Commons Chamber

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

House Of Commons

Tuesday, 5th July, 1938.

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

Death Of A Member

made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Daniel Gerald Somerville, Esquire, late Member for the Borough of Willesden (East Division), and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

Private Business

Private Bills [ Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable).

laid upon the Table report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Tatton Estate Bill [ Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

West Yorkshire Gas Distribution Bill [ Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at Half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers To Questions

British Army

Members Of Parliament (Commissions)

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Members of this House who hold commissions or are members of the Army or Army Reserve and are thereby bound by King's Regulations?

Twenty-three hon. Members hold commissions in the Territorial Army and two hold commissions in the Militia. These hon. Members are subject to military law at all times under Section 175 of the Army Act. In addition, 57 hon. Members hold commissions in the Regular Army, Supplementary or Territorial Army Reserves of Officers, and are, generally speaking, subject to military law only when they are ordered on any military duty for which as reserve officers they may be liable.

Are any hon. Members in the other ranks of the Army, below commissioned rank?

I think not. We have no record of that.

Would it be possible to find out?

It would mean asking every hon. Member. Our impression is that there are not.

Courts Of Inquiry (Territorial Officers)

asked the Secretary of State for War by what statutory authority a military Court of Inquiry orders an officer of the Territorial Force to appear before it to deal with actions he has taken as a civilian when not in uniform or performing military duties; and does the same authority apply to warrant officers, noncommissioned officers and men in similar circumstances?

I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The assembly and procedure of Military Courts of Inquiry are governed by Rules of Procedure 124, 125 and 125A made pursuant to the provisions of Section 7o of the Army Act. A Court of Inquiry may be assembled by the Army Council or by the officer in command of any body of troops and may be directed to collect and record evidence and, if and as required, to report or make a declaration with regard to any matter which may be referred to them. Under the provisions of Section 175 (3A) of the Army Act an officer of the Territorial Army on the active list is subject to military law at all times. His attendance as a witness before a Court of Inquiry is a military duty and is secured by means of a military order to attend given to him by his superior officer.

The attendance before a Court of Inquiry as a witness of a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or man of the Territorial Army can only be enforced at such times as he is subject to military law under the provisions of Section 176 (6A) of the Army Act. But in the case of an officer, warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or man of the Territorial Army the provisions of Rule of Procedure 125A (B) would have to be complied with. This Rule ensures that if his character or military reputation is likely to be affected as the result of a Court of Inquiry, he must be afforded an opportunity of attending and of making any statement or giving any evidence he may wish or of cross-examining any witness whose evidence in his opinion affects his character or military reputation, and of producing any witnesses in defence of his character or military reputation.

Horse Guards (Barrack Regulations)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with conditions prevailing in the Horse Guards arising out of the recent case in which certain soldiers were sentenced?

Steps have already been taken to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.

Has any inquiry been made, or will it be made, into the circumstances in which civilians were permitted to be in the guard-room of the barracks?

Yes, Sir, inquiries have been made, and certain steps have been taken. The General Officer Commanding the London District has been requested to make further inquiries to see whether, if possible, further safeguards can be introduced.

Is it not notorious that these places are the habitual resorts of people?

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the orderly officers carry out their duties?

The orderly officers have been directed to make more frequent and more irregular visits.

Has the War Secretary considered the question of lowering the age for marriage allowances?

Army Council

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the date, time, and place of the meeting of the Army Council which decided to set up the Court of Inquiry into the suspected leakage of confidential information; the names of those present; and the minute or other record of the action taken at the meeting?

It has not been the practice of the House to make proceedings of the Army Council the subject of detailed question and answer. In the circumstances, I am sure the House will not expect me to add anything to the statement which I made on Thursday last.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Noble Friend the Under-Secretary or his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary were present at the meeting?

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in accordance with the custom of this House that such detailed questions should be put?

As regards the Army Council, I have never known such questions to be asked before.

May I submit to you that I have specifically put questions with regard to two civilian members of the council who are members of the Government and whose salaries are borne on the Army Votes as members of the Government, and I suggest that I am entitled to have an answer to that question. I am quite prepared to accept for this occasion the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the military members of the Council.

May I submit, upon the question which the Secretary of State for War has raised, that although the general rule may be what you, Sir, have indicated, yet in this particular case there has been a pronouncement that a breach of the Privileges of this House has been committed, and this question is designed to elucidate some part of the details surrounding this breach of Privilege, and that, therefore, in this case my hon. Friend stands upon strong ground in putting this question?

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out to the House that the question relates to specific circumstances which are at the moment under review by a Select Committee of this House, surely it would be better that we should await the findings of that Committee before pronouncing judgment?

I should not like to call it a ruling, but though I have never known this question to be asked, I see nothing irregular in asking whether members of the Government were present at this Council.

With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), the House has not found that the Army Council committed any breach of Privilege. With regard to the Army Council in general, the constitutional position is that I accept full responsibility for its acts, and any advice tendered to me by the Army Council is tendered under the usual terms on which advice is tendered by a body of that kind, whether the Board of Admiralty, the Army Council or the Cabinet, and I do not think it is fair to members of that Council that I should be asked whether they were present, or what they said.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did state that this action was taken by the Army Council, and there is no question asked about what was said, can he not state whether the other Ministerial members of the Army Council were present? What is the objection to answering that question?

I accept full responsibility for the acts of the Army Council.

What we want to know is whether the other members whose salaries are borne on the Votes were present and did their duty as members of the Army Council.

The right hon. Member may accept as true that this was a decision of the Army Council, and that I bear full responsibility for it, and that is all I can say.

Is it not the case that the Army Council cannot function except civilian members are present to form a Council?

The hon. Member is in error, if he will allow me to say so. That is not the case.

Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that he himself was not present, I should like to press him as to whether either of the two other civilian members of the Council was present?

Is not this question put merely in order to satisfy idle curiosity?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: If he was not present, is it not clearly a matter on which it would be advisable to know that members of the Army Council, who, after all, have no knowledge of this procedure, had present with them their Ministerial colleagues to advise them on this point?

I have said that I accept full responsibility for the actions of the Council, and I do not wish to commit a breach of custom whereby I mention individual names of members and say whether they were present or what was said. It was a decision of the Army Council in proper form, and for that I accept full responsibility.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Scotland

Education

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many university scholarships were granted in each of the last three years to pupils from elementary schools?

I regret that the information desired is not available. Scholarships or bursaries at Scottish universities are awarded by many different bodies, and full information on the subject could only be obtained by special inquiries in many quarters.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that information upon this point in relation to England and Wales was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, and can he say how it is that Scotland cannot stand up to as strict a provision of information as can England?

I have not seen the question to which the hon. Member referred, but I am sure that he will realise that scholarships and bursaries are awarded not only by universities but by many individuals and corporations as well as by educational authorities. I do not think that it is possible to give an accurate picture of the position regarding the question asked by the hon. Member.

That is an extraordinary answer, surely—[Interruption.]

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of under-graduates at each of the Scottish universities

—	Total New Entrants to First Degree and Diploma Courses.	Number included in Column (1) who began their education in an elementary school.	Percentage of Column (2) to Column (1)—to nearest unit.
—	(1)	(2)	(3)
			Per cent.
St. Andrews University (including Dundee University College).	170	106	62
Glasgow University	923	495	54
Aberdeen University	250	220	88
Edinburgh University	674	218	32
Totals	2,017	1,039	62

It should be noted that the figures in column (I) include students from overseas (who in 1936–37 formed over 13 per cent. of the whole student body at Edinburgh), whereas the figures in column (2) relate only to students coming from homes in Great Britain and originating from elementary schools. If information were available to enable the figures in column (I) to be confined to students from homes in Great Britain, the effect would be to increase somewhat the percentages in column (3).

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of children passing from elementary to secondary schools in Scotland during each of the last three years to the latest convenient date, and the percentage these numbers

who have come through ordinary elementary schools, and the percentage this represents of the total number of undergraduates at each university and of elementary schools pupils?

With the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving such information as is available on this subject.

Was the number from elementary schools higher than 43 per cent., which is the English percentage?

It is higher.

Has not the lack of school accommodation something to do with the very low figure?

The figure is not low.

Following is the table:

The following figures relate to the academic year 1936–37:

represent of the elementary school population?

The number of children passing from primary schools and departments to secondary schools in each of the three years ended 31st July, 1937, 31st July, 1936, and 31st July, 1935, was 29,672, 29,274 and 30,245, respectively, representing in each case about 35 per cent. of the estimated numbers of children in the appropriate age group in State-aided shcools. If, however, account is taken of children passing to advanced divisions, the proportion in each case is estimated at about 88 per cent.

11.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of classes in day schools in Scotland with a roll of 40 pupils or less, 41 to 45, 46 to 5o, and over 5o, respectively?

At 31st March, 1937, the date of the last complete return, the numbers were as follow:

40 pupils and under	15,364
41 to 45 pupils	4,091
46 to 5o pupils	3,271
Over 5o pupils	310

Since that date the number of classes of over 5o has been reduced to about 125.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the rate at which the larger classes are being eliminated?

I am not easily satisfied, but I know there has been a considerable advance.

Is it not a fact that more than 2,000,000 children are in classes numbering more than 40 each in England and Wales?

Agricultural Wage Rates

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the system of district wages committees, unco-ordinated by a central wages board, under the Agricultural Wages Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1937, has resulted in a wide diversity of wage rates, especially for juvenile workers; whether he is aware that a youth of 16 years of age may receive a weekly wage of 27s. in Dumfriesshire, but only 17s. if he works across an imaginary line in Lanarkshire, and only 15s. if he works across an imaginary line in Selkirkshire; and whether he intends to promote legislation for the creation of a central co-ordinating board as recommended by the Caithness Committee?

I am aware that the minimum rates of wages fixed by district wages committees in Scotland for workers of similar age groups vary to some extent as between different districts. The minimum rate fixed for an ordinary male worker of 16 years of age is in Dumfries-shire 22S. per week, in Lanarkshire 21s. per week, and in Selkirkshire 15s. per week. It was the purpose of the system of district committees embodied in the Act that these committees should fix rates in the light of local conditions, and I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question of the respective powers of the Central Board and of the district committees was very fully discussed during the progress of the Bill only a year ago. In these circumstances I should not feel justified in promoting amending legislation on the lines suggested.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the economic conditions in Selkirkshire are 7s. per week worse for a 16-year old boy than they are in Dumfriesshire?

The main point of the question was whether I would introduce legislation, and I cannot promise that, in view of the considerations which I have mentioned.

Is it not possible that these large variations in wages will cause a large immigration of agricultural labourers from one county to another?

Can the Minister not introduce a one-Clause Bill covering the whole of Scotland and laying down minimum rates, and, if not, why not?

Eviction, Shettleston

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Mrs. Margaret Brown, 145, Culrain Street, Sandyhilis, Shettleston, has been threatened with eviction from her house because she was slightly behind with her rent; that Mr. Brown was killed in the late War of 1914–18 and that she has a girl suffering from paralysis; and whether he will take steps to prevent this eviction, seeing that these steel houses are Government property and that a late Secretary of State promised to attempt to humanise the second Scottish National Housing Department?

I am informed that Mrs. Brown was evicted on 28th June by order of the sheriff. I understand that shortly after she became the tenant of the Second Scottish National Housing Company in December, 1933, she fell into arrears with her rent and has been continuously in arrears ever since, to an amount at times exceeding £12. She was warned out of her house on that account at Whitsun 1935, 1936 and 1937, but the notices were withdrawn on her promising to pay. After a preliminary warning in November, 1937, a formal notice to remove was served on her on 29th March, 1938, when her arrears amounted to over £9. I understand that she agreed verbally to remove, and the house was re-let to another tenant with occupancy at Whitsun, 1938. Mrs. Brown then intimated she did not intend to leave. In the circumstances the company felt that they must take legal action to recover possession of the house.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when they talk about arrears of £9 they actually mean a four-handed quarter's rent, which means £8 15s., or thereabouts, and that usually this woman was slightly behind, that she is the widow of a soldier who was killed in the War, that she has a paralysed daughter and that she has been able to make these payments only as she has the money, supplemented by her own earnings?

The hon. Gentleman is repeating what is in the question on the Paper.

No, Sir.

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to put a supplementary question?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a number of other tenants have been put out of their houses because these people did not think they would be capable of paying their rent when they were unemployed, and whether it is not time that something was done when a company of this kind is putting tenants out into the street in this way?

Will the Minister advise the House as to the number of units in the family, the weekly rent and the average weekly income?

My information is that the average weekly income amounts to £2 7s. 6d.

How many people are there to keep out of that money?

I understand that there are Mrs. Brown and her son and daughter, that Mrs. Brown is in receipt of a permanent pension of £I 17s. 6d. and that her son, a young boy, is presently earning 10s. a week. I will look into the point made by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern).

I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter upon the Scottish Estimates.

Housing

13.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of new houses built during last year and in 193o in urban and rural areas, respectively, in the county of Fife; how many rural cottages were renovated in the same periods; and what is the total number of new houses estimated as necessary to be built in the future in order to meet the requirements of recent housing legislation?

The numbers of new houses completed in the landward area in the county of Fife in the years 1930 and 1937 were 124 and 86 respectively. For the burghs in the county the corresponding figures were 15o and 1,022. In 193o, 115 houses in the landward area were reconstructed with the aid of grant under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, and in 1937 the number was 291. For the burghs in the county the corresponding figures were 5 and 88. The total number of new houses estimated as necessary to meet further requirements is approximately 4,604 in the county and 4,440 in the burghs of Fife.

15.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of acres of ground bought by Glasgow Corporation for housing purposes on which houses are either not finished or operations commenced; in what areas this land is held; the number of houses that it is proposed to build; the types of houses to be erected; when it is proposed to finish each section and the numbers involved; what land is being negotiated for at present; and the number of houses in each area to be completed during the next five years?

I am sending the hon. Member a statement containing the information asked for.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not publish the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

I thought of sending it direct to the hon. Member. It would involve a great deal of printing, and that was my only reason for proposing that course.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as all Scottish Members are interested?

HOUSING IN GLASGOW.
A.—Schemes in Progress.
Scheme.		Area in Acres.	Number of Houses proposed to be built.	Type of Houses proposed to be built.	Approximate date of completion.	Whether work has been commenced.
Ballindalloch Drive	…	5·9	132	Tenements	31–12–38	Commenced
Bellahouston	…	26·5	320	Tenements and cottages.	30–8–38	Commenced
Berry knowes	…	81·768	790	Cottages and flats	31–12–39	Commenced
Blawarthill	…	9·200	138	Tenements	31–5–39	Commenced
Carntyne Road	…	0·20	4	Flats	31–12–38	Commenced
Crail Street	…	4·232	86	Tenements	31–12–38	Commenced
Culross Street	…	1·413	48	Tenements	28–2–39	Commenced
Dalmarnock No.2	…	5·680	114	Tenements	30–8–39	Commenced
Dixon Avenue	…	1·554	36	Tenements	30–4–39	Commenced
Edmiston Drive	…	11·417	229	Tenements	31–12–39	Commenced
Elmvale Street	…	2·07	60	Tenements	31–5–39	Commenced
Garry Street	…	3·249	141	Tenements	31–12–39	Commenced
Garscadden Road	…	42·200	390	Flats and cottages	31–5–39	Commenced
Garscube	…	26·57	300	Flats and cottages	31–5–39	Commenced
Great Western Road	…	20·38	433	Tenements	31–5–40	Commenced
Househillwood and Add.		81·679	842	Tenements, flats and cottages.	31–12–39	Commenced
Kingsway	…	13·33	90	Flats and cottages	31–7–38	Commenced
Langholm Street	…	5·70	192	Tenements	31–12–39	Commenced
North Keppoch	…	16·54	370	Tenements	31–12–39	Commenced
Pollok	…	683·40	3,780	Tenements, flats and cottages.	31–5–43	Commenced
Provanmill	…	31·335	300	Flats and cottages	31–5–39	Commenced
Provanmill Extension	…	7·463	78	Tenements, flats and cottages.	31–5–39	Commenced
Tweedvale Avenue	…	1·50	17	Flats and cottages	31–12–38	Commenced
Rotherwood Avenue	…	0·25	2	Cottages	31–5–39	Commenced
Lincoln Avenue	…	21·82	149	Flats and cottages	31–12–39	Commenced
Totals	…	1,105·350	9,041

B.—Schemes submitted to or approved by Department of Health.
Scheme.		Area in Acres.	Number of Houses proposed to be built.	Type of Houses proposed to be built.	Approximate date of completion.	Whether work has been commenced.
Balgraybank and Hill house.		0·66	4	Cottages	30–6–39	Not commenced.
Copland Road Extension		1·68	36	Tenements	31–12–39	Not commenced.
Deanston Drive	…	5·10	128	Tenements	31–7–40	Not commenced.
Florida Drive	…	0·63	16	Tenements	31–12–39	Not commenced.
Harriet Street	…	0·48	18	Tenements	31–12–39	Not commenced.
Holmfauldhead Drive	…	6·43	162	Tenements, flats and cottages.	31–5–40	Not commenced.
Huntershill	…	16·12	206	Tenements, flats and cottages.	31–7–40	Not commenced.
Maukinfauld Road	…	34·87	290	Flats and cottages	31–3–40	Not commenced.
Shawholm Street	…	0·98	30	Tenements	31–3–40	Not commenced.
Barrowfield	…	25·31	480	Tenements	31–5–41	Not commenced.
Totals	…	92·26	1,370

If the House desires that it should be printed, I will circulate it.

Hear, hear.

Following is the statement:

C.—Schemes in preparation on land acquired.
Scheme.		Area in Acres.	Number of Houses proposed to be built.	Type of Houses proposed to be built.	Approximate date of completion.	Whether work has been commenced.
Balornock and Robroyston.		271·242	1,750	Flats and cottages	—	Not commenced.
Berryknowes Road	…	14·750	180	Tenements, flats and cottages.	—	Not commenced.
Berwick Drive	…	3·370	30	Cottages	—	Not commenced.
Boydstone Road	…	5·483	74	Not commenced.	—	Not commenced.
Craigpark Drive	…	7·50	150	Tenements	—	Not commenced.
Fairfield at Craigton Road.		13·00	114	Flats and cottages	—	Not commenced.
Garscube (Addl.)	…	10·00	108	Not commenced.	—	Not commenced.
Greenfield	…	110·00	594	Not commenced.	—	Not commenced.
Glebe Street	…	1·45	54	Tenements	—	Not commenced.
Mill Road	…	82·746	508	Flats and cottages	—	Not commenced.
Milton	…	301·590	2,000	Not commenced.	—	Not commenced.
North Cardonald	…	57·00	520	Not commenced.	—	Not commenced.
Penilee	…	211·50	1,728	Not commenced.	—	Not commenced.
Pollok (South of Barrhead Road.		77·00	200	Tenements, flats and cottages.	—	Not commenced.
Priesthill	…	313·50	2,600	Indefinite	—	Not commenced.
Wyndford	…	0·933	24	Tenements	—	Not commenced.
Cardonald Mill	…	32·84	100	Flats and cottages	—	Not commenced.
Castle milk	…	1,155·88	5,020	Indefinite	—	Not commenced.
Denmark Street (2)	…	3·00	84	Tenements	—	Not commenced.
Mosspark	…	1·48	18	Flats and cottages	—	Not commenced.
Old Castle Road	…	1·163	12	Flats	—	Not commenced.
Traquair Drive	…	6·08	66	Flats and cottages	—	Not commenced.
Totals	…	2,681·507	15,934
NOTE.—The Corporation state that it is impossible to forecast dates of completion in detail for these schemes, but that most of them will be completed within the next five years.

D.—Proposed Schemes on Land under Negotiation or Consideration.
Scheme.		Area in Acres.	Number of Houses proposed to be built.	Type of Houses proposed to be built.	Approximate date of completion.	Whether work has been commenced.
Ashfield Extension	…	60·00	360	Indefinite.	—	—
Barrowfield	…	3·35	98	Tenements.	—	—
Cadder Road	…	112·00	700	Indefinite.	—	—
Carron Street	…	31·13	240	Indefinite.	—	—
Garscube Estate	…	120·70	400	Indefinite.	—	—
Drumchapel	…	900·00	5,192	Indefinite.	—	—
Gartcraig	…	176·00	1,230	Indefinite.	—	—
Cranhill	…	94·00	650	Indefinite.	—	—
Wester Queenslie	…	90·00	500	Indefinite.	—	—
Bertrohill	…	16·5	100	Indefinite.	—	—
Millburn Street	…	10·18	150	Indefinite.	—	—
Springboig	…	27·00	150	Indefinite.	—	—
Paisley Road West	…	12·00	100	Indefinite.	—	—
Ruchazie	…	123·00	1,300	Indefinite.	—	—
Rosshall	…	25·00	150	Indefinite.	—	—
Toryglen and Hangingshaw.		245·00	1,500	Indefinite.	—	—
West Drumoyne	…	12·00	100	Indefinite.	—	—
Panmure Street	…	2·03	18	Indefinite.	—	—
Totals	…	2,059·89	12,938
NOTE.—The Corporation of Glasgow state that, at this stage, it is impossible to forecast in detail the dates of completion for these schemes.

16.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Department of Health give grants to local authorities in Scotland to enable them, with the help of a subsidy, to recondition and to utilise old buildings for working-class houses so as to preserve facades of historical and architectural character and at the same time utilise these buildings for purposes of housing schemes; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of exercising such powers as exist or, if necessary, take steps to enlarge these powers?

I am prepared to consider on its merits any application by a local authority for grant under the Act of 1930 or 1935 for new houses in which a local authority may incorporate features of architectural, historic or artistic interest belonging to existing buildings on the site.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he would be prepared to consider extending the facilities that are given or to be given to rural housing in Scotland, so that subsidies may be given either where new buildings are constructed or where old houses are reconditioned?

I should require notice of that question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to sanitation and comfort, and no attention to picturesque mouldiness?

I shall pay attention to both considerations.

20.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in the landward areas of Kincardineshire are overcrowded?

It is estimated that there are approximately 600 houses overcrowded in the landward area of Kincardineshire.

21.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in the landward areas of Kincardineshire have been condemned as unfit for habitation and how many require extensive repairs?

I am making inquiries, and shall write to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

22.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in the burghs of Kincardineshire are unfit and how many are overcrowded?

It is estimated that in the burghs of Kincardineshire 81 houses are overcrowded. The number of houses condemned under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, as unfit for human habitation is 24.

Zetland (Police Forces)

10.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any recent communications from the Zetland County Council and the Lerwick Town Council regarding the reorganisation of the county and burgh police forces following the extension of the Lerwick burgh boundaries; and whether any progress has been made in the county of Zetland towards the adoption of the Police Acts?

I have received intimation from the county council and the town council that they have been considering the amalgamation of their police forces and the application of the Police Acts to Zetland. In response to a suggestion made by them, I am arranging for His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland to visit Zetland with a view to local consultations and to reporting on the matter.

Juvenile Offenders (Psycho-Analysis)

12.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases in Scottish courts where the aid of psychoanalysts was enlisted by the presiding judge in cases where juvenile delinquents were concerned during the three years ended January, 1938?

I regret that the information is not available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the personal undertaking given by his predecessor in office when the Criminal Procedure Bill was discussed in Committee, and can he inform the House as to the instructions which have emanated from the Crown Office in connection with this problem?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give me notice of that question.

Local Authorities (Grant)

14.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of the general Exchequer grant per head of weighted population paid to local authorities in Scotland in the last financial year?

The amount per head of weighted population of that portion of the block grant which is at present allocated amongst Scottish local authorities on that basis is approximately 5s. If the whole of the block grant had been distributed on the basis of weighted population the amount per head of weighted population would have been 8s. 2d.

Are children under five years of age included in the weighted population?

I should require notice if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have the formula upon which the calculations are based.

Is the amount allocated per head more or less than that allocated per head in England?

The two figures are not quite comparable, because the incidence of derating differs in the two countries.

Contributory Pensions

17.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give any estimate of the number of people in Scotland eligible to take advantage of the recent extension of the voluntary pensions scheme; the number who have already applied to do so; and what steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to ensure a widespread understanding of the great additional benefits which the scheme makes available for those who apply during the first year of its operation?

Up to date the total number of persons who have applied for admission as special voluntary contributors is 28,000. I am unable to make any precise estimate of the total number of persons eligible, but it is very greatly in excess of this figure. Following on the passing of the Act in July, 1937, the scheme was brought prominently to the notice of the public through the medium of the Press and the B.B.C. Leaflets and posters have also been widely used, and public bodies of every description have co-operated fully in giving it publicity. I am considering what further publicity measures can be taken.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these voluntary contributors have been transferred from the previous voluntary contributory scheme?

Rivers Pollution

18.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there are parts of Scotland where the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Act are being disregarded; whether his attention has been called to the continuous discharge of waste oil and coal gum into the River Luggie, in North Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire, and that the putrescent odours emanating from the river are seriously to the detriment of public health; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

I am aware that there are streams in Scotland which are polluted. My attention has not been directed to the discharge of waste oil and coal gum into the River Luggie, but I am arranging for a report by officers of the Department of Health for Scotland on the condition of the river and I shall communicate with the right hon. Member when that report is received.

Has the right hon. Gentleman done anything whatsoever with the reports of the Rivers Pollution Committee which have been presented to the Scottish Office for the past 10 years?

I know the difficulties of the problem. I cannot on this occasion say any more.

Does not the experience of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department point to the need for improved legislation?

When these investigations are being carried through, will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time give consideration to the condition of the River Carron?

I will consider that matter also. In the meantime, I am dealing with the point put to me by the right hon. Gentleman.

Administration

19.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the Government's intentions to proceed with legislation on the lines recommended in the Gilmour Committee's Report on the reorganisation of Scottish offices?

I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject, but, as stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) on 14th June, I hope to be able to do so before the end of the Session.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman been making public statements on this matter; and is it his intention to have legislation passed through this House before this time next year, in order that, when the new offices are opened in Edinburgh, he may be able to carry through the necessary rearrangement?

I am bearing those considerations in mind. Perhaps the hon. Member will await my statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the legislation involved by the Gilmour Report could be put into a very short Bill?

Legal Business (Unqualified Persons)

23.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that no provision is made in the Solicitors Amendment (Scotland) Bill to deal with cases of unqualified persons dealing with legal business; and what steps is he prepared to take to remedy this defect?

The Solicitors Amendment (Scotland) Bill is a private Member's Bill, which has not yet received a Second Reading in this House, and it would not be possible for me to discuss its provisions in answer to a question. I would point out, however, that the case of unqualified persons engaging in legal business is dealt with in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that several complaints have been made to the Crown Office in this connection, but that, so far, the Crown Office has refused to raise a finger in any circumstances; and is he, accordingly, prepared to have investigation made into this problem?

If the hon. Member will inform me what type of offence he has in mind, I will certainly look further into it.

Will the Solicitor-General, before making any decision on this matter, take into consideration the fact that other issues are raised, and that there are certain problems on which it would be as well that solicitors got some legal training?

Sheriff Court Procedure

24.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that no provision is made in the Scottish sheriff court rules for obtaining production of corporeal effects; and is he prepared to recommend to the Rules Council that steps be taken whereby such effects may be recovered by parties in the same manner as documents?

My right hon. Friend has received no representations on this subject, which would seem to fall within the province of the Sheriff Court Rules Council. I suggest that the hon. Member should address any representations he may wish to make on the subject to the Rules Council, either direct or through the legal societies.

Do I understand the Solicitor-General to suggest that the Government have no responsibility at all in this connection?

I think that in the first place it is a matter for the Rules Council, and that it would be well that they should take it into consideration.

Coal Industry

Mine Accidents

25.

asked the Secretary for Mines how many accidents in coal mines in the Northumberland and Durham district during 1937, or the latest period for which figures are available, were due to derailments; what proportion these represented of total accidents, fatal and otherwise; and what measures he has in mind for curtailing this prolific cause of accidents?

Separate figures for accidents due to the derailment of tubs are not yet generally available, but the revised accident classification put into use at the beginning of this year requires a return to be made of all accidents due to this cause. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's inspectors have repeatedly emphasised that good haulage roads, well-laid tracks and rails of suitable section would contribute largely to a decrease in the number of derailments, and the Royal Commission has heard evidence as to how far it may be possible to enforce certain minimum standards in these respects.

If and when such figures are available, will they be submitted for the information of the House?

I think they will appear in the ordinary course among the returns of accidents.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the provision of iron instead of wooden sleepers in the pits?

32.

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons killed and seriously injured in the mining industry during 1938, and the various causes of the accidents?

Number of Persons killed and seriously injured at mines under the Coal Mines Act during the six months ended 3oth June, 1938.
Cause		Number killed.	Number seriously injured.^*
Under ground.
By falls of ground:
(a) At Working Face	…	157	588
(b) On Roads	…	49	116
Haulage Accidents	…	102	389
By Explosions	…	80	57
Miscellaneous	…	63	313
Total Underground	…	451	1,463
Surface.
On Railways, Sidings and Tramways	…	14	50
Other Surface Accidents	…	23	75
Total on Surface	…	37	125
Total (Underground and Surface)	…	488	1,588
^* i.e. Injuries which, because of their nature or severity are, under the terms of Section 80 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, required to be reported to His Majesty's Divisional Inspectors at the time of their occurrence.

Protective Equipment

26.

asked the Secretary for Mines what steps are being taken to increase the amount of protective equipment worn by coal miners at their work; and what estimates have so far been made of the saving of life by such equipment?

The total number killed this year up to 3oth June was 488, and the number seriously injured was 1,588. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Do not these figures show that accidents this year have been more numerous than for the last two or three years?

Actually the number killed is higher, while the number seriously injured is lower, than in the previous year.

Is the Minister aware that the recent report with regard to the Scottish mining area shows a definite increase, due to deficiency in propping, and will he say what steps he is prepared to take to remedy this defect?

Not in reply to a supplementary question.

Is it not a fact?

Following is the information:

In 1935 an inspector of mines was seconded to the Safety in Mines Research Board for three years to devote his whole time to promoting the development and use of protective equipment in mines, and the board has just made a fresh appointment to continue the work on similar lines. Propaganda of many kinds has been, and will continue to be, organised, and many colliery companies conduct propaganda of their own, and, with the mutual indemnity companies, supply equipment free or at reduced cost. The matter is included in the syllabus of the safety classes for colliery boys; and there is increasing co-operation from the miners' representatives. It is not possible to give any general estimate of the number of lives saved, but it is considerable, and numerous instances where serious or fatal injuries have been prevented are constantly being recorded and published.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the use of protective equipment has become general in the coalfields, or whether there are any districts which have not yet taken it up?

I should have to look into that question, but I understand that in the last three years over 435,000 hard hats have been supplied.

Is there any intention on the part of the Government to make the wearing of such equipment obligatory?

That is another question.

Safety Measures (Training Schemes)

29.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether the attention of his Department has been drawn to the scheme of training boys in matters of safety at the Burnhope Colliery, County Durham; and whether he is prepared to urge the adoption of this principle of safety measures at all collieries?

I am aware of the scheme in operation at Burnhope Colliery, under which boys are employed on the surface, under supervision, and trained in haulage operations and the use of safety appliances, before going to work underground at the age of 16. While the circumstances of all collieries do not permit the adoption of methods identical with those at Burnhope Colliery, nevertheless many schemes for safety training of boys have been introduced throughout the country with beneficial results. I strongly commend these schemes, many of which have been commented upon favourably in the annual reports of my Department and of His Majesty's inspectors, and no opportunity is lost of impressing upon colliery managements the desirability of providing such training.

Mine Temperatures, Lancashire

30.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that in some of the mines in Lancashire the temperature adjacent to the coal face is well over 100 degrees and the miners have become exhausted before the termination of the shift; and will he have the position examined so that consideration can be given to a shorter working day when the temperature rises above a given point?

I am aware that in one of the Lancashire mines the dry bulb temperature on two faces slightly exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit, but the humidity is low and the cooling power of the air current is high. As regards the last part of the question, the matter of high temperature and humidity has already been carefully examined, but in my view any question of a shorter working day should be considered in the first instance between employers and representatives of the workmen.

Will the hon. Member instruct His Majesty's inspectors, when making their annual report, to make a statement on the high temperatures prevailing in deep mines, so that the public may know under what conditions the miners work?

It is the responsibility of the inspectors as to what they should report to me. There is a proper deep-mining committee of the Institute of Mining Engineers, which is investigating this problem.

Is the hon. Member aware that in the last report made by His Majesty's inspector for the northwestern division, some half dozen lines only were given to this subject? Surely it is important enough to have a more detailed report?

Have any cases of ankylostomiasis been notified from this area as a result of these high temperatures?

I could not answer that offhand.

Pamphlet

31.

asked the Secretary for Mines what facilities exist at collieries for workmen and officials to obtain copies of the pamphlet entitled, "What every mining man should know"?

The books have been widely advertised, and free copies have been distributed to all the local welfare committees for use in reading rooms and institutes. I am obliged to the hon. Member for the suggestion contained in his question, and I will consider whether any arrangements of the kind suggested can be made.

