I beg to ask the Patronage Secretary, as representing the Prime Minister, whether the Government can give a day next week to the Motion standing in the name of myself and other hon. Members?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes to allocate Thursday next for the debate on the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. The Herring Industry Bill announced for Consideration on that day will accordingly be postponed.

I beg to move. in page 2, line 16, to leave out from the second "the," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:

" Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, or the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 5937."

As the Bill stands, its provisions apply to some local authorities and not to others, and we have the anomalous position that a local authority in an area with, perhaps, 2,000 inhabitants will have exemption, whereas a local authority which controls an area with, perhaps, 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 people will not. A catchment board functioning over an area so large that a penny rate will raise £150,000 will not be able to have exemption under this Act, whereas a small local authority, where a penny rate raises, perhaps, no more than £200, will get exemption. It is in order to do away with such anomalies that it is proposed in this Amendment to introduce the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, because under that Act a local authority is defined as:

" The council of a county, county borough, metropolitan borough or county district, the common council of the City of London and any other local authority within the meaning of the Local Loans Act, 1875."

The introduction of the Local Loans Act, 1875, will obviate the anomalies which otherwise the Measure would create.

The promoters of the Bill are willing to accept this Amendment. Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert:

" or in any part of the British Empire."

It is not in any spirit hostile to what I believe to be a most valuable Measure that I am moving this Amendment, but I think that the framers of the Bill have overlooked a possibility of hardship and injustice which I am sure they would not wish to happen in the case of an architect who has been practising for a long time in the Dominions, or India, or in some of our Colonies, and has then for personal reasons, possibly for reasons of family or health, come back to England and still has the probability of being able to do very good architectural work for a number of years. It would be a great pity if such a man were placed in the position of young students of 20 or 21, and I feel sure the framers of the Bill would be willing to meet a case of this kind. We want to see the widest possible interchange of professional thought in the Empire. Great services may be rendered by men who have had this Empire experience. We have in this House a distinguished architect who has had a large overseas practice. I will not bring a blush to his face by indicating his name. We all know that the profession has gained greatly by such experience, and I hope that it will be possible to meet the case I have put forward. There may not be many men in this position, but I think the Bill should provide for them.

I beg to second the Amendment.

As I understand that the Amendment is to be accepted, I do not propose to weary the House with any comments.

As one who served on the Committee which considered this Bill, I am hopeful—

I wish to raise a point of Order before we come to the Third Reading. No provision seems to have been made in the Standing Orders for Private Members' Bills, and perhaps because of that oversight, 15 Members who had been selected to serve on the Committee which considered this Bill found themselves in the position of receiving only 24 hours' notice of the meeting of the Committee. I have consulted Erskine May's volume on Parliamentary practice, but that seems to be singularly silent about the procedure in the case of a Private Members' Bill. All that I can find is a reference to Private Bills, and I understand there is a distinction between a Private Bill and a Private Member's Bill. The Selection Committee having chosen the Members, the Chairman of the Committee, of whose conduct I am not complaining, then fixed the day for the first meeting, and the day selected left those Members with only 24 hours in which to prepare for their work on the Committee. A reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings shows that three Members requested that the Committee might be adjourned in order that there might be more time, and I do know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), who very much desired to take part in the proceedings, was unable to do so. I wish to know whether some steps can be taken to ensure that Members have reasonable time in which to make preparations to perform their duties on a Committee.

As I understand it, the hon. Member is complaining that there is an omission in the Standing Orders, that there is nothing in Standing Orders as to the interval that should be allowed between the appointment of Members to a Committee and the sitting of the Committee. It is a question, therefore, of amending the Standing Orders.

May I then ask for your guidance? I confess that I am at a loss to know how I am to alter these Standing Orders.

I suggest that the hon. Member might consider putting a Motion upon the Order Paper proposing to make the alterations which he considers necessary.

I was observing that, having served upon the Committee, I did not wish to detain the House or even to oppose the Third Reading; but, now that we have reached the Third Reading of the Bill which consolidates this body, the Royal Institute of British Architects, I venture to hope that the Institute will use its new powers mercifully. We have not been able to raise the question of examinations on this Bill and I shall not raise it this morning, nor have we been able to raise the question of the sum which is vested for ensuring that young students may be helped with scholarships in order to become successful architects. I recognise that the Institute has a prevailing interest in the administration of this matter which should not be wholly theirs. I make a final appeal that the Royal Institute of British Architects will administer their great, vested, preponderating interests to the benefit of this great profession. Some of their members have been responsible in the past, just as others have been, for monstrosities in the construction of buildings, but I hope they will use mercifully the increased power, which they are now receiving as an addition to their already almost overwhelming power, upon those who have also contributed to making our buildings more beautiful.

I rise to make a few observations in opposition to the Bill. I was a Member of this House in 1926 when a similar Bill was first introduced, and I opposed it with others on that occasion. We were successful, as we had been before a Select Committee for some considerable time, in obtaining various concessions in respect of the framing of that Bill. Speaking for myself, and quite a number of others who have strenuously opposed this Bill at each stage, I want it to be understood that we take no exception whatever to the setting up of a standard for the profession. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We are evidently all agreed upon that. I want the House to be aware that many hon. Members who have not been present and listened to the Debates have voted for the Bill because they desire a standard of architecture, and of qualification for those who wish to enter the profesion.

Arguments were used on the Second Reading against ribbon development of the kind that has been taking place in our cities and towns; many Members of the Royal Institute of British Architects have engaged in and lent themselves to ribbon development. As a matter of fact, numerous Members of the Institute are responsible for the abortions which go by the name of architecture disfiguring our cities and towns to-day. I said on the Second Reading that no building in this country was so degrading to the name of architecture as the headquarters of the Royal Institute of British Architects in Portland Place. It seems in keeping with the machine age and mass production, I agree, but there are no aesthetic qualities about it whatever.

The Bill has been advanced with a view to safeguarding the profession of architecture. How are you going to do it? The House is handing over to the Royal Institute a monopoly. The 2,500 architects with equal qualifications who are members of the Incorporated Institute of Architects and Surveyors have no say in respect to examinations and to the standards that should be set up. I wonder what would have happened in this House if the Mineworkers Federation had come here and sought a charter such as we are giving this morning, to confer upon them the right to give mining certificates to their members. This House would have been up in arms and would have cast the proposal out immediately, but by this Bill we are giving the power to the Royal Institute to hand out certificates for architecture to all and sundry who subscribe to their examinations. That is not by any means safeguarding architecture. I want the House to be aware of precisely what we are doing in this regard. If the Federation of Building Industries had attempted this procedure, we should have cast it out.

We are too willing—and this criticism includes many of my colleagues on this side of the House—to grant to professional organisations charters which they have no right to expect in a democratic country. Furthermore, will the Bill make it easier for the young man or young woman possessing qualifications in architecture to get into the profession? I say that it will not. The manner in which the scholarship scheme is being administered should not in any sense inspire the House with confidence. Questions were placed on the Order Paper yesterday by myself seeking information from the Home Secretary in respect of the administration of the scholarship fund. According to the replies given by the right hon. Gentleman he has no jurisdiction in regard to the manner in which the scholarship fund is administered. But, when the Bill was going through Committee, the Committee was led to believe that the Home Secretary would watch the manner in which these funds were being administered. I think we are entitled to take exception to the administration of a fund in this way. The amount awarded for scholarships in 1935 was £156 10s., but the adminis tration costs amounted to £308 10s., and the average age of the persons to whom the scholarships were awarded was 20.

The hon. Member is now referring to a matter which is not in the Bill, and which, therefore, is not in Order on the Third Reading.

I mentioned it by virtue of the fact that this is legislation by reference. The original Act embodies the scholarship scheme, and it is not possible to consider the merits of this Bill as apart from the original Act. That is my reason for mentioning the manner in which the scholarship fund has been administered and the small number of those who are benefiting from it. I bow to your Ruling, but that is the reason why I referred to the matter.

There is nothing about scholarships in the Bill.

I bow to your Ruling. The next point that I want to make is this: When the Bill leaves this House, the House will have no further power in regard to it. The charter will have been conferred, and the Home Secretary admitted in his replies yesterday that he has no jurisdiction over the manner in which the charter is administered by the organisation upon which these powers are conferred. In my view, our educational system for the training of architects is entirely wrong. I speak as one who has been associated with the industry, from my apprenticeship days upwards, for over 40 years.

What industry?

The building industry. I know many of our young men who have gone through their apprenticeship, who attended evening classes and obtained all the technical knowledge which enabled them to obtain their City Guilds certificate. They obtained that certificate with honours in building construction, and no one could be more capable or more efficient in preparing, not theoretical plans, but working plans. Over and over again it has happened that those who have had charge of work have had to prepare their working drawings from the original drawings, because the architects were unable to prepare for them a working drawing, for the reason that they had had no practical training whatever. If architects are to be efficient, they should spend a portion of their time in being trained in the workshop, so that they may have some practical as well as theoretical experience. The educational system provided for in this Bill does not give that.

Again, the architect, like the artist, is not a manufactured article. The artist is born, and the potential architect also should be discovered in his younger days. The architect, equally with the artist, should have some aesthetic qualities. If our architecture is to be improved, it will be along those lines, and we should be seeking our students of architecture among the younger people, and not among those who have reached the age of 22 or 23, as is the case here. On broad general grounds I contend that the House is doing wrong in conferring this charter upon one professional organisation while others with equal ability and an equal standard of efficiency are ignored. Furthermore, I would suggest that, the architects having succeeded in this regard, other industries, trade unions and so on would be equally justified in seeking a similar charter from this House. I do not expect that they would get it, because we know quite well the attitude that would be taken up by our opponents, but none the less the House should be aware of the wrong it is committing to-day, and I hope that a substantial number of Members will go into the Lobby against the Bill.

There is a good deal in what has been said by the last two speakers that I should like to endorse. You have declined, Mr. Speaker, to call the Amendments which were put down in the names of certain of my hon. Friends and myself, and therefore I conceive that it would not be right for me now to deal with the matters to which those Amendments related; but I would like to point out to the House that this is a Bill to

" restrict the use of the name Architect to Registered Architects and to extend the time within which practising architects may apply for registration."

I hope the House will realise that, in addition to the points raised by the last speaker, the Bill restricts others in an extraordinary way and, as I see it, confines the vested interests already given to one society of architects, reaffirming to them rights which nobody else is allowed to have, and it may well be that it will deny that equality of opportunity which the House would like to see in so many other circumstances. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about your own profession? "] There is no comparison between the two. I should not be in Order in discussing the facts which enable me to say that with authoritative detail, but there is no denial of opportunity whatever in my profession. It seems to me that this Bill is very closely associated with the Act of 1931, but it fails to carry out the intention of Parliament as expressed in that Act, and makes no provision —

I wonder if my hon. and learned Friend would explain to the House how many of the annual examinations are held by the body to which he is referring, and how many are held by other bodies in this country?

I do not know whether I should be in order in dealing with that, because it is one of the very topics dealt with in the Amendments which you, Sir, have declined to call, but, if it were in order, I could enlarge upon it in great detail. Perhaps I might put it in this way. The examination involved by the Act of 1931, apparently, has never been put into force, and, if this kind of thing is going to continue, it will make the vested interest of which others have already spoken even more unfair than it may be at the present moment. I would ask the House to realise what the implications of the Bill are, and the hardships it will entail on many people, and to consider even now whether the exceptions provided for at the end of Clause 1 (1), such as, for example, the non-application of the Bill to a person who is a member of the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, will make for any of the good work that was claimed to be within the ambit of the Bill by those who spoke on its behalf when it was first introduced. There are many objections to this Bill in its present form. It will do a certain amount of injustice to many people, for whom this House desires to create no injustice. It will confer on others benefits which it may well be said are merely an extension of vested interests to one section which is not prejudiced in any degree by the present position. But if this Bill is accepted as it is, I join in the hope that the powers conferred may be used wisely, and as equitably as possible.

