asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will invite the Governments of the United States, Japan, Germany, Italy, France and Russia to collaborate with His Majesty's Government in the examination of the question of the reform of the League of Nations, with a view to recommendations being placed before the League at Geneva?

I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my right hon. Friend on the 29th January last, in reply to a similar question.

If any such consultations take place, will the right hon. Gentleman confine the conversations to the free States and leave out the slave States?

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that he was taking the opinions of the French and Italian Governments on the question of the priority of disarmament over reform, will he also make inquiries of the other nations and take their opinions?

I can add nothing by way of answer to a supplementary question on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal obviously involves a very large issue, as is shown by the names of the Governments he mentioned, and I do not think that I can be expected to give a reply to the supplementary question.

I do not want to press my right hon. Friend unduly, but why did he pick out two of the great Powers and not consult the others?

Is not the present machinery of the League of Nations reasonably satisfactory if worked with good will by all parties?

"No."

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider appointing a committee to assist the Government in formulating a scheme for the reform of the League of Nations?

No, Sir. I do not think it necessary.

May I, with great respect, ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that we shall never get general disarmament until all the great Powers are in the League of Nations, and that they will never enter the League while the League remains un-reformed?

Is the Prime Minister aware that the vast majority of the people in the country at the moment consider it to be more necessary that the Government should formulate a scheme with the intention of ultimately chloroforming the League of Nations?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider proposing to the Council of the League of Nations, in connection with the arrangements for the plebiscite in the Saar territory, that a special international police force should be recruited for the purpose?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose to the League of Nations that steps should be taken to postpone the holding of the plebiscite in the Saar territory if in the opinion of the League undue pressure has been brought, or appears likely to be brought, to bear upon the inhabitants of the Saar territory from any source prior to the holding of the plebiscite?

A committee of three was appointed by the League Council in January to report to the Council at its forthcoming session on the problem raised by the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles in regard to the Saar Plebiscite and to make recommendations as to their execution. The committee was, in particular, to study any suggestions as regards the maintenance of order during the period of the plebiscite that might be submitted to it by the Saar Governing Commission. It would obviously be premature for me to express any view until this report has been received and considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether this proposal has received any consideration, or is being put forward?

I think that that is undoubtedly within the scope of the consideration of the committee of three.

Have any representations been made to His Majesty's Government, in view of the statements in regard to the committee?

I do not think that that arises out of the question.

If the plebiscite is held next year, will the influence of the British Government be exerted with the League of Nations to ensure that there is no possibility of victimisation of any section of the population in the Saar after the plebiscite has been held?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the object of the committee of three is to consider what suggestions can be made as regards the maintenance of order, and that of course includes securing that the plebiscite is conducted fairly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information about the visit of Sir Albert Kitson to the Kakamega goldfield; whether its purpose is to supplement the previous reports made by turn to the Government; and whether he has been entrusted with any other official mission?

I understand that Sir Albert Kitson recently visited Kenya in a private capacity. During his visit he completed and submitted to Government his final report on the geology of the goldfields on which he had been engaged for some time. The report is being printed in Kenya, and it was hoped to publish it in Nairobi by the 17th of April. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Is it not a fact that this gentleman was appointed to make reports upon the Kakamega goldfields, and is he now engaged in his own capacity in setting up a private company for the exploitation of the gold in that territory?

I believe that Sir Albert Kitson is now employed by a private company. He has completed the work which he was doing for the Government, and, as I have said, the final report on which he was engaged is now published.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what reply he has made to the memorandum addressed to him by a joint committee of representative Kikuyu organisations, urging representation of Africans by Africans on certain bodies concerned with native interests, the representation of Kikuyu interests by an elected paramount chief, the opening of a college for secondary education for African children, the teaching of English instead of Swahili in elementary schools, the restitution of alienated land, the abolition of the but tax and of the Native Registration Ordinance, the payment of proper salaries to African civil servants and chiefs, and the abolition of restrictions on coffee growing by natives?

I have asked the Governor of Kenya for his comments on this memorandum, and propose to await them before considering my reply.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what nature of assistance has been given by the Government of Palestine towards the enlarged Levant Fair at Tel Aviv which opens this month?

The Government of Palestine are granting the same Customs, railway, postal, telephonic and telegraphic facilities as were extended on the occasion of the Levant Fair of 1932. They are also providing a sum of £700 to meet the cost of a Government exhibit, including the rent of the building which has been provided by the exhibition management as a Government pavilion.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the agreements made at Ottawa with regard to dairy produce after these expire in June of next year?

The position with regard to dairy produce will be open to review next year, but I cannot, at this date, forecast the situation which will result.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to hold a conference with the Dominions before any decision is come to by the Government of this country?

It is always the intention of His Majesty's Government to consult the Dominions on matters that affect them.

Is it not the fact that these agreements were come to in furtherance of Imperial policy in order to bring about greater freedom of trade between the Dominions and this country; and has not that policy been very much to the advantage of this country?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Board of Customs and Excise are proposing to discontinue publication of the Liverpool Customs Bill of Entry; and if, in view of the inconvenience which would be caused thereby, he will cause that matter to be reconsidered?

I am aware that it is proposed to discontinue publication of the Liverpool Customs Bill of Entry owing to the loss incurred in publication. The information hitherto published in this way will, however, be available to interested parties on payment of fees sufficient to cover the expense incurred in extracting the necessary figures.

