§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONThe matter to which I should like to call attention is one in reference to the item of expenditure for the Australasian and Antarctic expedition, for which a sum of £2,000 is set apart, out of the large sum of £63,000 for scientific grants. I put that Amendment down for consideration on the Committee stage, but the whole of the Vote, with a great many others, amounting to many millions, was guillotined. I put it down again on the Report stage yesterday, and again the whole of the Supplementary Vote, amounting to many millions, was guillotined. We know very well the House of Commons is supreme in the control of finance, and this is how we control it. How long Members of this House will endure that dignified position I do not know, but the time is coming, I am perfectly certain, when the constituencies will insist that their Members shall have real control over the finances of the country, not a sham control. I should like to call the attention of the House to the very generous form of this grant. It is not a large sum, but the conditions upon which it is made are extraordinary. The expenditure of this Grant-in-Aid is not to be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller or Auditor-General while no unexpended balance is to be surrendered up at the close of the financial year. There is no meanness about that; they do not ask to audit these accounts, and whatever the payee may have over he can put in his pocket.
In the first place, I should like to know who is the payee that gets this amount of money. The time has come, I think, when the tax-payer's money should 2026 not be expended upon what is, after all, a private venture, namely, the struggle and seeking after kudos and glory by the first man to arrive at some spot on earth which is not the slightest use to anyone when he gets there. For seventy years the cry was the North Pole. Many and many a brave man lost his life upon that venture, and thousands and thousands of pounds were squandered on the effort to get — what? Of course, at the beginning there was some idea that when you crossed a certain ice barrier you would come upon open water, and so a North-West Passage to the other side of the world would be found. That was found to be an idle dream; and that there was no such thing. As I said, a great deal of treasure was wasted and many brave lives were lost, and, after all, it seems that it was not so difficult to find the North Pole, for in one twelve months two men discovered it—at least they said they did. All you had to do apparently was to leave camp with another man—not a white man —and go away for a few days, and then to come back with some sketches and say you had reached the North Pole. However that may be, one feels very certain that from the time these two men quarrelled as to who had reached the Pole, the Pole became a back number, and no one cares anything about it, and you could not find any one now to put up a penny to go and search for the North Pole. Because what did they find? Absolutely nothing but a bleak devastation in which no human being could exist. And so the object has changed to the South Pole. I do not object to men putting up money and to geographical societies and zoological societies putting up money to discover anything they choose. What I do object to is that the taxpayers' money should be frittered away to absolutely no public good. Of course they cover it up by calling it scientific research. Dr. Scott, I believe, with the aid of drift nets, discovered some small spiders with ten legs instead of six. What earthly use is that to anybody except the professors of morphology and its students. It would be very interesting to them, but it should be for the benefit of human happiness that we spend our money. The Secretary to the Treasury is about the hardest man to get money out of, yet there seems to be no difficulty in these cases. Somebody gets round him, and gets the money out of him for these expeditions. Let us talk seriously on the subject. I am quite sure that if there is any money for scientific research that can be spared— 2027 if the Secretary to the Treasury has a few thousands lying about—there is plenty of scientific research nearer home by which he might be able to do something to cure disease, stop poverty, or better the condition of the people. This would be better than spending it on these silly objects. There is one part of these expeditions which to me, and every right feeling man, is most horribly objectionable. This is the extreme cruelty which is perpetrated, and which seems to be attached to every one of these expeditions. No one can read from Nansen's book without being indignant at the terrible sufferings the poor dogs endure. They take large numbers of them, and they first of all make them drag heavy-weighted sledges across hummocky, broken ice. You would not be allowed to do that in this country, yet you subscribe money to these men who treat these dogs in this way. On these expeditions, it seems to me, they are never able to take enough food with them for themselves and these wretched dogs. What happens is this: The dogs are half-starved, and they are beaten and thrashed as long as they can make a little more effort. At last they fall down and make food for their fellow dogs. I should just like to read what Dr. Nansen says upon this. It will convince all Members that it is unwise to encourage these expeditions. He says:—
It was undeniable cruelty to the animals from first to last and one must often look back on it with horror. It makes me shudder even now but we beat them mercilessly with sticks when hardly able to move they stopped from sheer exhaustion. It made one's heart bleed to see them but we turned our eyes away. … One systematically kills all better feelings. When I think of all these splendid animals toiling for us as long as they could strain a muscle; when I think how they were left behind one by one on these desolate icefields, I had moments of bitter self-reproach.This House ought not to lend its aid to any of these expeditions where this sort of cruelty obtains. What a terrible indictment of cruelty, it seems to me, always attaches to these Arctic and Antarctic expeditions. I trust that, if the Treasury have gone so far that they cannot draw back, they will still, at least, insist upon a pledge that no cruelty such as I have described shall take place.