I find it very difficult to answer some of the speeches which have been made, because they seem to suggest that there is much more in the Bill than there really is. This Bill is introduced simply to undo a grievous harm which was committed in the 1931 Act, which is the principal Act. In that Act, towards the end of the proceedings, we were forced, for reasons of time, to insert the word "registered" in front of the word "architects ". We were rather unhappy about that, because anyone who was on the register was obviously a registered architect; but in order to save time we accepted the Amendment. The general public do not realise the difference between the words "registered architect" and the word "architect ". If they see that any man has a brass plate with the word "architect" on it, they assume that he has all the qualifications and knowledge of a registered architect. Therefore, we have been forced to take this opportunity of rectifying that position. In order that no disadvantage shall be caused to anyone, we also extend up to two years the period in which those who desire to register can do so.

If I were to embark on a reply to some of the statements made by the hon. Member opposite and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) it would take more time than I propose to occupy; but I will say that it is totally wrong to go always on the lines that the Royal Institute of British Architects are the criminals of the piece. It is the largest architectural body in the world. Owing to its high status and great reputation, every good architect wants to belong to it, with the result that it has more members than any other architectural organisation, by a long way. To call it a villain, animated by dark purposes against the very body that it exists to protect, is totally wrong. I would point out that that on the council which is a statutory body set up by the 1931 Act, the Royal Institute take only their proper and legitimate part. We have five members on it representative of the Treasury Bench, and there is also representation for the Government of Northern Ireland. Will the House believe that all these crooked transactions in regard to bursaries and scholarships are taking place when these people are on the Council? It is casting a slur on them.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman infer that the particulars I gave are not correct?

They are perfectly capable of explanation, as hon. Members know. I think I should be out of Order in going into them, because that would be going back on the debate we had in 1931. It was actually overlooked when the Act was passed that six months must elapse before any money at all was got in by the Council. We had to get an Act passed in order to enable the Architectural Council to collect sufficient reserves to enable them to carry out the very specific functions set out in the Act. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) went on to attack the Board of Architectural Education. There are members representative of this very body on that board, and I think that its present president is one of the strongest supporters of this Bill, the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). I think the building industry cannot be completely and fairly represented by the hon. Member for West Willesden; otherwise we should not have the hon. Member for East Woolwich so strong in his advocacy of this Measure. We have, as hon. Members know, a desire to ensure that the general architectural and creative standards of architecture shall go up. It is only by such means as this that we shall eliminate slums and ribbon development.

All that the Architectural Council insist upon is a minimum technical standard. As regards their own development, architects may go on their own lines; but the council insist on this minimum standard. That is why there are certain bodies which are not yet recognised as being proper bodies for examination purposes. If they have not yet submitted a test examination which is accepted by this wide body of headmasters and schoolmistresses, the Cooperative Union and other organisations representative of our national life, these people have decided that such bodies are not sufficiently equipped to have their examinations recognised. As soon as they conform to the standard they will be recognised by this board. Architecturally, we have come to the end of one long period and are starting a new one. I hope that, for the whole countryside, it will mean a change for the better. We have been too long at the mercy of people with insufficient knowledge and no architectural education. We have an opportunity for young architects to take part in the reconstruction of our countryside and great cities. We believe that, by this Bill, we are enabling these architects to enter into their heritage and provide new creative work for the benefit of our people. The public themselves will be the first to benefit by the Bill. When a public authority goes to an architect in future, it will know that not only has he artistic instincts but the necessary technical education.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) has followed the usual practice of indulging in a little romance. Let me just point one or two misstatements he has made—no doubt innocently, but very ignorantly. I do not say that offensively. I cannot be expected to take quite the same view of architecture as my hon. and gallant Friend. He says that all the best architects belonged to the Royal Institute of British Architects. [Interruption.] I wrote down his words.

They would like to belong to it.

I will put it this way and say that they would liked to belong to the Royal Institute of British Architects. I have here a list of some of the most eminent architects this country ever produced who were not members of that Institute—Roland Anderson, John Bentley, Geo. F. Bodley, W. Butterfield, Basil Champneys, Somers Clarke, Horace Field, Thomas Garner, Herbert Horne, T. G. Jackson, Gilbert Scott, and Norman Shaw. I could go on like this and give scores of names of architects, some of whom were elected to the Royal Academy because of their architectural qualifications.

We were retold the story of the architect with the brass plate. I know a great many architects, but I do not know any of them who puts out a brass plate. There may be such people in existence, but I would ask the House whether any Member seriously thinks that anyone would go into a man's office to ask him to spend thousands of his money because he had a brass plate outside his door. He would want to know something about the reputation and work of the architect before he entrusted him with the expenditure of his money. A reference was made to crooked transactions. The hon. gentleman the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) did not suggest that there had been crooked transactions; no one has ever suggested it. Does my hon. and gallant Friend know of any?

The pamphlets issued by certain bodies, which, I believe, the hon. Member represents, asserted very distinctly that there were actions which would not bear investigation, and if that does not mean crooked actions I do not know what does.

I deny that emphatically and say that my hon. and gallant Friend's terminology is most inexact. No documents can be produced alleging crooked financial transactions. The hon. Member for West Willesden said that certain moneys were expended for scholarships and criticised administration costs, but I must not pursue that because Mr. Speaker has already indicated that such matters cannot be introduced. No one has suggested what the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) referred to when he said that nobody had dipped his fingers into the till. I am very indignant that this sort of suggestion should be thrown out, in order to create a kind of atmosphere detrimental to those who are opposing the Bill. The Bill is not so innocent as it would appear to be. It restricts the use of the name "architect" to registered architects, and extends the time within which a practising architect may apply for registration. It is an accurate and proper description to say that it is a Bill which requires those who are to legislate and vote upon it to study the principal Act as it is legislation by reference.

I do not suggest to the House that the State will be overthrown if the Bill is passed or that it will be overthrown if the Bill is rejected. I do not suggest for a moment that it will affect my practice. I know that it will not. It will not affect the practice of men who have gone through the workshop. I agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that the proper place in which to begin training as an architect is in the workshop. It is there that you learn what may be done with materials and how to use them. One can afterwards go into an office and learn draughtsmanship. No one ever became a great architect who did not know a good deal about the material which he was called upon to use in the construction of his building. One would think, in listening to those who advocate this Bill so strongly, that they are afraid of those Tapers and Tadpoles who obtain little commissions which those who have made any mark at all in the profession do not covet and do not want.

Will this Bill alter ribbon development or bad building? No, Sir, it will make no alteration. Precisely the same people who are doing bad designing to-day will go on doing bad designing in future. They will submit their plans to the local authority and the local authority will pass them. Members of this House who have served on local authorities and have taken part in passing building plans will support me when I say that, provided that plans are in accordance with the by-laws, the building Acts, or the regulations, approved by the Ministry of Health, the local authorities have no right to refuse such plans. All that they can do is to see that their inspectors make quite sure that some kind of resemblance to skilled operative work is employed in the erection of the property.

I believe that those who are responsible for running the Royal Institute of British Architects must spend a lot of their time in contemplation. They pose as the Yogis of the profession. It is regrettable and deplorable that the busy practitioner has no time to spare to guide, govern and control architecture. I am not a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but I object very strongly to anybody belonging to any institution reviling those who follow the same practice, and saying "He is not in my institute; he is therefore a blackleg or a bad egg." The Bill will not enable a poor boy or a poor girl to get into the profession. Many hon. Members know about Polytechnic institutions and art schools. It ought not to be necessary that the parents should be compelled to spend large fees year after year in one of the special architectural schools or, alternatively, to spend a large sum of money by way of premium.

I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) is present, because it affords me an opportunity of exposing the references which he once made to influence Members of this House. My hon. Friend has referred to the squares of Bloomsbury and to the nobility of the buildings, and so on. There is only one square in Bloomsbury, and that is Bloomsbury Square. The only good architechtural building in Bloomsbury Square is one that has been erected in the last 20 years. which occupies the whole of the east side. There is another building of fair average merit, which is occupied by the Royal Society of Literature. All the rest of the buildings are speculative buildings of the last century of ordinary London stocks and stucco.

There is nothing about these buildings in the Bill?

I will retrace my steps, from the contemplation of Bloomsbury and come back to the House of Commons. Reference has been made to the Board of Architectural Education, to whom is entrusted by the Registration Council, certain duties. The Board of Architectural Education consists of 75 persons. One would assume that the Board would carry out their duties and hold examinations, but the House may be interested to know that it has never yet held an examination. The Board has approved certain schools but I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) will confirm this—it has been alleged that those schools are dominated by members of the Royal Institute of British Architects. That may be a good or a bad thing, and they ought not to be condemned because they are controlled by members of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I should be the last person in the world to condemn them, but it does bring about a position of affairs that appears undesirable. The examinations ought not to be conducted on lines which really make the student learn how to pass—to please the examiners of his school, and cram up the things he is sure to be asked, the teacher becomes subordinated to the examiner. Teaching has to follow examinations and pupils form the habit of looking to examination as the true end of education.

There is no reference to examinations in the Bill.

I was attempting to drag in that reference, because one cannot become registered unless he passes an examination, and I hoped that I should be in Order. If I am not in Order I will leave that subject. I would ask the House not to give to a particular body such big powers as are provided in this Bill. The House ought to hesitate before creating a monopoly. We believe that democracy and democratic government are best; but this is autocratic government. It is a kind of Hitlerism in architecture. The Bill makes no attempt to cultivate and develop architecture but to convert it into a monopolistic trade making a business of art. It is forging a weapon to coerce everyone into the fold of the Institute. It is handing over a great profession to a small group of people. The people who should be encouraged are the artist architects, and not the men who slavishly copy things that appear in the building papers. If I thought the Bill would be of service to the building community, which is the biggest industry in the Kingdom, I would heartily support it, but because of its narrow, cramped and confined ideas, which only strengthen the hold of one particular institution on a profession and an industry, I feel bound to oppose the Bill.

I shall not detain the House long in what I have to say on this Bill as there is another to follow which affects the lives and the work of a great number of people. The first thing that we have to remember in discussing this Bill is that the House has already considered the question at length on at least two former occasions, and has approved legislation by the overwhelming majority of four to one, the present Bill has come unscathed through Committee. The Bill ought to commend itself to the House. There are two particular points to which I should like to refer. One is the position of the Committee and the other is the possibilities of people of humble circumstances being able to reach heights in the profession. My hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) was unfortunate in his reference to the miners, and his statement that there was no examination with regard to them.

I said nothing of the kind. My reference to the mining industry was that noone would permit the Miners' Federation of Great Britain to give a certificate of mining to their members. That would have to be obtained through the School of Mining.

They would not have to go through the School of Mining. The position in regard to mining is somewhat similar to the present case. There is a committee which has to consider the examination for the granting of mine managers' certificates, which are given after examination on various subjects relating to the theory and practice of mining. They must have practical experience and pay a fee of two guineas. The examinations are conducted by a board of mining examiners, containing representatives of mineowners and of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) is one of the members; the right hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) is another member, and a former member of this House, Will Lawther, is a member. Therefore, from that point of view the hon. Member's analogy breaks down completely.