Would it not be a good thing if some of the more enterprising coalowners were supplied with these pamphlets, and they were made available for the workpeople and the officials?

I said that I would consider whether they should be made available.

Is the Minister aware that the Communist party supply some very fine pamphlets?

They may be fine pamphlets, but I do not think they will do for this purpose.

Anglo-French Discussions

33.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is able to make a report on the Anglo-French coal negotiations?

Discussions between officials of my Department, accompanied by representatives of the Central Council of Colliery Owners and the British Coal Exporters' Federation, and officials of the interested French Government Departments, assisted by representatives of the French coal trade interests, took place in Paris on 27th, 28th and 29th June. After a full examination of the problem of the United Kingdom coal trade with France and a frank exchange of views, the discussions were adjourned in order to enable the two Governments to study the suggestions which had been put forward. The discussions will be resumed very shortly.

Electrical Machinery (Inspections)

35.

asked the Secretary for Mines how many of His Majesty's inspectors of mines are fully qualified to inspect electrical machinery and apparatus used in coal mines; what proportion is that to the total number of inspectors on the staff; and how often is a complete inspection made in each coal mine of such electrical machinery?

From time to time all of His Majesty's Inspectors of Coal Mines inspect electrical apparatus in the course of their duties and are qualified to do so, but for the detailed examination of such apparatus and for the more technical matters there are three specially qualified junior electrical inspectors, stationed in the provinces, who devote all their time to this work, in addition to the electrical inspector and his deputy, both stationed in London. Out of a total coal mines inspectorate of 108 there are, therefore, five inspectors solely concerned with electrical matters. As regards the last part of the question, it is not the practice for the electrical inspectors to make a complete and detailed examination of all the electrical apparatus at each mine visited, but rather to concentrate upon apparatus which, by reason of its character or situation, may give rise to danger.

Does the Minister think that, in view of the rapid increase in the use of electrical machinery, a proportion of five inspectors out of 108 is sufficient; and can he give a reply to the last part of the question, as to how often a complete inspection is made on the average?

I could not answer the last part of the question, because that information is not available. The hon. Member will realise, from what I said, that a complete inspection would, of course, involve all sorts of apparatus on the surface, and so on, the inspection of which would not be so necessary. All the inspectors are qualified for this purpose, and this is, of course, a problem which is constantly under consideration.

If all the inspectors are qualified, how often is it possible for all the inspectors to make a complete inspection? Does the Minister not think that a complete inspection should be made at least twice every year?

I would not like to commit myself to a statement on the matter offhand. I am satisfied that inspection is adequately carried out. If it seems at any time that more is required, that will be considered.

Explosions

36.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the fact that in the period 1931 to 1935, inclusive, there were 51 explosions involving the deaths of 544 men and boys in the coal mines in this country, whereas in the same period there was not a single explosion in the coal mines in France, he will arrange for members of the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines, prior to their issuing their report, to visit the French coal mines and to study the methods adopted with such good results to prevent explosions in that country?

I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to the Royal Commission, to whom the report of the departmental investigation in France has already been communicated.

37.

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of colliery explosions which have occurred in England, Scotland and Wales, giving the names of the collieries, and the numbers of men killed or injured in each case during the last 10 years; whether in each case electricity has or has not been used, and for what purpose; and whether he will give the same information with regard to shot-firing?

During the last 10 years 477 explosions involving death or injury have occurred at mines under the Coal Mines Act. I would hardly feel justified in circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of all of them, and in any case part of the information asked for is not fully or readily available. I am, however, communicating with the hon. Member in the matter.

38.

asked the Secretary for Mines how many parties of mine workers have visited the mines research station at Buxton during the years 1935, 1936 and 1937, giving the total numbers of persons in each year; how many explosions have been staged at the station, and the approximate cost of the same; and whether he will now recommend the construction of another gallery for the purpose of demonstrating, not only how mine explosions occur, but how mine explosions can be prevented?

In 1935, 41 parties of mineworkers visited the research station at Buxton, the total number of visitors was 5,437, and 24 coal-dust explosions were staged. The corresponding figures for 1936 were 46, 5,112 and 18, and for 1937, 45, 6,153 and 23, respectively. These explosions are only one part of the demonstrations, and separate particulars of their cost are not available. As regards the last part of the question, I will refer the hon. Member's suggestion to the Safety in Mines Research Board for their consideration.

Will the Minister consider the suggestion, which was received very warmly in the House some time ago, that he should arrange for a party of Members of this House to visit this demonstration at Buxton?

If anybody wants to go I shall be happy to make arrangements. I am going myself this week.

Newfoundland (Air-Bases)

39.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Commission of Government of Newfoundland spontaneously offered to bear one-sixth of the total cost of the construction of the air-bases in the island or whether any pressure was brought to bear upon the Commission to induce them to agree; and what representations were made, either by the Governor or by any member of the Commission, to the effect that the general state of the finances of the island were not such as to justify any contribution towards the cost of a project which could be of little benefit to Newfoundland?

In the organisation of Empire air routes the general principle is that each Government concerned should itself provide the ground facilities required in its own territory. Special considerations arose as regards the extent to which effect could be given to this principle in the circumstances of Newfoundland. After discussion the Commission of Government concurred in the proposal that one-sixth of the construction cost of the air bases required in the island, excluding provision for wireless facilities, should be charged to the budget of Newfoundland which would own and control the bases when completed. In practice, however, as the hon. Member will appreciate, the liability of the Newfoundland Government on this account is in effect met through the annual grant-in-aid from the United Kingdom Exchequer.

If the Commission of Government have any money to spare, should they not spend it upon food and clothing for the starving thousands of the population?

This seems to be an admirable way for money to be spent, and one hopes that it will lead to further development.

Southern Rhodesia (Sale Of Cattle)

40.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware of the anxiety caused to Africans in the native reserves in Southern Rhodesia by the compulsory selling of native cattle; that considerable reductions are being enforced at Fort Victoria and adjacent districts; that prices involve heavy losses to the natives concerned, and that drastic restrictions have been imposed on the number of cattle a native may have; and whether he will make representations to the Government that more adequate arrangements should be taken to explain to the people concerned the policy involved, that the co-operation of the natives in the policy should be obtained, and that a fair price should be guaranteed when a reduction is enforced?

The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia recently issued a statement on this matter, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. It is explained that the rumour of the compulsory sale of cattle is unfounded, and results from the Southern Rhodesia Government's attempt to assist the natives in over-stocked areas to improve their herds by selling some of their scrub cattle. An officer of the Veterinary Department has been made available to help in this matter and to give advice to the natives as to which of the animals are most useless. It has also been pointed out to the natives that owing to the shortage of water and the poor grazing, due to a bad season, their cattle will die of poverty this year unless the numbers are reduced. The statement adds that the prices paid for the class of stock sold are fair and reasonable.

Is the noble Lord aware that the scheme is actually in full-swing operation in certain parts of Southern Rhodesia, and that there is considerable apprehension among the natives concerned, who certainly are not getting a fair price for their cattle, and will he make representations to the Government that a least the native people should be taken into consideration when a policy of this kind is put through?

The policy has been adopted to help native agriculture and improve it as far as possible. I am sorry to hear that the natives are apprehensive in the matter, and I hope that my answer to the hon. Member's question will do something to allay their suspicions.

Bombing Of British Ships

41.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Dominion Governments have been consulted with regard to, and have approved, the decision of the British Government not to defend from aerial attack in Spanish waters and ports, British sailors and ships?

His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions were informed at the time of the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, in accordance with the usual procedure applicable in such cases.

Is there any reason to suppose that the Dominion Governments are in favour of the British Government's policy of allowing the Union Jack to be trampled upon and shot at?

As no expressions of criticism have been received, I imagine that His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions have no comments to make.

Is it not essential for this country to uphold the sovereignty of territorial waters?

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a full statement on the reply of the Spanish insurgents regarding the bombing of British ships, indicating the results of the consultations which have taken place with Sir Robert Hodgson, the nature of any decisions the Government may have reached, and the reply to be made to the denial that British ships have been deliberately attacked.

The consultations to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred yesterday are not yet completed, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his question on Thursday, when I hope to be able to give a further reply.

Mercantile Marine

Passenger Liners, Southampton-New York

43.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of passenger liners operating between the ports of Southampton and New York for the years 1925, 1929, 1932, 1935, and 1937, irrespective of which is their home port, with the gross tonnage for each year;

Table showing the number and gross tonnage of passenger liners which operated between the ports of Southampton and New York during the years specified, distinguishing between British and foreign vessels.
Year.			Number of Vessels.			Gross Tonnage.
Year.			British.	Foreign.	Total.	British.	Foreign.	Total.
1925	…	…	27	21	48	624,069	417,848	1,041,917
1929	…	…	32	25	57	733,550	550,206	1,283,756
1932	…	…	21	23	44	557,794	538,774	1,096,568
1935	…	…	17	25	42	465,767	676,711	1,142,478
1937	…	…	16	28	44	438,317	713,276	1,151,593
The particulars relate to the number of individual liners which operated between Southampton and New York, in either direction, during the years specified, irrespective of the number of voyages made by each ship.

Registration Regulations

54 and 56.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are the regulations in regard to the registration of British shipping; and whether, in view of the considerable uneasiness which is felt in some quarters that the British flag is being exploited by foreign opportunists, he will consider tightening up the regulations with a view to making it increasingly difficult to do so in the future;

(2) whether he will consider giving the closest examination to the claims of all foreign ships which desire to be classed as British; and whether he will consider removing from the British registry the names of those which failed to be mainly owned and manned by British subjects?

The statutory requirements relating to the registration of British ships

and further, how many of these vessels for the years mentioned were of foreign and British registration, respectively, together with their respective gross tonnage?

As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In view of the fact that the British Mercantile Marine are losing many of the trade routes, cannot something be done to endeavour to restore the British Mercantile Marine?

Both subjects of the British Mercantile Marine are down for discussion on Friday.

Following is the answer:

are contained in Part I of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. For the reasons explained in answer to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) on 28th October last, I am not prepared to propose any alteration in the existing law of registry. As the House has been previously informed, special steps have been taken since August last to examine with particular care all applications for British registry with a view to securing full compliance with the law.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether before a ship receives British registration she is inspected by officials from the Board of Trade to see whether she complies with the British Board of Trade standard of regulations?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that question on the Order Paper.

Am I to understand that that is not the practice to-day?

I have answered the question on the Order Paper. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down any further question?

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the canard once and for all and state that when a ship receives the registry of this country for all intents and purposes it is a British ship and is entitled to the same protection as any other British ship?

All the more reason that we should scrutinise every application that we receive.

55.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the date on which the British ship "Thorpeness," which was sunk in a Spanish port, was registered, and the name of the company by which it was owned?

The steamship "Thorpeness" was registered as a British ship on 17th July, 1914, and at the time of her sinking was owned by the Westcliff Shipping Company, Limited.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that only one member of the board of directors is British and that 98 per cent. of the capital is held by foreign nationals, and does he consider that such a ship is, in fact, British in the true sense and interpretation of the word?

I have seen the reports to which my hon. Friend refers, and I believe them to be accurate, although I think the percentage of shares held by non-British members is rather greater than 98 per cent. The ownership of capital has never been the determining factor in the registration of British ships. I would remind the House on that very important question, that before the War, for instance, the White Star Line, whose share capital was largely held abroad, was registered under the British flag, and we had every reason in 1914 to be thankful that that was so.

May I ask whether it is not a fact that capital has no nationality?

Masters' And Officers' Qualifications

59.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the comments made at a recent Board of Trade inquiry as to the growing necessity for officers having a thorough knowledge of ship stability; and whether he will take steps to ensure that masters and officers shall hold certificates granted by his Department which afford evidence of knowledge of the important subject of ship stability?

I assume that the hon. Member refers to the recent inquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the Steamship "Taylor" where the court stated that the owners appeared to have taken no steps to ascertain the vessel's stability when loaded with timber. Stability varies between ship and ship and in different conditions of loading of the same ship; and it is the responsibility of the owners to provide their masters with such information relating to the stability of their ships as is necessary.

6o.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why, in view of the report appearing in Cmd. 5745 on the convention concerning the minimum requirement of professional capacity for masters and officers on board merchant ships, he does not propose to introduce legislation on the subject of this convention?

The United Kingdom requirements are based primarily on safety considerations. As there is no evidence to suggest that these considerations require an extension of the present system of certification in the United Kingdom, it is not proposed to introduce legislation on the subject of this convention.

Air Pilots' Training (Canada)

42.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have sounded the Canadian authorities as to the possibility of establishing a British Government training school for air pilots in Canada, and whether a favourable answer has been received?

Some informal exploratory discussions on this subject took place in the light of which it was decided not to pursue the matter.

Ministers' Powers (Committee's Recommendation)

45 and 46.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Government have now considered the recommendation contained in the report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers that a small Standing Committee should be set up in each House of Parliament at the beginning of each Session for the purpose of considering and reporting on every Bill containing a proposal to confer lawmaking power on a Minister, and considering and reporting on every regulation and rule made in the exercise of delegated legislative power and laid before the House in pursuance of statutory requirement; and whether the Government intend to give effect to this recommendation;

(2) whether the Government have considered the recommendation contained in the report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers that Standing Orders should be framed in both Houses requiring that every Bill presented by a Minister which proposes to confer law-making power on that or any other Minister should be accompanied by a memorandum drawing attention to the power, explaining why it is needed and how it would be exercised if it were conferred, and stating what safeguards there would be against its abuse; and whether the Government intend to propose new Standing Orders giving effect to this recommendation?

I can add nothing to what has already been said in reply to questions on this subject. I should like to repeat the assurances which have already been given that the views expressed in the report are carefully borne in mind in relation to current legislation.

Is it not possible, after six years, which is the time that has elapsed since the committee reported, for the Government to make up their minds on this very simple recommendation?

I do not agree that the recommendations were very simple.

Does the Prime Minister mean that the Government, to be quite frank, have turned down the recommendation and do not intend to set up this Standing Committee?

I do not think that that is what was conveyed in previous answers.

Does the Prime Minister mean that six years are really not enough for the Government to make up their minds, and that they are still considering this matter?

How many more years are required?

Ministers (Private Practice As Solicitors)

47.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is consistent with Government policy for any member of the Cabinet to remain a partner of a legal firm and still remain a member of the Government?

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on this subject on 10th June, 1937, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander).

In that statement, is it not the case that the Prime Minister stated that he thought that members of the Government who are solicitors should cease to carry on daily routine work of the firm or take any active part in ordinary business? Is he aware that members of the Government, according to a case in the courts last week, have been taking an active part in granting interviews in cases in 1935 and 1936; and does not he think that it is an unfair advantage over their competitors, as people tend to go to a member of the Government with legal business because of his position?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his account of what was said in the answer referred to. After a reference to Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman's rule I said that solicitors should cease to carry on their daily routine work or take an active part in ordinary business. I went on to say that he should not be precluded from continuing to advise in matters of educational trusts, guardianships and similar cases, and I went on further to say that a certain amount of discretion should be allowed. It is impossible to cover every conceivable case, but I do not think, so far as I am aware, that this rule has been transgressed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case did not come within that scope at all, and does he think that the Minister of Transport, holding a responsible position, ought to be allowed to continue to dabble in ordinary business while he is a member of the Government and is being paid a substantial salary?

I do not think that that is the case.

Does not the Prime Minister think that in the public interest it would be advisable to extend Lord Baldwin's formula prohibiting Ministers from undertaking certain private business during their term of office, and to extend that formula to include Ministers who are active participants, as private partners, in a business?

The rule was extended to cover the case of solicitors in private practice, to which, I suppose, the hon. Gentleman refers, and I am not aware that it is suggested to extend that.

May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman—

rose—

I will raise the matter a gain.

Parliamentary Secretary To The Admiralty (Visit, Gibraltar)

48.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was engaged on official business during his recent visit to insurgent territory in Spain; and what was the nature of this business or, if not, whether the visit was subject to and had his approval?

My hon. Friend visited the Nyon patrols during the Whitsun Recess and on two occasions accompanied naval officers who landed in Government territory on official business. No landing in General Franco's territory was made on that occasion. Later, while visiting Gibraltar, I understand he entered a few miles into General Franco's territory for the purpose of visiting an English friend and bathing in a bay which was uninhabited. In these circumstances, there was obviously no necessity for him to obtain my approval.

United States (British Debt)

49.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would have been the amount of principal and interest, respectively, had the agreement for the settlement of debt due to the United States been carried out; and have His Majesty's Government any plans for meeting this obligation unless the United States of America will accept settlement over the period of the agreement in goods and services?

The figures asked for in the first part of the question are contained in Command Paper 5763, "Papers Relating to the British War Debt, June, 1938." In reply to the second part of the question, I cannot at present add anything to the Note addressed to the United States Government on 13th June, 1938, the terms of which are given in the same Command Paper.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the question of outstanding war debts is to be brought into the discussion with America when considering the trade agreement?

That is quite a different question. I have answered the matters which are on the Paper, and I could not deal with the other matter.

Imperial And Local Taxation

50.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the high level of taxation and its increasing percentage of the national income, he will give consideration to the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the whole field of Imperial and local taxation which will result in a more equitable distribution of national and local responsibility?

I do not feel able to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the poorest of the working classes, through indirect taxation, are bearing a quite undue proportion, and cannot something be done to relieve that situation?

I have explained that the relations between Imperial and local taxation, as a subject matter of inquiry, would be a very expensive and elaborate inquiry, and I am not myself at all satisfied that it would result in an agreed redistribution of the burden of taxation.

Stationery Office Printing And Binding Establishments

52.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the net trading profit accruing to the Treasury from the State printing establishments and the capital employed in the same for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

The net trading profit for the year ending 31st March, 1937, accruing to the Treasury from the State printing and binding establishments amounted to £154,783. Owing to the special relations which exist between the State and these establishments it is difficult within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question to deal with the question of the capital employed in any particular period. I am, however, sending to the hon. Member a copy of the volume of Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets for 1936, which includes on pages 98 to for the accounts of the Stationery Office Printing and Binding Establishments for the year ended 3rst March, 1937.

In view of these results, do the Government intend to increase the size and capacity of the State printing establishments?

Perhaps the hon. Member will read the Volume, which I am sending to him, before making up his mind.

Why should the hon. Member have a privilege? Why cannot we all have it?

It can be got from the Vote Office.

Munitions (Exports)

58.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of munitions exported during the last three months and to what foreign countries?

As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Table showing the total declared value of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores of United Kingdom manufacture exported to foreign countries, as registered during the three months ended May, 1938, distinguishing the principal countries of consignment.

Countries to which consigned.	Declared Value.
	£
Latvia	32,436
Denmark	10,126
Poland (including Dantzig)	53,778
Netherlands	83,319
Belgium	4,633
Greece	6,950
Roumania	58,791
Egypt	61,240
Iran	10,442
Siam	26,564
China (exclusive of Hong Kong, Macao, Manchuria and leased territories)	62,580
Japan (including Formosa)	46,081
Colombia	16,967
Venezuela	5,808
Brazil	13,208
Argentine Republic	17,247
Other foreign countries	29,455
Total to foreign countries	539,625

Note.—The above figures include sporting arms and ammunition and explosives for industrial use, the value of which cannot be precisely stated.

Questions To Ministers

On a point of Order. I should like to draw attention to the small number of questions which receive an answer during Question Time. Within my recollection it used to be estimated that 100 question would be answered. Yesterday the number answered was 62 and to-day the number is 6o. I would ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, as to how many days a question must be on the Order Paper in order to get an answer? My questions 61 and 62 have been on the Order Paper for a week?

The number of questions that we get through during the hour devoted to questions has caused me anxiety for some time past, and I have done my best to curtail supplementaries. The real reason why we do not get through questions more quickly is that there are so many supplementaries.

In view of the fact that during recent years there has been a tendency to put down a larger number of questions, and that Question Time has become far more important, would it be possible to consider the question of extending the time allowed for answering questions?

Would it not be fair to say that the vast majority of supplementary questions come from the benches on your left, Mr. Speaker?

Would not the putting of supplementaries be curtailed if Ministers would answer the questions on the Order Paper?

Would it not be much better if questions were put more clearly?

May I have an answer to my question? Would it be possible for the House to have an opportunity of considering whether there should be an extension of, say, a quarter of an hour for the answering of questions?

Is it fair simply to deal with the number of questions that are answered? Very often important issues may be raised by one or two questions, and other questions may not be nearly so important. Is it fair to deal with this matter on the basis of mathematics?

May I submit that the real root of the trouble is that His Majesty's present Ministers have raised evasiveness to a fine art?

If the whole House were to combine in getting through questions expeditiously there would be no trouble.

Division No.266.]	AYES.	[3.50p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Bird, Sir R. B.	Clarry, Sir Reginald
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Bossom, A. C.	Clydesdale, Marquess of
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Boulton, W. W.	Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Albery, Sir Irving	Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Colfox, Major W. P.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)	Boyce, H. Leslie	Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Anderson, Sir A, Garrett (C.of Ldn.)	Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)	Brass, Sir W.	Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Apsley, Lord	Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)	Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Aske, Sir R. W.	Bull, B. B.	Cox, H. B. Trevor
Assheton, R.	Bullock, Capt. M.	Cranborne, Viscount
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)	Burton, Col. H. W.	Craven-Ellis, W.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Butler, R. A.	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Astor, Hon. W. W.(Fulham, E.)	Campbell, Sir E. T.	Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.	Cartland, J. R. H.	Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Cary, R. A.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Barelay-Harvey, Sir C. M.	Cayzer, Sir H. R.(Portsmouth, S.)	Crossley, A. C.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Crowder, J. F. E.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N.(Edgb't'n)	Culverwell, C. T.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Channon, H.	Davies, Major Sir G.F.(Yeovil)
Beit, Sir A. L.	Chapman, Sir S.(Edinburgh, S.)	De la Bère, R.
Bennett, Sir E. N.	Chorlton, A. E. L.	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Bernays, R. H.	Christie, J. A.	Denville, Alfred
Birchall. Sir J. D.	Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S.(E. Grinstead)	Doland, G. F.

Business Of The House

May I ask the Prime Minister what Orders it is proposed to take if the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule is carried; and, secondly whether he can now say when an opportunity will be given for a Debate on the Report of the Committee of Privileges?

To-day, after we have obtained the remaining stages of the Fire Brigades Bill and the Imperial Telegraphs Bill, we desire to proceed with the business up to and including the Eighth Order on the Paper, and the Money Resolution relating to the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill. Some of these Orders are not of a contentious character. There is no intention of asking the House to sit late.

With regard to the Report of the Committee of Privileges, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House yesterday, it will, of course, be necessary to bring the Report of the Committee of Privileges before the House. I would like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that conversations should take place through the usual channels to see what arrangements can be made for an early Debate upon the Report.

Motion made, and Question put,

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

The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes. 124.

Donner, P. W.	Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Drewe, C.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)	Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Duckworth, w. R. (Moss Side)	Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)	Rowlands, G.
Dunglass, Lord.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Eckersley P. T.	Lannox-Boyd, A. T. L.	Russell, Sir Alexander
Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Levy, T.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Ellis, Sir G.	Lewis, O.	Salmon, Sir I.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.	Lindsay, K. M.	Salt, E. W
Emmott, C. E. G. C.	Lipson, D. L.	Samuel, M. R. A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Llewellin, Colonel J. J.	Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.	Lloyd, G. W.	Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.	Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.	Sandys, E. D.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)	Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Scott, Lord William
Evans, D, O. (Cardigan)	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Selley, H. R.
Everard, W. L.	M'Connell, Sir J.	Shakespeare, G. H.
Findlay, Sir E.	McCorquodale, M. S.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.	McKie, J. H.	Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Furness, S. N.	Maclay, Hon. J. P.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Fyfe, D. P. M.	Macnamara, Major J. R. J.	Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Magnay, T.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Gluckstein, L. H.	Maitland, A.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.	Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest	Smithers, Sir W.
Gower, Sir R. V.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Grant-Ferris, R.	Marsden, Commander A.	Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Maxwell, Hon. S. A.	Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Gridley, Sir A. B.	Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Grimston, R. V.	Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)	Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.	Moreing, A. C.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Hannah, I. C.	Morgan, R. H.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Harvey, Sir G.	Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)	Morris-Jones, Sir Henry	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)	Tate, Mavis C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Nicholson, G. (Farnham)	Thomas, J. P. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-	Palmer, G. E. H.	Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Hepworth, J.	Patrick, C. M.	Touche, G. C.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)	Peake, O.	Tree A. R. L. F.
Higgs, W. F.	Petherick, M.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Turton R. H.
Holdsworth, H.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.	Procter, Major H. A.	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.	Raikes, H. V. A. M.	Warrender, Sir V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Ramsden, Sir E.	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Hulbert, N. J.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Wells, Sir Sydney
Hume, Sir G. H.	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Hunloke, H. P.	Rayner, Major R. H.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hunter, T.	Reed, A. C (Exeter)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.	Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)	Withers, Sir J. J.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Reid, Captain A. Cunningham	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)	Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)	Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Keeling, E. H.	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	Remer, J. R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)	Captain Dugdale and Mr.
		Munro.

NOES.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)	Cape, T.	Frankel, D.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Cassalls, T.	Gallacher, W.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Chater, D.	George, Major G. Lloyd (Penbr)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Cluse, W. S.	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Ammon, C. G.	Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Collindridge, F.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Banfield, J. W.	Daggar, G.	Grenfell, D. R.
Barnes, A. J.	Dalton, H.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Barr, J.	Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Batey, J.	Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Bellenger, F. J.	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Day, H.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Benson, G.	Dobbie, W.	Hardie, Agnes
Bevan, A.	Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Harris, Sir P. A.
Broad, F. A.	Ede, J. C.	Hayday, A.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)	Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)	Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Buchanan, G.	Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Hills, A. (Pontefraet)	Maxton, J.	Sorensen, R. W.
Hopkin, D.	Messer, F.	Stephen, C.
John, w.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Naylor, T. E.	Strauss G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Noel-Baker, P. J.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)	Paling, W.	Thorne, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Parker, J.	Thurtle, E.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Parkinson, J. A.	Tinker, J. J.
Kirby, B. V.	Pearson, A.	Tomlinson, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Viant, S. P.
Lathan, G.	Pritt, D. N.	Walkden, A. G.
Lawson, J. J.	Quibell, D. J. K.	Walker, J.
Leach, W.	Richards, R. (Wrexham)	Watkins, F. C.
Lee, F.	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)	Watson, W. McL.
Leslie, J. R.	Sanders, W. S.	Westwood, J.
Logan, D. G.	Sexton, T. M.	White, H. Graham
Lunn, W.	Short, A.	Wilkinson, Ellen
Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Silkin, L.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
McEntee, V. La T.	Silverman, S. S.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
McGhee, H. G.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
McGovern, J.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
MacLaren, A.	Smith, E. (Stoke)	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Maclean, N.	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Mander, G. le M.	Smith, T. (Normanton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson

Message From The Lords

That they have agreed to—

Marriages Provisional Order Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Keighley) Bill, without Amendment.

Cowes Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Blackburn Corporation Bill [ Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Secretary of State for War to delegate the function of executing instruments relating to the acquisition, management and disposal of property." [War Department Property Bill [ Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor Alderman and Burgesses of the Borough of Penzance to construct waterworks; to make further provision with regard to their water undertaking; and for other purposes." [Penzance Corporation Bill [ Lords.]

Penzance Corporation Bill Lords

Read the First time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

War Department Property Bill Lords

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

Orders Of The Day

Fire Brigades Bill

Order for Consideration, as amended ( in the Standing Committee), read.

4.0 p.m.

I beg to move,

"That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 2, page 4, line 16, Clause 16, Clause 24, page 16, line 8, and the First Schedule, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare."

I move this Motion as a result of an undertaking that I gave in the Standing Committee, namely, that fire authorities should be given power to pay compensation when they make use of private supplies of water.

4.1 p.m.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 4, at the end, to add:

"and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 16, page 14, line 14, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Westwood."

I move this Amendment because of a promise given in Standing Committee.

On a point of Order. May I call attention to Clause 1, and ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a question with regard to it? We are now going on to Clause 2 without mentioning Clause 1 at all.

The Motion is that the Bill be recommitted in respect of certain Clauses. We shall come back to Clause 1 later.

As I said, I move my Amendment because of a promise that was given in Standing Committee that consideration would be given to the particular point of extending the fire brigade superannuation scheme to those other than men who were wholly and solely engaged on fire brigade work. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept my Amendment so that we can discuss the matter on its merits when we reach Clause 16 later.

I am prepared to accept the Amendment to my Motion, and we can discuss the matter referred to on its merits later.

Amendment to the proposed Motion agreed to.

Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 2, page 4, line 16, Clause 16, Clause 24, page 16, line 8, and the First Schedule, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare, and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 16, page 14, line 14, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Westwood.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clause 2—(Fire-Hydrants And Water Supply In Case Of Fire)

4.3 P.m.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the end, to insert:

"(7) A fire authority may use for the purpose of extinguishing fires any convenient or suitable supply of water, but shall be liable to pay reasonable compensation therefor:

"Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall affect the duty of undertakers to whom Section forty-two of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, applies, to supply water for the said purpose without compensation."

It is necessary that the Bill be recommitted if we are to discuss later a question that may raise the issue of increasing either the rates or the charges on the Exchequer.

Speaking for myself and my friends we have no objection whatever to this Amendment, which fulfils a promise given in Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.5 P.m.

I want to raise one small point that I mentioned at the time when the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill. I am not clear as to what is the position of existing authorities where the water pipes now laid would not give a sufficient head of water for efficient fire fighting in an extended area. The position is this: Some of the authorities, at any rate in the Midlands, have arrangements which are sufficient for a supply of water under ordinary conditions in ordinary circumstances. The Bill now requires them to provide an increased supply in the case of it being required for fire-fighting purposes. What is to be the position as between those authorities and the water companies which have made the existing installation of pipes? Is the local authority to require that the water company shall relay their whole system with larger pipes so as to enable the authority to carry out the conditions laid down in this Bill? If so, who is to pay? Is there anything in the Bill which forces the water company to lay these heavier pipes without payment, or has the local authority to make the payment, and if so are the Government going to give any assistance to the local authorities in carrying out that work? It is not a point on which I wish to speak at any length, but my right hon. Friend will perhaps recollect that I raised it on the Second Reading, and as far as I know no reply was given on that occasion.

I think that my hon. Friend has mistaken the scope of this Clause. It deals only with hydrants. It thus reproduces the existing state of affairs; it adds no new obligations at all. If my hon. Friend will read the Clause again he will see, first of all, that it is restricted to hydrants; and, secondly, that it uses the phrase:

"such fire hydrants as are necessary for securing the best practicable use of the available supply of water."

4.8 p.m.

How is it proposed to apply this Clause to those districts where there is no tapping or piped water supply? It is well known that in a large number of areas there are only indifferent water supplies, where the water is obtained from shallow wells and not in great volume. Perhaps the Minister will explain, so that rural authorities which have no water supply in the true sense of the term may know what they are to do.

I appreciate that the main object of this Clause is to deal with hydrants, but Sub-section (4) distinctly says that the fire authorities may enter into agreements with any water company, and so on, and as far as I know there is no other part of the Bill which deals with the point I have raised —that is the position of companies in areas where at present the water pipes are not sufficient for these fire-fighting purposes, bearing in mind the extended housing developments of the last few years. What is the position?

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), these things will have to be done by agreement, as indeed they are now. In answer to the wider point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Levy), the answer is that this Clause deals with hydrants, and that, therefore, it does not deal with areas in which there are no water pipes. You cannot have a hydrant without a pipe.

Are we to understand that the question of fighting fire in the districts to which I have referred is to be left entirely to Providence, which means, as the story goes, that sometimes it rains and therefore they may have a fire put out if such a contingency arises?

No, that would not be the case. Sub-section (5) says that fire authorities are to

"take all practicable steps… to improve and maintain any natural water supplies in their borough or district."

4.11 p.m.

There are small urban authorities which provide for the inhabitants only sufficient water for the necessities of the moment, apart from any fire that may break out. I can see that the Clause means that if the Bill as drafted is applied the local authority is going to have the tremendous expense of laying bigger water pipes. I am very anxious to know on whose back that expenditure is to be placed. There are small authorities whose rates now are anything up to 19s. 6d. in the £, and if they have to bear this additional burden it may mean the laying of new pipes that would cost anything up to a rate of 2s. 6d. in the £. Any additional financial burden caused by the Bill should be borne by the Treasury and not by the local authorities.

What is to become of poverty-stricken districts in the distressed areas? Are they to be compelled to face all this cost? Are the Government not coming to the rescue in any way?

4.13 p.m.

