House Of Commons
Monday, 24th November, 1930.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Oral Answers To Questions
Trade And Commerce
India
1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a copy of the resolution recently passed by the India section of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in connection with the guarding of the mutual trade between Great Britain and India against suppression and injury; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in respect of such resolution?
I have received the resolution. As to the second part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister last Tuesday to the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst).
I have read that answer, but will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence at the Conference in the direction of helping the Lancashire cotton industry?
The Conference is intended to promote good will between this country and India, and this is the best way of helping trade.
Antwerp Exhibition (British Section)
20.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any statement to make to the House regarding the results achieved by the British section of the Antwerp Exhibition?
The British section of the International Colonial and Maritime Exhibition, which closed at Antwerp on the 4th November, achieved an unqualified success. Tributes to the splendid impression created by the British exhibit have been received from Belgians of all ranks. The total attendance at the Exhibition is reported to have been more than 10,000,000 persons, of which approximately 7,000,090 are stated to have passed through the British pavilion. British commercial exhibitors in the pavilion have reported almost unanimously their satisfaction with the results of their participation, which in many cases far exceeded their expectations.
To what use is the British pavilion being put after the Exhibition is closed?
I understand that it is being pulled down.
Development Of Overseas Trade Council
21.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what steps are being taken to make known the conclusions arrived at and the information obtained by the Development of Overseas Trade Council to the manufacturers and trading community?
The decisions of the Development Council are communicated to the public either by means of statements on the Floor of the House or through the Press. On the return of trade missions initiated by the Council, reports will be published as soon as possible. Arrangements are also being made for the communication to the manufacturers and traders concerned of the information collected. For example, it has been arranged that Lord Kirkley and his colleagues on the Government Trade Mission to South Africa which has just returned, shall address meetings of business men in Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle, and shall also meet several of the leading trade associations.
Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the valuable information collected by the Council and the conclusions to which they arrive are put at the disposal of everyone concerned?
We are constantly considering that matter, and are trying to find means by which it is possible to make them available to the public and the Press.
Are the information and the conclusions reached by the Council circulated to the firms whose names are on the special list?
I cannot say definitely without notice whether this information is, but I have no doubt that that is the object of the circular, and that the information available will be given to them.
South-West Africa
22.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the value of the imports of the mandated territory of South-West Africa from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany, respectively, in the years 1928 and 1929; and if he will indicate any special measures adopted by His Majesty's Government to extend the trade of Great Britain in that territory?
As the reply, which in-eludes a number of figures, is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's consent, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Is it not a fact that the German trade is constantly on the increase, and what steps are the Department taking to secure that our trade gets fair play?
When the hon. Member gets the answer, he will see what we are doing. We constantly have the point before us.
Russia
23.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether British firms are permitted to display poster and newspaper advertisements for British products in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics; and, if not, what means they are allowed to adopt to make their products known to the Russian people?
Poster, newspaper and other advertisements are accepted in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics from foreign firms by a special State Bureau, in which such business is centralised.
Having regard to the fact that no advertisements of British companies are allowed in Soviet Russia, does not the hon. Gentleman think it desirable to say that we cannot go on allowing Russian oil products to be sold here[Interruption.)
24.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is yet in a position to inform the House what are the exceptional cases in which British firms may by special permission sell direct to wholesalers and retailers in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?
As the answer to the question asked by the, hon. Member is rather long, I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the answer which he gave last week was authoritative or not?
I have no doubt that it was.
26.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if the Cuban sugar bought by the Soviet Government and brought here to be refined is guaranteed in full under the exports credit scheme or whether the refining charges only are guaranteed?
The guarantees given under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme in connection with the export of sugar to Russia covered a proportion of the bills of exchange drawn in respect of the full cost of the shipments.
That is to say, that the sugar is bought by Russia in Cuba, and that our credit was used to guarantee the payment for it?
The guarantees were given on a transaction which covers the cost of the purchase of the sugar as well as the expenditure of refining it.
Is it not a fact that some of the sugar so bought has now been sent hack to England to be sold again against our own products?
I do not think that that is so; I think that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed.
Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement on this very point which was made by the Prime Minister on the 4th November?
Will the hon. Gentleman consider the effect of this guarantee on our own sugar manufacturers?
Was not the object of this transaction to withdraw from the sugar pool a large quantity of sugar, and were not the producers of sugar thereby benefited?
The object of the transaction was to give work to British refiners.
British Cotton Goods (Nyasaland)
43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet investigated the reasons for the fall of the proportion of United Kingdom cotton goods entering Nyasaland to about one-third of what it was five years ago and the reasons why the importations of similar foreign cotton goods have doubled in that period; and if he will examine the Congo Basin treaties to ascertain whether they operate to the disadvantage of United Kingdom goods?
The decline in the exports of United Kingdom cotton piece goods to Nyasaland and other British territories in East Africa has for some years received the close attention of the Department of Overseas Trade, which has furnished special reports on the subject to the cotton industry in this country, but there do not appear to be any special reasons for this decline other than those which have, unfortunately, led to reductions in such exports to many other destinations. As regards the second part of the question, I think there is a fairly wide consensus of opinion that en balance the Congo Basin Convention is of advantage to the trade of this country.
Is it not the case that the principal competitor is Japan, and that the wages paid there are less than half what they are in this country?
India
Cinematograph Films
2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether be will state, from the information in his possession, the number of films that have been prohibited from exhibition in India for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; whether he has any knowledge of any alterations that have taken place in the regulations for the exhibition of films during the same period; and can he give particulars to the House?
According to the information in my possession, the exhibition of 25 films was prohibited during the 12 months ending on the 30th September last. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
How many of those are British films?
My hon. Friend has a question on that point later in the week.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether any modifications have been made in the regulations since the introduction of the "talkies"?
I have answered that question already. Arai DIS.
Afridis
3.
asked the Secretary of State for India what has been the result of the discussion in jirga with the Afridis; and whether he proposes to take any further measures for the protection of the frontier in. consequence?
The jirga did not succeed in finding any acceptable alternative to the protective measures decided on by Government which are already being taken and were described in the communique published on lath October.
Are the Government of India in favour of the policy of masterly inactivity which he is maintaining?
The policy pursued is the policy of His Majesty's Government.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not apprehensive that these half-hearted measures will cause grave disaster?
4.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make any statement as to the present situation in India?
I am circulating a statement giving the Government of India's appreciation of the situation to date.
Following is the statement:
Appreciation of the situation by the Government of India up to 22nd November, 1930.
Reports from Provinces for the first half of November show that the tendencies noticeable during the past two months still continue.
Madras continues to be quiet, and the release of prisoners has so far had no effect on the situation. In fact, very few have attempted to resume their activities.
In Bihar and Orissa improvement continues, and is reflected in the comparatively small number of convictions. There were, however, several cases of violence during the fortnight. Picketing has decreased in intensity, and persons arrested in connection with the civil disobedience movement are showing less obduracy.
The Bengal Government has little to report. The general improvement has now extended to the few districts in which conditions gave some cause for anxiety, and in Midnapore, which for some time has been a source of trouble, a sign of improving conditions is the return to duty of numerous village watchmen who had resigned.
In the United Provinces agitation in the towns is on the decline, and, except for occasional demonstrations, there is little activity, but efforts are being made by Congress emissaries to influence the rural areas, and advantage is being taken of the low prices of agricultural produce to incite tenants not to pay their rents. In this Province the number of persons released, on undertakings not to resume their activities, is more than 20 per cent. of the total number of convictions.
In Assam there has been definite improvement, and picketing appears to have practically stopped for the time being.
Delhi also reports that picketing is now less organised and effective than it was, the number of Congress meetings has declined, and this is true of most Provinces.
The fortnightly reports of most Provinces mention, as a result of the lapse of Press Ordinance, the revival, in certain sections of the Press, of organised encouragement of the civil disobedience movement and persistent misrepresentations and abuse of Government.
In Bombay, the past week has been comparatively free of incident.
Bombay City has been quiet, and in Gujarat the situation gives less cause for anxiety and the movement is less widespread, but, while there has been a general decline in active enthusiasm, this has been replaced in some areas by an attitude of passive resistance in which depression has replaced hope of success. The methods employed, are, with occasional exceptions, non-violent, but thoroughly obstructive. Disgraceful scenes of rowdyism are reported from Karachi but details are lacking.
The celebration of Jawahar Day was held in many parts of the country. The demonstrations were on a comparatively small scale.
Developments at the Round Table Conference are being watched with the keenest interest by newspapers of all persuasions, the publication of the Government of India's Despatch being followed by a more intensive discussion of the proposals lying before the Conference than has hitherto occurred. Indian Press opinion is dissatisfied with the Government of India's proposals. Some Liberal newspapers consider that the Despatch is an advance upon the Simon Report, especially in its appreciation of political tendencies and nationalist aspirations, but they regard the advance proposed as inadequate, and the general tendency is to criticise the proposals relating to the centre and to safeguards. The attempts now proceeding in London to reach a settlement on communal issues are naturally followed with close interest. The developments in regard to federation have so far attracted less attention than might have been expected, but they have already stimulated constructive thought and will it is hoped divert attention to an increasing degree from purely destructive criticism. Generally, there are indications of wider appreciation of the importance of the Conference and of increasing hopefulness of a successful issue.
Railway Service (Sick Leave)
5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a recent action of the Railway Board in India by imposing a condition of the production of a medical certificate for absence from duty on account of scikness even for a period of only one day; and what action he proposes to take in the matter
I have no information. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the Railway Board.
Prisoners
6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is his intention to review any cases of political prisoners in India, particularly those of women and young people, who have not been guilty of acts of violence?
I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend last Monday.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that cases of technical and minor offences might be reviewed with advantage at the present time?
Congress Party
7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will state such information as he possesses with regard to the declared intention of the Congress party to set up independent civil and criminal courts, and of any attempt, successful or otherwise, to convene such courts?
There have been attempts, for instance in Gujerat in Bombay and Tipperah in Bengal, to set up arbitration courts but not with any particular success.
Have they in fact met?
I cannot say. The hon. Gentleman asked me for all the information I had, and I have given him all that I have.
I have already asked the question if they have met, so will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and find out whether they have met?
I will consider that point.
Is it contrary to law for private persons to resort to arbitration?
I have answered that question.
Russia
Propaganda
8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a recent issue of "Pravda," an official Soviet organ, containing the statement that amongst the recent successes of the Soviet Government has been a peasant poll-tax revolt in Nigeria., native demonstrations in the Sudan, railway strikes in the Transvaal, peasant disorders in Kenya, and two risings in Samoa; and whether he is taking action having regard to the terms of the Treaty with Soviet Russia?
The right hon. Gentleman appears to have misunderstood or mistranslated the article referred to in the question. This article, which appeared on the 7th of November, mentioned the various events referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as items of news. The article, however, so far as we are able to discover, contained no reference whatever either to the Soviet Government or to its recent successes.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this is a very unfriendly way of treating a country with which they are in Treaty relations, and is it not subjecting this country to still another humiliation?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Government have this morning announced that they are going to take the very steps which we are urging him to take?
17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any complaints that British anti-Bolshevist propaganda is being carried on in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics; and whether any such propaganda is, to his knowledge, being carried on?
No complaints of the nature suggested by the hon. Member have been received.
Will the right hon. Gentleman devote his attention to the allegations which have appeared in the Soviet Press that this Government is carrying on propaganda in that country?
I am afraid I have something else to do than be running after such statements.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bulk of the Press in Russia is official, and that it is his duty to look after it?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these accusations were made against the Lena Goldfields Company and that that was the ground for turning them out of Russia?
Has the right hon. Gentleman knowledge that propaganda of this kind is being carried on?
I can add nothing to what I have already said, in view of questions already on the Order paper.
Dumping
9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ask the British Ambassador to make inquiries concerning certain decrees of the Soviet Government giving detailed instructions for the manufacture and dumping of a large number of commodities?
On a point of Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I should like to ask you, Sir, whether you yourself are satisfied that the serious allegations contained in the question can be substantiated?
It is not for me to decide whether statements in questions can be substantiated.
Is there not a Regulation—Regulation No.2—governing questions, that the questioner makes himself responsible for the accuracy of his statements?
That is quite another matter.
I have already asked His Majesty's Ambassador for a report on this matter.
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, so far as decrees in relation to which he gets information from our Ambassador are concerned, to make such information available to this House?
Had not the right hon. Gentleman better await the report of the inquiries?
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give information in connection with the question I asked him last week?
I am not going to give information until I have seen the report myself.
On a point of Order. May I put down a question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs asking if he will ask the British Ambassadors to make inquiries from Germany and other countries—
The hon. Member had better hand his question in at the Table.
Conspiracy Charge
15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the indictment by the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics of a number of specialists and professors on a charge of conspiracy with the British general staff against the Government of the Soviets; and whether he has made any representations to the Soviet Ambassador or otherwise with a view to dissociating the British Government or any of its staff and officers from any participation in the alleged conspiracy?
In reply to a similar question last Wednesday, I requested the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd) to repeat the question on Wednesday next, when I hope to give a considered reply.
Russian Oil Products, Limited (Directors)
61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the conditions made in relation to the permission afforded Mr. Terakopoff and Dr. Rabinovitch to reside in this country; and whether he has recently received any application far permission to reside in this country on behalf of any persons who have just been appointed directors of the Russian Oil Products, Limited?
Dr. Rabinovitch has been resident in this country since August, 1914, and his stay is not subject to any special conditions. Mr. Terakopoff was given leave to land for three months in March, 1924, and the condition has been varied from time to time. He is at present subject to a condition requiring him to leave the United Kingdom not later than 20th June, 1931. Applications for visas for two persons coming to join the board of Russian Oil Products, Limited, have recently been received.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary received any application from either of the two gentlemen mentioned in the first part of this question to remain longer in this country, or to have the conditions varied, inasmuch as they were ordered to go back to Russia and did not want to return there?
I should require notice of that question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put it down on the Paper.
Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no more new permits issued for people to take the places of these gentlemen?
French Foreign Legion (British Subjects)
10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any applications during the previous 12 months asking for his intervention to further the release of legionaries of British nationality serving with the French Government; and whether he has taken any action in the matter?
During the past 12 months I have received three applications for assistance in securing the release of British subjects from the French Foreign Legion. In the case of two of these men I addressed appeals to the French Government, who have undertaken to give them careful consideration. In the third case, there were no grounds on which I felt able to take action.
Can my right hon. Friend say when he hopes to get a reply to these two requests?
That rests with the French Government.
Do these people not have to take an oath before a British magistrate, and, if so, would it not be well to inform the magistrates that they should deal very carefully with these people?
I do not think that arises on this question.
Venezuela
11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if be has received information of internal trouble in Venezuela; and if adequate measures will be taken for the security of British interests in that country?
No, Sir. My latest information from His Majesty s Minister at Caracas is that the situation in Venezuela appears to be entirely normal. No special measures to protect British interests in that country are, therefore, proposed.
League Of Nations
Slavery
12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is yet in a position to state what action His Majesty's Government will take on the resolution of the Eleventh Assembly of the League of Nations on slavery; and if he has yet been able to take any steps to obtain the co-operation of nations who do not belong to the League of Nations in this matter?
In reply to the first. part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me on the 5th of November to the hon. Member for Birkenhead East (Mr. Graham White). In reply to the second part, in the event of any international conference being summoned, or any permanent commission being set up, to deal with this question, the League of Nations would no doubt consider the desirability of inviting non-member States to participate.
While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the second part of his reply, will he be very particular to see that, if such an occasion arises, the products of slave labour will be excluded from the countries that signed the Pact—like Russia?
I do not think that question arises in this connection.
Covenant (Amendments)
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay a full report on the proceedings of the last Assembly of the League of Nations and its committees in regard to the proposals made for harmonising the Covenant and the Pact of Paris, showing in each case the attitude taken by His Majesty's Government to the suggested changes?
Yes, Sir. I am prepared to lay a White Paper dealing with the proposed amendments of the Covenant a the League and the attitude in relation thereto both of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and of the other Governments represented at the Imperial Conference.
Mexico (British Investors)
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct His Majesty's Minister in Mexico to request the Mexican Government to ratify the agreement made on 25th July last between the committee of bankers and the Mexican Minister of Finance for the liquidation of the Mexican Government debt; and will he request His Majesty's Minister to inform the Mexican Government that His Majesty's Government regards with concern the treatment which £200,000,000 of British savings has received in Mexico during the past 16 years?
As the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) was informed on Monday last, this agreement has been signed by the Mexican Government, and will, I understand, be brought in due course before Congress for ratification. For the moment, therefore, no further representations seem to be called for. As regards the second part of the question, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that His Majesty's Minister at Mexico City has lost, and will lose, no opportunity of impressing upon the Mexican Government the desirability of arriving at a settlement of Mexico's outstanding obligations to British subjects and companies.
Film "Hell's Angels"
18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what answer he has returned to the German Government with reference to the protest made against the exhibition of the film in London entitled "Hell's Angels"?
No protest against the exhibition of this film in London has been received from the German Government.
Chemical Warfare
19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the gas protocol outlawing the use of poison gas in war, which has been ratified by 27 States and signed by 19 others, does not prohibit the use of tear-gas, smoke-screens and high-explosive gas-shells, steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to secure their prohibition?
My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Tear-gases and shells producing poisonous fumes are prohibited under the Geneva Protocol. Smoke-screens, on the other hand, in so far as they do not contain poisonous elements, are not within the scope of the Protocol.
Agriculture
Smallholdings
26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give figures showing the principal reasons assigned by men who have given up smallholdings since 1920?
I regret I have no detailed information giving the particulars desired by the hon. Member.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman find out what proportion of the figures of failures and of people who gave up, which he gave last week, was due to economic or and what proportion to other reasons? Would it not be a simple question?
It would be a simple question, but it would mean going into the details of individual cases for a large number of years, and it would be difficult to ascertain.
If we are to spend vast sums of money on developing these holdings, surely it would be right to know why some have not succeeded—[Interruption.]
33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that Mr. A. F. Carnell, an ex-service man, of Clacton-on-Sea, having occupied a smallholding for seven years and secured fourth prize in all Essex in the smallholders' competition, has made application to be allowed to purchase his holding, and that on the recommendation of the Smallholdings and Allotments Subcommittee of the Essex County Council his application has been refused by the Ministry of Agriculture on the ground that such a purchase would be contrary to good estate management; and whether he will take steps to see that this decision is immediately reversed?
I understand that the facts are not quite as stated in the question. The Essex County Council have applied for my consent to their refusal of Mr. Carnell's application to purchase his holding. The matter is still before me, and I will cause full inquiry to be made and will consider all the relevant facts before coming to decision.
Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that Mr. Carnell considers that a ruling has been given by the Ministry of Agriculture that he is not to be allowed to purchase this farm, and will he have official notice given to him that such is not the case?
I think the statement I have made will show that Mr. Carnell is mistaken.
National Mark (Beef And Wheat Flour)
27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to make a statement on the progress of the National Mark Scheme for the grading and marking of beef at Birmingham.?
Not will standing the opposition to the National Mark Beef Scheme which still exists among certain sections of the trade in Birmingham, the number of sides graded and marked has mounted rapidly during the last 10 weeks and the ground lost when local difficulties first arose has been more than recovered. This reflects a growing and insistent public demand for National Mark beef, and I am hopeful that the wholesale salesmen will recognise that it justifies a reconsideration of their attitude, which causes extra expense and serious inconvenience to many retail butchers in the city, as well as adding to the cost of the scheme to public funds.
Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to extend this scheme to any other centres in Great Britain?
Yes, we are now considering extending it to another city.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what he attributes the increase, and whether the scheme is still opposed by the trade in Birmingham?
It is now opposed by only a section. The success is undoubtedly due to the public appreciation of the beef that is marked.
Does the opposition include opposition from the War Office to the National Mark Scheme?
No.
35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has evidence of a demand among farmers for National Mark all-English wheat flour; and what action, if any, he is taking to encourage and stimulate the demand?
My Department has had the assistance of the National Farmers' Union in commending the National Mark All-English Flour Scheme to the notice of farmers and of agricultural consumers generally. Reports from millers in most agricultural areas indicate, however, that the demand for National Mark flour has been disappointing, even in those areas where the wheat is grown, although many country millers have made energetic efforts to promote sales. In the circumstances, I am arranging, by means of further publicity, particularly in the East of England, to bring prominently before the agricultural community the opportunity which the National Mark Wheat Flour Scheme provides for giving effective preference in their own households to home agricultural produce.
Potato Industry
28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the price at which potatoes have been sold to Spain from the Lincolnshire districts in 1927. 1928. 1929, and 1930?
I regret the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available.
Education And Training (Women)
32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether women are to share in any special facilities for training provided by the Ministry at demonstration centres or elsewhere under the new Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill; and whether instruction in rural domestic economy is to be incorporated in the existing services for agricultural education, in order to meet the needs of the women members on the new family farms and holdings?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative if the women to whom the Noble Lady refers are desirous of obtaining small holdings and are otherwise suitable as tenants. I will consider the question of special facilities for training the wives and daughters of prospective smallholders. In reply to the second part of the question, I may explain that courses in rural domestic economy are already recognised by the Ministry of Agriculture as eligible for aid under its Regulations, and 1 have no reason to doubt that where there is a local demand for this kind of instruction the Local Authority concerned will take steps to provide it.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many cases grants have already been made to this Fund?
I will gladly do so if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice.
Government Policy
34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the proposals of His Majesty's Government for assisting the cereal producers of this country will be introduced?
I am unable at present to add anything to the reply which I gave on Monday last to questions on this subject by the hon and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), and the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer).
If I put down another question next week is it likely that there will be a statement by the Government as to any reciprocal arrangements stating whether the Government are going to help in this matter?
I cannot promise. I am afraid that next week I shall only be able to give the same reply.
Imported Produce
36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the effect of dumping on agriculure, horticulture, and fruit-growing in this country, he can state what products are dumped, or have been dumped, within the last 12 months; and whether, if he does not possess the information, he will institute an inquiry to obtain it with the object of ensuring adequate protection to the producing interests concerned?
If the hon. Member will let me know explicitly what he understands by dumping, I will see whether it is possible to supply him with the information required.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether dumping is regarded in this country as the sending into this country of goods produced at wages which would not be tolerated here?
Unemployment
Agricultural 'Workers
29. Captain
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of agricultural workers who are at present unemployed?
I regret that statistics are not available showing the number of agricultural workers at present unemployed.
Will not the right hon. Gentleman find out these figures before he proceeds with the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill?
I do not think that they have any relation to it at all.
Government Establishments (Industrial Workers)
44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of a High Court decision that certain stokers in the employ of His Majesty's Office of Works and other Government establishments and other classes of workers in Government employ are not insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, although in many cases these workers are interchangeable with others deemed insurable, she proposes to take steps to remedy the situation?
This decision cannot be altered without legislation, and my right hon. Friend cannot undertake at present to introduce legislation on the subject.
Royal Commission
47.
asked he Prime Minister whether he can now state the terms of reference to the Royal Corn-mission on Unemployment Insurance, and state the names of those serving upon it?
Not just yet.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when it will be possible to make a statement?
I cannot say, but we are hurrying things along as quickly as possible.
Hospital Porters
49.
asked the Minister of Labour on what basis under the Unemployment Insurance Acts are the duties of porters at hospitals differentiated so that a porter, classified as attendant, in the X-ray department of St. Thomas's Hospital, London, is insurable, while a porter in the general building in the same hospital is non-insurable?
I have not been able on the information given in the question to trace rulings to the effect suggested, but if my hon. and gallant friend will let me have the names of the employés to whom he refers, I will have inquiries made and try to give him the information he desires.
Housing (Rural Areas)
30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is his intention to invite representatives of the Liberal party to serve on the committee which he is appointing to inquire into the conditions of rural housing?
No, Sir. When appointing the committee to inquire into the conditions of occupation of agricultural cottages, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, and I did not think it desirable to give representation to political parties as such, but to select members on the ground of their experience.
Royal Parks (Speed Limit Notices)
37.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider some means of lighting the speed-limit notices now posted up at the entrances to the Royal parks so as to ensure adequate visibility at night?
The boards at present erected are experimental and, where it is proved to be necessary, will be replaced by notices in reflecting material, or illuminated signs.
Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the fact that many of these notice boards are on lamp posts and that, as the light is diffused horizontally instead of vertically, there are no means of seeing the board under the lamp at night?
If the hon. and gallant Member will speak to me afterwards and tell me where the notices are of which he complains, I will have the matter looked into.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by "experimented"? Does he mean that it is an experiment whether the speed limit is to be maintained or not?
So far as I am concerned, the speed limit is going to be kept, and may be reduced.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many of the Royal Parks there is no notice about speed limits?
Regent's Park (Dogs)
38.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider revising the regulation which enforces dogs being kept on the lead in certain areas in Regent's Park?
I have given this matter careful consideration, but I am afraid that I cannot see my way to relax the rule, which is designed for the protection of the flower beds.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are no flowers or plants in the parks at the moment which can possibly be harmed by any animal? Why not let the dogs have a free run for their money during the six winter months?
Government Departments
British Embassy, Rio De Janeiro
39.
asked the, First Commissioner of Works the date upon which it was decided to purchase a site for the proposed new Embassy at Rio de Janeiro; the date upon which the purchase was made; the date upon which, the Brazilian Government offered to present a site; the reason why the gift of the site had not been either accepted' or rejected as at 18th November, 1930; and whether he will invite a committee of three Members of Parliament to examine the position with a view to the termination of the deadlock?
The purchase of a site was approved by Parliament on the 23rd February, 1928. The purchase was completed on 21st March, 1928. An intimation was received on the 6th March last that the Municipality of Rio were in a position to offer on lease site in the proposed new Embassy quarter. No definite information is yet available as regards the terms and conditions on which the site can be leased, nor is anything definite known as regards the dates when the town planning scheme will be started or completed. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that before an Embassy can be built, not only must roads, drains, water, etc., be available, but the Department must be satisfied that the future development of the district will proceed' on satisfactory lines. As the town planning scheme is still in an immature stage I do not think that any useful purpose will be served by the appointment of a committee as suggested.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Lord D'Abernon was in Brazil with the British mission only a few months ago he inspected the site and gave a definite opinion upon it to the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
That is very likely, but the facts are as I have stated, and it is facts and not opinions which have to, be acted upon.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these very facts—which I do not dispute—were investi- gated by Lord D'Abernon at the request of his own Department and an opinion given on them to his Department?
I cannot help what Lord D'Abernon's opinion is. The opinion of the Department, which is responsible for carrying through the undertaking, is as I have stated.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the authorities in Rio with a view to bringing this deadlock to an end?
If the hon. and -gallant Gentleman will take the opportunity of meeting me either here or across the way at the Department, I will show him the whole of the correspondence from which he will be convinced that we are doing everything possible.
Buildings, Whitehall (Reconstruction)
40.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the reconstruction at Whitehall will involve provision for an increased number of civil servants; and for how many persons accommodation will be provided?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, I anticipate that it will be possible to provide accommodation in the new building for approximately 7,500 persons.
Is it still intended to proceed with this heavy expenditure?
I think you had better wait and see.
Oh!
Land Registration Department
41
asked the Attorney-General whether he will state the numbers, grades, and duties of the staff administering the Land Registration Act, 1925, as at 18th November, 1930?
I have been asked to reply. The number at the date mentioned was 482, particulars of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following are the particulars;
The staff administering the Land Registration Act, 1925, as at nth November, 1930, amounted to 482 made up as follows:
| Legal Staff | 23 |
| Clerical Staff | 176 |
| Typing Staff | 100 |
| Technical Mapping Staff | 95 |
| Paper Keeping and Messenger Staff | 84 |
| Industrial Staff | 4 |
| Total | 482 |
The Chief Land Registrar and his clerical staff and such legal and technical officers as may be required from time to time are also engaged on the work of the Land Charges Department, the Middlesex Deeds Department and the Agricultural Credits Department of His Majesty's Land Registry.
42.
asked the Attorney-General what reason has been assigned for the fact that in 696 cases during the past 12 months the period of 14 days required for the first registration and advertisement of applications in non-compulsory areas under the Land Registration Act and rules has been exceeded; and will he cause an examination to be made into the working of the Department, with the object of eliminating delay in delivery of final documents to the public?
There are two main reasons for such delay:
Board Of Agriculture
31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the augmentation of staff necessitated by the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, arrangements will be made for the inclusion of an adequate proportion of women on the administrative arid technical staff and on any machinery which the Minister may set up for the purpose of carrying out the proposals in the Bill?
I fully appreciate the importance of the part which women must play in the success of the various projects embodied in the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, and I can assure the Noble Lady that the desirability of allocating an adequate place to women in the staff and organisation which it will be necessary to bring into existence for carrying out the provisions of the Bill will not be overlooked.
Electoral Law
45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to state when the Government is likely to proceed with any measure of electoral reform?
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 10th November in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny).
May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that he will not depart from his usual policy of complete muddle?
Offensive!
National And Tate Galleries
46. The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of
To ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider adding to the Bill to enable the trustees of the National Gallery to lend their pictures a clause to empower the trustees to sell such pictures and drawings now stored at the National Gallery as may be declared to be only of slight interest and not usually exhibited, and to use the proceeds of sale for the purchase of other works of art of greater interest and suitable for permanent exhibition.
May I be allowed to make a small correction in the terms of this question, and after the words "National Gallery" add the words "and Tate Gallery."
The effect of the hon. Member's proposal might not be advantageous, and, in any event, it will not be possible to deal with it in the forthcoming Bill about loans of pictures overseas.
Solicitors (Fraudulent Conversion)
48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the losses caused by the frauds of solicitors convicted in the criminal courts, he will give facilities for an agreed Bill, based upon an amalgamation of the two Bills recently introduced by private Members into the House, for the purpose of protecting the public against losses arising from frauds by solicitors convicted in the criminal courts?
I believe that the position as regards an agreed Bill is still as indicated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Louth on 17th July last. In any ease, I regret that, at this stage of the Session, I cannot undertake to give facilities for any Private Member's Bill.
Fabric Glove Industry (Wages)
50.
asked the Minister of Labour if she can state the amount paid in wages to workers in the fabric glove industry during the months of October, 1929, and October, 1930, respectively?
I regret that the figures desired are not available.
Could the hon. Gentleman give any indication of the state of affairs in this industry as regards wages?
I can only repeat that the figures are not available.
Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge as to the wages paid to the individual workers—sweated wages?
Washington Hours Conven Tion
53.
asked the Minister of Labour which of the countries that have unconditionally ratified the Washington Hours Convention of 1919 have already actually passed legislation to carry out the proposals therein contained?
I would refer the hon. Member to the second part of the reply given on 21st November to the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Sir R. Aske).
Poor Law (Old Age Pensioners)
54.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state what action he proposes to take with regard to the resolution he has received from the Chester, Walsall, and other old age pensions committees in regard to deductions made from old age pensioners in Poor Law institutions?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 13th November to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) on the same subject.
Contributory Pensions Act
56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the children of a marriage in which the wife subsequently finds it necessary to divorce her husband are not entitled to any financial benefit on the death of their father, whose second wife., however, is in receipt of a widow's pension; and whether he will take steps to enable pensions to be granted to children so placed?
The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension, since in the circumstances mentioned allowances would be payable in respect of the children of the first marriage in addition to the widow's pension payable to the second wife.
Education
Mentally Defective Children (Recorns)
58.
asked the President of the Board of Education if local education authorities compile complete records of the careers of children after leaving school who have been segregated for education purposes in schools for the mentally defective?
The Board urge all local education authorities which provide schools for mentally defective children to compile records of the after careers of children who have left, so far as they are able, and nearly all authorities do so; but they are not in a position to ensure that these records shall be complete. An analysis of the records for seven areas will be found in paragraph 88 of the report of the Board's Chief Medical Officer for 1925.
Statistics
60.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can give the percentage increase in the number of children in attendance at elementary schools who were between the ages of 9 and 11 years of age on 31st March, 1930, over the number of children of similar age on 31st March, 1928, and the percentage increase in the number of free places in secondary schools available on 1st September,]928, and 1st September, 1930, respectively?
The number of pupils between the ages of 9 and 11 in public elementary schools maintained by local education authorities, as on 31st March, 1930, represents an increase of 41.8 per cent. over the corresponding number as on 31st March, 1928. The number of free places in secondary schools awarded at the beginning of the school year 1930–31 represents an increase of 20.8 per cent. over the corresponding number awarded at the beginning of the school year 1928–29.
Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the local education authorities to the effect on this matter of what is known as the bulge, and urge the local authorities to make additional provision?
I will bear that suggestion in mind.
School Attendance Bill
59.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has any figures to show how many extra persons will be employed (such as carpenters, bricklayers, slaters, teachers, etc.) under the Education (School Attendance) Bill?
My right hon. Friend has estimated that by the time the full additional age group is in the schools, some 8,000 additional teachers will be required in 1932–33 as a result of raising the school-leaving age; but he has not formed any estimate of the number of other persons who will be employed as a result of the provision to be made for educating the 'additional children.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think it is time that some estimate was formed of the additional charge in view of the Bill now before the House?
That is not the function of the Board of Education.
Why not?
Is it not an Education Bill?
Aliens
52.
asked the Minister of Labour how many aliens are registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in this country?
I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
Is there any possibility of getting this information by any further application?
I am afraid not. As a matter of fact, the only interest which the Ministry of Labour has in these matters is as to whether the person is insurable and whether he is insured.
55.
asked the Minister of Health how many aliens were in receipt of Poor Law relief on the last available date?
My right hon. Friend regrets that this information is not available.
Could the hon. Lady state whether any aliens are drawing unemployment relief in this country?
I am afraid I cannot say. I have answered the question on the Paper.
62.
asked the Home Secretary whether a record is kept of the names, addresses and occupations of all aliens registered with the police in this country; and whether he will consider the desirability of publishing in tabulated form the number of aliens now engaged in each occupation, respectively, and the number of those unemployed?
The particulars specified in the first paragraph are among those with which aliens must provide the Registration Officer when registering under Article 6 of the Aliens Order. The records are not tabulated so as to show occupations, and no purpose commensurate with the expense would be served by making a change in this respect. My right hon. Friend regrets he is unable to take the course suggested in the last part of the question.
Income Tax Assessments (Tithe)
63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, on country estates, each owning many Schedule A income tax assessments, a large amount of tithe is being redeemed on an annuity basis; that it has been the practice of owners paying, under Board of Agriculture orders, such a consolidated tithe to agree with inspectors that such tithe he set off in each parish against one sufficiently large Schedule A assessment., thus saving the adjustment of many small sums of tithe, and that this system has worked well in the past; and why, in connection with the revaluation now pending, instructions have recently been issued to inspectors forbidding them to enter into such agreed arrangements, having in view the amount of clerical work thereby involved on the part of tax inspectors and landowners?
My right hon. Friend is aware of the practice referred to by the hon. Member. He is advised, however, that it gives rise to considerable practical difficulties, and, while it had certain advantages in the past, these advantages largely disappeared with the stabilisation of the tithe rent charge.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this new instruction will increase the staff in the Department very materially; and, as this House is anxious for economy, will he reconsider the matter?
This is a very highly technical and complicated matter, and, if the hon. Member wishes to pursue it, perhaps he would like to take it up with the Inland Revenue Department. In that case, I shall be happy to make arrangements.
Have these instructions, in fact, been given in consequence of the pending re-valuation?
I have nothing to add to what I have said.
Social Services (Cost)
65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost per head of population of social services in Great Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, and Italy, respectively, in 1929?
With regard to this country the usual annual return will be available shortly. I regret that I cannot give the particulars far foreign countries.
Would it not be very desirable that the Treasury should ascertain these figures?
The answer is that these figures cannot be obtained.
Standing Committees
(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Standing Committee "B" is to sit to morrow morning to consider the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, which applies to Scotland, and that the Scottish Grand Committee is also to meet to-morrow morning to consider the Small Landholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill; and whether, seeing that a considerable number of Members are on both Committees, he will communicate with the Chairmen of the two Committees to see whether they can make arrangements to ensure that the Committees do not sit at the same time?
1 am aware of the circumstances mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and, with the approval of the Chairman, I have arranged that the sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee fixed for to-morrow shall be postponed to Wednesday morning at eleven o'clock.
Census Act (Draft Order-In- Council)
I desire to submit a point to you, Mr. Speaker, and to ask if you will be good enough to give a Ruling for the assistance of Members of this House. A draft Order-in-Council under the Census Act, 1920, was laid on the Table of the House on the 28th October, and, under the Act, has to lie on the Table for 20 sitting days. I endeavoured to obtain a copy of this draft Order shortly after the date on which it was laid on the Table, and found that it was not available. I ultimately, by inquiry, obtained a print from the Vote Office on the 18th November, which was the 15th sitting day. My information was that it was available had I inquired on the previous night, the 17th November, which would have been the 14th sitting day, but that was the earliest date. It was, in fact, notified to Members on the House of Commons Votes and on the usual pink demand paper on the 19th November, or the 16th sitting day.
I desire to put on the Order Paper a notice of Motion for an Address praying that this Order in Council be not made. Of course, if the time is reckoned from the date on which it was technically laid on the Table, namely, the 28th October, I am out of date; but I find that, according to Erskine May, Speakers in the past have ruled, in similar circumstances, that, if a Paper is laid on the Table of this House in dummy form, the time during which it has to be laid only runs from the time at which a. full copy was available to Members. I therefore ask you, Sir, if, in protection of the privileges of this House, you will rule that in this case the time during which this draft Order in Council has to lie on the Table of the House should run from some date not earlier than the 17th November, the first day on which it could have been seen on inquiry by any Member of the House.Undoubtedly, the Rule that an Order must lie on the Table for 20 days means that during those 20 days a copy of the Order must be available to Members of the House. Of course, if a copy is not available during the 20 days, those 20 days must only run from the day upon which the copy becomes available; and, of course, I endorse entirely the views of my predecessors that it need not necessarily be a printed copy, but it must be a copy, and not merely a dummy. I think that that answers the question of the hon. Member.
Do I understand, Sir, that the answer you have just given does not raise the issue as to whether or not this Order was available in the Library for the examination of Members?
That question was not put to me. The hon. Member who raised the question told me that he went to the Library and that a copy was not available. I understood that that was the position.
That is so, and I was hoping that that would be accepted, or that, if it is not, the other side would be put to you. Perhaps I might ask if you would rule definitely that, if I put down a Motion, it should be accepted and put on the Order Paper? The facts are that inquiries were made in the Library for this Paper a few days after the 28th October, and the answer was that it was not available, that it was only laid in dummy form. I made subsequent inquiries, and, ultimately, I found a copy in the Library, with the assistance of the Librarian. That was on the 18th November. That was a printed copy, and I was told that I could get a copy at the Vote Office. I then went to the Vote Office and obtained a copy, and I took the opportunity of asking at the Vote Office how long it had been there. I was told that the prints were only delivered on the previous day, that they had not yet been notified on the form of demand for Papers, but that they would appear on it the next day, and- that was so. Therefore, I can only say that my -attempts, which were genuine attempts, to obtain it failed, and the information 1 was given by the officials of the House was that the earliest day on which I could possibly have seen a copy of this Order in the House was, in fact, only the day before that on which I did obtain it, namely, the 17th November.
May I ask, for our guidance, whether, if t copy was as a matter of fact in the Library, the days during which the copy lay in the Library are to be counted as effective days?
Certainly. The days on which a copy was available—not a dummy, but a copy, not necessarily a print—the days upon which that copy lies in the Library must be counted as days upon which that copy is available for Members.
I believe that what really happened was that the copy which was laid was sent to the printers—
No.
What I discovered from my inquiries was that a copy was not available—I will not be certain as to the exact date, but within about seven days of the 28th October. It is just possible that the copy may have been available during the first five or six days and then taken away and sent to the printers. It is, at any rate, certain from my inquiries that from a date about three days after 28th October until 17th November there was no copy in the Library or the Vote Office.
If in any case of this kind a copy is available and then ceases to be available, may I suggest that those days upon which it ceases to be available are not effective counting days; in other words, that your Ruling is that only those days shall count on which it is possible and open for a Member to go to the Library and see it, whether it is in manuscript or in print?
Before you answer that question, Sir, may I ask whether the existence of the document in the Library must not be on 20 consecutive days? To take an extreme case, it surely cannot be admitted that, if a document were there on one day, withdrawn on the next and presently replaced, only to be withdrawn again, those days should count in the same way as if the document had been continuously available for inspection by Members.
May I ask you, Sir, also to consider this question, whether or not a copy of this Order additional to the copy alleged to have been sent to the printer was or was not available in the Library for the inspection of Members? That question, I submit, cannot be definitely answered on the basis of a statement made in the House by a Member who applied and says that he failed to get a copy.
The test is that it should he available for a Member. I took every ordinary and proper step for the purpose of seeing it, and I did not succeed. If there was a copy in some way hidden away in the Library, I inquired for it, and I could not see it.
My information is that more than one copy was sent to the Library.
I can only say that however many copies were sent, the information I obtained on inquiry was that the document could not be seen because it was only laid in dummy.
I do not suggest that there is any doubt as to the correctness of what the hon. Gentleman has said. In fact, I deliberately omitted to make any remark as to whether the Order was available or whether it was not. I merely laid down the Ruling that the 20 days must he days on which a copy of the Order is available for Members. If there is any doubt about it, of course, I will have it looked into. As regards the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the words of the Act of Parliament which lay it down that a copy shall be laid for 20 days are "not less than 20 days." The word "consecutive" does not occur.
I do not think this is a party question and I am not intervening with any party animus. It must be to the interest of all of us that where a document is supposed to be available under certain conditions, we should know that it will be so available. May I submit that if a document can he withdrawn for uncertain intervals and then replaced for a day, nothing but a daily inquiry will ever enable a Member to know when the document is available. If the Statute does not expressly say 20 consecutive days, it must surely be read as meaning that the document is to be open to inspection for 20 consecutive days before it becomes effective.
May I suggest that this vitally important matter might be referred to the Committee of Privileges for their consideration.
With regard to the point that he right hon. Gentleman raises as to consecutive days, I have not had an opportunity of going into it, but the Act of Parliament does not use the word "consecutive." It merely says 20 days when the House is sitting.
May I ask, Sir, whether you will be good enough to look into that matter. I regret that I had to put the question to you without any notice, but I have myself had no notice of my hon. Friend's intention.
Certainly, I will look into the matter and see if there is any specific Ruling upon this point.
Business Of The House
May I ask the Leader of the House what day he will be able to afford us for the discussion of the Motion standing on the Paper in my name and in that of certain right hon. Friends of mine—
"Empire Trade,—That this House censures His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom for its failure to formulate any effective proposals for the extension of Empire Trade and for its refusal to consider the offers made by the Dominions."
It is proposed to take the Vote of Censure on Thursday of this week. I ought to add that it will be necessary, in view of the urgency of the Cunard Insurance Agreement Bill, to take the Committee stage of that Measure also on that day.
Selection (Standing Com Mittees)
Standing Committee A
Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Architects (Registration) Bill): Mr. Longbottom; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Watkins.
Standing Committee B
Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill): Mr. Dickson; and had appointed in substitution; Mr. McKinlay.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill (Selection Of Amendments)
I beg to move,
On the first day of the Session, the Leader of the Opposition remarked that the work outlined in the Gracious Speech from the Throne would take two or three years at least to perform. I think this House must make up its mind to go through business a little more expeditiously than was indicated in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said a minute ago, the question he was then raising, referred to the efficiency of Parliament itself and was not a party question. I can claim, in the best sense of that phrase, that I occupy to-day precisely the same position. There is nothing that is doing this House more damage, in public opinion, than the leisureliness of its deliberations and its working, and it is particularly true in a time like this. Of course, one has to steer between Scylla and Charybdis. There must be ample right of discussion. This House in itself and in its Committees, must be careful that no question of importance, no consideration and no aspect of a problem brought before it is going to be stifled by Closure or by any such operation as that. On the other hand, we must get work done and steps must be taken by all of us, by every party in this House to see to it that the House of Commons maintains its reputation as a businesslike assembly in the conduct of the affairs of the State. The right, hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) once said:"That, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order of this House, Standing Order No. 27A, relating to the power of the Chair to select amendments, shall apply with respect to proceedings in the Standing Committee to which the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill is allocated."
I heartily associate myself with that statement, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to do so later on today. A Committee of this House has been set up to consider the whole question of our procedure, the declared purpose of which is to devise ways and means to expedite our work. But in the meantime we have to do certain business. At the present moment, there is an Agricultural Land Bill in front of this House. It is an urgent Bill. It is a Bill full of opportunities for unreasonable delay. It is a Bill which by the operation of nature even more than by the will of a Government must, if it is to be effective, be in operation by the beginning of the year. If this winter is of no avail, if Springtime comes upon us and the local authorities and the other authorities concerned in the carrying out of this Bill have no powers, if this Bill is still hanging between life and death, then it is not a week or a month which is lost, it is a whole 12 months of most precious and necessary time. I believe that with fair and full discussion the Bill can leave this House quite comfortably before we adjourn for Christmas. To-day I am asking for no new power at all, for in the Manual of our Standing Orders this power has been 'afforded since the beginning of 1919. It is true that in that Manual it applies only to you, Sir, and to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means of the whole House. The experience of 11 years has justified us in regarding that Standing Order as a very precious one, and a very proper one. If anyone says that I am breaking or disturbing the settled law and order of this House in seeking to apply it upstairs, he is mistaken, because I had predecessor, I had a pioneer. I am aware that there are footsteps in the sand, and the footsteps are those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I remember perfectly well—I was in the House at the time—that when this method of the Guillotine known as the "Kangaroo" Closure was established, there were many doubts expressed regarding it, but before it had been 18 months in operation the right hon. Gentleman himself moved to apply it just 'as I am doing to-day. On the 6th July, 1921, regarding the Railways Bill which was then before this House, the right hon. Gentleman moved a Resolution, and a very complicated Resolution full of other powers, some of them very doubtful and some of them rather dangerus powers. But included in that Resolution was the power which I 'am now moving. Regarding this particular part of his Resolution, he said:"We must find some method by which, with a reasonable consideration for the importance of the business that we have to do, and of the great and diverse interests which are affected by it, that business may he done, and the country may not be held up simply because Parliament is choked by its own interest in the work which comes; before it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1921; col. 458 Vol. 144.]
He will find that in the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 6th July, 1921. Those were very wise words. Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman against whom no one can place an accusation that he is not a careful custodian of the liberties, privileges and rights of this House, and of the Members in it. There is no man who has more frequently stood at this Box and declared himself, with effect, to be a good son of the House of Commons than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and I am asking him to-day to make good the wise declaration which he made in 1921. On that occasion, moreover, he was joined by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), so that we are going to have a very united House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said on that occasion:"There is no novelty in this, and may I say—and shall I not carry the House with me in saying it—that of all the forms of Closure or of Guillotine, or, to put it in a more general way, of all the methods of restricting debates which the wit of this House has hitherto devised, the least blind, the most sensible, the most considerate and the most intelligent is the Kangaroo Closure, which vests discretion in the Chair, to select Amendments of the greatest consequence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1921; col. 456, Vol. 144.]
4.0 p.m. In those days the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) represented the Liberal party, and he also took part in the debate, and while I will not quote him, I will give the gist of what he said in one sentence. Referring to the Resolution as a whole, he said that it contained very exceptional proposals, but that he was perfectly willing to give what is called the "Kangaroo" to the Chairman upstairs. So here we are, very united. I am told—at least I have seen it in some of the newspapers—that because we are a minority Government, we have no business to move a Resolution like this. The Bill has received a Second Reading in this House. The Bill has received a very good majority in this House. We may be a minority Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Yes, but the Bill is no minority Bill, and it is for the Bill I am speaking and not the Government. The Bill, having received a Second Reading by a big majority in this House, is endowed with the right of being debated and discussed upstairs in a reasonable way. We have the right to ask this House to protect it against unnecessary and unreasonable delays. I notice that one of the Amendments, while respecting your impartiality, Mr. Speaker, is framed in a way to suggest that there is just a doubt attaching to the Chairmen upstairs. I do not believe that that aspersion is good. It ought not to be made. The Chairmen upstairs are just as well aware of their responsibility to this House, to Committees of this House, and to hon. Members of this House as any Chairman in the House itself. I remember perfectly well, when I was a member of film Panel of Chairmen in the days gone by, it was the desire, the wish and the en deavour of every one of us to conduct, ourselves in the Chair upstairs with the same distinction and the same sense of impartiality as have always animated you, Mr. Speaker, and the two Chairmen of Committees of this House. The Chairmen upstairs will enforce the Kangaroo with the same objective sense of responsibility as has been shown again and again, and has become, as a matter of fact, habitual to those who sit at this end of the House. There is another Amendment which, I see, refers to the necessity of protecting the special things that matter. The reason why I move this Motion to-day is to secure that things that matter will be discussed, and that things that do not matter will he overlooked by those who are in charge of the business upstairs. I need not go through Amendment after Amendment. There is only one other to which reference might be made, and that is the Amendment which says that the Motion should he made from day to day. The very fact that that is suggested shows the intention of the hon. Gentle- man. If there is any reason why my Motion this afternoon is justified, that Amendment is the reason. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Then there is an Amendment proposing to modify the provisions of the Standing Order itself. If any Amendment of the Standing Orders is to be made operative, the House must await the report of the Committee to which I have just referred. As I say, the Chairman upstairs knows, I believe, the requirements of fair play. He knows the requirements of Parliamentary procedure, and we must put responsibility upon him and trust his judgment. The only way to get this Bill through, after full discussion, and in a time which will mean that next year is not lost, is to endow the Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill is referred, with the authority to put in operation the Kangaroo Closure, and I, therefore, beg to move this Motion."I never heard anyone really knowing anything about Parliament who will not admit that the Kangaroo has been a success. It has enabled Parliament to discuss things that matter.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1921; col. 511, Vol. 144.]
Before we proceed to the consideration of any of the Amendments which are on the Order Paper, I would like to address myself to the terms of the Motion, and to make a few observations upon it. I am very much afraid that in this discussion, although there is another right hon. Gentleman who has led the House, I shall not obtain his support to-day for the protection of the private Member for whom I am speaking. I will just refer to an observation which fell from the Prime Minister, and then I propose to put one or two points of view which, if I may say so with profound respect, he rather slurred over. He spoke of this House losing caste with public opinion because of the dilatoriness of its proceedings. That may be true to some extent, hut there is an equal danger of our being blamed for complicated legislation passed through so quickly that its defects are only recognised when it is before a court of law. After all, the justification for what must strike all fresh Members in this House as the leisureliness of our proceedings, is that that very leisureliness gives thoroughness to the examination of a Bill in both Houses, and makes the Bill, as far as it is possible, watertight against actions and suits at a later date.
I will just say that in passing, and now offer one or two remarks about the Kangaroo itself. I do not know who the parent of the Kangaroo was. Mr. Asquith, I think, claimed the parentage, but I always believe that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had something to do with it, because the kangaroo is notable for the speed with which it can cover the ground, the accuracy of its leaps and the care of its young. The first observation I will make about that is, that the Kangaroo is, I quite admit, a very useful weapon in the armoury of the Government, but it is a weapon that ought not to be used too often. I think that all those who have led the House will admit that. Secondly, although I am not going co weary the House with a mass of details, the Kangaroo has not often been imposed until a Bill has had, at any rate, a run in the House. There are exceptions, I know, but, generally, the Kangaroo and the Time Table have been imposed when a Bill has been for some time under examination. The great advantage of that is that when a Bill has been under examination for some time in the House of Commons, private Members who, after all, must be considered, will feel that they have had their opportunity, and there will be much less, shall I say, soreness on the part of the Opposition if the Kangaroo comes in at a later date than if it comes in at the beginning. The business of this House can only be carried on by a great deal of compromise, and whenever the House gets into a difficult position, and the parties are not working together, that is always bad for the business of the House, as well as bad for our own tempers, and occasionally, in sporadic instances, our own manners. I say that in passing. But also, when a Bill has been before the House for some little time, the country gets acquainted with it, and the Government, if they care for public opinion, then have the opportunity of finding out what people think of their Bill. People are very slow in understanding legislation which comes before this House, and the interests involved have thus time to study it and make their representations in ample time for the consideration of the Government. Those, I think, are quite sound points, but when an Opposition—and I use the term in the most general sense—has not been obstructive, it does resent Measures that smack of coercion. Those things have to be remembered, but, of course, the main objection, to my mind, is the transference of powers which are exercised on the Floor of the House to Committees upstairs. It so happened that in the Committee on the Hours of Meeting and Rising of the House, a question was put to me that was not put either to the Prime Minister or to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. It was put to me by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths), who said:I had no warning that that question was going to be asked, and my answer, which was given on the spur of the moment, was given rather crudely. I am not at all pleased with the English of it. I said:"Do you think that, if the Chairman of Committees upstairs had more power than he has at present, the burden of the work on the Floor of the House could be sent upstairs?"
I have purposely refrained from looking at the names of any of the Chairmen upstairs. I do not know them, and I make no special reference to them, but, speaking generally, I believe that there is a great deal of force in what I said before about the Committees upstairs. It must be remembered that, quite apart from the question of experience, the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House has the corrective force of the whole House of Commons. That is a tremendous force. He is constantly at work here all the year round, work which is lacking upstairs, and a Chairman upstairs cannot gain the experience. He has not the corrective force of this House. He has a small Committee, and a small Committee alone. The two cases are not at all on all fours, and I certainly cannot conceive the circumstances in which I would make myself responsible for a Motion similar to that put down to-day. Of course, the Motion to which the Prime Minister alluded which was moved by my right hon. Friend, is not in the least on all fours with this, although, judging from the fact that when I went to get the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1921 out of the Library, and found that; it was engaged, I imagine that other Members have been refreshing their memory. Two things differentiate that occasion from this. The Railways Bill—a Bill of infinitely greater complication than this Agricultural Bill—had been before the Committee for weeks, and we had arrived at the end of the Session, late in July, with the August holidays coming. We are now at the begining of a long, prolific, and what ought to be a happy Session. We must not do anything to impair any one of those prospects. We are at the beginning of the Session, and it is proposed to apply the Kangaroo upstairs on a Bill which is merely starting its Committee stage: before it has run an hour. The two cases are absolutely dissimilar, coupled with the fact that at that time the full business was enormously congested and that it was absolutely essential that the Railways Bill, for the smooth working of the traffic of this country, should be got through at the earliest possible date. The use of the Kangaroo, in my view, is unjustifiable in any circumstances except on the Floor of the House. On the Floor of the House it is only justifiable in a case of emergency. The point arises: is this a case of emergency, or not? The Prime Minister says that it is. I am not so clear about that. I would remind the Prime Minister—I do not know what he thinks about us as an Opposition, and whether he thinks that we obstruct, or not—that when the present Government came in and the right hon. Gentleman who was then Lord Privy Seal addressed the House and said that there were certain emergency Measures which he desired to get through, and that without those Measures he could not proceed with his work, we gave him everything that he asked for, with hardly any discussion. Therefore, no one can say that if you convince us that it is an emergency, we will not help you We have done it before. In this case, I ask: what is the emergency? Had there been a real emergency about the Agricultural Bill, you would have brought it in a year ago. You cannot plead emergency after 18 months. In 18 months you have had a period of gestation in which no one single animal would fail to produce something, except the elephant. I am not quite sure that this Bill is your own offspring and that there is not some responsibility for it on the part of right hon. and hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House. I am not at all sure that it is your own child. I think that it is partly a foundling, and that is why there is this demand for special treatment. The Leader of the Liberal party said: "This is a Bill after my own heart." He recognises kinship—kinship of blood and mind. That does not, in our view, make it a question of emergency. Because we are not convinced that it is an emergency, because we believe that it is a bad predecent, because we believe that it is a proceeding which, if followed. you may regret far more in the future than we, I and those who sit behind me will oppose this Motion to the end."That is a matter I have often thought about. There is one real difficulty about it. I think that anyone would find, if he were responsible for the business of the House, that these powers ought not to be given to men who have not had a. great deal of experience. It is one thing to give it to the Chairman of Ways and Means, but there is always difficulty in getting men of the knowledge and experience of a Chairman of Ways and Means as Chairman of the Committee upstairs. It means you have to get about half a dozen men with a thorough knowledge of Procedure, and with experience. I have always felt a little afraid of giving these powers to men who have not had that experience. I do not any that I do not see a way through it, because, honestly, I have not tried to find it, but that has been the difficulty to my mind, and the difficulty which always prevented me making any move in that direction so long as I happened to be leading the House. It is a real, practical difficulty, because it is a very great responsibility, and a Chairman who happened to be a strong partisan—and they occur in all parties—and perhaps a man of not very great experience might render, perhaps unwillingly, a great many injustices in the conduct of the Bill upstairs. That is speaking very frankly, but I think it is right."
I have seen during the course of my experience in this House a great many right hon. Gentlemen standing at the Table and proposing Motions for the purpose of I will not say ctailing debate but of expediting business. Without exception, I have always found that such Motions have been followed by right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench saying that it was an outrage upon the liberties of debate in this House. After waiting for three or four years I have found the very gentleman who has made a speech about the outrage on the liberties of debate, making exactly the same Motion when he std at the Box on the Government side, and the gentleman who proposed the Motion originally ranking from the Opposition side the sort of speech which his successor in office made when he was on the Opposition side the sort of speech which his successor in office made when he was on the Opposition side. [Interruption.] Of course, we have all done it. The real difficulty is this, that it depends entirely upon our attitude towards the particular Bill. If we like the Bill, we want it to get through and to get through quickly. If we do not like the Bill, we do not want it to get through and we resort to every Parliamentary expedient to delay it, in the hope that ultimately we shall defeat it. That is what it amounts to.