Let me turn to the architects' profession. On the proposed council you will have all the education authorities, the London County Council, representatives of the workers and also representatives of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society. In regard to what the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) has said, I took upon myself, after the discussion which took place in the House, to go to a presentation of prizes by the Architects' Association in order to hear what was said. The prizes were presented by a distinguished French architect, and the man who received the first prize had come through the Liverpool Art School. Afterwards I had a talk with him, and he said that he was the son of a South Wales miner and that his father had never earned more than £3 a week, but by the self-denial of his parents and the winning of scholarships he had been able to reach that point. The majority of the people who were successful on that occasion had come from humble circumstances, through evening schools. May I quote from the speech I made on the Second Reading of the Bill? I do not think my statements can be challenged. I said:

" A large number of those who have passed these examinations have attended evening classes or have been able to study at home, or have taken correspondence courses. I will give the figures. There were 215 successful candidates at the two Royal Institute of British Architects examinations held in 1936, and of these 128 trained themselves by attending evening clases, while the remaining 87 studied at home or took correspondence courses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1937, Col. 1558, Vol. 330.]

In the face of evidence like that, to say that a barrier is put up against those who come from humble homes is a misuse of language.

Will the hon. Member tell the House the number of children of school-leaving age who have been granted scholarships in this particular association?

The answer, of course, is that this is arranged for those who come from secondary schools, but there is nothing to prevent children passing from elementary schools to secondary schools, as all these successful candidates did. In no case do children pass direct from the elementary school into the professions. In the Post Office itself even telegraph messengers have to go through a course of education. I submit that, in view of the evidence before us, it is rather wasting the time of the House to pursue any opposition to this Measure on what I may call a purely factional line, especially having regard to the importance of the Measure.

In common with most other hon. Members I have been the victim of lobbying and much corre

We should all feel very sorry if we did not express our gratitude to the late hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), who when he was quite ill accepted the responsibility of introducing this Bill as a result of the Ballot. He is no longer with us, but we are much in his debt for assuming this task. I want also to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Home Office officials for their courtesy and help in putting the Measure into shape. We are by this Measure joining up with the remainder of the Empire, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many of the Crown Colonies who already have similar legislation. I hope that in the course of the years this Measure will cause the public to refuse to accept illiterate architecture, from which we unfortunately have suffered in the past, but which will now I trust pass away. I am not going to say any more, but I would like to thank the House for the consideration it has given to the Measure, to which I hope they will now give the Third Reading.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "fee" to "a", in line 11.

This Amendment and one which immediately follows it have been put on the Paper as a result of an undertaking given in Committee to meet an objection. It was pointed out that Sub-section (3) of Clause I as drafted was not as clear as it might be and that the poor and ignorant person might misunderstand that Clause. The poor and ignorant are not the only people who have difficulty sometimes in understanding clause or sub-section or proviso in our Statutes; but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed with me that the objection was a substantial one in so far as it was conceivable that a child might be still-born, say on a Saturday, and that the registrar's office would be shut on that day, shut again on Sunday, and Monday might be a public holiday, with the result that the body of the child would have to lie in the house from the Saturday till Tuesday, which is highly undesirable. Therefore, on the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate these two Amendments have been put down.

The effect of the Amendments is to substitute for Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, two Sub-sections. Sub-section (3) as it stands imposes a duty on three persons: firstly, on the registrar to provide a cer tificate without fee if asked for by the person giving information about the birth; secondly, on the undertaker or other person having charge of the burial to deliver that certificate to the keeper of the burial ground before interment; and thirdly, it provides that if the body of the stillborn child for which no certificate has been delivered is buried it shall be the duty of the burial ground keeper to give notice to the registrar. The amended Sub-section (3) will, as before, impose a duty on the registrar to provide a certificate without fee if asked for; and the new Sub-section, which I shall presently ask the House to insert, will impose a duty on the keeper of the burial ground to give notice to the registrar within three days of the burial, unless he has had delivered to him the certificate of registration. These Amendments do away with the duty on the undertaker or other person having charge of the burial to deliver a certificate to the keeper of the burial ground. I hope the Amendments will remove any fear on the part of parents of a stillborn child that they cannot get the child buried until they have obtained a certificate of registration.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight," and to insert "January, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine."

This Amendment is necessary in order to give the Registrar-General time to make the necessary arrangements.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not want to delay the passage of the Bill, but I would not like it to be given a Third Reading without entering a dissent. The Bill is presented by its promoters as a contribution to the solution of the problems of maternal mortality, maternal morbidity and infantile mortality. I do not think it is a contribution to any of those problems. It adds to the already huge mass of statistics that accumulate in various offices throughout the country, it adds to the complications of life, which is already sufficiently complicated, and in certain cases it may add very seriously to the worries and troubles of, admittedly, a very few people. It can very easily be a serious annoyance and hurt to a few women who may be affected by this registration. While adding to the complications, adding to the statistics and adding to the worries of some, it seems to me to make absolutely no contribution to the very serious problems of infantile mortality, maternal mortality and maternal morbidity. I want these three problems to be tackled seriously and scientifically. I want to see a public effort directed towards their solution. This Bill is presented as being an attempt to deal with them, but it is nothing of the sort.

The registrars of Scotland are an estimable body of men who keep their books in wonderfully beautiful handwriting and are always prepared to hand out certificates, on payment of the appropriate fees. They know nothing about infantile mortality or maternal morbidity. They are not expected to know anything about them. The fact that they write down in books in various parishes in Scotland the fact that on a certain day in a certain house a child was still-born gives no knowledge to any person who may be interested in saving the lives of children. The principal argument for keeping these statistics in Scotland is that they have been kept in England for 7o years and, therefore, it is said, we ought now to do the same thing in Scotland. During that time there has been no greater improvement in the infantile mortality or maternal mortality figures in England with statistics than in Scotland without statistics.

The other person brought under the Bill is the undertaker. Does anybody imagine that undertakers will make a contribution to the solution of these problems? Again, I pay a tribute to the undertakers of Scotland. They do their job well, solemnly and efficiently, and garbed in the robes that are considered appropriate for such occasions in Scotland. Noone could pass criticism on the undertaker within his own sphere. I have heard the view expressed that his charges are sometimes excessive for the function he performs, but that is a minor criticism on a matter that is not dealt with in this Bill. Having paid that tribute to the undertakers, I assert as I did with regard to registrars, that they have not the necessary training or qualifications to make an intensive, scientific study of the problem of infantile mortality or maternity morbidity. There is then the person who goes to the registrar to inform him of the facts and to tell him how the child happened to be still-born. Under the Bill, it may be anybody who does that, a neighbour or the father of the still-born child. One cannot demand scientific knowledge on the part of the person reporting to the registrar, and he can tell the registrar any story as to why the child is still-born. A charwoman who is in washing the floor can go to tell the registrar why the child was still-born. This does not represent any contribution to the problem.

If there were brought forward some Measure which would make a concerted, serious study as to how many of these still-births were due to malnutrition of the mother, how many were due to the mother being overwrough up to the period of taking to bed; if there were some device for getting information as to how many were due to accidents caused to the mother during the period when bearing the child; if there were some Measure brought forward that would lead us intelligently along the road to a vast diminution in the number of these stillbirths, then I would say it was worth doing. But this Measure seems to me only to add to the annoyances of a small section of the community, while doing nothing to relieve the problem which we all want to see solved. I do not propose to divide against the Bill, but I cannot vote for it. The hon. and gallant Member who presented it did so in the belief that he was doing something that would be of advantage, but I do not believe that to be the case. Therefore, I felt it necessary to say so.

The remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) very much impressed me. I was not in the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, and I cannot see any purpose which it will serve. It seems to me to be very unnecessary that this registration, which has taken place for a long time in England, should take place. There may be cases where people will get an excerpt from the certificate and make a wrongful use of it. I understand that anybody can go to Somerset House or to the Register House in Edinburgh and get somebody else's birth certificate on payment of a certain sum. What security is there that people will not get information in regard to these cases? Suppose it was a case of a poor family where something had happened that ought not to have happened, where the woman was not necessarily married. Nobody was a bit the wiser. Under this Bill, some nasty person could get this information. I may be wrong, and there may be something in the Bill or in the law which makes the suggestion I am making impracticable; but I think some consideration ought to be given to the human side of the Bill and its possible effects. The mere collection of these statistics cannot do any good to anybody.

I observe that two medical men are among the promoters of the Bill. There is nothing more dangerous to human liberty and to common humanity than the trail of the expert. The expert thinks that his little section of human life contains the whole world. He is like a man looking through a microscope. He sees his own little section greatly exaggerated and fails to observe the great world which is round about it. For instance, the provisions in Clause r relating to the registration of these cases may give rise to difficulty in some instances. The father of the child may not be married to the mother. You do not know who he may be. What is to be done in a case of that kind? Is judgment to be given against a man on the strength of this registration, without the ordinary proceedings which might otherwise be taken in the county court? A lot of difficulties are likely to arise out of these proposals and I fear that this Measure might be used, in some cases, as an engine of oppression. This is one of the Bills which got through the House at 11 o'clock at night without proper consideration and discussion of the serious matters involved in it and the implications which it contains. I do not know what would have been the result if the Bill had been fully discussed on its Second Reading; but I think it is a very unhappy Bill, and I wish it had never been presented to the House.

The point made by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) is one which ought to have been brought forward when the Act for the registration of births was introduced because this Bill if passed will be only a small part of the whole system of the registration of births. There is, I think, a slight misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He would deny to me the means for getting information about the very things in which he is interested. I have lived long enough to have seen a complete revolution in our attitude towards these matters. Where the emphasis was formerly placed on the curative side, it is now placed more on the preventive side. That is the attitude which prevails to-day and the hon. Member knows as well as I do that our whole system of public health to-day is built up on the vital statistics which are so carefully collected.

I do not know anything of the kind, and neither does the hon. and gallant Member.

No hon. Member has made more effective use of vital statistics in this place than the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I hope the House realises that this Bill, although small, is very important. It may give hon. Members some idea of the magnitude of this problem when I tell them that in the period 1931 to 1933 the number of still- births notified exceeded the combined total of deaths from diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever and measles. They exceeded the total of deaths due to accidents and were five times as great as the number of deaths due to accidents on the roads, and they exceeded the total number of deaths from tuberculosis. If we take together the number of still-births and the number of deaths which occurred within one month after birth, we find that of every no women who pass the 28th week of pregnancy, seven in this country are destined to produce either a still-born child or a child that dies within a month. I think that is an appalling figure.

It is a very striking figure but how has the hon. and gallant Member got it?

From the Registrar-General.

And how did the Registrar-General get this information without registration?

Those figures are based on the registration of stillbirths in England.

Then they are English figures.

Yes, and what I want to point out is that, as a result of the registration of stillbirths in England, valuable information is already being collected. In England, the Act does not provide for ascertaining the cause and I hold that this Bill, if passed, will be much better than the English Act, because it is directed to the essential point which is that of trying to get some investigation into the causes.

Where? What Clause says anything about investigation of the circumstances?

It is in the Schedule.

Where is it in the Schedule?

I cannot argue about that, but it is there for the hon. Member to see.

The hon. and gallant Member must not mislead the House. He knows that from beginning to end there is not one word about the investigation of cases of stillbirths in his Bill, either in the Clauses or in the Schedule.