I had not intended to speak now, because I was under the impression that we would get an opportunity to raise this question later, but seeing that it has been raised now I will put a question to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman knows that already inspectors from the Home Office have been visiting certain local authorities and making inquiries about their firefighting arrangements and about the condition of the water piping. The arrangements are satisfactory for the local authorities so far, but the authorities are now being informed by representatives of the Home Office that additional piping, or new pipes in place of corroded pipes, will have to be introduced. Some local authorities are very much concerned over this matter. What assistance do the Government propose to give? On the Second Reading of the Bill we were told that it was not intended that there should be any increased expenditure incurred by the local authorities, but the local authorities are now discovering, as a result of the visit of the Home Office inspectors, that their present arrangements are far short of what will be regarded as an efficient water supply. The local authorities want to know what financial assistance they are to get from the Government.

4.15 p.m.

When this Bill was being considered in the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) and I raised a question with regard to Subsection (5) of this Clause. The Clause states that every council who are a fire authority shall take all practical steps within the powers of the council to improve access to such water supplies as they may have. Not only have they to maintain their natural water supplies, but they have also to improve the access to them. I ask the Home Secretary for a definition of what that means. Hon. Members will realise that, in England and Wales, the Home Secretary and in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland, have power to decide whether a local authority or a fire authority has taken all practicable steps. In the case of Scotland, it lies within the power of the Secretary of State for Scotland to say to a council that it has or has not taken all practicable steps to improve access to such water supplies, and consequently, it lies within the power of the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland to involve a local authority in further expense in creating such access to its water supplies. The Secretary of State for Scotland may be reasonable or he may be unreasonable to local authorities; my experience is that the Secretary of State for Scotland is a completely unreasonable person, and that goes for the Under-Secretary as well. The local authorities are concerned about the powers that are invested in those Ministers. I would not like the actions which the Glasgow authorities have to take to be determined by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is doing his best in the job which he holds, and I have no doubt that he would have to go for advice either to his chief or to the Home Secretary. What I would like to know from the Home Secretary is whether the power to decide whether a local council has taken all practicable steps lies with that local council or with the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland.

4.18 p.m.

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether, when he states that reasonable compensation will be paid for the use of the water, he has in mind the fact that in small districts the water supply of all sorts of people may be entirely drained away, and they may not be able to get a supply of water for some months to come. I understand that a small fire engine requires some 300 gallons a minute. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should reconsider this Clause, and that reasonable compensation should also be paid to those people who will suffer from a lack of water for some months until a further supply becomes available.

4.19 p.m.

On the question of the provision of hydrants, I am under the impression that many local authorities throughout the country may have sufficient water for general purposes, but that when it comes to the provision of hydrants under the terms of this Bill, they will find that their supply is quite inadequate from the point of view of fire-fighting services, mainly owing to the loss through friction. Will the local authorities be met with regard to that cost?

4.20 p.m.

I wish to put a question in regard to my constituency similar to the question put by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Sir T. Cook). I have already had occasion to address questions to the Home Secretary concerning the arsenal that is being constructed in my constituency. Naturally, the local authority is under the impression that the con.? construction of such an arsenal will be an additional danger to the locality. That local authority is in a Special Area where the rate is more than £1 in the £, and they want to know from the Home Secretary whether any expenditure which has to be incurred, considering particularly the fact that the added danger is being brought to the area by the Government, will be met by the Government? I am sure the Home Secretary will appreciate the concern of the local authorities. Within a measurable time, Bridgend will become a very important place, and the Government realise that they are making it important as a defence centre. Have the local authorities, of which there are three or four within an eight or ten miles radius of those large works, to bear the additional expenditure necessary to meet the added danger which the Government are bringing to that centre?

4.22 p.m.

Some of the questions that have been asked me, for instance, the question put by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams), go far out side the scope of this Clause, and deal with the whole financial basis of the Bill. I should be out of order if I were to deal at any length with a question such as that put by the hon. Member for Ogmore. The financial basis of the Bill is well known to the House, namely, what the Government are doing, and what the local authorities are expected to do. I will deal with the specific questions raised on this Clause one by one. As to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), I have not any information of the visits of Home Office inspectors to which he referred. If he will send me particulars, I will look into them; but I feel sure that if visits of this kind have been taking place, they have been in connection, not with this Bill, but with the fire-fighting side of air-raid precautions schemes. If that is so, they would rank for grant under the Air-Raid Precautions Act.

The inspector who visited my district was concerned about the firefighting equipment, and all the discussion was on that.

That is exactly my point. The hon. Member seems to forget that firefighting equipment in emergencies is part of the air-raid precautions schemes. As far as it is part of them, it will rank for grant.

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the course of the discussion between the inspector and the representative of the local authority, there was a discussion on what were called peace-time requirements. As I told the right hon. Gentleman in the Standing Committee, the local authority is of opinion that it is fully equipped for peacetime requirements. There has never been any question about the borough served by that local authority having adequate eqipment in that respect. Then the inspector came and said that the equipment was not sufficient even for peace-time rquirements, and in order to bring the equipment up to peace-time requirements, in conformity with this Bill, very considerable expense will be entailed to the local authority.

With all due deference to the hon. Member, I should very much doubt whether that were the case. If the hon. Member will send me particulars, I will look into them. I think it must be a question of the requirements under air-raid precautions schemes, and as I have said they would rank for grant under the Air-Raid Precautions Act. A question was asked by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) about the scope of Subsection (5). As the hon. Member will remember, we had a good deal of discussion about that Sub-section in the Standing Committee, and I think that the Amendments to Sub-section (5) which I have on the Paper on the Report stage should fully satisfy the doubts that were then expressed. I will deal with these Amendments when we come to them on the Report stage, but I will say, in passing, that they explain what we intend under Sub-section (5) rather more explicitly and they make it clear that we do not intend to impose unreasonable obligations on any local authorities. Let me say, further, that the local authority is itself the final authority to decide a matter of this kind. There are no coercive powers and no default powers that could be brought into operation if Sub-section (5) were not carried into effect in the way that some Government office might desire. Therefore, I think that when we come to the specific Amendments to this Sub-section on the Report stage, all reasonable doubts should be removed. I come now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Sir T. Cook), who asked me whose obligation it would be to provide these hydrants. The answer is, the local authorities.

Will that be the case in Scotland?

Yes, in Scotland also. The hon. Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay) also asked me a question about compensation to private individuals if their water was used. They would be entitled to compensation just as much as any public body.

May I have a reply to the question I put? Does not a constituency in close proximity to a new arsenal call for consideration under this Bill, or is some special consideration to be given to it outside the Bill? The arsenal itself might use millions of gallons of water, and the local authorities would certainly not be able to provide the requirements expected of them under this Bill. Am I to understand that special consideration will be given to this matter outside the Bill?

That case is not dealt with under the Bill. Such a case would be taken into account under the air-raid precautions schemes. I can conceive an area of that kind needing special air-raid precautions, and under the Air Raid Precautions Act, it would be the duty of the local authorities in such an area to have the special danger points taken into account, and obviously a more comprehensive scheme would be needed in such cases. A local authority would be entitled to get the corresponding air-raid precautions grant for the larger scheme that it would need for the greater risks.

4.30 p.m.

The main difficulty in the minds of local authorities has not been met by the explanation given by the Home Secretary. It is undoubtedly a fact that the new standard of efficiency, which includes the provision not only of fire engines and fire-fighting apparatus, but of an adequate water supply, even for what are termed the normal requirements for fire-fighting purposes, is not provided for, as far as finance is concerned, either in the Clause which we are discussing or in the Bill itself. It is true that under air-raid precautions, if it is proved that an additional water supply must be provided, a grant on the basis of 70 per cent. up to the first penny and 85 per cent. over and above that is provided, but the difficulty in the minds of the local authorities is that the standard of efficiency, determined by the Home Office in the case of England and by the Scottish Office in the case of Scotland, may be so high that it may compel local authorities to go in for huge capital expenditure.

I can verify the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) if I take the case of the district which I help to administer. It has already been pointed out that water pipes of three-inch diameter are of no use for dealing with fires and that it is essential to have laid alongside of those pipes a four-inch pipe or possibly a six-inch pipe. That will cost the local authority there no less than £25,000, and the local authority has no power to protest against that. Having settled the standard of efficiency, if that standard is not worked up to by a local authority, it will be competent for the Home Secretary, through the Fire Commission, definitely to state that the standard has not been attained by the local authority, and it will be competent for the Fire Commission to carry through the work and to charge the local authority in connection with it. All along we have protested against the lack of financial provision. We lodged our protest in Committee on Sub-section (5), and it was slightly altered to meet our claim. There is a slight improvement on the original proposal, but in view of the very unsatisfactory statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman and the very grave doubts in the minds of local authorities, for which I think I am entitled to speak in this Committee, because they are always in communication with me, I shall ask my hon. Friends on this side to divide against this Clause.

4.33 p.m.

Speaking for the local authorities in England and Wales, as represented by the Association of Municipal Corporations, I can say that they are satisfied with the alterations which have been made in this Clause by my right hon. Friend. It is true that when the Bill was first drafted Sub-section (5) did not appear.

I think the hon. Gentleman is now discussing an Amendment which will be taken on Consideration of the Bill.

I merely wanted to tell the Committee that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) did not express accurately the views of local authorities in England and Wales. They acknowledge the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to meet their point of view, and they do not share the apprehensions which have been expressed.

When the hon. Member speaks of the municipal corporations, does he imply that areas like that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) are represented by his organisation?

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) has, quite properly, drawn attention to an exceptional case, to which the Home Secretary will give consideration.

4.35 P.m.

My experience is directly opposite to that of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland). I speak for the urban districts. I am a member of the National Executive of the Urban District Councils Association, and at Whitby last week they were very dissatisfied with this provision. I have had correspondence galore over this Clause from urban district authorities. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) gave a case in which a local authority may be involved in a tax of £25,000 for the reconstruction of its water supply, and I have a note here concerning my own local authority, where practically all the rateable value is on cottage property. There is hardly a works there, and it would mean that those people for practically 20 years would have an increase in their rents of anything from 9d. to 1s. 3d. per week. They cannot stand that kind of thing, and we shall be bound to go into the Lobby to show that the urban district councils oppose this Clause hip and thigh.

4.37 p.m.

I wish to show the danger that we run if we accept this Clause. Municipal and local authorities all over the country have sent representations to us on this Clause as it is before us now. We are dealing, not with the Amendments to improve the Clause, but with the Clause as it is, and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) is wrong when he states that municipal authorities are satisfied with the Clause that we are now discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) is truly representative, in Scotland at least, of municipal thought in this respect, but we have also received representations from English local authorities all over the country, and many hon. Members have spoken for them, asking that this Clause should be improved. We know that Tory and Socialist local authorities object to it very strongly, take exception to the powers granted against them, and call for an immediate improvement.

4.38 p.m.

May I make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend? Where there are areas without any water resources at all, and there is a practical inability to comply with this provision, however much they may desire to do so, would it not be wise to consider at a later stage putting an Amendment on the Paper to eliminate those particular areas? It could be made subject to the Home Office as to whether a district concerned came within the Clause. Otherwise, the Clause will be futile in a large number of areas, and particularly in rural areas.

4.39 p.m.

I wonder how the suggestion made by the last speaker would work out in a constituency such as mine, where a very large proportion of the parishes have no water supply at all. No doubt some of them could acquire a pipe water supply for a rate of, say, 6d., but in others it would cost is., in other 2S., in others 3s., and some could not get a pipe water supply at a rate of less than 5S. or 10S. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what size of rate would form the dividing line between what would be a practicable step under Sub-section (5) and an impracticable step? Unless there is some definition on these lines, no local authority will have the least idea whether or not it is under an obligation to provide a water supply.

4.40 p.m.

Under this Clause it is an obligation on a fire-fighting authority to see that an adequate supply of water is provided, and the district that I come from will have to approach a water company with that end in view. That will undoubtedly mean a very heavy expenditure on the Consett area for making the provision necessary in the case of firefighting caused by aerial bombardments, but in that area a steadily expanding number of houses are being built, and the question will then arise, I think, from the point of view of compensation to the local authority under air-raid precautions, whether the local authority can justly claim that the expenditure on this water supply is requisite. But as the local authority will be called upon to pay the bill forthwith, who is to step in and adjudicate between the authority and the water company concerned? It seems to me that the local authority is to have its finances placed in serious jeopardy under this arrangement, and how long is the authority to wait before obtaining a settlement in the matter of air-raid precautions? Will it have to wait a period of years before some test is made as to whether the supply is necessary in the case of a serious air raid, or will the Minister himself or some other authority adjudicate between the local authority and the water company concerned? In any event, it seems that an authority such as that in the Consett area will have its finances placed in most serious jeopardy, because I am advised that an exceedingly heavy expenditure will be requisite to meet the air-raid precautions necessitated there.

4.44 p.m.

Has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considered the ulterior meaning of this Clause and the fact that the fire authority will have first call upon the water? It says that the authority must secure

"the best practicable use of the available supply of water in case of fire."

I can visualise a case of a small cottage, in which no loss of life could possibly take place, catching fire and the available water supply in the whole district being utilised to save that derelict cottage. Under this Clause they would have to do it, and the rest of the district, and particularly so in Scotland, might be rendered short of water for months to come through having had to put out a fire which was not worth putting out at such a cost.

4.45 p.m.

It seems to me that this Clause is going to make it more difficult for my constituents to get water. The people who, under present arrangements, take water from these areas will require more water under these provisions, and indeed it would appear as though the Bill were framed on the assumption that fires were to take place every day, and that the supply of water for the purpose of putting opt fires was more essential than the supply of water for domestic purposes. I want to see more water available in these districts for domestic purposes.

4.47 P.m.

I think hon. Members are reading much more into this Clause than they are entitled to read. It is not proposed to impose these heavy obligations upon small rural areas, and if the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) will read the Clause he will see that there is no justification for a view of that kind. Sub-section (5), as I have already pointed out, speaks of reasonable steps being taken, and, as I have also pointed out, the final authority to decide is the local authority, and there are no compulsory powers.

The word "reasonable" does not occur here.

One of our difficulties here is that we are dealing with two things at once. We are dealing with the Committee stage which, with all deference to the Committee, may be described as being in the nature of a formality. We are only passing this Clause through the Committee stage now, in order that I may be enabled to move certain Amendments which I undertook, in Standing Committee, to move. When it comes to the Report stage it will be seen that I restrict still further the scope of Subsection (5). There is no question whatever of making these heavy charges on local areas. The fire risks ordinarily in those local areas would be very small, and it would be fantastic for any local authority to countenance expenditure upon the lines suggested by some hon. Members opposite. So also as regards the question of the use of water in those areas. There is no question of draining the supplies for domestic purposes. This Clause is to be used by reasonable people in a reasonable way, and all that is intended is that a local authority should make a survey of the fire risks in the area, and see whether it can improve, say, the access to a particular natural supply of water—a pond or whatever it may be—not at any great expense, but probably at little or no expense.

I think the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) will admit that one or two of the questions which he raised—and I agree that they are very important—involve the whole financial basis of the Bill, and I would certainly not be in order in going into that subject on this Clause. But he will forgive me for saying that he gave rather a partisan account of the matter. He implied that we were doing nothing for the local authorities. As a matter of fact, we are giving assistance in connection with emergency appliances to a very large extent.

For normal fire fighting purposes?

Certainly we are endeavouring to get the local authorities to

Division No. 267.]	AYES.	[4.52 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Burton, Col. H. W.	Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr, P. G.	Campbell, Sir E. T.	Dawson, Sir P.
Albery, Sir Irving	Cary, R. A.	De la Bère, R.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)	Doland, G. F.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)	Donner, P. W.
Apsley, Lord	Chorlton, A. E. L.	Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Christie, J. A.	Drewe, C.
Assheton, R.	Clydesdale, Marqueuss of	Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)	Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)	Colfox, Major W. P.	Duncan, J. A. L.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Colville, Rt. Hon. John	Dunglass, Lord
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Conant, Captain R. J. E.	Eckersley P. T.
Barelay-Harvey, Sir C. M.	Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)	Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Cooke, J. D. (Hammersith, S.)	Ellis, Sir G.
Beit, Sir A. L.	Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)	Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Birchall, Sir J. D.	Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.	Elmley, Viscount
Bossom, A. C.	Cox, H. B. Trevor	Emmott, C. E. G. C
Boulton, W. W.	Cranborne, Viscount	Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Craven-Ellis, W.	Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Crooke, Sir J. Smedley	Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Brass, Sir W.	Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.	Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Crossley, A. C.	Fox, Sir G. W. G
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)	Crowder, J. F. E.	Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Bull, B. B.	Culverwell, C. T.	Furness, S. N.

use these emergency appliances for their peace-time needs if the necessity arises. However, I must not be drawn into that argument. The point is one that can be raised upon some later Clause or on the Third Reading of the Bill. I hope, with that explanation, and with a repetition of the statement that this is really only a formal stage, that the Committee will now be prepared to come to a decision.

4.51 p.m.

A week ago I put a question to the Minister of Health asking him to state for each county in England and Wales the number of parishes and the number of those in which there is no piped water supply. The answer shows that in the following counties over 50 per cent. of the parishes have no piped water supply: Cornwall, 55 per cent.; Devon, 55 per cent.; Hereford, 71 per cent.; Leicester, 62 per cent.; Lincolnshire (Lindsey), 54 per cent.; Northampton, 76 per cent.; Oxford, 52 per cent.; Rutland, 63 per cent.; Salop, 51 per cent.; Southampton, 51 per cent.; and West Suffolk, 56 per cent. There are also some in Wales with over 5o per cent. In view of the large number of parishes which are in this position, it seems a little strange to be making this demand upon local authorities.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 126.

Fyfe, D. P. M.	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.	M'Connell, Sir J.	Salmon, Sir I.
Gluckstein, L. H.	McCorquodale, M. S.	Salt, E. W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.	Macdonald, Capt. T. (lsle of Wight)	Samuel, M. R. A.
Gower, Sir R. V.	Maclay, Hon. J. P.	Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)	Macnamara, Major J. R. J.	Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Grant-Ferris, R.	Macquisten, F. A.	Scott, Lord William
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Magnay, T.	Selley, H. R.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.	Maitland, A.	Shakespeare, G. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.	Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)	Marsden, Commander A.	Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Hambro, A. V.	Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Harvey, Sir G.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Smithers, Sir W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)	Mitcheson, Sir G. G.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Morgan, R. H.	Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Morris-Jones, Sir Henry	Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Hepworth, J.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)	Munro, P.	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Higgs, W. F.	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.	Nicholson, G. (Farnham)	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Holdsworth, H.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hopkinson, A.	Palmer, G. E. H.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.	Peake, O.	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.	Petherick, M.	Tate, Mavis C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Thomas, J. P. L.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Porritt, R. W.	Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)	Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton	Titchfield, Marquess of
Keeling, E. H.	Procter, Major H. A.	Touche, G. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)	Raikes, H. V. A. M.	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.	Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Ramsden, Sir E.	Turton, R. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.	Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)	Warrender Sir V.
Lewis, O.	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Lindsay, K. M	Remer, J. R.	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Lipson, D. L.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Little, Sir E. Graham	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.	Ropner, Colonel L.	Withers, Sir J. J.
Lloyd, G. W.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.	Rowlands, G.	Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Lyons, A. M.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Russell, Sir Alexander	TELLERS POR THE AYES.—
		Captain Hope and Mr. Grimston.

NOES.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)	Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Kirby, B. V.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Ede, J. C.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Lathan, G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)	Findlay, Sir E.	Lawson, J. J.
Ammon, C. G.	Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	Leach, W.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Foot, D. M.	Lee, F.
Banfield, J. W.	Gallacher, W.	Leslie, J. R.
Barnes, A. J.	Gardner, B. W.	Logan, D. G.
Barr, J.	Garro Jones, G. M.	Lunn, W.
Batey, J.	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Bellenger, F. J.	Green, W. H. (Deptford)	McEntee, V. La T.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	McGhee, H. G.
Benson, G.	Grenfell, D. R.	MacLaren, A.
Bevan, A.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Maclean, N.
Broad, F. A.	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	MacNeill Weir, L.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Maxton, J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)	Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)	Messer, F.
Buchanan, G.	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Montague, F.
Cape, T.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Moreing, A. C.
Cassells, T.	Hardie, Agnes	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Chater, D.	Harris, Sir P. A.	Naylor, T. E.
Cluse, W. S.	Hayday, A.	Noel-Baker, P. J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Paling, W.
Collindridge, F.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Parker, J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Parkinson, J. A
Daggar, G.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Pearson, A
Dalton, H.	Hopkin, D.	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Hunter, T.	Pritt, D. N.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	John, W.	Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Day, H.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Sanders, W. S.
Dobbie, W.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon T.	Sexton, T. M.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)	Watkins, F. C.
Short, A.	Stokes, R. R.	Watson, W. McL.
Silkin, L.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)	Westwood, J.
Silverman, S. S.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)	White, H. Graham
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)	Thorne, W.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Smith, E. (Stoke)	Thurtle, E.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)	Tinker, J. J.	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Smith, T. (Normanton)	Tomlinson, G.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Sorensen, R. W.	Viant, S. P.	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Stephen, C.	Walkden, A. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)	Walker, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

Clause 16—(Definition Of "Fire Brigade Duties" For Purposes Of Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, And This Act)

5.o p.m.

I beg to move, in page 1.4, line 14, to leave out "being," and to insert "or."

This Amendment deals with a principle which ought to be determined by the Committee. Under the Bill we are dealing not only with fire fighting services but with the problem of pensions as applied to the men in those services. For the purposes of the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, and this Bill the expression "fire brigade duties" includes any of the duties which are set out in Sub-section (1) of this Clause. The last paragraph says:

"other duties ancillary to or connected with fire brigade purposes, being duties carried out on the direction of the fire authority."

I am moving to substitute the word "or" for "being" in this paragraph. A fire brigade service, particularly so far as the smaller authorities are concerned, is a standby emergency service. In the majority of cases, although the men are employed as permanent firemen, there are times when there are no fire duties to perform, and no equipment to repair, and it is necessary, in the interests of economy and of the efficiency of the men, that they should have something practical and useful to do. In some instances local authorities which are also fire authorities direct that the permanent firemen shall be engaged upon other duties. The point of my Amendment is to bring the maximum number of men who are fully employed in the different directions set out in this Clause within the scope of the superannuation scheme provided under the 1925Act. Thesucceeding Amendments which are to be moved by the Home Secretary go a long way towards improving the conditions of those who are engaged full time on fire fighting services, and they try within certain limits to meet the case that was put in Com- mitee upstairs and which the Home Secretary promised to go into.

We on this side of the Committee are not yet satisfied that everything has been done that ought to be done to guarantee the best superannuation scheme for those engaged on fire fighting work. There are local authorities which have superannuation schemes that embrace them, but the pension is forty-sixtieths for each year of service with a retiring age of 65. Under the Fire Brigade Pensions Act it is thirty-sixtieths for each year of service with a retiring age of 55. That is a big improvement for the employes. It is possible that my Amendment may go a little too far and bring in certain individuals that it is not my intention to bring under the Bill, but I think I have, in consultations with the other side, proved that the Clause does not go as far as seems to be the intention of the Government itself. We have been in communication with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I find that there is a doubt that some cases which would not be regarded as legitimate cases would fall within the Clause, but that both sides would like to see the Clause drafted in such a way as to meet the purpose we all have, so that everybody who should he in the Clause is included. There is, therefore, no difference in principle between the Government and Members on this side. It is a question of getting the proper drafting in order to bring the maximum number of men within the superannuation provided by the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925.

5.7 p.m.

I agree with the hon. Member that there is no difference in principle between us on this question. Like him, we are anxious to bring into the scope of the Pension Acts cases of bona fide firemen which were not provided for in the Clause as it stood. We were under the impression that the Amendments that appear in my name brought within the net every possible fireman who could reasonably be included, whatever may have been the actual conditions of his service in a particular area. These Amendments go a long way, as the hon. Member himself said, to remove the doubts that were in the minds of certain hon. Members in Committee upstairs. There is no difference between us, however, in that we wish to get all these people into the net, and I am prepared to give the undertaking that I will look into the question again and see whether under the Amendments which I shall propose we leave anybody out. If we leave out any bona fide cases, I will find a form of words to be introduced in another place.

I have to make a further reservation. The English local authorities have so far approved our proposals, and I shall have to consult them again. I have not had time to consult them because the hon. Member's Amendment has not been on the Paper sufficiently long to allow for consultations of this kind. His Amendment goes too far because the phrase "or duties carried out on the direction of the fire authority," raise the possibility of confusion. A fire authority and a local authority will in many cases be one and the same, and the draftsman tells me that the hon. Member's words might cover a direction given by a council to any individual, other than a fireman. We have to make the point clear in drafting that it is the fire service with which we are dealing in particular, and that it is these firemen whom we have in mind. On that account the hon. Member's wording is not sufficiently precise. I will look into the question again and consult the English municipal authorities, and I see no reason why, if our Amendments do not bring in all the individuals whom we wish to bring in, we should not get a comprehensive Amendment moved in another place to remove any possible doubts.

With that explanation I will not press the Amendment, but before asking leave to withdraw it, may I explain that there is no intention on this side of the Committee merely to put down Amendments the night before in order to place the Government or anyone else in a difficulty? There is an honourable understanding that, certain pledges having been given, the Government would try to meet the claim that was made in Committee; and until the Government's Amendments were on the Order Paper there was no justification for cluttering up the Order Paper with Amendments that would be unnecessary if the Government's Amendments met the requirements and aspirations of Members on this side of the Committee. That is the reason my Amendment was put down late.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.12 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 14, line 20, after "Act," to insert:

"not being a person to whom the next following Sub-section applies."

This Amendment and the following Amendments appear very complicated, but they do no more than bring into the scope of the Superannuation Acts certain classes and individuals who, owing to inadvertence, have hitherto been left out. If the Committee want detailed explanations as to these individuals and classes, I am prepared to give them, but, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) has said, they all go to improve the Bill.

These Amendments try as far as possible to fulfil the promises that were made in Committee upstairs. They are a vast improvement on the original proposals in the Bill and will bring a far larger number of employés in the fire-fighting services within the scope of the pensions schemes. We accept them in the spirit in which they are moved, namely, the spirit of seeking to improve what in the beginning was a very bad Bill, and a Bill which was not clearly thought out.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 14, line 22, leave out from "Act," to "the," in line 23, and insert "during which he was treated as subject to."

In line 26, at the end, add:

"(3) Where any person, who at the passing of this Act holds a post by virtue of which he is or is being treated as subject to the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1922'), or to a local Act scheme, becomes by virtue of this Section a professional fireman, the fire authority shall give him written notice of the effect of this Section, and if within one month after receiving that notice he gives written notice to the fire authority that he desires that the provisions of the Act of 1922 or of the local Act scheme, as the case may be, should continue to apply to him the said provisions shall continue to apply to him accordingly in lieu of the provisions of the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925.

(4) If any such person as aforesaid does not give a written notice under the last foregoing Sub-section the provisions of the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, shall apply to him in lieu of the provisions of the Act of 1922 or of the local Act scheme, as the case may be, and—
(a) account shall be taken for the purposes of the Fire Brigades Pensions Act, 1925, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Health, of his previous service with any local authority;
(b) a transfer value ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Officers' Superannuation (Transfer Value) Rules, 1930, shall be paid out of the superannuation fund maintained under the Act of 1922, or under the local Act scheme, as the case may be, to the fire brigade pension fund or, if there is no such fund, to the general rate fund of the borough or district; and
(c) for the purposes of any return or application of his rateable deductions under Section eighteen of the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, there shall be included in the aggregate amount of his rateable deductions so much of the said transfer value as represents contributions or additional contributory payments paid or made by him under the Act of 1922 or the local Act scheme.

(5) At the end of paragraph 2 of Part 11 of the First Schedule to the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937 (which specifies persons who shall not become contributory employees or local Act contributors within the meaning of that Act), there shall he added the words 'not being a fireman who has given a written notice under Subsection (2) of Section twenty-four of the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, or under Subsection (3) of Section sixteen of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938.'

(6) Any person who at the passing of this Act is in the service of a local authority as respects whom the Act of 1922 is in operation, or of a local authority administering a local Act scheme, and is being treated as subject to the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, but is not a professional fireman, shall by virtue of this Sub-section—
(a) be deemed to hold a post by virtue of which he is subject to the Act of 1922, or the local Act scheme, as the case may be; and
(b) be entitled to reckon any period of service during which he was treated as subject to the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, as contributing service for the purposes of the Act of 1922, or the local Act scheme, as the case may be, and any deductions made from his pay during such a period shall be deemed to be contributions for all purposes of the Act of 1922 or the local Act scheme; and
the authority shall transfer from the fire brigade pension fund or, if there is no such fund, the general rate and of the borough or district to the superannuation fund maintained under the Act of 1922, or the local Act scheme, as the case may be, an amount equal to twice the aggregate amount of the said deductions.

(7) All regulations made by the Minister of Health under this Section shall be laid as soon as may be before Parliament, and if either House within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any regulation has been laid before it, resolves that the regulation be annulled, the regulation shall be of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime thereunder or to the making of a new regulation.

(8) In this Section the expression 'additional contributory payment' has the same meaning as in the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and the expression 'local Act scheme' means a superannuation scheme administered by a local authority under a local Act."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

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

Clause 24—(Provisions As To London)

5.15 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 16, line 8, to leave out "and (4)," and to insert "to (7)."

This is a drafting Amendment proposed at the instance of the London County Council to provide the London Fire Brigade with three Sub-sections to Clause 2 which (a), safeguard the powers of fire authorities in cases where fire hydrants are damaged in the course of use for other than fire brigade purposes; (b), makes it an offence to use a fire hydrant without proper authority; and (c), gives to fire authorities the right to use for fire fighting natural supplies of water which may be available for the purpose subject to paying reasonable compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

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

First Schedule—(Constitution And Proceedings Of Fire Service Commission)

I beg to move, in page 21, line 6, to leave out "two" and to insert "three."

This Amendment and the following one are the result of an undertaking which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave with reference to the membership of the Fire Service Commission. Originally the proposal was that there should be three members. Hon. Members for Scottish constituencies pointed out that it would be difficult for Scotland to secure representation, and we at once, being reasonable, saw the justice of the claim, and the number of members is to be increased.

5.19 p.m.

This is only a case of being partially reasonable. The claim made in Committee was to increase the number under this Amendment to four and under the next Amendment to six. The Amendment as moved is fulfilling the promise made in Committee to increase the number by one. Our claim in Committee was that an additional two were absolutely essential, because in bringing about the co-ordination necessary to make the fire-fighting services of real value the work ought to be done as speedily as possible. This is not a peace Measure so much as a war defence Measure and speed is essential. It would have been possible to have three sections of the Fire Service Commission working at the one time if we had accepted the Amendment moved in Committee to increase the number to six. They could have divided themselves into three parts and dealt with three areas and reported back to the Committee, and so have got on more speedily with the work. However, the new constitution of the Commission will be better than under the original proposal, and we shall not divide.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 6, leave out "four" and insert "five."—[ Sir S. Hoare.]

Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments.

As amended ( in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered.

New Clause-(Repeal Of Certain Enactments Requiring Owners And Occupiers To Defray Expenses Of Fire Brigades)

Section thirty-three of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 (which requires owners of property to defray expenses of fire brigades in attending fires outside the borough or district for which the fire brigade is maintained) as incorporated with or applied by any enactment or statutory order, whether with or without modifications, and Section thirty of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act, 1865, so far as it requires owners and occupiers of property to defray the expenses

of the fire brigade in attending fires outside London, shall cease to have effect.—[ Sir S. Hoare.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.20 p.m.

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

I understand that it is your wish, Mr. Speaker, that we should restrict this discussion to the new Clause and leave the wider issue connected with some of the other charges for fire services to Clause 5. That being so, I propose at this stage to deal only with the payments for fire services outside the particular district to which a fire brigade belongs. We shall come to the question of the services within their own areas upon Clause 5. The broad reason for proposing the abolition of these out charges is that there is no longer any justification for them. The Bill presupposes that there will be a fire authority in every part of the country, and that therefore the inhabitants of any area will be able to demand the services of their own brigade without having to make any arrangement for obtaining the services of another local brigade by reason of the fact that there is no brigade in their own area. That being the main basis of the Bill, it is clear that such a provision as is contained in the Town Police Clauses Act, which authorizes charges to be made for these out services, no longer has any validity. There will no longer be any out services of this kind. Therefore, I move this new Clause, at the same time reserving the opportunity to deal with the wider issues as to the services in particular areas when we come to Clause 5. I propose to move the omission of the existing Clause 5 and I understand the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), who has put down some Amendments to the Clause, will have sane observations to make.

On a point of Order. May I suggest that it will be very difficult to discuss this new Clause without reference to Clause 5? The new Clause repeals a portion of what is wholly repealed by Clause 5. Would it not be better to take the whole subject of the repeal of the existing law in one Debate and conclude it now?

I can quite understand the difficulties of the position, and if it is the wish of the House I suggest that we should take the whole discussion on this new Clause, afterwards dealing with Clause 5 without discussion.

If that is your Ruling, Mr. Speaker—and obviously I should accept any Ruling which you make on the question—I should desire to add some further observations to my opening statement, which dealt with only one part of the question and that probably the least contentious part.