Will not the hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the point, bearing in mind that it is a serious thing to discriminate against one port in this matter, and will he make further inquiries and see if those who are benefiting by the information given will not be prepared to meet a charge towards the loss that has been sustained?

My hon. Friend is in error if he thinks this decision applies to one port only. It applies to all the ports concerned. Owing to the falling off of subscribers, the Treasury has been involved in a loss of £5,000 or £6,000 a year, and it is not considered appropriate that the taxpayer should sub-sidise sectional interests.

Will not the hon. Gentleman give the matter further considera- tion in view of the feeling and the obvious inconvenience that will be caused not only to those in the port, but also to those in the interior markets of the country?

We have offered to assist the interests concerned in any way that may appear to be suitable. If they make their application to us, all their requirements can be met, provided that they are in a position and willing to defray the cost.

Is it the intention of the Treasury to give general application to the principle laid down, that it is not proper for the Treasury to subsidise sectional interests?

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the serious loss to trade generally, which will react more seriously on the Treasury than the small cost referred to?

No, I do not think that is the case. I am sorry, in view of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that I ventured to use the word principle.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of summoning an Imperial conference at an early date to consider the issues raised by the offer of the New Zealand Government to provide a free market for British goods in return for a similar free market for New Zealand goods in this country?

As will be seen from the correspondence recently published as a White Paper (Cmd. 4557), and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs explained in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South Shields on 28th March, no such offer has been made. The question asked by my hon. Friend does not therefore arise.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave danger to the whole economic future of this most loyal of the Dominions by the rejection by the Government of the offer, or whatever it may be termed, which was actually made by the New Zealand Government?

The hon. Member persists in assuming that what I have said is not true.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one of the results of the new policy of the Government is to reduce markets for Dominion goods? This Dominion now has a smaller market for its butter than before the new policy of the Government was introduced.

Is it not the case that, if New Zealand did not make an offer, the New Zealand Government made an inquiry as to whether an arrangement could not be arrived at for the free interchange of goods?

I have always been taught to believe that there is a difference between an offer and an inquiry.

Is not the real cause of the difficulty that New Zealand is suffering from the fact that so many countries competing with her in our market give big export subsidies which entirely outweigh any benefits that New Zealand gets under the Ottawa Agreements?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of summoning a special Imperial Conference to consider the inquiry made by the New Zealand Government into the possibility of some arrangement of this kind?

asked the Undersecretary of State for Air the number of privately-owned aircraft in the United Kingdom in March of this year and the corresponding number in March, 1933 and 1932, respectively?

Figures for March are not readily available. The numbers of privately-owned aircraft registered in the United Kingdom on 31st December, 1931, 1932 and 1933, were 385, 402 and 408, respectively. These figures are exclusive of aircraft used for transport, taxi-work, training and club-work.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Air the number of privately-owned aircraft in France, Germany, Italy, and America, respectively, in March of this year and the corresponding number in March, 1933 and 1932, respectively?

As the answer contains figures in tabulated form, I will, with my Noble Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many gliding clubs now exist in the United Kingdom to-day; what steps are being taken to organise competitions between gliding clubs; and whether a day could be set aside for a national gliding competition?

I understand that there are at present some 22 gliding clubs in the United Kingdom, though not all of these are active. The matters raised in the last two parts of the question are primarily for the Royal Aero Club and the British Gliding Association.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the satisfactory operation of air-mail services between this country and the African Colonies and Palestine, and the benefits which have accrued as a result, he can state what steps he contemplates to assist the establishment of similar services between this country and other British Colonies at the earliest possible opportunity?

The policy of His Majesty's Government is primarily directed at present to the development of Imperial trunk air routes, and British territories which are situated on, or adjacent to, these routes will naturally benefit from the pursuance of this policy. My Noble Friend is continuously alive to the possibility of the extension of the existing services, and certain proposals for such extension are under active consideration.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now consider the completion of the survey for a road bridge across the River Forth at Rosyth, which was suspended in 1931?

In present circumstances the answer is in the negative.

Does the Minister realise that there is a strong body of opinion in favour of this bridge; and does he also realise that a proper decision cannot be arrived at with regard to the practicability and cost of the scheme until this survey is completed?

My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that there is now in process of construction a bridge at Kincardine, and a very considerable improvement has been made in the ferry service. Until we see the results of these two improvements it would be clearly wrong to proceed with this survey.

Does the Minister realise that the Kincardine bridge is no good to Edinburgh?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make representations to the railway companies to-abolish the prepayment of carriage on fish, which was imposed by arrangement as a War-time measure only?

The standard terms and conditions on which merchandise is carried on the railways, which were settled by the Railway Rates Tribunal under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1921, provide that in respect of the carriage of perishable merchandise by passenger train or similar service, the Company's charges for carriage shall be payable in advance. I have no jurisdiction in the matter, but it is open to any representative body of traders concerned to apply to the tribunal for an amendment of these conditions.

Does the Minister realise the very great hardship that this requirement causes to those who are carrying on the industry in the face of strenuous competition?

As I said in my original answer, I have no jurisdiction in the matter.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the action of the police in Manchester in warning off riders of horses from the rough grass strips in Mauldeth Road West; and whether, in view of the desirability of riders making use of grass margins as far as possible in the interests of road safety, he will take steps to legalise their use, especially in cases where, as in this instance, no special powers exist to prevent it?

