instruction included advice as to judging which customers could be dealt with in this way with least risk; how best to divert their attention from the actual weighing of the goods which were being purchased; how to place articles on the scales so that the balance should be turned by the force of the impact, and various other artfully conceived ideas by which the customer could be defrauded."

Can the hon. Member give the name of the firm?

It can be given privately if the hon. and gallant Member requires it. One can see the position in which the employé is placed. Unless he carries out these instructions—

Is the hon. Member in order in making charges against people in this way without stating the name of the firm? This is a general allegation against the whole trade, and it will be very serious to the trade if it goes out to the Press. I say that it is a very exceptional case.

I think the hon. Member is not out of order.

I am making no attack upon any particular individual or firm. If I singled out one firm and gave the name the hon. Member would be the first to rise to his feet and declare that it was a gross attack upon a person or firm who were not in a position to give a reply to the statement. I have said that if the hon. and gallant Member requires the name in private it can be supplied almost immediately. But the point is that unless the employe—there are so many people on the streets in search of work who are quite capable of carrying out managerial duties as well as the ordinary duties of the average shop assistant—carries out the instructions which are handed to him he is not going to hold his employment for very long.

In these circumstances the Bill, designed to ensure that people shall have full weight and honest measure, ought to' make the employer responsible for any defrauding that takes place, and not to leave the onus on the poor assistant, who is between the devil and the deep sea if he fails to carry out one of the instructions of the inspector. I would not suggest that this practice is universally acted upon, or that there is even a fairly considerable proportion of traders who operate on these lines, but if an infinitesimal number of people do utilise the method alleged by this particular ex-manager, the Government would be justified in accepting the Amendment. It is not the responsibility of the employé, but it is the responsibility of the employer. If the employer knows well that full responsibility rests on him, whether a private individual owning one or more shops or a large multiple store or limited liability company, he will see to it that no dishonesty takes place under the terms of this Bill. Give the employer the opportunity to do fairly by the customer and to be fair to his, employés, and I am sure that employers would welcome the general application of honest measures.

But for the rather easy accusations which have been flung about without being backed by any definite evidence, I should have 'hesitated to say anything on this subject; but I and other hon. Members represent a very deserving body of men who to-day are inspected pretty thoroughly and who have to put up with a good deal, and I want to say a word for them. Let us take the case of any man who is charged with adulteration or contravention of the Bill. What really happens is that the goodwill of the shop is charged. In that goodwill, in the case of the ordinary man, a good number of his assistants are concerned. That man and all his assistants who are running straight are concerned in finding out who is the thief. Surely, then, it is much better that the question should be dealt with at one time and be got rid of at one time. It is said that there is hardship on the individual man so to treat him, it being alleged by the hon. Gentleman opposite that in some way or other an assistant may be victimised, but the hon. Member seems to have forgotten that there sits a Judge in the Court, a Magistrate, whose duty it is—the duty is generally well carried out—to protect everyone concerned, and, before any conviction can take place of the alleged victimised shop assistant, evidence has to be produced to satisfy the Court that he has done wrong. I suggest that in all the circumstances there is no hardship at all.

Some of us feel that this is a very important Amendment, and that it would have been only courteous to the Opposition if the President of the Board of Trade, who was in charge of this Amendment origiNally, had waited until the Debate was finished. If there had been some other kind of Opposition and some other interest at stake the right hon. Gentleman would have waited. I think he has shown shocking discourtesy.

May I interrupt? It was not my right hon. Friend who opened the discussion on this Amendment but myself.

I do not want to belittle the Parliamentary Secretary, but the most effective speech and explanation on the Amendment were given by the President of the Board of Trade. I am not in the least impugning either the good faith or capacity of the Parliamentary Secretary. Most of the cross-questioning took place with the President of the Board of Trade, and for the right hon. Gentleman to leave in the midst of the discussion is to show sheer disrespect. to the Opposition. No one can accuse us of blocking this Bill. On the first occasion on which we feel strongly that a big issue is raised the President walks out in the middle of the Debate and refuses us the ordinary courtesy of waiting until the discussion is finished. That treatment is not good enough. On this Amendment the President of the Board of Trade cited as his best example the Essex County Council case. A man carries with him milk and butter, and he goes to a household and says, "Here is a pound of butter," which in reality is not a pound of butter. It is said that it would not be fair if the assistant pocketed the difference. That was his classic example. I grant that if the Essex County Council, under similar circumstances, sent out a man, and that man deliberately reduced a package of butter from a pound to something less, and accumulated the difference in the operation and pocketed that difference, he is justly entitled to punishment. That does not mean to say that. it is the best method. The Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate know many crimes, but what often arises is not merely the crime, which is simple—the statement of the crime is generally simple—but what is of more importance is the method of punishing that particular criminal.

The subject which we are debating is not what the President of the Board of Trade would make us believe. This Bill is not brought in to punish traders as a whole, but the minority who offend. The fact that the Bill was introduced shows that there is a need for some kind of Measure being undertaken. As to the particular point of the Essex County Council, that man at present can be prosecuted under the common law for theft. I have yet to learn from the Solicitor-General, whose great knowledge of law we all respect, that it is not illegal at present for a person to take an employer's goods and to dispose of a certain amount of them, and to pocket something which he is not entitled to pocket.

If an employer sends out an employé with 12 lbs of butter to be sold at 2s. a lb., then 24s. ought to be returned to the employer, and if the employé pockets any money which has been illegally extracted from the customer he can be prosecuted by the employer for theft. That is the present position of the law, and why should not that be done rather than the procedure now proposed. I assume this Bill is, to a large extent, dealing with multiple traders. I do not mean it is dealing with them specially, but I think in regard to this matter the multiple trader is looming in our minds more than the small shopkeeper. Let us take the case of a multiple trader who is charged with selling underweight in one of his shops, say in Birmingham. If he is found guilty the fact will be advertised all over the country, and will prevent people from trading in that trader's shops elsewhere. If the offence is in Birmingham it will be advertised in Glasgow. If he is a private trader the Co-operative organisations will let it be known; if it is the case of a Co-operative Society, the private traders will let it be known, and the prosecution of a multiple firm may involve the reputation of a firm with branches throughout the length and breadth of the country.

Thus the Parliamentary Secretary will see the absolute necessity which exists for the employer trying to force the blame on to some other person, and of trying to find a scapegoat. Where it is only a small trader with one shop, it is a different matter; but where there are many shops, the thing becomes much more serious. Take another instance, which I have quoted in another connection previously, namely, the licensed trade. Supposing an assistant sells whisky under the proper strength or under measure, the licence holder is in law responsible, and is prosecuted, but it often happens that the licence holder in order to escape the possible withdrawal of his licence induces the assistant to become the scapegoat and to take the responsibility for any offence which may have been committed. I do not allege that this applies to every licence holder, and this Bill, though it deals with bad measure, does not allege that every person in Britain who carries on a small shop, sells bad weight or bad measure. It is brought in to protect the majority, and to, deal with the minority of traders who from time to time act wrongly. I do not wish to draw a line of cleavage between the Co-operative firms and the big multiple private firms. What would either do if charged with an offence which involved the whole reputation of the concern? They would engage the best possible counsel and leave no stone unturned to defend their position. They might even secure some of the legal luminaries who are Members of this House to defend them. The shop assistant does not appear in Court with such able assistance.

The shop assistant has his union. If there was any question of victimisation or any attempt to do anything of that kind, is it conceivable that the union would not take up the case?

True, but is the union in the same financial position to engage counsel for large numbers of their members as compared with one multiple firm? The comparison is not good; and I would also point out that shop assistants are not organised as compared with other workers.

The co-operative union is organised.

Yes; they are very well organised because in certain cases it is a condition of employment. For many reasons it is well known that shop assistants generally are not organised in the same way as engineers, railway workers and others. Even if the union were providing counsel in the large number of cases with which they would be confronted as against those in which one multiple firm is concerned they could not be expected to provide such strong counsel as the multiple firm. I am not going to impute anything against Magistrates or to say that they are biased, but it is obvious that in a small local court a King's Counsel, who may have been on the threshold of being made one of His Majesty's judges, is liable to impress the Magistrate with awe. It is only human nature that a man who is so much higher than he is in the legal profession, should influence the Magistrate in forming a judgment. I remember that in Glasgow it was a great dodge for people who could afford it, to bring leading counsel into the lower Courts because they felt that these counsel could sway the Courts.

The Parliamentary Secretary ought to meet us on this point. We do not want to obstruct the Bill; we want to see it on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. The actual words suggested may not be the best words. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) is not an expert draftsman and he is not above taking advice or assistance from the Parliamentary Secretary or any of his officials. He will be glad to go into the question of an alternative form of words to meet our purpose. The Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate are going off for six or seven weeks' holiday— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well, I can only speak for the Lord Advocate, and perhaps nobody in Scotland gets a very long holiday at any time—hut in any case they are both men of knowledge and capacity and they are surely capable of drafting a form of words to meet our case. We are asking for simple justice in this matter, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a promise that he will meet us some part of the way between now and the Report stage. We look upon this as a serious matter to the shop assistants of the country, and we should be lacking in our duty if we allowed this Clause to go through without the strongest possible protest from these benches.

Supposing a milkman is charged with selling bad milk, is he to be prosecuted under this Bill? Another point is this: In the co-operative societies we employ a manager to supervise the individual servants, and we are willing to take the responsibility for anything that occurs in the shop. We think it would be a very dangerous thing to put the responsibility on to a girl or a youth. What happens in our society can happen much more readily with private traders, because I think they engage their employés at an earlier age, and the probability is that a prosecution taken against any of these boys and girls might be hurtful to them. If the Board of Trade are going to put through this Bill, will they be willing to advise the Minister of Mines to extend it to coal?

It cannot be in order on this Amendment to discuss coal.

I think coal is relevant. If a weigher gives under weight, is the manager of the colliery prosecuted?

This is a Bill dealing with food, and coal is not food. The question, therefore, does not arise.

I do not want to argue against the ruling of the Chair, but I think my question was quite relevant.

There may be differences of opinion, and I, being in the Chair, think it was not relevant.

I have to accept your ruling. I appeal to the Government to consider very carefully before they reject this Amendment. It would be a great injustice to servants, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, who have difficulty at times in conducting their defence in Court.

9.0 P.M.

Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, will he be kind enough to deal with the point which I put when the Minister was in the House, as to the reason for the insertion in this 'Clause of the words "or principal"? The Clause, with the exception of those two words, appears to be a complete copy of Section 5 of the Act of 1887, and I particularly asked the Minister to explain why those words have been inserted, but so far we have had no reply. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to suggest to us some method of meeting the objections that we have raised. It is very unfortunate that the President of the Board cannot be here to tell us what the position of the Government is, but if the Parliamentary Secretary is authorised to speak for the Government on this matter, and can tell us that some concessions are going to be made between now and the Report stage, we shall be delighted to hear him tell us so in that quiet, simple, and honest way that has endeared film to the House.am sure that he himself, whatever his chief thinks, must see the reasonableness of the case we have put forward, and I hope he will explain fully the point upon which the Government have not touched, as to what are the reasons for inserting the words "or principal" in this Clause. I am certain that the considerations which induced the people who framed this Clause some 40 years ago for the purpose of avoiding fraud in one particular commodity, and that a commodity which lends itself to the practice of fraud, must have been very different from those which moved the President to allow the insertion of these words.