I think it would be to the advantage of the House if we were to take together the new Clause and the repeal of Clause 5 and the Amendments which stand in my name. They really cover the same subject, and we on this side of the House shall offer no objection to the Home Secretary amplifying his remarks. In that way we should have a full discussion on the point at issue and later if necessary could have the requisite Divisions.

I think the Home Secretary will agree that if Clause 5 were left as it is the Clause he is now moving would be wholly unnecessary.

The difficulty seems to be that what the Home Secretary is doing now is splitting Clause 5 into two. He is leaving part of Clause 5 in order to be able to move to leave out Clause 5 later. If that course is agreed to, and we adopt this Clause, and he is then defeated on the proposal to omit Clause 5, we shall have two Clauses in the Bill which are the same.

I had an indication on my notes that the Home Secretary was going to make a statement on Clause 5, but if the right hon. Gentleman likes to do it now it will have my approval.

5.29 p.m.

I should welcome the opportunity of speaking on that Clause now. I feel that it is the most convenient way of dealing with the question, and I should have done it if I had not been given to understand that it had been decided to take the other course. The position under the Bill is that there will be fire authorities everywhere, and that the inhabitants of every area will be entitled to call for the services of thelocal fire brigade. That position raises at once the question of the charges that have hitherto been made outside the rates for fire services. Those charges have been of three kinds. First of all have been payments made in London and other cities in England by insurance offices, in accordance with Acts of Parliament. In the case of London the sum that has been paid by the insurance offices has been based upon the amount of property insured in the London fire services area. The Acts affecting those areas we do not propose to repeal. We are leaving things as they were before. Next, there are certain boroughs in England and Scotland which have local Acts under which they can make a charge for services within their areas. There are about eight of them, I think, of which four are in Scotland. The question arises whether in those cases we ought to repeal those Acts or not. We are basing our proposals on the recommendations of the Riverdale Committee, which proposed that these charges should be brought to an end, but in view of the fact that insurance offices would be freed from certain payments, suggested that insurance offices should make some contribution to the improvement of fire services in the country.

When the question came up in the Standing Committee I explained to hon. Members that we were negotiating with the insurance offices. When I say "we" I mean that negotiations were taking place between the local authorities and the insurance offices, with the Home Office acting as intermediary between the two. During the Debates in Standing Committee we had not reached a point when I could say substantially that an arrangement had been made under which it was possible to bring these charges to an end and under which the insurance offices would make a contribution such as I have just mentioned. Since the Debates in Standing Committee, further discussions have taken place between the local authorities and the insurance offices.

Can the House be told how these negotiations are carried on between the local authorities and the insurance offices? My information is that the local authorities have never yet been called into consultation with the insurance companies.

Were these payments by the insurance companies part of their contract to insure against fire, or purely gratuitous?

These charges were made as a result of those local Acts in those areas which made it possible for the local authority to make these charges. The charges were then covered by the insurance companies in the policies that the insured persons took out with the offices.

Do I understand that these payments were necessary and had to be made by the companies because they were included in the policies?

They had to be made by the insured persons, who arranged with the insurance companies to take over those payments.

They are gratuitous payments?

I do not know whether they are gratuitous or not, but they are payments made between the insured persons and the insurance companies. I will look into the other points made and give an answer in due course. The position is that we have now discussed the question again with the insurance offices and that we are sending to the local authorities proposals that we think ought to be settled between the parties. I prefer not to go into details to-day as to the exact amount involved in these proposals. They are proposals for negotiation between the local authorities and the insurance offices and I propose to say nothing that might prejudice those discussions. What I do say to the House is that the proposals ought to provide arrangements under which on the one hand we shall be able to end those contributions and bring the areas concerned into general conformity with the rest of the country and, on the other hand, to obtain a substantial sum, in the first place for compensation to local authorities who may be losing a source of revenue, and, in the second place, on the lines of the Riverdale Committee's Report and for the general fire prevention purposes described in the report of the Committee.

That being the case, my advice to the House would be to accept the new Clause which I have just introduced and which raises the question not of payments inside the district but of payments outside the district. That proposal should be accepted, because if it is not, it runs contrary to the whole basis of the Bill. Secondly, in regard to Clause 5 and the payments made within the areas, I suggest to the House that when we come to it we should omit the Clause, for the reason which I have given in my explanation to the House. I am sorry that the agreement is not sufficiently clinched to enable me to make a definite announcement to the House to-day, but we can deal with it in another place. In the meanwhile, we, the Home Office, acting as intermediary between the local authorities and the insurance companies, shall do our best to arrive at a satisfactory agreement. I prefer not to be drawn into the details of the actual proposals of the negotiation, as this is still going on, but we ought to be able to reach an agreement which will be satisfactory to all parties concerned.

Are these negotiations conducted only with the authorities that have the existing powers to charge, namely, four Scottish and four English authorities, and the other three authorities that are able to get a direct contribution from the insurance companies; or, on the other hand, are they to be carried through in the spirit of the pledge that was given on 31st May? That pledge was as follows:

"I imagine that in particular the representatives of the local authorities who are going to lose these insurance payments under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be very much alive to that position and will insist that, supposing the insurance offices are going to make a contribution, one of the first. charges"—

which presupposes that there will be other charges—

"upon that contribution should be compensation for those local authorities who are going to lose under these provisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 31st May, 1938; col. 70.]

The understanding in Committee was, when we argued the case for charges being made against the insurance companies for services rendered, that they should be called upon to make a contribution, not necessarily within the area—

Is the hon. Member making an interruption, or a speech upon the Question "That the Clause be read a Second time"?

I am making a rather long interruption to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining how negotiations are to be carried through in accordance with pledges which I have quoted from the Committee proceedings.

I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question in a single sentence. The negotiations to which I referred in the Committee and to-day are with those authorities who have local Acts under which they impose those charges. There has never been any question of the negotiations going beyond it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the authorities who have not special powers have been able to get payment from insurance companies in days gone by because of services rendered? Would they come under this new arrangement? In other words, are they to receive any compensatory allowance in respect of the fact that they have been able to receive payment although they had no actual power for payment?

The hon. Member will see that you could not deal with cases of that kind. He is speaking of ex gratia payments which would not come within the scope of the Bill. They must be a matter of private arrangement between the individual, the insurance office and the local authority. We are not dealing with ex gratia payments at all, but with legal payments under certain Acts of Parliament.

Will not ex gratia payments be made almost impossible?

I should not like to give an answer, because it seems to me a matter for the insurance companies whether a payment is ex gratia or not.

5.41 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be asking us to take a lot on trust. At best he has not held out hope for much result from these negotiations. I understand the position to be that if the Bill is passed into law in its present form eight local authorities will have power to charge and that scores of local authorities and fire authorities will not be able to charge for the attendance of their brigades. Up till now it has been possible for local authorities to promote private Bills, and those who have not such powers have been able to obtain them from Parliament. That door is now to be finally closed. It seems to us who have been in touch with local authorities that they have made a strong case that consideration should now be given to their claim that when their fire fighting services are used in relation to the property of a private individual it is right that they should be able to charge for the service and that the money should be recovered from the insurance company. Since the Derating Act was passed wealthy companies with warehouses have been paying only a fraction of the ordinary rates to the local authorities, and when fire-fighting appliances are used to put out a fire in the warehouses those companies will get off scot free, the ratepayers in the district paying for the fire services.

I am very doubtful, if we leave the position as it is and leave the Secretary of State to carry on the negotiations and embody the results in the Bill in another place, whether we shall get any satisfaction out of that procedure. It would be relinquishing a responsibility which we, as the House of Commons, ought to shoulder, and we ought to have a definite undertaking from the Secretary of State on the matter, that he will associate in the negotiations not only the eight local authorities to which reference has been made, but all the local authorities. Before the Bill is passed into law the obligation of the insurance companies to contribute to the expenses of the fire authorities should be made clear and definite.

5.45 p.m.

Although this subject has been examined by a Royal Commission and by a Departmental Committee, and the opinion has been very definitely expressed that fire fighting should be a public service and should not be paid for out of the individual contributions of those who have suffered from fire, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) advocates that authorities should have fresh power to make these charges. That is, indeed, a surprising reversion to old days and old theories. I do not know whether within the lifetime of the right hon. Gentleman any local authority has obtained this power, but I do not think that any local authority has obtained it since I myself was two years old. It is an archaic suggestion now that local authorities should levy out of the pockets of those who have suffered from fires.

Having said that, I congratulate the Home Secretary on the course he has taken in making a general statement at this stage, because I think it will very much shorten our discussion; but I regret the Amendments he is proposing. As I read the Bill as it came from the Committee, it seemed to me to adopt the opinion of the Royal Commission and the Riverdale Committee, and to accept the modern view that fire fighting is a social service. I cannot imagine, by the way, that tidy-minded Socialists on the Opposition benches would dissent from that attitude. Here is a public service performed on behalf of the community in general. That was the principle embodied in Clause 5, and it was something of a shock to see any suggestion that Clause 5 should be removed.

I do not in the least want to preserve the insurance companies from making a reasonable contribution, as they have done in the past, and they do not want to avoid a fair settlement; but hitherto the position as between different areas and as between different persons has been quite ridiculous. Sometimes there has been a claim against the owner, sometimes against the occupier; sometimes the owner or the occupier has been insured, and sometimes not. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners do not insure, and they are not interested in that side of the question, but the whole matter has been in a state of confusion and chaos as between different areas, and this orderly system of making it a simple public service is the obvious solution. However, on the distinct understanding that that principle will, so far as is possible, be preserved, and that negotiations will be carried on with the object of putting an end to this system of collecting from persons who happen to have suffered from fires, I am well content with the assurance that has been given.

5.50 p.m.

My surprise at the statement of the Home Secretary has only been surpassed by my amazement at the speech of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr.Denman). We are told that it is an archaic suggestion to call upon the insurance companies—because we are discussing my Amendment as well as the new Clause—(HON. MEMBERS: "The owners")—my Amendment would make the owner directly responsible for the payment, and there would be incorporated in the insurance policy the right on the part of the owner to claim on the insurance company.

That is not so now.

That is not so now. We are dealing with three Amendments which are on the Order Paper at the present time, and it has been said that it is archaic to suggest making a claim against the owner. The hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten that entirely new powers are being sought in this Bill. At the present time it is optional on the part of local authorities to provide firefighting services, but under the Bill, for almost the first time in connection with problems of local administration, the determination of a standard of efficiency is left to a central department, without any provision for State assistance to the local ratepayers in maintaining that standard of efficiency. In the case of at least 75 per cent. of these new fire authorities the service is a new one, because very few of our county councils in Scotland—and I expect that practically the same applies in England—have up to the present time made arrangements for firefighting services. This, therefore, is a new service which is being imposed upon them, and it is now being suggested that the whole charge for this new service shall be home by the local ratepayers, and none of it by the State, although the State is to determine the standard of efficiency in connection with the new service.

We have been told by the Home Secretary that fire authorities are now to be set up everywhere, and that, undoubtedly, is an argument for no fire authority having the right to charge out—with its own area. Immediately you set up fire authorities to cover the whole of Great Britain, it would be illogical to allow one authority to charge for services without its area. But what is going to be done under the proposals of the Home Secretary? Eight authorities are to be left with their existing powers to charge for fire services within their areas, but all other authorities are going to be denied for ever, so far as this Bill is concerned, the power to get the same rights which these eight authorities have at the present time. Undoubtedly, if a more efficient fire fighting service is provided, it is to the advantage of the fire insurance companies, and it is a fact, despite the statement of the Home Secretary, that negotiations have been carried on with authorities other than those which are directly affected so far as their existing powers are concerned.

I am open to correction, but is it not a fact that representatives of the County Councils Association of Scotland were at the conference which was held at the Home Office to deal with this particular problem? I have yet to learn that a single county authority in Scotland has the power to charge under any local Act. It may be that I do not fully understand the English position, and I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of deliberately trying to mislead the House, but I am saying that negotiations have been carried on with those authorities that have not these powers. I go further, and say that there is bitter resentment on the part of the Scottish local authorities at the way in which the negotiations have already been carried on. The Scottish authorities were only met yesterday in connection with these negotiations, and there has been no time whatever to put down any adjusted Amendments prior to these proposals being discussed on Report. I can assure the House that there is bitter resentment on the part of the local authorities in Scotland at the way in which they have been treated, both in connection with the negotiations that are already taking place and as regards the lack of negotiations that ought to have taken place with a view to trying to get the necessary adjustments and harmonious working in connection with the Bill when it becomes an Act.

New duties are to be imposed on the local authorities, and the whole of the cost is to be borne by the local ratepayers. It is a new suggestion that this is giving effect to the Riverdale proposals. Why forget part of those proposals, and only adopt one part of them? While they suggested wiping out the charges presently made by local authorities, they also proposed a contribution of £700,000 a year from the State to enable the local authorities to maintain the standard of efficiency which they suggested should be set up. It is not fair, therefore, to argue in favour of the Riverdale proposals only when it suits you, and forget to take the whole of them into account. Undoubtedly, the local authorities are very grievously upset by the proposals of this Bill, which do not provide them with any financial assistance, but which, under the Clause we are now discussing, would take away their right to charge. One of our local authorities, the City of Edinburgh, made application for the same powers as are possessed by the other four Scottish authorities which were mentioned in Committee, but the application was turned down.

Surely it is unfair to demand of local authorities that they should provide a new service entirely at the cost of the ratepayers, and of a limited number of ratepayers. In big industrial areas, where the big factories are de-rated to the extent of 75 per cent., the risk of fire is far greater, but the charge for dealing with those fires is to be borne entirely by the tenants in the case of Scotland. There are going to be stupid anomalies under the proposals we are now discussing. There are to be two sets of fire services, the one in connection with air-raid precautions and the other the normal fire fighting arrangement. In the case of the normal fire fighting arrangement, the whole of the cost is to be borne by the tenant, while in the case of those services connected with air-raid precautions 50 per cent. is to be borne by the landlord and 50 per cent. by the tenant. There are anomalies enough in Scottish rating, and more are being created by this Bill, instead of the matter being dealt with in a sensible way to secure efficiency in the fire fighting services. Where the risks are the greatest, the payment will be the least, and there will now be cases where the risks will be enormous and nothing will have to be paid.

I represent a constituency in which there are docks. If a foreign ship catches fire in Grangemouth Docks the charge for putting it out will be a liability on the local authority and the ratepayers, and there is no power under the Home Secretary's proposal to charge even the owners of that vessel for the fire services required. I suggest that it is unfair to place this new responsibility on local authorities, to provide no national assistance, and at the same time to refuse to allow them to make legitimate charges for services. The employment of arbitrary standards of efficiency by a Government Department are bound to make their problems still greater. The denial of the right to make any charges for fire services raises questions of the highest importance, in view of the fact that what is at stake is not merely the property of the ratepayer but the interest of the fire insurance company in that particular property.

The Amendment which ultimately will be called, in accordance with arrangements come to, will give power to the local authorities to charge in accordance with a scale approved of by the Secretary of State, and will also compel the fire insurance companies to recoup those persons who have taken out fire insurance policies when their property is affected by fire. I hope that, even on the Report stage, in view of the inequity of the Bill and of this Clause, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Clause, and accept the Amendment which stands in my name, which would enable the local authorities to make a charge in accordance with scales prescribed by himself. If we are to have an efficient service, it is wrong to put the whole cost on the shoulders of the ratepayers. The present proposal is unfair, and is resented by every local authority in Scotland: not only those composed of members of my party—and I am not prepared to take my Socialism from the hon. Member opposite; mine is not a hybrid brand, and I have never run away from it. I hope that, in the interests of efficient local administration, the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment in my name.

6.4 p.m.

The hon. Member who has just sat down was perfectly right when he said that at present the insurance companies have not to pay the amount which is charged by the local authorities, and the Home Secretary was not correct in what he said. That is why the hon. Member put down his Amendment, in order to try to bring it about that that should be included in the policy. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that the position is extremely unsatisfactory. The position appears to me to be this: the Government produce a Bill, based on the Riverdale Committee's Report, amongst other things, and included in it is a Clause—Clause 5—the effect of which is that certain local authorities which at present are allowed to charge the inhabitants in their areas for fire-engine services shall not in future do so. On the Second Reading, the Under-Secretary used these words:

"By this Clause all enactments entitling a fire authority to receive payments for services from owners or occupiers of property in which fires occur will cease to have effect. Charges for putting out chimney fires and for services rendered by fire brigades otherwise than by fire extinction, as, for example, the salvage work after a fire, or special services such as the rescue of persons or animals, are not affected by this new provision. In a few local Acts the local authority is empowered to make a charge for the attendance of their brigade at fires inside their own district.…

This system, as was pointed out by both the Royal Commission, which reported in 1933, and by the Riverdale Committee, is wrong in principle, because under it the owner or occupier of the premises pays twice over for the services of the brigade, once through the local rates, and again if a fire occurs. Moreover, if a ratepayer knows that he has himself to pay for the attendance of the brigade he may hesitate to call assistance at once when a fire occurs, thus endangering his own and adjoining property."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1938; col. 1511, Vol. 335.]

We are told by the Under-Secretary that it is very important to have this particular Clause in the Bill, that it is one of the cardinal points of the Bill itself. Now we find that the Home Secretary is negotiating—I do not know whether he is doing it himself—with certain insurance companies who are paying perfectly voluntary contributions to householders. I understand from the hon. Gentleman opposite that joining in these negotiations you have the local authorities concerned and, if I understand him aright, some which are not concerned. Now this important Clause is to be removed from the Bill by the Home Secretary himself, and is to be put in again in another place if certain negotiations which are going on are satisfactory. But if those negotiations are not satisfactory, what is to happen? Why should we in this House be dependent on some sort of arrangement which is being made behind the scenes? We are told that there is a sacrifice; the Government are being told by these negotiators, apparently, that they must sacrifice Clause 5, which they consider of paramount importance. Why should not the Government come to these local authorities and tell them what they are prepared to do? I am not going to enter into the question of the amount of compensation, but it seems to me ridiculous for the Government to have to wait on negotiations with certain insurance companies, to try to force the payment of a certain amount of money which was a gratuitous payment before. I hope that when the Under-Secretary comes to answer, he will explain how this has come about.

6.9 p.m.

The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) seems to have completely misconceived the position. He refers to payments made by insurance companies as being perfectly voluntary payments. They are payments made under local Acts—

The payments are made by the owners. The gratuitous payments are made by the insurance companies to the owners, but the payments, as far as the companies are concerned, are quite gratuitous. That is the reason for the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench.

I dealt only with authorities in Scotland. There are authorities in England in whose case the payments must be made.

That is a different thing.

I was dealing with cases where payments are made under local Acts. In those cases they are not gratuitous. They are made by owners, who have the right to recover those payments under contracts with the insurance companies. It is those payments that the insurance companies are to be relieved of if Clause 5 goes through. I submit that there is no earthly reason why the insurance companies should be relieved of those payments, which they are making at present under contracts and for which they are receiving additional premiums. So much for payments made under contracts. But I submit that there is no reason for the discrimination as against local authorities which are fortunate enough to have local Acts, those which are fortunate enough to have made arrangements, and those which have no local Acts but have the right to come to this House. If Clause 5 is lost in its present form, local authorities will be prevented for all time from making any charge. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) seems to regard it as an archaic principle that local authorities should make a charge for services rendered to their own ratepayers, but I submit that there is ample precedents for that.

I do not say that the principle is archaic. I only say that it is in its application to this particular subject. The Riverdale Committee has recommended against it.

If the hon. Member suggests that it becomes an archaic principle because some committee has recommended against it, I do not understand why the Socialist party should be accused of following an archaic principle because the Riverdale Committee has reported against that principle. We do not take our lead from the Riverdale Committee. This is a principle which every Member of this House accepts in proper cases. The real point is whether or not a local authority should make a charge for fire services. I fail to understand why, in principle, it is wrong for a local authority to make a charge for dealing with fire fighting and right for it to make a charge, as it is obliged to under the Local Government Act, for treating patients in its local hospital. I should have thought that of the two it is more proper that patients should be treated free in local hospitals or pupils educated free in secondary schools than that a fire should be put out free of charge. Certainly a charge for fire extinguishment is the last charge that I would abate, and I will agree that it is right that a charge should be made in proper cases, especially having regard to the fact that, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, many of the biggest fire risks are in the case of ratepayers or bodies of ratepayers who in fact pay a very much reduced rate—only 25 per cent. of the rate. Having regard to that, I submit that there is a very good case, not only for allowing the authorities which have local Acts to retain these powers but even for extending those powers to other local authorities.

Whatever may be the position as regards making a charge for a fire inside the area of the local authority, I utterly fail to understand the justification for the new Clause which prevents a local authority from making a charge in respect of a fire outside its area. All the arguments are directly to the effect that there may be some case for a local authority extinguishing a fire inside its area without making a charge upon its ratepayers, but what is the case for compelling a local authority to extinguish a fire outside its area and not make a charge? That is what the Home Secretary is seeking to provide in the new Clause. His case is that, if the Bill becomes an Act, it will no longer be necessary for any local authority to deal with a fire outside its area. I deny that entirely. It will still be necessary in certain cases for a local authority to come to the rescue of an adjoining local authority and to extinguish a fire outside its area.

There was the recent case of the Crystal Palace fire, with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar, where there were at least two authorities outside London whose duty it was to deal with that fire. They had efficient fire fighting services, but the Crystal Palace fire was an exceptional one and their resources were inadequate for dealing with it, and they had to call in the London County Council. The London County Council was in a position to make a charge for dealing with a fire outside its area. If the new Clause goes through, the London County Council if it happened to be in that position, might be called upon to deal with a fire outside its area, and it would not be able to make a charge. If the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that under this Bill every local authority will require to provide a service which should be sufficient for any possible contingency, however remote, he is going to put upon local authorities a very great burden indeed. The sensible thing is that it should be open to any local authority to call in the services of an adjoining local authority to deal with an exceptional case of fire fighting, and, in such a case, the local authority that was called in should have the right to make a charge.

The new Clause is ill-advised and will have the reverse effect of what is intended, because if the views of the Home Secretary are correct, it will compel local authorities to inaugurate a far larger service than they would really need. Alternatively, he is going to make adjoining local authorities very reluctant to come in and deal with a fire outside their area when they know they are not to be paid for dealing with a fire with which they are under no legal obligation to deal. I hope that the Home Secretary will give further consideration to the new Clause, and that, whatever he may do with Clause 5, he will reconsider this matter and enable local authorities to make a charge for dealing with fires outside their area.

6.20 p.m.

As far as I understand the position at the present moment, eight towns have powers to charge their ratepayers for the attendance of fire brigades at their premises, and under the Act of 1847 all local authorities who possess fire brigades have power to charge for attendance at fires outside their own area. That appears to be the position to-day. The position raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), when he suggested that, as local authorities have to pay for their patients in hospitals, therefore, the insurance companies should pay for fires which occur, does not seem to be quite sound. It has never been suggested that accident insurance companies or those that do accident business should pay for ambulances.

I would inform the hon. Gentleman that insurance companies pay hospitals for the cost of treatment of people who suffer as a result of accidents.

But they do not pay for ambulances, which do a tremendous amount towards saving the lives of people who are run down in the street. But that is a small point. This Bill deals chiefly with extra fire precautions and appliances required for air raids, and neither insurance companies nor Lloyds insure war risks in this country, and, therefore, they are not interested in any way in damage which may be done in this country by air raids or on account of war. As the Bill has really a good deal to do with equipping fire services so as to help in putting out any fires which might arise from air raids, I do not see that they are particularly interested in paying for fire services required for the purpose.

As to the argument that insurance companies should pay for the brigade in putting out fires, I would point out that the premiums are adjusted all over the country on outgoings and incomings, and if there were no fire brigades the insurance premiums would ve very much higher. Therefore, if insurance companies were made by law to pay in every case for the services of fire brigades throughout the country, the obvious result would be that the premiums would have to be increased. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite suggested that the Riverdale Report says that the Government should make a grant to the local authorities. I do not propose to argue that one way or the other, but I do not think that the insurance companies should be asked to pay these fire brigade charges. This view of insurers has been supported since 1878, because Parliament has refused since then to give local authorities the power to charge for fire brigade services.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the insurance premiums are higher in Glasgow, where they have the power to charge the insured person, and payment is made by the insurance company, than they are in any other towns where they have not the local powers to enforce a charge against the owners?

I should say that there is no difference as regards private houses, but I cannot say whether the assessor, who goes over the buildings and delivers a report to the underwriter concerned, takes that fact into consideration when he rates the whole buildings or works. I should certainly rate a building a little higher if I thought an extra charge could be made on the insurance company. I thought that the Government were going to give effect to the principle, which insurers have long contended, namely, that fire brigade services should be a public service either paid for by the local authorities entirely, or by the local authorities with a grant from the Treasury. The speech of the Home Secretary on the Second Reading seemed to indicate that he rather agreed with this scheme. In fact, he gave us to understand that one of the main objectives of the Bill was to give effect to this section of the Riverdale Report and the Royal Commission. But the Government seemed to have given an undertaking that they would allow these eight towns, who possess special powers to charge their own ratepayers, to continue to do so, unless a satisfactory arrangement was come to with insurers which would make it unnecessary. The Government seem to express their readiness to depart from the principle that fire services should be given throughout the country without charge unless insurers did what neither the Riverdale Committee nor any other committee has ever suggested, namely, give satisfactory compensation to those eight local authorities concerned. I certainly recognise that the Government are in a certain difficulty, being obliged to give effect to the principle of free fire brigade services throughout the country, and also, in certain cases, to depart from it.

I thoroughly agree with what one speaker has said, that we ought to decide the question here in this House and not leave it until conversations come to a satisfactory or unsatisfactory conclusion between insurance companies, Lloyds, the local authorities and the Government. I understand that Lloyds and the insurance companies have offered to make a contribution such as will enable the Government to give these eight local authorities full financial satisfaction and also to make a valuable payment to the research school suggested in a later paragraph. If I am rightly informed that that is the case, I cannot see why Clause 5 should be withdrawn. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with these few points which I have raised. I feel now that these committees have reported, and, following the speeches of the Home Secretary and others, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that the principle is that fire brigade services should be provided free either through local authorities or through grants from the Government, and that insurance companies should not in future be asked to pay towards fire brigade services, except in so far as they have already agreed with the companies and the local authorities.

6.29 p.m.

The source from which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder) obtained his information must have been very much more optimistic than the information which I have obtained with regard to the conferences of local authorities on the question of insurance. I understand from representatives of local authorities who attended that the insurance companies took up a very high-handed attitude on this question and practically refused to discuss the question with the local authorities, and that the position remains the same to-day. Therefore, it is well, in asking to leave this question for further discussion with the insurance companies, to remember the attitude they have already adopted, which, I understand, has created considerable dissatisfaction not only among Labour Members but among Members on all sides of the House, and on the Ministerial Bench itself.

I cannot say, after Mr. Dolland's meeting with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War last week, that I represent the Glasgow local authority. I have been in communication with the councillors who are on the committee of the Glasgow Council with regard to this particular matter, and they regard very seriously this taking away of rights that local authorities have obtained by coming to this House and obtaining a Provisional Order. Now we are asked to consent to those Provisional Orders being set aside until discussions have taken place with the insurance companies, who have proved themselves to be highly unsatisfactory in the negotiations.

This ought to be treated as a non-party Measure. Politics ought not to enter into it. We are trying to build up an efficient fire brigade service that will be able to cope not merely with the difficulties of fires at the present time but with the greater difficulties that might arise in the future should any untoward conflagration take place in regard to foreign Powers. This Bill is designed to assist us in our air-raid precautions schemes. Although it does not come directly in the category of air-raids precautions and does not rank as an air-raids precautions scheme, it must be correlated to the air-raid precautions. Therefore, I say frankly to the Government that if they cannot gain the co-operation of the local authorities and if they antagonise the local authorities towards this scheme by taking away certain powers which they already possess, they are creating a condition of affairs which will mean that the fire brigade service will not be efficient in the future.

In Glasgow we have a Provisional Order which allows the Glasgow authorities to charge a maximum price of £15 for a turnout within the area. They do not very often charge the maximum amount, but they are allowed to charge £15 towards the cost of the turnout within the area, that is, 50 per cent., and they are allowed to charge 100 per cent. outside the area. In Glasgow, Dundee and other Scottish local authorities areas they have these Provisional Orders which give them a certain amount of freedom and allow them to make a charge for their fire brigade service, and without exception those local authorities have efficient fire brigades. I can speak personally in regard to Glasgow, which has very efficient fire services. Glasgow receives from its Provisional Order an annual sum of, roughly, £7,000 a year. Fire brigade services, generally speaking, more particularly in the rural areas, are bad. They have part-time workers, voluntary firemen, old-fashioned fire engines, if they have any fire engines at all, they have no proper hydrants and no adequate appliances. Therefore, the Home Secretary came forward with a Bill to bring the country up to an efficient standard.

By the Bill we are asked to agree that in the name of efficiency those local authorities which have done their duty in the past, which have built up efficient fire brigades and have had sufficient interest in their local affairs to come to this House and obtain protection for their fire brigades, are to have those rights scrapped, because of the inefficiency of certain other fire brigades in rural and other areas. Such a position cannot be accepted by the efficient local authorities, and it is essential that the Government should have the co-operation of those local authorities in regard to the Bill. They may have a majority of 500 Members here for 50 years, but if the local authorities, whatever their political complexion, are opposed to the Bill, it will not be successful and we shall not have fire brigade efficiency.

I would ask those people who suggest that local authorities should be divested of these powers, to visualise the position that would have arisen if the fire brigades had been left in private hands. In that case what would be the demand for charges to-day? I believe that if the fire brigades had been left in private hands instead of being controlled by the local authorities, in view of the nearness or the danger of war, in view of the European situation, there would be a demand by those private owners for an increased subsidy or grant. I have been amazed to hear men who are well known in the insurance world standing up in the House and claiming that there should be a rebate and that the Provisional Orders granted to the local authorities should be assisted in the name of efficiency, and that they should retain their provisional orders.

Encouragement should be given to more local authorities to act on the lines of those local authorities who already have efficient, well-manned and capable fire brigades. In Glasgow, the city council, looking to the future, are involved in a further expenditure of £90,000 in the setting up of a new fire brigade, with appliances, engines, manning, etc. We differ from many areas which are going to benefit under this particular scheme. I should like to tell the Home Secretary that I went to Rothesay for my holidays and there I met the captain of the fire brigade. Rothesay is one of the areas that will benefit under the scheme. It is an area that has not had an efficient fire brigade in the past. They have had a captain of the fire brigade who was also assistant master of works and had to look after the drainage and sewerage of the district. He had to look after the municipal tennis courts and putting greens. He was also sergeant of the Rothesay municipal band, in addition to being the captain of the fire brigade. That is an inefficient fire organisation.

In our efficient areas, under our Provisional Orders we have had the best fire masters, with the most efficient fire brigades, capable of dealing with the biggest of fires, and we have been enabled to make what must be looked upon as a very small charge to assist in this valuable work. Nevertheless, those authorities that have set such an example to the rest of the country are to be singled out and their Provisional Orders are to be scrapped. The Glasgow local authority, which has built up a very efficient fire service, is to have its Provisional Orders no longer in existence. I have here a copy of a Provisional Order, the Glasgow Corporation and Police Act of 1895, which cannot be improved upon, having regard to the circumstances that obtained in the past. That Provisional Order obtained the sanction of Parliament, the sanction and blessing of a past Home Secretary, and this Provisional Order and other Provisional Orders are to be scrapped because certain insurance companies want special facilities.

I have been disgusted to listen to the claims made by people who are better off than the average citizen. In any emergency that may arise in regard to war, or air raids causing fires, working-class men and women will be expected to give their services and to make their sacrifices as citizens, without counting the cost, but to my disgust I have heard representatives rising in their places and asking whether this particular section of the community or that section is to be guaranteed this and that, and whether they are to be guaranteed against loss. The local authorities, as the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary have stated, have put their elbows into the task of setting up efficient fire brigade services in their areas, and we ought to assist them and not to place obstacles in their way. I am sure that Members of all parties in this House and Tory, Labour and Liberal councillors on the local authorities, are opposed not only to the taking away of the Provisional Orders but the taking away of the right to obtain Provisional Orders in the future. If the Government insist on their proposal, I venture into the realms of prophecy and say that their Fire Brigades Bill will be a complete fiasco.

6.42 p.m.

I cannot hope to rise to the eloquence of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, but I should like to bring the discussion back to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), and that is the way in which the House is being treated in respect to the new Clause moved by the Home Secretary. The Government attach considerable importance to Clause 5, and now we are informed that certain negotiations are taking place, and, as a consequence, Amendments may be made, and a different Clause may be moved in another place. In that event it will come back to us too late for discussion here. We are not being treated fairly in this matter.