I do not think I said that there was anything about investigation. What we are aiming at is to get the causes registered, and after they are registered they must be investigated by somebody. The English experience has been—and I have this from the Ministry of Health—that registration has enabled maternal mortality rates to be expressed more accurately than had been the case hitherto, and it has also enabled research to be directed to particular districts and particular classes of the population. Articles have been published on this subject already and the figures have already been used in the study of the very important question of the influence of nutrition on infantile mortality. I hope that with this explanation, the House will be able to come to a decision.

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

In order to explain why it is necessary to present this new Clause it may be desirable to give the House.a brief statement of what occurred in the Standing Committee. After long negotiations upstairs, it appeared that there was a general feeling of agreement among Members of the Committee that the Bill should be amended on the lines on which it now appears before the House. I moved the necessary Amendments and new Clauses, which were accepted without any Divisions. Indeed, I saw in the Press that we had created Parliamentary history by adding 10 Clauses to the Bill without any discussion whatever. It will be seen by hon. Members that, broadly speaking, the effect of these changes is to prohibit employment in the baking industry between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. except to the extent and subject to the conditions authorised under three systems, any one of which an employer is allowed to choose for his own factory. Under the first system, he is not prevented from working his factory at night, but he must not employ any individual on more than five nights in any one week. Under the second system he may work through Friday night and Saturday morning if it is essential to do so in order to get out the week-end bread, and provision is made for allowing work in the factory to start at 4 a.m. instead of 5 a.m. on other days of the week. Under the third system, he may work his factory through the night if he does so on a system of alternating shifts.

When we were discussing the first Clause in Committee speakers on all sides represented that it was too rigidly drawn with regard to the total prohibition of work on Saturday night and Sunday morning, and that it would result in hardship in a number of cases, including those of bakehouses, catering for people of the Jewish race. An understanding was reached that the Amendments which had been put down should be accepted in the Committee as they stood, but that this point should be further considered before the Report stage. As a result of subsequent negotiation and discussion I have put down an Amendment to leave out any provision with regard to the total abolition of work on Saturday night and Sunday morning. The present new Clause is allied to this proposal and is intended to regularise the legal position. I am advised that it would hardly be consistent with the new proposal to retain unaltered on the Statute Book the antiquated Acts referred to in the new Clause, even though nowadays they are ignored in the baking trade apart from occasional prosecutions at the instance of common informers. These old Acts have been partly repealed and modified in respect of the sale and delivery of bread by the Shops (Sunday Trading) Act and other Acts and this new Clause proposes to regularise the position.

I beg to second the Motion.

These Amendments have been arrived at by agreement, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) said. The Bill, which went into Committee printed on two sides of one page, has come out of Committee a substantial eight-page document. The Bill has been largely changed, and these Amendments are to carry out certain details in connection with the amended Bill which were overlooked in Committee.

I happen to be, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and others, on a Joint Select Committee considering the Food and Drugs Bill, which is a consolidating and amending Bill dealing with the food and drugs law. In the Schedule to that Bill it is proposed to repeal the whole of the Bread Act, 1836, and we have already, I think, dealt with Section 16 of the Bread Act, 1822. I wish, therefore, to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is necessary in this Bill to repeal Sections in those Acts when it is being done already in that other Bill.

I have been in touch with the Ministry of Health and with the Parliamentary draftsman on this matter, and I wish to point out that the Food and Drug Bill, although it is a Government Bill, is only a Bill at the present time, and we cannot treat it as an Act, even though it has the powerful support of His Majesty's Government. I am advised by the draftsman that from a technical, legal point of view it is more tidy to deal with the matter in this Bill itself.

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 12 to 16.

This is to omit the sentence which prohibits work in bakehouses altogether on Saturday night and Sunday morning.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "except Sunday."

This is a consequential Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out "six," and to insert "five."

It has been pointed out that under the Bill as it stands a man could work a night shift four weeks out of every seven, and that was not intended. It was intended that he should work a night shift only on half the number of weeks in a year, and this Amendment is to meet that point.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us whether we can understand that what is being done is to abolish every restriction upon Sunday baking?

The Sunday Trading Restriction Act alters the position with regard to Sunday baking materially, because baking is only permitted in a very small number of cases on Sundays.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out "any."

I cannot make out how the word any "got into the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert:

" (b) "chief inspector "means the chief inspector appointed under the Factories Act, 1937."

This and the next Amendment hang together. Under the Bill the unit dealt with is the factory. It has been represented that there might be cases in which the employer might wish to work one system in one part of his premises and another system in another part, even though in law both parts constituted a single factory. It is an important point, because apparently it affects considerably the question of the wrapping of bread, and I am sure that no one would wish to do anything which would place difficulties in the way of bakers wrapping their bread. The object of the Amendment is to enable the Chief Inspector to authorise a factory to be divided into two parts and each part to have which system is desired.

I beg to second the Amendment.

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

On the Second Reading, I asked the House to give the Measure a Second Reading in order that the complexities of the Bill might be gone into in Committee. I was told by hon. Members on this side of the House that I should never get the Bill through, but the case was presented on the ground of conditions in the trade and of the complexity of those conditions. The Motion for Second Reading was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside division (Mr. Marshall), and in the discussion the hon. Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) opposed the Bill, his Amendment against it being seconded by the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming). The Under-Secretary of State explained the extraordinary complication of the baking trade, took up a judicial position between the two sides, and made some very interesting comments on the complications in the trade, which I venture to quote to the House now. The hon. Gentleman said:

" I thought I had plumbed the depths of industrial complications in the Factories Bill and the silicosis problem, but I think the baking trade is a rival to them, because you get at the present time in the baking trade a whole range of different types of production, which you might even say run the gamut from the Middle Ages to the 20th century. You have still, at one end of the range, the small, one-man, underground bakehouse, and, at the other end of the range, running through the medium and large retail bakeries, you have the great modern, factory plant bakehouses that are worth thousands of pounds. But we have to remember that three-quarters of the bakers employ four men or fewer."

He added:

" The baking trade is in an unsatisfactory state of organisation ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, r8th February, 1938; cols. 2279–80, Vol. 331.]

That was a very striking comment on the organisation of the baking trade, borne out by everyone who spoke in the Debate with a personal knowledge of the trade and borne out too in the masterly speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) when he spoke in support of the Second Reading. We were given a Second Reading, and I venture to think that that was a real example of the influence of argument on a matter which was not one of acute party controversy. The Second Reading was agreed to by 147 votes to 126, and it was a real expression of the opinion of the House which we then proceeded to discuss in the Standing Committee. The views expressed in the House had been very divergent, but practically everyone agreed that something must be done in the baking trade. After meetings of the Committee, meetings of those concerned in the practical conduct of the baking trade, both employers and operatives, and numerous consultations, a large measure of agreement was reached. That agreement was embodied in a series of Amendments to the Bill which, for practical purposes, make it almost a new Bill. These Amendments were carried without discussion in Committee, not because the Committee did not wish to discuss them, but because the Committee had been engaged outside the Committee room in full and complete discussions. The proceedings on this Bill appear to me to be a good example of the capacity of this House and of our system for making reasonable compromise Amendments.

What does this Bill do? It embodies a proposal for a trade board and proposals for the limitation of night baking in one Bill. In a trade which, everyone agrees, is insufficiently organised it provides the basis for a sound organisation. There is nothing fixed or cut-and-dried about this organisation. It depends on the mutual relations of employers and employed and on the development of the organisation between these two parties. What is provided in this Bill is, in fact, what one may call a constitution for the baking trade. In framing this constitution we have gone into great detail, we have provided for exceptions, we have tried to be fair and reasonable to all concerned, and we have opened up to the baking trade the prospect of a new stage of development. The Bill, apart from the trade board, does not provide one solution of the problem of night baking, but three alternative solutions—the possibility of day baking, and the possibility of a shift of five nights a week, and the possibility of a system of alternate shifts in which men will work half the year on night work and half the year on day work. The coming into operation of this plan of alternative solutions depends on a motion by the trade board to be implemented by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. There are many safeguards against hasty action.

The Bill will help the trade to organise itself. It will at once begin to improve conditions in the baking trade, and it opens up to men who have been living a life of what they and their wives call "night slavery" the prospect of a great relief. If they are to be in future on day work, they will get that for which they asked in the beginning. If they are on night shift for five nights a week, instead of six, they will get at least an extra night, which is a great benefit to men who have worked six nights a week, sometimes for 10, 15, 20 and more years of their lives. If they are put on to a system of alternate shifts, they will be put in the same position as many other trades where night work is required. Above all, the Bill puts into the hands of the trade itself the power to use the opportunities provided according to agreement come to between employers and employed. I hope the House will regard this as a satisfactory and useful piece of legislation and will give the Third Reading to the Bill and a constitution to the baking trade.

I beg to second the Motion.

It is with somewhat mixed feelings that I rise to-day to support the Third Reading of this Bill. The House will remember that when the Bill was introduced it proposed to abolish night baking. I have expressed the opinion on many occasions that the baking industry could be carried on under a system of day work, and I do not depart from that statement. In the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, however, it was obvious that if something were to be done for the men employed on continuous night work year after year it would be impossible for me to carry the Bill as it was drafted, and that some compromise might be effected. When we came 'to discuss this matter with the employers and the Department, the question I had to ask myself was what I should do if I were working in the baking trade six nights a week 52 weeks in the year, and someone came to me and said, "We cannot abolish night baking altogether, but we offer you three alternatives." The first was a shift system in which a man would not work more than 26 weeks on night work in any one year. I realised that that was a big advance and a substantial improvement.

Then I had to look at the matter from the point of view of the smaller employer who is not in a position to employ two shifts. There, again, I put myself in the position of the man working in the industry six nights a week who was told "We cannot abolish night baking altogether. but we will assure you that you shall have one night in bed out of six Instead of Saturday night being your only night at home with your wife and family, you will have another night in the week at home." I thought that if I were still working in the industry and an offer were made to me like that, involving no reduction of wages, I should be foolish to refuse it because I was unable to get all that I wanted. Then I had to take into consideration the question of a trade board for the baking industry. I do not want to enter again into the bad conditions in the industry. It is now acknowledged by everyone in the industry that those conditions are bad and must be altered. I was the first to recognise on consideration that before this Bill came into operation the trade board should have the chance to work. Indeed, it is necessary that the money should be provided under the trade board regulations so that the men could be assured of receiving six nights' money for five nights' work.

I agreed, therefore, that the operation of the Bill should be deferred, I further hoped that when this matter was seriously considered, as it must be—because the employers agree with me that six nights a week all the year is an intolerable burden on the men—we would agree that something should be done to alleviate the position. I hope in due course that the employers and ourselves, meeting round the table, will evolve some plan whereby we can get pretty well all-day baking in the industry by general consent. I know that that seems an impossibility, but the fact that we are having the Third Reading of this Bill to-day is nothing short of a miracle. Consequently, I am not without hope that all the difficulties will eventually be removed.

It has been suggested that the Bill as amended will operate harshly against the smaller employers in the baking industry. I want to make it clear to them that I would not have agreed to a Bill which did not, in fact, give equity as between one class of employer and another. Under its terms the small employer is on precisely the same footing as the larger employer, with this difference, that the small employer can no longer hope to fetch a man out of his bed night after night and not expect to have to pay him extra for the inconvenience and trouble of being separated from his wife and family and working during hours when other people are sleeping. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask that the smaller employers must at last realise if they want this work done, that the labourer is worthy of his hire.

