HC Deb 11 July 1916 vol 84 cc227-93

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £166,797, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board." [NOTE.—£190,000 has been voted on account.]

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOV—ERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)

According to practice, I propose to make a state- ment to the House dealing with the work of the Department over which I have had the honour to preside during the past year. Last year, in moving this Vote, I made a general reference to the work of the Department, and to some of its more recent history. I do not propose to-day to do more than allude in passing to the change that has taken place in the Estimates them-selves. The total of the Estimates for 1916–17 is £356,000; £50,000 of this goes entirely in promoting the welfare of children. Therefore, the actual cost of the Department is £300,000, this year's Estimates being actually less than the Estimates of last year by £5,000. It is fair also to remember that in the Estimates for this year are included the salaries of men who are on military service, and of many of my officials who are lent to other Departments. Last year I made an appeal, in anticipation, to the local authorities of the country. I indicated that I thought it was very probable, though great demands had already been made upon them, that still greater demands would be made upon them in the coming year, and I appealed to them to give to the Government and to the country their cordial assistance in the discharge of the numerous duties which I thought would probably fall to their lot. My prophecy has been abundantly verified, for it became my duty on behalf of the Government to impose upon local authorities a great many new duties, and it would be wrong not only of me but of the House not to express here our appreciation of the devotion, the spirit, and the ability with which the local authorities of the country have applied themselves to their very difficult duties. I believe they have discharged them in a way which has won the confidence and respect of the great majority of the people.

I do not think hon. Gentlemen realise what an enormous tax it has been upon the time and the labour of the members of these local authorities. I know many of them have had to sit four and five days a week, and sometimes every day in the week, for many hours. When it is remembered that these authorities are composed of busy men, men engaged in businesses of all kinds, I think we must appreciate the fact that they are doing their share in the national work and are making very considerable sacrifices on behalf of the country. In the National Register and in the tribunals which have been set up to deal, first of all, with the Derby scheme, and subsequently with what are called the Military Service Acts, local authorities have had specially hard and difficult work, and I am confident that they deserve the thanks of all loyal men who desire that we should all co-operate in these difficult times to do our duty to the country. The National Register, the first of its kind, was taken on 15th August, 1915, and subsequently, and we have done our best to keep it up to date. Under Section 7 of the Act notification of changes of addresses must be given to local authorities. Public notices have been issued from time to time calling attention to this provision, and to the penalty for failure to conform with it. Notices have also been issued calling on persons who had omitted to do so to register, and the Registrar—General has issued a great many leaflets, giving the necessary information, which have been posted and circulated by the local registration authorities. Under the (Defence of the Realm Regulations we have secured power for the visitation of houses and for the demand of certificates of all male inmates, and we have given power to the police and persons duly authorised by the local registration authority to make the necessary inquiries and investigations in order to see whether the register is being properly maintained. So far as my information goes, this work is being satisfactorily done, and it is not too much to say that without the existence of this register it would have been, if not impossible, at all events extremely difficult, to carry out the provisions of the National Service Acts, which have given us such an increase in man-power for the defence of the Empire.

With regard to the share which this Department has taken in "helping on the War," as it is called, I think, perhaps, the most important branch of our labours has been in regard to the protection and saving of life, the enforcement of health regulations, and the general work which we have done in respect to this particular national necessity. The normal work of the Department, of course, has been greatly reduced. I have thought it right to curtail as much as possible that kind of work, which though no doubt important was not absolutely essential, and which in time of war, I thought, might be either reduced or dropped. There are a great many routine sanctionings involving a great deal of correspondence and time which have been dropped. There are a great many statistical Returns which we thought could be dispensed with, and they have been discontinued. Loans, excepting for war purposes or very urgent public health purposes, have been stopped altogether. I have already referred to the National Register Act and to the Military Service Acts. There has been a great increase of work thrown on the Department in consequence of the War, to which I will not refer in detail, but in regard to which I will simply content myself by saying this: The staff of the Department of necessity has been greatly decreased—not merely has it been decreased, but, like other Departments, we have lost, of course, many of those who were trained in the work—but there has been no failure to discharge all these new duties, so far as I know, without dissatisfaction, because when there is dissatisfaction it generally finds expression in this House, and although I have been in charge of the Department for more than a year I can safely say, in regard to the greater part of our new duties, that there has been no evidence of any complaint in the House or in the country.