Right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition above the Gangway to-day voted almost without exception for the Motion that was made in 1921. Surely, there could not have been anything that was such an outrage upon the Privileges of Parliament, as they would now have us believe. What does it mean? The right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) simply puts it upon one point, that we may not be able to get a Chairman upstairs who has the necessary experience to discriminate between an Amendment which is material and an Amendment which is not material. That means that there are not six men in a House of 601, drawn not from one party but from every party, who can perform that function. That is a reflection upon House of Commons. If we cannot produce six men who can discharge the functions of the Chair with judgment and with fairness, then this House, this Parliament is worthless. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that I had something to do with the original Kangaroo. At any rate, the Kangaroo does get along. I prefer him to the sloth, whose main quality is the tenacity with which he clings to his perch. One does get along, while the other does not. Every Government and every party since then has made full use of the Kangaroo. It has been accepted by every party in the House as something which is an essential part not merely of the Procedure of Parliament but an essential means of defending the efficiency of Parliament. Without it, there would be only one way of getting a Bill through, and that would be by means of the Guillotine. The right hon. Gentleman says that by prolonged debate you improve a Measure. The idea that you improve the clarity of a Bill by prolonged discussion is a sentiment that can only be expressed without real experience of the work of Committee. I have conducted many Bills through this House and I have opposed many Bills, and I say, without exception, that the result of prolonged discussion has been that the Government have always had to make concessions against their judgment in order to buy off opposition, concessions which render the Bill more ineffective and not more effective. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] It is so. Take the Bill to which reference has been made, where the Kangaroo was introduced We had to introduce it after weeks if not months in Committee. I would have infinitely preferred to have had the Guillotine. We had to make concessions which have caused us all sorts of difficulties in the Law Courts. Invariably, the trouble came out of the concessions which we were forced to make in order to get the, Bill through. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remedy those defects by a much more drastic and simple Bill this year. So far from making the Bills watertight, you make them waterlogged. I trust that the House will carry this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman says that there might be justification for the Motion if there were obstruction. The charge of obstruction is one that is not easily maintained against an Opposition, and yet I venture to say that there never has been an Opposition that did not obstruct. It is more or less its business to obstruct. It is its business to make difficult the carrying through of legislation of a totally different character from that which it believes in: legislation which may be opposed to some of its fundamental principles. Therefore, it ifs bound to do all that it can to retard and to place obstacles in the way of the Bill. I do not want to refer too much to what happened last year and what happened upstairs. You could not say that a single Amendment was moved that was in itself irrelevant, or that anyone could have ruled out of Order, or that was not a debatable proposition, but I do know this, that when the right hon. Gentleman got up in this House and said that they were not going to take any more Bills that Session, suddenly the Bills got through with a rush. What does that mean? The Opposition—and rightly so; I am not criticising them, because it is their business as an Opposition—wanted to occupy the time of Committees upstairs and down here in such a way that no Bills of an obnoxious character could be carried. [Interruption.] I am an independent Member of this House, elected independently of hon. Members opposite or of the party on this side above the Gangway; quite independently, and I am giving quite independent support to this Motion for the very opposite reasons from that on which hon. and tight hon. Members of the Opposition above the Gangway are opposing it. I believe in the Bill and they do not. That is the real reason. I have not the faintest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will be taking full advantage of this sort of Motion in due course.Very shortly.
Well, do not be too sure about that. Whether it happens sooner or later, some right hon. Gentleman representing the party who sit above the Gangway on this side today, in order to carry through their legislation, will be making proposals. When Mr. Balfour was making a Motion not quite of this character but more drastic I made it quite clear that my opposition was not in general to the curtailing of extravagant opportunities for debate but that my objection was to the Bill itself, and that I was not in favour of giving facilities for that particular Bill. Although I have been in Opposition longer than any hon. or right hon. Gentleman here, I have never taken up the line that Motions of this kind were not legitimate. I have always said that my opposition was to the giving of facilities for a particular Bill. It is no use arguing the point on general principles. There can be no doubt that this Rouse is upon its trial. I do riot mean this particular Rouse, but Parliament. We shall he tested by whether or not we can do the nation's work. If there is any condemnation on the part of the nation, it is not on the ground that we are not talking enough, that we are not moving enough Amendments, that we are not prolonging debates long enough, but it is on the ground that there is too much talk and too little work. The right hon. Member for Bewdley asked why, if this is an emergency Bill, it was not introduced last year? I could probably put the same question to the Government. The fact is, that the Bill has been introduced. It is a Bill to deal with an emergency, and, if it is carried through as an emergency Bill and administered as an emergency Bill, it will, in my judgment, contribute to the solving of the emergency and will have a permanent effect upon the industrial position in thin country. For that reason I support the Motion.
The Prime Minister, in moving this Motion, claimed, and I think rightly claimed, that this is one of those questions which are somewhat outside the boundaries of party. I agree with that sentiment because I regard the procedure of this House and questions of this kind as being far more important than any single Bill such as this. I am sure the Prime Minister will accept it from me that I am addressing myself to this Motion from the point of view that I do not want to commit myself to any definite opinion as to whether in any reform of procedure in the future the use of what is known as the Kangaroo should be either extended or restricted. My main objection to the Motion is that it should be moved at a time when the whole of these questions are to be the subject of inquiry by a Select Committee. I want to make just one observation regarding a certain remark of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that in some of the Amendments there was a suggestion that there might not be the same impartial attitude on the part of the Chairman of a Standing Committee as there is in the case of the occupants of the Chair in this House.
I want to say at once, and quite freely as I have never been the Chairman of a Standing Committee, that no one has greater trust than I have in the fairness and impartiality of the Chairmen of Standing Committees. I have seen the name of the right hon. Gentleman who I believe is to be the chairman of this Committee and I say at once, and every Member of the House will agree with me, that you could not find a Member more experienced in procedure or one upon whose impartiality and honour you could place more reliance. I am referring to the right hon. Gentleman for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). May I say what to me seems to be the distinction that is drawn in the Amendments between the occupants of the Chair of this House and the position of a Chairman of Standing Committee. The Prime Minister, no doubt, has read very carefully the debate in 1921 and also the very lengthy debate in 1919, when the procedure rules were introduced in regard to Standing Committees. Over and over again in those debates the view was expressed by experienced Members such as the present Lord Banbury, the Noble Lord the senior Member for Oxford University (Lord Cecil) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) that the position of the chairman of a Standing Committee was very different to that of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. Speaking as one who has had a short experience in one of these capacities I am very much impressed with what was said in those debates over and over again about the very great responsibilities which the Chairman has in selecting amendments. It is not merely a matter of experience in Parliamentary Procedure as a whole. The selection by the Chairman on the Floor of this House is made after the most careful consultation, not only with representatives of the parties and with those who have moved the amendments but also with the Parliamentary draftsman in order to understand the whole position. That selection is made by a Member of this House whose sole duty it is to preside in the Chair, and he is debarred by custom from taking any other part in the business of the House. The Chairmen of Committees upstairs would not be doing their duty if they failed to come down to the Floor of this House and exercise their privileges as ordinary Members of the House. They are therefore being put in a somewhat invidious position when they are asked to take upon themselves the heavy responsibility attaching to the selection of amendments and at the same time do their duty on the Floor of the House, it may be in connection with the same Bill in a subsequent stage. That involves extra responsibility and an extra amount of work. In these circumstances, and in view of the very great difference of opinion in the debates of 1919 and 1921, cutting across all party lines, on the use of the Kangaroo, suggest: to the Prime Minister that it would be most unfortunate—I will not say to create a precedent although this would in fact be a precedent—to follow even the precedent of 1921 and give the Chairman of Standing Committee powers under the Kangaroo unless there was very urgent necessity for it. It seems to me that there is no necessity for it in the present case. I am prepared to allow all the statements which were made, perhaps in a slightly cynical fashion, by the right bon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but after all the Chairmen of Committees have great powers. They have powers of Closure, and it is open to the Prime Minister, if these powers are not sufficient, and if, after two or three days experience of the working of this Committee, he finds that there is obstruction of a kind which can be got over by the use of the Kangaroo, to come down to the House and ask for these powers. I want to treat this question independently of all party considerations because it is important, and I appeal to the Prime Minister, in view of the pending consideration of these questions of procedure, to withdraw the Motion for the moment and see how the work of the Committee proceeds for the first two or three days. I have said that if the Prime Minister presses this Motion he will not be following the precedent of 1921 so much as creating a new precedent, and I will give one or two reasons in support of that view. In 1921 it was a question of a Bill at the end of the Session, and it was only applied to a part of the Bill—or rather to be correct, to two parts of the Bill. A large part of the Bill had been thrashed out on the Floor of the House and only certain parts were referred to Standing Committee. It was a Bill of enormous length, much bigger and much more complicated than the present Measure. An immense amount of work had been done upon it and all that work, and all that part of the Bill which had been thrashed out on the Floor of the House, would have been lost unless it was -carried before the end of the Session. There is a great difference between the two cases. The Prime Minister is, I know, as anxious as anyone in this House for the success of Parliamentary government. We often hear that Parliament is on its trial, and I sincerely suggest that one of the accusations made against this House is that a great many important Acts are forced through in a slipshod fashion, and definite complaints have been made over and over again as to the action of the Kangaroo on the Floor of this House. The Prime Minister I see shakes his head, but I can quote cases, although I am not saying that I regard them as a great grievance, in regard to the Finance Bill where it undoubtedly has been most unfortunate that certain Amendments have not been selected. That is one reason why I say that this case is not upon all fours with 1921. Let me give another reason why it is not upon all fours with that case. The Motion in 1921 was carried on a division by a majority of 164 against 85. That was in the Coalition Parliament, when the Government in office had the support of something like nine-tenths of the House of Commons. The Government moved the Motion, yet in spite of that is was only carried by a majority of 164 to 85, and about one quarter of those who opposed it were members of the Conservative party, a very considerable number were the followers of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, -and the rest were members of l he Labour party. I say, therefore, that that question was a totally different one. It was carried under these circumstances and opposed, and seriously opposed, by a substantial number of Members who were supporters of the Government which brought forward the Motion. In these circumstances the Prime Minister, when it comes to a question of justifying his action as being in accordance with the best traditions of this House, can hardly regard that case as one which will justify the carrying of the present Motion which is opposed by every Member of the party to which I have the honour to belong. I do not want to go into various other arguments because I want to make a special appeal to the Prime Minister to withdraw this Motion for the present and. see how the Bill gets on in Committee upstairs; and to do that in the interests of the reputation of this House and in order that there may be less interference with a fair consideration of this question by the Select Committee which it is proposed to appoint to consider questions of procedure. Let me say, in conclusion, that I reserve the most absolute right to myself to express an opinion in favour of Kangaroo methods upstairs generally, or not, as I may see fit in future. I am not bound against the extension of Kangaroo proposals to Committees upstairs entirely, because I think it might be advisable, when coupled with certain other alterations in procedure; but as things stand at the moment the Chairmen of Standing Committees are not accustomed to this particular responsibility. It is a very heavy responsibility that cannot be exercised satisfactorily until a man, no matter who he is, has had a certain amount of training and experience in that particular responsibility; it is putting a very heavy burden upon him, it is departing from the usual practice, it is anticipating what may be the recommendations of a Select Committee, and it is doing so for the purposes of a Bill which in all probability could be carried through without any undue waste of time and without resorting to any Motion of this kind. I have not in any of my observations attempted to argue the matter from a party standpoint. If the Prime Minister will be good enough to admit that, I ask him in all seriousness to consider whether he could not withdraw this Motion at least until the Committee has started.As one who took a very vocal part in opposing the Motion of 1921, which the Prime Minister has quoted this afternoon as a precedent for his Motion, I would like to re-emphasise the essential difference between the situation then and the situation to-day. It is quite true that on that occasion I found myself at considerable variance with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and that to-day we are together, but I do remember what was then the situation. The Geddes Act, as it is called, for amalgamating the railways, was a measure of immense detailed Complexity, dealing not so much with new legislation that involved new expenditure, as with the actual terms under which various mergers of existing railway companies should be carried out. In fact it was and ought to have been treated very largely as a hybrid Bill. In Standing Committee we were faced with a solid phalanx of railway directors, supported by the Railway Workers' Union and the full force of a Government of a non-party character. A handful of us, drawn from all parties, did our best to modify that Bill. It was not until many weeks of discussion in Committee that a Motion was moved for the first time in this House to give the power of the Kangaroo to the Chairman of the Standing Committee. Whether that be justified or not depends entirely on what view you take as to the success of that Kangaroo Motion. I believe it is thanks to that Kangaroo Motion that the London Midland and Scottish Railway is in such a mess to-day. A large number of questions that ought to have been discussed by that Committee were never discussed at all after the Kangaroo Motion, and the over-amalgamation of the British railway companies was finally effected.
But there we were, a small non-party opposition to a Bill overwhelmingly supported by the leaders of all parties. There was not a single Front Bench man who was not in favour of the over-amalgamation of British railways, and it was left to private Members alone, drawn from all parties, to oppose. Those were the circumstances in which the Kangaroo was then introduced for the first time. Here the Prime Minister is creating an entirely new precedent. Do not let us forget that to-day's Motion is an entirely novel one, wholly different from anything that has gone before. Here is a Bill which has not yet entered the Committee stage. The debate on the Second Reading showed that the Opposition, certainly on this side, was to certain parts of the Bill and not to the whole Bill. The Second Reading had to be opposed because in the opinion of this party there were things in the Bill which were entirely undesirable. Why has the Prime Minister assumed that in Standing Committee upstairs, from the start of any discussion, there will be merely factious opposition, and no attempt made to carry cut his constant appeals to treat these matters, at any rate in the Committee stage, as if we were a Council of State? The right hon. Gentleman assumes that there is to be factious opposition. It is a singularly unfair assumption on this particular Bill. By this precedent, which will be quoted by Prime Ministers of other parties in future, the Prime Minister is cutting away the chances that the private Member has of raising his voice. We all know what happens under the Kangaroo. It is inevitable that the principal Amendments that are put down by organised parties in the names of the leaders and representatives of those parties are the ones which are taken, and that the private Member, who has an idea and puts his name down to an Amendment, is the man who gets crushed. I remember the circumstances in which that handful of private Members carried on the fight before and after the Kangaroo on the Railways Bill. We were chiefly a few Conservative Members on the bench below the Gangway, similar to a group that is now forming against the present Government, and those of us who were there banded ourselves together to resist what we regarded as the grandiose Geddes Bill. We got no official support. From the moment the Kangaroo came on, it was inevitable that the only Amendments that were really discussed were those that came from the railway companies or the railway workers and the organised bodies, and the private Member was virtually shut out. Looking back on the history of that precedent, I deplore this further curtailment of the rights of private Members to fair Committee discussion of a Bill, whether on the Floor of the House or upstairs. The only case which has been made out for the Motion is that here at last the Labour Government have produced a Bill which the Liberal party like, that therefore the Conservative party is to be ignored in its united opposition to this method of procedure, and the new Coalition is to go forward rough-shod over the traditions of the House of Commons to the establishment of a new and dangerous precedent for the future.I deeply regret that the Prime Minister has seen fit to put down this Motion. After reading somewhat carefully the debate on the Kangaroo Motion in 1911, I still feel surprised at the warm support given to it by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). In that 1911 debate he described the Kangaroo as
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can really understand the Kangaroo or he would hardly give it that very high praise. Speaking as one who has had a very slight experience of presiding over Committees in this House I say that the Kangaroo is the most difficult of all the powers entrusted to a Chairman. The importance of an Amendment; is not always visible at first sight, and even when you have mastered the Kangaroo procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) has said, with full assistance and very expert advice as to what precisely an Amendment means, it is not easy to decide its exact importance. It has always to be remembered that the views of the Opposition, the Government, or the Department concerned, as to the importance of an Amendment, are not necessarily identical. For a Chairman to handle that power fairly is extremely hard, and if it is not handled absolutely fairly almost inevitably great resentment is caused. It feel that for the smooth working of this House it is one of the least desirable powers entrusted to the Chair. I would rather see the House take the responsibility on its own shoulders, relieving the Chair of this very irksome duty. The Kangaroo is useful on the Report stage of the Bill when you, Mr. Speaker, have had the advantage of being able to study the previous proceedings in Committee and of realising what portions of the Bill have been discussed fairly. The Prime Minister in bringing forward this Motion backed it on the ground that it would mean expedition, and would ensure the efficiency of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is taking a very curious step to ensure efficiency. I believe that no small amount of the efficiency of this House rests upon those who preside over it. No one who has not acted, even for a short period, as a Chairman of this House, can realise the position of those who are in the Chair. They are isolated from the ordinary party councils, and the fact that they do not vote and do not take part in ordinary party proceedings causes them to view the problems that come before the House from an utterly different angle from that which is possible to those who take part in the ordinary work of the House. 5.0 p.m. The position of a Chairman of a Standing Committee is quite different. I am not for a moment suggesting that Chairmen of Standing Committees will not do their utmost to carry out the duties that the House may choose to place on their shoulders, and to carry out those duties with the utmost impartiality. The man who for a short time presides upstairs and then comes down here to the ordinary life of the House with its party feeling and the preference for this Measure or that, cannot be in the same position of mental isolation that is possible to those who never take part in party proceedings and whose sole duty it is to administer the rules of the House and to look at them from a single point of view only. The two mental attitudes are utterly different. If any hon. Member chooses to look up the history of this House he will find that the powers granted to the Chair have increased precisely in proportion as the occupants of the Chair have ceased to be partisans. The last Speaker of this House who spoke in debate was Mr. Speaker Denison. His predecessor, Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre, used to vote regularly for his party when the House was in Committee, and Mr. Speaker Denison records in his diary that after seeing his predecessor marching through the Division Lobby in wig and gown he made up his mind that after his election he would not follow that precedent. The first Speaker who made any use, in any form, of the great powers now entrusted to the Chair was Mr. Speaker Brand who applied the Closure in 1881. He never took part in any of the proceedings of this House at all, after his election. Mr. Speaker Peel followed that example and, so it continued, but the Chairman of Committees voted regularly for his party down to 1895. It was Mr. Speaker Lowther who, as Chairman of Ways and Means, first decided that he himself would not vote in the House. If hon. Members will take the trouble to study our Standing Orders as printed in the appendices to Sir T. Erskine May's "Parliamentary Procedure" they will find that most of the Orders giving great powers to Mr. Speaker and, particularly, those Orders giving great powers to the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman, are Orders which have been passed since Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman have ceased to take any part in the proceedings of the House otherwise than by presiding and maintaining order. I believe that these powers could only be entrusted to the Chair because the Chair is absolutely and utterly divorced from our ordinary party strife. I feel that in making this Motion the Government are taking a very retrograde step. This Motion must be regarded as a precedent. Once a Motion of this kind is passed it will be taken advantage of on future occasions and by future Governments. It will not be a good precedent. The case of 1921 has been quoted as a reason for introducing this Motion; and, in 1921, the precedent set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) of a Motion giving similar powers in 1911, was quoted. But at that time the power was not given until after the Bill in question had been debated for weeks and weeks on the Floor of the House and finally had been sent upstairs to a Standing Committee to be finished. Precedents in this House broaden and, if we pass this Motion we may be certain that in future years it will be used, if not by this Government then by some other Government. I would remind hon. Members opposite that in all human probability they will not be always on the Government benches and when their turn comes to be in Opposition, they will regret the passing of precedents like this which must severely hamstring their own activities in the future. These methods, however, should never be looked at from the point of view of party hut from the point of view of the House as a whole and I cannot but feel that some day difficulties will arise over some Bill which is sent upstairs and to which this precedent is applied. A Chairman will have difficulty, if this precedent is applied to a Bill on which there is a sharp divergence of opinion, in convinc- ing a Committee that he is really acting impartially in the selection of Amendments, when, after the proceedings in Committee, he can come down here and vote for or against the Measure himself. In that case, when party feeling runs high and when partisan passions have been aroused, it will be difficult to convince Members that the decisions of the Chairman have been just and his selections accurate—that he has not omitted to choose certain Amendments because they might be inconvenient to the Minister in charge or otherwise acted in a partisan manner. Once that impression about the Chair gets abroad, I believe that the efficiency of Parliament will suffer far worse than it could possibly suffer through any question of delay. I think hon. Members opposite are emphasising too much the necessity for speed. They feel, perhaps, that they may not have very much longer time and they wish to get things through, but they do riot seem to realise that the simplest method of getting business through this House is by agreement and that you will never get agreement if you bring forward proposals of this kind. Earlier in this Parliament the Prime Minister appealed to us to make ourselves a Council of State. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that by a Motion of this kind he is encouraging that feeling? I submit that by such a proposal he is more likely to stimulate party feeling and that, in the end, far more time will be wasted by the Government if they persist in this measure, than they would lose if they abandoned it now and at least allowed the Committee proceedings to commence without any such Motion. I wish to reinforce the strong appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) that the Committee should at least start without this Motion, and, then, if it were found necessary to do so, the House could reconsider the position. But if expedition is the most desirable thing in the eyes of the Government I submit that it would he infinitely better to put down a Time Table Motion. I know that such a course has never been taken in connection with a Committee upstairs, hut such a Motion would place upon the House the responsibility of deciding how much time was to be allotted to the different parts of the Bill and that procedure would, at least, have the advantage of enabling the opponents of the Bill to have their Amendments down and to make up their own minds as to the Amendments which they regarded as important. If the matter is to be left entirely to the Chairman, however competent, however impartial he may be, he cannot, with a Committee meeting at eleven o'clock in the morning get the benefit of that advice which is available in other circumstances. I am certain that such a Chairman would find himself in a position of great difficulty. I urge at least the postponement of this Motion and I suggest that it should not be put upon the Paper again unless it is found to be absolutely inevitable."the most popular animal in the Parliamentary menagerie."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1911; col. 254, Vol 30.]
The Prime Minister in making his Motion challenged me so pointedly that I feel that it would be a neglect of my duties if I did not reply to his challenge—for challenge, indeed, it was, though it was surrounded by a bouquet of compliments. The precedent of 1921 has been so fully dealt with already that there remains little for me to say about it, but I ask hon. Members to bear in mind what has already been said, namely, that the Bill to which this procedure was then applied had been in Committee for weeks if not for months; that we had reached the month of July, and that it was already evident that, even with such expedition as we were proposing, the House would have to sit until the end of August and very probably in the Autumn as well. The Bill then was, in truth, an urgent Measure—urgent not merely for the convenience of the Government, or of the Members of the House, but because the fate of the railways of this country and of all the interests which they affected was in doubt until that Bill was finally decided and placed on the Statute Book.
What is the statement of the Prime Minister to-day? His statement was made in terms which I venture to say any Government could apply to any Bill. He made no effort to show that this Measure had a particular urgency, that something vital in the life of the nation depended upon it. He simply said that if he could not carry it very early in the. new year its operation would be delayed until the next sowing season. As has been said, that would be a reason for condemning the Government for not having dealt with the question a year ago, but it is not a reason far depriving the House of Commons of its natural and ordinary opportunities of examination and discussion. There was such a reason in the case of the Railways Act, because upon it depended the whole of the financial arrangements for the settlement of the obligations between the Government and the railways arising out of the War. The effect of the War had been, of course, to throw the whole of the railway world into confusion. A settlement on an agreed basis depended on certain conditions which were embodied in the Bill, and if the Bill had not been passed, the railways could riot have paid their dividends, all development and all adjustment to the new situation would have been held up, and a. blow would have been struck at the credit, not merely of the railways but of the country, which would have added to the injury following necessarily in the wake of the War. I do not wish to say, or to be thought to say, that there might not arise again circumstances of similar urgency in which, after a similar time or even a shorter time, had been devoted to discussion of a Measure in Committee it might be necessary or right to apply some such method. But I say that the circumstances in which it was applied in 1921, whether they justified it then or not, are not paralleled in any single respect by the circumstances of to-day and merely to say that, in quite different circumstances and under quite other conditions this step was once taken, is not sufficient justification for proposing it again. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was very frank about his attitude. When he likes a Bill—or a Government—he will vote for any restrictions upon discussion. When he dislikes either a Bill or the Government which introduces it, he will offer opposition to it. The right hon. Gentleman is purely opportunist but I would beg of the House to consider the logical consequences of the argument which he has advanced. He himself attaches so little importance to discussion or argument in this House that, I think, he left it immediately after delivering his speech.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman had an appointment.
If it is the case that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be present, I ought not to have made the comment, but I regret that he could not be present to hear the answers to his own speech which have been given, or, indeed, to consider the arguments which I am about to put forward. The right hon. Gentleman says that the only result of discussion in this House is to cumber legislation, to make it less effective, to create difficulties in its operation. How far does he carry that theory? If he carries it to the length of supporting any restrictions, however severe, in favour of any Measure of which he approves, why should he not go a little further and make a new precedent Why not legislation by simple decree, or, at most, by Motions confirming Measures which the Government have seen fit to introduce? If discussion is to be reduced, why should you not have, not merely a Kangaroo Motion, but a. complete revision of our Procedure? Why should you not ask the House of Commons merely to approve or disapprove of a Bill as it stands when first introduced? Is my right hon. Friend quite certain that such discussions as take place in this House, so far from being of no use to the country, are not sometimes of some use to the Government?
I have often discussed with my right hon. Friend the Budget of 1909, which he has often observed to me shortened the lives of us both by the amount of time which it occupied and by the continuity of our attendance in its discussion, but he has said, "You know, your great mistake was to discuss at such length on the Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means and on their Report. If you had let the Ways and Means Resolutions go through, we should have been at our wits' end." It was just that discussion in the House on the Resolutions in Ways and Means that made it possible to frame a Bill that would even stand examination and, with very large amendment, secure assent. I admit that you cannot give unlimited time to any particular discussion, but the longer I have sat in the House the more I have thought there was to learn from the discussions which take place in this House, and the more con- vinced I am that the stability of our institutions and the continuity of our policy are immensely dependent upon such discussions. I would like to say another thing more directly affecting the present proposal. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who has just sat down, has drawn attention to a fact which had not, I think, been previously mentioned. It is that, concurrently with the growth of the powers entrusted to the occupant of the Chair, and in more recent times to the Chairman of Committees, has grown their abstention from any party action of any kind in the House. My hon. and gallant Friend has recounted how, in days when neither he nor I was in the House, one Speaker set the precedent of not voting in Committee and not speaking in the House, and how that precedent has been followed by all Speakers since. I myself was in the House when the precedent was set of the Chairman of Committees not voting, and I think the Chairman of Committees at that day, who subsequently became one of our most distinguished Speakers, Mr. Speaker Lowther, was led to that decision just because the House was now entrusting him in a growing degree with powers which required a complete abstention from party conflict if they were not only to be exercised with impartiality and judgment, but if it was to be felt in all parts of the House—and that is quite as important—that they were exercised with impartiality and judgment. You cannot take another six Members out of the House for all the ordinary purposes of debate and voting. You cannot give them the same position of impartiality, and above all of detachment, which is now the possession of the Chair and of the Chairman of Committees. I think it is that which profoundly differentiates the two cases, and it is no reflection on the Chairmen of Committees upstairs to say that it is a good reason why they should not be entrusted with such immense powers as those wielded by the Chair in this House or in this Committee and embodied in the Resolution before us now. If I may be permitted for a moment to go further, I do not want it to be supposed that I think our Procedure perfect. I recall, or at least I have refreshed my memory since I came down to the House with the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister alluded, and I see that I then renewed a proposal made several years before—I think more than 20 years before—by my right hon. Friend and predecessor in the representation of West Birmingham, that it would be well to consider whether this House should not set up something in the nature of the Committee of Rules of the American Congress, but to be administered rather in the temper and the tradition of this House than of the American Congress. An immensely difficult task must in any case be placed upon the shoulders of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, but when proposals are made for the Guillotine, which I think my hon. and gallant Friend said lie preferred to the Kangaroo, that surely is the most arbitrary and the most bludgeoning way of dealing with the difficulties which have arisen. It is necessarily a Resolution framed by the Government alone. It is imposed upon the House by a majority in the House—a party majority. Some trifling concession may be made—[Interruption.]—indeed often, as the Prime Minister says, it is so drafted as to enable the Government to facilitate its passage by making some concessions in the course of the discussion but it remains a purely arbitrary act. It is very blind in its application, and it does not at all secure the best distribution even of such time as is allowed. Would it not be well to consider whether a: Committee of this House—formed like the Committee of Selection—might not be established, formed on the same non-party basis, gradually creating for itself rules and precedents which would bind itself and its successors, getting, so to speak, a corpus of jurisprudence which would govern the cases submitted to it—whether such a Committee should not he authorised to allocate time to Bills rather than leave them to such procedure as we now have, with all its arbitrariness, its uncertainty, and its unevenness? I think that is a proposition which might be considered by the Committee which is going to be set up. I admit that it is open at once to the objection, which is made to the exercise of the Kangaroo even under the most favourable circumstances, that nobody in advance can always know whether or not an Amendment raises au important point, and certainly it may be added that no man can possibly know what is or is not important until the discussion has gene a certain way. The action of the Guillotine is much more certain, not only to be impartial but to be in itself right, when a Bill has reached the Report stage than when it is in Committee, because then the whole of it has been surveyed, and the Speaker or the Deputy-Speaker, who has to decide between Amendments, has the Committee discussions to guide him as to their relative importance; and I think that if any such procedure as I have suggested were adopted it would be necessary, probably, in the first case to give all Bills a run before any time was allotted and in any case to give the Committee, if the Bill developed a greater importance than they had expected, the power and right to revise and extend the time which they had at first allocated to it. But I am now entering into details which are not very germane to this debate. It was only that I wanted just to show that I did not propose that the Committee should consider the establishment of a Committee of Rules without some sort of conditions and restrictions which might he necessary. I have only to say, in conclusion, that the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt not to his great surprise, will find me in the Lobby opposed to him to-night, and may I add, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, that if I were choosing which Minister's Bill I would specially facilitate by restricting debate, he is the last Minister whose Bill I would so facilitate? I have been Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister before.I know his utter in-difference to finance. I know how his zeal outruns discretion, and how easy he finds it to spend money in pursuit of smallholdings, which will probably be a loss to everyone concerned, or small houses, which have burdened the country with a deplorable debt and produced so few houses—Two hundred and fifty thousand!