There is this further point, that it is true that the Bill does not abolish night baking and that it is full, almost necessarily so, of exemptions, but while I am not expecting too much from the Bill I look upon it as the first step towards the emancipation of the operative bakers from the curse of night baking, and I have very good reason to be grateful to a great many of my Friends on all sides of the House who have helped me to do something for the welfare of operative bakers. It will be easy for people to say, "You have got only a compromise; and it does not suit everybody." If this House were to wait until it could pass Bills which pleased everybody we should never pass Bills at all. We do our best to hold the scales fairly as between all classes concerned, doing the best we can for the greatest possible number of those for whom we are legislating. I may conclude on this point. A committee of inquiry under Lord Alness reported against this change, and when the Bill came to the House the Government quite naturally supported their view. My good Friend the Minister of Labour was greatly troubled when the Bill got a Second Reading, and I want him to remember that I had faith, when he had not, that the difficulties would be overcome.

I have works.

I know all about the works. I have endeavoured to do what I could to ensure that, great as the difficulties of the baking industry are, and they are great, this Bill, in conjunction with the Trade Board to be set up by the Minister of Labour, opens up a new era, a new vista, for those engaged in the baking industry. No class of men at work in this country more deserve a betterment of their conditions than the operative bakers. For long their lot has been one of semi-slavery, of long hours, long wages and bad conditions generally, but this Bill and the Trade Board will accomplish a real piece of social service which will, I believe, in future call down upon that the blessings of every operative in the baking trade.

I was one of those who opposed this Bill when it was introduced, not because I am against the abolition of night baking—I am very much in favour of its abolition—but because the Bill was so full of exemptions that it would have been very difficult to secure the abolition of night baking in more than a small percentage of the bakehouses in the country. Further, we had a promise in the course of the debate on Second Reading that the Government would set up a Trade Board and go thoroughly into the whole question, following upon the report of the Alness Committee. But the Bill which is now before us, after it has been revised and improved in Committee, is so different from the original Bill that I have not the slightest hesitation in supporting it. I should like to congratulate the promoters of the Bill and the Ministry upon having so improved it as to make it a magnificent step forward towards one of the greatest improvements in conditions of employment in a given industry in this country which has been brought about for a long time. Though I still cannot help feeling that there are still too many exceptions, I shall not attempt even to jeopardise the Bill by reason of the fact that I am not satisfied that it is still as perfect as it might be. It is a great improvement upon what it was in its original form, and I hope that there will be no undue delay in setting up the Trade Board. Finally, I should like to repeat my congratulations to the Ministry and to the promoters for making a thoroughly. good Bill out of what was originally a thoroughly bad Bill.

My reason for saying a few words is that I served on the Alness Committee last year. We went exhaustively into the conditions in this very difficult trade. Having served on that Committee it was my duty some three months ago to move a reasoned Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill. I made on that occasion the longest speech which I have ever ventured to address to this House, so complicated was the question. I spoke for nearly half an hour. Whether on account of the length of my speech, or the matter it contained, or whether it was due to the better judgment of my hon. Friends—I hope the latter was the case—that Amendment was defeated, and I am very glad now that it was, because I feel that we are in the position of seeing that good has come out of what at the time we regarded as evil. I did not think that the original Bill was practicable and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) admits that it was not, but the present Bill is an immense step forward in dealing with what, when we went to the Home Office in February last year, we were told by Home Office inspectors was by far the most difficult and technical trade in the whole country. We did three months work upon the question and came to the conclusion that total abolition as suggested in the Bill was not practicable. One great difficulty was that masters and men have not come together in this industry as they have in so many other industries but I hope that the round table conferences which have been held on the Bill will be continued, and if that be so there is hope that conditions in the future may become even better. A great deal of credit is due to the Home Office authorities, who have got both sides in the trade together, to my hon. Friend who sponsored the Amendments, and made them clear to us, and, also especially, to the hon. Member for Wednesbury for all the trouble he has taken in the matter. But if bouquets are being thrown about, or if buns are being distributed, which would perhaps be more appropriate in the case of the baking trade, I hope that a few may go to the Alness Committee, out of whose work we have now reached the Third Reading of this Measure.

I wish to express on behalf of myself and hon. Friends on this Bench our congratulations to the promoters of the Bill and to the hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), to whose speech I listened with very great interest. He was wise to accept this moderate Amendment of what he desires in this matter. When I first came into Parliament in 1922 this question was put very strongly to us by the operative bakers, and during all the years in which we have been in Parliament the fight has gone on. I hope that the amount of progress made manifest by this Bill is only one step towards securing for the operative bakers all that they desire in this respect. The hon. Member for Wednesbury is certainly to be congratulated upon his patience and his industry in pressing the matter upon the attention of the House. It is only fair to say that the presence of the hon. Member in this House is largely responsible for the fact that this Measure of advance has taken place. The statement he made to-day was very clear and cogent. The way in which he approached the question of whether to accept these modified proposals was the right way. I hope that a bigger step forward may be made at no distant date, that the hon. Member for Wednesbury will yet have the joy of seeing all his ideals in connection with this industry realised and that the operative bakers will secure the opportunities which they desire for a fuller life.

I should like to be allowed to add my tribute to the work done by the promoter of the Bill and by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) who has been a colleague of mine for many years and whose devotion to the cause of this industry is being rewarded by the passage of the Bill. I want to congratulate also the House of Commons and the private Member in general. The private Member is too often discredited. There are people who say that the rights of the private Member should be curtailed because they rarely result in any practical achievement, but here is a case in which the House of Commons, in co-operation with the private Member, has triumphed over the Government and over the official point of view. The Bill has been carried through in spite of terrific opposition by a small majority of Members.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Baronet, but I must point out that but for the steps taken by the Government in connection with the trade board, this Bill would not have come forward.

The right hon. Gentleman must not become so supersensitive. He has thrown out a challenge. I say that the Bill would not have gone to Committee if the powers-that-be had had their way. It is one of the cases in which the House of Commons was on the whole wiser than the official influences, which saw all sorts of difficulties against the Bill becoming an Act of Parliament. When the right hon. Gentleman interrupted I was about to add my tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, of whom I have had some experience in connection with the passing of a Bill. I know his sweet reasonableness and his tact in facing facts. When the Government decided that the Bill should go to a Committee he did his best to help to make it into a practical working Measure and he showed himself prepared to give every help that can be given by an Under-Secretary and his Department. I repeat that here is a case in which Parliament has triumphed and the private Member has won in the end. The Home Office and the Under-Secretary of State, recognising the will of Parliament, made into a practical Measure a Bill which, to some extent at any rate, was not that in the beginning.

The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) might be described as the parent of this Measure and I as the nurse attendant upon its birth. The need for some amelioration of night baking and of the lot of men who work throughout their lives during the night was present in everybody's mind, but total prohibition of night work was held, I think rightly, to be far too drastic a step. It would seriously interfere with the supply of bread to the general public. I am proud to have been able to play some small part in the negotiations between the two points of view, and which resulted in a Bill which will not interfere with the baking industry, and will nevertheless give better conditions to the workers who have to carry out those difficult and arduous duties. I add my tribute to those which have been paid to the hon. Member for Wednesbury for the high skill, wisdom and tact he has shown in the negotiations, without which it would not have been possible to obtain this Measure. I would add a word with regard to the trade boards. I am glad that they are mentioned specifically in the Bill, and I hope they will be speedily set up. I was privileged to-day to move Amendments which allowed men to work on Sundays. It was necessary in certain instances that bread should be baked on Sundays. I hope when the trade boards get going they will see that those men who work on Sundays are adequately remunerated for their extra services. I hope that the hon. Member for Wednesbury also will see that that is done.

Of course we will.

I would also pay a tribute to the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) for promoting the Measure. I do not think it has been mentioned to-day that but for his luck in the Ballot and his wisdom in choosing this subject the Bill would not have come before the House.

I would join in the chorus of appreciation and congratulation that the Bill should have reached its Third Reading and that there should be every likelihood that it will pass this stage to-day. As a member of the committee of inquiry which put a great deal of arduous work into this matter, I have a peculiar pleasure in expressing those thanks. I had the privilege of introducing a few minority remarks into the committee's report, in which I advocated the zoo per cent. abolition of night work. I appreciate, of course, that that would have involved certain difficulties, but I think that with good will it could in a great measure have been brought about. I also advocated that the prohibition should apply to the process, a very important matter, but the Bill does not give us that. We should be making a very grave mistake if we thought that this Bill abolishes night baking. It limits it. It is a compromise in the best style of the House of Commons, and this compromise will, I feel sure, bring great benefits to the workmen in the baking industry.

There is another thing that it will do. It will advance the possibility of collective bargaining in the industry. One thing that struck me about the baking industry was that it was probably one of the worst organised industries in the kingdom, in which the beneficent influence of collective bargaining had not made much headway. I think that this Bill is going to influence and encourage collective bargaining in the industry, and better results may possibly ensue than would have been produced by prohibition if the men and the employers can get together and make mutual agreements about conditions and wages in the baking industry. I do not forget the very fine tribute that the Minister of Labour paid to collective bargaining when he was introducing a Bill this week. It was a well deserved tribute, and, if this Bill influences and encourages collective bargaining in the baking industry, it will be worth all the labour and thought that has been put into it.

I should also like to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), who in a very short time acquired an amazing grasp of the intricacies of a complicated industry, for the manner in which he was contributed to the passage of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) we all know. He has moved the House on many occasions by his advocacy of the case of the operatives in the baking industry. I think it can be said of him that, in connection with all the Amendments which were made to the Bill in Committee, he virtually cast his bread upon the waters, and it has ultimately brought him benefit. I can only hope that what we are doing to-day will be a landmark in the history of the baking industry.

It is significant that on two successive Fridays the House should have carried with unanimity and amiability two Bills introduced by Members belonging to the Opposition. Both of those Bills deal with important subjects, and both of them underwent a complete reconstruction in Committee; but, as the result of a compromise, one has already received the assent of the House, and the present Bill will, I am certain, receive that assent in a few minutes. This is an example of good friendly team work, and illustrates the pleasant personal relationship which exists between hon. Members of opposite political thought.

In the course of the first day's proceedings of the Standing Committee I made, I think, the longest speech I have ever made in a Committee upstairs. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It must have been a long one."] It was, and a very interesting one. Perhaps that may encourage the hon. Member to read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) rather looked upon me as an opponent of the whole idea of the Bill, and when we carried the first group of Amendments, the effect of which was the same as inserting the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act," I am afraid his hopes fell. Then we had the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale), who achieved a very remarkable thing, because I think that, after the first Amendment, every other Amendment to the Bill—and their number was legion—was in his name and was supported by everyone. My hon. Friend's Amendments included the striking out of two Clauses from the Bill and the insertion of II new Clauses—a very remarkable achievement, for which I think a tribute ought to be paid to him. Then I think the greatest possible praise is due to the Under-Secretary of State, and, although we do not always refer to them, to the very able staff who advised him.

This is a Bill which, I am certain, will work, and which gives very varying opportunities of dealing with a very difficult problem. The great problem is that the process of baking in the complete sense is a process which takes longer than a normal working day. The difficulties all arise out of that curious fact, that the process cannot be completed in the normal working day, and it is necessary to trespass into the night. I think the Bill affords a very ingenious solution of the problem, and I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Sowerby on the ingenuity with which he took two ideas from me. I proposed that the Bill should not come into operation until there was a trade board, or, as an alternative, unless there was an Order approved by both Houses of Parliament. My hon. Friend took both of those proposals and incorporated them in a most ingenious way in the last Clause of the Bill. This last Clause is the stimulus which forces the industry to get together in the proper way, and in some respects it is more important than the whole of the rest of the Bill, because it forces those in the industry to regulate their business properly among themselves.