I have made inquiries, and am informed that a space in the centre of the road was originally reserved for use as a tram track. It has now been kerbed, turfed and planted with shrubs, and is kept as an ornamental area. This House will have an opportunity in due course of considering proposals included in the Manchester Corporation Bill, now before Parliament, for the prohibition of walking or driving on certain grass-covered areas forming parts of streets maintained by the Corporation.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to consider the representations of the Glamorgan County Council and the Bridgend Urban District Council for a grant to widen Bridgend Brewery Road approach, which is recognised as one of the most dangerous places in Glamorganshire?

I am informed that the question of widening the Bridgend-Maesteg Road, in the vicinity of the Old Brewery, Bridgend, is being considered by the Glamorgan County Council, but that some considerable time may elapse before a definite scheme can be prepared as discussions and negotiations with property owners will be involved. Subject to funds being available for the purpose, I shall be prepared to give consideration to an application for a grant when the definite proposal is submitted and the authority is in a position to proceed with the scheme.

asked the Minister of Transport whether any further progress has been made with regard to the repair of weak bridges and, if so, to what extent?

Twenty-seven Priority Lists have now been received as a result of the County Conferences so far held concerning weak bridges, and I am informed that negotiations for the strengthening or rebuilding of weak bridges included in these lists are actively proceeding between highway authorities and bridge owners.

Will the Minister consider urging forward the improvement of these bridges in larger numbers?

I miss no opportunity of urging the local authorities to take every opportunity of strengthening these bridges.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the circular which he recently addressed to highway authorities making suggestions to them for the improved construction and maintenance of roads, with a special view to the security of the road user?

I am arranging for copies of the Ministry's circular 390 (Roads) of 6th February, 1934, to be available in the Vote Office.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the facility with which some insurance companies evade meeting charges in respect of motor insurance, he will consider the adoption of a standard form of contract which all companies shall be compelled to use unless they can produce something better which his Department can approve?

I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Clauses 7–12 of the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament which are designed to prevent such evasions as he refers to. If my hon. Friend were to bring to my attention any particular points in connection with these clauses, I would of course take them into consideration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the tariff companies already issue a standard form of contract?

asked the Minister of Health the number of able-bodied workmen receiving assistance from the public assistance committees in the county of Durham, including the boroughs, for the week ended 19th March, 1934?

The returns made to my Department relate to monthly periods. These returns, moreover, do not distinguish the numbers of able-bodied workmen in receipt of relief. During the month of March, 1934, in the county of Durham, together with the associated county boroughs, the average number of men in receipt of out-relief who were ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation was 15,505.

asked the Minister of Health whether it is intended that persons who are in receipt of transitional payment and who have lost their medical benefit under the National Health Insurance Act shall be entitled to medical treatment from the public assistance authorities?

All persons who are insured under the National Health Insurance Acts are entitled to medical benefit under those Acts. Persons who have ceased to be insured, whether in receipt of transitional payment or not, and who are in need of medical treatment and are not in a position to meet the cost of such treatment, are entitled to have recourse to the public assistance authorities.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in some cases men are being disallowed benefit because they have refused a situation offered them at a weekly wage of 21s., plus commission, for 12 hours' work a day for seven days in the week; and whether it is the policy of his Department to treat such an offer as a suitable situation?

I am not aware of such cases, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend has particulars of any and will send them to me, I will cause inquiries to be made. The question whether employment is suitable is decided not by the Department but by the court of referees, subject to the usual rights of appeal to the umpire.

Is it not the case that officials of the Ministry are definitely told off to act as touts for jobs under very inferior conditions indeed?

No, I do not think there is any justification for that allegation.

If I produce evidence of many cases of that description, will the hon. Gentleman see that it is stopped?

I am always glad to look into any case that the hon. Member brings forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his intention to introduce legislation with regard to deer forests during the present Session?

My right hon. Friend regrets he is not yet in a position to make any statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to refer the complaints of the East of Scotland milk producers against the Scottish Milk Marketing Board to the investigation committee?

While the questions to be referred have not yet been received in their final form, the answer, speaking generally, is in the affirmative.

I beg to move, in page 69, line 28, to leave out "power to hold land without a licence in mortmain, and."

This Amendment raises what is really a legal point, and I am moving it on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. Really, in order to make the proposed Amendment intelligible I must refer to certain Amendments on the Paper, and I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a short general statement, which is really necessary in order to explain this particular Amendment. If hon. Members will look on the second page of the Amendment Paper, towards the bottom, they will see an Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend—in page 70, line 7, at the end, to insert:

"9. The functions of the board, and of the officers and servants appointed by the board, shall be exercised on behalf of the Crown,"

etc. That being the position—and I shall have a word or two to say about it in a moment—namely, that the functions of the board, and of the officers and servants of the board shall be exercised on behalf of the Crown, there is no need for the words which appear in the Bill as presented, namely, "power to hold land without a licence in mortmain." So really it is a drafting Amendment dependent upon the fact that the board and the servants are exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown. It will be agreed that this is a board set up to perform a national service in accordance with the provisions of Clause 34. The salaries of the members of the board are to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, the salaries of the other officers of the board are to be paid out of money voted by this House and the main expenses of the board—with the exception of con- tributions from local authorities under Clause 44—will be borne by the Treasury. It will be agreed, I hope, that in these circumstances the board and its officers should exercise these powers on behalf of the Crown, and I suggest that that would have plainly been the position without the insertion of the express words which my right hon. Friend is moving to insert at a later stage. The reason for the Amendment is that the Bill as originally presented did not in all details recognise that that would and must be the position of the board. If that had been recognised fully and in every detail the words which I am now proposing to leave out would not have been inserted; they would have been unnecessary, because the board are acting on behalf of the Crown. It is desirable when Parliament sets up bodies that it should be clearly and expressly stated in the Act whether they are exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown.