Yes, 250,000, but, at a cost which was prohibitive and has hampered the efforts of this country ever since.
I regard this Motion as of such great importance that I will ask the House to listen to one or two considerations which have not yet been put before it. It was obvious to everyone who heard the introductory speech of the Prime Minister that he had a very thin case. He based almost the whole of his speech upon an attempted parallel to what he termed the precedent of 1921, but in almost his opening words, in his plea for giving this special power over this Bill to the Chairman of Committee upstairs, he said that at a time like this it was necessary. As has been pointed out, in so far as those words refer to the parallel of 1921, this time, at the beginning of a new Session which, if it runs its normal course, will be some 10 months long, and at the very beginning of a Bill which has hitherto had no consideration at all except a Second Reading on the Floor of the House, is the exact opposite, not a parallel, to the conditions of the Railways Bill in 1921.
He went on to justify those words by saying that if any delay prevented this Bill from becoming law by the end of the year, it would mean a delay not of a few months, but a whole year, from the agricultural point of view. I cannot imagine on what he based that statement. The usual time for a change of agricultural tenancy is Michaelmas or Lady Day. A change of tenancy between one holder of a lease of land and another on the 1st January is an unheard-of thing in agriculture. If it be a matter of the work proceeding for the reclamation of land, the last time of the year in which to commence it is the depth of winter. So it clearly does not apply to that. The Bill is not going to place smallholders upon derelict land; it will be land which is in cultivation, and there, again, the appropriate periods are Michaelmas and Lady Day. There is, therefore, nothing in the argument that a whole year would be lost if this Bill did not become law by the end of the year. He said that the reason why these powers should be given to the Chairman was that the things that mattered would be discussed and the things that did not matter would not be discussed. It is begging the whole question to assume that the Chairman of a Committee upstairs can necessarily know by intuition or experience exactly what things in the Bill are the things that matter and what are the things that do not. A comparatively small Amendment to a Bill, the addition or omission of a single word, although apparently small, may be a thing that matters. If the Bill is rushed through, a large part of it is not considered in Committee at all under the operation of the Kangaroo Closure. These small things will be overlooked, and the unfortunate taxpayer, who depends on this House to look after his interests in the framing of legislation, will find out that something that was thought here to be something that did not matter was something that mattered intensely; and he will find it for the first time at enormous cost in the Law Courts, instead of it being found in Committee on the Bill. Another reason why this Motion should not be Acceded to is that there is only one precedent of sorts, and it was nine years ago. In any of these invasions of the old forms of debate in this House, you always find that there is a certain interval between the first and the second occasion, that it then becomes more and more frequent, and that, finally, it becomes the official method by which the debates are conducted. On the one hand, we have a part or two parts of an enormous Railways Bill, the rest of which had already been debated here, and which had to be put through at the fag-end of the Session; and, on the other hand, nine years after, we have an entirely different matter under exactly opposite conditions. If we create another precedent, there is nothing in between the one and the other which cannot be justified, and we shall have adopted An entirely new proposal, namely, that principal Measures of the Government should habitually be sent upstairs and discussed, as far as they are discussed at all, under the conditions of the Kangaroo Closure. That is the state of things that has never been tolerated in the House hitherto, but nothing else than that is what is at stake in this Motion. What would be the effect if all the major Government proposals were sent upstairs to be discussed under the Kangaroo Closure? There would be practically nothing between such a pro- cedure and regarding the debate on Bills in this House as so unimportant and useless that the more it was curtailed the better, that really it ought not to take place at all, and that all this House should do was to register the will of the Executive. We arc coming to that under this proposal of the Government. The Executive will be almighty, and the House practically powerless to delay, withhold or modify the legislation for which the Executive asks. Later we shall debate an Amendment which deals especially with the Committee on Procedure that is being set up. If there be one thing that makes it more appropriate than another that at this particular time we should not adopt this Motion, it is that a Committee is to consider the whole question of Procedure. As to the nature of the Bill in respect of which we are asked to give these peculiar powers, I cannot imagine one that is less appropriate. The major reason for our opposition to the Bill is not so much because of what it contains, but because it will be futile for its purposes at the present time—The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the Bill.
I did not intend to discuss the terms of the Bill. I merely wished to point out that it is not a Bill that must be put through now. Therefore, we shall oppose the idea, that it must be put through between now and the end of the year, and that there is any urgency that justifies this Motion. The time of the proposal of the Government is wrong; the precedent which they have quoted does not apply; and as this Bill is one of the two major Bills which the Government said they were introducing to deal with the problem of unemployment, the discussion should be in this House, and should be free from any procedure such as the Kangaroo Closure. On these grounds, I oppose this Motion; I consider that no case has been made out to give these powers to the Chairman of a Committee in respect of this particular Bill.
I rise to state a view which I deem it is proper should be stated from below the Gangway on this side of the House. The debate so far between the two Front Benches has consisted of the bandying of precedents of old cases. There are Members of this House who are not affected by this bandying of precedents. I am not wanting in respect to this House; some of us reached here by various ways—through trade union offices, co-operative societies and all sorts of commercial and other undertakings; and some of us who have given many hard years of thought and study to the practice of the constitution and the history of Parliament, are deeply grounded in respect for the rights and privileges of this House. The question is whether this Motion involves any serious curtailment of the rights of discussion of private Members. If it did, I should resist it. On behalf, I believe, of a number of friends who sit on these benches, I say that we are satisfied that this Motion is necessary in order that the business of the House shall be not only expeditiously, but efficiently carried on. The Prime Minister referred to the decline in the country of respect for this House. That was well founded, but it goes much further than he had time to suggest as to the expedition of the conduct of business in this House. The attitude of the country towards this House has been affected by the way in which the business of the House has been presented and conducted, and these circumstances make it all the more necessary that nothing should be done in this Parliament which would increase that alleged want of respect.
Can it be seriously suggested by those who have sat in this Parliament that there has been at any time any serious curtailment of the rights of discussion by private Members? I do not want to make any invidious references, but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has had full advantage of the rights of discussion, and I have never noticed that it has been curtailed in any way. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert), who has a number of Amendments on the Paper, took advantage, quite properly, during the discussions on the Finance Bill, to deal with a whole series of devices which some of us knew had been used in years past to avoid taxation by certain classes. We have sat here week after week listening to a repetition, almost in identical words, of the same ideas and the same objections, with Members continually called to order by the Chair for these repetitions, and now we are asked to resist this Motion on the ground that it involves a contraction of the rights of private discussion. Some of us on these benches believe that this Motion might very well he applied to other Bills, that far from there being any curtailment of the rights of discussion in this House, licence has been used, that is detrimental to public business, and has resulted in a degradation in the view which is held in the country with regard to this House. The sort of complaint which was levelled against this Motion is the last complaint that can reasonably be made against the conduct of business by this or any other Government. We shall do all that we can on these benches to support the Government in this Motion, because we feel that it is necessary in order that the business of the House can be efficiently and expeditiously conducted. We congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Motion, and we hope that they will have the courage to revive it on other occasions.I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
A good many of the arguments I may use in supporting this Amendment have already been advanced by hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, and with reference to the allusion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) to the origin of the word "kangaroo," I may say that I also have been delving into what I may, perhaps, call the genetics of this particular animal, which has not been imported as any result of the Dominion Conference, because the term "kangaroo" has no Australian connection. I have found that the first time any use was made of the Kangaroo Procedure was in 1911. The Prime Minister was one of those who, on 25th October, 1911, voted for a somewhat similar Motion to this. He was then supporting his right hon. Friend now the Leader of the Liberal party, who is now supporting him. After 19 years their positions are reversed. In 1911 the National Health Insurance Bill was under discussion, and had been actually in Committee for 17 days. We have not started the Committee stage of this Bill, but have merely had the Second Reading. In October, 1911, the position was that the Parliamentary Session had already lasted for some eight or nine months. The position to-day is entirely different. It is within four weeks of this Session opening that we find ourselves confronted with this Motion. There is a further important point, that in 1911 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), complained plaintively that he had received 100 deputations on the subject of the Bill. I wonder how many deputations the Minister of Agriculture has received on this Measure. He may have met three or four, but, obviously, there have been very few; and, therefore, the reasons which actuated the Government in 1911 cannot be said to arise at the present time, and the analogy which has been drawn entirely fails. As regards the Railways Bill of 1921, to which allusion has been made, the position then, also, was entirely different. It was on 6th July that the Motion to apply the Kangaroo Closure in Committee upstairs was brought forward. The position was that the guarantee which the State had given to the railways during the War was due to expire in the middle of August, and there were economic reasons of a, pressing nature why it was impossible to carry on without the Bill. It had to be passed in the five or six weeks between 6th July and the middle of August. The right hon. Gentleman cannot plead that there is any such measure of urgency in regard to a Bill which has already been on the stocks of the Department for several months, and it may even be for a year. He cannot plead that this Bill must go through before Christmas for this, that or the other reason. If that were so, there would be a general measure of agreement over the step which is now proposed. if this were a good Bill we should all want to see it passed, in the interests of agriculture. [Interruption.] I am not allowed to discuss the merits of the Bill, and I will not be tempted into doing so by hon. Members opposite, but if it were a good Bill it is quite obvious that those of us with agricultural knowledge would try to get it passed at the earliest possible moment. There is no need for the procedure proposed in Committee upstairs. In regard to the question of the Chairman, I have had 12 years' experience of this House, and in that time one does get to know a, good deal about the personnel. I have said that I should throw bouquets at the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) if I got a chance, and I do not think a better Member could have been chosen as Chairman, or one to whom one could better entrust powers of this sort. But it is the question of precedent which I am up against. Recently Members of this House with only two or three years' experience have had to undertake the very difficult task of acting as chairman of a committee upstairs. It is not always possible, with the changing personnel of the House, to get hon. Members with long experience, and we have had to fall back upon those with only two or three years' experience. I am not questioning their impartiality, but they have not had the Parliamentary experience which is necessary if they are to be entrusted with such very wide powers. It is known that the Chairman of a Committee is fortified with the best clerical assistance which the House can give, but however good the clerks upstairs may be, they cannot have had the same experience as is possessed by the three gentlemen who occupy those three chairs on the Floor of the House. If my right hon. Friend there to go sick and some other Member had to take his place as Chairman, we should be throwing upon a private Member an unfair measure of responsibility, and putting him in a very awkward position towards his fellow-Members in the matter of the selection of Amendments. From that point of view I regard the adoption of the procedure proposed as most unfortunate. When a Measure has been discussed in Committee of the Whole House, the Chair has the advantage of very full reports of what has taken place, and the benefit of the advice of those who sit below the Chair with regard to the Amendments to be taken on the Report stage. I imagine that it is quite impossible for the Chair to select Amendments in the same way when a Measure has been taken in Committee upstairs, and on those grounds the Government ought to give greater time to the Report stage, utilising for that purpose some of the time they may have saved by this procedure. They certainly ought to do that after investing the Chairman of Committee upstairs with the powers of the Kangaroo Closure. We all agree that with a minority Government some things are possible and some things impossible. I recall that in the long debates on the Finance Bill this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer at times hardly showed the spirit of sweet reasonableness which we hoped he might display. If you want to get things done, especially if you are a minority Government, sweet reasonableness does pay. There was one particular instance in which the discussion on an Amendment of no great merit ran on for 10 or 12 hours because the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not agree to the reasonable suggestions—as he thought them—which were put forward from this side. In my opinion, the Government would be ill-advised if, having succeeded in sending this Measure upstairs with the Kangaroo Closure, they were to take a similar line with other Measures. They would not find in the long run that action of that sort paid, and I hope that even at this late hour the Prime Minister may be induced to consent to the Amendment which I have moved."this House declines to invest the Chairman of one Standing Committee with such powers as may result in the curtailment of the rights of Members to the free discussion of one of the chief Measures of the Government programme, and declares that it will await the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure before assenting to any such changes in procedure."
I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the Prime Minister will show a spirit of sweet reasonableness, because I cannot help thinking that, busy man as he is, he has not perhaps realised the full implications of the Motion he has put on the Paper. When he was a young man and a member of the Union of Democratic Control he used to plead for open diplomacy and full discussion, and it is rather disturbing to find him now negativing so many of the good resolutions of his youth. May I remind both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal party that we are not really arguing about the Kangaroo to-day, but arguing about the extension of the Kangaroo procedure to Committee upstairs, which is a much more serious move than is, perhaps, apparent? The Kangaroo procedure was first applied in Committee upstairs in 1911. That is 19 years ago. After the lapse of 19 years we are only now proposing to apply it for the third time in Committee upstairs. [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister will allow me to say so it was applied in Committee upstairs on the Health Insurance Bill in 1911, and on the Railways Bill in 1921. The leader of the Liberal party taunted the Leader of the Opposition with changing places with the Prime Minister when he was in Opposition, suggesting that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; but I would remind him that the Leader of the Opposition never once asked that the powers of the Kangaroo Procedure should be given to the Chairman of a Committee upstairs. Mention has been made of the difficulty of selecting Amendments, and a Chairman, with the best will in the world, may select Amendments which leave out important points. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), speaking in the House of Commons, the last time these powers were given, in July, 1921, gave his experience as a Deputy-Chairman of Committees:6.0 p.m. That shows the difficulty of a Chairman of Committees in this House, and it must be much greater for the Chairman of a Committee upstairs. Time and time again points arise during the discussion of an Amendment which were not at first suspected. The surprises of debate are inexhaustible. No Liberal who read his newspaper this morning and saw that the House was to discuss this Motion would imagine that he would open his paper to-morrow morning and see that the leader of the Liberal party had taken advantage of the occasion to make a speech which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would mean the whole negation of Parliamentary government. He went so far as to suggest that we never get anything out of prolonged de- bates. We know that he is a little impatient of prolonged debates, and is very apt to leave directly he has delivered his own speech, but I think the Prime Minister will agree that the Opposition does serve some useful purpose. I think he would agree that his Minister of Health was very useful in the discussions on the Rating and Valuation Bill which went on upstairs, and were carried through without any Kangaroo procedure. I think he paid tribute to the Minister of Health in respect of various Amendments which my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) accepted during the proceedings on that Bill, and I think the right hon. Member for West Woolwich has said that in the long discussion on the Ministry of Health Bills last Parliament the Opposition performed a very useful function. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) gave the reasons why he produced the Kangaroo Motion in 1921, and he pointed out that it was necessary, if the railways were to be amalgamated, that the Measure dealing with that question should be passed. At that time the whole country was anxious for the amalgamation of the railways, but feel certain that no one can claim that the agricultural interest is anxious for this Bill to go through. On the contrary, the whole body of agricultural opinion in this country is opposed to this Measure, and that is all the more reason why we should have adequate discussion in Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham might have pointed out how congested Parliamentary business was at the time he introduced the Kangaroo Motion on 6th July, 1921, and it should not be forgotten that, at that time, it was anticipated that the House would rise on 12th August. Consequently, only 28 Parliamentary days remained before the rising of the House. Six of those days were allotted days for Supply, six days were allotted to the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, three days for the Corn Production Bill, three days to the Report Stage and Third Reading of the Railways Bill, two days for the Report Stage and Third Reading of the Finance and three days were left for the Pensions Bill and two days for the Consolidated Fund Bill. In addition to those Measures there were also the Church of Scotland Bill and the Burma Bill. It will be seen from that programme that the business of the Session was very much congested, and that was when we were nearing the end of the Session. Now we find the Government coming forward at the beginning of the Session with a Motion of this kind. The Prime Minister has told the House that the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill is an urgent Measure, but that can be said of every Measure introduced in this House. The Government desire to rush this Measure through in order that they may be able to appeal to the country, after the Leader of the Liberal party has screwed up a little more courage, and say that they have brought forward a Bill to assist agriculture. On this side of the House we are very interested in Measures of this kind, although we do not agree with the proposals contained in this Bill. This is a very bad Bill, and everybody connected with agriculture believes that it is a bad Bill; but my view is, that if we were given adequate time to discuss all our points we could thresh out a Measure which might be of some use to the country. I hope that the Prime Minister, in the interests of the Liberal party, the Labour party and agriculture, will decide to alter his mind, because the carrying of this kind of Resolution will do no good."I say that over and over again it was shown that the Amendments that the Chairman and myself had selected as the best for discussion turned out in the course of debate not to be those which ought to be discussed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1921; col. 524, Vol. 144.]
I have been a Member of this House for 12 years, and after listening to the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, I have been reminded of an old song which used to be sung in the East End of London entitled, "Yah I yah! what a game it is!" I have listened to the same arguments every year when an Opposition has decided to oppose a Bill, and whenever a proposal is made to assist the passage of any Measure through this House the Opposition immediately begin to talk about stifling discussion. When it happens to be a case of conscripting workmen, or declaring a state of emergency in time of war, anyone who attempts to discuss questions of that kind is looked upon as a traitor to his country. I read yesterday, by probably the greatest journalist which the party opposite possesses—Mr. J. L. Garvin, the editor of the "Observer"—I read his articles every Sunday, and some hon. Members belonging to the party opposite only think about it—in an article in the "Observer," it was suggested that the country was in a greater state of emergency at the present time than ever it was during the War. Peace has its tragedies no less renowned than war, and to-day we are faced with the tragedy of peace. To-day we have 2,000,000 unemployed. Bills have been introduced dealing with this question, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who say that they are always anxious about the unemployed have shed tears of blood every night they think about them at the Trocadero. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are now telling those men who won the War that the Government, in dealing with this problem of agriculture, are not going as far as they ought to go.
The Government have now produced a Bill dealing with agriculture, and when a way is suggested of dealing with this problem in the most expeditious manner possible, hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us that we are stifling discussion. That kind of criticism is now being made by the people who have always stifled discussion, whenever class interests Are concerned. I remember the time when Coercion Acts were rushed through Parliament without any discussion whatever, and the men who dared to discuss those Measures were ordered out of the House, and expelled, not one at a time, but in battalions, because they dared to discuss proposals made by the party opposite. Now hon. Members opposite come forward, like ladies of easy virtue at a christening, in white robes to hide their blackness, and ask us not to give this power to the Committee upstairs. What a reflection on the party opposite! The history of Parliament shows that only a few Labour men have occupied the position of Chairmen of Committees. Those positions have generally been filled by gentlemen with brains from Oxford and Cambridge. The arguments which have been used to-day seem to imply that if this Bill goes upstairs, and the right hon. Gentleman who has been mentioned happens to be the Chairman, he has not brains enough to select Amendments. Who, in reality, selects the Amendments? As a rule they are selected by members of the legal profession who sit at the Table advising the Chair and other people who are interested. If I put down a question, it is sometimes pulled to pieces by legal gentlemen at the Table.I cannot allow the hon. Member to make such observations.
I desire only to find out the facts. I am not clever enough to draft questions in legal form. Sometimes the Chair does not know whether the Amendment is in order, and somebody else has to be consulted. Some hon. Members opposite ought to know better than make the speeches which they have delivered to-day, after being so long in the House of Commons. They pretend that this House is master of the situation, but it is quite evident that hon. Members have to get behind a lot of machinery before they can get Anything through. The object of the Opposition in regard to this Motion is to delay the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill becoming law, and every possible argument they can find will be used in that direction.
I know that if we were in Opposition we should do the same thing, but hon. Members should recollect that while we are wrangling Britain is burning. The people outside do not understand the technicalities of our procedure in Parliament, and they do not understand terminological inexactitudes. The people want this House to get on with the business. They want the goods to be delivered, and hon. Members opposite are here to stop them. I remember what members of the Conservative party did when they had an overwhelming majority in this House. Talk about discussion! When the Labour party were in Opposition, we were howled down to such an extent that nobody could speak at all. Your voice is not strong enough to howl me down.I hope that the hon. Member is not referring to me.
The Opposition we are facing is not intended for business purposes, but it is intended to delay the carrying of legislation with which hon. Members opposite do not agree, and I hope it keeps fine for them.
The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said it was hinted on this side that someone had not brains enough to select Amendments. That has not been said on this side of the House. What we say is that it is unfair to place upon a Chairman the duty of selecting Amendments when he has to take part day after day in party debate. The hon. Member for Silvertown says that he has been a Member of this House for 12 years. I have been a Member longer than that, and I think that hon. Members will agree with me when I say that year after year the rights of private Members have been curtailed, and that is very largely due to the fact that the executive Government are gradually taking more power to themselves in regard to our legislation. Up to the present the rights of private Members have been very largely preserved in Standing Committees, and it has been, to my mind, one of the charms of Parliament that one has been able to take part in the proceedings of Committees upstairs without the restrictions that are very often suffered on the Floor of the House. A great deal has been said, and I would ask the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to this, about the precedent of 1921. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the precedent of 1911, which, to my mind, is a much more important precedent from the point of view of this debate.
In 1911 we had the National Insurance Bill before us, in which the right hon. Gentleman took one of the most prominent parts throughout, and he remembers very well that, when we came to Part II of that Bill, a Motion was proposed by Mr. Asquith in this House to refer that part of the Bill to a Standing Committee, and he proposed that the Chairman of that Committee should be able to select Amendments under the Kangaroo procedure. I suppose, however, that he had been thinking over the matter while the Motion was on the Paper, because, during the course of his speech, Mr. Asquith said to the House that he had been looking into the matter, and he thought that on the whole it was too drastic a Motion, and he actually, during the course of his speech—I have the words here, but I will not trouble the House with them—deleted a Clause of the Motion and added another giving the Committee upstairs the power of having a Motion made each time the Kangaroo Closure was going to be put, and enabling the Committee to vote upon it without debate. Mr. Balfour expressed his gratitude to the Prime Minister and Leader of the House for making that concession on so important a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that that concession was not misused in any way at all. I was a, member of that Committee, and, if I recollect rightly, Part II of the Bill went through fairly easily—far more easily than Part I on the Floor of the House. That particular concession was never made bad use of. Whenever the Kangaroo was going to be imposed, the Committee had a chance, without debate, of giving its opinion as to whether the Kangaroo ought to be applied on the particular Clause under discussion or not. I am very disappointed indeed that, in making this proposal, the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to give that concession, which was not abused the last time it was given on a Bill certainly of equal importance with this one. There is another point that I should like to make. The right hon. Gentleman knows that a Committee sat the other day to consider the question of the hours of meeting and rising of the House, and I am disappointed that in this Motion nothing at all is said about the question of the sitting of the Committee while the House is sitting. It has always, to my mind, been a great pity that Standing Committees should be sitting upstairs while debates are going down here. An hon. Member Cannot he in two places at the same time, and a Bill may be before the House clown here, and another Bill before the Committee upstairs, both of which may he of vital importance to his constituents, and he has to choose at which one he shall be present. I am very sorry that nothing has been put into this Motion to lay down a rule that this particular Committee should not sit upstairs while the House is sitting here. In order to fortify what I am saying, I should like to quote what the Prime Minister said when he was giving evidence the other day before that Committee. He said:In spite of that, this Motion not only does not contain any kind of condition that the two bodies should not sit at the same time, but aggravates the position by giving this immense power to the Chairman of the Committee for the first time on a Bill of this kind."I think it is very undesirable, as a rule, that important Committees, Standing Com- mittees, should sit when the House is Sitting, because the effect of that is to divide the House of Commons into sections, and I am all for keeping the unity of the House of Commons."
I must say that I was surprised at the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). We are discussing the question whether we should have a guillotine in Committee or whether we should not. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was not as to whether it was a good thing to have a guillotine set up for this Committee or not; his argument was merely as to whether he liked or disliked this particular Bill. He was perfectly frank about it; be had no principle at all. He merely said that, if he disliked the Bill which was before the House and in the case of which a guillotine was to be set up, he would oppose it, and if he liked it he would support it. I think he is rather like the Kangaroo. He himself world jump from side to side when he had come to a conclusion as to whether he liked the particular Measure or not.
The Prime Minister recommended this Motion to the House because he said that the Bill was a matter of urgency. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston); I think there is more in that than meets the eye. It looks very much as though this was not the beginning of a Session, but was going to be the end of it. It looks as though the Prime Minister was very anxious to get this one Measure through which is going to deal with unemployment before he goes to the country. He will then be able to say to the country that at least he has passed one thing during the time he has been in office which has to do with the unemployment problem, on which he was elected. This seems to me to be a forecast that the Prime Minister is expecting a General Election at no distant date. [interruption.] One of the reasons why this Motion should not be carried is this: There is, to my mind, a very great difference between the setting up of a time table and a guillotine. A guillotine gives to the Chairman of the Committee the opportunity of jumping, as a kangaroo, various Amendments, and he does it without giving any explanation at all to the Committee. A Committee upstairs is unlike the House of Commons itself. It only consists of about 60 Members altogether. There is not a very large number of Front Bench Members there, and possibly the Chairman himself may not be a very experienced Chairman. One can imagine what would happen in a Committee like that, with a certain number of inexperienced back bench Members and a possibly inexperienced Chairman jumping various Amendments which certain Members wanted to have discussed. The result would be a very heated discussion in the Committee. It might even be as heated as the discussion which took place in 1927 on the Trade Disputes Bill when a time table was set up in this House. I would like to read one or two words from a speech made by the present Home Secretary. This is what he said in reference to the time table:Then the hon. Members walked out of the House. That resulted in a scene. Do we want that sort of thing to happen in Committee upstairs? With the inexperience of some of the Members of the Committee, and the inexperience, possibly, of the Chairman, who has not to tell the Committee his reasons for skipping certain Amendments, we might easily have protests of that kind, causing considerable disturbance in the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get his Bill through, it is very much better to try to get it through at a reasonable speed and in a reasonable way. The Committees upstairs, of which I have had a certain amount of experience, are always amenable to that sort of treatment. I remember that not very long ago the present Minister of Transport was not very happy with the Committee which was considering the Road Traffic Bill, because he tried to force certain things through, and the result was that the discussions went on longer than was necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, when he is in charge of this Bill in Committee, will only take the Committee into his confidence and be reasonable—[interruption.] I am sure he will be, but it is not going to be left to him, because the Chairman is going to skip certain Amendments which possibly the right hon. Gentleman might be willing to accept, so that it will not really rest with him; but it does rest with him to tell us to-day that he realises that the arguments on this side of the House against setting a new precedent of this kind are so weighty that he is prepared to say to the Prime Minister that, as far as he is concerned in regard to this Bill, lie does not want this Motion to be passed."It would reduce Parliamentary business to a mockery. We shall not be a party to it. We shall not sit here to take part in this part of the Parliamentary farce. We have once sat on that side of the House; we shall be there again; and we, therefore, enter our protest against this policy of 'gag' and of bullying, but we leave the House at this moment with the consciousness that before very long we shall come back with a majority which shall be used more fairly and reasonably than the majority of the present Government."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1927; cols. 944£945, Vol. 206.]
From a report in the newspapers I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, when he was speaking at a meeting, was heckled by people at the back of the room, and, when the hecklers were brought up at the police court, he asked that they should be let off, because he always advocated free speech; he only wanted an example made of those responsible for the disturbance in order to justify the fact that he stood for free speech. He is, however, a member of a Government which is now proposing to curtail the free speech of this House. One of my reasons for opposing this proposal to curtail discussion in Committee is that this Bill is hardly at all an agricultural Bill, but is a Bill designed to bring in extreme Socialist proposals in regard to the acquisition and control of land, and Soviet methods are being used to suppress speech on the part of those who are opposed to such proposals. [interruption.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but I am perfectly serious about it. The Government as a whole are keeping up a facade of respectability to deceive the public and to hide all their great conferences, Indian and Colonial, and all their other measures by which they are attempting, as far as they dare, to put those Socialist principles into operation in this country.
Reference has been made to the Railways Bill of 1921 on which a similar Motion was put forward. I have been to some trouble to read that debate, and I asked myself, Should I or should I not have voted for the Kangaroo for that Committee? There was the utmost necessity that certain guarantees that the Government had promised to the railways should be made at a certain date. Unless they were made, the companies would have gone bankrupt. There was a kind of War-time urgency about the matter, and I honestly think I should have voted for it as a matter of urgent public importance. But this Bill is not one of that kind at all. It is a Bill that has been born in the heads of a lot of theorists. Every practical man I have spoken to says it cannot achieve any of those things that the Minister claims it will achieve. If I remember rightly, the Minister on the Second Reading said he would welcome the co-operation in a non-partisan spirit of all Members of the House. It was forced through by the well-trained majority behind him and, directly it has a Second Reading he tries to avoid free and full discussion upstairs because he knows, now that the Bill has been examined by farming experts, it will be completely torn to pieces. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) referred to the invidious position in which the Chairman of the Committee will be put. I believe absolutely in the complete impartiality arid fair judgment of the Chairmen not only of this House but of Committees upstairs. It would be interesting to know who will be the Chairman of this Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do know!"] I have been called away on urgent business and I have not heard. But, whoever he is, does he know anything about the technicalities of agriculture? [interruption.] I am informed that he does. That is to the good. [interruption.] I am again informed that he knows Nothing about it. Be that as it may, I suppose officially the Chairman of the Committee will have entire responsibility as to whether he shall allow an Amendment to be moved or not, but he is certain to ask advice as to the importance of the Amendment, as to what ground it covers, or whether one Amendment is covered by another. It would be interesting to know from what sort of people he is going to seek advice. I have spent many hours this last week or two with farming friends and representatives of the National Farmers' Union, and I defy any Chairman to be able to decide whether an Amendment is a good one or not until he has heard the case presented by the Mover. On the Paper it may appear to be of minor importance but, when it is explained to the Committee, it may develop into an Amendment of first-class importance. It is, therefore, unjust to the industry as a whole that the discussion should be shortened in Committee. There is a point that I should like to put forward for your consideration, Sir. If the Committee stage is restricted, and, a particular Member has a genuine grievance that an important Amendment has not been called, might I suggest that you would give it favourable consideration on Report stage. That is supposed to be a glorified Committee stage in which new points are allowed to be raised, but the ground gone over in Committee is not allowed to be covered again. I would suggest that you should give favourable consideration on Report to a point that has been ruled out in Committee. One of my constituents, who studies constitutional law and knows a good deal about it, put an objection to me which think so important that I ought to put it before the House. He said a back-bencher has a responsibility to his constituents and if, after considerable trouble and work, he puts down an Amendment which represents the views of his constituents which is ruled out by the whim of the Chairman, he will be debarred from doing his duty to his constituents and he has no power of appeal in the matter. That is the reason why I have made that request to you, Sir. I suppose we cannot defeat this Motion, but I hope all these protests will be put on record and that it will be seen that the Government are afraid to go into Committee and have a full discussion, and that they curtail free speech because they know the weakness inherent in the Bill.
I think that this debate has been remarkable, not for what has been said but for what has not been said, namely, reference to the reasons for this Motion and the circumstances under which it is brought forward. But before I come to that particularly, I should like to review some of the objections and arguments against giving this power to the Chairman of the Committee while it was appropriate to a much more complicated Bill some years ago. The first objection was that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that we should not have confidence in the ability of the Chairman to pass over Amendments that were obviously designed for mere repetition, or which were trivial and unimportant. I have been a Member of this House for a good many years and that is a little discovery to me. Anyone who has bad any material experience of the proceedings of this House would have no difficulty whatever in recognising for the most part which Amendments are trivial. It is a reflection on the Chairmen of our Committees. That objection has really no substance at all. Another objection is that this is not a parallel case to the Railways Bill or that, at least, it is one of less urgency. We were told that the Railways Bill had been discussed quite a long time and that it was towards the end of the Session.
Dividends would not be paid until the matter was settled.
I am not in any way disputing that that Bill was urgent, but it was towards the end of the Session. The Prime Minister referred to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition that we were trying to cram into this Session two or three years of legislative programme. If that is the case, if the objection is to congestion, there is nothing in it. This is congestion at the beginning, according to this description, and that was congestion at the end. But I suggest that congestion has nothing whatever to do with it. The question is whether this is a sensible and practicable way of dealing with this business. The Railways Bill was a much more complicated Bill than this. If it will be difficult for the Chairman to dis- tinguish between a trivial and an important Amendment on this Bill, it was much more difficult on such a highly technical Measure as the Railways Bill, but there was no question raised that I can remember of the incapacity of the Chairman to select Amendments. As far as that objection is concerned, it must have applied with much greater force to the Railways Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said that Bill was very urgent. I think it was, and that was a very good ground for passing the Motion. I have no doubt that I voted for it at the time, and I should vote for it again, as it was a sensible thing to do. This is a sensible thing to do for exactly similar reasons.
Hon. Members opposite want us to allow this Committee to experience the same difficulty as that experienced by the Committees on the Consumers Council Bill, and the Road Transport Bill last Session. There was obstruction on those Bills for weeks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, there was. There was absolute obstruction on those Bills week after week owing to the fact that the Chairman of the Committee upstairs had no power to select amendments. They discussed the Consumers Council Bill for several weeks without getting as many lines. The same thing would happen, without a doubt, to this Bill if we sent it upstairs to Committee without equipping the Chairman with some such power as that now suggested. The experience of Parliament last Session in respect of those two Bills ought to warn us, not this Government only, but any other Government. When the right hon. Gentleman comes in at "an expected early date," I do not doubt that he will make arguments of this kind and support such a Motion, particularly if he is dealing with tariffs and questions of that sort. I dare say that it will be necessary-I think it will-to equip the Chairman with similar powers. As a matter of fact, I believe that after the experience of last Session, we have to contemplate, for reasons which I will mention later, some such procedure as this being more regularly adopted in this House; otherwise, we shall not be able to deal with the business. The right hon. Gentleman took another novel kind of objection. He said that we ought not to make this proposal until the Bill had been discussed—I will not say obstructed—for some days, and that it should be tabled only after bitter experience had shown us that it was necessary. What would that mean in this case? We are now nearly at the end of the Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?" and "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Members opposite do not make a worse slip than that, they will not do amiss. We are now nearing the end of the Sittings of Parliament before Christmas—we will put it that way—and everyone knows that the House will not meet again until, or anyhow towards, the end of January. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If we had to experience this measure of difficulty before we came down to the House with a Motion, there would, in fact, be so few Parliamentary days left owing to the way in which we do our business, that it would then be impossible to get a Motion of this kind carried and the Bill through its further stages. Then we should have lost the season which we wish to gain by making this proposal. Unless the Department have the, power to acquire land or to make arrangements for people to enter upon it, at any rate, with regard to the allotment portion of it, so as to be able to cultivate it in the spring, we shall in fact lose a season. That is what will happen if the Bill is driven over until the House meets again in January, and therefore there is as much urgency in this matter as there was in regard to the Railways Bill in 1921. The right hon. Gentleman has too short a memory. He has not always lived up to his professions, not that in that respect he differs from other Prime Ministers or even from other Ministers, I dare say. I find that in the Local Government Bill of 1928, not only did he not wait until he had experienced obstruction—he knew very well that so far as this House was concerned the Kangaroo power was already there—but he came down to the House of Commons and proposed a Guillotine Motion to take the Bill in stages in Committee. That was a much more drastic thing to do than that which we are proposing, and, with great respect, I think that it was much more fatal to a good examination of the Bill, because we must, both of us, be familiar with a good many instances under the Guillotine where whole Clauses with some valuable and important Amendments, have not been discussed at all. If there is to be a choice between processes, I am sure that the Kangaroo is a much more sensible way of dealing with it than the closure by Guillotine. There was one matter to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) called attention. He referred to it because he said, "A dangerous man was in charge of the Bill." I am not going to reply to that controversy at all. I have no intention of doing so, although it has been dragged before me several times. I shall say nothing. But I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of two facts. First, that as far as housing is concerned, he himself was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. The second thing—and I am only referring to this because it has already been published; I have refrained from replying for reasons which he will appreciate—is that the financial scheme of that business, as he knows well, was not recommended by me and was contrary to my recommendations. Having known that, I think that what he did was not quite fair. The protestation that these proposals closure fair debate and prevent the discussion of important matters is a statement which is not well founded. It impresses nobody and misleads nobody. The real reason why we need this Motion, apart from the fact of having the bitter experience of last Session before us, is that unless we had a proposal of this kind we could not possibly get the Committee stage of this Bill before next Easter. That is an absolute certainty. We should lose the whole of that time. With that possibility and the experience of last Session before us, it is due to the House of Commons and to the importance of its business that we should equip ourselves with some such power as that now proposed. I suggest—I think that this is a consideration which has been overlooked and is the most important consideration of the whole lot—that this House of Commons, as the Mother of Parliaments, has to adapt its Procedure so as to be able to deal with the much vaster volume of business which crowds upon it. We all know, especially since the War, that we have had legislative and administrative problems forced upon the attention of this House and that they have had to be sandwiched between the innumerable conferences on disarmament and reparation; and now matters affecting the Dominions and India have crowded, one after another, upon the time of this House. It is evident that if we are to justify Parliamentary institutions we must be ready to make sensible adaptations of our Procedure so as to enable us to do so. In my view it is as important as anything can be that this House should stand for the advancement of Parliamentary institutions in order to show that they can be made efficient machines of popular government. We have seen all over Europe a very manifest distrust of Parliamentary institutions, and therefore it is particularly important that this House should not have too much regard to precedents and. party considerations in approaching a matter of this sort. In view of the situation with which we are faced and the urgency of the occasion—we have2,000,000 unemployed looking on to see how we handle this problem—I think that there is no further authority whatever needed for this Motion.There were several interesting features of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, and certainly one of the most interesting was in the first part, when he called to his aid a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I never thought that I should ever find the Minister of Agriculture looking across at the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and almost kissing him again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I remember very well—and so does he—the last love letter he received from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and I suppose that it was that which my right hon. Friend the Member for West, Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) had in mind when he made his criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's housing proposals.
I suggest that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have failed to make out a case, at any rate, 6o far as this particular Bill is concerned. I have had a fair amount of experience in Committee upstairs, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I do not say for a moment that there may not be a case in which you might have to call in aid a process of this kind. But what is the urgency for this Bill? If it was a Bill to make farming pay or a Bill which was going to provide work and profit for people already on the land, there might be something to be said for it, but it is a Bill which has been delayed, as far as the present Government are concerned, for many months. I did not follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, that because the Government of the day happen to put a very large number of Measures in the King's Speech, that therefore some particular device of this nature has to be adopted with regard to the Bills presented. Surely, that is a most remarkable argument. 7.0 p.m. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs also made a most extraordinary speech in favour of his new found friend. I remember very well, on the Second Reading of this Bill, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs advocated that it should be taken on the Floor of the House and then voted against it in the Division Lobby. If hon. Members will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, they will find one of the worst possible arguments that could be adduced in favour of this course contained in the references to the right hon. Gentleman's own experience with regard to debate and action under the Government of which he was a member and to his method of accepting Amendments. If I followed him aright, he did not believe in debate in this House at all. He said that he found in his experience, especially on the National Health Insurance Bill, that it was most detrimental to the conduct of the Bill to have any debate upon it at all and that he accepted Amendments, which were forced upon him and which did a great deal of damage to his Bill and were most detrimental afterwards. That is an extraordinary argument, and we gather that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would prefer to go forward without a debate at all. I cannot speak as to the consequences of one occasion on which this particular procedure was adopted, namely, with regard to the railways, but I can speak about the other precedent, when it was adopted in connection with the National Health Insurance Bill. Whether for that reason or another, that Bill has had to be amended no less than 17 times. There must, at any rate, be some support for the argument that a fair amount of the subsequent difficulty was due to the absence of proper discussion when the Bill was passed. That Bill was taken upstairs in 1912 after a portion of it had been debated here, and this process was adopted in Committee upstairs. That has not proved a very useful precedent. The Minister for Agriculture and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs somehow brought into the discussion the position of this House and said that the country outside was growing impatient of it and that it was losing the sympathies of the people. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has made that observation very frequently during the last year or two. It is an observation often made by people who are impatient of their position or who do not occupy a position in the Government. The country outside would be more impatient, not of proper adequate debate, but of tactics and votes given by Members, not on the merits of a Bill, but according as it suited their own personal fortunes or those of their party. The criticism of most of the work done here has not been on that account at all. The great complaint—by our High Court Judges, for instance, in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act and such Measures—has been that we have not given sufficient attention to our work in examining and passing laws. That has really done more damage than anything else to the House of Commons, and we often hear references to our slipshod methods. You may take various Acts of a particular nature, and, without exception, the reason for this fault has been exactly the opposite of the arguments urged in connection with this Motion. The great case against the House of Commons is that a great deal of its work is stamped and does not have that final scrutiny and criticism, which will very often improve a Measure and will prevent many people paying the costs of litigation. The right hon. Member has not dealt with the criticisms which were urged by the right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), when he said that the Government were placing the Members of the House in a very grave difficulty if the Committee was to sit upstairs at the same time as the House. I hope we shall have an assurance that it is not his intention to ask the Committee to sit at the same time as the House. He ought to give some undertaking in that respect before we pass this Motion. No Member would agree, if he were free, to a proposal which would make demands upon him of such an unreasonable nature. It is only the most urgent case that would justify demands being made to sit upstairs in Committee while there is a debate on the Floor of the House here. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an undertaking that he does not contemplate anything of the kind. So far as this particular discussion is concerned, the Government have made out no case. They are setting up a new precedent. This is a House of Commons matter and not so much a party matter. It affects almost every Member, because they may be in different places to-morrow. The Opposition and the Government may change, and the very first people who may object to proposals of this kind may well be Members of the Labour party themselves. I hope, therefore, we shall hear from Members on the Government side some protest on a matter of this kind. At any rate, our course is quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman has not justified his proposals, and we shall be glad to go into the Lobby against them.rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be CONY put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
I listened with great respect to the Prime Minister,
Division No. 21.]
| AYES
| [7.13 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bellamy, Albert | Bromley, J. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock) | Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Brothers, M. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Benson, G. | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Burgess, F. G. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) |
| Angell, Norman | Birkett, W. Norman | Caine, Derwent Hall- |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Bilndell, James | Cameron, A. G. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Bondfleid, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Carter, W. (St Pancras, S.W.) |
| Ayles, Walter | Bowen, J. W. | Charleton, H. C. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Chater, Daniel |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Broad, Francis Alfred | Church, Major A. G. |
| Batey, Joseph | Bromfield, William | Clarke, J. S. |
and I was interested to note that he had spent a week-end with admirable assiduity raking over fallen leaves and delving into the ancient dustbins of precedents. Reckless disregard is being shown of the rights of private Members. On the Floor of this House we have the protection of an experienced Chairman but we have no similar safeguard so far as proceedings upstairs are concerned. It is nothing less than an abuse that after 18 months—during which nothing has been done—a Bill of this character should suddenly be introduced and special powers sought from the House in order to force it on to the Statute Book in the shortest possible time. Only the plea of urgency, coupled with obstruction so far as our party is concerned, could justify a proposal of this nature. The Second Reading debate, however, showed very clearly that it was not a desire to obstruct that induced us to take an interest in the subject but the fact that the Bill embodies very novel features. We all recognise that parts of the Bill may prove to be quite good when they have been scrutinised and considered in Committee. Against that, it is reasonable to recognise that there are other parts of the Bill which are highly controversial and introduce novel elements into agriculture, the discussion of which is not any question of urgency. I hope the House will not give these powers since no adequate reason has been advanced for this stifling of proper discussion. If we pass this Resolution, we shall be sowing weed seeds which may eventually choke the growth of Parliamentary Procedure on future occasions.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 160.
| Cluse, W. S. | Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Riley, F. F. (Stockton.on-Tees) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Kelly, W. T. | Romeril, H. G. |
| Coffins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Kennedy, Thomas | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molten) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cove, William G. | Lang, Gordon | Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Dagger, George | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Sanders, W. S. |
| Dallas, George | Lathan, G. | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Scott, James |
| Day, Harry | Lawrence, Susan | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Scurr, John |
| Duncan, Charles | Lawson, John James | Sexton, James |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Leach, W. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lees, J. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Egan, W. H. | Lindley, Fred W. | Shield, George William |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer) | Longbottom, A. W. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Foot, Isaac, | Longden, F. | Shinwell, E. |
| Freeman, Peter | Lunn, William | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Simmons, C. J. |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | McElwee, A. | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | McEntee, V. L. | Sinkinson, George |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | McKinley, A. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Gill, T. H. | MacLaren, Andrew | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Gillett, George M. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Smith, Rennie (Penlstone) |
| Glassey, A. E. | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Gossling, A. G. | McShane, John James | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Gould, F. | Malcne. C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Snell, Harry |
| Graham, Rt. Hon.Wm. (Edln.,Cent.) | Mansfield, W. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Gray. Milner | Marcus, M. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Markham, S. F. | Sorensen, R. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Marley, J. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Marshall, Fred | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mathers, George | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Matters, L. W. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Messer, Fred | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Middleton, G. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Mills, J. E. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C ) | Morley, Ralph | Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Hardle, George D. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Tillett, Ben |
| Harris, Percy A. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Tout, W. J. |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Townend, A. E. |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mort, D. L. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Hayday, Arthur | Moses. J. J. H. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Viant, S. P. |
| Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Naylor, T. E. | Walker, J. |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Herriotts, J. | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Watkins, F. C. |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Oldfield, J. R. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | West, F. R. |
| Napkin, Daniel | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | White, H. G. |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie. | Palmer, E. T. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Perry. S. F. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Hutchison. Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Isaacs, George | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Wilson. J. (Oldham) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Pole, Major D. G. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Johnston, Thomas | Potts, John S. | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Price, M. P. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Pybus, Percy John | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | |
| Jones, T I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Raynes, W. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Mr. Paling and Mr. William Whiteley. |
NOES.
| ||
| Albery, Irving James | Berry, Sir George | Bullock, Captain Malcolm |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Bevan. S. J. (Holborn) | Burton, Colonel H. W. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Butler, R. A. |
| Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Bird, Ernest Roy | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover) | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Campbell, E. T. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Bracken, B. | Castle Stewart, Earl of |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Brass, Captain Sir William | Cautley, Sir Henry S. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Briscoe, Richard George | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Cayzer, Maj.Sfr Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) |
| Beaumont. M. W. | Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newby) | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. |
| Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Savery, S. S. |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hurd, Percy A. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittoms |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Simms, Major-General J. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Smithers, Waldron |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Somerville, A. A, (Windsor) |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Stanley, Maj. Hon, O. (W'morland) |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Mellor, R. J. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Fermoy, Lord | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Train. J. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Muirhead, A. J. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | O'Connor, T. J. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Peaks, Capt. Osbert | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Withers, Sir John James |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Womersley, W. J. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Ramsbotham, H. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Reid, David D. (County Down) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Remer. John R. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | |
| Harrington, Marquess of | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Sir George Penny and Sir Victor |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Ross, Major Ronald D. | Warrender. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
This is an Amendment to which we attach a good deal of importance, particularly because at the present time the financial position of the country is causing such grave anxiety in all quarters. There axe certain powers which are possessed by this House, and only by this House. The other place, which is mentioned in the Amendment, have no power to make Amendments which deal with finance. The result will be that if we do not insert this Amendment and the original Motion stands there will be a very grave chance that certain financial aspects of the Bill may never be discussed, because they will have been jumped over upstairs, and when the Committee stage of the Bill takes place in another place they will not have power to deal with the Amend- ments. Of all Bills, this particular Bill is one in which finance plays a very important part. There are three closely printed pages dealing with the financial memorandum to the Bill. I will give a few of the points to be discussed in Committee on the financial side. There is a sum of £1,000,000 for financing the Agricultural Land Corporation. For the acquisition of land for demonstration farms, England and Wales, there will be expenditure of £5,000,000 for England and Wales, and £700,000 for Scotland. There is a sum of £1,100,000 in respect of every 1,000 smallholdings. There is £640,000 for smallholdings per 1,000 unemployed persons. Advance of working capital for the unemployed per 1,000 holdings will cost £270,000. The estimated cost per 1,000 persons provided with smallholdings may amount to another £40,000. Training the unemployed accounts for £7,000 per 1,000 persons. Demonstration holdings will cost £125,000 and the cost of allotment gardens will be £80,000 in the first financial year and £200,000 in future years. I mention these figures to show that whatever Clauses of the Bill we discuss, financial questions will continually crop up. Part II1 of the Bill is to a large extent in italics. That means that it deals with finance. As the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said, we have as Minister in charge of the Bill a gentleman who when he was last a Cabinet Minister—if we can understand the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—was got rid of because of his financial instability. Undoubtedly, the question of how we are to deal with financial matters will have to be considered by the Select Committee which the Government have said they are going to set up to deal with procedure. When the Parliament Act was passed it wars not intended that procedure should be adopted whereby certain things can be ruled out in Committee and those things are then incapable of being discussed in another place when the Committee stage is reached there. It is an extraordinary thing that this Government should continually set up committees to deal with various matters, and before the Committee has decided anything or presented a report to the House, the Government makes proposale which may be at entire variance with the findings of the Committee. We have had three recent examples of this state of things, the raising of the school age, the Unemployment Insurance Committee, and, finally, the Select Committee on Procedure, to which this particular subject (should be sent. This important point of privilege would not arise to such an extent in Committee of the whole House. The Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman are men of great knowledge and experience who spend the whole of their time in considering these questions, and, secondly, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman in Committee of the whole House are in constant touch with Mr. Speaker. No one will deny that the last word as regards the question of Privilege must rest with Mr. Speaker. If we set up the precedent of giving powers to a Chairman of Com- mittee upstairs, I submit that with his various other duties to perform he cannot give the time which is necessary for the proper selection of Amendments, particularly Amendments which deal with Privilege. I have had a fair amount of experience of Standing Committees and I have never had to complain of unfair treatment by the Chair, but I have known some inexperienced Chairmen of Committees who have got themselves into tremendous difficulties. Chairmen of Committees may be inexperienced in dealing with questions of finance and Privilege, and I say that the power of the Kangaroo should only be exercised by the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee of the whole House. It is easy enough to get business through in this House if it is unopposed. It, is said that our procedure is cumbersome and old-fashioned. My answer is that if there is a general measure of agreement business can be despatched in very quick time indeed. It is only when hon. Members hold genuine convictions in apposition to a Measure that the progress of business becomes slow, and I do not believe that this Motion will get over that difficulty. You cannot automatically stifle discussion in this way. For these reasons, and particularly because I think it is vital that every item of Government expenditure should be thoroughly and drastically examined, that I beg to move the Amendment."Provided that the power shall not extend to any amendment which on account of privilege is incapable of being inserted in another place."
I beg to second the Amendment.
Hon. Members will have noticed that I also have an Amendment on the Order Paper covering substantially the same ground as the present one, the only difference being the use of the word "privilege" instead of the words "a charge upon local or public funds." This Amendment, like my own, really deals with the question of finance. It has been well said that the ideal Act of Parliament is one which neither restricts the liberty of any citizen nor places any burden on any taxpayer; and I suppose that if any hon. Member went to the electors with the boast that during the period in office of his party no single Measure of any; sort had been added to the Statute Book he would be returned with acclamation. It is because this Motion, pinned as it is to a Bill which we all have in mind, fails to protect the important interests of the taxpayer that 1 wish to Say a word on this Amendment. This House has always been very jealous of its rights over finance. Not only do we deny all claim of another place to deal with any Bill which is certified by Mr. Speaker as a Money Bill—and we are satisfied that our privileges are always safe in your hands—but we have provided by our own procedure here with special care for those questions which affect finance and taxation generally. For example, the financial provisions in a Bill are printed in special type so that the wayfaring man although a Member of Parliament may not err therein, and we have to go through the special procedure of a Money Resolution on Second Reading and Report stages. We have thus singled out for special consideration all matters dealing with finance. The special provisions of this House tend to restrict the exuberance of the more ardent spirits amongst us. Private Members are not allowed to move Bills which entail a charge on the Exchequer or move Amendments which may have the same effect. We have passed legislation which has tended to restrict the right of private Members from bringing forward Measures which will impose a charge on the taxpayer but it is left to a democratic Labour Government to press this matter, so far that we run the risk, if this Motion is carried, not only that the rights of private Members to be restricted and limited in this important respect but also in another matter, which is very closely connected with finance and which should be in the mind of everyone; and that is national economy. It is obvious that certain hon. Members opposite regard the Rules of Procedure of this House with barely concealed contempt. We have evidence of that on the Order Paper to-day. Perhaps it is a little unfortunate that other considerations have allured the protagonists of this line of thought across the border in pursuit of unity rather than taking their places here as silent witnesses of the unity which still exists. I oppose this Motion for two reasons; one, the risk of interfering with our control in the interests of economy and, secondly, that the Government in their excess of record breaking zeal are already setting up yet another Select Committee to go into the whole question in all its aspects, and it is a little previous and unnecessary to forestall decisions which will doubtless be reached by that important body. This Amendment does not avoid any check there is on expenditure at present; it restores checks which in my opinion will be lost to us if the Motion is carried un-amended. It would not he in order for me to touch on the question of local expenditure, although it is true to say that in too much of the legislation passed by this House we do not realise that the repercussions, so far as the ratepayers are concerned, will be very far reaching. Many ratepayers who are now struggling under the burdens imposed by the legislation passed by this House will regret that one of the safeguards which have protected them in the past is going to be taken away by this Motion. I support the Amendment because it is in the interest of economy. Hon. Members opposite have never paid even lip service to economy; they have never regarded it as a national virtue. They have explained that additional taxation is not an evil to be avoided but one of the most delightful of pastimes—that is, spending other people's money. Their unstable companions below the Gangway at one time included economy in their triology of national and political virtues, but of late they have tended to fall from grace and have solaced themselves with the suggestion that perhaps the truest economy is wise expenditure. Indeed, I am credibly informed that instead of their slogan being, "I came, I saw, I conquered," it is, "I spent, I taxed, I conquered." We have lost to sight and memory dear those who were at one time the protagonists of economy and it is left to the occupants of these benches to put in a word for that which should have been on the lips of every speaker in this debate—including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. Whilst it may be possible, if our industrial conditions were brighter and if our agricultural conditions were brighter than they can possibly be as a result of this precious Bill which the Minister of Agriculture has fathered, to say that true economy lies in a wise expenditure, we maintain that that is not the case to-day. To-day the country cannot afford it, and the attitude we take is that to-day true economy is just economy. It will not be in order to go into the details of the Bill referred to in the Motion but I should like to allude in general terms to the Measure—The Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member is seconding is quite a narrow point. It deals only with Amendments which raise a question of Privilege. That is a very narrow point.
All I was going to say is that the Motion moved by the Prime Minister seeks to interfere with what has hitherto been the rights of primate Members upstairs in regard to a certain Bill. That Bill has certain financial provisions in it and I was going to [make a general allusion to those financial provisions in order to show that if we are not allowed to bring forward Amendments in Committee upstairs they cannot be dealt with in another place. As a rule, when a Measure, and particularly one of first importance—and I understand the Government to regard the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill as of first importance, although I confess I find some difficulty in coming to that conclusion from an agricultural point of view—involving considerable financial expenditure comes before the House it is customary for the Financial Memorandum and the financial Clauses to give hon. Members some fairly close idea as to the expenditure involved and what expenditure the ratepayers are going to be saddled with if the Bill becomes law. In the case of this particular Measure we can get no exact idea however closely we study the Bill.
The Financial Memorandum is perfectly useless in this respect. It is true that in certain parts of the Bill a definite limit is set, but in connection with the real expenditure under the Bill the Minister of Agriculture has told us that he not only could not but would not say how wide its extensions might be and, consequently, how great the financial considerations would become. We have made attempt after attempt to correct our ignorance upon that matter but without avail. We elucidated nothing. The watch-dogs of the Treasury were absent and silent; no bark, no growl, at the thought of the additional millions which the Minister of Agriculture was going to impose on the community. It was our hope, and it is still our hope, that in Committee the Minister or his representative will be able to tell us how he has managed to soften the adamantine heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to what extent. We want to know how big that new-found warm regard for agriculture, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken—The hon. and gallant Member is now travelling very wide of the Amendment, which deals with the power of selection of particular Amendments by the Chairman of the Standing Committee.
I am trying to emphasise the facts, particularly as we know so little that is definite about the financial implications involved. It is important that the rights of private Members in matters of finance, which cannot be dealt with in another place, should be maintained. Further, the Amendment should be accepted in the real interests of economy. I do not second the Amendment in any partisan spirit. This is a matter affecting the interests of private Members regardless of party. If that remark applies to the provisions of the Motion, it is of infinitely greater importance as it applies to those aspects which are covered by the Amendment. It is in the interests of economy that T ask the Minister to accept the Amendment and to refrain from taking away, in this particular respect, the rights of private Members. I have the hope borne of confidence in a good cause and in an unanswerable case.
With the rest of the House I followed with interest the aphorisms of the hon. and gallant Member, and for myself wish that I had a better memory so that I could remember them. However, I shall have an opportunity of reading them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. When they were being delivered I tried to find some string or other attaching them to the Amendment. At that moment, happily, you, Mr. Speaker, intervened and proved to my satisfaction that there was no such string; so that so far as the interesting and charming asides of the hon. and gallant Member are concerned, as to the idiosyncrasies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself and so forth, I can take it that they have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment. What was the reason for the Amendment? The hon. Member and his hon. and gallant Friend are under the apprehension—if it was well grounded it would be dealt with—that the Chairman of a Committee will in some way or other take away the rights of private Members. There is no suggestion whatever that any proper right of a private Member is to be taken away.
I agree that the Motion does take away the opportunity of unlimited talk, and it is intended to do it, but I am sure it is not intended, nor can any Chairman of a Committee utilise the procedure with a view to prevent discussion of any important matter, especially finance. I cannot call to mind any case in which the Kangaroo has been used in that way. Finance, in fact, is the one subject for which the House of Commons by its procedure does provide extra opportunities of discussion. There are the Committee and Report stages of a Financial Resolution, both of which are set aside particularly for discussion of the finance of a Bill. There is also this consideration; a Private Member is precluded by the Rules of the House from moving an Amendment to propose an increased charge. Therefore this Amendment could apply only to Amendments for reducing the charge or to Amendments moved by the Minister for increasing the charge. But if the Minister himself put down an Amendment for increasing the charge, it would be out of order because the Chairman of the Committee would rule that it was beyond the scope of the Financial Resolution, and the Bill might have to be re-committed.The Financial Resolution is drawn so wide that it would be quite possible for the Minister in charge of this Bill to propose an Amendment to increase the charge and still be within the Resolution.
Of course that is perfectly correct, if the Amendment was one within the terms of the Resolution, though increasing the charge above what hon. Members opposite thought might be involved, but I cannot imagine that any Chairman of a Committee would allow a proposal like that not to be debated. The only point in the Amendment is the suggestion that an important thing of that kind is to be slipped over and not debated. I cannot imagine any Ministerial Amendment that would not be discussed. These facts are well known to everyone in the House, and if we associate with them the special facilities for the discussion of the Financial Resolution in two stages, we see that it is unreasonable to ask us to limit the Motion by the entirely arbitrary and unworkable wording of the Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to have given two different sets of answers which are mutually inconsistent and destroy his case. First of all he repeated the general arguments which were used on the previous general Amendment. It has been suggested that owing to the vaster body of Amendments nowadays it is even more important than it was before that a Chairman should be equipped with these powers. That argument can be taken too far. When the Kangaroo was first introduced, this House had before it a large number of questions which do not reach it to-day. There was the whole volume of business connected with Ireland. Many hon. Members will remember how large a share that business took in our debates. Secondly, with regard to the Railways Bill, our experience in Standing Committee, when the chairman was equipped with these powers, was not altogether happy. If I remember rightly there was a good deal of friction over the exercise of the powers. Thirdly, no one, as far as I know, has made any allusion to the fact that the Chairman of a Committee already possesses very large powers if he will only use them. Any new Member sitting in this House to-day might imagine that a Chairman had no powers. Chairmen have enormous powers. They have not only the power of ordinary closure, but the power to closure down. I often wonder why the Chairmen of Committees do not use the power of closuring down more.
Let me come to the specific point. It has been said, in effect, that it is unnecessary to have any protection in regard to finance because the Minister cannot conceive a Chairman not selecting an Amendment of importance. If that is true, there is no reason why the Minister should not accept this Amendment. It is impossible to tell in Committee how important an Amendment is until discussion of a particular Clause is reached. Therefore, it is very difficult frequently to select Amendments beforehand. The right hon. Gentleman confessed quite frankly that it sometimes happens that a Chairman does jump an Amendment which afterwards turns out to be a very important Amendment. Then as a rule the Chairman endeavours to find an opportunity later on in the Bill for a discussion. While that is important in regard to any ordinary Amendment, it is doubly important in regard to finance. 8.0 p.m. Something has been said about the wishes of the country. The wish of the country is not that we should have more legislation, but more economy. The Minister, I am sure, will not go as far as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) seemed to go to-day. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs seemed to postulate verbal inspiration for his legislative efforts; he appeared to think that they were so perfect that no one could improve them—that they were like the miracle of the Septuagint, when 70 learned gentlemen sat in wattle huts for 70 days on the sandbanks near Alexandria and all evolved the same translation from the Hebrew into the Greek. I am sure that the Septuagints on the Treasury bench do not claim that. If that is so, is it not reasonable and proper to say that the Amendment is necessary? We all know how difficult it is on Report to secure consideration of Amendments. We know too that another place is handicapped in dealing with Amendments of this character. How important this is was realised in the case of previous Bills to which illusion had been made. There are the Insurance Act and the Railways Act precedents, in which cases the right hon. Gentleman will find that the financial provisions were carefully kept out of the Standing Committee and were dealt with on the Floor of the House. In those circumstances, I respectfully suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman's contention is right, and if the Chairman of a Committee is quite sure to call every financial Amendment which would affect the charge then, really, there is no reason why he should not accept this Amendment. It will not on the right hon. Gentleman's own hypothesis do the Bill any harm. It is only in case his hypothesis is wrong that harm will be done to the Bill and then it will be incurable harm. I think from the House of Commons paint of view this is an important Amendment. Let me add, not by way of any threat to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the time will come when the sides will be reversed and when the right hon. Gentleman will be sitting here, and some of my hon. Friends will be on the Government side of the House. Then, let it be remembered, that while we protest on this occasion it does not follow that we shall shrink from using the precedent which hon. Members opposite are creating. I can imagine the sort of speeches which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will make when the Schedule to a General Tariff Bill is sent upstairs and the Chairman of the Standing Committee is equipped with this power in regard to it. I can hear the right hon. Gentleman declaiming against us as assassins of financial economy. I can well imagine how he would go on in such circumstances and I need not dilate upon it, but if what the right hon. Gentleman has told us is all he has against the Amendment, I do not understand why he should not accept it.I think it most unfortunate that the Government cannot see their way to accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will admit—in fact has admitted—that these questions of finance are of peculiar importance and I agree with him that it is most unlikely that a Chairman would not select Amendments dealing with questions of finance. But if that be the case, surely the right hon. Gentleman is showing a lack of acquaintance with the best way of dealing with this House. If he wants to get business through the House, a concession of this kind is likely to be of considerable help to him because it will show that he is trying to meet the views of the ordinary rank-and-file Members. Under the Standing Orders at present the Kangaroo procedure does not operate until after the Committee stage when there has been an opportunity to discover the meaning of these Amendments. There is, of course, the one exception of Finance Bills. The Kangaroo procedure does not operate unless and until the Clauses of the Bill have been threshed out in Committee and, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means, or the Deputy-Chairman, as the case may be, to whom is entrusted the task of working this procedure has then the advantage of knowing the discussions which have takers place in Committee beforehand. It is true, of course, as I have said, that there is one class of Bill exempt from that operation. The Finance Bill has to be taken on the Floor of the House in Committee, and, as it has to be so taken, the Kangaroo procedure does not apply to the Committee stage in that case. But there is this difference, that it is applied not by the Chairman of a Standing Committee, but by the more experienced, and, if I may so describe them, the disfranchised officers of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been a first consideration of these questions on the Financial Resolution relating to the Bill. I am sorry to say, however, that a most unfortunate custom has been growing up in this House—and I am not blaming the present Government only, but the late Government and previous Governments
Division No. 22]
| AYES
| [8.8 p.m.
|
| Albery, Irving James | Campbell, E. T. | Fermoy, Lord |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l.,W.) | Castle Stewart, Earl of | Fielden. E. R. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Cautley, Sir Henry S | Forestier-Walker. Sir L. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S ) | Galbraith, J. F. W. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Ganzonl, Sir John |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Chapman, Sir S. | Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cockerlll. Brig.-General Sir George | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Balfour. Contain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Cohen. Major J. Brunel | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Balniel, Lord | Colfox, Major William Philip | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Cranborne, Viscount | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) |
| Berry, Sir George | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Bevan. S. J. (Holborn) | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Gunston, Contain D. W. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Bracken, B. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovill) | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Dawson, Sir Philip | Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Eden, Captain Anthony | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Butter, R. A. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s -M.) | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) |
| Cadegan, Major Hon. Edward | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
as well in this respect—of drafting these Financial Resolutions in such a way as to make them almost a mockery of the House of Commons. They are drafted with such scope that they are of comparatively little use and the same procedure has been followed with this Financial Resolution. When these Resolutions are discussed we ask for information and we are told to wait for the Bill. To use a phrase which I have often heard the right hon. Gentleman himself use, if he accepted this Amendment he would be making a gesture which would do him a deal of good. If the Government with the majority which they have got for the moment through the cynical support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) chose to use the big stick in forcing this Motion through, without making any concessions they can do so. But I think that this Amendment would do the Government so little harm that they might reasonably accept it. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that this peculiar species of animal is one which occasionally gets beyond its keeper's wishes, and if the kangaroo, as it may do, makes a bound backwards it may upset its keeper. This is one of those cases in which, if the right hon. Gentleman does not show some consideration for the Opposition, he may find that he has a harder task in the end than he anticipated.
Question put. "That those words be there added."
The House divided: Ages, 134 Noes, 244.
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pllditch, Sir Philip | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Lamb, Sir J. O. | Ramsbotham, H. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Remer, John R. | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Train, J. |
| Llewellin, Major J. J. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Buggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Making, Brigadier-General E. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Margesson, Captain H. D. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Meller, R. J. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Savery, S. S. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. | Simms, Major-General J. | Withers, Sir John James |
| Mond, Hon. Henry | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B | Skelton, A. N. | |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Sir George Penny and Major the |
| Muirhead, A. J. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Marquess of Titchfieid. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West) | Elmley, Viscount | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Lawson, John James |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Foot, Isaac | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Freeman, Peter | Leach, W. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lees, J. |
| Alpass, J. H. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Ammon, Charles George | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Angell, Norman | Gibbins, Joseph | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
| Asks, Sir Robert | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Moseley) | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gill, T. H. | Longden, F. |
| Ayles, Walter | Gillett, George M. | Lowth, Thomas |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Glassey, A. E. | Lunn, William |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Gossling, A. G. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Gould, F. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
| Batey, Joseph | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | McEntee, V. L. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Gray, Milner | McKinlay, A. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Benson, G. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | McShane, John James |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Groves, Thomas E. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Grundy, Thomas W. | Mansfield, W. |
| Blindell, James | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Marcus, M. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvill) | Markham, S. F. |
| Bowen, J. W, | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Marley, J. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Marshall, Fred |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Hardie, George D. | Mathers, George |
| Bromfield, William | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Matters, L. W. |
| Bromley, J. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Middleton, G. |
| Brothers, M. | Heyday, Arthur | Mills, J. E. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Morley, Ralph |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Henderson, Arthur, Juan (Cardiff, S.) | Morris, Rhys Hopkins |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Herrlotts, J. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Mort, D. L. |
| Cameron, A. G. | Hoffman, P. C. | Moses, J. J. H. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Hollins, A. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hopkin, Daniel | Muggeridge, H. T. |
| Chater, Daniel | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Church, Major A. G. | Horrabin, J. F. | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Isaacs, George | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Heath) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Johnston, Thomas | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Compton. Joseph | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Palmer, E. T. |
| Cove, William G. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Cowan, D. M. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Perry, S. F. |
| Daggar, George | Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Dallas, George | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kelly, W. T. | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Day, Harry | Kennedy, Thomas | Potts, John S. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Price, M. P. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lang, Gordon | Pybus, Percy John |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lathan, G. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Rayne, W. R. |
| Egan, W. H. | Lawrence, Susan | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Ritson, J. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Watkins, F. C. |
| Romerll, H. G. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Snell, Harry | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Sanders, W. S. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) | West, F. R. |
| Sawyer, G. F. | Sorensen, R. | White, H. G. |
| Scott, James | Stamford, Thomas W. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Stewart, J (St. Rollox) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Scurr, John | Strauss, G. R. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Sexton, James | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) | Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Sherwood, G. H. | Thurtle, Ernest | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| Shield, George William | Tillett, Ben | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Tout, W. J. | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Shillaker, J. F. | Townend, A. E. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Shinwell, E. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | |
| Simmons, C. J. | Vaughan, D. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) | Want, S. P. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. William |
| Sinkinson, George | Walkden, A. G. | Whiteley. |
| Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Walker, J. |
I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
The object of this Amendment is to draw a distinction between two sorts of Amendment which may conceivably come before the Chairman of Committee upstairs. On the one hand, there is the ordinary Amendment proposed by a Member of the Opposition, and on the other hand there is the Government Amendment, and I would urge upon the House that quite different considerations ought to apply to those two sorts of Amendment. We have agreed now that it is desirable to limit the discussion of Amendments by arming the Chairman of the Standing Committee with the power of selection. We have domesticated the Kangaroo in the Committee upstairs, but even though we have come to that decision as a general matter of principle, I suggest that it would be desirable to make this distinction. When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was speaking, he made a very important and impressive point about the authority behind this Bill. He said, in reply to attacks that this Bill is the work of a minority Government, that the authority behind the Bill is that has had a Second Reading. These Government Amendments against which my Amendment is aimed have not had a Second Reading. They are entirely new proposals, slipped in in Committee, placed before the Members of the Committee and before the Chairman for the first time. How is any Chairman, no matter how assiduous he may be, to have an opportunity of gauging the relative importance of Amendments? Surely it is by listening to the discussion on Second Reading and various other stages of the Bill, but here are new Amendments, put forward by the Government in Committee, which have not been discussed. They are virtually new proposals, and there has been no discussion of them to arm the Chairman with a true idea of their relative importance. Therefore, I suggest that, however desirable it may be to limit the moving of Amendments by representatives of the Opposition, when the Government move an Amendment, that is a new proposal, before the Committee and before the Chairman for the first time, and the power of excluding Amendments to that new proposal ought not to be given to the Chairman of the Committee upstairs. There have been two different ideas put forward in this debate as to the value of discussion in this House. We have had it said that discussion is useful and necessary and must be allowed a certain amount of latitude and free play. We have had it said, on the other hand, by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that discussion tends to confusion, that the more a Bill is discussed the more legal difficulties are discovered in it, and the more pitfalls for future law suits are dug by that process. I am content to adopt a middle course, and to say that adequate discussion is absolutely necessary, if any Bill is to be properly put through the machinery of this House. Otherwise, if discussion were not necessary at all, it would be better far to abolish altogether the Standing Committees upstairs and the Report stage in this House. But if you grant that discussion is valuable, I say that it is valuable particularly in the case of a new proposal which is put up by the Government for the first time, such as Government Amendments introduced in Committee. There is quite another consideration which renders a Government Amendment quite different from the ordinary Amendment put down by a Member of the Opposition or by a Member of the House who is not in the Government, and that is that Government Amendments are important because they are passed. They stand a very good chance of being incorporated in the Bill—a much better chance than any Amendments from outside. In other words, it is not exaggerating the position to say that an Amendment moved by the Government in Committee is an executive act. It is altering the law straight away by the Executive, and if Parliament has one function which is more important than another, it is that of maintaining a vigilant and constant control and supervision over the acts of the Executive. These Government Amendments, which are likely to affect the people by becoming incorporated in the law of the land, require from their very importance more discussion than any other sort of Amendment, and for that reason I suggest that the power of selection should not extend to them. What is the position if we are to have these Government Amendments introduced in the Committee stage and if there is to be curtailment of discussion of them and of Amendments to them? We may find ourselves on the Report stage confronted with a Bill which has been so radically and drastically altered in Committee, without discussion, as to present an entirely new problem to the House, and so altered as to make the Second Reading debate not a true criterion of the House's opinion of the principle involved. When I say that a Government Amendment is almost certain to be passed, I am keeping in mind what no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say to me, and that is that, in the peculiar position in which the Government find themselves, it is not so certain to be passed. We had the same note in the speech of the Prime Minister, who spoke very feelingly of Scylla and Charybdis. I wished to hear him develop that theme and tell us whether the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was Scylla and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was Charybdis or vice versa, and which was the seductive and delusive whirlpool and which was the raging monster, the eater of men. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side have at last found a subject on which they can vote, and for that reason the Government may look forward to a majority on this Committee, and their Amendments are more likely to affect this Bill than any other Amendments which are proposed. Our discussion on these matters of Procedure must be modified a great deal by the manner in which we regard the Bill, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that this Bill deals with agriculture, which is a subject of all subjects requiring the most anxious and careful handling in Committee, and the most ample discussion of any proposals made by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a common error to talk of agriculture as one industry, because, in fact, it was a bundle of industries. That is a mistake which is commonly made, and it is one of the few mistakes I do not make myself. I ask him to consider that principle in relation to this Amendment. Let us get down to grips with what will actually happen if this Motion is passed. We shall have the Government producing an Amendment which, if nothing is done, will become the law. It may be an Amendment on the subject of a part of the agricultural problem touching some particular point in that very many faceted industry. On matters like that, in particular, the Minister should rely with the greatest confidence on the experience of Members from every part of the country. When he produces his Amendment, there will be some Member who knows particularly well one little side of the agricultural industry, in which perhaps his own constituents are engaged. He may put down an Amendment designed to prevent the Minister's Amendment from working oppressively on that particular branch of the industry. The Chairman of the Committee, not having had an opportunity of hearing any discussion on the matter, may very likely cut that Amendment out. Consequently, we shall be denied what we need for agriculture more than any other subject, the full co-operation and the pooling of knowledge of Members in all parts of the House. I would appeal on these grounds to the right hon. Gentleman to regard this Amendment favourably. Let him not be led too far aside by the exhortations to ruthlessness which have come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. It is very easy to exhort other people to ruthlessness, but I would impress on the right hon. Gentleman that ruthlessness does not come well from him; it does not suit him. He is much more likely to achieve the object, which I am certain he has in his heart, of doing something for the good of agriculture, if he accepts an Amendment of this kind, and permits the fullest discussion of his proposal so as to assure that no small section of the industry in which we are both interested shall be hurt by some well-intentioned Amendment of his introduced for the first time in Committee, and by this Motion denied the criticism which should fall on all Government proposals."Provided that the power shall not extend to amendments to any amendment proposed by the Government."
I beg to second the Amendment.
I am but a fairly recent comer to the House of Commons; there are Members on the other side who are as recent, and perhaps more recent, and as a back bench Member I second this Amendment. This is, as it were, the last ditch in this discussion. The House has seen fit to pass the proposals of the Government which tend to limit the freedom of speech of private Members in Committee, and I would remind my fellow back benchers on the other side of the House that the Committee stage of a Bill offers to the private Member one of those few occasions upon which he is able to put Amendments down and to make his voice heard, and to speak on some subject which may particularly interest and concern his constituents. We have already decided that the private Member is to be limited, and we now put forward for the approval of the House this Amendment, which, I suggest, is an Amendment of real substance. My hon. Friend has said that the new Amendments put down by the Government are just as important as the Bill itself. I would go further, however, and say that they are more important because there has been opportunity for discussion of the Bill on Second Reading, but now it is proposed to rule out discussion, by reason of the selection by the Chairman of the Committee, of the various Amendments which may be put down by back bench Members, and then limit discussion still further by saying that there may be no further Amendments to new proposals put forward by the Government, which are practically certain to pass. A Government Amendment in Committee, after all, is almost as certain of passing as anything can be in this House. When these Amendments have been put forward, it is proposed to deny to back bench Members any opportunity of amending the Amendments of the Government, although they may be Amendments which vitally affect the interest of some constituency or other. The House might well pause and reflect. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, with no great hope that I shall soften his heart, that he might at least accept this Amendment. He has had it all hi sown way in the debate up till now, and he might give this little crumb of hope to back bench Members, who are as anxious to get good legislation through the House as those who are fortunate enough to sit on the Front Bench. I do not speak with any great hope that he will accede to our wishes—Nil desperandum!
Had the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), who has been speaking so forcibly, been in Opposition, and had these proposals come from the Conservative side of the House, what a lion in debate he would have been in support of this Amendment! He would have got up and trounced the Conservative Government for its dastardly interference with the rights of private back bench Members. Nobody would have been keener than he to see the rights of Private Members were upheld. I suppose it is only because the opposition to our Amendment comes from his side of the House that now he changes his tone and supports what on another occasion he would say was so wrong. We do not see with us the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He is an ardent supporter of the rights of back bench Members, and it is inter- esting to see what he said when a similar discussion took place in 1921. Just before the question was put, this is what he said:
I suggest that the House should consider these moving words of the hon. and gallant Member, and that they should not go blindly into the Division this time, as they did last time, but that they should consider that this is a very real Amendment which will safeguard a good deal in Committee. It is not put forward with any obstructive end in view, but simply that we may have on Government Amendments in Committee, as adequate a discussion as we demand on the Bill itself when it is having its Second Reading in order that they may become better Amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman is really anxious, as I am sure he is, that this Bill should go through, he should give us an opportunity of amending the Amendments which he will bring forward, in order that he may have at his disposal the collective wisdom of those who sit on both sides of the House."I think the position is intolerable, and I hope hon. Members will not go blindly into the Lobby in this Division as they did the last time."
I am sure the House has listened with much interest to the hon. and gallant Member, but I rather suspect that even some of those on his own side of the House must have felt that be was rather overstating his case. There is no desire to deprive any Private. Member of his right to speak. That point is not involved at all. When a Government Amendment comes up in Committee it will have to be discussed, unless the Chairman Kangaroos it, in which case, of course, no question would arise; but that is not very reasonable, that is not likely. Therefore, in the first place, the Government Amendment will be discussed, and the hon. and gallant Member will have the fullest opportunity of stating his views. There is no desire to curtail the rights of Private Members in that respect. It was next suggested that an Amendment to the Government Amendment would be ruled out in some ruthless fashion. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member and his Friends do not accuse me of desiring to act in that fashion, but they seem to think the power to do so will belong to the Chairman of the Committee. What will happen will be that if there is an Amendment to a Government Amendment, and it is an Amendment of substance, one that matters, the Chairman of Committee will call it and it will be discussed in the ordinary way, but if it is merely a trivial and dilatory Amendment then it will not be called; and quite right too. That is the full purpose of the procedure.
I do not think the mover of the Amendment would urge for a moment, for he was quite as reasonable as I am in the way he presented his case, that a trivial or dilatory Amendment ought to be allowed to take up even five minutes. If it is an important Amendment it will be discussed, if it is a Government Amendment it must be discussed, and therefore there is no curtailment of the rights of private Members. To accept this Amendment would be to give some irresponsible person the right to string to a Government Amendment all kinds of unimportant Amendments without there being any power to limit the discussion upon them, and that would defeat the very purpose of the Motion. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to expect me to accept the Amendment.I did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would give some more convincing argument to the House as to why this very reasonable Amendment should not be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that every Government Amendment put down in Committee will be discussed. Technically, no doubt, the Chairman has power to refuse to put even a Government Amendment, but it is inconceivable that he should do so. Therefore, as every Government Amendment, trivial or not, will be discussed, to say that an Amendment put down by a private Member which is trivial ought to be ruled out is not fair. All we ask is fair treatment and equality of opportunity. This is the position which may arise. We have seen the Bill and have considered it on Second Reading, and we have thought that here is the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. Then, suddenly, we go to the Committee room upstairs one morning and find that the right hon. Gentleman has put down half-a-dozen Amendments, but we are to be prevented from having any Amendment to those Amendments put down.
Oh, no, not at all. The right hon. Gentleman is unfairly stating the case. He and his friends will be entitled to put down as many Amendments to them as they like, but the Chairman will not be obliged to take those which he does not regard as relevant.
But the Chairman will be obliged to take any trivial Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman puts down.
But we shall not put clown any trivial Amendments. [interruption.]
The Patronage Secretary to the Treasury knows that no Chairman ever refuses any Government Amendment, and therefore the Government are loading the dice most unfairly against the private Member and in favour of the Government. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, whatever his official views may be, to make some concession to the Opposition in this matter. After all, we do not want to obstruct, and candidly I am not doing that, but if we are going to be treated in this way we will obstruct the Bill. [interruption.] I will obstruct the Bill, and I have a very fair sense of justice. If we are treated decently and given some concession we will try to make this Bill as good a Bill as possible. The right hon. Gentleman must know, as an old Member of this House, that you can do a great deal if you try to conciliate the Opposition and behave well to them, but if you try to ride roughshod over the Opposition the only result is that it takes very much longer to get a Bill through than it otherwise would do. Why should there be this hurry, and why should this non possumus attitude be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman? He cannot possibly get his Bill before Christmas, there is not the slightest chance of that, and therefore, from every point of view, from the amenity point of view, from the good feeling point of view of all parties in this House—
I wish you had remembered that in 1926.
From the good feeling point of view, I repeat, it would be much better to give some slight concession to the Opposition than absolutely nothing, however reasonable.
May I respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman? I do not in the least want to be unreasonable, and if there is some assurance that this concession will not be used to cause any undue delay or an unfair complication of Amendments I will give it friendly consideration. If there is that distinct understanding with regard to dilatory Amendments and it is considered as an obligation so to regard it, I would not object to it. If I can have an explicit pledge of that kind I should be agreeable.
One realises to the full the perfect bedside manner which the Minister of Agriculture has just shown in order to feel the pulse of the Opposition. I cannot answer the point which the right hon. Gentleman has put to the right hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley), but I think there is something really substantial in this Amendment. The Minister of Agriculture has been considering this Measure for a long time. He commenced its consideration some time in the middle of the summer, and parts of the Bill were thought out during the Recess. Therefore, the details of the Bill have been well considered, but during the discussions from day to day when the Bill is in Committee no doubt the Government will have to call up the draftsmen suddenly in order to bring in some Amendment which they think ought to appear in the Bill. In view of that fact, it would be a very small thing for the Minister of Agriculture to concede this Amendment if he really thinks that the Bill is so perfect as he described it in the debate on the Second Reading. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there may be considerable Amendments demanded by right hon. and hon. Members who sit on the Liberal benches. If the Government think this is such a perfect Bill, surely they will not need to move many Amendments, and it would be a very small thing for them to accept the Amendment which we are discussing.
Our point is that hon. Members may desire to make suggestions in regard to Amendments produced by the Government. It is quite clear that hon. Members, to whichever party they belong, should have every opportunity afforded them of making suggestions. The most concrete form of making a suggestion to benefit the Bill when the Government bring in an Amendment is obviously to submit another Amendment. My submission to the right hon. Gentleman is that it should be possible in regard to the Agricultural (Utilisation) Land Bill, to have a full discussion on any Amendments put forward by the Government for the simple reason that they may have been drafted in haste, and they may not have had that amount of consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Measure during the past two or three months. Amendments introduced by the Government at the very last moment require much more consideration than any other, and that is why I shall support this Amendment.I think I ought to make a reply to the Minister of Agriculture. I may bring in any number of Amendments which may not he selected, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is prepared to guarantee that in Committee no Amendment which I propose will be regarded as dilatory. I have never known an Amendment moved during the Committee stage of a Bill by the Opposition which the Minister in charge did not consider frivolous and dilatory, and I have known few Amendments which the Minister has not treated in that way.
No.
All the points which the Opposition are likely to raise are points which have been considered in the privacy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and it is inevitable that the Government will oppose such Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman has been attributing to other Ministers a characteristic which is only applicable to himself, but, if he turns his mind back to 1919, I think he will recollect the attitude which he took on that occasion. It is a very unsafe thing to give powers to a Chairman which depend entirely upon a personal interpretation of the words. For these reasons, I am unwilling to give the right hon. Gentleman the power for which he is asking. There is growing up in this House a custom of which all Governments are guilty, and it is the settling of the details of a Bill by negotiation with outside interests and not by discussions in the House. Over and over again it happens that the Bill as introduced on the Second Reading is fundamentally changed by Government Amendments as a result of outside negotiations. The result of those negotiations ought to be subjected to more fuller scrutiny in Committee than the original terms of the Bill. We know that the Minister of Agriculture has been negotiating not only with farmers and agricultural workers, and those connected with the land, but also with those who have been referred to as the Scylla below the Gangway. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not object, as many of his colleagues object, to my quoting the description by Horace of that body:
" Desinit in piscem mulier formosa superne."
The Seyllas below the Gangway may be beautiful ladies to start with, but their end is often somewhat fishy and right hon. Gentlemen may think of negotiating with them. No doubt there will be compromises embodied in Government Amendments, but the result of all outside negotiations ought to be scrutinised very carefully.
I feel that the only matter which concerns me in connection with this question is that of the interests of the back benchers. I have had considerable experience of the Government, and of the maladministration of the Minister himself. I have had to sit and endure over and over again his imperfect methods of conducting these Bills through the House of Commons. I have done my best in my time to help him to get them through the House—[Interruptian]—and have suffered terribly from his incompetence. It was not until the Leader of the Liberal Opposition came to our rescue that we obtained a little relief. Now the Minister comes to this House and objects to anyone even daring to put down an Amendment to any Amendment that he may move in Committee. I could give probably the best part of a thousand reasons why any Amendment of his is almost certain to be incompetent. It is certain that, when the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment, he would have but the haziest knowledge of what it was all about, because he is not capable of seeing the bearings of an Amendment on a Bill of some complication.
That is rude!
If he began putting down Amendments to his Bill this is what would happen. He would try and put down a manuscript Amendment. That would go past the Chair, because it is no good pretending that any Government Amendment does not automatically go by the Chair. Not understanding agriculture, not understanding procedure, not understanding the drafting of a Bill—the right hon. Gentleman smiles, from which I take it he admits that I am right. I have sat up hour after hour trying to make him better, and have never succeeded yet. In drafting these Amendments to his own Bill, having got some little glimmerings of light drilled into his head by a persistent, steady Opposition knowing their job and knowing their facts, he would do so with the very best intentions in the world. Nothing would induce me to accuse him of anything except the best intentions. It is not in intentions that he is at fault, but in carrying them out. Perhaps I had better not give an illustration of the kind of thing that he would do, but I think I shall be in order in going on to say that the manuscript Amendment which I 'am assuming might make absolute foolishness of the whole Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might, for instance, in dealing with the matter of large farms, quite easily think that five acres is a large farm, from his knowledge of agriculture.
The hon. Member is now speaking on the Bill. He must confine himself to the Amendment to the Motion before the House.
I will not deal with the Bill, but I was explaining that the right hon. Gentleman would put down—
The hon. Member is not entitled to anticipate Amendments to the Bill.
I willingly accept your Ruling that I am not entitled to anticipate what Amendments the right hon. Gentleman will put down, but I may, perhaps, be allowed to point out the difficulties of the Opposition in having to put down Amendments. I was going to point out the difficulty of any Opposition putting down a manuscript Amendment upstairs, and there is also the appalling difficulty of the Chairman. It is grossly unfair that the Chairman, in any circumstances or conditions, should have to give in Committee a Ruling on such a point, and, therefore, in kindness to the Chairman alone, this Amendment ought to be accepted. It is essential to remember, in connection with Amendments dealing with a very complicated subject, that there are many Members of the House belonging to different groups who may agree on the main principle of the Bill, but who may wish to express their feelings on a Government Amendment in a definite form of policy, and unless such groups—for instance the one below the Gangway on this side, or the one above the Gangway opposite—have the means of putting their thoughts definitely on paper, they are deprived, in this matter of Amendments to a Government Amendment, of a most important right and privilege. The right hon. Gentleman is not really objecting to this Amendment because of the Opposition, or even the semi-Opposition, but because he realises that, if he once accepted it, he would, when his Amendments are on the Paper, be riddled by his own backbenchers, to whom it would give the chance of getting in behind him and making his Bill even sillier than it is at present.
It strikes me as extraordinary that the Minister has suggested that his Amendments will be less trivial than those of the Opposition. If he takes the Education Bill which is now before the House, I do not think he will find one Amendment that anyone in the House could describe as trivial. There are 10 pages of Amendments, and not one of them is Therefore, I do not think the Minister is justified in saying that, if he agrees to this Amendment, he may expect to see trivial Amendments put down.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 250.
Division No. 23.]
| AYES
| [9.5 p.m.
|
| Albery, Irving James | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Fielden, E. B. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Forestler-Walker, Sir L. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdfey) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Remer, John R. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H, (I. of Thanet) | Ganzonl, Sir John | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) |
| Balniel, Lord | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Berry, Sir George | Gower, Sir Robert | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Hartington, Marquess of | Savery, S. S. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley) | Simms, Major-General J. |
| Butler, R. A. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) | Hurd, Percy A. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Lamb, Sir J. O. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral F. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Lewis. Oswald (Colchester) | Train, A. J. |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Macquisten, F. A. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Making, Brigadier-General E. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Marjorlbanks, Edward | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Meller, R. J. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Mond, Hon. Henry | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Withers, Sir John James |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Muirhead, A. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William | Sir Frederick Thomson and Major |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.) | Penny, Sir George | the Marquess of Titchfield. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon, W. (Fife, West) | Caine, Derwent Hall- | Gossiing, A. G. |
| Adamson, W. M, (Staff., Cannock) | Cameron, A. G. | Gould, F, |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Graham, Rt. Hon.Wm. (Edin.,Cent.) |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Charleton, H. C. | Granville, E. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Chater, Daniel | Gray, Milner |
| Alpass, J. H. | Church, Major A. G. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Clarke, J. S. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Angell, Norman | Cluse, W. S. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Ayles, Walter | Compton, Joseph | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston) | Crew, William G. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Cowan, D. M. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Dagger, George | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Batey, Joseph | Dallas, George | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) |
| Bellamy, Albert | Dalton, Hugh | Hardie, George D. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Day, Harry | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Benson, G. | Duncan, Charles | Haycock, A. W. |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Ede, James Chuter | Hayday, Arthur |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Edmunds, J. E. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
| Blindell James | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Egan, W. H. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Elmley, Viscount | Herrlotts, J. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Foot, Isaac | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Bromfield, William | Freeman, Peter | Hollins, A. |
| Bromley, J. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Brothers, M. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Horrabin, J. F. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Gibbins, Joseph | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Gibson, H. M. (Lance, Mossley) | Isaacs, George |
| Burgess, F. G. | Cill, T. H. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Gillett, George M. | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Glassey, A. E. | Johnston, Thomas |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Mort, D. L. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Moses, J. J. H. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Jones, T. I Mardy (Pontypridd) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trernt) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F W. | Muggeridge, H. T. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Jowett Sir W. A. (Preston) | Nathan, Major H. L. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Roel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Snell, Harry |
| Kelly, W. T. | Oldfield, J. R. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Sorensen, R. |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Lang, Gordon | Paling, Wilfrid | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Palmer, E. T. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Lathan, G. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Taylor. R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Law, A. (Rossendale) | Perry, S. F. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Thorne. W. (West Ham. Plaistow) |
| Lawson, John James | Pole, Major D. G. | Tillett, Ben |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Potts, John S. | Toole, Joseph |
| Leach, W. | Price, M. P. | Tout, W. J. |
| Lees, J. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Townend, A. E. |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Raynes, W. R. | Viant, S. P. |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Richards, R. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Walker, J. |
| Lowth, Thomas | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lunn, William | Riley, F, F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wellhead, Richard C. |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Ritson, J. | Watkins, F. C. |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Romeril, H. G. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| McEntee, V. L. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| McKinlay, A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Welsh, James (Paisfey) |
| Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Sanders, W. S. | West, F. R. |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Sawyer, G. F. | White, H. G. |
| McShane, John James | Scott, James | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampion) | Scrymgeour, E. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Mansfield, W. | Scurr, John | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Marcus, M. | Sexton, James | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Markham, S. F. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Marley, J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Marshall, Fred | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Wilton, J. (Oldham) |
| Mothers, George | Sherwood, G. H. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Matters, L. W. | Shield, George William | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Middleton, G. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Mills, J. E. | Shillaker, J. F. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Shinwell, E. | |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Simmons, C. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle. |
| Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sinkinson, George |
Main Question put, "That, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order of this House, Standing Order No. 27A, relating to the power of the Chair to select Amendments, shall apply with
Division No. 24.]
| AYES
| [9.15 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bowen, J. W. | Cowan, D. M. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Bowerman, Rt, Hon. Charles W. | Daggar, George |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Broad, Francis Alfred | Dallas, George |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Bromfield, William | Dalton, Hugh |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.(Hillsbro') | Bromley, J. | Day, Harry |
| Alpass, J. H. | Brothers, M. | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Duncan, Charles |
| Angell, Norman | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Ede, James Chuter |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Edmunds, J. E. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Burgess, F. G. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Ayles, Walter | Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Egan, W. H. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Caine, Derwent Hall- | Elmley, Viscount |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Cameron, A. G. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) |
| Betsy, Joseph | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Foot, Isaac |
| Bellamy, Albert | Charieton, H. C. | Freeman, Peter |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Chater, Daniel | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Church, Major A. G. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) |
| Benson, G. | Clarke, J. S. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Cluse, W. S. | Gibbins, Joseph |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Moseley) |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Gill, T. H. |
| Blindell, James | Compton, Joseph | Gillett, George M. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Cove, William G. | Blassey, A. E. |
respect to proceedings in the Standing Committee to which the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill is allocated."
The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 127.
| Gossling, A. G. | Lunn, William | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Gould, F. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Scurr, John |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Sexton, James |
| Granville, E. | McEntee, V. L. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Gray, Mliner | McKinlay, A. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Calne) | MacLaren, Andrew | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Crenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Shield, George William |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | MacNelll-Weir, L. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Groves, Thomas E. | McShane, John James | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Shinwell, E. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Mansfield, W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Marcus, M. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Markham, S. F. | Sinkinson, George |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Marley, J, | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Hardle, George D. | Marshall, Fred | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Mothers, George | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Matters, L. W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Middleton, G. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Mills, J. E. | Snell, Harry |
| Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Snowden, At. Hon. Philip |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Morley, Ralph | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Sorensen, R. |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Herriotts, J. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Stewart. J. (St. Rollfox) |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Mort, D. L. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Hollins, A. | Moses, J. J. H. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Thomas, Rt. Hon, J. H. (Derby) |
| Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Muggeridge, H. T. | Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Nathan, Major H. L. | Tillett, Ben |
| Hudson. James H. (Huddersfield) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Toole, Joseph |
| Isaacs, George | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Tout, W. J. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Oldfield, J. R. | Townend, A, E. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Johnston, Thomas | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Vlant, S. P. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Paling, Wilfrid | Walkden, A. G. |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Palmer, E. T. | Walker, J. |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) | Perry, S. F. | Wallhead. Richard C. |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Kelly, W. T. | Phillips. Dr. Marion | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Pole, Major D. G. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Potts, John S. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Price, M. P. | West, F. R. |
| Lang, Gordon | Quibell, D. J. K. | White, H. G. |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Ramsey, T. B. Wilson | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Lathan, G. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Law, A. (Rossendale) | Raynes, W. R. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Lawrence, Susan | Richards, R. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lawson, John James | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Lowther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Leach, W. | Ritson, J. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Lees, J. | Romerll, H. G. | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Sanders, W. S. | |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Sawyer, G. F, | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lowth, Thomas | Scott, James | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle. |
NOES.
| ||
| Albery, Irving James | Castle Stewart, Earl of | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Fleiden, E. B. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. |
| Balniel, Lord | Chapman, Sir S. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Colfox, Major William Philip | Galbraith, J. F. W. |
| Berry, Sir George | Colville, Major D. J. | Ganzonl, Sir John |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Cranborne, Viscount | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d'., Hexham) | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Devies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Butler, R. A. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S,) | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Dawson, Sir Philip | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd, Henley) |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Heneage, Lieut.Colonel Arthur P. |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Muirhead, A. J. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Ormsby-Core, Rt. Hon. William | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Penny, Sir George | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Ramsbotham, H. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Remer, John R. | Train, J. |
| Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Llewellin, Major J. J. | Ross, Major Ronald D. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Ruggles-arise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Making, Brigadier-General E. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Margesson, Captain H. D. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Marjoribanks, Edward | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Meller, R. J. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Savory, S. S. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Withers, Sir John James |
| Mond, Hon. Henry | Simms, Major-General J. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst) | |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Skelton, A. N. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Sir Frederick Thomson and Major |
| the Marquess of Titchfield. |
Ordered,
"That, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order of this House, Standing Order No. 27A relating to the power of the Chair to select amendments, shall apply with respect to proceedings in the Standing Committee to which the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill is allocated."
Orders Of The Day
Education (School Attendance) Bill
Considered in Committee. [ Progress, 20 th November.]
[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]
Clause 1—(Raising Of Compulsory School Age And Provision Of Maintenance Allowances)
Lieut.-Colonel Heneage.
On a point of Order. Through an oversight on my part, an Amendment, which was really a supplementary Amendment to the two Amendments which are on the Paper in my name—in page 1, line 14, to leave out the word "and," and to insert instead thereof, the word "but"; and, in line 19, to leave out from the word "if," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words, "this Act had not been passed "—and which would have had the effect of substituting for the words "less than fifteen," in line 18, the words "more than fourteen," was not put down. May I ask whether, in view of the Amendment which was overlooked, you would be willing to reconsider calling my two Amendments, which raise very vital points that are not raised anywhere else in the Bill.
I do not quite understand what the hon. and gallant Member means. As a. matter of fact, I called an Amendment on the last day of the Committee dealing with line 20, and, therefore, these two Amendments are ruled out. In any case they are not selected.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
This Amendment is of considerable interest to the rural community. The Bill is so drawn that the question of total exemption cannot be dealt with at this time. This is not an Amendment dealing with total exemption. It is divided into two parts, of which the first may be said to deal with the rights and duties of the parents, whereas the second part, which deals with receiving instruction in agriculture or handicrafts, might be described as a matter appertaining to the local authorities. I should like to call the Committee's attention to the experience that other countries have had as to the period for which children are compelled to go to school, because being very largely rural countries—"Provided that, in the areas of county councils, the parent shall have the right of interrupting the period of school attendance after the age of fourteen years for the purpose of sowing, setting, cleaning, or harvesting a crop, or for the purpose of receiving instruction in agriculture or handicrafts for a period of not more than sixty school attendance days in any one year, not including holidays, under arrangements to be made by the local education authorities."
The hon. and gallant Member must stick to the Amendment, which deals with interruptions for a specific purpose.
I knew there would be a difficulty in keeping in order, but I would like to point out that this is the first Amendment dealing with purely rural matters, and for the first time we have the principle of extending the school age from 14 to 15 at a time when the children are accustomed to learn rural occupations which they will have to adopt afterwards. Without discussing the experience obtained in foreign countries, it is very hard to get the Committee to come to a fair decision. I think I should be in order in saying that, under our system, we do keep our children at school longer in the year than any other country. We keep them about 200 days in the year, compared with Norway's 89 days. We keep them longer than rural countries like Canada and the United States.
If it is the intention of the Government to keep them for the 200 days between 14 and 15 years, I suggest we must, in the interest of the children and of the parents, have a guarantee in the rural areas that the children will have a chance of learning their job. The difficulty of learning their job under the present system is rather intensified by the high standard of attendance that is kept in this country. The average is about 88 per cent. of 200 days, which leaves little time to learn the ordinary rural pursuits. It is rather interesting to note that in the United States, out of 44 States, all keep their children at school for less time than we do. In Norway, the time is very short, so much so that while the older children are getting something like 14 weeks, the younger children only get something like 12 weeks. Of course, in those countries it is not necessary for them to interrupt their vacation, because the total attendance is so short that they have opportunities of learning their rural pursuits. It has always been an arguable point, as far as the education authorities are concerned, whether the parents have any rights at all. We seek to give them rights during the period between 14 and 15 years. There is considerable apprehension in the minds of those parents, first, as to their children going to school between 14 and 15, and, secondly, as to whether between those years they are going to get any kind of rural education, and, if so, whether it is to be under direct county council arrangements. This Amendment, if it be accepted in whole or in part by the Government, will allow the parent to give instruction himself or to arrange with the farmers or smallholders to give the necessary instruction at suitable times in the year. There is the second point. In many of the smallholding areas the question of harvesting is an extraordinarily difficult one. Harvesting is not confined to corn crops. There is the harvesting of fruit or any vegetable produce. Naturally, harvesting time extends to any time practically in the summer or even in the late autumn. Therefore, the school holidays, as such, do not necessarily coincide with the time when the children are required to harvest the crops. Some of us have had experience of smallholdings and seen the father and mother worked to death in their attempts to get the harvest in before the weather changes. Of course, it has been impossible for them to draw upon their children when at school. This Amendment also seeks to alter that very serious state of affairs. There is a third point which I would ask the Government to consider carefully. Between 14 and 15 a child's whole psychology, outlook, and physical wellbeing changes completely, and, perhaps, alters to such an extent that the parents will be able to say what sort of training is most suitable for the child. That, at any rate, gives the parents a chance to go to the local authority and say, "I want my child brought up with this kind of training." It gives them a definite say in what the child's future is to be. This deals with the question of handicrafts, and I venture to say that it is most important to allow the parents to have a say in the child's education between 14 and 15. The right hon. Gentleman himself has been at Harrow, and there are many hon. Members on both sides who have been at Eton, Harrow and other public schools. Their parents have had a definite voice in what the education of their children is to be with a view to fitting them for their future careers. We say that the parents of poor children should also have this say, and as we are mainly interested in rural areas, I have put this Amendment down specially for the purpose. We have not had an Amendment accepted so far. The drafting of Amendments is always difficult to Members of the Opposition, but I hope very much that the principle that I wish to bring forward is clearly stated in this Amendment. That it is controversial none will deny, but, that it has good will behind it, equally both sides will agree. For that reason I am very glad to move this Amendment in the interest of the rural community.I am not quite sure that the hon. and gallant Member was very happy in his last words, because he suggested that at public schools at the age of 14 we were learning something which had to do with our future careers. As far as I recollect, we were doing Latin verse and Greek prose and translating the speeches of Thucydides. That may have had something to do with what I am doing now. The Amendment proposes to release children up to 14 years for agricultural work for not more than 60 days. The House has decided, by passing the Second Reading of the Bill, that it is right to raise the school age to 15. That does not preclude the possibility of some kind of exceptions and exemptions, if the House thought proper, but I suggest that this particular form of exemption or exception is about the worst that could be designed. I could understand a proposal for allowing exemptions for children in order that they might go into industry to learn the industry in that way, but this is only a proposal for 60 days in the year, which is quite inadequate for properly learning an industry. Moreover, it is undesirable, educationally. To take a child out of school for 60 days in the year would break his educational career to such an extent that in all probability he would not gain any advantage from it. It would also create chaos in the arrangements of the school to have children coming in and out of the classes. I should have thought that, administratively, it was about as bad an arrangement as could be designed.
It is not the case that children in school at the present time are necessarily divorced from the industries which surround their homes. The older children can be taken from the schools under the Board's Regulations to farms, and can see what is going on there. In a good many parts of the country they are so taken in order that they may learn something of the industry. Seasonal occupations are mentioned in the Amendment. The local education authorities can and do frequently arrange for the holidays of the schools to suit the seasonal activities in the countryside. A week is sometimes arranged for closing the schools actually in the middle of the term. That does not break the educational processes of the school, because the whole school has its holiday then. There are such seasonal holidays as the hop-picking holidays in the London schools. In the London schools the holiday is sometimes taken in September instead of August. Therefore, these opportunities for children to have a chance of seasonal occupation do exist. I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment, because I am sure that the majority of the Committee would not want to curtail the number of days of teaching which the children get in the school, as is proposed in the Amendment.I support the Amendment very heartily in the interests of agriculture and of agriculturists, including the farmer and labourer. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman indicates that he does not fully appreciate the difficulties of the situation. Representing the rural areas and particularly those of us who represent agriculture, we do not like this Bill at all as it applies to those areas. In the event of the Minister not accepting a proposal to delete the rural areas from the Bill, the Amendment is designed to remedy as far as possible the evil which the Bill will do to agriculture and the rural areas. I often think that this House does not fully appreciate the difficulties under which agriculture is being carried on. There is no unemployment in agriculture, but there are seasonal occupations, such as harvest time, potato planting and picking, hop picking, etc., which require extra labour. Since there is no unemployment in agriculture, there is no additional labour to supply the increased seasonal demand. The unemployed from the towns cannot be used in the country because there is no housing accommodation, and we as agriculturists have to look for the increased labour required to carry out the seasonal occupation. There is only one source of supply and that is the wives of the men and the young persons, boys and girls.
Under the present arrangement one week can be allowed in which the school is entirely closed for the seasonal occupations, but that week is absolutely insufficient to meet the demand. Harvest time is carried on for a month, and potato picking goes on for quite a time. Potato planting is also an important seasonal occupation. There is one proper time to plant potatoes, and that is let April. Within a fortnight before and after the 1st April are the time limits within which the potato can be planted. If the farmer had to depend upon his ordinary men he could not carry on the occupation of potato farming for six weeks or two months. He depends upon the employment of women and young persons for that purpose. I appeal to the President of the Board of Education to make this concession to agriculture. I ask him to think of the agricultural labourer, who is an underpaid individual and whose weekly wage is supplemented very considerably by the earnings of young people between 14 and 15 years of age. All we are asking for in the Amendment is that they should be able to do this seasonal occupation, when the wages obtained by these young people may be 4s. or 5s. per head. I make this appeal also from the point of view of agriculture generally. The right hon. Gentleman is an educationalist, but he is also a member of the Government and as such is responsible for suggestions that are made to help all industry; including agriculture. It is said that agriculture must he made to pay, and millions are to be spent in a way which we suggest will not make agriculture pay, but that is no reason why the President of the Board of Education should come here with a Measure which is going to cost further millions of money, not to make agriculture pay but to make it even more difficult to carry on the processes of agriculture. The agriculturist is a law- abiding citizen; he does not desire to break the law. It is the last straw which breaks the camel's back; and I ask the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of this Bill not to place an impossible burden upon rural areas and upon agriculture. I can tell him that a farmer is not going to see his crops ruined in order to obey the dictation of, shall I say, educational sentimentalists. We want to be law-abiding citizens in the rural areas, and I hope it may be possible for the President of the Board of Education to reconsider this matter and at any rate give agriculture this one demand we are now making in order that we may apply this Bill with as little harm as possible.On behalf of the agricultural industry I should like to join with my hon. Friends who have spoken from this side of the Committee on this Amendment. One of the most unpopular features about this Bill, which is thoroughly unpopular everywhere and particularly in the country districts, is the compulsion. Compulsion, after all, means ignoring the wishes of the parents, and this Amendment, was put down in order to try and mitigate that objection in some small degree. It is essential that extra labour should be available at seasonal times upon the land; and I make the plea really more on behalf of the children themselves. It is essential that they should acquire a certain dexterity in their work and it is only by beginning young in agricultural work that they can ever acquire the dexterity. My industrial friends divide workers into those who are skilled and unskilled, and they classify as unskilled those who work on the land. If they would only stop and think how these men deal with one operation after another, most diverse in character, at different seasons of the year, they would realise that although they may be classified as unskilled they really are very highly skilled men.
At certain seasons of the year farmers want to put on extra hands and they apply at the Employment Exchange. If they are fortunate enough to get anyone at all they get a man who hopelessly tires after a few hours, or shows such a lack of power to deal with the particular work to which he is put that he is not of much value on the farm. All that arises from the fact that the man has not acquired the dexterity which is necessary. The townsman going out into the country and looking at the various agricultural operations will think perhaps that the worker is going rather slow and that the job is rather easy. But the fact is that the real land worker is getting through an enormous amount of work because he conserves and uses his strength to the best advantage, and the degree of dexterity he shows makes the work look easy. When any townsman or people from the Employment Exchange try their 'prentice hand everything seems to go wrong. We are justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider this Amendment favourably, not only for the reasons I have given but also because the educational facilities which they get at present are quite inadequate for fitting rural children for work upon the land. During recent years we have heard a great deal about rural bias and agricultural bias. As a matter of fact, we do not get it at all. Rural schools are not equipped to give the sort of training which will help the children to acquire a rural bias. Except in a few isolated cases it has not been done up to the present: and there is no immediate prospect, as far as I can see, of it being done. There were not enough teachers—The hon. Member is getting far away from the Amendment, which is to allow children under 15 years of age to work on the land.
I was arguing that we are justified in asking for the Amendment because it is essential that children should get an opportunity of working upon the land at an early age, and although the Government sometimes holds out the hope that they will have that training while they are at school they have not in fact secured it up to the present. However, I do not wish to take that point further, because I have already said what I wished to say. But I do urge that until the Government are in a position to carry out this education with a rural and agricultural bias they ought to be generous in the matter of concessions so that the children can gain practical experience.
I suggest to the Committee that they will have found the reasons given by the Minister for rejecting the Amendment neither satisfying nor satisfactory. I took a note of three of them, and, supporting this Amendment, as I do most cordially, as a result of information given to me by my constituents, I cannot help feeling that they are hardly likely to think that the Minister has shown ally particular confidence in the good sense of local education authorities in the country districts. The Minister's first point apparently was that as a result of the Amendment children between 14 and 15 would find themselves out of school for a period of 60 days. The Minister apparently has not appreciated that under the Amendment arrangements have to be made by the local authorities, and that there is nothing in the Amendment which compels children to he out of school for 60 consecutive days.
The Minister's second point I found even more extraordinary than the first. It was that the effect of the Amendment would be that classes in country districts would be upset by the withdrawal of some of the children for harvesting. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expects children who are to benefit by this education to be in classes scattered throughout the small schools in the country. Speaking as one who has some small knowledge of these matters, I should imagine that as a general rule the children between 14 and 15 would be found in the upper classes of the schools. Those are two of the points on which the Minister, in a rather summary way, rejected the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman further appears to have lost sight of the fact that one of the things proposed by those who support the Amendment is that there shall at least be given an opportunity for some form, of instruction in agricultural subjects. I could not help feeling that. what is being aimed at by the Minister and by those who think with him is neither more nor less than what I describe as book learning, irrespective of whether it is educating a child for certain employments as distinct from others. This is not the proper occasion on which one would be in order in discussing the question of the benefit of vocational training for children between 11 and 15, but, speaking for myself and my constituents, I feel that the Minister has overlooked the fact that in the Amendment it is proposed expressly that part of the 60 days' period should be or may be devoted, under regulations to be made by the local education authority, to instruction in agriculture or handicrafts. One other point of view is worthy of a few moments' attention. In the towns there is a great danger of children getting into what are called blind-alley employments. That danger does not exist to anything like the same extent in the country districts. If a child has had the advantage, between the ages of 14 and 15, of getting some instruction in agriculture and of watching agricultural pursuits, it is likely to be all the more fitted at 15 years of age to undertake that industry from which it is most likely to derive employment, and is much more likely not to drift into a blind-alley occupation.You are thinking of the farm labourer's child, not your own child.
10.0 p.m.
I will endeavour to answer the hon. Member who has interrupted with so much courtesy. We are dealing here not only with the farm labourer's child. If the hon. Member would come down to my part of the country he would find there a considerable number of people who are working extremely hard on smallholdings. They might be described by some people as well-to-do farmers, but when. you go into their houses and know the hours they work, and how their wives and children help, it becomes obvious that they are living on an extremely narrow and small margin. These people will be faced with great difficulty if the Bill passes.
It was not my intention to intervene, but, knowing something of agriculture, I could not listen to so much nonsense as has been talked by Conservative Members, without saying something in reply. One would assume that these children in the country were kept in school the whole of the time, whereas for a few days a week they are there only four or five hours a day. What do hon. Members think that the children are doing the rest of the time? [An HON MEMBER: "Travelling to and from school."] I can only say that, as far as the farm with which I am associated is concerned, the children of five or six and upwards, from the moment they are out of school are on the farm with the horses or the implements; they grow up with them and know all about them. To talk about their receiving vocational training in farming from the age of 14 to 15 is absolute nonsense. It is mere pretence and make-believe. It is far better and more honest for hon. Members to say that they object to the Bill on the ground that it will withdraw so much cheap labour from agriculture. That is the plain and straightforward thing to say; that is what hon. Members mean. All this other nonsense that is being talked must be laughed at by people who know anything about agriculture. It makes me cross to think that there are so many Members who are prepared even to exploit children merely for the purpose of getting 60 days' cheap labour.
Precisely the same arguments were produced against raising the school age from 13 to 14 and also against raising it from 12 to 13. The time has gone by when any decent agriculturist would care to have the case put as it has been put by hon. Members above the Gangway. There are enlightened people in agriculture who would scorn to think of depriving children of the advantage of another year's school for the purpose of saving a few shillings a week. I know that a great many of my own friends in agriculture would not think of withdrawing their own children from the public schools between the ages of 14 and 15 in order to help on their farms. Would hon. Members above the Gangway withdraw their children from public schools to help to get in the harvest? All we ask is that children in the country districts shall have a fair and equal chance with other children to make their way in life. There are other grounds upon which one could proceed in this matter but they do not arise on this Amendment. At the proper time, it can be pointed out that burdens are placed on country people by the Bill, but I hope that the Committee will reject with scorn the Amendment now before it.The two speeches which we have heard in opposition to the Amendment from the President of the Board of Education and from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) show very little understanding of the reason for this Amendment. To take first the speech of the Minister, I own that I have some doubts as to the practicability of the latter part of the Amendment but I support the Amendment because the first part of it seems to deal with a matter of very great importance which, I think, received too cursory treatment at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to show that he did not realise the importance of this issue to the country districts. May I point out to the Committee, in the first place, that other countries where the school age has been raised above 14, understand its importance, because one and all have arranged, either by a system of exemption or by a system of less school attendance during the summer months, for the absence of children for the very purposes mentioned in the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman supplied me the other day with a Memorandum, giving the conditions of school attendance in all countries other than this, and also in the provinces of the Dominions where the school age has been raised above 14.
References have already been made to certain information contained in that Memorandum. Let me supplement what has been said by a reference to the case of Switzerland. Throughout the cantons of Switzerland, while there is no system of exemption such as obtains in Canada and South Africa, there is the very system advocated in the Amendment of the withdrawal of children from school at certain periods. In one canton we find that during the summer months the hours of school attendance range from 15 to 21 per week while there is a standard 27½ hours for all children above the infant classes. In another canton the hours range from 12 to 27 a week. In another canton there are only half-days in school during the summer for certain children. In other cantons only 10 or 12 or even six hours attendance in the week is required during the summer months. That is a deliberate system of lessening the amount of school attendance required during the summer in order that the children may help in agriculture. In Norway, as we have been reminded, the younger children in the rural areas need not attend more than 12 weeks in the year, and the older children need not attend more than 14 weeks in the year. And, in Norway, a rural local authority has not power to require attendance for more than 21 weeks of the year—while there are schools in this country where the required attendance is not less than 40 hours. It is not only in the countries where the school age has been raised above 14 that the importance of this question of allowing lesser school attendance in summer is recognised. We have only to look at the case of our greatest agricultural competitor, Denmark, to see how that principle has been clearly recognised in Denmark's education system. It has been recognised right from the beginning of the Danish national education system in the eighteenth century. It was laid down there that farmers must not be deprived more than was necessary of the help to which they were accustomed from young people. Therefore we find that the minimum number of hours of attendance is not more than 18 exclusive of hours spent in gymnastics. We find that in some cases the children may go to school for three hours a, day for six days a week, which means that they devote the other hours of the day to helping in the work of the farm. In other cases, they may attend for six hours every other day, or the older children may attend four days a week in the winter, and not more than two days a week in the summer. I mention these details because I think that comparatively few people in this country realise the extent to which this part-time system operates for the express purpose of allowing the children to help in agricultural work. We are accustomed to hear a great deal about the excellence of Denmark as an agricultural country, but I do not think we realise how much the part-time system in education is involved, or the extent to which the need of agriculture for some help from the older children is recognised. It is said, also, that because the children have not so much school attendance in the summer—I am speaking of the older children—that they return to steady attendance in November very keen and anxious to make up for lost time. There is the actual fact that Denmark, our keenest rural competitor, has a definite system of part-time in order that the older children shall be able to give some time to helping in farm work. We do not suggest in this Amendment anything so radical as a change to the systems of the countries which I have mentioned. We do not suggest a school attendance limited to two or three or four days in the week. We merely ask the President of the Board of Trade to recognise that in rural areas there are seasonal occupations which depend largely on climate. We know how very uncertain our climate is, and the cruel anxiety which it often causes to those engaged in agriculture. Because of that uncertainty a sudden need may arise for considerable additional labour, an urgent need may arise on one afternoon, and, if help is not forthcoming, the opportunity of sowing a crop or of weeding a crop may be lost for ever. I would remind hon. Members opposite who may not be as well acquainted with conditions in our rural areas as I, and many of those who support this Amendment, happen to be, that in spite of all the unemployment, it is still often very difficult to get the necessary adult labour suddenly in the country. Instances are frequent of farmers applying at Employment Exchanges where there are unemployed men and finding it extremely difficult to get the labour that they need. I do not want to see children employed in this way on adult labour. I would like to see adult labour coming forward for all these harvesting operations. I want to see the men employed, but I saw that if you cannot get the men, and if you cannot get enough women, it is better to take some of the older children away from school for a few days than to lose a crop. The loss of a crop is too big a price to pay. I shall never forget, when I was chairman of a school management committee under a Scottish education authority a few years ago, how I was taken aback when a parent, who had come to see me on some other business, a man whom I knew well and with whom I bad always been on the most friendly terms, suddenly turned on me and accused me of having nearly been the cause of his losing the whole of his potato crop. I said, "What do you mean? What have I to do with your potato crop?" He said, "Because the school management committee did not allow the children to come and help." I tried to placate him by reminding him that no request had been put forward to that effect; but that incident impressed itself very much on me as showing how the whole crop in a neighbourhood might depend on getting a sufficient supply of labour at the right moment, and how very much education might be prejudiced in the eyes of parents in the country unless local education authorities are ready reasonably to grant the needs of agriculture in this way. I would point out to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) that what he said about children helping to look after the horses is not the point. It is a question of the sudden demand for labour in a seasonal occupation. It is not enough just to get a child in for an hour or two at the end of the school day. They want a child to have two or three days just when the crop is being gathered.I was dealing with the point of vocational instruction, and I say that they have that from the earliest time, because most of their time is spent on the farm.
I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member, but I do not think he really paid any attention to the first part of this Amendment.
I was dealing directly with a speech that was made on one of the benches above the Gangway, and that is why I intervened.
I am interested to think that the hon. Gentleman, with his great knowledge of rural areas, has not said anything against the main purpose of this Amendment.
I said that it was exploiting the children for child labour.
How can it be exploiting child labour when it is a case of boys and girls going out with their fathers and mothers to pick berries for a day or two? I should have been extremely glad if anybody had exploited me in that way. It would have been a very welcome change from the work I had to do, and I think most hon. Members would have been very glad to have been exploited in the same way. It is a very important point in this matter that this is outdoor work and, therefore, healthy work. We have to keep that clearly in mind. An hon. Lady, one of the medical Members in this House, spoke the other day about the possibility of children being overworked, and we have to keep that in view, but these occupations are healthy work in the open and work of a light character.
Finally, an hon. Member behind me referred to a smallholder and how important the labour of his older children might be to him. I need hardly remind the right hon. Member opposite that his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, is by way of largely increasing the number of smallholders in this country. Does it not seem rather a mockery for him to increase the number of smallholders in this country at the very moment when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education will be depriving them of the opportunity of having their older children to help them? If this Bill passes without any allowance being made for the withdrawal of children for seasonal occupations, it will undoubtedly add to the difficulties which smallholders already have to face. Therefore, if the Government are sincere in their desire to put more smallholders on the land, as I believe they are, and if they do not want to place difficulties in the way of their making good, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will really look into this question. I do not say that the form of this Amendment is the last word on the subject, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that this is a very real and important question in the rural areas, and, if he will not make any provision either in this way or through exemptions for meeting the needs of the rural areas, he will greatly increase the unpopularity which education already suffers in too many rural areas, and will further increase the gloom that hangs over those areas which are in any way responsible for agricultural production.I find it difficult to understand why hon. Members opposite seek to remind us all the time that this is an Education Bill, and yet move an Amendment designed to look after the interests of one particular trade or industry. There are two parts to this Amendment. The first is designed to enable children to be exempted from school for not more than 60 days per year in order that they may be able, to attend to certain seasonal occupations like sowing, reaping, cleaning, harvesting and so on. The second part of the Amendment deals with instruction in agriculture or handicraft. It has been urged in the discussion that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board is forgetful of the needs of agriculture, especially from the point of: view of the fact that it is in a special sense a seasonal occupation. As a teacher at school I was acquainted with one form of this seasonal employment, namely, hop-picking. I lived in a mining area, and children left my class about September and went into Herefordshire to follow hop-picking. They happened to go at the beginning of the educational year, and were away for about a month, or five or six weeks. It created absolute chaos in my class for weeks and months on end, for the obvious reason that some children were at school from the beginning of the term, and others were not. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were all ages!"] They were not all ages. They were children in my class, and therefore approximately of the same age. I submit it is a fair point to make, that on educational grounds it is an injustice to the children to have six weeks' leeway to make up in comparison with their school mates who have been at school continuously from the beginning of the term. I hope the Committee will think it worth while. to take that experience of mine into account.
It is suggested that the children should be allowed 60 days in the year. Already they get something like 12 weeks' holiday a year. Sixty days, reckoning five days to a week, will give them another 12 weeks. That is to say, we are to guarantee for these children, if their parents so desire it, nearly six months' absence from school every year. [interruption.] Absence during a year. I accept the correction. That would reduce the educational value of that year to those children almost to nothing. It would ruin the whole educational efforts of the teacher for that year. In the course of this discussion we have heard arguments which have a very old and familiar ring. I do not want to speak unkindly, but it does require a little patience to listen to some of them. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) said there was so little unemployment hi agriculture that the only resources on which farmers could fall back in these exceptional cases were the wives and children of agricultural labourers. To advance the argument that agriculture in this country cannot live except by resort to child labour is, in these enlightened days, the severest condemnation of the state of our agriculture. There is another argument, at least 100 years old, that we must allow these children to engage in agricultural work in order to supplement the family income. That was the argument used in the days when attempts were made to prevent cotton operatives starting work at too early an age in the mill. And as if that were not enough we have had the hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carington) advancing an older argument still, the argument about dexterity. It used to be argued in the case of children in Lancashire who were going to work in the cotton mills that if they stayed too long at school their fingers would lose all suppleness and they would no longer be dexterous. Today we are told that if we prevent children going into the fields at an early age they will lose the dexterity of their fingers. Really, it is almost impossible to be patient with an argument of that sort. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Groom-Johnson) argued that the 60 days would not necessarily be taken consecutively. That is so; but from the educational point of view that is a worse argument still. If we put the whole holiday into one stretch, without any break, it would be far less deleterious to a child's educational interest than to have a break of seven days, then four days, then five days, and so on, which is hopeless from an educational point of view. The same argument is advanced on the ground that it is necessary to give these children instruction by way of practical acquaintance with agricultural conditions and agricultural work. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) dealt with that point quite adequately. After all these children, from their very earliest days, are on the farm with their parents, and they are in close and constant touch with these things, and all that they can be taught on the land. Therefore it seems to me, as far as practical acquaintance is concerned, they get as much education naturally as they are likely to have if they were taken for 60 days, or whatever the term may be, into the fields. [interruption.] I would like to make this observation. I beg hon. Members to believe that it is not intended that these children should be in any way given a sort of feeling that work on the land is infra dig, to them. Far from it, indeed I hope to see in the rural schools of the future far more adequate attention given to practical instruction so that the children may equip themselves more adequately for the vocations of the countryside. It seems to me that, in any case, the school is the natural place for these children, just as it is for the boys and girls of industrial parents. I do not want to introduce a class bias into this business, but it is fair to make a reference to what was challenged by the hon. Member for Ashford, and to what was reasserted by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), that it is far better that these children should be taken away from the school so as to save the crop. Very good. What is the answer to that argument? Do hon. Members opposite ever take their children out of school? [interruption.] Well, you do not. It is no use the children—May I interrupt the hon. Member—
No.
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if it is not the usual custom that when the representative of the Government replies to an Amendment he should give way to the Mover of the Amendment if he wishes to put a question.
In that ease the representative of the Government would be giving way nearly all the time.
The Noble Lady the Member for Kinross said in the course of her speech that it is far better that these children should be taken from the school into the fields rather than allow the crops to be wasted.
For two or three days.
I accept that proposition, and I simply reply: "Do hon. Gentlemen opposite propose to take their children away from school to save the crops?"
It depends where they are at school.
We are told that it depends where they are at school, and no doubt "distance lends enchantment to the view." The point I want to make is that there is creeping through the whole of this discussion a half suggestion that the children of agricultural workers are destined by nature to do this job
"To plough and sow,
To reap and mow,
That is the idea, and we challenge absolutely that concept. I said on the Second Reading, and I repeat here, that I hope that this party will never accept the proposition that the children of the workers, because they are the children of the workers, are destined to do this particular work. If this challenge be accepted, very well. But, if they are not so destined, we must give to them, so far as we can, as full and complete an educational opportunity in the countryside as we give to the children in the towns. That full and complete opportunity can only be given by rejecting this Amendment, and applying the same law to the child in the country as we apply to the child in the town. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be rejected.To be a farmer's boy."
I regret that the debate has taken on the tone that it has, especially during the last few minutes. There has been far too much use of the words "work," "employment," and "exploiting," and it did not start on this side of the House. It started in the first speech of the President of the Board of Education, when he spoke of children being released from school for agricultural work. The word "work" does not occur in this Amendment. The Amendment says:
[HON. MEMERS: "Read on!"]—the next word is "or." [interruption.] If the hon. Member does not know what agriculture is, I shall be very pleased to give him what information I can, but not at this moment. Reference has been made to the needs of the industry, but the need of work for the industry is not the strong point of this Amendment. It is the need of the industry if it is to give the industry skilled workers later on. An almost deliberate attempt has been made to create prejudice by suggesting that the sole object of those who are supporting this Amendment is to obtain cheap labour. What is education after all? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sowing!"] In agriculture it is sowing wheat, but education, really, is training to fit a person for after life. That is the only true education that there is, and the ground for this Amendment is that the training necessary for a very great deal of agricultural life cannot be given within four walls. It is all very well to say that children should remain at school, but there is a certain type of education which cannot be given within four walls; they must get out into the fields to receive it. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have both said that 60 days is a tremendous time for which to take children away from school. The Minister, in the first place, said that it was not long enough to receive practical education for an agricultural occupation, but he probably did not understand that the object is to give training in seasonal occupations, and seasonal occupations do not last that length of time. The right hon. Gentleman said also that it is the custom already to take children out and give them rural instruction. That is an admission of the principle which underlies this Amendment. [interruption.] Those who know about agricultural education know that teachers take their children, as much as they possibly can, outside into the rural areas to see actually what is being done. They also have their school gardens, where they not only tell them what should he done but see that they do it. That is an admission of the principle of the strength of this Amendment. I have it on the authority of some of the best teachers that the children who are being taught theory only get very weary of it. If they can once get out into the fields and practically apply some of their theory, they go back to school, not tired of it but anxious to get some more theory which they can put into work later on. That is all we are asking for, to give them an opportunity of going into the fields, and to increase their aptitude and appetite for the education that they will receive later on. It was said by one speaker that education was very unpopular in rural areas. It is in one sense, and again it is not. Education is not unpopular, but the type of education that is given is unpopular. If you give them the right type of education, there is no one more anxious that their children shall receive education than the people in the rural areas. I support the Amendment most heartily because I believe, not that it is in the interest of the farmers but that it is in the true interest of the children themselves."for the purpose of receiving instruction in agriculture"—
I wonder if it would be possible to invite the Committee to come back to the real merits of the Amendment, because, listening to some of the previous speeches, I think we may be liable to be carried away by emotional statements which have very little relevance to the Amendment. I cannot help feeling that some of those who have put their names to this Amendment are really living in days that have long gone by. When they seek to emphasise the importance of getting the assistance of children of the age of 14 on the work of sowing, setting, clearing and harvesting crops, they are forgetting the developments in agricultural machinery in the last few years which, fortunately, have largely made unnecessary the employment of the cheap labour and the juvenile labour that was necessary in days gone by. Then they talk about receiving instruction in agriculture. If this Bill passes and is put into operation, under the schemes of local education authorities instruction in agriculture in rural areas will be one of the things to be secured.
But apart from that, think of the administrative difficulties which the incorporation of an Amendment of this character will involve. It says the parent shall have the right of interrupting the period of education. Is the parent to be the judge of whether that is right or not? It is true that in the last line the Amendment says:It does not say the local education authority is to be the judge. In fact, this Amendment as it stands is one of the most futile things that I have ever seen on the Order Paper. No Government Department could ever give any meaning to it. It says that the parent shall have the right of taking the child away for a certain number of days in the course of the year. It does not say who is to decide whether the parent is right in taking the child away. It does not say who is to be the judge of whether the parent is right or wrong in taking the child away. The Amendment, administratively, is an absolutely impossible one. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) made a speech which, I consider, represented the opinion that is felt in a very large number of the counties and rural areas of the country. He explained the difficulties—and he knows them as well as any Members of this House—which will confront local education authorities in rural areas in putting the Act into operation, and, at the same time, he pointed out that this Amendment is really a thing to which the Committee should not give serious consideration for more than a few minutes. All he met with was an insult from one hon. Member above the Gangway who made an offensive remark. If hon. Members above the Gangway are really opposed to the principle of raising the school age say so, and have the courage to say so, but for heaven's sake do not pretend at one moment that you are in favour of raising the school age and at the same time try and sidetrack the question by Amendments of this character. The thing is administratively impossible, and from the, educational point of view it is hopeless, and I cannot imagine that anybody who has thought out the matter could have put his name to an Amendment of this character. If hon. Members want to oppose the Bill, do so in every genuine way, but to put down a thing like this, which educationally is hopeless and administratively impossible, is, I think, playing with the time of the Committee."under arrangements to be made by the local education authorities."
It is evident from the Liberal Benches that we a-re not going to get arguments, but only abuse.
Does the Noble Lord adhere to what the hon. Member behind me said? [interruption.]
Withdraw!
On a point of Order.
There is nothing to withdraw.
Is there no protection in this House for a Member who puts his views from another Member who comes to his place and deliberately insults him before his colleagues? He used an offensive term to me that was slung across the Gangway. Is there no protection?
If there was an offensive term, the hon. Member should have called my attention to it at the moment, and not now.
It was so quickly done that it was impossible to do it in time.
The rule of this House is, that you should do it in time.
From the speeches we have heard from the Liberal benches, hon. Members have confined themselves exclusively to saying that this is a dishonest Amendment, and would not be approved by anyone who knew anything about the country or did not, wish to wreck the Bill. To come to the arguments which the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Evans) thinks are good enough against this Amendment, he says, in the first place, why should you release children for sowing and that kind of thing in these enlightened days when there is machinery, especially on smallholdings? Then he proceeds to say that we are providing this instruction in the schools themselves. What, instruction in. the use of agricultural machinery?
Read your own Amendment, and you will see to what I was referring.
If the hon. Member will do me the courtesy of devoting his attention to what I am saying for a moment, I want to point out to him, that if machinery is becoming of such universal use in the countryside, the agricultural education which he says is to be given in the schools will be of very little use. There is precious little mechanical instruction given in rural schools.
I would ask the Noble Lord to try to deal fairly with my speech. The Amendment does two things. The first part of it refers to children who are kept at home
"for the purpose of sowing, setting, cleaning or harvesting a crop."
The second part deals with receiving instruction in agriculture. That is the part to which I was referring.
The hon. Member is very anxious to lay stress on the mechanisation of agriculture when it suits his object, and very anxious to deny the mechanisation of agriculture when it does not suit his object. The hon. Member went on to say that this was a purely wrecking Amendment, that it was totally impossible to carry it out, and that it was administratively impossible. How can you give a parent the right to keep his children away from school? he asks. Has the hon. Member never heard of the "reasonable excuse" which a parent can now plead? What is there in this Amendment to prevent this being made, as is intended, a "reasonable excuse" on the part of the parent? The hon. Member says it would create confusion and would be administratively impossible. Next we come to the hon. Members opposite and to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, in a most provocative speech, said that this was administratively impossible. I want to ask the President of the Board of Education where we stand, because he said, in opening the debate, that we were entirely in error if we supposed that these seasonal occupations were not already provided for since the local authorities already arranged school terms to suit hop-picking and so on. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, said that, in the experience of every school teacher, it was a most terrible thing to allow children to go hop-picking, and he was cheered by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who represents an education authority which is notorious for having in the past thrown difficulties in the way of children wishing to go hop-picking.
The Noble Lord must be fair to me, because he knows that not very far from where he lives the schools have their holidays specially arranged so that the children can go hop-picking in one of the finest hop-growing districts. We do, however, strictly enforce the employment of children by-laws when children are taken away—I do not like to use the word "exploited"—to be used at any odd time by farmer who would sooner take on a couple of children than one man.
I do not want to misrepresent the Surrey County Council—
They are nearly all Tories except me.
That indicates the danger of the argument that things are administratively difficult, if not impossible. It is an argument which is used by administrators of all parties and quite as much by Tories as by Socialists. I only mention the Surrey County Council, because I have a strong recollection of a dispute some years ago when there was some difficulty about arranging the school holidays. I want to know, as between the President of the Board of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary, if we are to understand that these arrangements, which are now made, will not be made by any proper progressive local authority, and that any local authority can put as many obstacles as possible in the way of letting children off for this work.
It is all very well for hon. Members below the Gangway on this side and hon. Members opposite to talk about it Being administratively impossible and educationally undesirable. This Committee has been given a good deal of facts from every agricultural country in Europe and America, and especially every country where there has been any successful policy of smallholdings. I want to drive home the point that was put by
Division No. 25.]
| AYES
| [10.58 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt, Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Cape, Thomas |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Birkett, W. Norman | Charleton, H. C. |
| Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Blindell, James | Chater, Daniel |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Church, Major A. G. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Bowen, J. W. | Clarke, J. S. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Close, W. S. |
| Angell, Norman | Broad, Francis Alfred | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John H. |
| Arnott, John | Bromfield, William | Cocks, Frederick Seymour |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Bromley, J. | Compton, Joseph |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Brothers, M. | Cove, William G. |
| Ayles, Walter | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Cowan, D. M. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Brown, Rt. Hon. I. (South Ayrshire) | Daggar, George |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Dallas, George |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Burgess, F. G. | Dalton, Hugh |
| Batey, Joseph | Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Duncan, Charles |
| Bennett. William (Battersea, South) | Caine, Derwent Hall- | Ede, James Chuter |
| Benson, G. | Cameron, A. G. | Edmunds, J. E. |
my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), that you are starting out on a smallholdings policy, and you propose to start out on that policy by rejecting out of hand and with scorn the experience of every country which has made a. success of smallholdings. Anyone on this side who suggests, for instance, that the great economic strength of the smallholder is that he does not have to employ other labour but depends upon the work of his family, and that therefore you have to have a considerable degree of flexibility in the administration of your school attendance laws, is laughed to scorn. Anyone who says that on this side of the House is immediately laughed down by hon. Members like the hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. Duncan), who is well known for his interruptions. That sort of hon. Member is always attacking us on this side because, although they talk about smallholdings and agricultural policy, they are really quite determined to rule out of consideration altogether any measures which have been found necessary in countries which are, as this country unfortunately has ceased to be, great agricultural countries providing work alone for hundreds of thousands of smallholders. The treatment of this Amendment shows that whatever else this Government may be able to do it will never be able to create an agricultural policy.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 134.
| Edwards. E. (Morpeth) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Egan, W. H. | Leach, W. | Rothschild, J. de |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lees, J. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| England, Colonel A. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer-) | Lindley, Fred W. | Sawyer. G F |
| Foot, Isaac | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Scott, James |
| Freeman, Peter | Logan, David Gilbert | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Mars, Upton) | Longbottom, A. W. | Scurr, John |
| George. Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Longden, F. | Sexton, James |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Lowth, Thomas | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Lynn, William | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Gillett, George M. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Glassey, A. E. | McElwee, A. | Shield, George William |
| Gessling, A. G. | McEntee, V. L. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Gould, F. | McKinley, A. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Gray, Mliner | MacLaren, Andrew | Shinwell, E. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro' W.) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | McShane, John James | Sinclair. Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Sinkinson, George |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Mansfield, W. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton) | Marcus, M. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Hall G. H. Marthyr Tydvil) | Marley, J. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Marshall, Fred | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Mathers, George | Snell, Harry |
| Hardle, George D. | Matters, L. W. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Harris, Percy A. | Messer. Fred | Serensor, R. |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Middleton, G. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mills, J. E. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Haycock. A. W. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Hayday, Arthur | Morley, Ralph | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N) | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Mort, D. L. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Moses, J. J. H. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Tilett, Ben |
| Herriotts, J. | Muggeridge. H. T. | Toole, Joseph |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Nathan, Major H. L. | Tout, W. J. |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Naylor, T. E. | Townend, A. E. |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Hollins, A. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Viant, S. P. |
| Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Oldfleld, J. R. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Walker, J. |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Isaacs, George | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Wellhead, Richard C. |
| Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Heath) | Paling, Wilfrid | Watkins, F. C. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Palmer, E. T. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Johnston, Thomas | Perry, S. F. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne) | Phillips, Or. Marion | West, F. R. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Picton-Turbervilt, Edith | Westwood, Joseph |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Pole, Major D. G. | White, H. G. |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Potts, John S. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston) | Price, M. P. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Pybus, Percy John | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Kelly, W. T. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Ramsay. T. B. Wilson | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Lang, Gordon | Haynes, W. R. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Richards, R. | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) |
| Lathan, G. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Law, A. (Rossendale) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | |
| Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lawson, John James | Romeril, H. G. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Charles Edwards. |
NOES.
| ||
| Albery, Irving James | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth,S.) |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover) | Brass, Captain Sir William | Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Briscoe, Richard George | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Colfax, Major William Philip |
| Ballour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Brown, Brig.-Gan.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Colville, Major D. J. |
| Bainiel, Lord | Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Butler, R. A. | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Crichton-Stuart. Lord C. |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Campbell, E. T. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Carver, Major W. H. | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Castle Stewart, Earl of | Croom-Johnson, R. P. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovll) | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Savery, S. S. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittoms |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Simms, Major-General J. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Macquisten, F. A. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.) | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Smith. R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Marjorlbanks, Edward | Smith-Caringten, Neville W. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Forestler-Walker, Sir L. | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. At. Hon. Sir John | Muirhead, A. J. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Tinne, J. A. |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Peake, Capt, Osbert | Titchfleid, Major the Marquees of |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Penny, Sir George | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Train, J. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Deven, Barnstaple) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Power, Sir John Cecil | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes) | Ramsbotham, H. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Remer, John R. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles, |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennall | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Ross, Major Ronald D. | Withers, Sir John James |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Iveagh, Countess of | Salmon, Major I. | |
| Jones. Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Captain Wallace and Sir Victor |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Mon. George R. | Sandeman, Sir N Stewart | Warrender. |
Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
Division No. 26]
| AYES.
| [11.9 p.m.
|
| Albery, Irving James | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | England, Colonel A. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weton-s.-M.) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Everard, W. Lindsay | Peake, Capt, Osbert |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Flelden, E. B. | Pete, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Balniel, Lord | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Remer, John R. |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Gower, Sir Robert | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry | Salmon, Major I. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hartington, Marquess of | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d'., Hexham) | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) | Henderson, Capt. R. R (Oxf'd,Henley) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Butler, R. A. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Savery, S. S. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Campbell, E. T | tills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Simms, Major-General J. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U,, Belfast) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hurd, Percy A. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S | Iveagh, Countess of | Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cayzer. Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Lambert, At. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cohen, Major J. Brun | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Spander-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Colfax, Major William Philip | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Lleweilln, Major J. J. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Macquisten, F. A. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Marjoribanks, Edward | Train, J. |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hen Sir B. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington. S.) | Moore. Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Muirhead, A. J. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 256.
| Wells, Sydney R. | Womersley, W. J. | TELLERS FOR THE A YES.— |
| Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton | Hir George Penny and Captain |
| Withers, Sir John James | Wallace. |
NOES
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Mort, D. L. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hall, G, H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Moses, J. J. H. |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Muggeridge, H. T. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hardie, George D. | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Harris, Percy A. | Naylor, T. E. |
| Angell, Norman | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Arnott, John | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Asks, Sir Robert | Haycock, A. W. | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hayday, Arthur | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Ayles, Walter | Hayes, John Henry | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Palmer, E. T. |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Perry, S. F. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Herriotts, J. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Benson, G. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Picton-Turbervill, Edith |
| Bentham. Dr. Ethel | Hoffman, P. C. | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Hollins, A. | Potts, John S |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Hopkin, Daniel | Price, M. P. |
| Blindell, James | Hors-Belisha, Leslie | Pybus, Percy John |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Horrabin, J. F | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Isaacs, George | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Haynes, W. R. |
| Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Richards, R. |
| Bromley, J. | Johnston, Thomas | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Brothers, M. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Toes) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Ritson, J. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) | Rothschild, J. de |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Kedward, R, M. (Kent, Ashford) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Kelly, W. T. | Sanders, W. S. |
| Cameron, A. G. | Kennedy, Thomas | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lang, Gordon | Scott, James |
| Carter. W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lathan, G. | Scurr, John |
| Chater, Daniel | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Sexton, James |
| Church, Major A. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Leach, W. | Shield, George William |
| Compton, Joseph | Lees, J. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Cove, William G. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Cowan, D. M. | Lindley, Fred W. | Shinwell, E. |
| Daggar, George | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Dallas, George | Logan, David Gilbert | Simmons, C. J. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Longbottom, A. W. | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Longden, F. | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Duncan, Charles | Lowth, Thomas | Sinkinson, George |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lunn, William | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Edwards. E. (Morpeth) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Egan, W. H. | McElwee, A. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Elmley, Viscount | McEntee, V. L. | Snell, Harry |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer-) | McKinley, A. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Foot, Isaac | MacLaren, Andrew | Sorensen, R. |
| Freeman, Peter | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | McShane, John James | Strauss, G. R. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Moseley) | Mansfield, W. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Gill, T. H. | Marcus, M. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Gillett, George M. | Marley, J. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Glassey, A. E. | Marshall, Fred | Tillett, Ben |
| Gossling, A. G. | Slathers, George | Toole, Joseph |
| Gould, F. | Matters, L. W. | Tout, W. J. |
| Gray, Milner | Messer, Fred | Townend, A. E. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). | Middleton, G. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mills, J. E. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Viant, S. P. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Morley, Ralph | Walkden, A. G. |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Walker, J. |
| Wallace, H. W. | White, H. G. | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Wallhead, Richard C. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) | Wright, W. (Ruthergien) |
| Watkins, F. C. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. | |
| Wellock, Wilfred | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Welsh. James (Paisley) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards. |
| West, F. R. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Altercliffe) | |
| Westwood, Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
It being after Eleven, of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Parkinson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.