I should like in particular to congratulate the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), because he has the honour of representing a constituency which twice rejected me. Naturally, I shall always do my best to turn him out, but, nevertheless, there is no reason why I should not pay this tribute to him for the great diplomacy, moderation and sweet reasonableness with which he approached the problem. After all, he is the fundamental originator of the Bill, although it fell to the good fortune of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) to introduce it. It represents an important part of his life's work, something which he has been struggling for a long time to achieve. This must be a happy day for him, because I know that the Bill will go through this House with unanimity, and I feel sure that the other House will be equally friendly towards it. I hope it will not be very long before the hon. Member will have the pleasure of knowing that the Royal Assent has been given to it. I join in the tributes which have been paid to him for the way in which he has worked for the Bill, and the obvious friendly relationship which exists between him and the representatives of the employers of labour in the industry. I hope that the Bill will receive a unanimous Third Reading.

I, also, would like to join in the chorus of congratulation, first to the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), who has piloted the Bill; next to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale), who has done so much to bring it into its present form; and also to one whose labours in the matter everyone in the House will appreciate, namely, the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). It must be to many of us a source of great personal satisfaction that the hon. Member for Wednesbury has been successful in getting a Bill of this kind on to the Statute Book. Further, although it is perhaps a somewhat unusual course for anyone in my position to take, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the work he has done in regard to trade boards. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wednesbury nods his head, in spite of the dissent of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite. The trade board is one of the crucial points in this whole question. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman was not here earlier. I am only—

I was merely calling attention to the Parliamentary distribution of bouquets inter se by Members of the Government.

I was about to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not here previously, when some remarks were made about faith and works, and, although I took the course of excusing myself in advance for a slight technical breach of a convention, I think that hon. Members who were in the House will appreciate that I am making a perfectly legitimate point, which is, that the Government have good reason to congratulate themselves on the good work they have done for the baking industry in setting up the trade board. I was not going to put it so pointedly, if the right hon. Gentleman had not compelled me to do so, because I thought that this was not an occasion on which we wanted to make any party points. I might say that the Bill has been changed very considerably, and in Standing Committee I said 'that the Government would have to reconsider their attitude to the Bill in the light of the changes that had been made. I am now able to say that the Government will not offer any further opposition to the passage of this Bill.

Turning again to the question of trade boards, the House will be interested to know that my right hon. Friend has pressed forward with the setting up of a trade board. He has laid the draft Order, the period for objection to the Order ended on Wednesday, and, no objection having being received, the Order will come forward in accordance with the usual Parliamentary procedure. In those circumstances, all I have to say, in conclusion, is that I very much hope that this Bill and the setting up of the trade board will really improve the circumstances of this trade and the lot of the working man.

As the really important Clause is now Clause 13, will the hon. Gentleman please explain how the Government propose to work it? Does the existence of the word "or" between the two paragraphs mean that if a trade board is set up, whether there is an affirmative resolution or not, the provisions will come into operation as laid down in paragraph (a)?

If a trade board is not set up and if the Secretary of State does not lay a certificate before Parliament, the provisions will come into effect as in paragraph (b), but if a trade board is set up the provision will come into operation after an affirmative Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

I do not like to see roses and lilies falling over the Floor of the House from the many bouquets that are being thrown about to-day; but I, too, must congratulate the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) on the excellent work they have done on the Bill. But really the House must not be under any illusions about this Measure. The fact is that the hon. Gentlemen responsible for bringing the Bill forward have been compelled to accept these compromises. When they produced the Bill in the first instance it was a simple proposal to abolish night baking, on the lines of the law which already prevails in several European countries. Then they were asked to accept a trade board as an alternative, and the House of Commons, in its wisdom, decided against it; some Members of the Tory party helping to defeat their own Minister. There was a speech made to-day for illustration by the hon. Member for one of the Nottingham Divisions. It is remarkable how he has changed his mind on this Bill. I saw a Press report from Nottingham a little time ago that he had received a thundering deputation from the bakers there, and I wondered whether that had had any influence in inducing the hon. Member to change his mind.

In my view, the one redeeming feature of the Bill is the establishment of a trade Board. In spite of all that has been said in its favour, this Bill is very cumbersome. I hope it can prove one thing above all others, when it is in operation, namely, that the provisions of the Measure when applied are such that they will compel the industry to bring pressure to bear on the Government to have a clean sweep in due course in favour of the abolition of night baking. Under this new Bill—for it is quite different from the one that was introduced—the small, one-man bakery is not affected, and we have been told by the promoter of the Bill that there are thousands of such bakeries.

They are affected by the provision regarding regulations.

Yes, a lot of this work is to be done by regulation, but according to the sense of duty of the Home Office. Who can trust this Government to do the right thing?

The hon. Member, who took part in the discussion on the Factories Bill, will remember that on many occasions it was the sense of the Committee which considered that Bill that there are many things that can be better done by regulation of the Secretary of State than otherwise.

That Bill was quite a different proposition from this. It was an accepted Measure, and emanated from the Home Office. This is a Private Bill, passed in the teeth of the opposition of the Government.

I have expressly stated that the Government are not now offering any opposition.

On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman asked the House of Commons to defeat this Bill, and offered a trade board as an alternative. Now we come to this Bill as it stands at the moment, and the Under-Secretary congratulates the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) on his skill and intelligence in bringing compromising Amendments forward knowing full well that the Amendments the hon. Gentleman put on the Order Paper were instigated by the Under-Secretary himself. Then they proceed to congratulate each other on their skill.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present,' House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Having delivered myself of the speech which I would have made more appropriately on another occasion I will conclude by saying that out of this struggle there is just something of value for the operative bakers. The Bill contains some few provisions which will help them. I sincerely trust that this Bill will prove to the bakery trade one thing above all others, that Parliament in this case has come to its aid because both employers and employed are not adequately organised. One of the greatest benefits of this Measure will be that it will induce better organisation on both sides. The most pleasing feature of all in connection with this Measure—and I have been here for some time—is to see Parliament in the last few years devoting more and more attention to abuses in the industrial sphere connected with the domestic trades of the country. Coalmining, textiles, transport and engineering issues have often been debated on the Floor of the House of Commons. Very considerable time has been devoted to improving the conditions in the heavy industries, but at long last Parliament is devoting more attention to abuses in the domestic trades and that is one of the most redeeming features of the present Measure, the Third Reading of which, I hope, will be carried unanimously.

I rise only by permission of the House, but I wish to make a personal explanation. The hon Gentleman suggested that I had changed my mind because of pressure put upon me by deputations from outside sources. That is totally and completely false. My opinion on this Bill has been formed on its merits, and I ask the House to accept my explanation.

I wish to add my congratulations to the promoters of this Bill upon their common sense in agreeing with their opponents to make some sort of headway on this question. As one who has been interested in this subject for many years I feel that they have been very wise in meeting their opponents and accepting half a loaf, which is better than no bread [Interruption]. It depends upon the size of the loaf we are discussing. I also want to congratulate, above anyone else, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). Although we have been political opponents for many years, we have been very close, and, I will add, dear friends. We sit on opposite sides of the House and have opposite points of view with regard to the bakery trade, but we have learnt to respect each other highly during that period. It must be a consolation to him to know that at least a step has been taken to alleviate the trouble in the bakery trade. I am delighted, along with the hon. Gentleman for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), that something is being done for the domestic trades of this country. I have always been surprised since I came to this House to find how much time is spent upon foreign affairs when so much needs to be done in domestic affairs. I am glad that something is being done to-day for this suffering section of the community, of whom I know so much. I have pleasure in supporting this Measure, and I thank the Home Office for adopting the attitude they have in supporting the Third Reading.

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

It is possible, indeed I think that it is likely, that there will be no Division on this Bill to-day. It is still more likely that the Bill will not be carried through all its stages during the present Session. But I hope that my hon. Friends wilt not, therefore, think that it is a waste of Parliamentary time for me, first to present this Bill, and now to endeavour to explain what it is about. In this department of the national life—and, however much we may regret it, betting and gambling have become almost a department of the national life—there is such a conflict of interest and opinion that any new proposal in this department must start its life with a great deal of prejudice, suspicion and hostility against it. It was my modest idea that it might be possible, by introducing this Bill now, perhaps to make the intention plain and to clear away some of that cloud of suspicion before the next Session. I hope that the House will accept that explanation.

But then, I shall not be surprised to be told that this is a subject far too big to be undertaken by the private Members. Well, I have heard that before; but I agree with it. If I could see in the Government any signs of an eager desire to introduce comprehensive pro posals concerning the complicated subject of off-the-course betting, I need hardly say that I, or any other private Member, would gladly withdraw his head from this formidable and ferocious hornets' nest. But meanwhile I think we ought to do our best as private Members.

First, let me try to sketch the background—I would rather say the untamed swamp of illogicality, from which this Bill proposes to reclaim at least a few acres for common sense, fair play and moderation.

I do not think that anyone will quarrel with the modest assertion in the preamble of the Bill that "there is much betting in the Realm." In order to indicate and to illustrate the meaning of the word "much," I added the estimate of £400,000,000 "expended," that is, staked, in a year. I will not waste time by arguing about that figure. It is not my estimate, but it is founded on an article in the "Economist," which is not a reckless paper, and I have done my best to check it with the best resources that were available. No estimate can be entirely correct, because this figure is intended to cover all forms of betting, including illegal betting, of which there can be no certain knowledge. Whatever the figure is, it is enormous. Take away, if you like, a certain amount because some of this money returns to those who paid it out on the first occasion—take, say £100,000,000 on that account, and we still have the vast sum of £300,000,000. I would like to compare that figure with what is called the Drink Bill, which is estimated at only £260,000,000 a year—that is the estimate for last year—and of that sum 41 per cent. represents consumers' taxation. We have this vast, and, as many think, vicious, activity, the nature and dimensions of which are such that no civilised State, whether it is regarded with the ethical, social or fiscal eye, can entirely ignore it. Of course, this virtuous country does not turn an entirely blind eye to this question. Only one eye is closed. It recalls the old story of the tactful plumber who entered by accident a bathroom where a lady was taking her bath, and retreated with the polite murmur "I beg your pardon, Sir."

It is no use refusing to face the facts. I do not know when Britain began to bet; legislation began in the year 1388, and we are still endeavouring to legislate about gambling. After the lapse of 550 years our laws are in a greater muddle than ever before, though "on the course," owing to recent Government legislation, things have been brought to a state of comparative order. I refer to the Acts of 1928 and 1934.

We all know what occurs "off the course." The rich man, or the man who can afford to bet on credit, can bet whenever he likes through His Majesty's telephones, posts and telegrams: but the poor man who cannot command credit, cannot put 6d. on a horse lawfully, unless he personally attends a race meeting. What he does is well known to all of us, although we refuse to face the fact. He "passes slips" to a street bookmaker like a thief in the night: for that bookmaker is not by law permitted to accept cash bets or to bet in the street or any public place. So far from being lavishly assisted by His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he is harried from alley to alley by His Majesty's policemen. The fact that the poor man's betting has to be conducted in this manner leads to many and grave evils. It has led to the employment of child messengers, to the payment of commission to persons who collect bets in offices or factories and also to bribery or the suspicion of bribery among the police. It has led to bad feeling between the police and the public, because the people feel—and I agree—that this system is founded on an injustice. All these things proceed from a purely arbitrary and historically, an almost accidental distinction between cash and credit betting.