There is a growing tendency on the part of the Government to rely on their majority and on the docile support of their followers to carry Measures through without adequate support from the House generally. This Bill is not being introduced for the first time. It had a Second Reading some time ago, and I understand there was a protracted discussion in Standing Committee. We are now discussing the Report stage, and we are informed that if certain negotiations take place and are concluded in a satisfactory manner, certain alterations may be made in another place. I understand—I am not certain, and speak subject to correction, because the proposal does not appear on the Order Paper—that there is a possibility that the Third Reading may be taken to-night. Hon. Members will recollect that a similar thing took place on the Road Haulage Wages Bill recently. That Bill was on the Order Paper for the Committee stage. We considered it in Committee, the Minister in charge gave undertakings that Amendments would be moved to meet various objections that had been raised, and he said that they would be embodied in the Bill in another place.

The Bill came before us on a Friday, when hon. Members wanted to get away from the turmoil of Westminster to their week-end avocations, and we were told that the Report stage would be taken at once. The Report stage was a mere formality, and then we had the Third Reading of a Bill involving the interests of a great many people, employers and employed, in a great industry. The same thing is being done on this Bill. We are now on the Report stage and the Home Secretary has moved a new Clause, and has informed us that as a result of certain negotiations which are taking place certain Amendments may have to be made in another place. I do not think we are being treated fairly by the Government, and as far as I am concerned, whether it is by voting against the new Clause or in any other way, I intend to enter my protest against being dragooned by the Home Secretary or any other Member of the Government into accepting a position which takes away any of the rights of hon. Members.

6.46 p.m.

In Committee we had a speech from the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder) on this subject, but it was a different speech from that which he has made on the present occasion. In Committee he was polite and amiable, and gave us an assurance that as far as the insurance companies were concerned there would be no attempt on their part to get out of any of the obligations which they have recognised in the past. He led us to believe that the insurance companies were prepared to enter into negotiations with the Government and to come to an amicable settlement on the question of the contributions from insurance companies to local authorities. He gave us a definite assurance on that matter. When the hon. Member for Falkirk and Stirling (Mr. Westwood) was addressing the House, there seemed to be a doubt as to what exactly has happened in regard to these negotiations. I do not think there was any doubt in the minds of hon. Members on the Committee that any contributions to be made by the insurance companies would be shared by local authorities whether they had definite arrangements through an Act of Parliament or simply an understanding with the insurance companies. The hon. Member for Falkirk and Stirling told us that these negotiations were going on yesterday. I do not understand this matter at all. I cannot understand why these negotiations should still be going on. There seems to be no finality. It is within the knowledge of the Government that information has been given to hon. Members as to the result of some of these negotiations. I hold in my hand a circular issued by the Association of County Councils in Scotland, dated 10th June, and there is one paragraph which reads:

"At a conference held at the Home Office on the 8th instant, at which representatives of this Association were present, it was announced that after considering the matter the insurance companies, embracing Lloyds Underwriters as well as tariff and non-tariff companies, desired to establish the position that they were not required under the Bill, and should not be required, to maintain the contributions previously made by them to local authorities, and in any event that they would not be prepared to contribute by way of lump sum any amount which might be mentioned in perpetuity of present receipts to the local authorities before mentioned. They did not, therefore, consider it necessary to continue the negotiations, and regard the negotiations at an end."

My hon. Friend has informed the House that negotiations with these same companies were taking place yesterday. The question has been asked whether the negotiations had reference only to those local authorities which have an Act of Parliament entitling them to get a contribution from insurance companies, or whether it applied to local authorities generally. The hon. Member for Finchley said that in the negotiations which were going on now there was an understanding, or an agreement, between the insurance companies and, I suppose, the Government. The hon. Member told us that the contribution that is to come from insurance companies is to be devoted to work in connection with the central training organisation. The same question was discussed in Committee, and I objected to this contribution being devoted to the central training organisation which is to be set up. Provision is made in the Financial Resolution for that service to be undertaken and paid for by the Government, and here the hon. Member for Finchley, speaking on behalf of the insurance companies, as he did upstairs in Committee, tells us that this contribution is to be devoted to some purpose for which the Government have already the sanction of this House to make a financial payment. Local authorities are evidently to get nothing whatever from the insurance companies, and the Government are to have a substantial contribution from the companies to help them to set up this central training organisation. When they understand this, local authorities will be more bitter than they have been.

A great many of the difficulties in which the Home Secretary finds himself at the moment are due to the fact that he has not consulted local authorities on the matter as he should have done. Up to the moment local authorities have been able to save their ratepayers to some extent by getting this contribution from insurance companies. Now, under the new Clause which the Home Secretary is asking us to accept, that contribution is to be cut off and an additional burden thrown on the shoulders of local authorities. In Committee the Home Secretary told us that, instead of this contribution from insurance companies being devoted to a central training establishment, it was to be devoted to regional training centres. As far as I can discover, there is no provision in the Bill for the establishment of regional training centres. It shows to what extent the Home Secretary is being driven in this matter. He told us, first of all, that local authorities ought to undertake this service, and that it should be a service provided free to the ratepayers, but now it will not be possible for local authorities to get a contribution even if it gives these services outside its own area, because of this arrangement which allows insurance companies to get off with this money. Clause 5 is one which has given the greatest concern to hon. Members for the simple reason that it will throw on the shoulders of local authorities an additional burden which they should not be called upon to bear.

In Committee the hon. Member for Finchley said that insurance companies were not only willing but anxious to enter into negotiations with the Government, and I must confess that I was under the impression that all local authorities who were getting any relief at all by the contributions from insurance companies would benefit under the scheme. Now we are told that those who are protected by Acts of Parliament are not to have this protection. I hope the House will divide against the new Clause, and will insist upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk and Stirling being inserted so that local authorities will have some protection against insurance companies. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) was amazed that we should ask that a contribution should be made by insurance companies; he thought that local authorities should bear the whole cost of putting this into force. What do people insure for? Is it just to give premiums to insurance companies; and that they should have no responsibility? It is anew doctrine, and I hope that local authorities will insist upon getting a share of these contributions which ought to come from insurance companies in order to relieve them of some of their burdens.

6.58 p.m.

I am sure that many local authorities will be rather perturbed at what the Home Secretary has said this afternoon. It seems to me that the position is that we are to accept the statement that the matter will be put right in another place, that we are to trust the Government. If these negotiations had taken place with all local authorities in Scotland who are interested I do not think there would have been much trouble in coming to an arrangement. There will be a difficulty in putting the Bill into operation in rural areas where there is an isolated population. I represent a city and a very large proportion of a rural area. The county council in this instance will for the rural area be the fire authority, but it would be madness for the county council to set up here and there throughout the isolated areas fire appliances to deal with a fire which may occur.

In the city of Perth there is a well equipped and most efficient fire brigade, and a voluntary arrangement has been entered into between the county council and the city whereby the city fire brigade, on a stated scale of charges, is available for all fires in those rural areas. There is a scale of charges against owners whose properties have been on fire. There has been not the slightest trouble through that arrangement. It has proved one of the most efficient and economical that could be imagined. The insurance companies have freely and willingly agreed to pay to the owners of the property the charges of the fire brigade for a turn-out. It is only right and proper that the ratepayers shaould pay the costs of the standing fire brigade but, when special services are required surely the local authorities should be entitled, under agreement whereby the owners pay the cost of the turn-out, to reclaim it from the insurance companies.

I do not believe that the insurance companies will wilfully try to escape their responsibilities in the matter. If the Bill goes through without an arrangement common to all local authorities, the fire brigades will say, "We are not responsible for this," and the ultimate result will be that the local authorities will have a very heavy burden put upon them in addition to the present burden of maintaining fire brigades. The fire brigades are saving the insurance companies without a doubt and, if the companies would come to an arrangement, or if power were given to local authorities to make arrangements themselves with the fire brigade, a great deal of the trouble that has arisen would be avoided, but as it is proposed now, it will be adding a burden to the local authorities and relieving the insurance companies of their responsibility. They have never asked to be relieved of that responsibility but, if they are not bound in some way to contribute to the local authorities, it is certain that they will not do it and the local authorities will have to carry this burden. It will be a very serious matter for the rural areas in Scotland if this goes through as at present. Some reservation should be made whereby the House would know that the insurance companies are not only to compensate boroughs which have Acts of Parliament but will also compensate boroughs and counties which have had an honourable agreement with them. If there is not to be a common level, the Bill will create great dissatisfaction throughout the country.

7.3 p.m.

I intervene lest the House should get the impression that the Bill applies only to Scotland and that only Scottish Members are concerned concerned about the bawbees. Many English local authorities are concerned about the Clause. I believe the illustration given by the hon. Member who spoke last could be multiplied a hundred-fold in every English town where an efficient brigade has been established. I wish to come to the question of authorities which have not had Acts of Parliament but have, nevertheless, had an understanding and which, as I see it, under the negotiations now taking place are being left out almost entirely. It seems to me, if the negotiations continue on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, those authorities which have provided efficient brigades, and which as a consequence of their efficiency have established, I will not call it the right—the privilege if you like—of coming to an arrangement with insurance companies, will be deprived under the Bill of what they have received in the past. No one will suggest that so-called ex gratia payments from insurance companies will be forthcoming in the future if it is laid down in the Act that they are no longer necessary. If you are excluding the right of the authority which has undertakings under Act of Parliament to receive payment, you are excluding for all time those ex gratia payments which have been made in the past. I have wondered whether the Bill was one for the benefit of insurance companies or one for the purpose of establishing fire brigades.

It has been suggested on several occasions by hon. Members opposite that insurance companies ought not to be called upon to pay contributions. It has been suggested that a fire brigade service should be a public service and should be free to all, and we have been chastised because we have gone back on our Socialist principles to the extent of arguing that services should be paid for. If an insurance service were a public service there might be something in the argument. Are you not relieving the insurance company of a great liability by creating an efficient brigade? The suggestion has been made that they should no longer be able to charge outside the area of their own authority, and there may be some justification for that if you are having uniformity of service throughout the country, as is suggested by the Bill. But, if you are depriving the local authorities of what they are now receiving from the insurance companies, and at the same time making the same guarantee, you are doing it at the expense of the ratepayers. The insurance companies will, as the result of Parliamentary action, be in a favoured position compared with what they were before. My right hon. Friend suggests that those authorities which have an Act of Parliament entitling them to claim are entitled to compensation, and I understand that conversations are going on with regard to the amount of compensation that will be available and the way in which it should be allocated. Allocated amongst whom? All the authorities which have had in the past an efficient brigade, according to the standards now being laid down, are entitled to a share in these compensatory payments.

As far as I understand it, agreements have been come to whereby insurance companies would pay compensation only to the eight authorities which are allowed to charge under Act of Parliament.

As I understand it, the authority has come to Parliament for power to charge people because it has been unable to come to a voluntary agreement with the insurance companies. Where you have local authorities exercising all the powers that Parliament has given to other authorities, and receiving sums equal to those that are being paid to those authorities, surely they are entitled to consideration when the question is being discussed and a settlement is being arrived at. Are they to be left in a less favoured position because by agreement with insurance companies they have been able to achieve that which others have achieved by Act of Parliament?

As far as I know, the companies have no agreements with local authorities. All they do is to pay the insurance charges if they think they are fair and reasonable.

No statutory agreement. I agree. I am not concerned whether it is a statutory agreement under which an insurance company is granting money to an authority or not. You can call it what you like. You can make it ex gratia, or it may be compulsory. If the money is forthcoming, that is the thing about which the local authority is concerned. If it is not forthcoming, as it will not be in these circumstances, that is the thing about which my local authority is concerned, and it is asking why an authority which happens to have through an Act of Parliament the power to insist upon payment should be compensated, but an authority which has received the same payment without an Act of Parliament should not be compensated. It is the smaller authorities, which have made themselves efficient at a higher price because of their smaller rateable value, which will be hardest hit. I plead that, if these negotiations are to continue, all local authorities with efficient brigades—they are known: the Home Secretary can put his fingers upon them—should be brought in and some settlement arrived at that is fair and above board as far as they are concerned.

The companies, which are receiving great financial advantage out of this improvement in the fire service, should not be free from liability. We are relieving them of a great responsibility that they have carried in the past. If the firefighting services are efficient, the contingency against which the insurance company puts up the money is not likely to arise so readily. If an efficient service is there on the spot, the liability that the company is called upon to meet is of necessity much smaller. If you get two services where you have only had one, the danger of a mill or workshop being entirely burnt out is only half what it was previously. I ask that those who have been covering that contingency should pay a contribution towards it being covered in the new arrangements that are being made, and particularly local authorities ought not to be called upon to pay through the nose all the time, as they will under these arrangements.

7.14 p.m.

May I deal first with the question of procedure? It was suggested by more than one speaker that the House is being asked to pass my new Clause, and subsequently to omit Clause 5, on the undertaking that negotiations were proceeding, and an arrangement might be reached which could be imple- mented before the Bill is finally disposed of. I had to make this choice. If I had left Clause 5 in the Bill, I think hon. Members opposite would have said that I was prejudicing the position against them. Therefore, I decided to leave Clause 5 out of the Bill, and I thought that, on the whole, that was the fairest course to adopt. I wish very much that I had been in a position to-day to announce that an agreement had been reached. I assure hon. Members who have asked me this afternoon why an agreement has not yet been reached that it has not been for want of trying. Ever since the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill, conversations have been proceeding either with the local authorities or with the insurance offices.

At first, there was a very big gap between them. I can tell the House to-day that the gap is very much narrower, and I would not have asked the House to adopt the procedure that I have urged this afternoon did I not think that an agreement would be reached which would be fair to both parties. By that I mean an agreement that would abrogate these charges and would, first and foremost, compensate the authorities which now have a statutory power to impose these charges. I meant, secondly, much more than was suggested by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), that there would be a sum available, not for the Central Training College, which is now going to be financed out of Exchequer grants, but for the improvement of fire services generally. The hon. Member for Dunfermline will remember that in the Standing Committee I gave one or two illustrations of the ways in which the other part of the sum could be used. As I have said, we pressed on with the negotiations. I should have been glad if I could have delayed the Report stage of this Bill until they had been completed, but unfortunately, I am working under pressure, for hon. Members must remember that the primary object of this Bill is to deal with emergency measures, in particular with air-raid precautions, and I regarded it as my duty to push on with the Bill and get it through as quickly as I could. That is the sole and only reason I am asking the House to-day to omit Clause 5, without knowing precisely the terms of the agreement which I hope will be reached.

I come now to another question of procedure that was raised by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), who asked me about the negotiations. Several other hon. Members also asked what exactly took place at the negotiations. I will tell the House what has happened. I gave an undertaking in the Standing Committee that I would bring the parties together and attempt to help them to reach an agreement. Accordingly, there was a meeting with the representatives of the local authorities on 8th June. It is true that the representatives of the local authorities who attended on 8th June came not only from the eight areas where local Acts are in force, but from the local authorities' organisations generally. It is, however, a fact that the subject of the conference was not the subject of the general contribution by insurance offices to fire authorities generally, but the specific question of the contribution in the areas where there is at present a statutory enactment. I am informed that at that conference the question of the three authorities to which I alluded at the beginning of my first speech, London, Liverpool and Salford, was treated on a somewhat different basis. It was taken out of the discussion, because it seemed that there was no possibility of an agreement on that side. Accordingly, the position in regard to those three cities is left exactly as it was. The discussion subsequently took place on what should happen in these eight areas where there are local Acts. I regret to say that on 8th June there was still a very wide gap between the local authorities and the insurance offices, but I am also glad to be able to say that since then other discussions have been proceeding, and I believe that the gap is now a narrow one and that we shall reach an agreement, on the one hand abrogating these charges, and, on the other hand, compensating the local authorities in an effective manner for the loss to their revenues that they would otherwise suffer.

There was a suggestion made at that conference by at least one representative who did not represent those authorities having local Acts. I have a note here from which I will quote, if necessary, even though it may be secret information.

I am told that one of the representatives present said that the general question of the contribution to all local authorities would be raised in the House and that someone—I suppose the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood)—was going to put down an Amendment on the subject. Apart from the exception of that one gentleman who was present at the conference, I can say that the subject of the discussion was the contribution in these eight areas. Having disposed of these questions of procedure, I come now to the merits of the case. Several hon. Members have claimed that the insurance offices should bear the expenses of fire precautions, or at any rate a proportion of those expenses. That was not the opinion of the two authoritative Commissions which inquired into fire brigade administration. The Royal Commission, in 1923, and the Riverdale Committee, in more recent years, took the view that this was an obligation upon the local authorities and that the ratepayers had a right to expect fire protection without making any contribution apart from their liability for rates.

Outside the areas.

Inside those areas. As far as out-district payments are concerned, I gathered from the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk that there is no disagreement between us and that those payments, in the nature of things, are bound to come to an end.

Always provided that the House accepts the Amendment standing in my name, which would entitle every authority to charge for services rendered.

It was with the general proposition, rather than with the hon. Member's special point, that I was dealing. As far as the general position is concerned, I cannot see what general justification there is for calling upon the fire offices to pay fire precaution expenses any more than there is for burglary offices to make a contribution to the police to avoid burglary risks or life insurance offices to make a contribution to the sanitary authorities on the ground that better sanitation leads to a greater length of life. As far as the general question is concerned, I take a diametrically opposite view to the view that was expressed by some hon. Members this afternoon; I consider that the continuance of these contributions is an anomaly—that was the view of the Riverdale Committee—and that it is an anomaly which, under this Bill, ought to be brought to an end. There is the fact that, in spite of this being an anomaly, there are these vested interests in the eight areas in which there are local Acts. I agree that as long as there are vested interests—and I would say, in passing, that that was an interesting argument to hear from hon. Members opposite—they should be taken into account. I can assure hon. Members that we are taking them into account, and we intend in any agreement that we reach to obtain satisfactory compensation for these areas.

I have dealt with the main brunt of the argument which has been made this afternoon, but there are one or two minor points that were raised in the course of the Debate. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) quoted the De-rating Act as a reason why the insurance offices, or those people who are insuring, should continue to make a contribution. I was astonished to hear him make a claim of that kind. As he will remember, the Derating Act paid full compensation to the local authorities for the loss of their rates upon industrial premises and in addition to that, made a lump sum contribution—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—to the local authorities. Compensation was paid to the local authorities for their losses. It is altogether unjust, on top of that, to insist upon this further compensation being paid in connection with these charges for fire protection.

There was another important question that was raised by the right hon. Baronet and by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing). Both of them claimed that if the House followed the advice I gave this afternoon, it would lose control of the ultimate stages of these negotiations. That is not so. If the negotiations succeed, it will be necessary in another place to reinsert, at any rate, part of Clause 5. That will mean that Clause 5 will come back to the House for discussion. If on the other hand, an agreement is not reached, the power to charge will still remain with the insurance companies in these eight areas. Therefore, I think the House will see that in adopting the course which I am recommending this afternoon, it will not part with ultimate control, but will still retain it. I hope I have dealt with the criticisms that have been made against the Government's proposal, and I shall be very glad if we can now proceed to a Division upon it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to imply that hon.

Division No. 268.]	AYES.	[7.31 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Li-Col. G. J.	Green, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Gridley, Sir A. B.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Grimston, R. V.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)	Palmer, G. E. H.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll. N.W.)	Peake, O.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Hambro, A. V.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)	Harbord, A.	Peters, Dr. S. J.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.	Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)	Petherick, M.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.	Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Porritt, R. W.
Beechman, N. A.	Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Procter, Major H. A.
Beit, Sir A. L.	Hepworth, J.	Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Bennett, Sir E. N.	Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)	Ramsbotham, H.
Bernays, R. H.	Higgs, W. F.	Ramsden, Sir E.
Birchall, Sir J. D.	Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Bossom, A. C.	Holdsworth, H.	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Boulton, W. W.	Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Rayner, Major R. H.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Hopkinson, A.	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Boyce, H. Leslie	Horsbrugh, Florence	Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)	Hulbert, N. J.	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Bull, B. B.	Hume, Sir G. H.	Remer, J. R.
Burton, Col. H. W.	Hunloke, H. P.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Butler, R. A.	Hunter, T.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Carver, Major W. H.	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.	Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)	Joel, D. J. B.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)	Rowlands, G.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Jones, L. (Swansea W.)	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)	Keeling, E. H.	Russell, Sir Alexander
Channon, H.	Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)	Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Christie, J. A.	Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)	Kimball, L.	Salmon, Sir I.
Clarry, Sir Reginald	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Salt, E. W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.	Samuel, M. R. A.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Scott, Lord William
Colfox, Major W. P.	Levy, T.	Selley, H. R.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John	Lewis, O.	Shakespeare, G. H.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.	Lipson, D. L.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)	Lloyd, G. W.	Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)	Loftus, P. C.	Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Craven-Ellis, W.	Lyons, A. M.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Crossley, A. C.	M'Connell, Sir J.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Crowder, J. F. E.	McCorquodale, M. S.	Spens, W. P.
Culverwell, C. T.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Stanley, Rt, Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)	McKie, J. H.	Storey, S.
De la Bère, R.	Maclay, Hon. J. P.	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Denman, Hon. R. D,	Magnay, T.	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.	Maitland, A.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Doland, G. F.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Drewe, C.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)	Marsden, Commander A.	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Ellis, Sir G.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Tate, Mavis C.
Elmley, Viscount	Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.	Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)	Titchfield, Marquess of
Fildes, Sir H.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Touche, G. C.
Fox. Sir G. W. G.	Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.	Mitcheson, Sir G. G.	Turton, R. H.
Furness, S. N.	Morgan, R. H.	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon, Euan
Fyfe, D. P. M.	Morris-Jones, Sir Henry	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Gluckstein, L. H.	Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.	Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Gower, Sir R. V.	Munro, P.	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)	Nall, Sir J.	Wells, Sir Sydney
Grant-Ferris, R.	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Members representing and speaking for local authorities which, for the public good, organise efficient fire brigades are supporting a vested interest comparable with insurance companies?

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

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 130.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.	Wise, A. R.	Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)	Withers, Sir J. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)	Womersley, Sir W. J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.	Wood, Hon. C. I. C.	Captain Dugdale and Major Sir
		James Edmondson.

NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Parker, J.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Hardie, Agnes	Parkinson, J. A.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Harris, Sir P. A.	Pearson, A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Hayday, A.	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Banfield, J. W.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Poole, C. C.
Barr, J.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Pritt, D. N.
Bellenger, F. J.	Hicks, E. G.	Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Ritson, J.
Benson, G.	Jagger, J.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Bevan, A.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Rothschild, J. A. de
Broad, F. A.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Sexton, T. M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)	Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Buchanan, G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Silkin, L.
Cape, T.	Kirby, B. V.	Silverman, S. S.
Casells, T.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Chater, D.	Lathan, G.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cluse, W. S.	Lawson, J. J.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Collindridge, F.	Leach, W.	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Lee, F.	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Daggar, G.	Leonard, W.	Sorensen, R. W.
Dalton, H.	Leslie, J. R.	Stephen, C.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Logan, D. G.	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Lunn, W.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Stokes, R. R.
Dobbie, W.	MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	McEntee, V. La T.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Ede, J. C.	McGhee, H. G.	Thorne, W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	McGovern, J.	Tinker, J. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	MacLaren, A.	Tomlinson, G.
Findlay, Sir E.	Maclean, N.	Viant, S. P.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	MacNeill Weir, L.	Watkins, F. C.
Gallacher, W.	Mathers, G.	Watson, W. Mcl.
Gardner, B. W.	Maxton, J.	Welsh, J. C.
Garro Jones, G. M.	Messer, F.	Westwood, J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Milner, Major J.	White, H. Graham
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)	Montague, F.	Wilkinson, Ellen
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Moreing, A. C.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Grenfell, D. R.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Naylor, T. E.	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Noel-Baker, P. J.	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)	Oliver, G. H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Paling, W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. John and Mr. Anderson.

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

New Clause—(Power Of Secretary Of State To Require Uniformity Of Appliances And Equipment)

The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Central Advisory Council for Fire Services may, by order, impose such requirements with respect to uniformity of appliances, equipment, and fire hydrants provided for the purposes of this Act as appear to him to be necessary for securing efficient fire services and in particular the rendering of efficient mutual assistance by fire brigades, and it shall be the duty of fire authorities to comply with any such requirements.—[ Mr. Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.40 p.m.

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

This is a Clause that has been put down in order to meet an undertaking that was given in Committee, where a number of hon. Members took the view that there ought to be some provision in this Bill which would facilitate standardisation of equipment in regard to fire brigades; and, speaking for the Home Office, I was then able to say that we agreed generally with that view and that we would frame some provision with that in view. I hope this Clause meets the promise that I then made.

7.41 p.m.

I wish that every undertaking that was given in Committee had been as acceptably fulfilled as this has been. It carries out in every detail the pledge given upstairs to meet this problem, in an attempt to bring about something like uniformity and standard- isation so far as fire-fighting appliances are concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

New Clause—(Notices)

Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be given to any person may be given either—

(a) by delivering it to that person, or by leaving it or sending it in a prepaid letter addressed to him at his usual or last known residence; or

(b) in the case of an incorporated company or body, by delivering it to their secretary or clerk at their registered or principal office, or by sending it in a prepaid letter addressed to him at that office.—[Mr. Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.42 p.m.

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

It is purely drafting.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

New Clause—(Exemption From Restrict Tions Relating To Traffic Lights, Etc)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Road Traffic Acts or any other Act, a fire brigade vehicle when answering a call to a fire shall be exempted from the provisions, orders, or regulations relating to traffic lights, one-way or closed streets, provided that the drivers of such fire-brigade vehicles shall proceed with caution so as not to endanger other vehicles or persons.—[ Lieut.-Commander Tufnell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.43 p.m.

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

The object of this Clause is to clarify the position of fire engines going to the scene of a fire. Under the existing law, fire brigade vehicles are subject to all the traffic regulations, such as one-way streets, traffic lights, and keeping to the left of refuges, but in practice in most towns the traffic lights are ignored, if this can be done with safety. There have been cases, however, where the driver of such a fire engine has been penalised. In one case the driver of a fire engine was fined £1, and a year ago, at Clerkenwell, the owner of a vehicle received a very heavy sum against the London County Council for damages and personal injuries as a result of a fire engine going against the lights. It seems that where a fire engine has to get to the scene of a fire as quickly as possible, it should be given every opportunity of getting there, irrespective of the formalities of lights and other traffic regulations, provided that the driver exercises that due caution which is absolutely necessary and gives due warning of his approach at the particular obstruction. The fact is that not only is a fire engine greatly impeded in its progress through having to stop, we will say, at traffic lights, but it has also to start its heavy engine up in order to proceed on its way.

It has been found in Manchester, I am informed, that a car going from one part of the city to another may have its progress impeded by traffic lights to such an extent as to lose nine minutes on the journey. Those minutes might be vital if a fire were in progress. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider this matter closely in conjunction with the Minister of Transport. I do not suggest that the wording of the Clause is perfect, and if he, with the Minister of Transport, can devise anything better to deal with the situation and facilitate the brigade detachments reaching the scenes of fires as quickly as possible, I am sure it will be welcomed by all those who are closely concerned with this matter.

I beg to second the Motion.

7.47 p.m.

We all appreciate the motives of my hon. and gallant Friend in moving this Clause, but there is another side to the case which he has presented. At present police, fire brigade and ambulance vehicles are, under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act, exempted from the observance of any speed limits where this would be likely to hinder the use of such vehicles. I put to the House the view that that exemption is the only reasonable exemption that can be made because in that case you are proceeding according to all the ordinary rules, except the rule with regard to speed, and the avoidance of accidents is a question of commonsense and skill. But to change in a wholesale manner all the ordinary rules, such as those about one-way streets, pedestrian crossings, and traffic lights would be something of a completely different order, and I think it is inevitable that a considerable number of serious accidents would result. I do not think it is a matter which need be elaborately argued. I believe that the course suggested in the new Clause would lead to great danger of accidents without producing any benefits of the kind which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. In view of these considerations, I ask him to withdraw the Clause.

7.49 p.m.

When I was travelling recently in somebody else's car—because I have not a car of my own—we came up against some of these traffic lights in Wakefield and were held up at a side street for a considerable time. Had a fire engine come along it would have been held up by the traffic lights for a considerable time—I should say at least a couple of minutes—which might be a serious matter if there were a big fire. do not know whether the Under-Secretary has considered that aspect of the matter, but I am bound to say that when I was listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Cambridge (Lieut.-Commander Tufnell) I thought this was a very sensible Clause. Fire engines might be held up for a considerable period by traffic lights when a building like the Crystal Palace was blazing away, and very serious damage might be done before the fire brigade arrived on the scene.

In view of what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause—(Free Passage To Be Afforded To Fire Brigade Vehicles)

It shall be the duty of the driver of any vehicle, and of every cyclist, pedestrian, or other person on a highway to afford free passage to any fire brigade vehicle proceeding to a fire, in answer to a fire call, and for that purpose every such driver or person shall—

(1) Keep to the edge or the kerb of the highway and if necessary stop the vehicle or cycle.

(2) Shall not after the passage of the fire brigade vehicle wilfully overtake such vehicle, if by so doing the passage of fire brigade vehicles is impeded.

Provided that the fire brigade vehicle gives audible warning of its approach. Any driver or person wilfully contravening this Section shall be liable on conviction to a fine of five pounds or such lesser penalty as may be decided.—[ Lieut.-Commander Tufnell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.50 p.m.

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

This new Clause is on rather the same lines as that which the House has just considered. It provides that drivers of vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, and other persons shall be compelled to get out of the way of fire engines at the sound of the bell. I need not repeat the arguments which I advanced on the previous Clause. People using the roads have a duty to keep out of the way of these fire engines and they should be warned that if they do not carry out that duty, they will be fined for contravening the law. Difficulties frequently arise in the case of fire engines coming on to main trunk roads, especially during week-ends when there is an almost continuous stream of traffic, and in those cases fire brigade detachments may be seriously delayed. There is also the case in which a fast car overtakes a fire engine going up a hill and then causes an obstruction at the top of the hill or in which a car overtaking a fire engine obstructs a second engine which is coming up behind. I wish my hon. Friend to consider what can be done to deal with cases of that kind.

I beg to second the Motion.

I wish to ask the Under-Secretary whether it is not a fact that in America all vehicles have to stop at the approach of the fire brigade, and give way to it?

7.53 p.m.

I am afraid that I cannot, offhand, give my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson) the information for which he asks. In addition to the fact that it is already an offence to obstruct a vehicle on the highway, in practice emergency vehicles such as fire engines are, by common consent, allowed precedence over other traffic, and I very much question whether it is necessary to impose obligations of the kind proposed in the new Clause, in advance of any considerable number of complaints arising, which has not been the case up to the present. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he is not on any stronger ground with regard to this proposal than he was in the case of his previous proposal, especially in view of the fact that this new Clause might defeat its own object by immobilising large blocks of traffic. If these provisions were taken too literally they might have the reverse effect from that intended by my hon. and gallant Friend, and make it more difficult for fire engines to proceed on their way.

In view of the Under-Secretary's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1—(Provision Of Fire Services)

Amendments made:

In page 1, line 17, at the beginning, insert:

"Subject to the provisions of any order made under the next following Sub-section."

In line 22, after "meet," insert "efficiently all."

In page 2, line 5, leave out "adequate provision is made," and insert "efficient arrangements exist."

In line 14, leave out "for local fire services," and insert:

"with respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last foregoing Sub-section."

In line 14, leave out from "and," to the end of line 15, and insert:

"the standards may vary according to the requirements of different kinds of locality."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

7.56 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:

"(4) An officer of a fire authority, authorised in writing by the authority, shall, for the purpose of carrying out such arrangements as are mentioned in paragraph (d) of Sub-section (2) of this Section, have the like powers of entering premises as are conferred upon authorised officers of councils by Section two hundred and eighty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1936, and accordingly that Section shall have effect as if the references to an authorised officer of a council included references to an officer of a fire authority authorised as aforesaid, and as if among the purposes specified in Sub-section (1) of that Section there were included the aforesaid purpose."

This Amendment is intended to fulfil a promise which was given in Committee. Its object is to give officers of a fire authority the right to enter premises for the purpose of carrying out the inspections required by Sub-section (2). I think the House will agree that it is a commonsense provision that they should have this power for carrying out what are really statutory duties.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 24, leave out "for," and insert "by the authority receiving the."—[ Mr. Lloyd.]

7.58 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, after "that," to insert:

"after the expiration of five years after the passing of this Act."

This Amendment and two further Amendments which appear on the Paper in my name deal with the same matter. In Sub-section (6) there is a proviso which prohibits the employment of police constables other than the chief officer of police and the assistant chief officer or his deputy as part-time members of a fire brigade unless they were so employed at the date of the passing of this Measure. I understand that in a large number of towns, particularly towns of medium size, it is usual for fire brigade authorities to employ policeman as part-time firemen. They are found to be particularly helpful when the fire brigade is required at night time because they can easily be called out and they can be of great service to the brigade. In the event of the Bill passing in its present form, it means that hereafter a local authority will be unable to employ any additional policemen in that capacity and eventually the employment of police constables as part-time firemen will cease. In the event of an emergency, firemen and police constables may be required for the exercise of their respective duties, and it may be to the advantage of those responsible to have reserves who are not members of the police force. If that be true, the additional cost to the medium sized local authorities may be properly be regarded as arising from the preparations necessary for air-raid precautions. If that is the purpose of the proviso and it is not possible to accept the Amendment, I suggest that the additional expenditure involved by such a change should be part of the expenditure which will rank for Government grant. If the Government cannot take that view, I would ask my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary to consider whether, if he cannot give the local authorities five years, he can give them some period in order to make other arrangements.