I agree with the Solicitor-General that it is always just as well to be clear in an Act of Parliament as to the position regarding a body of this kind. I understand that this Amendment is really part and parcel of the Amendments on page 768, the addition of the two other paragraphs which stand in the name of the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask a question or two on the situation as disclosed by the present Amendment and the subsequent Amendments. The present Amendment deals only with the holding of land and has no relationship to the position of the officers and servants of the board with regard to other matters. When it comes to the constitution of the board and the officers and servants as if they were a Government Department, for that is substantially what is being done, are we to understand that there will be no possibility of bringing an action against those officers and servants except under the usual form in which an action is brought against the Crown? Will they be liable for torts or under contract to be sued in the event of doing something irregular or improper in regard to the functions which they are supposed to carry out under the hoard? The Solicitor-General knows that the proceeding which has to be adopted when it comes to bringing an action against the Crown, is something which anybody embarks upon with considerable trepidation, and it makes it almost impossible for any action to be brought in those circumstances.

Where you have a peculiar type of body which is not a Government Department and which has not that incident of a Government Department which gives protection to the subject by being represented on the Treasury Bench, it is extremely dangerous to set up such a body as being representative of the Crown and, therefore, only able to have actions brought against it and its servants as if they were a Government Department, because there is this essential difference between such a body and a Government Department that they cannot be got at in any way through political means. I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree with me that this is a very serious point and one which ought to be considered by the House, quite apart from any party consideration. I think I am right in saying that we have had no case hitherto in the development of this type of body where there has been a provision of this sort put in an Act of Parliament to constitute the servants of the body as if they were servants under a Government Department.

If, for instance, it were proposed in regard to the Tariff Commission that in regard to matters where they might be sued the commissioners and their servants were to be treated as if they were servants of the Crown, that would be equally open to the objection that there is no representative here to speak for the Tariff Commission, just as there will be no representative here to speak for the Unemployment Assistance Board. There is that very vital difference, and I suggest that this matter ought to be explained very fully to the Committee if we are for the first time in the history of the country—I may be wrong—to give immunity, which is really what it amounts to, to the servants of a body such as this. That is the change which is made by the first Amendment and the subsequent Amendments in the statutory position of the members of the board. I take it that there is nothing further behind it and that there is no intention to extend the powers of the board, but that the object is merely to explain the statutory position which they occupy. It is not for us to develop statutory commis- sions of this kind and to set them up with the legal position of a Government Department, acting on behalf of the Crown.

There ought to be, as there have been in relation to some Government Departments provisions made whereby certain people can be sued in the case of action desiring to be brought, and where it is not necessary to bring an action against the Crown. I think the Postmaster-General is a case in point. There is a special provision whereby the Postmaster-General can be sued as such, instead of the Crown. I am not certain whether in connection with the Board of Admiralty there is also provision for power to nominate someone to be sued instead of action having to be brought against the Crown. I would ask the Solicitor-General to consider that point, if it had not already been fully considered, and to tell us whether he thinks it is wise in circumstances of this kind to give this type of what I call immunity to the servants and officers of this Department.

The Solicitor-General has raised what is really a wider question than the point covered by this Amendment. I do not think there is any objection to a general discussion on all the Amendments, but I want to safeguard the position of the Chair by saying that if we have a general discussion on the present Amendment it must not be repeated on the later Amendments.

I will not intervene in regard to the merits of a legal discussion. The very presence of the Solicitor-General is naturally alarming. A conversation has taken place, in very conversational terms, between himself and his predecessor. When two hon. and learned Gentlemen get together I begin to wonder what is behind it. I am concerned but for a different reason. We are setting up a very peculiar and novel authority charged with wide and extensive powers, which will affect hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. Their existence will depend on the administration of this new board as we are proposing to hand over to it practically the whole of our Poor Law which, hitherto, has been a local matter. There is no doubt that many of these citizens will feel that they have been robbed if they are not able to go to their own Poor Law authority. Hitherto, they have been able to approach the Minister through their Member of Parliament, but this new authority is to be something quite apart and detached, something away from the ordinary public administration of the country. It is going to sit independent, high up in the mountains, quite out of contact with the public. We are now told that this new body is to be in a privileged position, similar to that of a Government Department. It is to have a legal status and will not be subject to the ordinary laws and regulations like the London County Council or large city corporations. We have a right to know what it all means. Does it mean that this authority cannot be sued in the ordinary courts? If an individual suffers a wrong because of a breach of the law by this authority is it to be treated as being a State Department which you cannot sue for damages? I think the Committee should know the implications of the proposal.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has indicated our position in reference to this Amendment. He asked whether it means an enlargement of the functions of this board. Let me put the question a little more explicitly. The Amendment gives fuller powers to the board than were originally proposed, powers to which they are entitled and which are needed. May I ask whether this has any connection with the visit of the Government Commissioners to distressed areas? When I saw that land was being brought in it seemed to me that it was being done with a view to this board operating possibly when the commissioners give their report. I should like to have a definite answer on this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in Newcastle on the day when we discussed distressed areas in this House and he suggested that the board should be used for investigation and a general survey of the areas. I was somewhat uncomfortable when I read that, but I am pleased that the Government have decided to send their own representatives rather than the board. It would hamper the work of the survey and any future work which may have to be done if it is to be done by this particular body. That is the worst possible way of doing it.

The commissioners are not much good.

This is a different matter altogether. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me a definite reply. There may not be a great deal in it, but in view of the Chancellor's statement and the Amendments of the Government on this point, I think the Committee should have a definite statement on the matter.

The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has rather withdrawn the attention of the Committee from the Amendments actually before us, and as they are of importance I hope the Committee will devote its attention to them. I ask the Solicitor-General to give us a more complete explanation of the purpose of the Amendments before we pass them. The change they make in the Bill is considerable. They set up an authority for which I know no precedent. I do not think the Solicitor-General can give us a precedent for the creation of an authority which is a fragment of the Crown. We frequently create corporate bodies which are self-sufficient and which have their functions laid down by Parliament, but this body is not self-sufficient, or completely corporate by itself, and its functions are to be exercised on behalf of the Crown. It is a novel kind of corporation. The matter is not one of theoretical importance. Ordinarily the Crown is represented by Ministers. The Crown can do no wrong; but Ministers can. But what if this body does a wrong, if anyone is aggrieved, how are they to get redress? It is to exercise functions on behalf of the Crown; will it be legitimate then to criticise the Crown? In the presence of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) I will not pursue that problem, but it does produce a real difficulty. Where there is no Minister, what is the position of a body which is performing its functions on behalf of the Crown?

The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol raised the practical difficulty of the suing of the servants of this body. There is another practical difficulty, the rating and taxation of this board. If it is a fragment of the Crown it is free from rates, and if it is to hold land then presumably it will occupy a considerable amount of property in various parts of the Kingdom. Are those parts to be legally free from liability to rates? There are all kinds of difficulties involved, and I hope for a more complete explanation than we have yet had.

I am afraid I did not follow the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) in his novel suggestion about a fragment of the Crown. I shall be interested to find out what it means. Will the learned Solicitor-General deal with the matter in this way: People draw a distinction between what it seems to me are the two different points involved. First of all there are the functions of the board under the Bill. Does this Amendment affect those? Suppose that there is some mismanagement of the functions of the board, can the person who is injured proceed by mandamus? Is not that a proper method? Is that or is it not affected by the Amendment? Those are the ordinary functions of the board. But there is a second one, and it is that which troubles the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). Suppose that in the course of its occupation of land and the carrying out of its functions under the Bill the board does something which conflicts with the ordinary common law. Suppose, for instance, that it runs over someone with one of the super-power motor cars which presumably the board will employ. Suppose that there is some defect in the premises that they occupy and some person is injured. What is the position then? How is the person injured, say by the falling of a pile, to proceed? What is the intention? I ask the learned Solicitor-General to draw a distinction between the functions of the board and the ordinary common law.

I only want to refer for a moment to the importance of the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He appears to-day in the somewhat novel role of Satan rebuking sin, for it was only quite recently that he announced to the country in general that it was pre- cisely this type of board, outside the control of Parliament, with which he proposed at a not very distant date to carry on the whole of the administration of the country.

Will the hon. Baronet read the quotation from my speech in which I said that? I never said anything of the sort.

That was certainly the impression made by a speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, it seems to me to be of peculiar interest and of immense importance to notice that if there is anything novel in these proposals regarding the powers of this extra-Parliamentary Board, and the legal position of the members of the board in relation to all the matters mentioned, that the Solicitor-General should make it perfectly clear why there should be this extension of the board's powers, and why immunity from ordinary proceedings at law should be necessary for the board in carrying out its functions. It is a very small matter comparatively speaking, but we are going to set up a precedent by appointing the board with the enlarged powers provided by the Amendments. In order to do something which might be done equally well in another way we may be setting an example to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, which he and his party will not be slow to follow in days to come.

I have allowed myself to assent in silence to a proceeding which seems to me, now that I have had time to think it over, not appropriate. You suggested from the Chair, Captain Bourne, that we should discuss the Amendment now before us in conjunction with other Amendments on page 768 to another part of the Schedule. I am afraid it was necessary for the learned Solicitor-General to refer to those subsequent Amendments, but it seems to me that the Committee would be making a mistake to have the major discussion on this Amendment, to which I think the Committee might agree. I can see the consequences. As I understand it, the consequential Amendment is one that must necessarily follow. But I think the appropriate attitude for the Opposition is to accept the proposal to remove the phrase dealing with power to hold land without a licence in mortmain. Presumably if we delete that phrase we taken away the power from the Unemployment Assistance Board.

I do not know exactly how easy or how difficult it is to get a licence in mortmain. I have held a wireless licence and a dog licence, but so far I have never been under the necessity of getting this sort of licence, which is probably much more imposing than a dog licence. But if this board is going to hold land let it apply to some authority to do it. That puts it more in line with common men. It brings it down a little from the high heaven in which the Government are endeavouring to place it. Therefore, I do not see why the Committee cannot agree quite heartily with the point of view that if this Unemployment Assistance Board desires to hold land it should just get into the queue with the rest of us down at the mortmain office, and apply. The suggestion you made, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that we should discuss the two Amendments together, I think should not be proceeded with, but that we should have an opportunity on the Opposition benches of supporting the Government Amendment to withdraw from the board the power that was being given them, and then at a later stage refuse to them the power to be given by the two paragraphs which the Government will move in a subsequent Amendment.

I hope that Members of the Committee will acquit me of any intentional discourtesy either to the Committee or to the importance of the subject-matter if I introduced this Amendment rather briefly. I welcome the suggestions which have been made and the opportunity of dealing with them. First of all, I can give the Committee the most complete assurance that this Amendment is neither intended to, nor in my opinion does it, enlarge the functions of the Board. Nor has it any connection of any kind with the decisions taken with regard to the Commissioners. On the Bill as drafted, having regard to the functions imposed on this board—for instance, under Clause 34, dealing with this matter as a national service, dealing with it to almost the whole extent out of moneys voted by Parliament, members of the board being paid out of the Consolidated Fund—having regard to all those facts, in my opinion it is clear, looking at the scheme of the Bill as a whole, that the board is and would be held by any court to be exercising functions on behalf of the Crown, and, therefore, would be within such immunity as is conferred under the existing law.

This body, which is exercising its functions on behalf of the Crown, is entrusted, under an Act of Parliament, with the performance of a national duty—a duty which the principle of the Bill accepts as a duty of the State of improving the conditions of unemployed persons and of making allowances to them. The principle of the Bill is that that is a duty for the State to undertake, and, therefore, those whom the State employs to carry out the duties of a State undertaking would, in my opinion, be held to be exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown in the same way as members of a Government Department, whether they are or are not exercising State functions, where, under our Parliamentary procedure and practice, there is a Minister directly responsible in this House for that Department, or whether, as in this Bill, the responsibility and control of this House does not take the same form.

When you add to that that the salaries of the members of the board and payments have to be made good from moneys voted by this House, and you have the very large measure of control of this House and the responsibility, it seems to me plain that the board as set up by this Bill are exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown. Hon. Members on many previous occasions have referred to the extent of the control by this House, on the Minister's salary, on the Consolidated Fund Bill and on the presentation of the Annual Report and with regard to ail the matters as to which the Minister has to give his approval. Regulations have to be approved by this House, although it is true to say that, while the principle of the Bill does not really arise on this Amendment, it is really a retention of control by this House.

That being the position, and that being our opinion, having regard to the principle of the Bill, that was the only and inevitable result to make it clear in ex- press words in the Bill. The result of that is, first of all, that, as far as contracts are concerned, contracts made by servants of the Crown are enforceable against the Crown by Petition of Right. There may be some procedure which may be simpler, but that is another question, and my hon. and learned Friend opposite who has had experience of actions brought by Petition of Eight, knows that it is very easy to exaggerate the complexities and difficulties which are put in the way of subjects by that Procedure. For a period after the War, when the State Departments had entered into contracts of all kinds, there were countless Petitions of Rights which went through with the same ease as ordinary actions for debt. As far as torts are concerned, the case was put by the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Lindsay), and a similar case, I think, was referred to by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), of an accident when someone is run down by a servant of the board—

Or fraud.

My hon. and learned Friend shows his general attitude to the board which Parliament is setting up by regarding fraud as a likely incident. The position would be the same as has happened in many cases with regard to those who drive Post Office vans or Admiralty or War Office lorries. The subjects injured have a right of action against—and only against—the individual; but the practice, as my hon. and learned Friend opposite knows perfectly well, is that the Department, in fact, stands behind the individual, and although the individual may not have the means himself if he is called upon to satisfy any judgment which may be found against him, the Treasury provide the means for satisfying the judgment. That is the practice of Government Departments to-day, and it will be the practice as far as servants or officers of this board are concerned. The reason for that, of course, is that in an ordinary case a master is sued if his servant knocks a man down. But in the case of the servants of the Crown, you cannot stop on the way to the Crown and say that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is the master, and therefore must pay when a mail van knocks down somebody in the street, because he is not the master. It is the Crown, and the Crown, under our constitution, can do no wrong. You cannot, of course, issue a writ and take legal proceedings against the Crown. That is the theory which lies behind the practice—a practice which does not inflict hardship in its results, because in this case the Government Department and the Treasury do, in fact, stand behind the individual, and the damages which are payable are paid.

Another hon. Member, I think, referred to the question of certiorari or mandamus. I apologise to the Committee for raising these technical matters, but they are necessary. This board, in that it has certain functions placed upon it of deciding certain things of a technical nature, will be subject, as any other body set up by Statute, with the function of taking decisions of being stopped if it exceeds its jurisdiction, and being compelled to act if it declines wholly to fulfil its function. Those are the legal remedies which apply. Therefore, in my submission, it is not accurate to say that a body, exercising its function on behalf of the Crown, is outside the law.

The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) raised the question of rating and taxation. That is a matter which is dealt with, as it has been dealt with in every case, namely, by the Treasury making a payment in lieu of rates to the local authority in whose area land is owned on behalf of the Crown, and which therefore, technically, might claim immunity. All those matters are dealt with without any great dissatisfaction in the case of Government Departments.

The point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) was as to whether there was an exact precedent. I think that the answer is "No." I think there may be other bodies, such as the Forestry Commissioners—a Commissioner does not sit in this House necessarily—who are clearly exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown. But I do not in the least disagree with what is obvious, that this body has no precedent, and those who approve of the passing of this Bill are proud of that fact. We believe that we are, without a precedent, producing a great social improvement. Discussion may arise on the main principles of the Bill as to whether this is a good idea or a bad one, but I ask the Committee to accept the view for the purpose of this discussion that it is a good idea that it is in the interests of the unemployed to set up a board to perform this national service with the degree of Parliamentary control provided by the Bill. No other solution is right or possible than that they should be expressed to be exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown, because, in fact, they are performing a vital national service, and a function of Government which this House has expressly stated, by the principle of this Bill and on other occasions, to be a responsibility of the State. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment and the consequential Amendments which, in my submission, really make explicit what was implicit in the principle of the Bill.