One more piece of illogicality, and then this strange patchwork picture will be complete. In 1934 Parliament passed legislation to prevent the citizen from participating in large lotteries wherever conducted, including lotteries conducted under Government auspices across the Irish Channel; but, by the same Act, Parliament permitted the institution or the continuation of large office pool betting businesses which come very near to the nature of a lottery, and poor people, denied of the opportunity of betting lawfully off the racecourse, naturally seized that opportunity.

Well, here is this vast, and, as some think, vicious activity. We are not called upon to make any final or severe pronouncement on the ethical point, for even those who take the strongest ethical objection to betting see no way of stopping it and do not propose to try. But though the State may not feel called upon to take a severe line against the individual who bets, it may well desire to regulate the business of betting; and I would ask the critics of the Bill to keep that distinction clearly in mind, especially those who are tempted to raise the cry of "individual liberty." If they examine the Bill closely and try to understand it they will find that it increases very largely the sum of individual liberty, that is, the liberty of the individual citizen who wishes to bet, but it does curtail business liberty, that is to say, the liberty of the promoter or what is sometimes called the exploiter.

On the other hand the State, although it will not utterly condemn betting, has for more than 100 years, rightly or wrongly, refused to take a direct part in the betting business, even for the purpose of control; and I accept that. You have here, then, an activity or indulgence which the State does not wish to encourage, to prohibit or directly to control. It stands impartial, and slightly pompous, midway between the bishop and the bookmaker. And so, I think, must we.

I have always thought—and this is no new idea, for I mentioned it in my election address—that the right thing for us to do is to treat betting more or less as we treat drinking, that is, to legalise it, to provide reasonable facilities for it, to regulate it in order to prevent abuses and then, if the State thinks fit, to tax it. I realise that to propose taxation is not within the province of a private Member, and I should still think the Bill desirable if the possibility of taxation were ruled out for ever, because order and justice are in themselves desirable. But I should not be candid if I did not say that I strongly believe in the desirability and the possibility of a large and remunerative revenue being obtained from a tax upon betting, provided always that the law is altered in the way proposed in the Bill. I agree that that cannot be done until we have altered the law.

Let me now deal with the Bill. As the Memorandum states, it is based on the recommendations of a very sound and strong Royal Commission of 1932–33, and not, except in some minor parts, on strange ideas of my own. Some parts of the recommendations of the Royal Commission were carried into law in 1934. The Preamble is a little longer than has been the practice in recent years, but I would point out that one or two judges have expressed regret that the practice of having a Preamble has fallen out, because the Preamble does afford some assistance to the Courts in understanding what was the intention of Parliament. There is no department of the law which lends itself to obscurity so much as the betting law.

The Bill has four main principles, two of which are contained in Part 1. Clause 1 begins in a manner unusual in social legislation by seeking to make something lawful which was not lawful before. The general effect of Clause 1 (1) is to abolish the distinction between cash and credit betting and to make cash betting lawful, if conducted by a registered bookmaker. Thereafter, the poor man's bookmaker, like the rich man's commission agent, can have an office of his own and there conduct his business by post, by telegram or by telephone. We do not want to touch the Street Betting Act nor the law against betting and gaming houses; we do not want those betting shops, which have been such a mischief in Australia and Ireland, to which the citizen can resort, and where one can see so many mothers with prams. But we do want to provide the humbler citizen, if he is to bet, with some reasonable means of communication with his bookmaker, so that he will not be compelled to descend to the degrading subterfuges by which the Street Betting Act is evaded.

When I come to Sub-section (2) I deal with a point on which, I must frankly say, the Royal Commission were divided. Three distinguished members thought that, cash betting by post being allowed, that would be sufficient, but the majority thought—and I agree with them— that if you did that you would not in fact be establishing between the classes the equality which is desired, and you would not really be placing yourself in the position to enforce effectively the Street Betting Act. The rich man, the credit bettor, can decide on the morning of the Derby what horse will carry his fortune. By referring to the "Times" and the tips and by a study of the weather, a study of the going, and of this and that, he can decide on his line of action. At the last moment, when he has all this scientific information available, he can make his bet; but if you confine the poor man to betting by post he will have to send his investment off the night before. This, of course, is a matter of detail which can be considered in Committee. But in Sub-section (2) it is suggested that a limited number of bookmakers whose offices have been registered as cash bet deposit offices shall be permitted to set up letter-boxes on an exterior wall of their offices or buildings, in which cash bets can be deposited. There is to be no personal contact between the backer and the bookmaker or his staff. There are difficult Committee points which obviously arise out of that—and I do not propose to go into them now, although I have not heard of any that seem to present any insuperable difficulty.

I must observe here that any proposal to legalise cash betting has in the past provoked considerable opposition from certain sections of the community. It may still do so: but I hope that to-day there may perhaps be less violent opposition to these proposals. Indeed, the main hope for this Bill is that every section of the community will be ready to give up some little interest or opinion for the sake of a decent civilised settlement of the problem.

The second point of principle is contained in Clause 2. This Clause is extremely unintelligible to the layman. I drafted it originally in what I thought was at least a clear form, but a distinguished lawyer who has done admirable service on the whole of the Bill has converted the Clause into legal language, with the result that it is now unintelligible and, I am told, may be wrong. However, it is not intended to interfere with the totalisator on (a) racecourses or (b) on licensed dog racecourses. It may be that by an error in drafting the Sub-section looks as if we were interfering with the totalisator on dog racecourses. That is not the intention, and if that is the effect it can be corrected in Committee.

The second Sub-section of the Clause deals with totalisator, pool and pari mutuel betting off the course. The minds of hon. Members will leap to the subject of football pools. May I remark at once that football pools are not the only business affected? There is a large and growing business in office pool betting on horse races, and that is one reason why it is idle to suggest the taxation or the prohibition of football pools alone. If you taxed football pool betting you would have to tax office pool betting on horse races. And you would find it very difficult then to explain why you did not also tax horse race betting at fixed odds or starting prices. You must take the whole business and treat it as one.

The Royal Commission recommended that office pool betting should be prohibited. So does this Bill: and so did the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. R. J. Russell). That Bill was thrown out with much violence by this House and I took a certain part in that operation myself. If that Bill came up in the same form tomorrow I should endeavour to do again what I did on that occasion, although I might not use the same impetuous language as I used in my first Session. That Bill was wrong then, and it would be wrong now, because it was not accompanied by the other main recommendation of the Royal Commission the legalising of cash betting, which is proposed in this Bill. It was like trying to put out a furnace by sitting on the safety valve. The football pools have grown up largely because the poor man has had no other legitimate opportunity of betting off the course. I agree that now a new public is being drawn in, but if we were now to prohibit pool betting and did nothing else we should only be driving many more people to street betting.

It may be said, why interfere with football betting? Are not the dogs more demoralising and dangerous? One answer is that I am not interfering with football betting as such. Indeed, I am repealing the Ready Money Football Betting Act, which is almost the only Measure in which Parliament has attacked betting on a particular subject. In general Parliament has taken the line that the citizen is free to impoverish himself or demoralise himself by going in for any particular form of betting which is available to him, but that the State will not permit others to profit by certain methods of betting business. It distinguishes, for example, between the genuine bookmaker and the conduct of a lottery. The objection to pool betting is not that it is a bad kind of betting, for the backer, but that it is not strictly betting at all; it is more like a lottery. I think it is obvious that in betting proper there are certain automatic safeguards for the backer, certain understandings though they do not amount to contracts. The backer at fixed odds or starting prices stands to win a fixed sum, or a sum which has some reasonable relation to his stake and judgment. On the other hand, the bookmaker stands to win a fixed sum, or he may lose a sum the amount of which he roughly knows. If he says to six people, "I will give you sixty to one," it may cost him six sixtys. So far as the backer is concerned, apart from the occasional welsher, he has a reasonable security that he will receive the reward for which he stipulated and which he deserves for his skill and judgment. The State does not commend such transactions; but since they seem to be equitable the State stands aside.

In pool betting the promoter risks nothing at all except his overhead charges. He does not say he will give you sixty to one if you win, but he says "I may give you 6d., £6,000, or £6,000,000; it depends on how many other mugs ' come in and how much I keep out of the pool for my trouble and expense." He never stands to lose and there is no check whatever upon his proceedings. The backer can never be quite sure that he is getting what he bargained for. I do not say that there is any hanky-panky, but there is a great opportunity for it. Pool betting is not a sporting event as betting with a bookmaker is. It offers exceptional opportunities for profit to the promoters, and there are exceptional lures for the backer. In fact it has most of the features which induced Parliament to prohibit lotteries.

The Royal Commission recommended that such transactions, although quite proper to be conducted by statutory bodies under proper control on licensed and approved racecourses, were not proper to be left in the hands of private persons operating for private gain. That recom mendation is accepted by the Bill. I think we can found such a prohibition on the simple ground that it is not socially desirable that private persons for private gain should be permitted to exercise such powers without control. And I am assuming that the State does not desire to exercise control itself.

If these two proposals become law you will have at last a simple compendious formula for off-the-course betting. I had better read it, if I may. All men, rich and poor, could bet with a registered bookmaker, on cash or credit terms, on any subject under the sun, but on fixed odds or starting prices only.

Further, by Clause 2 (1) the ordinary citizen could send cash bets to the totalisator on approved racecourses.

One more word about pool betting. Mary people seem very anxious to "deal with" the pools. Few people ever explain what they mean by "dealing with the pools," but some, I know, have a vague idea of setting some statutory limit to the deductions which the pool pro-motor may make for expenses and profits. That would be worthy of consideration if the State had not taken the very high and mighty line about betting which it always has taken; but if you did anything like that I think you would find the State plunging far more deeply and intimately into the conduct of betting than this House would like. It would mean a Government auditor in every office—and in the end a sort of partnership between the State and the pool promoter. And again the same question would arise. If you are to inspect the accounts or regulate the profits of one kind of betting business why do you not do the same thing for another?

These two fundamental alterations that the Bill proposes will not be popular with everyone. I did not expect that they would be. Indeed, in this matter I think there has been a great deal too much subservience to the great god popularity. But let me say this. So far as I am. concerned, these two proposals stand or fall together. I would not touch pool betting unless I could get cash betting off the course legalised. On the other hand, I could not ask the Churches to accept the legalisation of cash betting unless there were some limitation of betting at the other end.

The language of the sporting world is naturally tinged with exaggeration. It would be unnatural to expect those who habitually indulge in confident "naps" and "doubles" to show pedantic accuracy of thought or language when they conceive that their own interests are threatened. When the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) proposed a very mild betting tax I heard someone say, "The Derby will never be run again." And I was surprised the other day by a newspaper man who said to me "If you touch the pools there will be no more football in this country ever again." I was surprised, because I always understood that those most hostile to football pool betting were those who were responsible for the noble game. If football indeed depended on betting for its existence I, for one, should weep no tears at its departure. But I don't believe it: and I think I know more about football than the gentleman I have quoted.

Now I come to Part II of the Bill which deals with the registration of bookmakers. I think that after the first shock my friends the bookmakers—and I have many friends among them—will find that on the whole all this part of the Bill is favourable to their profession. We want to be sure that the law is enforced. That is not always easy, as our experience of street betting has shown us. Surely, the best method of enforcing the law is to utilise the services of those who conduct the business, and the best way to enlist their services is to place them in a position in which they can maintain their self-respect. I do not believe that any bookmakers enjoy having to stand in rainy streets or in alley-ways and employing children in their business. Therefore it is proposed that the bookmaker should be registered annually, and that the registration should be forfeited for any serious lapse. The Bill here follows very closely the recommendation of the Royal Commission as regards machinery. Before obtaining registration the bookmaker has to obtain a certificate of eligibility from a petty sessional court showing some simple evidence of character. With that certificate he is entitled to be registered by the police. I saw in the "Sporting Life" the other day that a correspondent said that, if he were a bookmaker, he would much resent having to go to the magis trates every year to be registered. One short answer to that is, that what is good enough for the manager of the Savoy Hotel is surely good enough for any bookmaker, however sensitive. Publicans, moneylenders, pawnbrokers, pedlars, and, I believe, ecclesiastical lecturers, have to be registered or licensed every year on the ground that, though their occupations are not disapproved by the State, it is desirable that the State should be able to lay its hands easily upon individual members who break the law, and, if necessary, debar them from continuing in practice.