Hon. Members opposite have made a very great effort in stating their case clearly, but I must say that I think it has been exaggerated, rather losing a sense of proportion and losing sight of the main object of the Bill, which is to provide that people shall have delivered to them what they pay for. As to great hardships being inflicted on employés, and as to the improvement that would be effected if this Amendment were accepted, in the first place, I do not think there is very much difference between us, because what we want to do will be done in one set of proceedings, and what the hon. Members opposite want to do will require two sets of proceedings. With regard to the specific question as to the introduction in the Clause of the words "or principal," they seem to me fully to embrace all the people who could he at the head of any business or business establishment. In one case you might have an individual who is an employer or a company which is an employer, and on the other hand you might have a private individual at the head of his establishment, or you might have a principal of a firm or a principal in a company. I think I cannot give a clearer definition of the use of the words "or principal" than that. In regard to the question about milk, obviously if a person delivers short milk, he will be liable under the Bill just as if he delivers short anything else, whether he be employer or employed. I must, therefore, ask the Committee to resist this Amendment.

I am sorry we cannot have a definite statement as to the position put forward here, because I think it would clear away some misunderstanding. Is this Clause as it stands limited to the protection of the employer against an employé who commits the offence without the knowledge of the employer? If it is limited to that, I do not think my hon. Friend will oppose it, but if this Clause permits an employer to transfer his liability for an offence, by collusion or anything else, to the employé, then it raises difficulty and unfairness. If we can have a clear legal statement about that, I think it would help to remove the difficulty.

I think the position has been made absolutely clear by my hon. Friend, and the hon. Gentleman opposite need be under no illusion as to the meaning of the Clause.

Does it permit the employer to transfer his legitimate liability to the shoulders of the employé?

I do not think it does permit the employer to transfer his legitimate liability to the employé. As I see the proposal now before the Committee, it does this: If the employer proceeded to make the defence that he was not criminally responsible for what appeared to be an offence against the Act, it would be open to him to make an allegation against some other person, in that person s absence. It might be the Magistrate: might think the statement made credible, and might dismiss the emnloyés from the charge made against him, and then, if the second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member were accepted, the inspector might commence proceedings against the employé. It might be that when the employé came into the witness box, he might say the employer's charge against him was all moonshine" So far from trying to prevent me from committing these acts, he encouraged me by secret instructions to commit these illegalities." The position then would be that the employer having been dismissed from the charge, and the employé also having been acquitted, justice would not he satisfied. Under this Clause there would be an opportunity for the employé to give evidence in the presence of the employer. The magistrate then would be able to resolve as to who was the guilty party. The burden would always be upon the employer, in the words of the Clause, "that he had used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act," and so far from the employer being able to transfer any liability to the employé, I should rather say the onus is placed upon the employer throughout, whether he has the employé there or not, of proving himself innocent of the charge made against

Division No. 559.]	AYES.	[9.11 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Gates, Percy	Malone, Major P. B.
Albery, Irving James	Gault, Lieut.-Col, Andrew Hamilton	Margesson, Capt. D.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Merriman, F. B.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Gower, Sir Robert	Meyer, Sir Frank
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Grace, John	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Mitchell, w. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Balniel, Lord	Grotrian, He Brent	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Moore, Sir Newton J.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Berry, Sir George	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Murchison, C. K.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Neville R. J.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. w.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Briggs, J. Harold	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Oakley, T.
Briscoe, Richard George	Harland, A.	O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Brittain, Sir Harry	Harrison, G. J. C.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hartington, Marquess of	Owen, Major G.
Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Buckingham, Sir H.	Haslam, Henry C.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Bullock, Captain M.	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Perring, Sir William George
Burton, Colonel H, w.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Herbert. Dennis (Hertlord, Watford)	Power, Sir John Cecil
Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward	Herbert,S.(York, N.R., Scar.& Wh'by)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Campbell, E. T.	Hills, Major John Waller	Ramsden, E.
cassels, J. D.	Hilton, Cecil	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Remer, J. R.
Chapman, Sir S.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)	Rentoul, G. S.
Christie, J. A.	Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Clarry, Reginald George	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Roberts. Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Holland, Sir Arthur	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cope, Major William	Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.	Rye, F. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland,Whiteh'n)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Hume, Sir G. H.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Hurd, Percy A.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hurst, Gerald B.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Sandon, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Savery, S. S.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)	Jacob, A. E.	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew.W.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Shepperson, E. W.
Drewe, C.	Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)	Sianey, Major P. Kenyon
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Smithers, Waldron
Ellis, R. G.	Little, Dr. E. Graham	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Elveden, Viscount	Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Looker, Herbert William	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Everard, w. Lindsay	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Storry-Deans, R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sueter. Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Fenby, T. D.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Fermoy, Lord	MacIntyre, Ian	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Fielden, E. B.	McLean, Major A.	Tinne, J. A.
Finburgh, S.	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Forrest, W.	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Macquisten, F. A.	Waddington, R.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

him. I respectfully think the Clause deals not with the creation of any new offence on the part of the employé, but merely simplifies the machinery, and, on the whole, I think tends to the benefit of the employé, in order that he may be able to answer in the presence of the employer charges which might be very unpleasant if made in his absence.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left, out, to the word 'to' in line 32 stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 84.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and otley)	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)	Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Watts, Dr. T.	Winby, Colonel L. P.	Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Wells, S. R.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.	Wise, Sir Fredric	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-	Womersley, W. J.	Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)	Lord Stanley.

NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Potts, John S.
Ammon, Charles George	Hardie, George D.	Purcell, A. A.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hayday, Arthur	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Baker, Walter	Hayes, John Henry	Riley, Ben
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W.Bromwich)
Barnes, A.	Hirst, G. H.	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Etland)
Batey, Joseph	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)	Saklatvala, Shapurjl
Bondfield, Margaret	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bromley, J.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Scrymgeour, E.
Buchanan, G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Scurr, John
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Sitch, Charles H.
Charteton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotnerhithe)
Cluse, W. S.	Kennedy, T.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Lansbury, George	Sullivan, Joseph
Compton, Joseph	Lawrence, Susan	Sutton, J. E.
Connolly, M.	Lee, F.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Dalton, Hugh	Lindley, F. W.	Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lowth, T.	Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R. (Aberavon)	Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Viant, S. P.
Dennison, R.	March, S.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Montague, Frederick	Whiteley, W.
Gardner, J. P.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M.	Murnin, H.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Naylor, T. E.	Wright, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Oliver, George Harold	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Groves, T.	Paling, W.
Grundy, T. W.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Mr. Taylor and Mr. Stephen.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, after the word "him" to insert the words

"and on giving not less than three days' notice of his intention to the prosecution."

This Amendment, will bring the Clause into line with the model Clause inserted in the Merchandise Marks Act. It ensures that reasonable notice shall be given of the employer's intention.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, to leave out the words "knowledge, consent, or connivance," and to insert instead thereof the words "consent, connivance, or wilful default."

This Amendment ensures in the case of the employer that the defence of ignorance shall not by itself be sufficient, but that the employer must have discharged what is his plain duty, that is, have done all that is reasonably possible in a positive sense to ensure compliance with the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 42, at the end, insert the words

"Provided that the prosecution shall have in any such case the right to cross-examine the employer or principal if he gives evidence, and any witnesses called by him in support of his charge and to call rebutting evidence."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

I beg to move, in page 7, line 45, at the end, to insert the words

" Provided also that no conviction of an employé shall be lawful under this Section unless the employer or principal has exhibited on his premises a notice setting forth the statutory obligations under this Act applicable to his particular trade."

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this very reasonable Amendment. It simply requires that the employer shall exhibit in a prominent place in his shop the obligations which both he and his assistants are under. This provision has been made in other Acts, so there is nothing unusual about it, and it will strengthen the administration of the law.

I think it would he unwise to accept this Amendment. We have already inserted, by implication, what is really important, and that is that the employer must bring home to his employés exactly what are their obligations, and he will be convicted unless he is able to show that he has taken all reasonable steps to get the Bill carried out. That is not done by exhibiting in his premises a long Act of Parliament of 15 pages, which nobody is going to read. That way would not satisfy me, if I wanted to be satisfied that an employer was taking all reasonable steps. To present this manual of law to an employé is no more teaching him how to comply with the Act than a recruit would be taught by having a manual of military training given to him, with the observation, "There, that is what you have got to do." The employer has to do something quite different. He has to make sure, in a simple and practical way, that his employé knows what he has to do, and if we were to insert this provision, which is an entirely novel one—there is no real parallel in any other Act—the employer would get off if he were able to show a long screed exhibited in the works, whereas he ought to be compelled to show that he had taken the

Division No. 560.]	AYES.	[9.27 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Grundy, T, W.	Purcell, A. A.
Ammon, Charles George	Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Riley, Ben
Baker, Walter	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertilltry)	Hardie, George D.	Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Barnes, A.	Hayday, Arthur	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Batey, Joseph	Henderson. T. (Glasgow)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bondfield, Margaret	Hirst, G. H.	Scrymgeour, E.
Bromley, J.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)	Sexton, James
Buchanan, G.	Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)	Sitch, Charles H.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Charleton, H. C.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Stephen, Campbell
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Sullivan, Joseph
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R	Kelly, W. T.	Sutton, J. E.
Compton, Joseph	Kennedy, T.	Taylor, R. A.
Connolly, M.	Lansbury, George	Thurtle, Ernest
Crawford, M. E.	Lawrence, Susan	Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh	Lee, F.	Townend, A. E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lindley, F. W.	Viant, S. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lowth, T.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Day, Colonel Harry	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Whiteley, W.
Dennison, R.	March, S.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Montague, Frederick	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Fenby, T. D.	Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Womersley, W. J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Murnin, H.	Wright, W.
Gardner, J. P.	Naylor, T. E.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gillett, George M.	Oliver, George Harold
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Owen, Major G.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Paling, W.	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Hayes.
Groves, T.	Potts, John S.

NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Buckingham, Sir H.
Albery, Irving James	Berry, Sir George	Bullock, Captain M.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Burton, Colonel H. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Briggs, J. Harold	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Briscoe, Richard George	Campbell, E. T.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Brittain, Sir Harry	Cassels, J. D.
Balniel, Lord	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Chapman, Sir S.

trouble to see that his employés knew what were the provisions affecting them.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment, although I do not think it quite accomplishes what the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) is trying to do, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give the matter consideration before the Report stage and see if something cannot be done in this respect. When I worked in a factory an abstract of the Factory Act had to be exhibited in the rooms when we worked, and I do not see why an abstract of this particular Bill setting forth the liability of the assistants should not be exhibited in each shop, either of a multiple firm or of a private trader, and I have advocated that something of the sort should be made compulsory on employers.

Question put, "That those there inserted."

The Committee divide: Ayes, 88; Noes, 195.