The hon. and learned Member has enlightened the Committee, I am sure, in pointing out to the Committee and the country one thing of which we have had no full admission before. We now have it from the hon. and learned Gentleman that this body is to be set up to perform the functions of government in this country, which is precisely what we have been saying. Here you have a body set up, not to look after some insurance fund, but to perform the functions of government—functions of government which have been taken away from the House of Commons to be performed by a body outside, a body which is described in the Schedule as

"a body corporate by the name of the Unemployment Assistance Board with a Common Seal "—

words wholly inappropriate to the setting up of a Government Department. The hon. and learned Member said that anyone would interpret, under this Bill, the Unemployment Assistance Board as obviously being a servant of the Crown. I venture to suggest that there is no case where a body corporate with a Common Seal has been set up by Parliament as a servant of the Crown. There have been cases—the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Central Electricity Commissioners, and all those other bodies carrying out vital administrative duties to the State or to the community which have not been set up as servants of the Crown but as separate bodies corporate with a Common Seal—separate entities given, as this body is given, a Statutory existence, and not merely introduced into the structure of the State as an agent for the Crown in a particular function of the Crown.

The importance of the matter is that when the Crown acts through agents in Governmental functions, those agents must always be represented in the legislature. That is essential to a democratic constitution. Here we have the setting up of a separate body corporate with a Common Seal which is not in its nature likely to become an agent of the Crown with political responsibility. You take away from it that political responsibility. You say that you are going to put it outside the House of Commons, because it is a separate body corporate with its own Common Seal and its own separate life. Having done that, you say that it is to be treated as if it were an agent of the Crown. Hitherto those two things have been wholly inconsistent in the constitution of the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is setting up a new body. I am all in favour of setting up new bodies. I think it is an excellent thing to do. On the other hand, I am not in favour of setting up new bodies which are not responsible to the Government and the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members including the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who appears to take exception to that statement, will do me the honour of reading what I have written on this subject, they will see that I have insisted on more control by the House of Commons over any such body as this and not less control.

Is it not the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that when Parliament assembled, after his party had come into power, it would be asked to pass one Act and one Act only setting up a body which would, as he described it, get on with the job?

The hon. Baronet will find that I have never said any such thing in my life. If he does not accept my statement, will he be good enough—

I accept anything which the hon. and learned Gentleman says on the subject. He knows better than I do what he actually said, but I have given my recollection of what he was reported to have said, and what I think the general public believed him to have said.

The hon. Baronet may take it from me that in anything which I have said or suggested I have always insisted that there should be a greater measure of control by the House of Commons and not a less measure of control. My whole ambition has been to try to set up a form of procedure in the House of Commons which would enable a greater and not a less measure of control to be exercised over Ministers. If the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General wishes to express any view on that point he has the opportunity of doing so.

Why not get up and express dissent if you are anxious to do so?

I have not got the book.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will get it and that will be another copy sold. In the case of this board the Solicitor-General rightly takes pride in the setting up of a new body, but I seriously ask the Committee to consider the type of body which is being set up and to ask themselves whether it is right to set up a corporation of this type, without any direct responsibility to this House or to the people through any representative or elected body. I would also draw attention to the fact that it is at the same time to be given a type of immunity which hitherto has only belonged to people who have that political responsibility. That is to say this body can only be sued in a case of contract by petition of right, and they cannot be sued at all as regards other types of action.

The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to make a joke because I suggested the case of fraud. The reason why I suggested the case of fraud was this. It is true that the Treasury will accept liability in a case of accident, but they will not always accept liability in cases of fraud. That comes into a different area, and the Treasury might take the view that they were not responsible for a fraud by their servants. In this case you take away the chance of bringing an action against the master whether he is liable or not. The exact quantum of difference does not matter very much, but the fact is that by putting this body in a privileged position of some sort we shall be making things very difficult. Having taken away political responsibility, it is wrong to give that kind of immunity and before this new body with these unprecedented rights, representing a new constitutional feature, is introduced, the matter should be given further and careful consideration by the Government.

I hope that before we leave this question we may have a little light thrown upon it and that some attempt will be made to clear up the confusion to which many of us have been reduced after comparing the functions ascribed to this board by representatives of the Government, with the situation revealed by the observations of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). My hon. and learned Friend in speaking of the relationship of the House of Commons to the new board referred to the degree of Parliamentary control. On the other hand the Minister of Labour has said that the Minister on behalf of the Government, will assume sole responsibility for the policy and regulations of the board. In the "Times" of 28th March will be found a reply which the Minister gave to a deputation representing the Childrens Minimum Committee. In that reply he said there had been confusion as to what degree of Parliamentary control and responsibility there would be for the board and its operation and he added that he assumed full responsibility for the policy and the regulations which this new body might lay down.

If that is correct it is manifestly not in this Bill and if the Bill becomes an Act and these Schedules are passed there will be a position for which, I think, there is no precedent. The Minister will be responsible for administering regulations but neither he nor the Prime Minister nor the Cabinet will have any initiative to alter the regulations or the policy laid down by the board. The Minister may consider that he has those powers but I shall be grateful to him if he will point out any part of this Bill which states that there is the right on the part of the Minister to take the initiative to alter any regulation proposed by the board and brought to this House. Perhaps it might be sent back to the board with a suggestion from the Minister but when it has received an affirmative Resolution apparently neither the House of Commons nor the Minister has any further say in the matter.

I do not rise to deal with the general question further than to say that the Amendment seems the logical conclusion of the Bill as we have passed it up to date. It makes explicit what is implicit in the provisions already passed by the Committee. I rise to ask the Lord Advocate a question with regard to the position in Scotland. In Scotland the position as regards civil actions differs from that in England. We are not subject to all the trouble of a petition of right in these cases. The Lord Advocate is the proper defender in the case of any action against a Government department. I should like his assurance that in the case of any action against the board based on contract or the like, he or his successor will under this Bill be the proper defender. As far as civil wrongs are concerned, I think the Solicitor-General for England has given entirely satisfactory assurances as regards England and I would merely ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish position is the same as that outlined by the Solicitor-General in reference to England.

In answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid), the position of the Board in Scotland in the event of anyone wishing to sue them for breach of contract or for fulfilment of contract is this. There would be a direct right of action in that case against the Lord Advocate as representing the Board. That is an ancient right of the subject in Scotland, now regulated by the Crown Suits Act. There is no need whatever for the procedure which exists in England of petition of rights. I think there is just the same right of action in Scotland as one subject would have against another subject as far as contract is concerned. Then, as regards wrongs or what are called torts in England, the position is exactly the same in Scotland as has been stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for England, to be the position in England. The right of action would be a right of action against the individual committing the wrong, but, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate as representing the Crown would undertake the burden of the defence and the Government would bear the financial consequences as found by the court of law.

There would, in short, be no difference between the consequences of a wrong committed, say by the driver of a Post Office van and the consequences of a wrong committed by a member of the board so far as the person wronged is concerned. As regards such matters as writs of certiorari and mandamus the position in Scotland is this. I think there would be a right of action of interdict against the Lord Advocate representing the board, on the one hand, to prevent some wrong being done and, on the other hand, there would be power to petition the Court of Session to compel the board to perform statutory duties if it was failing to do what the Statute requires.

After the very clear explanation which has been given as to how easy it is to take actions of this kind and as to the simplicity of the procedure in Scotland, I should like to know why it is that a committee is sitting at present to examine into the defects and difficulties which exist in regard to actions of this particular type. There is considerable dissatisfaction and misunderstanding with regard to actions against the Crown, and there is justification for a thorough investigation of the question. I suggest that this is an appropriate occasion for more clearly defining the procedure in connection with these actions and perhaps making it simpler.

I would like to put another point. Are the Government prepared to make what is implied in the Bill in respect of the rights to be maintained in the House over matters which come within the purview of the Crown as explicit as they are in respect of this particular provision which the hon. and learned Gentleman is bringing forward to-day? If, as he says, it is implied that the position of the Unemployment Assistance Board is such that it becomes similar to that of another Crown body, we would like to have a definite statement in the Bill giving us the right to bring every matter relating to the actions of that board before the House, in the same way as we have that right in respect of other matters which come within the purview of Crown bodies. In those circumstances, it may be that my hon. Friends above the Gangway and we here may be prepared to meet the hon. and learned Member half way or both ways.

Or any old way.

But if he is going to tell us that for the purpose of actions and the vesting of property this board is to be regarded as being purely and simply a Crown Board, that it is to have the same privileges as every other Government authority, and if he is then going to say that he is not prepared to let that board have its actions governed by a similar procedure to that governing every other body which comes within the provisions of a similar scheme, then we cannot accept, or we ought not to be prepared to accept, the Amendment that is placed before us.

While thanking the learned Solicitor-General for his lucid and detailed explanation of the Amendments, which in many ways are very confusing, I must confess to some regret that the Government have not left the Bill as it was originally introduced, because, on balance, it is difficult to believe that this change is an improvement. The sort of corporation to which we have become accustomed is the British Broadcasting Corporation, or the Electricity Commissioners, or the Forestry Commissioners, but it has not been necessary, because these perform national functions of great importance, to invest them with this particular dignity of being agents of the Crown, and there is attached to a body whom you make an agent of the Crown a liability to unpopularity which seems to me unfortunate. I am thinking of my constituents who may happen to be in dispute with that board. If a constituent has a contract with the board and wants to have its merits thrashed out in a court, what is the use of telling him that he can resort to a petition of rights? The procedure is formidable and, in the provinces, expensive. Instead of having the thing thrashed out in the local court in a few days, he perhaps has to suffer what he regards, it may be without reason, as an injustice.

I see the Postmaster-General on the Treasury Bench. He knows very well the amount of unpopularity—[HON. MEMBERS: "'He knows, he knows '"]—which, quite unjustly, is attached to the Post Office because it is not amenable to the procedure of the ordinary courts. He knows that there are many cases in which a man wishes to have his rights, and I have not the least doubt that justice is done. The Postmaster-General and I, at our age, have seen a number of cases in which I am sure more than justice has been done and in which the Treasury has perhaps erred on the side of generosity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite show surprise, and I admit that it is not altogether credible, but people who have these things to administer know very well that it may be better to err by giving a little more than a court might give, in order to have peace. But the fact that you can dictate when you are the agents of the Crown prevents satisfaction even for a man who is well treated. It seems to me that this procedure makes this board liable to quite unmerited unpopularity in a number of small instances. Therefore, I think the board should have been left as it was originally, without special immunities and subject to the ordinary principles of law, and I wish the Government had stuck to their original intention.