In addition to the personal registration of the bookmaker, there is a proposal that he may apply to have his office registered as a cash bet deposit office. There is here an important distinction. The personal registration is a matter of right as long as the bookmaker is eligible for it according to the magistrates. That is, they are not required to say how many bookmakers there should be, and so on: but when we come to cash bet deposit offices it is desirable that the justices should have some discretion. We do not want an excess of such offices, for example; we do not want them to be concentrated in one street; we do not want them next to a school or a church.

Clause 8 is important, as it deals with the registration of the bookmakers' staff. The Royal Commission were very eager to suppress not only illegal street-betting, but the practice by which illegal street bookmakers employ on commission amateur agents in factories, offices and so on, for the purpose of collecting bets. Clause 9 brings the off-course law concerning betting with juveniles into line with the law of on-course betting laid down in the 1934 Act. The general effect of this part of the Bill, although at the first prick of novelty the instinct may be to talk about restrictions and so forth, is favourable to the bookmakers' profession. It gives to the bookmaker new powers, but also new duties; it gives to the bookmaker who has hitherto been breaking the law a new incentive to obey it, and strong penalties are provided if he does not do so. The more we can make the bookmaker the chief policeman of the whole business, the more we shall relieve the real police from duties which at present are distasteful and even dangerous.

So far, we have extended the reasonable facilities for betting in one direction, and limited the unreasonable facilities in another; and we have provided machinery to ensure that the law shall be obeyed. I come now to Part III of the Bill, which deals with betting inducements. As I have said, the State does not forbid the citizen to bet. But it is one thing to allow the citizen to put his head to the pool and drink; and it is another thing to allow another gentleman to push him into the river. Parliament does not prohibit the occupation of the moneylender, but it severely restricts his liberty to advertise. He may not, for example, send out circulars, except on application, or send circulars to infants. Nor, by the way, may a bookmaker now, under the Betting (Infants) Act, 1892. Going back even further, to the year 1874, we find that Parliament made the most stringent laws limiting the advertising of and inducements to betting, but like so many of the old laws they have fallen into desuetude chiefly because the telephone was invented later and the Betting Houses Act did not imagine credit betting. I mention that only to point out that the principle of Part III of the Bill is by no means a novel one, and that its terms are far less severe than the terms of the Acts of the Victorian age of individuality and laissez-faire. There has, however, been a great deal of misunderstanding about this part of the Bill. Some of it has no doubt been due to ambiguous drafting, and if so, such ambiguities should be revealed this Session and corrected in good time for the next. But the general intention ought to be clear.

The Royal Commission were anxious, first, to limit the power of the betting business to advertise itself, that is to say, to thrust betting down the throats of people not already accustomed to betting and so (if the metaphor is sound) to create an artificial appetite; and secondly, they wanted to suppress, except on the racecourse and in the newspapers, the professional tipster, whose only occupation, purpose and justification in life is the selling of tips for profit, with no authority behind him but his own—the sort of gentleman, for example, who circulates tip-sheets in the poor quarters of industrial towns. One justification for such a restriction is that there is known to be much sharp practice in these quarters. The same tipster will send out with a confident assurance that it is "a good thing ", the name of every horse in a given race; but he will send the name of only one horse to one district. Therefore, when "Love Lies Bleeding" is successful, his name will be high in Hoxton, but mud in Manchester. At any rate he will be popular in one place. But next time "Dogsbody" may be the successful horse and Manchester the lucky district, and then the cry will be, "Who gave you Dogsbody '?". I do not think it was desired—I certainly do not desire —in any way to take anything away from the life and colour of the race course; and there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent a tipster from operating on the course and making the most fantastic prophecies and getting people to buy them. Nor is there any desire to interfere with or limit the learned, scientific, and authoritative pronouncements of the very numerous military gentlemen who minister to the newspapers, having behind them all the authority of the newspapers, and all the reputation of those newspapers to lose. The Royal Commission made that very clear. They said:

" A few witnesses proposed that the publication of all tips should be prohibited. Most witnesses, however, held that tips published in the racing columns of newspapers should not be prohibited. We concur in the latter view. The information given in newspapers is told to the public generally without any special charge, and is often a matter of genuine news."

I concur, as the Bill does, with that opinion. I wish to make that clear because there has been not only misunderstanding, but a good deal of misrepresentation on that point. The Bill does not interfere with the learned prophets of the newspapers. I will frankly face one difficult point. There is one obvious difficulty on the dividing line, and that is the mid-day racing editions published by such papers as the "Evening Standard" and the "Star." My present feeling is that such sheets, printed by reputable and genuine newspapers, should not be classed with the mean little tip-sheets to which I have already referred. These editions contain, in fact, much genuine news and information in addition to advice on how to bet. For example, they give the past history and records of the animals engaged, on which the citizen can make up his own mind, without accepting the advice of Colonel This and Major That. If that view be taken, I would say that Clause 14 is ambiguously and indifferently drafted, and must be amended.

If that were the view taken by Parliament, the two ways in which the newspapers would be affected by Part III of the Bill would be, first, that the bookmaker would be able to advertise only to the limited extent laid down in Clause 13. Against that, of course, the newspapers would have the advantage that a great many more persons would be able to advertise, within the limits laid down, than before, since many bookmakers hitherto outside the pale would be registered as lawful practitioners. Let me add that no one is more severe about the great spread of betting, and particularly pool betting, than members of the London Publicity Club, and the big advertisers generally, who say that genuine trade is being seriously damaged by the betting craze. Anything which damages ordinary trade damages advertising, and ultimately the newspapers. Therefore, if the only point involved were the material interests of the newspapers (which I do not admit), I would suggest that, on balance, the Bill would be to their advantage. The only other point affecting the newspapers would be Clause 14 (3), which reads:

" When any newspaper contains tips or forecasts of sporting events this fact shall not be advertised."

That is not a point to which I attach great importance, but it means that the boastful placards, appearing on days of great national crisis, and telling us that the Colonel gave us two naps or the Major gave "Love lies Bleeding," would be stopped. I do not know that it amounts to very much, but it was one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission and evidently falls within the principles laid down by them. Newspapers, they said, should be permitted to give tips because that is not the only service they provide. The moment they hold them up as a principal inducement, they are approaching the status of a professional tipster. At all events I hope no one will think it fit or desirable to make these two proposals the text of a diatribe on the "freedom of the Press." I do not think that cock will fight very long here. The freedom of the Press to publish news or views is one thing; freedom to publish advertisements of commodities or services which the State in its wisdom regards as dubious or dangerous is another. I need only mention the moneylender.

A point of some importance may arise on Clause 19. As the custom is, the Bill contains the words:

" This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland."

Of course if the recommendations concerning football pools in England were accepted, the question would arise of businesses being moved across the Channel to Northern Ireland and conducting from there the same business with the same clients. It is not for a private Member, however, to say how we should get over a difficulty of that sort, and I merely indicate it.

I wish to thank the House for their indulgence in listening to me so long on a Friday afternoon on a Bill which, as they well know, has no hope of going any further this Session. I hope, however, that this will not be without some practical advantage in the end. It is with no illusions and with no high hopes that I have thrust my head into this nest of fierce and formidable hornets. Bishops, bookmakers, backers, and newspapers all buzz most terribly, and sometimes disconcertingly in unison, when the words "betting legislation" are mentioned. Many of my august and learned constituents, whose studies have never led them into these low paths of life, will doubtless wish that their representative had chosen other and loftier themes for legislation than betting and divorce. So, even in that direction, I look for no reward. But for my own part I think it is not an unworthy task indeed I think it is a peculiarly fitting task—for a University Member who has some slight acquaintance with the relevant law and, I am sorry to say, with the relevant life—to take up a question which—how shall I put it?—is embarrassing to every party and to every Government, and indeed to almost every territorial Member.

To my constituents if they were here—and after all there are 131 of them in this House—I would add this: While I do not ride the high ethical horse on the question of betting, I do believe, and I think in our heart of hearts we must all believe, that we do too much of it at the present time. Although the Bill largely extends the area of individual liberty in this respect, its ultimate effect, I believe, would be to diminish the total volume of betting, and to terminate certain abuses. Be that as it may, I suggest that this Bill is a moral challenge to the country to face, I will not say the ethical question of betting, but the question of the squalor and disorder of our betting arrangements, and I think it is time that we tried to bring some kind of order and justice into those arrangements. The Bill offers something to everybody—to the churches, to the bookmakers, to the backers, and even to the newspapers: but it takes something away from everybody. It is impossible in such a cockpit, of conflicting consciences and interests and opinions and prejudices to produce a formula which will satisfy everybody. I do not suppose this Bill will satisfy everybody, but I have hopes that it may come nearer to doing so than any previous proposal of the kind.

I suggest that all concerned should now cease to concentrate on their own particular interests or even beliefs, and should consider the question with patriotic eyes. If everyone is going to insist on the last dollar of his own interest and the last syllable of his own dogma, this attempt will have to be abandoned and the country will have to wait until His Majesty's Govenment have to tackle the question, probably, as is the custom, in a panic and piecemeal fashion, and ultimately it may be necessary to take steps much more drastic than those proposed in this Bill. I believe in liberty, as I think hon. Members know. I think they also know that I do not believe in excess. I believe in freedom to drink, but not in drunkenness. I do not think what I am saying now is inconsistent with anything I have said before, though there may be opportunities for humourous quotation; but I believe that this craze for betting has now almost reached the degree of a national intoxication. If we are, as other nations say, so soft, so silly, and selfish that we cannot make even the smallest sacrifices in order to set due bound to this enormous, this entertaining but, frankly, this idiotic indulgence, then it may be that we no longer deserve our boasted liberty and the dictators had better come across and do what they will with us.

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."

I do so because I believe, and I am sure the House will agree, that any proposal affecting the rights and privileges of millions of Britishers—who on the estimate of the sponsor of the Bill—expend the huge annual sum of £400,000,000—should be considered by a much larger House than we have here this afternoon. Certainly a much longer period than an hour and a half should be allowed for the discussion on the Second Reading of such a Bill. Few of us would find pleasure in attempting to obstruct the winsome and witty Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) but when he wobbles, as even the best exponent of skittles has been known to do, it is up to his real friends to endeavour to save him from himself. In presenting a Measure of this character to the House I submit that the hon. Member is guilty of the worst type of wobbling. Opposing the Betting (No. 1) Bill in this House on 3rd April, 1936, the hon. Member described that proposal as mean and pettifogging, and said it would not reduce the total volume of betting or produce equality among the classes. Does he seriously suggest that this Bill will produce equality among the classes? He proposes the practical abolition of the racing tipster. He proposes to restrict advertisements of racing tipsters, whether they be individuals or newspapers, but he makes no reference whatever to the financial tipsters connected with Stock Exchange speculations, presumably because the working men are not interested in that kind of thing. This week I received a letter from a Lancashire working man which I would like to read to the House. It is as follows: