asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to announce when the British forces will be withdrawn from Shanghai?

No, Sir, this must depend on the local situation. But of the additional battalions sent to China, three will have been withdrawn by the end of this trooping season.

Is not the local situation sufficiently satisfactory now to enable all troops to be withdrawn?

It is so much improved that a great many of our troops have been or are in course of being withdrawn.

Did I not see in the papers that the people in Shanghai are proposing to raise a volunteer force to take the place of our troops?

There has always been a volunteer force in Shanghai.

Is not that volunteer force now held to be sufficiently strong to render the presence of our own troops no longer necessary?

No, Sir.

Is it not the fact that this volunteer force is composed very largely, if not almost entirely, of British subjects, and throws a considerable strain on the mercantile community?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make regarding the conclusion of new treaties with China?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to give the House particulars of the treaty which has been concluded with the Chinese Nationalist Government?

The text; of the Tariff Autonomy Treaty signed at Nanking by Sir M. Lampson and Dr. C. T. Wang on the 20th of December has been published in the Press. Tariff treaties with the National Government of China have also been signed by the United States of America, Germany, Greece, Belgium, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, France and Spain.

May we take it that full recognition has now been accorded to the Nationalist Government?

Yes, Sir.

May we take it that Japan has not yet signed the Treaty? If not, does not the present position with regard to Great Britain remain the same under the mostfavoured-nation clause?

I am not sure what the position is with regard to Japan.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Glasgow corporation secured powers some time ago to build a bridge over the Clyde at that part known as Finnestoun; if he is aware that little progress has been made in the direction of having it built; and if, in view of the great urgency of providing this bridge and the work that would be given to the unemployed, he will take any steps to assist the town council to carry out this work?

I have been asked to answer this question. I understand that as soon as the Glasgow Corporation had obtained the necessary powers for the construction of the bridge, negotiations were opened for the acquisition of land, the alteration of railway lines, etc. I am informed that tenders have been invited for the sinking of bore-holes and these tenders will shortly be in the hands of the Corporation.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement as to the present position of the Charing Cross Bridge scheme?

Negotiations are actively proceeding between the London County Council, the Southern Railway and my Department, and various proposals have been examined. The magnitude of the scheme and the very important interests affected make prolonged investigations and negotiations inevitable. I regret that I am unable to make any statement at the present time. and I am satisfied that it is undesirable that I should do so. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that the negotiations are being pressed forward by all parties as rapidly as possible.

asked the Postmaster-General what length of telephone line is to be converted from pole line to under ground within the next three months; and is be aware of the number of men under notice of dismissal from works manufacturing material for this purpose in such places as Woodville and Stafford shire?

Main underground trunk telephone cables are provided mainly to meet anticipated growth of traffic and they augment rather than displace existing main overhead routes. As regards local circuits, it is estimated that about 13,500 miles of overhead wires will be replaced by underground wires within the next three months. I am aware generally of the position in regard to employment in the works referred to; and, while I cannot order material in excess of requirements, I endeavour, in this case as in others, to distribute orders to Post Office contractors in such a manner as to avoid, so far as possible temporary unemployment.

asked the Postmaster-General whether any decision has been arrived at to restore the footpaths on six of the main roads of Aldershot where telephone cables have been laid; what reports have reached him as to the dangerous and bad condition of these roads as left by the Post Office officials?

Much of the restoration work has been effected and completion of the remainder will be expedited as far as possible. Certain sections of cement paving are, however, still the subject of discussion with the local authorities as regards the method of restoration to be adopted. I am informed that at no time have the disturbed footpaths presented any danger to pedestrians.

Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to prevent the inconvenience which arises consequent upon the quarrel between his Department and the local authorities?

I do not think there is any quarrel. As far as I remember the facts, the local authorities are not yet decided as to the exact method of restoration they desire.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, seeing that in the December conversations at Lugano, Herr Strese-mann made it clear that Germany would not consent to the proposed control committee continuing in the Rhineland after the year 1935, he will say whether the duration of this control committee is still a matter of negotiations; and what view of the matter is now taken by His Majesty's Government;

(2) whether he can give the House any account as to the progress of the negotiations with reference to the evacuation of the Rhineland or the duration of the committee of control?

As regards the Rhineland, there has been no change in the situation since I spoke during the Debate on the Adjournment on the 20th of December last. In speaking of a "control committee," I presume that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intends to refer to the Commission of Verification and Conciliation mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the Geneva Resolution of 16th September, 1928. The word "control" was not used in the Resolution and would convey an entirely wrong impression of the character and purpose of the body to be created. The Geneva Resolution stated that the six Powers were agreed as to

"the acceptance of the principle of the constitution of a Commission of Verification and Conciliation, and that the composition, operation, object and duration of the said commission will form the subject of negotiations between the Governments concerned."

Methods of giving effect to this Resolution are, I doubt not, being studied by the Governments, but no negotiations are at present in progress.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey the idea that the German Government have accepted this Committee—the Control Committee, I think they call it. Are they still in favour of it; or have the German Government changed their mind and now say that they are not in favour of this Committee continuing to control the Rhineland after 1935?

I carefully refrained from extending my answer to the assumptions underlying the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question: and I do not think it would be helpful for me to do so. The three Governments undertook to study this question; and they are doing so.

What I desire to find out is this—I do not want to ask any questions which would be inconvenient—have the German Government changed their attitude. In September the German Chancellor more or less accepted the prospect of this Committee; have the German Government made any change on that?

Oh, no. We are proceeding on the Resolution to which the German Chancellor, Dr. Muller, was a party in September.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received the Report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Loanda regarding the case of Mr. A. J. Brewer, second officer of the Clan Line s.s. "Clan Lamont," who, after arrest on the charge of theft of £l, was imprisoned for nine months, while awaiting trial in Portuguese West Africa, and was then condemned to 360 days' imprisonment and £18 fine or another 90 days' imprisonment; and, if so, what action his Department intends to take in the matter?

The Report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Loanda on the case of Mr. Brewer has been received and is being carefully considered. I propose in Mr. Brewer's own interests to await his arrival in this country in order that certain points may be cleared up before a decision is possible as to what further action can be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the result of the inquiries he caused to be instituted by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington with regard to the case of Mr. A. Donaldson, fireman on s.s. "Plawsworth," who went ashore without a passport while his vessel was unloading at Galveston, Texas, in September, 1927, and was kept in the county gaol without a trial for 12 months, and was subsequently released without explanation and without trial, having to work his way back to Tilbury; and whether any representations have been made by his Department to the United States Government?

His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has received a report from His Majesty's Consul at Galveston who states that Donaldson's story is devoid of foundation, that there is no record either at the Customs house or at His Majesty's Consulate at Galveston of the arrival of the steamship "Plawsworth," on which ship Donaldson alleged that he was serving, at Galveston or neighbouring ports during 1927, and that Donaldson's name does not appear in the files of the Immigration Department, gaol or police authorities at Galveston or Houston. Further, I have ascertained from the Registrar-General of Shipping that a man called Andrew Donaldson signed on as fireman on the 4th July, 1927, on the steamship "Plawsworth," which was then engaged in the home trade. On the 9th September, the day on which he alleged he was arrested at Galveston, the vessel was at Hartlepool, Durham. On the 17th September, according to the ship's papers, Donaldson failed to rejoin his vessel at West Dunston-on-Tyne.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking to have Mr. Donaldson certified or otherwise incarcerated, if his version of the matter is not true?

That is not my duty. I think I have shown the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Donaldson is not suited to be a protegé of his.

asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been demolished under slum- clearance schemes in the last four years; and how many persons formerly living under slum conditions have been re-housed under these schemes?

Information in regard to the matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is only available from the 1st April, 1925. Between that date and 3lst December, 1928, the latest date for which particulars have been furnished, 8,540 buildings have been acquired for demolition, 6,002 buildings have been demolished and 6,949 new dwellings have been erected in connection with slum clearance schemes. It is estimated that approximately 31,000 persons have been re-housed in these new dwellings.

Can the right hon. Gentleman promise any increase of these very meagre operations—meagre compared with the number of people in the slums?

I am sure we would all like to see more progress made. As a fact, during the last few years progress has been made with greater rapidity than before, and I think it can be said that, with the great accession to the number of new houses, local authorities will now be able to turn their attention much more vigorously to the question of slum clearance.

Has the Department any figures which show the numbers of the population still living in slum habitations?

I require notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons at present unemployed and the number working short time?

At 14th January, 1929, there were 1,435,000 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, of whom 1,140,000 were wholly unemployed and 295,000 temporarily stopped from the services of their employers. Separate statistics of the number of persons on short time are not available.

Is it, the new method to omit the word "million" in order to try to minimise the total?

asked the Minister of Labour what was the total number of persons registered as unemployed on 1st January, 1929, and the total number registered on 1st January, 1928, with comparative figures of the total number of miners registered as unemployed on the two above-mentioned dates?

As the reply includes a number of figures, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As there are so few questions on the Paper and there is an hour allowed for questions, and as this is a most important question as to the growth or decrease of unemployment, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the information now?

If the House can spare five minutes, I am prepared to read the reply.

No, circulate it.

On a point of Order. When the Minister is prepared to give the figures relating to such a grave matter, is not the House entitled to the information?

But if the majority of the House are against it, cannot they decide?

Unless the answer is given now it will not be possible to ask supplementary questions challenging the Minister's reply.

rose—

The matter rests with the hon. Gentleman who asked the original question.

I agree with my hon. Friend who put the point that the answer may not be satisfactory to the House, and that there may be reasons for putting other questions, or even for making suggestions that would be helpful to the Minister.

The reply is as follows:

The reading of the reply has occupied exactly one minute.

In view of the alarming number of unemployed in the country, may I ask whether the only prescription of the Government is charity to deal with the matter, or whether, now that we are beginning a new Session, they have any scheme which would find work for the unemployed or for any number of them?

That does not arise strictly out of the question.

Do the figures given show the numbers of men registered from the Liverpool Dock Clearing House, and is it not a fact that a large percentage are permanently out of work?

That point does not arise out of the original question, but, if the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper, I will obtain what information I can.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims referred to the Umpire for unemployment insurance benefit since 1st October, 1928, and awaiting decision on 15th January, 1929?

The number of cases received by the Umpire between 1st October, 1928, and 15th January, 1929, was 2,386. The number awaiting decision on 15th January, was 775.

Is anything being done to hasten the hearing of those cases, so that decisions may be given?

Yes; they are being expedited as far as possible. Of the 775 awaiting decision over two-thirds have come in since the new year. This is the time of year when the work is the heaviest, and therefore this is the time at which delay can be particularly expected. On the other hand, if the Umpire desires help and makes a representation to me I shall consider it.

Why is this particular part of the year abnormal compared with other parts of the year, in the matter of decisions to be given by the Umpire?

Because immediately after Christmas there is nearly always a sudden jump in the register of claims. It is due partly to climatic conditions, such as frost and the rest. With a larger number of claimants there is a proportionately larger number of cases to be dealt with.

How are these people supposed to live while they are awaiting the decision of the Umpire?

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of local authorities who have applied to provide schemes of work for unemployed persons, 50 per cent. of whom are drawn from mining areas; the number of such schemes approved and their total estimated cost; and in how many cases work has actually started and what is the number of persons engaged in such work?

Fifty-eight local authorities have made applications for grants on the new terms involving the employment of labour from depressed areas, in respect of 96 schemes, estimated to cost £1,689,000. Twenty-six schemes of a total estimated cost of £656,000 have been approved by the Committee. Work has begun on three of these schemes, on which 36 men are employed. I should point out that it necessarily takes a considerable time to prepare these schemes, particularly if they are of any magnitude.

Are we to understand that the sum total of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts in this connection has been the employment of 36 men?

No, Sir. That certainly does not appear from my answer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Health is turning down some of these schemes; and that there are local authorities in depressed areas, who would employ 100 per cent. of the unemployed miners, but, when they apply for loans for the part of the money which they have to find, they are turned down?

Will the hon. Member put down a question?

This question has already been put to the Minister, and he has said that he can do nothing in regard to it.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to expedite the putting in hand of the extra work, other than the employment of the 36 men mentioned?

These schemes are being dealt with as quickly as possible so that the work may be put in hand, but of course the hon. Member will realise the value of these schemes is not only for employment at the immediate moment, but in order to assist permanent transfers, which must necessarily take months.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of local authorities are absolutely refusing to carry out schemes because you are insisting upon 50 per cent. of the men being sent from the mining areas?

If any local authorities wish to make representations to me they can do so; but the object of these terms is to promote transfers.

How many men have been employed as a result of these schemes?

I have already said it.

Did the right hon. Gentleman not say 36; and is not that precisely what I said?

Is not the object of these schemes to provide work; and, if the condition could be removed as to 50 per cent. from the depressed areas, are there not many local authorities who would find work for men and who cannot do so to-day because of these restrictions?

Are we to take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer, that in such cases as I have indicated, if the local authorities care to submit the facts of the situation to him, he will reconsider the matter?

I cannot give any undertaking of that kind at all. If there are any schemes which come within the ambit of the actual terms which have been promulgated, then, of course, they can be put before the St. Davids Committee and considered on their merits. I am not aware of the nature of the question put by my hon. Friend or of the reply.

May we take it that, in such cases, if the question is submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, he will confer with the Ministry of Health, in order to try to get over this difficulty?

I shall be glad to confer with the Ministry of Health on any matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman making provision for finding work for Ministers after June?

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been transferred to the city of Glasgow to jobs from distressed mining areas, and the nature of the work provided?

Figures are not available for the period prior to 6th October. From that date to the end of December, 102 men from the depressed mining areas were placed in employment in the areas covered by the Glasgow Exchanges. Most of these men obtained employment as general or builder's labourers, but others secured work as miners, joiners, engineers, pattern makers, moulders and rubber spreaders.

Why has the right hon. Gentleman transferred 102 men to this area, seeing that the number of unemployed already in the area is, admittedly, extremely high?

The answer is quite simple. It is not at all the same as transferring men from South Wales or Durham to the South East of England. These areas, though classified as distressed mining areas, are really in the same economic area as Glasgow, and can properly be treated as a whole. There is naturally a certain amount of coming and going between them. In most of these areas the position happens to be worse than in Glasgow and it is obvious that the balance of transfer therefore should be to Glasgow.

Why arc miners being transferred to Silvertown when we already have our hands full to deal with unemployment in that area?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities who are responsible for keeping the poor and the unemployed view this proposal with alarm, because in many cases, after a few weeks' work, these miners are left chargeable to the local authorities.

I am not aware of any representations from the local authorities with regard to these 102 men. I am not quite sure of the Poor Law in Scotland, as compared with England, but I believe it is the same, and, therefore, the last part of the hon. Member's objection need not arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number on the Sheffield register is nearly 4,000 more than it was twelve months ago and that they cannot get these schemes through?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been turned to the educational importance of a permanent opera in England; and whether he can give any sympathetic assistance to the League of Opera and other associations which are endeavouring to fill this gap in the national educational institutions?

I share the hon. Member's views as to the importance of opera and he may feel assured that the Government have every sympathy with the League of Opera and other associations which are endeavouring to produce opera in this country. But I fear I cannot undertake financial assistance at the cost of the Exchequer to such associations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not know much more about comic opera?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that; every Continental country has a national opera house and that England is the only country in Europe which does not support opera in this way?

Is not sufficient public money already being expended on the opera bouffe of the present Government?

I do not wish to go into controversial topics in answer to that question, or the question of the hon. Member who spoke earlier. But I may say that I have no acquaintance with opera bouffe, though I am occasionally brought into contact with low comedians.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he in tends to publish a memorandum regarding the liability for Income Tax of Dominion and foreign visitors to this country; and, if so, when?

The matter is still under consideration.

Is it likely that any decision will be reached in the next month or so?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information to give this House as to the negotiations about reparations?

The appointment of the Committee of Experts entrusted with the task of drawing up proposals for a complete and final settlement of the reparation problem has now been completed. The committee will consist of American, Belgian, British, French, German, Italian and Japanese members, there being two members of each nationality with power to appoint deputies. The first meeting of the committee will probably be held in the first weeks of February. The British members will be Sir Josiah Stamp and Lord Revelstoke, and the British deputy members Sir Charles Addis and Sir Basil Blackett.

Will the right hon. Gentleman let the House know the terms of reference of this Committee; or if there have not been any definite terms of reference, then the instructions given to the British delegates?

I think I must have notice of that question.

Is the problem of reparations still mixed up with the problem of the evacuation of the Rhine-land?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent decision against football competitions, he will consider the appointment of a Committee to investigate the existing laws governing this subject and other competitions, with a view to introducing legislation legalising them?

I asked the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) to postpone this question, and I understood that the hon. Member had complied with my request.

May I explain? The hon. Member probably agreed to postpone the question after the consultation which we had on the matter.

(by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether any and what protests have been received by him against the proposal of the British Broadcasting Corporation to publish a weekly newspaper; whether, in view of the terms of its Charter and having regard to the fact that the Corporation is State protected and subsidised and not subject to the payment of Income Tax, he proposes to take any action to veto the proposal?

I received protests against the proposed publication of the "Listener" from associations representative of the Press. The matters in dispute have since been amicably settled in conference between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the interests affected, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise. I ought to add, however, that I must not be taken as admitting the assumptions contained therein.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation are making a profit of £200,000 a year out of the newspaper and publishing business, that they pay no Income Tax on this, and that this is diverting advertisements from newspapers which are paying tax, and can he say what is done with the money?

As I have said, I am not prepared to admit the hon. and gallant Member's assumptions. The assumption contained in the last part of his question is that the Corporation is a State-subsidised service, but it would be more true to say that the State is subsidised by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The assumption is also made that the Corporation is not liable for assessment to Income Tax on its ascertained profits, but I am certainly not prepared, on behalf of the Treasury, to admit that.

In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that this matter has now been satisfactorily settled, will he say, in view of the public importance of the matter, what the settlement is?

I think the terms have already been published.

May I ask the Prime Minister how he came to receive a deputation of the interested parties after the Postmaster-General had refused to receive them?

In the same way that I always receive a courteous reply to a courteous request.

Is it the practice of the right hon. Gentleman to go over the heads of his trusted Ministers?

I never feel any hesitation in doing so if I think it desirable.

Do we understand from the Postmaster-General's statement this afternoon that the opposition of the newspapers to this new periodical has now been withdrawn?

I understand that an agreed settlement was reached at the conference.

Is it not a fact that the newspapers really did not understand what the situation was when they began to cry out? Is it not really the truth that they did not understand?

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to find time for an early discussion of the Motion relating to the Channel Tunnel standing in the name of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) and others?—[That, in the view of this House, the construction of a Channel Tunnel would be advantageous both to this country and to Europe, as a whole, and the labour and material needed for the tunnel would increase productive employment in this country; therefore, having regard to the changed circumstances arising from diplomatic developments in Europe in recent years, the House invites the Government to take an early opportunity of reconsidering its attitude towards the project.]

In view of the wide public interest in the Channel Tunnel project, the Government have come to the conclusion that the time is ripe for a comprehensive re-examination of the question. We are anxious that a very thorough examination should he made of the economic aspects of the matter, in order that these may be weighed with Imperial Defence considerations, and a decision reached on broad grounds of national policy. In view of the time that would be required to carry the project through all its stages to the completion of the tunnel, we are convinced that it would be in the public interest, if possible, to deal with this important question outside of the party atmosphere and by agreement, so that the decision of one Government may not be upset by another. If the course adopted by the right Hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in 1924 should again commend itself to him and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I should like to proceed on similar lines, but obtaining their co-operation from the outset of the inquiry. In these circumstances, and more especially in view of the pressure on Parliamentary time, I am not prepared to accede to the request of the hon. Member.

Am I to understand from the Prime Minister that his proposal is, in effect, that the matter should once again be referred to the consideration of the Committee of Imperial Defence?

I have given no details as to the form in which the examination will take place, but it is perfectly obvious that, on the defence side as opposed to the economic side, the Committee of Imperial Defence must be consulted.

May I ask if, in considering this, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that there is a very large body of opinion in the country which feels that the last word on this matter ought not necessarily to rest with the Committee of Imperial Defence?

May I ask my right hon. Friend in what way he would propose to solve the economic problem— to whom reference would be made for that discussion?

That is exactly the point I have to consider. I think the economic side of it is of the greatest importance and a side which, certainly for some years past, has not been investigated. I have to consider what would be the best form, possibly after consultation with the right hon. Gentlemen whose names I have mentioned, to get the evidence which would be required.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if there has been any definite ascertainment of the greatest depth of the Channel under which the proposed tunnel would have to pass, and at what gradients the railway, either by steam or electricity, would have to run?

That is exactly one of a hundred questions to which I desire an answer.

The first two Amendments on the Order Paper—in page 45, line 20, at the beginning, to insert the words "Subject as hereinafter provided," and, in line 22, to leave out the words "any agricultural land or agricultural buildings," and to insert instead thereof the words "improvements created by labour in, on, or under the soil"—are without the scope of the Bill. The third Amendment—in line 22, after the word "any," to insert the words "cultivated or grazed"—I have some doubt about on the ground of completeness, but I think I will give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), in whose name it stands, the benefit of the doubt.

I beg to move, in page 45, line 22, to leave out the words "any agricultural land or agricultural buildings," and to insert instead thereof the words "improvements created by labour in, on, or under the soil."

The Title of this Bill is "Local Government Bill," but everybody knows that the Bill has been described up and down the country as the De-rating Bill, and in this Clause 54 we come to the de-rating proposals of the Government. The whole question that we have to discuss in this Clause is what shall be de-rated, what are we to exempt from rates in order to increase production, benefit consumers, and increase employment. The Government have at last recognised that rates are an overhead charge on industry, that they add to the cost of production, that they increase prices, and that they reduce employment; and they have introduced this Clause 54 with a view to carrying out the economic truisms at the basis of their argument. When I see the method adopted by the Government for de-rating, the way in which they select certain trades and industries for the acknowledged benefit of de-rating and leave other industries, other forms of production, penalised as they are at the present time, I feel that the Government have not learned the elementary lessons of government, and that they are acting in a way to benefit those who make the loudest noise, and those who politically are their friends. The Labour party have approached this identical problem in a different, and, I cannot help thinking, in a sounder way. They introduced a Bill last year, the object of which was de-rating, but de-rating on sound lines. The Bill, which was based upon the resolutions carried at Liverpool, was to give to all local authorities the power, if they chose to exercise it, to de-rate all improvements, both industrial and distributive.

The Amendment which I called upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to move will have the effect of limiting relief to cultivated or grazed land.

I am not quite sure which Amendment you are talking about.

The third Amendment—in page 45, line 22, after the word "any" to insert the words "cultivated or grazed."

Why is the Amendment—in page 15, line 22, to leave out the words

"any agricultural land or agricultural buildings," and to insert instead thereof the words improvements created by labour in, on, or under the soil"—

ruled out?

Because it is without the scope of the Title.

I suppose that it would be in order to move the rejection of the Clause?

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman need not move the rejection of the Clause. I shall have to put it anyhow.

Surely I am justified in moving an Amendment which will relieve all industry, and not merely some industries?

The right hon. and gallant Member has not read the Clause. The Clause deals solely with agricultural land, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's first Amendment is not in order, because it seeks to relieve improvements which are not dealt with by the principal Act.

I had no idea that you had ruled out my first Amendment. I am afraid that I did not hear in the noise what was going on. The Amendment I wish to move is to leave out the words "any agricultural land or agricultural buildings" and to make the Clause read:

"No person shall, in respect of any period beginning on or after the appointed day, be liable to pay rates in respect of improvements created by labour in, on, or under the soil, or be deemed to be in occupation thereof for rating purposes."

The Title reads:

"To grant complete or partial relief from rates in the case of the hereditaments to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, applies."

Clause 54 is governed by that, and the effect of the right hon. and gallant-Gentleman's first Amendment will be to exempt certain other things from relief. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman now goes into the question of improvements, and an improvement is not a hereditament.

The whole point is that this is a Bill to relieve certain classes of improvements.

Improvements are not relieved, but hereditaments are.

But they are relieved of that portion of the rates due to the improvements upon the property. That is perfectly clear Three-quarters of the value of the hereditaments due to improvements is relieved of rates, and I am seeking by my Amendment to include among the hereditaments benefited, those hereditaments which are improved.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is really asking for something which did not come in last year's Act. The whole of this Clause relieves those hereditaments which were included in the last year's Act, and he cannot bring in the question of improvements.

I still do not understand the point, and I am sorry to press it. Are we debarred from discussing any question of giving relief to any hereditaments which are not at present in the Bill? For instance, are shops or empty houses—

Yes, that is the point. All that was decided in last year's Act; that cannot be raised. The question of the relief of hereditaments already set out can be raised.

The Act with which we dealt last year did not say a word about rating relief. It merely classifies certain hereditaments, and it has no operative effect. Surely a Bill which makes only a catalogue of hereditaments, and says nothing whatever about rating, cannot limit us?

The Act last year set out a catalogue with a view to certain kinds of hereditaments being set apart from the others and being dealt with in this Bill. I must go back to the words; of the Title, which are:

"To grant complete or partial relief from rates in the case of the hereditaments to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, applies."

I am not giving this decision on the spur of the moment. I have carefully thought about it. The Bill excludes any new relief.

Are we to understand from your ruling that we are not entitled to urge that empty houses, for instance, should not receive the benefit of this reduction in rates? Can we argue that shops or garages are not to receive the benefit?

Hon. Members can argue that the Clause does not go far enough, put they cannot move a specific Amendment dealing with hereditaments other than those set forth in last year's Act.

In that case, the only way of debating the point is on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I am anxious to keep within your Ruling, but, as the Bill only relieves a very small section of the community, are we not entitled to move that the principle be extended to all payers of local rates?

No, we are limited, as I said. I have no discretion in the matter. If the hon. Member reads the Title, he will see that this particular Amendment is out of order, though the next is in order.

I beg to move, in page 45, line 22, after the word "any" to insert the words "cultivated or grazed."

I must accept your Ruling, and I will deal with the matter later. The Clause, if this Amendment were made, would confine the relief to owners of agricultural land to that land which was cultivated or grazed, but it would not exempt from rates any land which was not being used in any way at the present time. Some lands are below the level of cultivation, and are not cultivated or grazed, but they are not the lands to which I want to draw attention, because in their case very little rates are paid at the present time. But I would point out that in the suburbs of our towns there are large areas of waste land, of land ripening for building purposes—often unfenced, and used as a receptacle for empty tins and dead cats. Such land is neither cultivated nor grazed. The value of that land, which is being retained for building purposes, is maintained and increased by the expenditure of the local authority on public services, but the owners of that land are, under this Bill, exempted from the payment of any rates whatever. To my mind, the owners of such land are those who should be specially asked to join the army of ratepayers and contribute towards the local expenditure. Not merely are they benefiting by the expenditure of the ratepayers' money, but so long as they keep that land ungrazed, untilled and, above all, unbuilt upon, they are keeping men in that town unemployed who otherwise could find work upon that land. The owners of such land seem to me to be dogs in the manger, and I would gladly exempt them from the benefits of this Clause.

Will the right hon. and gallant Member say what benefit they get from the Clause?

They get exemption from rates.

But they pay no rates now.

They pay no rates now. Why should not they pay rates now?

On a point of Order, I submit that if the owners of such land get no benefit under this Clause that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech is out of order.

I understand that the land the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking about is not agricultural land, and is not relieved under this Clause, and therefore his arguments on that point really cannot be pursued.

But the land is called agricultural land for the purposes of local rating and gets all the benefits that come to that land at the present time. We certainly think that the owners of such land should be the first contributors towards local taxation. It may be that this Amendment would apply to a very small area of land, but anyone who has studied this question will find that there is an enormously valuable area of land in all our large towns directly affected by this Clause.

Not by this Bill.

Within the boundaries of our municipalities there are hundreds of acres, thousands of acres, to which this Amendment applies. It is land which is let for some fractionally small figure, and therefore pays a small rate, but it is enormously valuable land, and the owners of it ought to contribute more to the local rates. I feel that here we have a stronger case even than in the case of the brewery companies, because these people are profiteering directly from the expenditure of the ratepayers' money and paying nothing towards that expenditure; and to give these people the benefit of this reduction and to excuse them legally, and not merely practically, from the payment of any rates, is a crime of which only a Tory Government would be capable.

The stringent Ruling which you have given with regard to the first Amendments to this Clause will prevent me from putting forward some of the points which I had originally intended to submit, but I wish to endorse every word which has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). If examples are wanted I will give one or two out of dozens which are within my own personal knowledge. In the City of Liverpool land was required for the erection of an electrical station. The land selected was neither grazed nor cultivated, but was still agricultural land. The rent of it would be about £3 per acre, and at 20 years' purchase the price of that land ought to have been about £60, but because the municipality required it for municipal purposes they had to pay at the rate of £23,000 per acre. I understood that this Bill was intended to relieve ratepayers, but in the City of Liverpool the ratepayers are being penalised to the extent of £22,000 or £23,000 for an improvement which is to benefit not only the City itself but the surrounding district. There is another case where a strip of land was required for the laying down of a tram line. That land was neither grazed nor cultivated. It was only a question of laying tram lines on a strip of grass land, a narrow strip which did not in total area exceed three quarters of an acre. The agricultural value of that land was the same as in the other case which I have quoted, but the authority had to pay £7,000 for that land.

It appears to me that the hon. Member is really discussing a suggested Amendment to the Land Clauses Act or the Acquisition of Land Act, and not the question of whether agricultural land which is neither grazed nor cultivated should be relieved. The hon. Member is discussing the question of the compensation to be paid to landowners.

On that point of Order. Is it not precisely the land which the hon. Member is now discussing which this Amendment proposes to exempt from relief, and is he not entitled to show that such land is at the present time fetching terrific prices when bought compulsorily by local authorities, and therefore not to be exempted?

I think the hon. Member may be able to get to that point; but I do not think he has done so yet.

I will endeavour to keep to your Ruling, but under it it is difficult to interpret the Amendment as, in my opinion, it ought to be interpreted. Open confession, they say, is good for the soul. I happen to be, in a sort of a small way, a landowner myself. It does not extend to three acres and a cow, but it is a bit of land.—[Interruption.] And I am not ashamed of it. It is neither grazed nor cultivated. Opposite my land is other land not grazed or cultivated, and of the same agricultural value, but it has risen in value to something like £2,600 per acre. If they come along to me and offer me that price for mine, I shall take it; but I would not begrudge paying 4s. in the £ on the increased value to the local taxes. With all due respect, I wish to say that your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, has narrowed my opportunities to say what I wanted to say. The land required in the immediate vicinity of a city like Liverpool is mostly agricultural land, and yet the inhabitants of Liverpool, whom this Bill professes to de-rate or relieve, have to find £7,000,000 every year for local rates which go mostly to increase the value of the land, and the owners of the land do not pay one penny towards the local expenditure of the city. I could give cases in which common land belonging to nobody at all except the people of the village and the town has been enclosed and taken over by landowners and has been sold back to the city at very high rates. You send to gaol the man who steals the goose from off the common, but you let the greater criminal go free who steals the common from the goose.

We cannot deal with matters of that sort under the title of this Bill. The hon. Member is now dealing with the value of land. The Amendment under discussion deals with the point whether the relief should be confined to "cultivated or grazed agricultural land" to the exclusion of woodland, etc. That is the whole point of the Amendment.

I find it extremely difficult to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Chairman. We are face to face with the fact that in consequence of the increased value of land created by the industry of the whole community we have to pay £350 for a square foot of land in Liverpool. The people of Liverpool who pay £7,000,000 a year in rates have had to pay that price for land, and all that money escapes local rating. A rate of 4s. in the £ upon the money paid for land in Liverpool would lift the whole of the burden of the local rates from the shoulders of the people of Liverpool.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who moved this Amendment, is so obsessed by his ideas about the taxation of unoccupied land that he loses no opportunity of talking about that subject in the House, no matter whether that particular subject is really relevant or not. On this occasion, that subject does not happen to be relevant, and I desire to explain to the Committee why that is so. I think that fact is agreed and is admitted even by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. It has already been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) that land which is unoccupied is not rated as long as it is unoccupied, and now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme says:"Here you are making legal what is now merely only a practice, and you are exempting this particular class from rating. "The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement was that under this Clause we are exempting legally from rating land which is unoccupied. May I say that he is mistaken in that assumption, and he cannot have looked up what agricultural land means as used in this particular case. This Bill has to be read together with the Eating and Valuation Act of 1925 and the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of 1928. In the latter Act, there is a definition of agricultural land. The actual words are:

"'Agricultural land' means any land used as arable meadow or pasture ground only, land used for a plantation or a wood."

Therefore, in order to be agricultural land within the meaning of this Clause the land must be used for agricultural purposes, and, when it is not so used and is in fact unoccupied, it is no longer agricultural land, and does not come under this Clause.

Is it liable to be rated?

That is an entirely different point. It is not rated now if it is unoccupied. It may come back into the valuation list if occupied for some other purpose, and it would then be rated. The purpose of this Amendment is not to bring in for derating something which is not now derated, but to limit it to land used as agricultural land, and that is done already.

The right hon. Gentleman accepts the exemption which has gone on up to now and allows it to go on, but he makes no effort to distinguish between agricultural land and land which is not being used.

I referred to land required for the building of houses.

Land which is being used for the building of houses is not agricultural land, and does not come under this Clause. We are now dealing with the de-rating of agricultural land, and it is not the case that this Clause makes any difference with regard to unoccupied land which is not agricultural land. The only effect of accepting this Amendment would be to leave unoccupied land exactly where it is, and it would not be affected in any way. All the Amendment would do would be to limit the relief to agricultural land which is cultivated or grazed. The only difference between that and the definition in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of 1928 is that that definition includes woodland, and the one single practical effect of the Amendment would be that we should exclude the de-rating of woodlands.

I wish to ask the Minister a question in view of the definition that he has given. In the past, as he is aware, cemeteries have been classified as agricultural land for the purpose of assessment, and whether it is desirable or not to permit the rich cemetery companies of London to escape rating, does the right hon. Gentleman opposite consider a cemetery as being cultivated land?

Here we are dealing with the words of the Bill, and of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of last year, and any derating that takes place in consequence of those two Measures can only take place in accordance with those two Measures. The definition of "agricultural land" in the Act of last year does not include cemeteries.

May I ask whether it is not a fact that, further than that, an attempt to include cemeteries under that definition was expressly excluded by this House?

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether land which is exclusively used for sporting purposes is exempt under the Bill or not? I believe that there are large quantities of land in various parts of the country from which even sheep have been excluded. Is that land excluded? I understand that this Amendment would exclude from the benefit of the Act land used exclusively for shooting?

This Clause says that agricultural land shall be de-rated, and so forth. There is no definition of "agricultural land" in this Bill and there is no reference to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act in this Clause in that respect.

Clause 67.

It says:

"The 'principal Act' has the same meaning."

It does not deal with the definition of the word "agriculture." This is to be construed with the Rating and Valuation Act. Yes, but construing with the Rating and Valuation Act does not import into this Measure all that it means. To make the thing watertight, I submit that you want a reference to the definition in the Measure.

When it says that one Act is to be construed with another, it means that we are referring in this Measure to an Act where there is a definition.

There is a phrase in this Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman appears to have skipped somewhat. He took the words from the Act of last year when he said that "agricultural land" means any land used as arable, meadow or pasture, etc., or as a plantation. A plantation may be a pheasant cover or a cover for foxes, or it may be anything which is certainly not agricultural land. I gather—it may be wrongly—that the Government have set out in this De-rating Bill, in so far as it applies to agricultural land, to relieve from rates the farming community, on the supposition that it was going to make for the cheapening of the products of the farmer and, secondly, foodstuffs; but if wrapped in that laudable intention is the release from taxation of plantations which are used for the cover of something to be shot at in the name of sport, then it is going much further than the public are told from the Front Bench or from any other Government exponent of the Measure. If the Government were really desirous only of exempting from rating agricultural land which produces food, or something to wear or of use to the community, then they would be certainly willing to make what is now designated as agricultural land, but which is really a plantation for sporting purposes, pay its quota towards the upkeep of the nation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not be prepared to accept an Amendment which in no way infringes on the stated desires of the Government and yet remedies an injustice? It is all very well to say that these people are already exempted. I do not think it is at all an argument that because a thief has been getting away with some of the nation's property for so long, the nation has no right to bring him to boot. That is a very poor argument, and if in the course of this Bill an Amendment is brought forward which may impinge on some interest of sporting rights, and so forth, this Committee; ought to take notice of it, especially when it cannot be said to impinge on the desire of the Government in their Bill.

After what has just been said by the hon. Member opposite, I would point out that this Bill is a Derating Bill and not a Rating Bill, and if he wishes to bring in fresh hereditaments to be rated, he must bring them in in some other Bill, and not this one. That is the short answer. As to the other point he made about sporting rights, those rights are not dealt with. Those who indulge in that kind of sport will have to pay the same rates that they have paid hitherto. In fact, I go further, and I believe I am right in this, that the only woodlands exempted are not woodlands used for purposes of amenity or sport at all, but only those woodlands which are used for the sale of underwood. In the county of Sussex there are farms with small woods where, in the course of husbandry, the wood is cut and sold for firewood or other purposes. It is those that are exempted, and woods for amenity are not dealt with at all.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to assist me in this, may I suggest to him, in all courtesy, that he knows as well as I do that in certain of these covers which are now coming within this category there is certainly timber taken from them, but their only purpose, in fact, is for the preservation of game?

If those woods are let to a tenant for sporting rights they become rateable as sporting rights, but if the occupier of land uses his own land as a farm and also for shooting purposes, those sporting rights are not rateable now. This Bill makes no alteration whatever in the incidence of rates on such sporting rights.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.