§ Mr. C. E. PRICEThere is just one subject to which I would like to call attention. It is a subject with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has most to do, and I am therefore glad that he is in the House. The subject is the grant on behalf of education in Scotland. I am sorry to find by a 2028 paper issued this morning that we shall have a shortage of £41,887. This is a very serious matter for education in Scotland. Every burgh, every county, is affected. Glasgow, for instance, will have a reduction of £12,000. Edinburgh has a fall of nearly £4,000, Aberdeen of £2,000, Dundee of over £2,000, and if you come to the county of Lanark there is a reduction of nearly £4,000. This reduction is a very serious matter for the Scottish people. I am quite sure that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to make the Insurance Bill popular in Scotland he will not do it by sacrificing education. I trust he will be able to say something regarding this reduction. I am aware that it has been brought about by a reduction in the consumption of whisky. We welcome that reduction, but it is a great pity indeed that educational grants should be dependent upon the consumption of alcohol. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.] At any rate I am quite sure, whatever the cause of the reduction may be, that it will be very bad policy indeed to allow this reduction to be made if it is to be made simply to keep the finance of the country in a satisfactory condition, in view of the increased charges of the Finance Bill.
§ Mr. W. TYSON WILSONI believe some time ago the Secretary to the Treasury had a request from the gardeners employed in Kew Gardens for an increased allowance. They have an allowance of £1 or £1 1s. a week. The Treasury said this amount is an allowance, and not a wage. The gardeners asked the Treasury to increase this, and also to pay them the full allowance when they were sick. I have also to ask the Treasury whether they will favourably consider the request of the labourers in the gardens for an increase of wages. These men are paid considerably less than the men of the Richmond District Council, and less than the wages paid by employers of labour whose men do similar work. I hope that, after all these years, we shall have, at any rate, a more favourable reply than we have had in the past, and that the claims of these men will be considered. There are other grievances in connection with the work done in the Gardens, such as Sunday labour and the hours of labour generally, which are too long, and I hope something will be done to meet these grievances. Considering the increased cost of living, I think one 2029 guinea per week paid to the gardeners is not sufficient for skilled workmen. I know these men are gaining experience and knowledge, but they are doing the work of skilled men for the Government, for which they ought to be paid a reasonable wage.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)I wish, in the first place, to answer the speech made by the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), who raised the subject of the Development Fund, more particularly in connection with the question of transit facilities for agricultural produce. I think the hon. Member forgets the conditions under which the Development Commissioners worked, and he rather suggested that it was their duty to initiate a particular scheme for collecting produce from the more remote and inaccessible portions of Ireland and for conveying it to central markets by means of motor traffic. That is not within the power of the Development Commissioners. Their duty is to examine the schemes which are submitted to them either directly from a Government Department or which may have been transmitted to them. Their duty is to examine all such proposals and schemes, and more particularly when these schemes have connection and relation with different places which are not able of themselves, because of the limited scope of the area over which they have jurisdiction, to combine with labouring localities. It is only then that the Development Commissioners are empowered to proceed. The Development Commissioners have laid down in connection with agricultural questions in the Report presented to the House some little time ago, more particularly in relation to Ireland, definite lines to guide them in dealing with applications from Ireland. If the hon. Member will look on page 12 of the Report he will see there that they have laid down certain conditions with regard to agriculture in which they, in the first place, aim at increasing the amount and quality of agricultural produce; secondly, they aim at increasing the variety; and, thirdly, they hope to improve the efficiency of organised co-operation. If the hon. Member will refer to page 18 of the report he will see that the Department make another suggestion that £18,000 should be devoted to Ireland for the establishment and maintenance of agricultural stations for a system of general investigation and scientific research into agricul- 2030 ture. I have not seen any suggestion that the transport facilities asked for have been put forward as one of the first necessities in the development of agricultural facilities. I am afraid I did not catch all the hon. Member said, but if he has some definite scheme in mind in reference to some particular place or area, and if he will get that put forward by the Department concerned, which I imagine would be the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, I am sure the Development Commissioners would give to his scheme or any similar scheme the greatest possible care and attention, and although they will submit it to a keen and critical examination it will not be of a hostile but of a friendly character.
The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) asked some questions with regard to the solicitor's staff of the Post Office. He indicated that the solicitor's staff of the Telephone Company, when transferred to the Post Office, would be placed in a better position than the existing staff of the General Post Office. He need be under no such apprehension, because the staff in the solicitor's office of the Post Office is not an established staff, and the only persons established are the solicitor and the assistant solicitor and one principal clerk. The solicitor's staff is not an established staff either in the Post Office or any other Government department. The hon. Gentleman who represents the University of London will remember that some years ago there was a general inquiry into the standing and status of the solicitor's staffs in all the various Government departments. It was held by that Committee that it was greatly to the advantage both of the department and of the solicitors that the staff in each office should be personal and that the solicitor should receive a sum for the maintenance of a clerical and legal staff, out of which he should make no profit, and which should be sufficient to pay adequate salaries to the members of the staff. That will be the position of the solicitor's staff of the Telephone Company when it is transferred to the Post Office. Of course, if they go to other departments they will be allowed to accept established posts. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) raised a question in connection with the Antarctic expedition. I may state that my hon. Friend has managed to select the one weak spot in my armour. In this matter I yielded to the importunities of the Governor-General 2031 and the Agent-General of Australia, who represented to me the great importance which that great colony attaches to this expedition which they have contributed very largely to, and much more largely than we have done ourselves. We have thought it right—and I think the House will agree with us—to mark our sympathy, not merely with the scientific objects which may be in view, but with the wishes and desires of that important colony.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONWill the right hon. Gentleman make the stipulation that there is to be no cruelty to dogs on the expedition?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI cannot imagine men who are ready to risk their own lives in the pursuance of scientific objects—because although there may naturally be some glory attaching to the successful leader of such an expedition, I believe most of these expeditions are undertaken from a desire to promote the objects of science—will inflict unnecessary cruelty upon the dumb animals which are part and parcel of the expedition.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONIt always happens though.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI am afraid there is often cruelty in many things in the world which is regrettable, but I do not myself believe persons who are engaged in these expeditions and whose very lives depend upon the good treatment of the dogs will inflict any unnecessary hardship and certainly no cruelty upon them.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONIf my right hon. Friend will read Nansen he will find a very different story.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have not only read Nansen, but I have heard Nansen. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh {Mr. C. E. Price) raised a question in connection with Scotch education, and I should rather like to make a very short statement upon that which, I know, is a matter of some importance to many Scotch Members. The Scotch Education Fund was practically created by the Act of 1908, and there are, I think, six direct sources of income to that fund. There is a sum of £40,000 from Customs and Excise. That is practically a fixed sum under the Excise 2032 Act of 1890. There is a sum of £57,000, which is called the residue of the Whisky Money, and which under the Revenue Act passed earlier in the year has now become fixed and is not a variable quantity. There is a sum of £60,000 under the Education and Local Taxation (Scotland) Act. There is a sum of £33,000, the only varying amount, which is the balance to the credit of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account. There is a sum of £38,000 which is the balance of a sum paid to the Scotch Local Taxation Account as an Equivalent Grant, and finally there is a sum of £258,000 which is the general aid grant to Scotland. These sums make up a total of about £500,000, the only varying amounts being the General Aid Grant and the sum of £33,000, the balance to the credit of the Estate Duty and Local Taxation Licences Grant. It is suggested that this year that some has fallen short by a sum of £40,000 of that which it was in the previous year. That is not quite an accurate figure, though I admit it is approximately accurate. The estimated sum due in respect of the balance of the Local Taxation Account was £26,000. It has turned out to be £33,000, so there is an increment to the Fund of something like £7,000 or £8,000. There is, however, a difference this year between the amount so paid, and the amount paid last year. It is a difference as between £61,000 odd and £33,000 odd, practically a difference of about £28,000. Part of that is a real deficiency, and part of it is an apparent deficiency. That part of it which is a real deficiency consists of some £17,000 which is the result of the yield of the Estate Duty spread over the whole of the United Kingdom. The apparent difference is an amount of £11,000 which comes under the head of the Equivalent Grant. The sum of £33,000 being a residue of a sum from which the Equivalent Grant is one of the deductions, the greater the amount of the Equivalent Grant the less the amount which is carried into the Education Fund. Both of these sums go to the credit of the Scotch taxpayer, and, if he gets more under the one head, he gets less under the other. As he gets more under the Equivalent Grant, so he gets less under the Scotch Education Fund, and, while he pays less therefore in respect of his ordinary rate, he pays more in respect of his education rate. Therefore the only fluctuating grant is one of £17,000. It may go up next year just as 2033 it went down this year. It has fluctuated between a yield of £47,000, £33,000, £61,000, and £39,000, and, while I admit it undoubtedly causes some inconvenience at the present time, it is merely a temporary and passing inconvenience, and I am bound to say, having regard to the general interests of the taxpayers all over the country and having regard to the proportion Scotland gets of the Grant-in-Aid, I do not think we are called upon to remedy it, especially as I have pointed out it is a varying sum.
§ Mr. C. E. PRICEThe Grant for primary education is greater in England than in Scotland.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThere are a great many more people in England than in Scotland. Another question was asked by my hon. Friend one of the Members for Yorkshire with regard to Kew Gardens. I would point out to him that the persons who are employed there for a short time only, I think for not more than two years, are really in the nature of apprentices, and I would ask him to look at the conditions of employment in the Royal Horticultural Society's gardens. He will find that the persons who are employed there, precisely as these persons who are employed at Kew, have actually to pay a premium, and they get no wages. These persons who are employed at Kew get an allowance, and they have to pay no premium at all. The hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt, is well acquainted with conditions of employment in other parts of the world, and knows that persons who come from Kew readily and easily command places in preference to persons trained elsewhere, and get higher wages as a result. While we do not pretend that the allowance is in any way a wage, we say it gives the recipients a decided advantage over persons of the same class working under precisely similar conditions
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow (Thursday).