Christie, J. A.	Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	Rees, Sir Beddoe
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Holland, Sir Arthur	Remer, J. R.
Cope, Major William	Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)	Rentoul, G. S.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)	Richardson, Sir P. w. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whitoh'n)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Hume, Sir G. H.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemovth)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hurd, Percy A.	Rye, F. G.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Hurst, Gerald B.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Jacob, A. E.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Drewe, C.	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Sandon, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Savery, S. S.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Ellis, R. G.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Met. (Renfrew, W)
Elveden, Viscount	Knox, Sir Alfred	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Shepperson, E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Little, Dr. E. Graham	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Looker, Herbert William	Smithers, Waldron
Fermoy, Lord	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Fielden, E. B.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Finburgh, S.	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Forrest, W.	Macdonald, Copt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'lind)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	MacIntyre, Ian	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Fraser, Captain Ian	McLean, Major A.	Storry-Deans, R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Gates, Percy	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Macquisten, F. A.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Gower, Sir Robert	Maklns, Brigadier-General E.	Tinne, J. A.
Grace, John	Malone, Major P. B.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Margesson, Captain D.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Merriman, F. B.	Waddington, R.
Grotrian, H. Brent	Meyer, Sir Frank	Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Watts, Dr. T.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Wells, S. R.
Hammersley, S. S.	Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Murchison, C. K.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Harland, A.	Neville, R. J.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Harrison. G. J. C.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Hartington, Marquess of	Oakley, T.	Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Winby, Colonel L. P.
Haslam, Henry C.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Windsor.Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L (Bootle)	Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Perring, Sir William George	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Herbert, S.(York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hills, Major John Waller	Power, Sir John Cecil	Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Hilton, Cecil	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Ramsden, E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone)	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
		Bowyer.

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey)—in page 7, line 45, at end, to insert

"(6) Where an inspector is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the sate, that the alleged offence has been committed by an employé without the knowledge, connivance, or consent of the employer he may, in his discretion, institute proceedings against such employé instead of against the employer"—

appears to be unnecessary. I imagine that the inspector can proceed either against the, employé or the employer at his discretion as it is.

I beg to move, in page 8. line 6, to leave out the word "seven," and to insert instead thereof the word "two."

This Amendment raises a very simple issue. What is a reasonable notice to give to a retail tradesman of your intention to prosecute him for short weight? As the Bill now stands an intending prosecutor, whether he be an inspector or private person, can wait a week before he gives notice to the dealer that he intends to prosecute. My Amendment is based on the view that 48 hours is quite long enough for the inspector or the buyer to make up their minds whether or not they intend to prosecute for short weight. In such a case it is obviously their duty to give notice within 48 hours to the seller. It is quite impossible, in the case of the ordinary shopkeeper, to remember any and every interview which took place between him or his assistant and of the buyer as long ago as a week. I have had considerable experience of cases where a tradesman has absolutely no recollection of what took place, or what he sold one or two days before. To expect a retail dealer or his assistants to remember every transaction over a period of a week is unfair; 48 hours is quite enough time to allow an impending prosecutor to make up his mind whether he is going to bring a prosecution or not. I think the person who is going to be prosecuted should have the charge brought to his notice within a time in which he may reasonably expect to remember the transaction. For this purpose I think two days is quite enough.

There are several objections to this Amendment. In the first place, two day is, inn the opinion of the local authorities, not enough time for the inspector to decide who is the proper person to be sued. Often they wish to find out who is the proper person to bring the action against. If the inspector only has two days he will very likely serve notice on the wrong person, and then he has to bring the other person into Court, and this causes the prosecution of wrong persons. In some cases it is the practice of the local authority not to allow the inspector to launch a prosecution without the approval of the local authority, and a period of two days would not allow this to be done. The real safeguard is that the trader should have a reasonable opportunity of checking the weight which the inspector says is wrong. I am prepared to accept an Amendment later on which will ensure that the parties concerned shall have an opportunity of checking the weight or the measure.

May I point out that the Amendment referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is confined to prosecutions by buyer. Does the right hon. Gentlemen wish to amend the Amendment so that it will cover the other case?

It is my intention to advise the hon. and learned Member to move his Amendment in a form which will cover any prosecution by anybody. It will also give the person charged an opportunity of checking the weight. We shall have to consider later on whether in those cases the prosecution should only be launched either by the local authority, the police, or the Public Prosecutor. I am advised that the Amendment I have referred to should be moved in perfectly general terms in order to cover all cases.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, to leave out the words "sent to," and to insert instead thereof the words "served on or sent by registered post to."

This Amendment is intended to make sure that the notice is served in a formal way.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at the end, to add the words

"nor unless in the case of any alleged deficiency the person against whom the allegation is made has been given a reasonable opportunity to check the weight, measure, or number of the article or articles in respect of which such allegation is made."

That is to say, all persons charged under this Amendment will have a reasonable opportunity of checking the weight which is the subject matter of the charge. It is so eminently reasonable that the seller should have that opportunity that I do not propose to say anything further in support of my Amendment.

I think the insertion of these words is quite right, and I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at the end to add the words

"(7) In England a prosecution under this Act shall not be instituted except by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a police authority, or a local authority."

I suggest that this is a reasonable proposal. It is quite obvious that the general administration is to be in the hands of the local authority, and we know from the evidence of the local authority that they actually wish to administer the Act. We are all agreed that it is important that the inspectors should be trained in their jobs, and it is also provided that in making their tests they should use precise instruments which have been approved by the Standards Department of the Board of Trade. If we think it right to ensure that people shall not be wrongly accused, while ensuring, on the other hand, that no one who ought to be convicted gets off, it does seem right that the bringing of people into Court on these charges should rest with the local authority or the police. I cannot conceive that anyone who wishes to lodge a prosecution would do otherwise than complain to the police or complain to the inspector. We have just provided that, if a trader is charged, he shall have the opportunity of checking the weight, and I think that on the whole this Amendment is reasonable and right. I am, however, advised—I am not an expert in Scots law—that the words "In England" ought to be left out.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "In England."

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain this matter. Curiously enough, in regard to weights and measures, contrary to our practice in Scotland, there is in the Act of 1878 a provision relating to the common informer. Such a provision is very unusual in Scotland. I suggest that, while my right hon. Friend is accepting this Amendment, he should make this provision apply to Scotland as well, and then, later on, I will move to add, in regard to the application of the Measure to Scotland, words to provide that in Scotland the Lord Advocate shall be substituted for the Director of Public Prosecutions. To put the matter in order, I now beg to move to omit the words "In England."

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14—(Interpretation)

I beg to move, in page 9, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof a new Sub-section—

"(2) For the purposes of this Act a person shall be deemed to weigh or measure any article in the presence of the purchaser or an inspector of weights and measures, as the case may be, if the operation of weighing is carried out in the shop or room in which the purchase is made and such person does not wilfully prevent the purchaser from having a view of the appliance used for and of the operation of weighing."

The only object of this Amendment is this: It is not quite possible for everyone to see the operation of weighing, and scales might have to be adjusted so that people may be able to see, thus taking up counter space, when, as a general rule, they can see all that they want to see if they take the trouble. I do not want to quote the case of the short person standing behind the long person, but, where scales are placed in a reasonable way, so that people can see if they wish, I think that that would be sufficient.

I do not think, when my hon. Friend realises what the result of the omission of Subsection (2) and the insertion of this proposed new Sub-section would be, that he will press his Amendment. We have already provided, in Clause 4 of the Bill, that, provided articles are weighed in the presence of the purchaser, the shopkeeper shall be exempt from the express requirements of that Clause. The only ground for exempting him from the provisions of Clause 4 is that the purchaser sees what weight he is given, instead of receiving a representation; that is to say, he is put in as good a position, because he sees the article weighed, as if it is handed to him with the weight marked upon it. It was necessary to put in Sub-section (2) of Clause 14 in order that, where a shopkeeper takes advantage of this exemption, he shall have his weights and measures in a place where the buyer can see the weighing instrument and see what he is buying. That seems to me to be common sense. If, however, we were to accept this Amendment, the result would be—although I am sure it is not my hon. Friend's intention—that the shopkeeper would be able to put his weights and measures away in the darkest corner of the shop,, and the mere fact that a person was present at one end of the shop and the seller was behind the counter would enable him to get off. I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that, although it was not his intention, that, would be the result.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof a new Sub-section—

"(3) Any powers or duties conferred or imposed by this Act on an inspector of weights and measures may, in any case where the local authority so determine, be exercised or performed by any other officer of the local authority appointed by them to act on behalf of an inspector of weights and measures for the purposes of this Act, and all references in this Act to inspectors of weights and measures shall be construed accordingly."

The object of this Amendment is, as I explained at an earlier stage of the Debate, to ensure that, where a local authority delegates the powers of an inspector to another person who is not an inspector, that person shall be properly qualified for the work. I think it is only fair that, having made an earlier provision as to the accuracy of the instruments and so on, we should also ensure that proper care is taken in selecting the men who are to make these tests.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, at the end to add a new paragraph—

"(b) nothing contained in Section twenty-seven of the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, shall be construed as limiting or affecting the application of the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act to proceedings in respect of pre-packed milk."

In Sub-section (4) of Clause 13, it is provided that the defence which is available under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act with regard to quality, where the person charged can prove that he is dealing in a pre-packed article supplied to him under a warranty, shall be a good defence under this Bill. Under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, that applies to milk among other things, but, for some reason which I need not go into now, by the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, that defence was taken away in the case of pre-packed milk, thus differing from the law as it remained in England under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. Under the present Bill it is intended to make this defence available, and by Subsection (4) of Clause 13 it is made available in the case of milk as well as of other articles. It is in order to put that intention beyond doubt on the matter of construction that I move this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, after the words last added, to add the words:

"(c) for any reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions there shall be substituted a reference to the Lord Advocate."

In reference to the Amendment which has just been accepted, I have drafted the necessary Amendment to substitute the Lord Advocate for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend got it in the right place or would it not be better to come in the definition Sub-section?

That is the very place we are putting it in.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15—(Short Title Construction, Commencement, Repeal And Extent)

I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, to leave out the word "October" and to insert instead thereof the word "May."

This is the date of coming into force of the Act. I have no particular penchant for any one day rather than another provided the Act is not postponed too far. I think 1st May is a very good day. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a Sunday."] I have a different reason from hon. Members opposite. It happens to be my birthday and therefore I have a personal predilection for it, but if the Committee think it reasonable to give six months notice I do not mind whether the date is 1st May or 1st July.

Question, "That the word 'October' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the word 'May' be there inserted."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "May," and to insert instead thereof the word "July."

May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment and to accept mine to insert July? I think it will be well understood, even by those who have not a technical knowledge of the retail trade, the many difficulties which will confront retailers in getting their pre-packed goods cleared out of their shops ready for the Act coming into force. It is only reasonable to give them at least six months in which to make their preparations. Again, the local authorities will have difficulty in appointing inspectors, and on the ground of convenience to all concerned it would he as well to make it July.

I am quite ready to accept that, though, as a matter of fact, the pre-packed goods are allowed extra time. But I will sacrifice my predilection.

Question, "That the word 'May' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Word "July" there inserted.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 31, leave out the word "twenty-six" and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-seven." — [ Sir P. Cunliffe.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause—(Application Of Act)

"This Act, except so far as it applies to pre-packed articles of food, shall apply only to retail dealings."—[ Sir P. Cunliff -Lister.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

10.0 P.M.

I went very fully on the Second Reading into the. reasons why I thought it impracticable to extend the Act to the whole-sale trade. I am sure the Committee will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not repeat the arguments I used then.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

First Schedule—(Articles Required To Be Sold By Net Weight)

I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 4 to 12, inclusive, and to insert instead thereof the words

Tea.
Coffee beans.
Ground coffee, including chicory mixtures.
Cocoa.
Cocoa powder.
Chocolate powder.
Potatoes.

Part Ii

Articles required to be sold by net weight, except where weighed for sale in a wrapper or container and the weight of the wrapper or container does not exceed two and a half drains per pound of the articles sold:

Bacon.
Ham.
Butter.
Lard.
Suet.
Margarine.

Part Iii

Articles required to be sold by net weight, except where weighed for sale in a wrapper or container, and the weight of the wrapper or container does not exceed four and a-half drains per pound of the article sold.

Flour of wheat, rye, maize, pea, or bean, including self-raising flour and cake flour.

Cornflour.
Oatmeal.
Rofled oats.
Rice.
Sago.
Tapioca.
Sugar.
Dried beans.
Dried peas.
Dried currants.
Dried raisins.
Dried sultanas.

The only Amendment I am going to propose to the new Schedule is a pure drafting Amendment to bring it into line with the provisions as regards paper which the Committee has already passed.

Are the lines to be read across the page or vertically?

As they are printed.

I should like to express our regret that the President finds it necessary to modify the Schedule. There are no reasons at all why cereals should not be added to the list, and though I do not propose to divide I think it necessary to make it clear that there are no practical difficulties in the way. I have quite a number of labels here covering cereals and other commodities which are already being supplied to a very large section of the trade. It appears regrettable, in view of the fact that there is a very large measure of opinion in favour of the Bill, that the President has not seen his way to adhere to the main lines on which it was introduced. I hope at an early date he will see his way clear to restore the articles he now proposes to omit.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out lines 2 to 6, inclusive.

That will mean that coffee beans, ground coffee, cocoa, cocoa powder and chocolate powder will come out of Part I, and later on you will see an Amendment in my name to add these articles to Part III. That is a part where a certain weight of paper is allowed when the goods are handed over to the customer. The reason for the Amendment is that some of these articles are of a very pungent nature, and would contaminate the scales for the weighing of other goods: and others are of such a nature that they will adhere to the scales and make it very difficult to deal with the weighing of those goods, particularly in a busy shop. During the last few weeks, demonstrations have been given throughout the country to various Members of this House as to how this Act would operate if it had been brought into force in the form in which it was drafted. I think it was clearly demonstrated how great are the difficulties the retailer would have in weighing those goods without the paper. Evidently, the President of the Board of Trade has been convinced that the argument was a sound one. The intention of those who are actively engaged in this trade is to show that the articles mentioned here are among the most difficult to handle without paper. It might be argued that you could use counterfoils, but again we have the automatic scales so much in use, and therefore we could not use another piece of paper.

There is a certain discrepancy between the Blue Paper and the White Paper which was circulated this morning. In order that there may be no mistake, I will put the Question in the way in which the hon. Members can follow it. The Amendment is to leave out coffee beans, ground coffee (including chicory mixtures), cocoa, cocoa powder and chocolate powder. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

I could not possibly invite the Committee to accept this Amendment. There are many reasons against accepting it. First, there is the chain of authority. My hon. Friend (Mr. Womersley) has on several occasions referred to the value of the Select Committee of this House which sat in 1914, and indicated that that was an authority which, if there was a difference of opinion, we should follow rather than the Food Council. But in 1914 that Select Committee recommended that it be illegal to sell tea, coffee or cocoa in powder in retail by any other system than net weight These articles are much snore expensive than sugar and so on, where a special allowance has been given. They are plainly not on the same footing as tea, coffee and cocoa are. Tea has already by Statute to be sold by net weight, and in regard to coffee there are special provisions in force requiring it to be much more carefully Weighed than general groceries. For instance, in tea, coffee and tobacco, the margin of error laid down is three drams, whereas in general groceries it 30 drams. But my hon. Friend has misconceived the effect of the Schedule. It does not forbid people to weigh things into bags. It does not stop the shopkeeper from putting a bag on the scales and pouring the coffee into it, but all he has to do is to deliver net weight. If he sells 16 ounces of coffee as a pound. and I ounce of bag, we can say nothing to him. He is all right so long as he does not sell 15 ounces of coffee and I ounce of bag. I submit for all these reasons that I cannot reasonably be expected to make any variation on the Schedule.

Amendment to proposed negatived.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, at the end, to insert the words

"Jam.

Marmalade."

The object of this Amendment is to try to get a declaration of the Government's policy as to jam and marmalade. There are thousands of shops which are constantly selling large quantities of jam and marmalade, particularly jam. It is rare indeed that the customer gets full weight. In London the custom is, in the poorest shops, for the customer to bring his own container, and to have the jam ladled into it. The other custom is for people to buy jam in 1, 2, 3, 4 or 7 lbs. in jars or glasses. I understand from all the evidence that I can obtain, that the customer who brings his own container gets better weight than those who buy in pots and jars. I have taken some trouble to lock into the question of pots and jars, and I find it is very seldom that you get in a pot or jar the full quantity of jam or marmalade. It is always a few ounces short. I have found that the difference in the 1-lb. jar is 2 ounces, and in the 4-lb. jar as much as 8 ounces, between what the pot will hold when it is full and the actual weight which ought to be in the pot.

There ought to be in these pots, 2 lbs., 3 lbs. or 4 lbs. of jam or marmalade as the case may be. The Government ought to have some policy in regard to the question of the selling of jam or marmalade over the counter. I do not know whether, in view of the fact that manufacturers of jam and marmalade mark their pots or their jars at the bottom with their names, it would be possible, without causing them any great trouble, to mark each side of the rim of the pot with a line at which, say, the 1 lb. of jam or marmalade would arrive, if the pot is to be full. That is one suggestion. There are three ways of dealing with this matter. The Government may say that they will have nothing to do with the suggestion, and that they will not put jam and marmalade into the Schedule. They may say that jam or marmalade is not sold net weight and, consequently, the customer will never get his full pound of jam or marmalade. Or they may say they will put off the matter, and endeavour later to bring jam and marmalade into the Schedule. That is to say, that they will grant a moratorium to the sellers of jam and marmalade until such time as the Government have in mind methods for seeing that the customer gets full weight. It would be a great pity if we did nothing in regard to this very important article of food, particularly in the poorer parts of our great towns.

The hon. Member has asked for a pronouncement of Government policy. I am all in favour of the "Eat more British jam" campaign, but I am not prepared at the present stage to put jam or marmalade into this Bill. It is true that the Food Council made a recommendation, but that recommendation was made on evidence which turned out afterwards to be incomplete. It was made on evidence which was not accurate. A more exact examination, when competitors of a particular firm challenged the evidence, showed that each pot of jam was not complete in itself, but on the average over a a number, the pots of jam gave an aggregate which, divided up, constituted an equal average. I admit that that is not net weight. It is possible by a very complicated machine to fill jam pots with absolutely accurate net weight. Those who are able to instal a costly and complicated machine of that kind would, no doubt, meet their reward, but the Committee will agree that at this stage it would be unjust when there are large jam makers and small jam makers to impose a provision which would compel everybody to instal a very costly machine or else go out of business. Therefore, I am not sufficiently satisfied that jam can be adequately included in this Bill.

I should like to support the Amendment, but if any item is put into the Bill it should be within reasonable opportunity for traders to carry it out. I am afraid that in the case of jam even a fair trader is in a difficulty. Jam is made of different densities. You may have a container of average size where the jam is made of whole fruit and thick syrup, where you would get a full pound, but if it is made of thin syrup it might be under weight.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, at the end, to insert the words:

"Pressed beef or any meat so treated as to be fit for human consumption without further preparation or cooking (other than potted meats)."

The same difficulty cannot be levelled against pressed beef as was levelled against jam and marmalade. By including ham the President of the Board of Trade has admitted that cooked meats come into this category, but if the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that in his opinion we should try our hand first and will later include pressed beef by Regulation in this category, it will affect our decision.

I will, of course, keep a sympathetic mind if at any future time it is proposed to include pressed beef. The Committee have already agreed unanimously that we ought not to add or take anything away from the Schedule until there has been an opportunity of consulting all interests, including the Food Council and the Association of Local Authorities. There was no recommendation from the Food Council about pressed beef. They say specifically that they think we should do much better to confine ourselves to certain items which they recommend instead of putting in a general provision about net weight and then granting exceptions to it. They made no recommendations about sausages, lentils, pearl barley, mustard, pepper, macaroni and vermicelli, and we should, therefore, be inconsistent with the decision we have already taken if, without consideration, we added these items to our list.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, at the end, to insert the word "sausages."

I want to make a special appeal to the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of this interesting and common article of food. The right hon. Gentleman may have some difficulty in placing this article in its proper category in the Bill. It might be argued that it should have been placed with the bread class, because it may be said that many sausages, and much of a sausage, is bread. It may also be argued that it should be put in the fruit class, because in some cases it may be said that sausages contain certain kinds of fruit. Then there are other advocates who might say that it should be entered in the class which deals with certain liquids, because a sausage, they say, is liable to evaporation. There are a great many brands of sausages on the market, and when they are handed over to the customer they are wrapped up in well-decorated paper in one-pound or half-pound packets. Any hon. Member, if he so desires, can see them nicely decorated with red and blue ribbons, I suppose to correspond with the ribbons which were round the animal's neck when it was alive. That may or may not be the case. But this is a common article of food in which there is more exploitation of the people than in almost any other food of which I know.

Are haggis and black puddings included under this heading?

I am not called upon to give a ruling on that point, because I hope that the Committee will exclude the sausage. The Food Council did consider the sausage and came to the conclusion that it ought not to recommend the sausage for this special treatment. I understand that the sausage is not only not properly butcher's meat, for the reason that it contains a large proportion of bread, but that while it is still quite edible it undergoes a very considerable process of evaporation and that that fact would make the Bill difficult to administer. All the considerations that the hon. Member has advance d were considered by the Food Council.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, at the end, to insert the words "lentils, pearl barley, mustard, pepper, macaroni, vermicelli."

The arguments of the Minister with regard to sausage meat and jams and marmalade cannot apply to these items. To prove my contention I exhibit here labels both of pepper and mustard.

Would the hon. Member send me a complete set?

Yes, and the tinned stuff as well. These articles are already being extensively sold by being put into tins. The President of the Board of Trade might well extend his list to include them.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the proposal. The Food Council definitely recommended limitation, as regards the net weight provision, to the articles already included in the Schedule. We might find many articles which are sold by net weight. We are making great leaps, and it would be very unwise, without full evidence before us, to add a number of articles to the list, for by doing so we might well make mistakes and undo a great deal of the good that we are doing.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 21, to leave out the words "four and a-half drams," and to insert instead thereof the words "the specified number of drams."

This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the variation that we made in the paper provisions.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule —(Provisions Of The Sale Of Food And Drugs Act Applied)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 20, leave out the word "net."—( Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 9, at the end, to insert the words

"unless the defendant proves that he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain, and did in fact believe in, the accuracy of the statement contained in the warranty."

The explanation of the Amendment is that Clause 13 of this Bill incorporates the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts with regard to warranties, and these provisions are supposed to be set out in this Schedule, but if attention is directed to paragraph 4 of the. Schedule it will he seen that a warranty Liven by a person resident outside Great Britain shall not be available as a defence to any proceeding under the Act. For some reason there has been an omission of the words in the Amendment, though they occur in the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, provisions which are supposed to be included in this Bill. These words I seek to add by the Amendment, and they provide, in effect, that though primâ facie the warranty is no defence, it may be a defence if the defendant proves, first, that he has taken reasonable steps to ascertain the accuracy of the statement contained in the warranty and, second, that he did in fact believe the truth of that statement. In view of the fact that this provision is contained in the old standing provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts with regard to warranty, it will probably seem reasonable to the House that a similar provision should be contained in this Bill.