8.2 p.m.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I can conceive of some small authorities who have only a small police force, and who find it necessary to let their men fill in their time with the fire brigade. Nobody could be in a better position than the local fire brigade authorities to know what is necessary in order to obtain the highest degree of efficiency and at the same time to work the police force and the fire brigade most economically. If the Clause stands as it is, it may place on the shoulders of some small authorities a financial burden which they can avoid if they are entitled to use police constables on fire brigade duties.

8.3 p.m.

I cannot do better in reply to my hon. Friends than quote the relevant passage from the Riverdale Committee with regard to the question of part-time police firemen:

"The employment of police auxiliaries has, however, the disadvantage in peace-time that, when fires occur, the police concerned have frequently to be taken off the streets. In emergencies, particularly in war-time, when both fire brigade and police would be heavily pressed, this difficulty would be much more serious and, in our view, it is definitely bad policy for the two services, police and fire brigade, to depend on the same set of auxiliaries. So far as we can gather, this factor in the organisation of fire brigades has not hitherto been provided for in local fire brigade organisation, but we attach so much importance to the matter that we recommend that in no case should a police fire brigade be dependent for its personnel on constables who may be engaged on other duties, nor should he police ever have to call on the personnel of the fire brigade in case of emergency. In brief, the two forces must be kept as independent entities from this point of view, and each should be of sufficient strength to carry out all the duties that may be required of it."

That view has been accepted by my right hon. Friend, and the Bill is based upon it. Postponement for five years is a long time, and I am afraid that I cannot agree to it. Nor am I in a position to make any announcement about grants. Having regard to the importance that the Riverdale Committee attach to this matter from the point of view of emergency, at a time when we are engaged in considering the question of emergencies from the point of view of general air-raid precautions work, it would not be right to make such a long postponement. I think that I can go so far as to say that we might consider whether some much shorter postponement is possible. We will consult with some of the interests concerned to see whether we can go as far as that.

Will my hon. Friend visualise a case such as exists in a small town in my division, where they have a full-time officer for the fire brigade and call up auxiliary men when there is a fire? If such a town has to employ permanent men they might be faced with a heavy financial burden, and how is it proposed to deal with a case of that kind?

It would be unreasonable if the provisions of this Bill compelled such an authority to have a whole-time fire brigade, but what it could do is to encourage other part-time personnel, but not police personnel, to join the brigade. Many local authorities do that, and they have very efficient brigades on that basis. It avoids the disadvantage that would be found if both the police force and the fire brigade were pressed at the same time.

8.10 p.m.

It is an accepted principle now that the police force and the fire brigade should be entirely independent; but the principle of postponement of the separation contained in this Amendment has been accepted in the case of Scotland and will be embodied in Clause 25. It will be a postponement for two years in that case. I suggest that there should be a period in the transition stage to enable local authorities to make arrangements to comply with this Clause. I am surprised that the Under-Secretary did not give a more definite pledge, for it will take time to work out this scheme so that the two services can be, as they should be, independent.

8.11 p.m.

I thank the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood for his support. I hope it will not be said that England must lag behind Scotland in this matter. My hon. Friend has made a limited concession and I think that in the circumstances I can accept it feeling assured that if the example of Scotland is followed, my point will be met. I hope that my hon. Friend will not lose sight of my alternative suggestion that any additional expenditure should rank for air-raid precautions grant.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 3, line 17, leave out "partly on fire brigade duties," and insert "as part-time members of a fire brigade."

In line 18, leave out "partly."—[ Mr. Lloyd.]

I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at the end, to insert:

"and any such fire alarm may be affixed to any wall or fence adjoining a street or public place."

This Amendment extends generally an existing provision of the Glasgow Corporation Act, 1895.

Amendment agreed to.

8.13 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"and if any dispute arises between a fire authority and any railway company or statutory undertaking regarding the exercise of powers conferred by this Sub-section the question shall be referred to the Secretary of State. whose decision shall be final."

In the event of a dispute between a fire authority and the Minister of Transport, or, in the case of railway companies, between the fire authority and a railway company, there is no machinery to enable a speedy decision to be arrived at, and to avoid the possibility of friction which would tend against the efficiency of the fire brigade. The purpose of the Amendment is that in case of a dispute between these two bodies the Secretary of State will have the right to determine the question at issue, and I submit that that will tend towards speed and assist in efficiency.

8.15 p.m.

We appreciate very much the hon. Member's motives in moving this Amendment, but we hold a different view. It must be realised, in the first place, that the fire authority has the right to put the alarms where it wants them, and at once. It does not have to hold up its action and wait for objections, but has the right to take the initiative and then it will be for anyone to object who wants to object. Therefore, there should be no delay in fixing the alarms. If there is any dispute which cannot be settled by compromise the normal practice is for it to go to the courts. That is a practice which we ought to preserve in this country as a general rule, from both the theoretical and the practical point of view, as against the alternative of putting too much power into the hands of administrative officers of the State.

I should like to make it clear on the theoretical side that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not anxious to have these additional powers. We have had to explain many times that at the Home Office we are not grasping for power. Then consider the matter from the practical point of view. Is every little local dispute from every part of the country over the question where a fire alarm should be placed to come up to the Home Office to be settled by the Secretary of State, on the advice, no doubt, of his officials, who do not know the locality and will have to have some special machinery for finding out what the difficulties are? I can well imagine that local authorities would not accept with very good grace the decisions in such a matter of a remote Secretary of State in Whitehall. They would say, and it would be voiced in this House, "What does the Secretary of State know about the fire alarm in Great Smith Street, Birmingham—or Glasgow?" It would be better to leave any such disputes to be settled in the courts locally, which have the respect of the local people. I would urge the hon. Member to consider these arguments, which we put forward from the Home Office with a good deal of experience, and I would urge him to withdraw his Amendment.

8.18 p.m.

I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would accept this Amendment. I am sure that local authorities would rather have a decision by the Secretary of State than be compelled to spend money in the law courts upon having their disputes settled there. I am not acquainted with the working of the Home Office, but its corresponding number in Scotland attends to matters even more trifling than this. The Secretary of State for Scotland has to answer questions in this House on matters of less importance than this. Whatever the railway companies may be prepared to do—and perhaps they want to go to court as often as they can—I am certain the local authorities would prefer to have disputes in these cases settled by the Secretary of State. We may have local authorities engaged in serious litigation if objection is taken by persons to alarms being affixed to their property, though I hope it will not happen, and that it will be possible for the two parties to come to an amicable settlement. I believe that in most cases these matters will be settled between the local authority and the interested parties, and if the Amendment had been accepted I am sure that the Home Office or the Scottish Office would not have been troubled very often with these disputes.

8.19 p.m.

I am certain that it will not tend towards efficiency to leave the courts to deal with these disputes. At the same time I do not think there will be the enormous number of disputes which the Under-Secretary indicated, because common sense will operate, and it will only be in exceptional cases that a settlement is not arrived at. I am certain that the method proposed in my Amendment would be the easier way of dealing with the problem, but in view of the statement made by the Under-Secretary I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 3, line 34, at the end, insert:

"(b) nothing in this Sub-section shall affect any privilege conferred on the Postmaster-General by the Telegraph Act, 1869."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

8.23 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"(8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to render any fire authority liable to any action, proceedings, claims, or demands."

I moved this Amendment on the Committee stage, but it was not accepted, and I expect that I shall meet with the same fate now. A very short point is involved, and I will try to state it concisely. When the Amendment was considered in Committee, discussion embarked on a rather wider aspect of the matter than I had expected. The discussion in Committee rather turned upon the point that a local authority could not escape, whether in regard to its fire brigade or any other service, the ordinary common law obligations, in the event of negligence.

It is not for the purpose of dealing with the question of negligence that I have put forward this Amendment, wide as are its terms, but because local authorities are rather apprehensive. The Sub-section sets up an obligation upon every local authority to provide an efficient fire brigade, and empowers the Secretary of State to make an order having statutory effect with regard to standards of efficiency. The local authorities desire to be advised upon the point whether it would be possible for any person to bring an action against a local authority on the ground not that there has been some act of negligence, but merely a breach of the Statute. That is the point of my Amendment, and I desire the Home Secretary to consult with the Law Officers. I understand that the local authorities yesterday restated their fear to the Home Office and that they were assured that the Law Officers would be consulted. I should like to have a statement that the Law Officers have been or will be consulted in order that the apprehension, which may or may not be well founded, might be met, in which case I should be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

8.27 p.m.

When the hon. Member moved a similar Amendment in Committee, the Home Secretary pointed out that we must consider whether, when practically every other local authority was liable to redress for negligence, that should not apply also in the case of a fire authority. He went on:

"I would say that as long as this redress lies against other branches of local administration the private citizen must have it also against the fire authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 24th May, 1938; col. 19.]

That view commended itself to the Committee, and the Amendment was withdrawn. I understand that a new point of uncertainty has arisen. The hon. Member referred to Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, which reads:

"The Secretary of State may by order prescribe standards of efficiency for local fire services, and may prescribe different standards for different localities."

He expressed the apprehension that action may lie against local authorities if it be shown that they have not come up in some respect to the prescribed standards of efficiency. We are anxious to consider this point. The Amendment was put on the Paper only yesterday. I need hardly remind the House that this Sub-section has often been relied upon by us in a precisely opposite sense, namely, that, while we desire to raise the standards of efficiency, it must not be to so high a pitch that local authorities cannot reach it; and to that end the Secretary of State may prescribe standards of efficiency which are lower, and which will not put too great a strain upon certain local authorities. If the words were put in, it seems to me that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in the previous Sub-section might be a greater danger than Subsection (3) itself, but we are willing to consider the point and we are consulting the Law Officers in regard to it. If we find that it is necessary to move any Amendments to meet the point we undertake to do so in another place. Perhaps the hon. Member would now move to withdraw his Amendment.

I am very much obliged, and, on that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.30 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"(8) The provisions of this Act shall not come into force in the area of any county fire authority in Scotland unless the Secretary of State, after consultation with the fire authority concerned, shall by order direct that the Act shall apply within such area or any part thereof"

I speak with no hostility to the Bill, but, on the contrary, as one who regards it as a useful and necessary Measure. In its present form, however, it is open to a criticism which might be made, and is indeed widely made in Scotland of many other Acts of Parliament, that while it is well designed to meet the needs of the great industrial centres in the South, it does not fit the conditions in the Islands of Scotland and many Highland counties. I would ask the House to consider the situation in a vast county like Sutherland, with its population scattered around the seaboard. It would be impossible to make any provision for fire-fighting on the 600 miles of road in Sutherland. If you could stretch out the roads of Sutherland in a line they would reach to London. It would be impossible to make any efficient provision for fire-fighting in a county of that size, except at a cost which would be quite prohibitive to the ratepayers.

Consider for example the burgh of Dornoch, a fire authority, with 732 inhabitants. It could hardly be expected to maintain a very efficient fire-fighting apparatus. On the other hand, the need for the Bill is not felt in the Highlands of Scotland where there is no great demand for fire-fighting apparatus. The burden upon the ratepayers would be very great. I do not want to bandy across the Floor of the House the names of any particular local authorities, but I know and the Secretary of State for Scotland knows that there are local authorities in Scotland whose jurisdiction covers quite small communities of a few thousand people, that they have debts running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, that their income is falling owing to depression, mainly in the fishing industry, that their obligations are accumulating and that even now they are unable to obtain from the Government the loans necessary to carry out the housing policy of which Parliament has approved.

In these conditions, to throw upon such local authorities the additional burdens which would be involved by this Measure would be altogether unreasonable. The burdens are much greater for dealing with the problems of these scattered areas and rural districts than in towns or cities in the South. None of us knows exactly what the standard of efficiency will be. The Secretary of State will lay it down after consulting with the advisory council, set up in later Clauses of the Bill, but if the cost would be 2d. or 3d. on the rates for Edinburgh and Dundee it would be 1s. or 2s. for Caithness or Sutherland.

What about the Orkneys?

Yes, perhaps even worse for Orkney and Shetland. The Secretary of State for Scotland knows well that this is a case which will have to be met, and that therefore he has put down Amendments upon the Order Paper with the object of meeting it by enabling him to exempt local authorities from the obligations which he is asking the House to lay upon them. My submission is that we ought not to lay these obligations upon these local authorities, at any rate unless we provide that:

"The provisions of this Act shall not come into force in the area of any county fire authority in Scotland unless the Secretary of State, after consultation with the fire authority concerned, shall by order direct that the Act shall apply within such area or any part thereof."

The local authorities would much prefer this or some similar form of words, rather than that the obligation should rest upon them unless and until the Secretary of State chose to relieve them of it. Moreover, under the Secretary of State's Amendment a number of Sections of the Act would apply in the Highlands—for example, Section 2, which imposes the duty of providing and maintaining fire hydrants. But in the part of the country for which I speak there are no water supplies, and, before fire hydrants are provided, water supplies are necessary. I am very glad to have this opportunity of reminding the Secretary of State of the promises that were made by the Government at the last election, to provide water supplies in these scattered areas of Scotland. His Amendment also contains a very curious reference, which I have not been able to understand, to Sub-section (8) of Clause 2, in which, the Amendment provides, the word "may" is to be substituted for the word "shall." When I look at Clause 2, I cannot find Sub-section (8). Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain that to us if and when we come to his Amendment. In the meantime, I hope he will accept my Amendment, which would meet the needs of the local authorities in the Highlands and other rural districts of Scotland.

8.38 p.m.

We have to remember that this Bill is an air-raid precautions Bill, and air-raid precautions in regard to fire appliances cannot apply to the North of Scotland in the same way as to the more populous districts. There are other Amendments on the Paper which apply to what are now known as the crofter counties, which the right hon. Baronet represents, but those Amendments do not go far enough in my submission, because I think that Morayshire and Banffshire should come within the scope of these exemptions. It is quite impossible, under such a Measure as this, to bring into operation fire appliances, hydrants and so forth in Morayshire, Banffshire and the crofter counties. I should be delighted to approve of this Clause if I could have an assurance from the Secretary of State that it meant that hydrants and water supplies would be provided in every district in which fire appliances were expected to be provided. If my right hon. Friend could give that assurance, I am sure that the right hon. Baronet would withdraw his Amendment.

I should be delighted, also, if he could give us the further assurance that these fire brigades, which in many cases would have to travel 30 or 40 miles, would be given telephone facilities. In Banffshire, which I represent in this House, and which, pehaps, is more highly populated than Sutherland and Caithness, we still have to bicycle occasionally some 10 miles to a telephone kiosk, and it is fantastic to suggest that a fire brigade which has to travel 30 miles after a 10-mile bicycle journey to a telephone call office can be efficient, particularly if, when it arrives, it finds no water. I have some personal experience of that matter. I have tried to persuade my tenants to keep their mill dams filled with water, but nearly always, when I go to see them, I find that they are empty, and without these mill dams you would need a mile or a mile and a half of hose to make any fire engine or appliance effective.

I am convinced that nothing but a grievous waste of public money will occur unless, before the Clauses of this Bill are put into operation, two things are made certain in the counties where they are put into operation. The first is that the fire brigade shall be called quickly by telephone, and I suggest that my right hon. Friend might make inquiries of the Postmaster-General as to whether a further increase in the number of call boxes might not be arranged. The second is that water supplies shall be available. I believe it would be of inestimable value if my right hon. Friend could incorporate in this Bill, as he refused to do in the Housing Bill, a provision as to water supplies. In that case he would perhaps at some time get a water supply for the outlying districts of Scotland. But, until we are given a water supply, it is fantastic to suggest that we should put in fire engines which would require water which is not there. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.

8.44 p.m.

I support the Amendment, because my position is similar to that of the right hon. Baronet. I represent a county where this Bill will be wholly inapplicable, and I think it would be very desirable if the Secretary of State for Scotland would accept the second Amendment of the right hon. Baronet—in page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"(8) This Act shall not apply to the counties specified in the Schedule (Highlands and Islands) to this Act."

We are not discussing that Amendment at the moment.

Why only those counties?

I am arguing at this moment in favour of a particular Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has on the Order Paper. It is quite true that there must be other parts of the country which would find themselves in a position almost identical with that of these Highland counties, but in these other cases there are as a rule large burghs which would be able to supply services to outlying districts, and the counties probably are not so large. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) spoke of 600 miles of road. In Inverness, in my own district, there are 1,600 miles of road to be covered, and these roads are not continuous. Even if you wished to put up fire-fighting appliances at specific points all through the county you could not carry them to the islands. The small islands would be left without any services. The practical fact is that they do not require such services as are contemplated in the Bill, and I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will find it possible to accept the second Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman must not deal with the second Amendment until we come to it.

The position is met partly, but only partly, by Amendments which the Secretary of State has on the Paper. He proposes to insert words which would partly cover the point at issue. But I would suggest that, if he cannot accept this particular Amendment, he should consider whether he could not accept the succeeding Amendment. This Amendment which we are now discussing asks that consultations be taken with the fire authorities concerned, but that leaves these fire authorities subject to the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland as to what fire appliances they shall put in their respective areas. My submission is—and the county authorities, I understand, hold the same view—that in the great part of my constituency no such appliances are required, and that the position of my county goes further than the Amendment on the Paper.

8.49 p.m.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. The speeches we have heard from the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and the two hon. Members who followed him typify exactly the Highland temperament, and indicate exactly the reasons for the position of the Highlands of Scotland to-day. They ask to be exempt from a national scheme—

I beg your pardon; we do not. We ask to be exempt from a national scheme until we get a water supply which will enable us to use the appliances.

They ask to be exempt from a fire-fighting scheme until the Home Secretary goes up to the Highlands and provides them with a water supply. Here we have landowners, supposed to be representing the safety and the public health and the rights of the people of Scotland, asking the Home Secretary to go up to the north of Scotland, look over the land, and tell the people on the spot how they are going to obtain a water supply. This type of old-world mind is the reason why local authorities in the Highlands have not provided decent roads and decent facilities, why the young people in the Highlands want to get out of the Highlands and go into areas where the local councils do their business seriously for the people. I trust that, so far as this scheme is concerned, it will be operated. The hon. Member spoke as if this applied only to the Highlands of Scotland, but the Amendment takes in all the counties of Scotland, and that includes a much greater area than the Highlands. It would be dangerous, and would result in a complete stoppage of the whole scheme. It would affect such a large area that the scheme would not be operative at all, except in certain burghs which have already taken the interest that they should have taken and provided adequate fire facilities.

I hope that the Home Secretary will reply that the remedy is for the local authorities themselves to formulate their schemes, to take a greater interest in the local areas and to submit to the Home Secretary schemes that can be operated under the Bill. For Highland Members to come here, on a question of national safety and the provision of efficient fire brigades, and to plead that they have so many miles of roadways, that the conditions are not conducive to a good fire brigade system, that they have so many more difficulties than other areas, and that the Home Secretary himself should supply the cure, is a very great reflection on their own administration. I trust that the Scottish Secretary will make those derelict areas—derelict in thought and derelict in progress—toe the line with other areas. If we accept this Amendment we encourage inefficiency.

8.54 p.m.

I must confess that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has gone a great way towards meeting my objections, but there is a difficulty to which I should like some answer. My hon. Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland may provide the answer, but, subject to that, I think that some Clause which would allow the local authority to get out or be allowed to get out where physical or practical considerations made fulfilment impossible, ought to be accepted. Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill provides that

"The Secretary of State may by order prescribe standards of efficiency for local fire services, and may prescribe different standards for different localities."

I imagine the object of putting in that Sub-section is to allow the Secretary of State in either country to "temper the wind to the shorn lamb," and to make regulations that would assist the local authority which could not, for physical reasons, comply with the ordinary standards. But that must be read in relation to Sub-section (2), which says:

"A borough or district shall not be deemed to be provided with efficient local fire services unless"—

and there follow four definite obligations which are imposed on fire brigades. I take those two lines to mean a minimum standard of fire efficiency wherever the fire authority is. As a lawyer I strongly feel that the court, in all probability, would say that those four conditions would have the effect of establishing a minimum standard and that no regulations could have the effect of taking any local authorities out of these requirements. I would like the House to consider what the effects of these requirements would be, particularly in relation to paragraph (a) of Subsection (2), the condition being there should be available for the fire authority in each district a fire brigade and

"such fire engines, appliances and equipment as may be necessary to meet normal requirements"

It is obvious that, in respect of any far-distant cottage, it does not matter where it is, one of the normal requirements would be the provision of the services of a fire brigade for that cottage. In those parts of the county which are very sparsely populated, I do not think that it is possible to provide such a service. I further think that you would have the somewhat absurd situation that you would be imposing a duty upon the local authority in a district which it could not by any stretch of the imagination ever obtemper. There would be the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations, but if I am right in my submission, the court would not allow those regulations to get the local authority out of such a situation because they would be ultra vires by the terms of the Act. I should be very much obliged if my hon. and learned Friend or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could tell me how the Act would propose to get out of that difficulty.

8.58 p.m.

I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), which I prefer to that put down by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not represent a Highland constituency, but one which views this Bill with very great misgiving and feels that it will place a very heavy financial burden upon it, which it is unable to estimate. It depends very largely what the Secretary of State means by the word "efficiency." I do not like this Bill, because I think it will be detrimental to the supply of water in different districts in my constituency. I view the Bill mostly from the point of view of how it is going to affect the daily supply of water in my constituency, and I feel that if it is put on to the Statute Book it will make it more difficult and not more easy for rural districts to obtain a supply of water. In my constituency we try to obtain certain water from the Town Council of Dundee, and in other parts from Kirriemuir, which are different burghs. If they are to give us water in these areas they will have to consider how much water will be required to meet the requirements of the Bill, and the additional requirements to be thrown upon the rural areas and local authorities to meet the requirements in the rural districts. That will make it more difficult, and make the authorities who have command of the water less inclined to give us water in the rural districts for the ordinary supply. For that reason I hope that the Amendment may be accepted. I should like to see Scotland taken out of the Bill altogether.

9.0 p.m.

I am surprised at my fellow-countrymen from the North of scotland. They must be aware that the Home Secretary is proposing to distribute £1,500,000 worth of fire equipment to the local authorities in the country, and I suppose that crofting counties will get their share of that fire brigade equipment. Why they should seek to be taken out of the Bill, or that Scotland should be taken out of the Bill, when there is a distribution of that kind to take place, is more than I can understand.

What will be the good of the equipment if they have no water?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw) had better tell someone else that there is no water in Scotland.

There is not in some of the rural areas.

There is plenty of water in Scotland. The lack of the distribution of water in Scotland is not confined to the crofting counties. There are counties in the industrial belt where we have not proper water supplies, and where there is no need for a fire brigade. I come from an industrial county, half of which is only very indifferently supplied with water. We have had a plea put forward by our friends from the North of Scotland that not only the crofting counties, but the whole of Scotland should be left out of the Bill. It is not because we want a share of that £1,500,000 worth of equipment, that some of us, at any rate, want Scotland kept in the Bill. Some of our English friends could, if they cared, make out as good a case for some of the English counties to be left out. What about Westmorland and Cumberland? There are counties in England which have as much claim even as Ross and Cromarty to be left out of this Bill.

I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not agree to accept the Amendment, whatever he may do with the later Amendment dealing with the crofting counties. In fairness to our English friends, we have no case for any exemption for Scotland any more than that English Members and Welsh Members should make out a case for some of their counties being excluded from this part of the Measure. There are counties which have difficulties in obtaining adequate water supplies. The question of a water supply has been discussed over and over again. It was discussed on the Second Reading, and upstairs in Committee. Reference has been made to the difficulty of providing water supplies and the need for water supplies being introduced as speedily as possible. As I have said before in connection with this Bill, if it enables local authorities to put in water supplies so that they may have the efficient fire brigade service required, it may be a blessing to many districts which have had no proper water supply up to the present time.

9.4 p.m.

In the event of this Amendment being pressed to a Division, I cannot advise my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House to vote for it. It is far too wide. We are not dealing in the Amendment with the Highland counties as such. It seeks definitely to exclude the county areas throughout the length and breadth of Scotland from the general provisions of the Bill. That will be the effect of the Amendment. The result will be that in the county areas, in many instances, we shall have populations far more numerous than in burghs which are scheduled under the Bill as fire authorities. Take the county of Lanark. If the Amendment were agreed to and the Lanark County Council did not desire to set up fire fighting services in Bellshill and Uddingston, which are not burghs but are really county areas, it would be impossible to set up that fire-fighting service until an inquiry had been carried through by the Secretary of State for Scotland. What applies to Lanarkshire would apply equally to Stirlingshire in respect of Stenhousemuir and Larbert. The small burghs would be compelled to make their fire-fighting arrangements, but the Stirling County Council would not be compelled until after an inquiry by the Secretary of State, to set up fire-fighting services in any particular county area. When I come to the county where I reside, we have Kelty and Wemyss. If the county council of Fife, which is the fire authority for 25 small burghs, did not want to set up fire services in the county areas, they could refuse to do so until an inquiry had been held by the Scottish Office. What applies in Lanarkshire, Stirlingshire and Fifeshire applies equally in Midlothian and Dumbartonshire, where we have very populous areas that are not burghs and where the counties are responsible for the administration and would be the fire authorities.

The counties for too long have depended upon the fire-fighting services of the burghs and have got off cheaply as far as their responsibilities are concerned. No one has protested more than we have on this side of the House against the lack of provision to enable local authorities to provide adequate water services and to meet the liabilities imposed upon them by this Bill. We have been told by the Secretary of State that this is a war Measure, or somehing to that effect, and that there is need for speed in dealing with the problems referred to in the Bill. If that be true, these counties will require as much protection in the case of air raids as the more populous areas. For the reasons that I have given I hope the Government will resist the Amendment, in the interests of efficiency in dealing with fire-fighting services. We shall go on protesting against the lack of proper financial provision for the local authorities, and when the local authorities get together we hope they will fight for the purpose of getting financial assistance. However, in the event of the Amendment going to a Division I cannot advise my hon. Friends on this side of the House to vote for it.

9.9 p.m.

As this Amendment refers solely to Scotland, it may be suitable if I speak on it now. It is a wide Amendment and, apart from other difficulties, it has one defect which makes it unworkable. It would result in imposing upon the Scottish cities and burghs a handicap from which the cities and towns in England and Wales would not suffer. They would be left within the Act as far as the compulsory provisions of the Act are concerned, but so long as the Act did not apply to the county areas the towns would be deprived of the benefit of the statutory co-operation and the pooling of resources which are an integral part of our proposals. Therefore, the Amendment would have a serious effect in that way.

I want, however, to get behind what is in the mind of my right hon. Friend in moving, and other hon. Members in supporting, the Amendment. It is, I suppose, an anxiety on the part of the county councils that they may be subjected to unreasonably high standards of efficiency by Orders made by the Secretary of State. I will advance two or three considerations to show that they need not be unduly apprehensive on that point. These Orders cannot be made by the Secretary of State until he has consulted with the Scottish Central Advisory Council for fire-fighting services. This Advisory Council, in the formation of which I hope to invite the assistance of the local authorities in Scotland, through their organisations, will include representatives of all classes, including the county councils, and the representatives will have the chance of making representations on the question of the standards of efficiency. Moreover, when the Secretary of State for Scotland has made an Order, it requires to be laid before Parliament, and will be subject again to discussion.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) expressed some anxiety as to the wording of Clause 1, and feared that, even with the assurance which I was able to give in regard to standards of efficiency, the wording of the Bill as it stands might make it impossible to take fully into account the physical difficulties of certain localities. I have been looking at that point, with the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh will look at an earlier part of the Order Paper he will see that already we have inserted, on the initiative of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, an Amendment which reads: "In Clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out from "and" to the end of line 15, and insert:

"the standards may vary according to the requirements of different kinds of locality."

We have been looking further at that Amendment and, while I cannot give a definite undertaking, we are considering the possibility of the insertion in another place of such words as "and available facilities," after the word "requirements." I cannot give an undertaking that those precise words will be inserted, but my hon. and learned Friend will, I think, see that they would meet the point about the physical difficulty. With that assurance I hope that he will be content.

I feel bound to say a few words on the general proposition which the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has raised. His proposal really is that the county councils should be left, until otherwise directed by the Secretary of State, with purely permissive powers. I must justify the action which we are taking in the Bill which departs from that idea. It may be argued that the needs of the case would be met by leaving them with permissive powers only, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Royal Commission on Fire Brigades, which examined the situation in Scotland as well as in England in 1923, said:

"We are of the opinion that the existing provisions will be susceptible of improvement without heavy expenditure, and we regard it as a matter of some regret that more advantage has not been taken of the provision in the Local Government (Scotland) Act providing for the organisation of fire brigades on a county basis."

It is a significant fact that in 1923 two of the 33 Scottish county councils had fire brigades. At present only four have fire brigades, and two of those have no motor fire engines and cover only a small part of the county. In 1923 there were seven county councils, apart from those which have their own fire brigades, which had some form of agreement for fire protection with other authorities. At present the corresponding number is nine. Twenty of the 33 Scottish counties, therefore, have made no use yet of their existing powers, and In our view it is right to insist that further provision should be made where it is practicable. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment, but I hope I have assured the House that physical difficulties will be taken into account. In the case of the crofter counties I propose to make a case for exceptional treatment. For these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

It is most unfortunate that the North of Scotland should be divided into those which are crofter counties and those which are not.

The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment.

In view of what the Secretary of State has said I think it will meet the general view of the House if I withdraw the Amendment, and concentrate on the next Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.17 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"(8) This Act shall not apply to the counties specified in the Schedule (Highlands and Islands) to this Act."

I do not want to argue this case again because the same arguments I put forward on behalf of the last Amendment apply to this with even greater force. I thought they were valid on the last Amendment, notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has said, but certainly they apply with more force to this Amendment. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) has said that this is a war Measure. In so far as it is a war Measure it clearly ought not to be applied to the Highlands, because no one can suppose that they would be a war area or a target for enemy attack. I cannot say that I feel very much satisfaction in the assurance which the Secretary of State gave us on the last Amend- ment. I do not like leaving it to another place to deal with matters which are of great importance to our constituents. They are matters which should be settled here; but if the Secretary of State will meet our point of view by accepting this Amendment I shall be satisfied.

The other assurance he gave us was that local authorities will be represented on the Fire Advisory Council, but I imagine that the people he will want, and who ought to be represented on the Fire Advisory Council, are people who are actively interested in measures of fire precautions. He will not want dead-heads to give reasons why the Bill should not be applied to their areas. He will want people who are really concentrating on fire-fighting efficiency. Those parts of the country which do not need these precautions on this scale, and for whom it will represent an incalculable burden, naturally cannot expect to be represented on the council or to carry very much weight if they are represented. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will accept this more modest Amendment and allay the anxieties which are felt in some parts of the country.

9.20 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman has argued a case for the complete exclusion from the operation of the Bill of what are called the crofter counties. He will see that later on I have an Amendment on this matter which I feel is the utmost to which I can go in this direction consistently with the principle of the Bill. There are also grave defects in the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman makes from the point of view of the counties themselves. There is the point which I raised on the previous Amendment, that it would deprive the burghs of the benefits of statutory co-operation with counties round about, and also it might be construed as having the effect of depriving county councils of powers to make provisions which they are now able to make for the extinction of fire and the protection of life. The right hon. Gentleman does not want his Amendment to have that effect. I recognise, as I have shown by the Amendment I propose to move, that there are certain problems which these counties have to face which are peculiar to that part of Scotland. I agree that there are certain other counties in which the same problems arise although to a lesser degree; but when you consider the population factor in the counties mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and the means of communication I think that there is a case for special treatment.

For the reasons therefore that it would place burghs in an invidious position, and possibly deprive local authorities of the power to provide appliances—

I should be glad to include burghs in the Amendment.

—and thirdly, that it would run counter altogether to the principle of the Bill, I cannot accept the Amendment. My proposal, therefore, is that while the Bill should apply to Scotland as a whole, there should be power for the Secretary of State to exempt certain areas. That is the utmost to which I can go.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2—(Fire-Hydrants And Water Supply In Case Of Fire)

Amendments made:

In page 4, line 4, after "hydrants," insert "as incorporated with or applied by any enactment, with or without modifications."

In line 4, after "if," insert "for."

In line 5, leave out "included." and insert "there were substituted."

In line 5, leave out "all fire authorities," and insert "the fire authority."—[ Mr. Lloyd.]

9.25 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that the Minister of Health may by order modify the provisions of the said Section thirty-eight, in their application to any rural district, so as to extend the distances at which fire-hydrants are required to be placed under that Section.

(3) Where any fire-hydrant which is being maintained at the expense of a fire authority under Section forty of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, is damaged as the result of any person using the hydrant (otherwise than for fire brigade purposes) with the authority of the water company or person to whom the hydrant belongs, the fire authority shall not be liable for the cost of repairing or replacing the hydrant incurred as the result of the damage.

(4) Any person who uses a fire-hydrant, without the authority of the water company or person to whom the hydrant belongs, otherwise than for the extinction of fire or fire brigade purposes, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."

Under Section 38 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, the distance between hydrants is prescribed or, if no distance is prescribed, is not more than 100 yards, whilst the supply area of a water undertaking may include rural areas as well as urban districts, Section 38 of the Act has applied hitherto only to urban districts. The provisions of the Section might be onerous if applied generally to rural districts, which would be the effect of the Bill, and the purpose of the proviso is to ensure that a simple machinery is available for relaxing requirements, where necessary, in their application to the rural districts.

Sub-section (3) has been put down to safeguard the position of fire authorities in cases where fire hydrants are damaged in the course of use other than for fire brigade purposes. Representations were made in Committee that in such circumstances the fire authority ought not to be liable for the cost of repair, and this Amendment has been put down with a view to meeting this point where the hydrant is used with the authority of the water undertaker.

Sub-section (4) deals with much the same question and has been put down in pursuance of an undertaking given in Committee. Its effect is to make it an offence to use a hydrant without proper authority.

I should like to know whether the word "uses" in Sub-section (4) includes the word "interferes," because I can conceive a motor lorry unloading a lot of sacks and covering up a hydrant. It would be interfering with the hydrant and making it difficult for the fire engine, when it arrives, to deal with the fire. Pulling up a road and covering a hydrant with soil would again he interfering with it. Does the word "uses" include "interferes" and, if not, could that word be inserted?

I am advised that the word "uses" would cover most cases.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out "all practicable" and to insert "such."

This has been moved to safeguard the position of the fire authorities in cases where hydrants are damaged in the course of use other than for fire brigade purposes. It is a common practice for some of the larger water authorities to allow their hydrants to be used for certain trade and industrial purposes, and it is not quite fair that the fire authority should be liable for the expense of the repair of hydrants when they have been damaged by people not connected in any way with the extinguishing of fires. Some of the large water undertakings agree that it is a reasonable provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4. leave out lines 19 to 22, and insert:

"as are reasonable and practicable to improve the access to or otherwise to facilitate the use of any water supply (other than a water supply available for use by means of fire hydrants) which may be required for the purpose of extinguishing fires."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

Clause 3—(Power Of Fire Authority To Require Proposed Waterworks To Be Constructed In Manner Specified By Them)

Amendments made:

In page 4, line 25, after the first "authority," insert:

"he shall, not less than fourteen days before the works are commenced, give notice in writing thereof to the authority and."

In line 26, leave out "require," and insert:

"within fourteen days of the receipt of the notice give a notice in writing to that person requiring."

In line 34, after "days," insert:

"of the receipt of the notice from the fire authority."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

Clause 4—(Expenses Of Rural District Council In Connection With Fire Hydrants And Water Supply)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 24, leave out from the first "enactment" to "or" in line 26.—[ Mr. Lloyd.]

Clause 5—(Restriction Of Power Of Fire Authorities To Charge For Services)

I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.

By agreement, and with the approval of Mr. Speaker, we had a general Debate at the beginning of to-day's proceedings on the first new Clause in the name of the Home Secre- tary and that Debate covered this Amendment. I do not propose to continue the Debate, but we must divide against the Clause so as to attempt at least to save our rights so far as the next Amendment is concerned.

Division No. 269.]	AYES.	[9.35 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Oliver, G. H.
Adams, D. M. (poplar, S.)	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Paling, W.
Adamson, W. M.	Hardie, Agnes	Parker, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Harris, Sir P. A.	Parkinson, J. A.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Hayday, A.	Pearson, A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt, Hon. F. W.
Banfield, J. W.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Poole, C. C.
Barr, J.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Pritt, D. N.
Batey, J.	Hicks, E. G.	Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Ridley, G.
Benson, G.	Jagger, J.	Ritson, J.
Bevan, A.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Broad, F. A.	Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)	John, W.	Seely, Sir H. M.
Buchanan, G.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Sexton, T. M.
Cape, T.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Silkin, L.
Chater, D.	Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Silverman, S. S.
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Simpson, F. B.
Collindridge, F.	Kelly, W. T,	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Daggar, G.	Kirby, B. V.	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Dalton, H.	Kirkwood, D.	Sorensen, R. W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Lathan, G.	Stephen, C.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Lawson, J. J.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Leach, W.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Dobbie, W.	Lee, F.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Leonard, W.	Thurtle, E.
Ede, J. C.	Leslie, J. R.	Tinker, J. J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Logan, D. G.	Tomlinson, G.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Lunn, W.	Viant, S. P.
Findlay, Sir E.	McEntee, V. La T.	Watkins, F. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	McGhee, H. G.	Watson, W. McL.
Foot, D. M.	McGovern, J.	Welsh, J. C.
Gardner, B. W.	MacLaren, A.	Westwood, J.
Garro Jones, G. M	Maclean, N.	White, H. Graham
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Mander, G. le M.	Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)	Maxton, J.	Wilkinson, Ellen
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Messer, F.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Milner, Major J.	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Grenfell, D. R.	Montague, F.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Moreing, A. C.	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Groves, T. E.	Naylor, T. E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)	Noel-Baker, P. J.	Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G.J.	Bull, B. B.	Dodd, J. S.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Butcher, H. W.	Doland, G. F.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Carver, Major W. H.	Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Cary, R. A.	Drewe, C.
Apsley, Lord	Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)	Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Aske, Sir R. W.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)	Channon, H.	Eastwood, J. F.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)	Christie, J. A.	Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)	Ellis, Sir G.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Clarry, Sir Reginald	Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)	Errington, E.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.	Colville, Rt. Hon. John	Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.	Everard, W. L.
Beechman, N. A.	Cox, H. B. Trevor	Fildes, Sir H.
Bennett, Sir E. N.	Critchley, A.	Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Bernays, R. H.	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Fyfe, D. P. M.
Birchall, Sir J. D.	Crooke, Sir J. Smedley	Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Bossom, A. C.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Boulton, W. W.	Crossley, A. C.	Goldie, N. B.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Crowder, J. F. E.	Gower, Sir R. V.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Culverwell, C. T.	Grant-Ferris, R.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Davies, C. (Montgomery)	Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Gridley, Sir A. B.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.	Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'whereby' in line 29, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 196.

Grimston, R. V.	Magnay, T.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)	Maitland, A.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Harbord, A.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)	Marsden, Commander A.	Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)	Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Spens, W. P.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hepworth, J.	Morris-Jones, Sir Henry	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Higgs, W. F.	Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Holdsworth, H.	Munro, P.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Nall, Sir J.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hopkinson, A.	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Harsbrugh, Florence	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Hulbert, N. J.	Palmer, G. E. H.	Thomas, J. P. L
Hume, Sir G. H.	Peake, O.	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Hunloke, H. P.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Hunter, T.	Petherick, M.	Titchfield, Marquess of
Hutchinson, G. C.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'W'gt'n)	Porritt, R. W.	Turton, R. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)	Procter, Major H. A.	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)	Raikes, H. V. A. M.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.	Ramsden, Sir E.	Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Kimball, L.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.	Rayner, Major R. H.	Wells, Sir Sydney
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Lees-Jones, J.	Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)	Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Levy, T.	Remer, J. R.	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Lewis, O.	Ropner, Colonel L.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Lipson, D. L.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)	Wise, A. R.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.	Rowlands, G.	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Lloyd, G. W.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.	Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Lyons, A. M.	Russell, Sir Alexander	Wragg, H.
M'Connell, Sir J.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)	Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.	Salmon, Sir I.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Salt, E. W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)	Samuel, M. R. A.	Captain Waterhouse and Mr.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Scott, Lord William	Furness.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Selley, H. R.

Mr. Graham White.

I do not wish to move my Amendment.

Surely there has been a misunderstanding. I am prepared to carry this matter to a Division, but, as the Clause does not exist, I am afraid I cannot move an Amendment to it.

Remaining words left out of the Bill.

Clause 9—(Schemes For Co-Ordination Of Fire Services)

9.44 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, at the end, to insert:

"(3) A co-ordination scheme may contain such provisions requiring uniformity of appliances and equipment as appear to the Fire Service Commission to be necessary for the purpose of ensuring that the fire brigades affected will be able to render efficient assistance in pursuance of the scheme."

This Amendment is a further addition to the plans for standardisation with which we dealt earlier in the evening, and it deals particularly with the standardisation of appliances and equipment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14—(Power Of Fire Brigades And Police In Extinguishing Fires)

9.45 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 12, line 30, at the end, to insert, "the use of any."

This Amendment and the next two Amendments are purely drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 12, line 34, leave out "of any borough or district," and insert "in any area."

In line 35, leave out "in the borough or district in which the fire occurs," and insert "for extinguishing the fire."—[ Mr. Lloyd.]

Clause 15—(Extension Of Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, To Temporary Firemen)

Amendments made:

In page 13, line 36, leave out "are," and insert "have been."

In line 38, leave out "Act (including a."

In line 38, leave out from the second "Act," to the second "the," in line 39.—[ Mr. Lloyd.]

Clause 17—(Central Advisory Council For Fire Services)

I beg to move, in page 14, line 37, after "may," to insert:

"after consultation with such associations as represent fire authorities."

This is in fulfilment of a promise given in Committee, when it was not possible to consider a manuscript Amendment which the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) wished to move.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21—(Provisions As To Orders Of Secretary Of State)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 27, after "Act," insert:

"and any order made by him requiring uniformity of appliances and equipment and fire hydrants."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

Clause 24—(Provisions As To London)

Amendment made: In page i6, line 18, leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 21.—[ Mr. Lloyd.]

Clause 25—(Application To Scotland)

9.50 p.m.

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

"(4) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the county council of any of the following counties videlicet: Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Crornarty, Sutherland, Zetland, or with the town council of any burgh situated in any such county, by or ler direct that the provisions of this Act in their application to such county or burgh shall have effect as if—
(a) Sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section one and Sections eight to thirteen were omitted; and
(b) the word 'may' were substituted for the word 'shall'—
(i) where that word first occurs in Sub-section (1) of Section two; and
(ii) in Sub-section (8) of the said Section.
(5) The council of any county or burgh to which an order under the last foregoing Sub-section applies may make such provision for the extinction of fires and the protection of life and property in case of fire as they may deem necessary and practicable, and for that purpose may either themselves provide and maintain fire services or enter into arrangements with other county and town councils or other persons to secure the provision and maintenance of such services."

This Amendment is one to which I referred earlier this evening, to empower the Secretary of State for Scotland to exempt the crofter counties and the burghs therein from the compulsory powers of the Bill and to provide that only the enabling provisions shall apply. These counties present special problems in the way either of numerous islands or of sparsity of population and length and difficulty of communications. To give the House an example, Orkney has no fewer than 28 inhabited islands and Shetland 23, and the population in the landward areas, at the last census, of the county of Sutherland was one per 100 acres, and of Argyll, two. Included in other parts of Scotland, but not in the crofter areas, there are counties with very small populations. For example, Selkirk has the same figure of two per 1000 acres at the last census. But I had to consider, along with population, the questions of communications and transport, and when I had done so, I came to the conclusion that this proposal would only be justified in the case of the crofter counties. In the form in which I have proposed it, it makes it clear that the enabling powers which the authorities at present have will not be interfered with.

9.52 p.m.

While I am not opposed to this Amendment, I would ask my right hon. Friend to remember that while the distances are not very great, the distances for enemy aircraft—and, after all, this is a Bill which is principally concerned with air-raid precautions—to Moray, Nairn and Banffshire are equally great, and I hope that in another place he can propose an Amendment which will enable those counties also to be exempt from the provisions of this Bill.

9.53 p.m.

I want briefly to ask the Minister, in regard to these particular areas, to exercise the greatest care and discretion in allowing them any freedom from what we may term the national responsibility that has fallen upon these areas. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the areas mentioned here are recognised locally in Scotland as the most backward areas so far as providing facilities for the people resident in them are concerned. Those local authorities have taken the least initiative in Scotland to assist in the development of their local areas in accordance with modern production and life, and I there- fore trust that while not opposing this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will in no way assist these local authorities to carry on their very reactionary policy of the past in not dealing with the needs of the local population.

Amendment agreed to.

9.54 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 17, line 19, at the end, to insert:

"(5) Sub-section (4) of Section one of this Act shall apply in like manner as if section two hundred and eighty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1936, applies to Scotland."

There was added to Clause 1 a new Sub-section (4), which deals with the power of entering premises in order to carry out duties under this Bill, and the code for regulating entry upon such premises, as already passed by the House, is to be found in the Public Health Act, 1936. There is no such code imposed in any existing Scottish Act, and we thought it right that we should carry over the English code to Scotland. More usually, I think, our code is adopted in England, but on this occasion it is appropriate that we should adopt the English code.

Amendment agreed to.

9.55 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 17, line 26, to leave out from "employ" to "on" in line 28, and to insert:

"any constable holding the rank of inspector or any higher rank."

This Amendment and the two following Amendments have been put down in order to fulfil an undertaking which we gave in Committee that we would permit, during the two years after the passing of this Measure, the employment of police officers of the rank of inspector and upwards, on administrative duties in connection with fire brigades. After the period of two years such employment will be restricted to chief constables and assistant or deputy chief constables and officers in burgh police forces holding rank similar to that of deputy chief constable. The Amendments are also intended to make it clear that this proviso shall not prevent the occasional employment of a constable to assist fire brigades at fires so long as the constable is not required to undertake duty as a permanent member of the fire brigade.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 17, line 30, leave out from "employ," to "brigade," in line 31, and insert:

"any constable (other than the chief officer of police or an assistant or deputy chief constable) as a member of the fire."

In line 32, leave out from "such," to "so," in line 34, and insert:

"constable (other than as aforesaid) shall be employed—
(a) on administrative duties after the expiry of two years from the passing of this Act; or
(b) as a part-time member of a fire brigade unless he was."—[Mr. Wedderburn.]

9.57 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 9, at the end, to insert:

"(8) Sub-section (2) of Section two of this Act shall have effect as if for the words 'rural district' there were substituted the words 'county or part thereof.'"

This Amendment applies the new proviso to Clause 2 (2) to Scotland. Its effect is to give the Secretary of State power, by order, to modify the provisions in Section 38 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, so as to enable the distances between hydrants in landward areas of counties to be greater than 100 yards.

Amendment agreed to.

9.58 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 18, to leave out line 10.

The words which it is proposed to leave out are unnecessary, because it is apparent that the Sections referred to do not apply to Scotland, and in those circumstances it is contrary to precedent that any references should be made in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

9.59 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 28, at the end, to insert:

"(13) Any provision of any enactment whereby an owner or occupier of premises is required to defray expenses or charges in respect of the attendance of a fire brigade at a fire outside the county, burgh, or district for which the fire brigade is maintained, shall cease to have effect."

This Amendment corresponds to the new Clause applying in England and Wales, which has already been discussed, dealing with charges for out-district fires.

10.0 p.m.

We have already protested very strongly against the attempt of the Minister to take away existing provisions which protect many local authorities who have built up efficient fire brigades. As I have stated again and again, and as I repeat now most emphatically, in order to try to obtain the attention of the representatives of the Scottish Office, if the Government continue to take away these rights which local authorities have won by obtaining Provisional Orders, then those local authorities will certainly not guarantee efficiency in future in dealing with fires outside their areas. Glasgow under a Provisional Order, approved by this House, is entitled to claim the maximum allowance for a turnout to a fire outside the Glasgow area. Within the area the authority are entitled to 50 per cent., with a maximum of £15, but outside that area they are entitled to claim 100 per cent. of the cost of turning out to a fire. The Secretary of State must realise that if the Government take away that right from burgh authorities who have set up efficient fire services, those authorities in future, however great the danger may be, however serious a fire may be, in adjoining areas, will say, "Parliament has taken away our right even to a minimum charge for turning out," and will hesitate before taking any steps.

This is not a peace-time Measure. It has been introduced because the Government realise that, in the future, air raids and other forms of warfare may cause fires of an unprecedented character. They want to have a national system, efficient, and well-equipped, operating in every area, to deal with such dangers. It is sheer nonsense and hypocrisy for the Government to say that they are merely anxious to have an efficient fire brigade service while at the same time they take away the rights of authorities which have efficient brigades to make even a small charge for going to fires outside their districts. The attitude of the Government ought to be to give the greatest facilities to those authorities which possess efficient brigades to assist other areas. We are now passing a Clause which will permit inefficiency in the counties, while leaving the efficient burgh authorities to say '"We are not going to undertake the expense of dealing with fires in neighbouring areas." The whole thing is a farce. The position stated by the Under-Secretary is a weak position, but I must say that that is nothing new. I have never heard him making a strong case since he undertook his present office. I realise the obstacles and the difficulties which he has to encounter in trying to square his views with a standstill policy. I ask hon. Members to recognise that the Government are asking that where a brigade is efficient and can go to the assistance of a county area which has not been able to build up an efficient brigade, that area need not do so because they will not have to meet one penny of the expenses of the efficient brigade.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 9, leave out Sub-section (15).—[ Mr. Lloyd.]

Clause 26—(Interpretation)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 26, at the end, insert:

"'Enactment' includes a local Act and a provisional order confirmed by an Act."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

Third Schedule—(Enactments Repealed)

Amendments made:

In page 24, line 29, column 3, leave out "Sub-sections (1) to (3) of."

In line 31, column 3, after "seven," insert "(except in so far as it relates to recovery of expenses)."—[ Mr. Lioyd.]

10.7 p.m.

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

The House will not expect an elaborate statement from me at this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I thought I was expressing the feeling of the House. This Bill forms a landmark in the history of fire brigade services. Different views may be taken in different quarters about some of its provisions, but its principal objects have been recognised as necessary and, indeed, welcomed in the discussions in the House and in Committee upstairs. I should like to express on behalf of my right hon. Friend his thanks to Members in all parts of the Committee and to the Opposition for the help they have given to improving the Bill. From the beginning of the Committee discussions the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) expressed his object as that of being to improve the Bill, and I think it may be said that it has been improved by the Amendments that have been moved in Committee and on Report.

One of the great benefits of the Bill is the consolidation of the fire brigade law which has hitherto been scattered about in a number of Acts, some of which were antiquated. It is common ground that there is urgent need for the fire services to be recognised as a definite obligation of the local authorities and for the transfer of the fire brigade powers from the parishes, which are obviously too small units, to the district councils. Another important provision is that definite plans should be made for insuring that organised arrangements are made between authorities for mutual support in the case of exceptional fires, and the appointment of a commission to review the co-operative arrangements made between the authorities for this purpose. The provision of a centre for technical training is another important development. I do not propose to go into further detail, but I shall be glad to answer any questions that are raised.

10.11 p.m.

We on this side of the House have done our best to improve what at the beginning was a very ill-balanced Bill, to the preparation of which there had not been adequate thought given. The enormous number of Amendments that have been necessary prove that it was a Measure that was hurried in its preparation and that those responsible for its drafting did not seem to realise the difficulties that would face local administrators in dealing with some of the problems that arose under the Bill. We have done our best to make it a workable Measure. I noted a statement made by the Under-Secretary that the Bill will be considered a landmark in the fire-fighting service. I regret to say that it will also be a millstone round the necks of the local authorities, a new charge being imposed upon them at a time when they are meeting ever-increasing burdens. No provision of any kind is made to meet the new duties that are being placed upon local authorities. Under the old conditions it was optional to set up fire-fighting services. The Bill makes it mandatory on them to provide fire-fighting services of, a standard prescribed by a central authority. It adds to the burdens of local authorities—burdens which are rapidly increasing, as was shown by some figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a question by one of the London Members as to the new charges that have been imposed on local authorities by legislation passed since 1936. I find that of those charges £210,500 a year has been added to the burdens of local ratepayers in Scotland.

This Bill adds a burden which will make it still more difficult for local authorities to meet their financial liabilities. We have lodged our protest repeatedly during the Committee stage and the Report stage against the inadequate financial arrangements in this Bill. I would, nevertheless, appeal to the local authorities who will be responsible for the administration of the Bill to make it as successful as possible because its main purpose, admitted by the Home Secretary to-night for the first time, is to speed up the fire-fighting services as part of a Defence policy; and anything that tends towards Defence requires speedy arrangements in order to make them effective because of the international situation. It is regrettable that a Bill of this kind should have been brought in merely because of the necessity to meet war measures, instead of being a carefully thought out Measure to deal with and to meet the peace requirements of firefighting services. We shall not go to a Division on the Third Reading. We wish the local authorities all success in its administration, and we hope that in the near future the Government will recant from their previous position and will provide some financial assistance to ease the burden of the local authorities who are responsible for the administration of the Bill.

10.14 p.m.

Before this Bill goes to another place I venture to draw the Home Secretary's attention to one real defect in it, namely, that under Clause 15 compensation for injury can be given only if the injury happens to a man not through his own default, thus putting upon the man the onus in law of proving that he was in no way to blame for the accident. In that way all members of fire brigades under this Bill are put in a more unfavourable position than any other municipal employés. I am well aware that that is the present law as stated in the Fire Brigades Pensions Act, 1925, and that the same provision applies to the police; but in the past few years the practice has grown up among municipalities of insuring against their liabilities towards employés. Insurance companies take the strictest view of their liabilities under the Act, and have not hesitated to disallow and to contest claims which a municipal corporation would as a matter of course have admitted, and there are half-a-dozen cases within my knowledge, some occurring in the course of the last 12 months, in which a corporation has been compelled to appear in court to contest an action by an employé for compensation for injury and has explained that it would never have done so but for the fact that it has insured against this liability.

I put down Amendments, which were ruled out of order on the ground that they were likely to create a fresh charge, suggesting that the words "arising out of and in the course of his employment" might be substituted for "without his own default," so as to assimilate the law in regard to fire brigades with the workmen's compensation law. I do not wish to detain the House now, but I venture to hope that the Home Secretary will feel able to consider the point in another place, because I am sure, if there is any serious development of the duties of fire brigades in this country, that sooner or later this sort of claim will be raised and will be contested in court, and we shall be told by the Judge that it is not his business to do anything but interpret the law as Parliament laid it down, and that Parliament has the responsibility for differentiating between the status of a fire brigade officer and any other municipal employé.

10.17 p.m.

I have been asked by the Town Council of Jarrow to raise a point, which has also been put forward by other hon. Members during the Debate, concerning the extra burdens which will fall upon local authorities to pay for these improved fire fighting services. They are prepared to do all they can, but in such a hardly-hit area as Jarrow, where a penny rate brings in only £379, as against £27,000 produced by a penny rate in Westminster, every few hundred pounds which have to be spent are felt as an added burden. I know that those of us who come from the distressed areas are constantly pleading this point, but I hope that before the Bill gets to another place the Minister will give further thought to the representations which I know have been made to him by the Association of Municipal Corporations and other bodies. In view of what the Home Secretary has said we feel that this expenditure goes beyond a local charge for a local service, because to a very large extent this is becoming a national service. It is a national service that we have in our minds in passing this Bill, and we should like some assurance from the Home Secretary that the case of the heavily-rated Special Areas will be borne in mind by the Government.

10.19 p.m.

Whilst we on this side have decided not to oppose the Third Reading, it is not because we have any affection for this Measure but because we believe that on patriotic grounds we ought to give it our support. I also have been asked to make a special protest against the additional burdens which are being thrust upon an already altogether overburdened area, the Consett area, which has sent me here. The additional financial liability arises under two heads. In the first place the ex gratia payments which were formerly received from insurance companies have been done away with, and in the second place a heavy burden will be involved in the provision of additional water supplies, an obligation which now rests upon the local authorities. Water companies and statutory undertakings charged with the obligation of making such provisions will in their turn charge the local authorities with the cost of any necessary extensions. I am advised that that will mean a very substantial additional charge upon the local rates in the district from which I come. The local authority is moreover to be prevented in the future from receiving any payment for services rendered to outside areas. In the past that payment has been a source of income and a matter of good will between the larger authority and the smaller authorities concerned, but under the Bill that is to disappear.

In this Measure, we have an illustration of the policy which the Government have been pursuing ever since they came to power, namely, of placing additional burdens upon local authorities, wherever possible and whatever the conditions, to the relief either of private concerns or of the taxpayers. In this way there seems to be a felicitous division of the spoils between the taxpayers and private corporations such as water companies and insurance concerns. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State, both in Committee and in the House, have been somewhat proud of this marvellous Measure, but in my judgment the Measure is years late. We are asked to assent to alterations being made in another place because of the shortness of time, and information which should have been at the disposal of this House years ago is now to be obtained in the course of the next week or two. I certainly do not compliment the Government on attending to their duty of protecting the public, and in the main I am bound to declare that, in my solemn judgment, this is a very reactionary Measure.

10.23 p.m.

I would like to have my last word on this Bill. As a representative of an area which has an efficient fire brigade system I have done my best to bring that efficiency into other areas. The Bill seems to have brought about a reunion of the Scottish Ministers. At one time we had the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General all on the bench together; I think my colleagues will agree that that was very unusual in the House on any Bill. I think that the Home Secretary will realise that I am in deadly, serious earnest when I say that this Bill does not depend upon Members of Parliament here to-night or at any other time, but on the local administrators of this country and on their loyal co-operation. Their co-operation cannot be expected by any Government that is continually placing hardships on those local authorities by this type of legislation.

I feel that the Home Secretary has been forced to make a bad job of this Bill. He is unable to guarantee to these local authorities the reasonable expenses that they ought to have in order to carry out this nationally important work. This is a question now of national defence. The work of these local administrators is just as important as ours, and they have to face an electorate with regard to expenses just as we have. Any Bill that provides for national defence and places the burden upon local authorities is a bad Bill, and one that must raise an amount of objection, controversy and opposition on the part of those local authorities such as will not give the Bill a reasonable chance in the country. The defences of Scotland are bad enough; they are a complete farce. I regret that the Secretary of State for War has not been on the bench while we have been discussing the Bill, because I know that, when we criticise him in the future, he will be able to say that, although the defences are bad, although they are a farce, they are not nearly as bad as the fire brigade system in this country.

10.27 p.m.

I think we are all agreed that this Measure was necessary; the need for efficiency in the fire services of this country has been recognised for a long time. In that sense I believe the Bill to be overdue, and I am sorry we have had to wait until it became to all intents and purposes a defence Measure before efficiency was sought in the firefighting services. But when it was found that these services needed to be made efficient in the national interest, I think the least we could have expected from the Government was that the local authorities would receive some contribution towards making these services efficient. We find, however, that those districts where efficiency has been brought to the highest level in this country and in Scotland are to be penalised because of their efficiency. I do not think that that can be gainsaid, because the advantages they have hitherto had with the insurance companies on account of their efficiency are to be taken away from them by this Bill. I think we are entitled to protest against efficiency being penalised and inefficiency being rewarded because of a national danger. I hope that, if this is to be recognised as part of the defence policy of the country, those authorities who have called upon the Government for assistance in making their fire-fighting services efficient will not be lost sight of when the Amendment in substitution for Clause 5 is introduced in another place.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Imperial Telegraphs Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

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

10.29 p.m.

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

My friends and myself propose to divide against the Third Reading, and I will indicate briefly what our reasons are. They are that we believe the arrangement which is now being perpetuated was a grave mistake when it was originally made in 1928, 10 years ago. The results of that mistake are being reaped to-night. Instead of retrieving that mistake, the Government, in order to save some temporary difficulties, are taking a course which is bound in a few years to cause them to come to this House in greater difficulties still. I say the arrangement 10 years ago was a mistake. It arose in this way. For years, as the House knows, our telegraph messages overseas used to go by the submarine cable, which I was told when I was at school was one of the seven wonders of the world. About 20 years ago a still greater marvel appeared, the beam wireless telegraph, developed by Signor Marconi, with the assistance and co-operation of the Post Office. The consequence was that the beam stations, through which this new marvel was administered, belonged to the British Post Office, and if the Post Office and the beam stations were to compete freely with the submarine cable companies, the submarine cables would be wiped out and the beam wireless system alone would be left. But this could not be allowed, because the submarine cables were necessary to the country, especially in time of war and emergency. Therefore, they had to be kept alive. Everybody agreed at the time that the best solution was that all the means of sending messages abroad should be under one control—the rationalisation, so to speak, of this method of communication.

Once you accepted the conclusion that all these means of sending messages abroad should be under a single control, look at the problem with which the Government at that time had to deal. There were the submarine cables, under the cable companies. On the other hand, the beam wireless was under the Post Office. The air mail, which was just developing, and other means of communication were under the Post Office. Wireless telegraphy—and here you get the difference between telephony and telegraphy—the Government refused to give up, and that is under the Post Office; and the new possibility of submarine telephony which is developing will inevitably, when it is developed, be under the Post Office. Under those conditions, how could anyone deny that the common sense policy was to let the Post Office, which covered practically all the field, buy out these obsolescent cable companies—which they could have done at a very low rate, because of the circumstances which confronted those companies—and bring them all under one control?

The Government, instead of adopting that obvious policy, followed a doctrinaire policy, because of this fetish in favour of anything which calls itself private enterprise. They decided not to do that, but to pick out the submarine cables and the beam wireless, and put them under a private company; and they created for the purpose this great sprawling, over-weighted combine with a record which becomes worse every year. I ask the House to look at the problem that is left. They do not solve the problem. They create the problem for a few years hence, because it is almost certain that in these overseas communications, as in our own domestic communications, the telephone will push the telegraph into the background. Once again the problem will arise of bringing them under one control. A fresh problem is created by the policy of the Government, who put the telegraphs under the control of the combine, but the telephones are still under the control of the Post Office. So that a division, which is bound to create a problem in the future, was left by the solution at which they at that time arrived. That was the mistake which was made.

The results of that mistake are showing themselves in the financial consequences. The broad financial basis of the arrangement was that the Post Office leased to the new combine these beam wireless stations at a rental of £250,000 a year. They did not give them a freehold, but merely a lease for 25 years at £250,000 a year. The main proposal of this Bill is that the Post Office should give up that £250,000 a year, and in return it is to receive a nominal £2,600,000 out of a total nominal capital of £30,000,000 which constitutes the Communications Company. That means, working it out, that it will in future receive, instead of the £250,000 a year, its 8½ per cent. of the dividends which this combine may earn. We can normally tell the nature of that bargain by the last few years. The very best year in which the combine has made the highest profit will give the Post Office £100,000, and in the poorer years, when it makes lower profits, it will give the Post Office £6,000, so that, in return for the £250,000 a year, we have got equity shares, the annual value of which varies from £6,000 to £100,000. This is obviously a bargain in which the combine is bound to gain, and unless something which no one expects occurs, the State is bound, in the end, to lose.

I remember that there was considerable restiveness in the House when the original proposal was made, and, in the very last speech delivered just before the Bill was passed, the spokesman of the Government pointed out that it was only an arrangement for 25 years, and now, as a byproduct of this arrangement, we find that the combine is to have these stations which the enterprise of the Post Office created for the country and gave the country the freehold. The property of the nation to-night is being given away. I think it is clear now that if the Government or the House 10 years ago had known what they know to-night, they would have accepted the advice of the Labour Opposition at that time, because no one at that date would have consented to an arrangement which 10 years later was going to give away the property of the State to this combine as a freehold for nothing at all.

There are two reasons given by the Government and in the White Paper for this transfer of our property. One reason is that the combine is going to lower its rates for telegrams to the other parts of the Empire. The combine knew when it was formed that any communica- tions company in its administration always has to be lowering its rates, and for the lowering of its rates it expects a return. In fact, at the last annual meeting of shareholders the chairman said that they expected a return for this lowering of rate to come in time, through increased business. The other reason given is that the Communications Company, or Cable and Wireless, Limited, whichever we call it, has during the last 10 years had a most unfortunate financial history. On that I would say two things. One reason for that unfortunate financial history has been their own maladministration.

I experienced it when I was at the Post Office. This company is overcapitalised; nobody denies that. It was distracted by internal conflicts between the wireless side and the cable side, it had an enormously swollen board of directors, and when I was at the Post Office I came to the conclusion that a large part of its misfortunes was due to the fact that it gave so much of its attention and energy to wirepulling and propaganda against the Post Office that it was not able to carry on its ordinary business. As soon as my career ended at the Post Office the combine asked Mr. Wilfrid Green to look into its unfortunate position, and without difficulty he suggested a saving of £1,250,000 a year. If this company had had the beam stations from the beginning and had never paid one-halfpenny rent, they still would have been in financial difficulties, owing to their own expensive internal administration. Apart from these considerations, why should we make concessions to a combine because they have had an unfortunate financial record? They knew what they were doing when they entered into the business. They entered into it with their eyes open. They were not forced into it. They almost killed each other to get the bargain which they thought was being offered to them, and, like any other private enterprise, they must abide by the consequences.

I think I said in the Second Reading Debate that a Labour Administration would never have passed a Bill of this sort. Since then I have looked up what did happen when we were in office, and I will read the actual line we took when a similar proposal was made that we should give concessions to this Communications Company, because its rates to some extent were controlled, and because of its unfortunate circumstances. Let me read the reply which I made to that proposal:

"I would like to point out that Communications Company accepted these obligations at the time in return for certain financial rights which they thought would be so valuable that when it was known that they were to have them there was a boom in their shares on the Stock Exchange. Now that the contract has been made I entirely repudiate that it is my duty to hand over these financial rights, which form no part of the original arrangement and which can only be handed over at the expense of the nation as a whole."

That shows the difference between the attitude of one administration and another, and I say that that response, and not the response which the Government are making to-night, is the one which shows a proper regard for the property of the nation.

10.47 p.m.

I do not dissent at all from the description which the right hon. Gentleman has given of the various changes which have taken place between the arrangements of 10 years ago and our discussion of this Bill to-night. The financial history of this combine and all these changes do present the very widest possible target for criticism. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if in 1928 we had the knowledge and experience we now have there is little doubt that the attitude and advice which the Labour party then gave would have been accepted. That, I think, is a very safe conclusion to draw. The whole financial history of this concern has been one series of miscalculations and errors, which if they are not without a parallel must at all events stand very high in the record of financial calamities. But we are not, in considering the Third Reading of this Bill concerned to pass criticism on the past or to say what form the control of Imperial communications should be in the future. I do not dissent from the logic of what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the future development and control of our Imperial communications, but there are two things which will certainly make it necessary for Parliament to consider these matters at a very not distant date. One is that the telephones are under separate control, and it is only logical to compel a unification of all our communications either under the Post Office or under some form of public utility company closely allied with the Post Office. That seems to me to be a very likely development, but there is another reason, purely financial, why Parliament will have to consider these matters again.

There is a limitation in the Bill of the standard profit to a rate which, in view of the experience of the last 10 years, is an optimistic rate of 4 per cent. That is the limit of interest on the upper scale. The limit the other way is zero. That is not a very advantageous arrangement to anybody who has invested money in the past or who may contemplate investing money in the future, and the possibility that even the 4 per cent. may not be obtained means that no set of people in the future will invest money in this concern. If it requires additional capital to live and grow, as it will, nobody but the Government will put more money into this concern on an equity basis. That will, I think, compel a reconsideration of the finances at a not very distant date.

But there is one point which seems to me to be of immediate importance. It is a very great and real immediate advantage to have a flat rate for telegrams between all the Imperial countries and, furthermore, that that rate should be at a reasonably low level. It is true that it is not a complete flat rate, because there are one or two exceptions but, as I understand the policy, it is that those lower rates shall remain an exception only until such time as the general flat rate may be brought down to them. That seems a very important consideration. Also the limitation of the standard revenue, and in fact the whole arrangement, seems to be one stage in the direction of bringing this combine nearer to a public utility basis. Having regard to the fact that we are not to-night expressing a judgment on the mistakes of the past and that we have certain material advantages which will accrue through the passage of the Bill, I shall not be able to take the responsibility of voting against it.

10.52 p.m.

I can see that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has been reading very carefully the case put up by the Government for the Bill, and has been taken in by it. The only justification that the Government have put up for the Bill is that they have obtained a reduction in rates amounting approximately to £500,000 a year from Cable and Wireless, Limited. That might be a reasonable justification if the Government had obtained it from a company which was in a position to refuse it. The picture that the Assistant Postmaster-General has consistently painted on this subject has been something of this kind: a strong limited company capable of maintaining its rates, and of negotiating upon the subject of rates on equal terms with the Government, the Government approaching the company and asking in the national interest that there should be a reduction of telegraph rates, then coming back to the House and saying, "We have obtained a reduction of £500,000 in rates and, although we are sacrificing £250,000, we have arranged that the company shall suffer another £250,000 reduction."

That is the picture that has taken in the hon. Member. That would have been, were it a true presentation of the facts, a fairly strong justification at any rate for the sacrifice of revenue, but, unfortunately for the Government, just before the Second Reading there was the annual meeting of Cable and Wireless Holdings, Limited, and Lord Pender had to meet the shareholders of this ramshackle company, many of them having invested their money in heavily watered stock, having had continual disappointment as to dividends and having seen in the papers an announcement that rates were to be cut by £500,000 a year. Lord Pender had to justify his position, and he did so most indiscreetly for the Government. He let the cat out of the bag; he gave the real position. By taking the known facts and Lord Pender's indiscretions, we can paint an entirely different picture from that which the Government have tried to present to us, and one which, I think, is far more in accord with the facts.

Here was no strongly placed company capable of maintaining its rates. On the contrary, it was a great ramshackle concern, dropsical with watered capital, having only one profitable asset, and that a wasting one—the beam lease. From the very beginning, it had been overcapitalised on a fantastic basis, and it had to charge high telegraph rates in the hope of paying a reasonable dividend upon its watered capital. Those high rates produced a very natural result, a crop of competitive companies in other countries, which ate into the traffic receipts of Cable and Wireless, Limited, which reduced their revenue and which compelled them continually to fix lower and lower traffic rates. That was the position. Furthermore, that growing competition made it inevitable that there should be heavy reductions of rates in the future.

That company went to the Government and said, in effect, "Unless we can get some help we cannot pay profits on our fantastically watered capital; our traffic is going to our competitors, who are charging lower rates, we shall have to reduce our rates; get us out of the mess we are in." The Government said: "Certainly, take everything we have got; we have a rental of £250,000 a year—take that; we have the freehold of the beam wireless—take that; there is an odd £35,000 which you owe us for Kenya—take that; and in addition, we will negotiate for you a monopoly within the Empire." What have the Government got for all that? They have got a block of watered shares which are estimated to be worth about 12s. in the £ discount. I suggest that that is the real picture of the negotiations, and all the geniality and obscurities of the Assistant Postmaster-General will not be able to alter it. It may be true that in the circumstances in which we are we have to maintain Cable and Wireless, Limited, that we have to maintain our communications on a sound basis; but if it is necessary to maintain those communications financially sound, why were not steps taken in 1928 to stop the appalling financial jugglery at the inception of that company?

If the Government demand that Cable and Wireless, Limited, shall be treated as a quasi public utility company—that is the Government's phrase—if they claim that Cable and Wireless, Limited, shall have the rights and benefits of a public utility company, I think we are entitled to demand that they shall conform with the morality of a public utility company. If they are a public utility company, why was their flotation allowed to take the worst form of bucket-shop flotation? Had there been a sound flotation, had they been compelled to capitalise upon a sensible basis, had they been compelled to issue capital which had some relation to their assets, instead of issuing to the public a capital of some £52,000,000, with assets amounting to £12,000,000 or £13,000,000, there would have been no need at the present time for the Government to make this sacrifice of national assets. Had they been properly capitalised in the first place, they would have been in a position to cut rates and to meet competition, and they would have been in a position to pay a dividend upon a reasonable capital.

There is one other point that I want to make. We can forget all the past, we can admit that Cable and Wireless Holdings, Limited, are in their present mess because of financial juggling, we can admit that the Government must come to their assistance to the extent of £250,000 a year—we can admit all this for the sake of argument—but that does not justify the handing-over of the freehold of the beam wireless, because that cannot have any effect on the financial status of the Company for another quarter of a century. The possession of the freehold makes no difference to their financial position now. It does not help them. It is wantonly handing-over public property to a private, limited company, and a private, limited company with a rather disgraceful past. We have said in the past that we do not agree with it, and we said on the Second Reading that we do not propose to be bound by it in the future. There is only one result that can come from it, and that is that a quarter of a century hence this Company may try to claim entirely unwarranted and unwarrantable compensation from the Government when the beam wireless is resumed. If a Labour Government are in office, it will not get it.

11.2 p.m.

I should be lacking in my duty if I were not to offer some opposition to the Third Reading of this Bill. While sitting here, I have been thinking that possibly the Assistant Postmaster-General will feel somewhat embarrassed at having to make out a case for the handing-over of this property. On each occasion when he has addressed this House on business concerning the Post Office he has always advanced the argument that his Department was 100 per cent. efficient, and I think the House and the country appreciate the fact that from the Post Office we get extraordinarily good service. I can hardly imagine the Assistant Postmaster-General attempting to make out a case this evening to justify the handing-over of this business to a private concern, in view of what he has hitherto said concerning the business acumen of the Post Office. I take his view, rightly or wrongly, that he must himself, when he is arguing the case for the handing-over of this business to a private trading concern, as it were underestimate and decry, which is much worse, the business efficiency of his own Department.

I rather feel that the Assistant Postmaster-General, according to the speeches which he has made in this House, should have been standing at that Box this evening putting forward a case for the retention of these services by the State, because the whole history of the Post Office goes to prove that, as far as the services rendered by the Post Office are concerned, they have improved their efficiency, and, what is more important, they have been made more economical and cheaper for the community. Had this combine been efficient, one would have listened with interest to the case advanced for handing over this service to it, but in no sense can it be proved, or even said with justification that it has proved efficient. Its whole history proves the contrary. Those of us who sit on this side of the House feel from that point of view alone, that there is no justification for transferring this vital service to a concern which has shown itself in the past to be inefficient.

If the Assistant Postmaster-General proposes to make out a case in defence of this Bill on the ground of efficiency, we shall listen to him with considerable interest, but I am persuaded that it is not possible to make out such a case. Figures have been given to the House as to the amount of capital value which is being handed over to the company. When the Financial Secretary spoke in 1928 on this subject, he was challenged to give an estimate of the capital value of the beam wireless service and he estimated that at that time it was worth no less than 4,000,000. I am prepared to say that it is worth far more to-day. Let the House consider for a moment the sacrifices that have already been made to enable this combine to render service to the community. Under the former agreement cables that had cost the community no less than £7,000,000 were handed over gratis to this combine. Now on the Financial Secretary's figures of 1928 we are handing over property which must be worth at least another £4,000,000. In the aggregate, £11,000,000 of capital value is being transferred to this combine out of what has hitherto been public property. It is nothing other than a wholesale plundering of public property.

On the last occasion when we discussed this matter I quoted certain words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I do not propose to repeat them. Those who were present on that occasion will remember what I then said. I only add that the Government at present are evidently prepared to dig deeply, and still more deeply, into the public purse in order to bolster up private enterprise, yet in spite of the spoonfeeding which private enterprise is receiving from the Government, there is scarcely a sign of efficiency forthcoming. On those counts alone, we are justified in opposing the Third Reading of the Bill. I shall await with interest the Assistant-Postmaster-General's defence of private enterprise in this case and his effort to show the House that this combine can do this work more efficiently than the Post Office could have done it.

11.10 p.m.

I am sure that every right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentleman envies my task in replying to the Debate, because it will be in large measure a repetition of arguments that have been advanced before. I make no complaint on that score, because no one moved any Amendment to the Bill on the Committee stage. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) asked me whether I was not embarrassed at having to stand at this Box and defend this arrangement entered into by the Government, in conjunction with the Dominions, with Cable and Wireless, Limited. I acn assure the House that I am not in the least embarrassed. I have a good case to put before the House, and I must say I thank the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) for his words of kindness in the latter part of his speech.

Let us look at the history of this business. The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said the arrangement entered into in 1928 was a mistake, but let us look at what that arrangement was. There was an Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference held between representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire, India and the Colonies and Protectorates. That conference recommended that the lease of the beam wireless stations should be granted to Cable and Wireless, Limited. This was not a decision of His Majesty's Government; it was a decision taken in conjunction with all the Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates. The object of it was to provide for cooperation among Empire Governments for the maintenance and development of the overseas cable and wireless system of the Empire operating through private enterprise in the United Kingdom under quasi-public utility conditions. That is the reason these services were placed in the hands of Cable and Wireless, Limited. Very stringent measures of control were put upon the operations of the company as recommended by this conference. They were put under an obligation to maintain cables which might be required for strategic purposes; the chairman of the company had to be approved by the Government; the Government retained the power to take over the whole of the company's staff and plant in time of war; the Imperial Communications Advisory Committee, on which various countries of the Empire were represented, was set up; and the company could not increase sales or dispose of its assets without the consent of that committee.

Those who brought forward the scheme in 1928, bearing in mind the conditions then obtaining, and the desire for unity as between various sections of the Empire, did the right thing in handing over to this company. There was approval for this Bill by all the Governments concerned, and I think that that decision was a right one. There is in the new arrangements no departure from the fundamental principles in this matter, largely because it is not just a question of communications between this country and, say, Australia and New Zealand, because there are communications between one Dominion and another. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the British Post Office could not very well control them without the consent of the Dominions, and the conference agreed that it would be better not for one Gov- ernment or another Government to have control but that a company under the control of this advisory committee should operate the services. I submit that they were wise in coming to that decision.

My right hon. Friend asked a question as to the financial arrangements, and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead wanted to know something about the revision of the standard revenue. The alteration in the economic position is recognised by reducing the standard revenue figure from £1,865,000, which admittedly has never been attained, to £1,200,000. The benefit of any profits in excess of the standard revenue will be shared between the company—and there the Government, as a shareholder, will benefit—and the users of the system in the form of rate reductions. The holding company have recognised the changed position by reducing the ordinary stock from £29,471,180 to £6,883,103 and the total issued capital from £46,000,000 odd to £23,000,000. That deals with the allegations about watered capital and overcapitalisation. It is well known that in the early days of the cable companies there was a vast expenditure on pioneer work and the capital subscribed at that time did in the long run overweight these companies. From time to time adjustments have been made, and though they were fairly made no doubt they have meant that certain people who invested money in the early days have lost it, and those foolish people who purchased shares at a later date owing to some rumour that the Government were going to assist the company have also undoubtedly lost money.

Division No. 270.]	AYES.	[11.20 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Culverwell, C. T.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Bull, B. B.	Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Albery, Sir Irving	Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.	Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)	Butcher, H. W.	Dodd, J. S.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Butler, R. A.	Doland, G. F.
Apsley, Lord	Campbell, Sir E. T.	Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Carver, Major W. H.	Drewe, C.
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)	Cary, R. A.	Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)	Channon, H.	Duggan, H. J.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Christie, J. A.	Eastwood, J. F.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)	Eckersley P. T.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)	Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Beechman, N. A.	Colman, N. C. D.	Ellis, Sir G.
Bernays, R. H.	Colville, Rt. Hon. John	Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Birchall, Sir J. D.	Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)	Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Bossom, A. C.	Cox, H. B. Trevor	Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Boulton, W. W.	Critchley, A.	Errington, E.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Evant, D. O. (Cardigan)
Boyce, H. Leslie	Crooke, Sir J. Smedley	Fildes, Sir H.
Braithwaite, Major A. M.	Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.	Findlay, Sir E.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Fremantle, Sir F. E
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)	Crowder, J. F. E.	Fyfe, D. P. M.

But the directors of the company or the Government cannot be blamed for that. If people will be foolish enough to gamble on a chance of that kind they must take the consequences. [ Interruption.] I am speaking about the allegations that the shares bounded sky-high as soon as the rumour got around that the Government were coming to the assistance of the company. I am not speaking about the original shareholders, who would undoubtedly invest their money in the hope of receiving a fair profit. It s not the fault of the Government if people pay inflated prices for shares. There is a lot of nonsense talked about watered capital. If I had had time I should like to have replied to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and the hon. Member for West Willesden on the subject of private enterprise versus State control. I agree with the hon. Member for West Willesden that the Post Office is an efficient service, but if I could quote to the House not the profits only which the Post Office made but the losses which were made in the past and the years in which they were made a very different picture would be presented. [ Interruption.] I am proud of the progress which has been made by the Post Office during the time that my right hon. Friend has been in office, and during the term of office of my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Air who preceded him, and may I say, with all due modesty, of myself.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 113.

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)	Magnay, T.	Seely, Sir H. M.
Gluckstein, L. H.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Selley, H. R.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Shakespeare, G. H.
Goldie, N. B.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Gower, Sir R. V.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M	Morris-Jones, Sir Henry	Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Grimston, R. V.	Morrisson, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)	Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.	Spens. W. P.
Harbord, A.	Munro, P.	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Nall, Sir J.	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Nicholson, G. (Farnham)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Hepworth, J.	Palmer, G. E. H.	Tate, Mavis C.
Higgs, W. F.	Peat, C. U.	Thomas, J. P. L.
Holdsworth, H.	Petherick, M.	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Hopkinson, A.	Porritt, R. W.	Titchfield, Marquess of
Horsbrugh, Florence	Procter, Major H. A.	Turton, R. H.
Hulbert, N. J.	Raikes, H. V. A. M.	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Hunloke, H. P.	Ramsden, Sir E.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hunter, T.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Hutchinson, G. C.	Rayner, Major R. H.	Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)	Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)	Wells, Sir Sydney
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)	White, H. Graham
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.	Remer, J. R.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Kimball, L.	Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Lees-Jones, J.	Ropner, Colonel L.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Levy, T.	Rowlands, G.	Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Lipson, D. L.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.	Wragg, H.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.	Russell, Sir Alexander	Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Lloyd, G. W.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Lyons, A. M.	Salmon, Sir I.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
M'Connell, Sir J.	Salt, E. W.	Captain Dugdale and Mr.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.	Furness.
McKie, J. H.	Scott, Lord William

NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Poole, C. C.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)	Price, M. P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Hayday, A.	Pritt, D. N.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Ridley, G.
Banfield, J. W.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Ritson, J.
Barnes, A. J.	Hicks, E. G.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Barr, J.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Sexton, T. M.
Batey, J.	Jagger, J.	Silkin, L.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Silverman, S. S.
Benson, G.	Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)	Simpson, F. B.
Broad, F. A.	John, W.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J.(S. Ayrshire)	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Buchanan, G,	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Cape, T.	Kelly, W. T.	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Charleton, H. C.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Sorensen, R. W.
Cluse, W. S.	Kirby, B. V.	Stephen, C.
Collindridge, F.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Lathan, G.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Daggar, G.	Lawson, J. J.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dalton, H.	Leach, W.	Thurtle, E.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Lee, F.	Tinker, J. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Leslie, J. R.	Tomlinson, G.
Dobbie, W.	Logan, D. G.	Viant, S. P.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Lunn, W.	Walkden, A. G.
Ede, J. C.	McEntee, V. La T.	Watkins, F. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	McGhee, H. G.	Watson, W. McL.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	McGovern, J.	Welsh, J. C.
Frankel, D.	Maxton, J.	Westwood, J.
Gardner, B. W.	Milner, Major J.	Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Wilkinson, Ellen
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Nathan, Colonel H. L.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Noel-Baker, P. J.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Grenfell, D. R.	Oliver, G. H.	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Paling, W.	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Parker, J.
Groves, T. E.	Parkinson, J. A.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)	Pearson, A.	Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Welsh Church (Amendment) (Re-Committed) Bill Lords

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Milk (Extension And Amend- Ment) Money

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend certain temporary provisions of the Milk Acts, 1934 to 1937, to release Milk Marketing Boards and the Government of Northern Ireland from certain obligations thereunder, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—
(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such increase in the expenditure falling to be made out of moneys so provided as is attributable to any provisions of the said Act—
(i) extending by twelve months the periods in respect of which sums are to be payable to milk marketing boards under Sections one, two, and three of the Milk Act, 1934, as amended by the Milk (Extension of Temporary Provisions) Act, 1936, and by the Milk (Amendment) Act, 1937 (which Act of 1934, as so amended, is hereinafter referred to as 'the Milk Act');
(ii) enabling the payments which may be made under Sub-section (1) of Section eleven of the Milk Act in respect of expenses incurred by milk marketing boards to be made in respect of such expenses attributable to any time before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and increasing by seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds the amount which may be so expended under that Sub-section;
(b) to release milk marketing boards and the Government of Northern Ireland from any obligation to make payments to the Exchequer under Sections five and six of the Milk Act in respect of milk used for manufacture after the end of September, 1937."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Captain Wallace.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Food And Drugs Bill Lords

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.— [ Captain Margesson.]

Food And Drugs Money

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to food, drugs, markets, slaughter-houses, and knackers' yards, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act in exercising any powers of a council, port health authority, or joint board, subject, however to the recovery of those expenses from the council, authority, or board in question, in manner provided by the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Captain Wallace.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Naval Discipline (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 1—(Amendment Of Naval Discipline Act)

11.35 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out from "shall," to "apply," in line 2, page 2.

On the Second Reading the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) raised the point that these words should not be in the Bill, and that he would like them to be taken out, and he offered two lesser alternatives. I then gave an undertaking that I would inquire fully into the matter, and that is why I am dealing with the Amendment myself this evening. I have looked into it, and we have decided that we can take the words out, so that we have completely met the point which the hon. Gentleman made.

11.37 p.m.

We are very grateful to the Minister for having taken out these words. It is a great pity they were ever put in, and unless attention had been drawn to them they would no doubt have remained in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 6, leave out "An," and insert "His Majesty may by."

In line 6, leave out "under this Section may."—[ Colonel Llewellin.]

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

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

Anglo-Turkish (Armaments Credit) Agreement Money

Resolution reported,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm and give effect to an agreement made between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the Turkish Republic, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the following payments under the said Act, that is to say—
(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any advances made by the Treasury not exceeding in the aggregate six million pounds;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by His Majesty's Government in respect of such advances;
(c) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums so paid into the Exchequer;
and to authorise the Treasury to raise money and to create and issue securities for the purpose of making such advances as aforesaid and to apply any sums paid out of the Consolidated Fund under paragraph (c) of this Resolution in relief of the National Debt."

Resolution agreed to.

Anglo-Turkish (Armaments Credit) Agreement Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 1—(Confirmation Of Agreement And Power To Make Advances)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.40 p.m.

There is a question which I should like to raise, which was missed when the Bill was before us yesterday. It affects the question of coal in the agreement. I should like to make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. This Debate will take a long time, because we must oppose the agreement as it affects coal. The Patronage Secretary has done very well to-night. He has got a good many Bills. Will he be satisfied to leave this question over to another occasion? If he will not, then I want to deliver my speech on the question of coal.

Is the hon. Member sure that he is speaking on the right Bill?

If I am wrong, it would not be the first time I have been wrong, but I think I am right, on Clause 1.

If the hon. Member is referring to Article 4 of the agreement, that merely deals with ratification and the exchange of the instruments of ratification.

This Bill is to confirm agreements made with the Turkish Government. There are three of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they were political, economic and financial agreements. There can be no doubt that into the economic argument comes the question of coal, and the only part of the Bill on which to deal with that point is Clause 1, which confirms the agreement. I submit that I am entitled to point out the words which deal with this matter. In Command Paper 5754, on page 5, there are these words:

"There shall be a company incorporated in England, under the Companies Act, 1929, with its principal place of business in London, for the sale"—

I am afraid the hon. Member is dealing with the wrong Bill. If he will get the right Bill, he will see that it has nothing to do with the matter he wishes to raise.

In moving the Second Reading of the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately dealt with the three agreements.

The hon. Member has not the right Bill. If he looks at the agreement, he will see that it has nothing to do with the matter he is raising.

11.43 p.m.

The Bill we are dealing with is the Anglo-Turkish Agreement Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was moving the Second Reading, pointed out that there were three agreements, which all hang together, one providing £6,000,000 for armaments, another dealing with export credits to the amount of £10,000,000, and the third agreement dealing with the clearing arrangements. In the second of these agreements, the one dealing with export credits to the amount of £10,000,000, on page 5, there is a reference to the setting up of a Turkish corporation in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that they all had to be taken together, and I take it that the hon. Member is objecting to Clause 1 of this Bill because he does not want to ratify one of these agreements if it is going to do injury to the coal sales of this country.

11.45 p.m.

May I state the position as I understand it? It is quite correct to say that on the general issue raised on the Second Reading of the Bill I called attention to the fact that there were three agreements made on the same day, and I said that only one of the agreements needed statutory ratification; that, of course, is the one in the Schedule to this Bill. Now we have reached the Committee stage, and you, Sir, have put the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." The only thing dealt with in Clause 1 is the agreement in the Schedule, and that has to do with armaments credits. Neither of the other agreements requires statutory ratification. I apprehend that it was quite right to discuss the relation of all three agreements on the Second Reading of the Bill, and right for me to call attention to the fact that they were all signed on the same day, and that only one needed statutory authority. Now that we are in Committee I respectfully submit that the question is whether Clause 1 dealing with the agreement in the Schedule should be agreed to.

11.47 p.m.

I submit that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has raised a point of substance. We are considering a Clause which ratifies the agreement in the Schedule, and that agreement is to facilitate such purchases as are referred to under the clearing agreement. One of the considerations for loaning this £6,000,000 is to facilitate the purchase of articles referred to in the trade agreement, and, therefore, I submit that the hon. Member has raised a sound point. If that is so, perhaps the Patronage Secretary will see that proper time is given to discuss it.

The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is quite right in regard to the facts but not in the deductions which he draws. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has now gone astray. What he has said would have been quite in order on the Second Reading, but he will realise that as we are now in Committee, the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) cannot oppose the Bill on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." The principle of the other agreements has been passed, and therefore they cannot be discussed on the Committee stage of this Bill.

Am I right that Clause 1 is the Clause which approves the agreement set out in the Schedule, which in paragraph (1) says that the Government of the United Kingdom undertake to advance £6,000,000, and the reason for doing so is to facilitate certain purchases? The hon. Member is raising the question of these purchases. That, I submit, is in order.

I understand that the purchases that the hon. Member refers to do not come under this Clause.

11.50 p.m.

Surely the hon. Member has still the right to oppose the Clause. He will doubtless give his reasons. He might say that he has given full consideration to all that was said from the Government Bench but feels that he must oppose it because they have not made out a sufficiently sound case for the ratification of the agreement.

That is exactly what the hon. Member cannot argue. He can say he will vote against the Clause and he can do so, but the matters that come under the £10,000,000 Resolution cannot be debated on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," which refers only to the £6,000,000.

I do not think you understood me, Sir Dennis. I quite realise that he cannot discuss the £10,000,000 Credits Agreement but he can discuss the £6,000,000.

I fully understood the hon. Member. He cannot make the speech he wants to.

The question I want to deal with is this: When the Government makes a loan it makes provision for repayment and it sets up a committee which will sell coal in any part of the British Empire or any foreign country.

I see the hon. Member has the Bill in his hand. Will he point out to me where that is mentioned?

It is true that the committee is not mentioned in the Bill but the money is provided. If it were not, the committee would not be set up.

I must rule clearly that those matters which come under the £10,000,000 loan dealt with in a separate Resolution cannot be discussed at all on the Committee stage of this Bill.

It has to be raised somewhere: there is no question about that. We will not have coal dealt with as the Government propose to deal with it here. If we cannot raise it on Clause 1 cannot we raise it on Clause 2?

No. I gave my Ruling, I hope quite clearly, that it cannot be raised on the Committee stage of this Bill at all.

11.54 p.m.

With regard to your request, Sir Dennis, to be shown where the Clause deals with the matter that my hon. Friend wishes to bring up, it makes definite reference to the agreement in the Schedule, which says the Government of the Turkish Republic have adopted an economic programme and deals with the value of the mineral and certain other products—

I am obliged to the hon. Member for trying to help me, but his remarks do not cause me to make any alteration in my definite Ruling.

11.55 p.m.

I wish to say a few words on this Clause. In this agreement, the Government are making arrangements to lend £6,000,000 for the provision of armaments to the Turkish Government. Can the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer give some idea as to what those armaments will be? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, he told us that the Service Departments had been consulted on the matter and had stated that they were in a position to provide the armaments that would be required under the agreement. Later on, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) put a specific question as to what were the armaments, I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he could not say, and that that was something for the future. He did not know exactly what they would be. I was a little puzzled by that. How can the Service Departments say that they are in a position to supply the Turkish Government with the armaments if they do not know what those armaments are to be?

On a point of Order. Actually I did not have the privilege of addressing the House at all on this question.

I apologise to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. The Financial Secretary knew that just as well as anybody, and he might have put his correction a little more courteously that he did. In my opinion, the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department is every bit as competent as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were uncertain as to what the armaments would be, and I am asking how the Service Departments can say that they will be in a position to supply those armaments to the Turkish Government if they do not know what they will be. For example, if they were aeroplanes, would the Service Departments be in a position to provide them? I would like some Member of the Government to clear up the contradiction of the previous Debate in this connection. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to the whole subject of this agreement. I sympathise very much with the speech that was made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston) on this agreement. I think we have been too easy in allowing the Government to get away with it, and I feel that all the more since hearing the attempts of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) to raise the question of the effect the agreement might have on the coal trade of this country in the future.

11.59 p.m.

There seem to be some points that ought to be raised on this Bill. I do not know whether the Patronage Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer insist on taking this to-night, or whether they would be prepared to adjourn the matter to a more fortunate time for discussion. It is not that hon. Members want to raise points simply for the sake of staying here tonight.

It would be unfortunate, in view of the spare time that there has been on other occasions, such as last night, if we had to sit late to discuss this Measure. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, as there are points to be raised, whether he could see his way to let us go now and take this matter on some other occasion? I am sure it would add to the amenities of the House and the expedition of business if he took that step.

12.1 a.m.

I think we all want to do what is generally convenient, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that we want to do what in the circumstances is fair. The answer to the point of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is very simple. We spent a long time discussing it on Second Reading, when all these points were mentioned. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Article 1 of the agreement he will find that the material that can be ordered by the Turkish Government can only be ordered under contracts concluded with the approval of the Government of the United Kingdom. The agreement does not give the right to the Turkish Government to order as they please by arrangement with contractors here to the disadvantage of this country. The nature of the purchases is completely controlled. I cannot say what they will be because they have not been settled in detail, but the fact that they are completely controlled shows that there will be no difficulty under that head. With regard to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), there is no question that there was an undertaking not to keep the House up but if there is a genuine feeling that there are points to be raised that will take some time to discuss, we had better move to report Progress. I do not think, however, that there is really very much to be discussed on this Clause.

There is a point I want to raise.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Protection Of Animals (No 2) Bill

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

Volume 338: debated on Tuesday 5 July 1938

House Of Commons

Death Of A Member

Private Business

Oral Answers To Questions

British Army

Members Of Parliament (Commissions)

Courts Of Inquiry (Territorial Officers)

Horse Guards (Barrack Regulations)

Army Council

Scotland

Education

Agricultural Wage Rates

Eviction, Shettleston

Housing

Zetland (Police Forces)

Juvenile Offenders (Psycho-Analysis)

Local Authorities (Grant)

Contributory Pensions

Rivers Pollution

Administration

Legal Business (Unqualified Persons)

Sheriff Court Procedure

Coal Industry

Mine Accidents

Protective Equipment

Safety Measures (Training Schemes)

Mine Temperatures, Lancashire

Pamphlet

Anglo-French Discussions

Electrical Machinery (Inspections)

Explosions

Newfoundland (Air-Bases)

Southern Rhodesia (Sale Of Cattle)

Bombing Of British Ships

Mercantile Marine

Passenger Liners, Southampton-New York

Registration Regulations

Masters' And Officers' Qualifications

Air Pilots' Training (Canada)

Ministers' Powers (Committee's Recommendation)

Ministers (Private Practice As Solicitors)

Parliamentary Secretary To The Admiralty (Visit, Gibraltar)

United States (British Debt)

Imperial And Local Taxation

Stationery Office Printing And Binding Establishments

Munitions (Exports)

Questions To Ministers

Business Of The House

Message From The Lords

Penzance Corporation Bill Lords

War Department Property Bill Lords

Orders Of The Day

Fire Brigades Bill

Clause 2—(Fire-Hydrants And Water Supply In Case Of Fire)

Clause 16—(Definition Of "Fire Brigade Duties" For Purposes Of Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, And This Act)

Clause 24—(Provisions As To London)

First Schedule—(Constitution And Proceedings Of Fire Service Commission)

New Clause-(Repeal Of Certain Enactments Requiring Owners And Occupiers To Defray Expenses Of Fire Brigades)

New Clause—(Power Of Secretary Of State To Require Uniformity Of Appliances And Equipment)

New Clause—(Notices)

New Clause—(Exemption From Restrict Tions Relating To Traffic Lights, Etc)

New Clause—(Free Passage To Be Afforded To Fire Brigade Vehicles)

Clause 1—(Provision Of Fire Services)

Clause 2—(Fire-Hydrants And Water Supply In Case Of Fire)

Clause 3—(Power Of Fire Authority To Require Proposed Waterworks To Be Constructed In Manner Specified By Them)

Clause 4—(Expenses Of Rural District Council In Connection With Fire Hydrants And Water Supply)

Clause 5—(Restriction Of Power Of Fire Authorities To Charge For Services)

Clause 9—(Schemes For Co-Ordination Of Fire Services)

Clause 14—(Power Of Fire Brigades And Police In Extinguishing Fires)

Clause 15—(Extension Of Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, To Temporary Firemen)

Clause 17—(Central Advisory Council For Fire Services)

Clause 21—(Provisions As To Orders Of Secretary Of State)

Clause 24—(Provisions As To London)

Clause 25—(Application To Scotland)

Clause 26—(Interpretation)

Third Schedule—(Enactments Repealed)

Imperial Telegraphs Bill

Welsh Church (Amendment) (Re-Committed) Bill Lords