I think my hon. and learned Friend is quite right in saying that his words should be inserted, and I am much obliged to him for bringing the matter to my notice.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move in page 11, line 35, after the word "therewith," to insert the words

"or a statement contained in an invoice."

It is my intention in moving this Amendment to make sure that not only should the wording of a statement with the goods be a warranty, but that any invoice dealing with the goods or on account of the goods should be a warranty as well. I think, in fact, my words do not go far enough, in view of the latest decisions, and I shall be glad, therefore, to accept the further Amendment which stands next on the Paper dealing with this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 35, at the end, add the words

"An invoice describing the weight or measure or number of the article shall be a sufficient warranty notwithstanding than it contains no words of express warranty or was delivered after the purchase of the article."—[Mr. D. Herbert.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

Electricity (Supply) Bill

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[ The Attorney-General.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1—(Constitution Of Central Electricity Board)

Lords Amendment: In line 16, after the word "transport," insert the word "agriculture."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is an Amendment which I do not think materially alters the Bill. It is only to put in agriculture as one of the interests to be consulted in nominating the Board. We thought it was included in the term "industry," but we are content to have it expressed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 25, leave out the words "which he may hold for his own benefit," and insert "in which he may be beneficially interested."

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I do not think we can accept the Amendment in the form in which it has been put in in another place, as the effect would be that any shares in which anybody was beneficially interested must be sold, although perhaps he would be unable to sell them because he might only have an interest under a marriage settlement or something of that kind, but I think we can meet the object of the Amendment by disagreeing with it and substituting, after the word "hold" in line 26, the words "in his own name or in the name of a nominee."

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment made, in lieu of Lords Amendment: In line 26, after the word "hold," insert the words "in his own name or in the name of a nominee."—[ The Attorney-General.]

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 19, after the word "mortmain," insert

"and shall have power to regulate their own procedure:

Provided that the quorum of the Board shall not be less than one-third of the full number of the Board."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It makes clear that the Board can regulate its own procedure, but ensures that there shall be a reasonable quorum for the transaction of the Board's business.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 8, at the end, insert new Sub-section—

"(11) Where the chairman or other member of the Board becomes disqualified for holding office or is absent from the meetings of the Board for more than six months consecutively, except for some reason approved by the Minister of Transport or fails to comply with the foregoing provisions of this Section, the Minister of Transport shall forthwith declare the office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks fit, and thereupon the office shah become vacant."

I beg to move, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment really speaks for itself, and I think we ought to accept it, but I suggest that it would come in more properly at the end of line 17, on page 2.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment made in lieu of Lords Amendment.: In page 2, line 17, at the end, insert new Sub-section—

"(11) Where the chairman or other member of the Board becomes disqualified for holding office or is absent from the meetings of the Board for more than six months consecutively, except for some reason approved by the Minister of Transport or fails to comply with the foregoing provisions of this Section, the Minister of Transport shall forthwith declare the office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks lit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 2—(General Powers And Duties Of Board)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 17, leave out the words "exercise by them on behalf of the Board," and insert "delegation to them."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is only in order to make clear that the next Sub-section, which deals with delegation, shall govern the whole thing.

I only ask, for the purpose of having it on record, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite satisfied that "delegation" is the same as "exercise on behalf of"?

I think that is quite clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 19, at the end, insert

"(3) Where proposals are made to the Board by any association of owners of generating stations which, by virtue of this Act, become selected stations within an area for which a scheme has been adopted under this Act for the delegation to the association of any powers and duties of the Board within that area, then, if the Board are satisfied that the association making the proposals is a fit and proper body to carry out those powers and duties, the Board shall comply with the proposals if and so far as they consider it practicable to do so without prejudice to the efficient discharge of the general duties of the Board, or to the efficient execution of the scheme within the area, but subject to such conditions as the Board may think fit to impose."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The object of this is to require the Board, under certain conditions, to delegate such powers and duties as can conveniently be dealt with focally by an association of owners of selected stations, and the House will observe that by a later Amendment neither the power of adopting schemes nor the power of fixing tariffs can be delegated, so that I think it sufficiently safeguards the position.

Previously, in discussing the Bill, any idea of compulsory delegation was ruled out. Suggestions were made for delegation to definite bodies set up, such as Joint Electricity Authorities and Joint Boards, and the reply we had on behalf of the Government in each case was that it was much better to leave the Board unfettered. Now there are inserted words proposing that an association of owners of generating stations—not, apparently, all owners of generating stations—in any particular area, may, if they satisfy certain conditions apply for delegation, and then the Board shall comply with these proposals for delegation, subject to certain conditions. Either these are effective instructions to the Board that they are to delegate, in which case we oppose it, or it is nothing of the sort, because it is so wrapped up by such words as "if the Board consider it practicable to do so without prejudice," and so forth, that it becomes a matter of surplusage. It is either mischievous or meaningless. Does this really make the Board do anything at all? Does it really impose anything on their unfettered will, or is it merely put in because it is liked to see something of the sort, although not really operative?

It is not a mandatory order which the Board must in all circumstances obey, because it will be seen that the Board is only to comply with the proposal for delegation

"so far as they consider it practicable to do so without prejudice to the efficient discharge of the general duties of the Board, or to the efficient execution of the scheme within the area, but subject to such conditions as the Board may think fit to impose."

I think the effect of it is merely to indicate to the Board that if there is an association which is desirous of having powers delegated to it, the Board is to consider favourably the application, if it be satisfied that the delegation can take place without prejudice to the efficient discharge of the duties imposed by the Board. Unless the Board is so satisfied, of course, it is not not bound to delegate, and, as I have pointed out, later on one or two things are expressly excluded from delegation, including important matters like adopting a scheme and fixing a tariff, which are not matters which ought to be left to any delegated authority.

With reference to the words,

"Where proposals are made to the Board by any association—"

I understood from the outset of the consideration of this Bill that all proposals were to come from the Electricity Commissioners. I understood that a scheme, either the whole or any part of a scheme, was to be dealt with by the Commissioners, and the reasons given for that were that if we wanted a homogeneous scheme we must have it governed by one body of men keeping the whole thing working logically. If we are going to admit the words

"Where proposals are made,"

it means that any group or association can make proposals. It is no answer to say that the Board have to approve of the proposals. My point is, is not this a contradiction of the other part of the Bill?

They are only proposals to delegate, that is all.

Yes, I know, but why?

Is it not a fact that the Clause, not being mandatory, leaves to the Board the option of delegating powers to someone else? Assuming there are two bodies which are fit and proper bodies to whom powers should be delegated, is it not possible under this Clause that one of the bodies, by virtue of making these proposals, may stake a claim against any other body, howsoever fit and proper that other body may be, having the powers? Is it possible under this Clause to debar some body, which is a fit and proper body, from taking over the delegated powers from the Board?

In answer to the hon. Member, I would point out that the discretion must rest with the Board absolutely. During the earlier stages of the Bill it was repeatedly pressed upon the Government to delegate if possible, if it could be done without prejudice to the scheme as a whole; and therefore this provision was put in another place. We support it because it is a finger post pointing out to the Board the direction

Division No. 561.]	AYES.	[10.51 p.m.
Albery, Irving James	Briggs, J. Harold	Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Briscoe, Richard George	Crooke. J. Smedley (Derltend)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey. Gainsbro)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Curzon, Captain Viscount
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)	Buckingham, Sir H.	Davies, Dr. Vernon
Atholl, Duchess of	Bullock, Captain M.	Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley	Burton, Colonel H. W.	Dixey, A. C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Drewe, C.
Balniel, Lord	Campbell, E. T.	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M,	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Elliot, Major Walter E.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Chapman, Sir S.	Elveden, Viscount
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Christie, J. A.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Everard, W. Lindsay
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. w.	Cope, Major William	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Courtauld. Major J. S.	Fermoy, Lord

they should take if they think fit and proper and if it does not hurt the scheme in any way.

The more one hears in explanation, the more one realises the uselessness of this proposal. I was waiting to hear from either the Attorney-General or the Ministry of Transport some of the powers which would be delegated by the Board. What are the powers which the Board may delegate? I think before we agree to this proposal we ought to know that.

Surely we are going to have an answer in regard to this matter of the powers. It is only courteous on the part of the Minister.

I did not know whether I should be in order in speaking more than three times, but I will answer at once. The powers delegated may be any powers except those of adopting schemes and fixing tariffs. The particular sort of power, which probably was in their minds in another place and which certainly is in my mind, is, for instance, the power to direct which selected station should produce what amount of current in a particular area. Obviously it might be very convenient that the owners of the selected stations should be able to arrange among themselves, having an association for that purpose, exactly how the necessary current shall be generated most economically from the selected stations in the area. That is only one illustration, but that is the type of power I had in mind.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 93.

Fielden, E. B,	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Finburgh, S.	Loder, J. de V.	Rye, F. G.
Forrest, W.	Looker, Herbert William	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Foster, Sip Harry S.	Lord. Walter Greaves-	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Lougher, L.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Fraser, Captain Ian	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sandon, Lord
Gates, Percy	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Savery, S. S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	MacIntyre, Ian	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. HI. Hon. Sir John	McLean, Major A.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Goff, Sir Park	Macmillan, Captain H,	Shepperson, E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Greene, w. P. Crawford	Macquisten. F. A.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Grotrian, H. Brent	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Stanley, col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Malone, Major P. B.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hammersley, S. S.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Merriman, F. B.	Storry-Deans, R.
Harland, A.	Meyer, Sir Frank.	Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser
Harrison, G. J. C.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hartington, Marquess of	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Haslam, Henry C.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Hawks, John Anthony	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Tinne, J. A.
Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Henderson Lieut.-Col. v. L. (Bootle)	Murchison, C. K.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Neville, R. J.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Waddington, R.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Hills, Major John Waller	Oakley, T.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hilton, Cecil	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Watts, Dr. T.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Wells. S. R.
Holland, Sir Arthur	Perring, Sir William George	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.	Power, Sir John Cecil	Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton	Winby, Colonel L. P.
Hume, Sir G. H.	Ramsden, E.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Hurd, Percy A.	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Wise, Sir Fredric
Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Womersley, W. J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Jacob, A. E.	Remer, J. R.	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Rentoul, G. S.	Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Knox, Sir Alfred	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)	TELLERS FOR THE AYE.—
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)	Captain Lord Stanley and Captain
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Margesson.

NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Grundy, T. W.	Murnin, H.
Ammon, Charles George	Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)	Naylor, T. E.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Oliver, George Harold
Baker, Walter	Hardie, George D.	Owen, Major G.
Barnes, A.	Harris, Percy A.	Paling, W.
Batey, Joseph	Hayday, Arthur	Ponsonby, Arthur
Bonn, Capt. In Wedgwood (Leith)	Hayes, John Henry	Potts, John S.
Bondfield, Margaret	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bromley, J.	Hirst, G. H.	Riley, Ben
Buchanan. G.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Charleton, H. C.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Close, W. S.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Salter. Dr. Alfred
Compton. Joseph	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Scrymgeour, E.
Crawfurd, H. E.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Scurr, John
Dalton, Hugh	Kelly, W. T.	Sexton, James
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Kennedy, T.	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Day, Colonel Harry	Lansbury, George	Sitch, Charles H.
Dennison, R.	Lawrence, Susan	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Duncan, C.	Lee, F.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Lindley, F. W.	Stephen, Campbell
Fenby, T. D.	Lowth, T.	Sullivan, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Lunn, William	Sutton, J. E.
Gardner, J. P.	MacLaren, Andrew	Taylor, R. A.
Gillett, George M.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Tinker, John Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	March, S.	Townend, A. E.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Maxton, James	Viant, S. P.
Greenall, D, R, (Glamorgan)	Montague, Frederick	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Groves T.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Westwood, J.

Windsor, Waller

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Wright, W.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley!

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Charles Edwards.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 3, line 22, agreed to.

Clause 4—(Preparation, And Carrying Out Of Scheme)

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 7, after the word "undertakers" insert the words

11.0 P.M.

"and, where the scheme relates to a specified area, for interconnection by means of such lines of the system of the Board in that area with the system of the Board in any other area with respect to which a scheme is then in force or may subsequently he made."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The object is to make it clear that interconnection may take place, not only within an area, but between that area and any other area.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 5, line 32, after the word "complaint," insert the words

"unless the complaint is one with respect to which no relief other than pecuniary compensation can he awarded."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The object is to provide that, where there is only the possibility of giving pecuniary compensation, the scheme shall not be hung up while the pecuniary compensation is being assessed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6—(New Selected Stations)

Lords Amendment:

In page 7, line 31, leave out from the word "station" to the end of Subsection.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House will recollect that these words were put in during the Report stage in this House, following the insertion of a similar provision in the previous Clause—namely, Clause 5, which gives a preference to a joint electricity authority in regard to acquiring a station. It seems to the Government that this Amendment of the Lords should be agreed to, because otherwise, in the case of a new selected station, the London agreement under the Act of 1925 might be torn up and the settlement infringed. The House will recollect that under that agreement it was implied that the Commissioners should have full power to decide who should put up the new selected station or stations in the Metropolitan area. It is imagined that there will be two selected, new stations in the Metropolitan area. If a preference is given to the joint electricity authority in the Metropolitan area, it would be very hard and unfair on other undentakers fin that district, and would, I consider, leave them with a sense of grievance, as it would upset the understanding arrived at in the Act of 1925. It is likely that the London Joint Electricity Authority will apply to put up a station at Chiswick, or on some other site if they are not able to acquire that one, and, if another station is wanted, it seems only fair that the other undertakers should have a chance of putting up the other station, and that it should not he handed over to the joint electricity authority to be put up. It may well be that, owing to the difficulties which have been experienced by the joint electricity authority in London as regards the Chiswick site, the needs of London for electricity may became so great that another station will have to be put up before the one at Chiswick is erected, and that should. I submit, be left to the Board to decide. That is the London position. Therefore in fairness to all the interests, we wish to accept the Amendment.

It is with some surprise that we hear that the Government are inclined to agree with this Amendment. One would imagine from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that there is only one place in the whole country, and that is London. He has spoken of London only. Probably it is because they have had a joint electricity authority for some short time. But it is evident that it is the intention of the Government and of the other place to take care that these private interests are well protected, so that in the event of other stations being acquired they may not be acquired by municipal authorities.

There is nothing to prevent it. It is in the unfettered judgment of the Electricity Commissioners.

It is a delightful phrase to speak of their unfettered judgment. That unfettered judgment is of the same type that we heard of throughout the whole of the Committee stage, and it is evident that the other place is endeavouring to see that the electricity supply of the country is in the hands of privately-owned undertakings.

I do not think the Minister has really adequately explained the situation even in London. If there is anything peculiar to London it should not be met by a general provision such as this. He seems to imagine vaguely that there is some contract in London that a particular group of companies should be given the right to erect stations. You have in certain areas, such as London, large electricity authorities representing undertakers of every type, and the whole object of setting up this joint electricity authority was to concentrate generation. In a previous Clause we inserted that where there was an old station that was selected it should first of all be offered to the joint electricity authority to operate. Then that was extended to new stations, and there is really no condition applying to the old stations that does not apply to the new stations. The right hon. Gentleman says perhaps they will not be able to. In that case they will hand it on to one of their constituent members to do so. It is nothing more than a first option. I certainly understood all the time the previous Act was being passed, and all through this Bill being passed, that the idea was not to set up generating stations so that every old gentleman should have the right to have a generating station of his own. I thought the idea was to concentrate on generation controlled by the Board, and to exclude everywhere the profit-making element in actual genera- tion. I think this Amendment is absolutely in line with the whole purpose of the Bill. It is the natural consequence of the acceptance of the Amendment to Clause 5 on the Report stage, and we on this side will certainly press for the retention of these lines in this Clause.

I hope these words will not be deleted from the Bill. They were arrived at after very careful consideration with the idea of strengthening and encouraging the formation of the Joint Electricity Authority, which, after all, is the machinery set up very deliberately by Parliament under the Act of 1919, which follows out the recommendations of various committees and reports, except the last Committee, the Weir Committee. It does not compel the Board; it only requires that the Board shall negotiate if the conditions required by the Joint Electricity Authority are unnecessary. If they are pigheaded or obstinate or will not carry out the ideas of the Board, the Board has the discretion to negotiate elsewhere. All that these words require is that the Joint Electricity Authority, as the public body in charge of generating electricity in their area, should have the opportunity of working these new generating stations. There is no necessity to assume that there will be conflicts between the various interests in the Joint Electricity Authority. I am informed that they are a most harmonious body, all working together in London for the common interest to get cheap electricity. It would be a most reactionary proposal at this late stage, under pressure from another place, to remove this provision which is all in the interest of setting up satisfactory machinery right throughout the country, of bringing these various interests together in the Joint Electricity Authority. The very word "Joint" Electricity Authority shows that the purpose is that all the interests should work together, and I do hope that the Attorney-General, in his natural desire to get his Bill through without much trouble, will not accept this particular change in. the Bill.

As the original author of this Amendment, I venture to think that it embodied a very excellent principle, and I have not been convinced by the arguments to-night. I think that, if there was any difficulty as regards London with any other undertaking entered into, that could have been met by keeping the Clause as it left us and adding some small proviso excluding districts covered. I suppose it is too late at this hour to expect the Minister to revise it, but I am very sorry, indeed, to see the Amendment go west.

I wish to refer for a moment to the position in regard to the Bill that sanctioned the London Electricity Authority in 1925. It was my particular privilege to be a member of the Select Committee on that occasion and the conditions under which we were considering electricity then were not the conditions that arise out of this present Bill. When the London companies were seeking for that amalgamation under which the authority was set up, we were considering then entirely the position of electricity as generated by private companies and the gain of the London companies, under their amagamation, was such that could be carried out through private enterprise and not under the method of State control that is embodied in the present Amendment. For that reason I am very much opposed to it. The possibility is that had a Bill such as we are dealing with now been before the House, the London authority would have had no such privilege as was granted to it at that time. As a member of that Committee I enter my protest now that such an argument should be used to favour the London authority over any other authority throughout the country. Therefore I appeal to the Minister of Transport, in those conditions, to revise his opinion with regard to the London authorities and their position under this Bill.

This Amendment might not have been suggested had it not been for the remark of the Minister on the Third Reading that they were out to play into the hands of private enterprise. If hon. Members will read the OFFICIAL REPORT they will find that the position is as I am stating it. What the Government are doing now is to deal with the only protection that is given to corporate bodies in the production and supply of electricity. When we are asked to delete this, we are taking away everything that was there—I admit there was not very much there—to give a certain sense of security to a corporation or any other corporate body operating such plants. It is most unfair that when we are dealing with such a point, we should have the Bill rushed upon us at this hour of the night: a Bill upon which so much depends from the national point of view. It is very unfair that the Government should use this big Measure and try to push it through in this way. They will not make much progress by that method. Had they given sane reasons for this alteration, there might have been something in favour of it, but no adequate reason has been given—only mere statements have been made. Really, the only reason that they have to give is that they may still further entrench private enterprise upon the nation.

I hope the Government will remain firm in their attitude on this matter. One can afford to be perfectly frank. Myself and many of my friends as, I think, has been admitted, dislike this Bill, but we did not attempt unfairly to obstruct it. This particular Amendment is one which, in our opinion, does something to preserve to a small extent the possibility of private enterprise being able to do something successful under, if I may use the term, the rather elaborate provisions of this Bill. The Government may rely upon their supporters in their attitude towards this Amendment, and I hope they will realise that they are the people whose advice they should take—

I find myself in complete opposition to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert.). When this Amendment was being considered in another place, it was not accepted by the Minister in charge of the Bill in that place, but was sent here for such good or bad fortune as it might meet. It is our desire that where a Joint Electricity Authority is established it shall have the first opportunity of being considered, because we hold the view that it represents not one interest but all the interests. It is for that reason that we disagree with this Amendment.

I hope the Minister will be reminded of the old adage, "Save me from my friends" after the speech of the hon. Member for Watford. He let the cat out of the bag in quite an open way. I hope the Minister will meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). This Bill is for the purposes of conserving the generation of electricity, for providing cheap electricity, and for the elimination of competition as far as possible in. its production. I ask the Attorney-General how he will square that principle with the suggestion now made by the Minister of Transport that there is to be introduced through the power which the Board may exercise, something which is bound to create disunity in certain areas. I hope the Attorney-General will meet that point in a more definite way than he has done up to the moment.

I hope the Attorney-General will consider seriously before he accepts the Amendment, as there are certain districts in London which will be mightily affected if it is accepted. These districts have got stations and they are doing extremely well. The insertion of the second part of this Clause was intended to protect the interests of the stations which now exist, they were to be consulted before the authority stepped in. Under the Clause as amended there will be no consultation and the interests of the municipalities are to be overridden. I have had communications from some of these districts as to the effect of this particular Amendment upon the interests of the municipalities where stations are at present established, and I hope the Attorney-General will not accept it.

I can only repeat what I said in my opening remarks, and I should imagine it would carry conviction to anyone who was open to conviction. In the settlement of 1925 it was specifically laid down that in the erection of new stations in the London area it should be left open as to whether the Joint Electricity Authority or private

Division No. 562.]	AYES.	[11.27 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Albery, Irving James	Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Christie, J. A.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Briggs, J. Harold	Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Briscoe, Richard George	Cope, Major William
Apsley, Lord	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)	Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Buckingham, Sir H.	Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Bullock, Captain M.	Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Balniel, Lord	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Curzon, Captain Viscount
Barclay-Harvey C. M.	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Davies, Dr. Vernon
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Chapman, Sir S.	Dean, Arthur Wellesley

enterprise should build them. The decision was definitely left to the Electricity Commissioners, who were naturally to select the body which they thought best suited for the purpose. If that is so it seems obvious that we must accept the Amendment, because if we do not we definitely break the arrangement of 1925, which all parties would wish to maintain. In the Committee, and also on Report, we resisted Amendments because they were counter to the settlement of 1925, and it is quite impossible at this stage to break that agreement for an object some hon. Members consider desirable. The two hon. Members behind me, who have indicated some doubt as to whether the Government have taken the right course, would surely wish the honourable agreement of last year to be implemented and kept. Surely it is right and proper and fair that the, Commissioners should decide who are the best people to build these stations. There is a joint authority in North Wales, and in the case of the joint electricity authority in the Midland area, it is formed by the Voluntary and cordial co-operation of all the different interests of the area.

The words are "has been formed." Surely that expression applies equally and not only to the existing two.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee that gave these privileges to the London companies at the same time resisted the power to these companies to cross municipal areas for the provision of current? Consequently, this Amendment is giving them power which they were refused then.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 90.

Dixey, A, C.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Erskine,Lord (Somerset.Weston-S.-M.)	Loder, J. de V.	Sandon, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay	Looker, Herbert William	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Fairfax. Captain J. G.	Lord. Walter Greaves.	Savery, S. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Lougher, L.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol.(Renfrew,W)
Fermoy, Lord	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Shepperson, E, W.
Fielden, E. B.	Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Finburgh, S.	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	MacIntyre. I.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Fraser, Captain Ian	McLean, Major A.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.t-
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Gates, Percy	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Storry-Deans, R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Malone, Major P. B.	Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Goff, Sir Park	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Merriman. F. B.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Meyer, Sir Frank	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Grotrian, H. Brent	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Tinne, J. A.
Harland, A.	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Harrison, G. J. C.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hartington, Marquess of	Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph	Vaughan-Morgan Col. K. P.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Neville, R. J.	Waddington. R.
Haslam, Henry C.	Oakley, T.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Hawke, John Anthony	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Perring, Sir William George	Watts, Dr. T.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Wells, S. R.
Hills. Major John Waller	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Wheter. Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hilton, Cecil	Power, Sir John Cecil	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard	Ramsden, E.	Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Holland, Sir Arthur	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Winby, Colonel L. P.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.	Remer, J. R.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Hume, Sir G. H.	Rentoul, G. S.	Womersley, W. J.
Hurd, Percy A.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'U'y)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Jacob, A. E.	Russell. Alexander West- (Tynemouth)	Major Hennessy and Captain
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Rye, F. G.	Margesson.

NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Harris, Percy A.	Potts, John S.
Ammon, Charles George	Hayday, Arthur	Purcell, A. A.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hayes, John Henry	Rees. Sir Beddoe
Barnes, A.	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Batey, Joseph	Hirst, G. H.	Riley, Ben
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Bondfield, Margaret	Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, whiteh'n)	Saklatvala, shapurji
Bromley, J.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Buchanan, G.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Scrymgeour, E.
Charleton, H. C.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Scurr, John
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Sexton, James
Compton, Joseph	Kelly. W. T.	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)	Kennedy, T.	Sitch. Charles H.
Crawfurd, H. E.	Lawrence, Susan	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Dalton, Hugh	Lee, F.	Stephen, Campbell
Day, Colonel Harry	Lindley, F. W.	Sullivan, J.
Dennison, R.	Lowth, T.	Sutton, J. E.
Duncan, C.	Lunn, William	Taylor, R. A.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	MacLaren, Andrew	Tinker, John Joseph
Fenby, T. D.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Townend, A. E.
Forrest, W.	March, S.	viant, S. P.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Maxton, James	Watson, W. M. (Dumfermline)
Gardner, J. P.	Montague, Frederick	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gillett, George M.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Westwood, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Murnin, H.	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Naylor. T. E.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Windsor, Walter
Grundy, T. W.	Oliver, George Harold	Wright, W
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)	Owen, Major G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Paling, W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Hardie, George D.	Ponsonby, Arthur	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
		Charles Edwards.

Lord Amendments considered.

Clause 7—(Obligations And Rights Owners Of Selected Stations)

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 9, at the beginning insert:

"(5) Where the price to be paid for electricity by or to the Board is to be calculated in accordance with this Section, the amount to be paid by or to the Board for a supply in any year shall be ascertained as soon as practicable after the end of the year of account, but."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is little more than a drafting Amendment, and directs that the price is only to be ascertained at the end of the year of account.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 25, leave out from the word "Board" to the end of the Subsection.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It is consequential on the one accepted just now. There will no longer be any need to provide for a price ruling pending the determination of the question, inasmuch as we are arranging that a yearly adjustment shall take place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 10—(Obligation Of Board To Supply Electricity To Authorised Undertakers)

Lords Amendment:

In page 14, line 42, leave out the word "scheme," and insert the word "works."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is purely drafting. This word appears in an earlier part of the Bill. Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 11—(Tariff For Electricity Supplied Directly By Board)

Lords Amendment:

In page 15, line 12, leave out from the word "shall" to the word "be" in line 13.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is very little more than a drafting Amendment. It is in order to remove the difficulty of applying the principles of the Second Schedule, which are founded on the cost of production of a particular station. The effect of this will be to leave the Commissioners to produce the method of ascertaining the fixed and running charges.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

page 15, line 19, leave out from the word "ascertained" to the word "shall" in line 22, and insert the words "in accordance with such principles as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners or the tariff may be framed in such other manner as may be determined by an order of the Electricity Commissioners: but such an order."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment carries out the purpose required in the previous Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 18—(Saviny For Necessity Of Obtaining Certain Consents)

Lords Amendment:

In page 19, line 20, at the end, insert,

"(2) Where an application is made by any authorised undertakers to the Minister of Transport or the Electricity Commissioners for their consent or approval under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, in any case where such consent or approval is by those Acts required, the Minister or Commissioners, in determining whether to give or withhold the consent or approval, shall have regard to the provisions of this Act and the effect of any scheme or proposed scheme thereunder."

I beg to move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The effect is to ensure that the Electricity Commissioners and the Ministry of Transport, in considering whether to give their approval where required to do so under an earlier Act, shall have regard to the provisions of the scheme, so that we shall not get the ridiculous position of a scheme of the Electricity Commissioners allowing, say, the erection of a new generating station, and the Electricity Commissioners themselves refusing to allow it.

I think it is rather ridiculous to put in this Amendment. It means that when the Electricity Commissioners make a scheme, the Electricity Commissioners are forbidden to do something to upset their own scheme. It is not likely that they will, and I think we are overloading the Bill by assuming that anyone in authority in electricity matters is necessarily a lunatic.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 19, line 20, at the end, insert new Clause A:

( Special provisions as to London.)

"Where any obligation to carry out any technical scheme imposed on a joint electricity authority, local authority, company or body by or under the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, or the London Electricity (No. 1) Act, 1925, or the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925, conflicts with any obligation arising out of a scheme under Section four of this Act which is imposed by or under this Act, on any such authority, company or body, the last mentioned obligation shall prevail."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Under the London Acts and the London Order of 1925 certain obligations are imposed on company undertakers to carry out a technical scheme in a district in so far as it relates to the companies. As a matter of fact, a technical scheme has not yet been prepared in the form proposed by the Act. If and when a scheme is proposed under the 1925 Act, it is clear that it must not run contrary to any scheme proposed under this Bill, and the Amendment seeks to reconcile any possible divergences between the two schemes.

Here again we have the position that a scheme has been prepared by the London Joint Electricity Authority. It is taken to the Electricity Commissioners, and the Electricity Commissioners are to approve of it. They are to make a scheme for that area, and it is thought necessary to put in something to say that the Electricity Commissioners shall not quarrel with themselves

It is not quite so absurd as the hon. Member thinks, because he will remember that, although the Electricity Commissioners approve the scheme, it has to go to the Board, who may modify it, and after that it has to go to an arbitrator in some circumstances, who sometimes may modify it again, so that it may not be quite the same scheme as that which the Commissioners approved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 19—(Application Of Electricity Supply Acts To Board)

Lords Amendment:

In page 19, line 33, after the word "that," insert

"section thirteen of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882 (which relates to the breaking up of private streets, railways and tramways), and"

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Under Section 13 of the Act of 1882 there are restrictions imposed upon the breaking up of private streets, and so on, unless in pursuance of special powers or with the written consent of the Electricity Commission as it is now. It is common form nowadays in any private Act to insert a Clause in pursuance of the powers given in the Act for the breaking up of private streets, in order to come within Section 13, and, therefore we are inserting these words so as, to put the Board in the position that any power company, for example, is put in under its principal Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 19, line 36, at the end, insert

"and that section twenty of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, in its application to the Board, shall have effect as if after the words electric signalling communication' wherever they occur, there were inserted the words or electrical control of railways.'"

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is really a drafting Amendment. In another place they moved this from the Fifth Schedule to this Clause, a more appropriate place.

I would like an explanation as to the difference between electric signalling communication," which I do understand, and "electrical control of railways"? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a practical illustration?

It is rather a technical point. In one case the actual signal is operated by a direct current started from one place, whereas by remote control the power is supplied from the far end. The trigger release, so to speak, is held by a very light and delicate current. It is practically a method of relay. The current is of a very small order, and is very liable to be upset by a big alternating current in close proximity.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 20—(Acquisition Of Land By The Board)

Lords Amendment:

In page 20, line 34, at the end, insert

"Provided that the Electricity Commissioners shall not make and the Minister of Transport shall not confirm any special order authorising the Board to acquire land or a right in or over land compulsorily for the purposes of a main transmission line unless satisfied that the objects sought to be attained cannot consistently with efficiency and economy be attained by the acquisition of a wayleave in accordance with the provisions of Section twenty-two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House is no doubt aware that at the present moment where overhead wires have to be carried over land, a wayleave is obtained in the ordinary way. With these great transmission lines coming into being, it is thought best that the ordinary wayleave procedure should be followed, in order to get access for those lines across the country,, and so this provision was made in another place to ensure that, as far as possible, a way-leave should be obtained, and if that were impossible, then the land should he compulsorily acquired.

Is it the intention Of the Amendment to meet cases where the payment for the wayleave is so small that the alternative of acquiring the land would be a burdensome expense in comparison? Is that the argument?

That is certainly one reason. The other reason is that we do not want the Board to own a lot of land if it can carry out its duties by securing wayleaves.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 21, line 21, at end insert new Clause B:

( Protection of Government observatories, etc.)

"B.—(1) The Board shall not provide, construct, equip, or alter or use any generating station sub-station, transformer station, building, plant, machinery, electric main, appliance, work or apparatus, or use or permit to be used, transmit, convert, or transform any electrical energy either under this Act or otherwise in such a manner as to affect injuriously in any respect whatever either by vibration or obstruction or smoke or by electric or electro-magnetic action or influence, or by any means any whatsoever whether similar to those enumerated or not any Government observatory or laboratory existing at the passing of this Act or any instrument or apparatus in or adjacent thereto, and used in or in connection therewith."

I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Clause has been put in for the protection of existing Government observatories or laboratories. Similar Clauses have been inserted in earlier Acts, for instance, the London Electricity Supply Act, 1908, Section 22. It is the usual Clause to save existing laboratories and observatories from being interfered with by electrical development.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27—(Power To Treasury To Guarantee Loans To Board)

Lords Amendment:

In page 23, line 39, after the word "manner," insert

"and subject to such conditions."

I wish to call the attention of the House to this Amendment. It is a privileged Amendment. It proposes to vary the conditions on which the guarantee of the loan can be given.

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 30—(Relation Of Charges To Dividends)

Lords Amendment:

In page 25, line 27, after the word "may," insert

"if, having regard to any change in the cost of electricity to the company attributable to this Act, they think it expedient."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the Electricity Commissioners shall impose a sliding scale under this Bill only in cases where benefits have accrued under the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 26, line 9, at the end, insert—

"or to any company formed for the purpose of such an amalgamation of undertakings as is provided for by Section eight of the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925."

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is really a drafting Amendment. It is to include amalgamations which are already provided for under existing Acts.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 27, line 35, at the end, insert new Clause C.

Protection of county bridges.

C.—(1) Unless and except so far as may be be otherwise agreed between any county council (in this section referred to as 'the county council') and the Board the following provisions shall have effect (that is to say)—

(a) Nothing in this Act shall in any way limit or affect the powers of the county council to rebuild, alter, widen or repair the structure of any bridge upon which any work by this Act authorised shall be constructed, or impose upon the county council any liability which was not by law imposed upon them prior to the commencement of this Act;

(b) If at any time the county council require to carry out works for rebuilding, altering, widening or repairing any bridge which might involve interference with any portion of the undertaking by this Act authorised they shall prior to the commencement of such works give the Board one month's notice in writing of their intention to carry out such works and if in order to avoid interruption to the supply by the Board of electrical energy, it is in the opinion of the county council necessary temporarily to remove the mains and other electrical appliances belonging to the Board from such bridge, then the Board shall (and they are hereby authorised so to do) at their own expense temporarily carry their cables and wires across such bridge overhead or at the side thereon in such a manner as will not be a danger or inconvenience to the public, or unreasonably interfere with the works to be carried out by the county council;

(c) When the rebuilding, altering, widening or repairing of such bridge shall have been completed the Board shall have the same rights and powers with regard to such bridge and its approaches as they had before the works were carried out;

(d) If any dispute arises between the county council and the Board with regard to this section the same shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed on the application of either party by the Minister of Transport.

(2) In the application of this section to Scotland, the county council shall mean the county road board, or if the bridge is not wholly situated within one county, the joint bridge committee if such committee has been appointed."

I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a Clause for the protection of county bridges, which is usually inserted in Special Orders whenever it is asked for, and it seems reasonable that some protection should be afforded.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36—(Provisions As To Companies With Large Area Of Supply)

Lords Amendment:

In page 29, line 14, leave out from the word "supply" to "is" in line 16.

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

We consider that on the whole it is far better to have this finger post to the Commissioners, so that they may have an idea of what sort of area they should have to insist upon in these new companies, which it is proposed to form.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 30, line 23, at the end, insert

"(ii) where the area of supply is not situate wholly or mainly within the district of a joint electricity authority but is situate wholly within the district of a single local authority, the right of purchase shall be exerciseable by that local authority."

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a consequential Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 30, line 35, leave out

"dividends paid by the company" and insert "divisible profits on the capital attributable to the undertaking authorised by the special order."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is merely to bring the words of the Clause into accord with Clause 25 of the Bill.

Will the Attorney-General tell us how the varying amounts are to be allocated under this Clause?

A Special Order will have to be prepared and submitted to the House and the object is to ensure that the sliding scale which is going to be made or that the relation between the proposed charge for electricity and the divisible profits authorised on the capital attributable to the undertaking are brought into relation one with the other. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 30 on page 25 he will find the words in that form were inserted in this House in Committee.

Do I understand that the allocation under any scheme submitted to the Board before being finally agreed to will come before the House?

The Special Order has to come.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 19, at the end, insert new Clause D.

( Power to alter terms of purchase by agreement.)

"D. Where under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, or under any order made thereunder, or under any deed of transfer executed in pursuance of powers conferred by any such order, or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers is vested in a local authority (including a joint electricity authority) the authorised undertakers may at any time within ten years before the date of purchase next occurring after the passing of this Act, or within ten years of any subsequent date of purchase enter into a contract with the local authority to amend, vary or alter the terms of purchase on the next occurring date upon which they may purchase upon conditions to be agreed between the parties with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the terms of such agreement shall be binding upon the parties."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Clause, which is permissive in form, not mandatory, is put forward on the ground that it would be expedient and remove the stringent provisions as to the purchase contained in the Act of 1858, or which may be contained in any special Order. The result of insisting on these terms, although neither party wanted to carry them out, might stultify development during the years immediately prior to purchase. That danger was pointed out by the Weir Committee, and it was thought advisable to put in this Clause.

I think this Amendment was accepted rather light-heartedly by the Government. The electricity industry was built up on the Acts of 1888, which lay down the terms of purchase, and by this Amendment, which is not really germane to the main purpose of this Act, we suddenly upset that plan and practically allow a free bargain in every case between the local authority and a company as to what the terms should be. I do not know that the matter is of very serious import, but I certainly think that in a Bill of this sort, which does not attempt really to deal with the question of supply areas, or of the relationship of local authorities and companies, it should not have been accepted. It really destroys the whole basis of the purchase rights of local authorities.

Can the Attorney-General explain how development will be held up if we do not have this new Clause? I can appreciate the point that fictitious values may be created and that endeavours will be made by some people, probably, to line their pockets in view of a purchase, but I would like to know from the Attorney-General what he means by stating that this would be holding up development.

12.M

If a private undertaker who is carrying on business knows that in three or four or five years he is to be purchased by a local authority he would be much less likely to spend money, and if the local authority and the undertaker could come to some little arrangement to carry on and continue the improvements it might well be that it would be for the benefit of the locality.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."— [The Attorney-General.]

Lords Amendments to be further considered To-morrow.

Criminal Justice (Increase Of Penalties) Bill

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments he now considered," put, and agreed to.—[ Mr. Greaves-Lord.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

First Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1—(Power Of Court To Substitute Penal Servitude For Consecutive Terms Of Imprisonment)

Lords Amendment:

In page 1, line 16, at the end, insert

"Provided that if, on an appeal by a person sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect. of two or more offences with which he was charged on separate indictments, it appears to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the Appellant, though not properly convicted on some indictment, has been properly convicted on some other indictment, the Court shall have the like powers as if the appellant had been convicted of the offences on different counts or parts of the same indictment; but where an appellant convicted of two or more offences, whether on one or more indictments, has been sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect of two or more offences and his conviction of any such offence is quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court shall not affirm any sentence passed at the trial or pass any sentence in substitution therefore which is more severe than would have been warranted by law if the appellant had been acquitted at the trial of any charge in respect of which his conviction is quashed."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a mere matter of procedure, to enable the Court of Criminal Appeal to deal with a case in which there were two or more indictments.

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether there has not been some private arrangement whereby the consideration of the Lords Amendments to this Bill should have been deferred till some future day? May I ask if you are aware of this arrangement?

I am not aware of it. These arrangements do not always come to my ears.

Are we able to object to any further proceedings on these Amendments?

The hon. Member can object to further proceedings.

Object?

It being after Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Gas Regulation Act, 1920

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Ludlow Union Gas Company, which was presented on the 24th November and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Hoddesdon Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 25th November and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Leighton Buzzard Gas Company, which was presented on the 25th November and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Redditch Gas Company, which was presented on the 25th November and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Warrington, which was presented on the 25th November and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Bridgwater Gas Light Company, which was presented on the 30th November and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Torquay and Paignton Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th November and published, be approved."—[Sir Burton Chadck.]

Electricity (Supply) Acts

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of North Walsham, and parts of the rural districts of Aylsham, Blofield, Forehoe, Henstead, Loddon and Clavering, Mitford and Launditch, St. Faith's, Smallburgh and Wayland, all in the county of Norfolk, which was presented on the 9th day of November, 1926, be approved subject to the following modifications, namely:

Page 5, line 40, after North Walsham urban district,' insert (excluding the road on and approaches to the bridge carrying the first-mentioned road over the Norfolk and Suffolk Joint Railway).'

Page 6, lines 45 and 46, leave out The Aylsham to Mundesley (via North Walsham) Road, in the urban district of North Walsham.'"—[Colonel Ashley.]

The understanding was that when there was a considerable number of these Orders, we should not take more than eight on any one evening. I do not want to be in the slightest degree obstructive, but it will be remembered that when the Labour Government was in office we were held up one night, and the understanding then come to was that not more than eight of these Orders should be taken at once. I have no great objection Personally to their going through, but simply want to protect the arrangement that was then made.

I appreciate the courteous way in which the hon. Member has raised this point. I certainly think the number agreed upon was more than eight; I thought it was 12—six Gas Orders and six Electricity Orders. Anyhow, I would appeal to hon. Members to let these particular Orders go through, because we have to wait here for these Orders to come down from another place, and we are trying all we can every night to get them through before we adjourn. If these Orders are not allowed to pass, it will not hurt me Personally, but it will hurt the inhabitants of the districts concerned, for they will then be without their electricity until February of next year. Therefore, if the hon. Member could see his way to waive his objection, I should be much obliged, from the point of view of the consumers.

I have no personal wish to delay the matter further, but I desired to submit the point that that certainly was the arrangement made when the last Government was in office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Bake-well, Baslow and Bubnell, and South Darley, and part of the rural district of Bakewell, in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 23rd day of November 1926, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electrcity (Supply) Act, 1919, authorising the London Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, to supply electricity to be used for purposes incidental to the working or lighting of certain railways, which was presented on the 25th day of November 1926, he approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven o'Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

Volume 200: debated on Monday 13 December 1926

House Of Commons

Private Business

Standing Orders

Standing Order 57—(Percentage To Be Deposited)

Standing Order 59—(Cases In Which Money Deposit Shall Be Required)

Standing Order 100—(Committee Of Selection To Group Private Bills)

Standing Order 106—(Preliminary Notice To Members)

Standing Order 120—(Order In Which Bills Are To Be Considered)

Standing Order 139—(Names Of Members To Be Entered On Minutes)

Standing Order 151—(Proceedings On Bills For Confirming Provisional Orders, Etc)

Standing Order 152—(Minutes Of Committee)

Standing Order 159—(Committee To Fix The Rates And Charges)

Standing Order 183—(Committee On Any Private Bill Containing Provisions Relating To The Inclosure Of Land In Certain Cases To Make A Special Report)

Standing Order 198A—(Endorsement Of Chairman Of Ways And Means In Case Of Certain Petitions)

Standing Order 204—(Time Between First And Second Reading)

Standing Order 205—(Petition Relating To Bills To Be Presented To House By Being Deposited In The Committee And Private Bill Office)

Standing Order 207—(Second Or Third Reading To Be Postponed When Opposed)

Standing Order 224A—(Extension Of Time For Petitions, Etc, In Case Of Adjournments Of The House)

Standing Order 233—(Custody Of Bills)

Standing Order 238—(Notice Of Adjournment)

Standing Order 247—(Time For Delivering Notices)

Adjournment Motions Under Standing Order No 10

Oral Answers To Questions

India

Lee Commission Report (Provincial Officers)

Rupee (Stabilisation)

Irish Free State (Civil Service Appointments)

Kenya

Liquor Revenues And Education

Advisory Land Board

Native Retainer's Bravery

Dominions (Locarno Treaty)

Agriculture

Anti-Tuberculosis Vaccine

Foot-And-Mouth Disease

Employment Exchange, Camberwell Green

Strangers' Galleries (Speakers' Names)

Royal Parks (Attendants' Pay And Holidays)

United States And Panama

China

Tientsin (Kuomintang Arrests)

Hankow

Canton Government (Recognition)

Government Policy (Unauthorised Statements)

Piracy

Royal Air Force (Officers' Wine)

Post Office

Postal Organisation, Bristol

South Louhboisdale

London Telephone Directory

Cheese, Cream And Ice Cream

Canned Foodstuffs

Poor Law

Pontypool Board Of Guardians

Casual Wards (Dulverton And Williton)

Contributory Pensions Act

Coal Mining Industry

Mine Workers (Unemployment)

Mineral Transport (Cost)

Foreign Coal (Imports)

Railway Wagons

Industrial Disputes

Washington Hours Convention

Russia

Trade Agreement

Mr A J Cook

Women (Franchise)

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

Over Payments (Deductions)

Mrs B P Robinson, Bradford

Final Awards (Reduction)

Rhineland (Allied Troops)

British Industries Fair

British Army

Stores (Annual Valuation)

Shell Collectors, Shoeburyness

Crime Detection

Criminal Courts (Docks)