We have been on more than one occasion challenged as to our action in public Departments in connection with men who are sent and who go to serve. There has been, I think, an impression in some quarters that Government Departments have not done their duty in this respect. Some hon. Friends of mine who belong to the party with which I have been all my life associated rather complained at one time of my attitude in this respect, and thought that I was a little too hasty, but I would like to remind them that these charges do not come against me as the head of the Department. If they are true, they come against the men themselves, and if I resented them with some show of heat it was because I really felt that they were undeserved, as I think I shall be able to show, and statements of that kind ought not to be made, impugning want of loyalty to men who are amongst the most loyal of all the subjects of His Majesty. There were on the staff 347 men of military age. Two hundred and thirty-nine have gone to the Army or Navy, or are ready to go as soon as called up. Fifty-one of the staff were medically unfit. Thirty-seven are temporarily retained. They will go when called for. Only nineteen have been retained as indispensable out of the whole staff, and eleven of those nineteen are professional men, such as doctors, and all but two of the nineteen are married men.

Mr. G. FABER

Has the right hon. Gentleman any conscientious objectors in his Department?

Mr. LONG

I am not quite sure whether I have one, but I rather think he is now working somewhere else. I have not inquired for him, because I am not ashamed to say that I belong to that section of the community who have very little regard for conscientious objectors, and I am utterly unable to understand their views. Out of those men belonging to my Department who have been serving at the front, no less than nine have made the supreme sacrifice, giving their lives for their country, and in each case I have reason to know that they did their duty up to the very last moment of their lives with splendid valour. Forty of my officers are lent to other Departments. I think the Committee will agree that is a satisfactory record of service on the part of the Civil Service. I said that we had cut down our loans to the lowest possible figure. For the year ending Lady Day, 1913, the loans sanctioned amounted to £12,000,000. In the year for which I am now giving account that sum had fallen to £4,250,000. Of the £4,250,000, £2,600,000 was for electricity and gas which were necessary for war purposes. Existing liabilities—of course the Committee will understand that they have to be met whether you are at war or at peace—account for another £900,000. There is therefore very little left to be used in any other way. Those are, comparatively speaking, only small matters in which it was impossible to exercise the same vigorous restriction. With regard to housing loans, which are included in the above, they had risen from the year 1913, when they amounted to £395,000, to £1,125,000 in 1915. In 1916, this year—I am now talking about this year—it fell to £439,000. Of that £439,000 all but £6,000 was connected entirely with housing which was necessary for war purposes. With regard to the general condition of the country as evidenced by the Poor Law, I am glad to say, and the Committee will not be surprised having regard to all that is going on in the country, that never have we had so satisfactory a condition of things to record with regard to pauperism and un-employment. Pauperism has never been so low, and unemployment, as the Committee know, is non-existent. The Unemployed Workmen's Grant was not required at all last year, and I hope it will not be required this year. I took a very diminished sum last year, and this year I am proposing to take a still smaller sum, only as some guarantee against trouble, supposing there was some sudden necessity for it, and to cover the outgoing expenses of the management of the Unemployed Workmen's Farms, which have still to be maintained, although I am in negotiation with the object of taking advantage of them; for other purposes until the War is over, at all events.

The Committee would possibly like to know that, while there was a very rapid rise in regard to pauperism in 1914, it had fallen since March, 1915, and has now reached a low figure, which is actually a record, nearly 100,000 less than in 1914. On the 27th of May there were 537,000 paupers, and of that 537,000 one-half were sick people in institutions, and nearly all the others were children and people of old age. London pauperism was about 100,000 in 1914 and has now fallen 20 per cent. Vagrancy in England and Wales is now only one-third of the 1912 figures. The London County Council returns with regard to homeless people sleeping out show that in February, 1913, that they were 491, and in March, 1916, they had fallen to forty-four. The local Poor Law authorities have done their best to co-operate with us, so far as they could, in connection with the War. They have freely placed their workhouse buildings at the disposal of the War Office for hospitals, and 40,000 beds have been made available for the War Office for such purposes. Other institutions have been taken over for barracks, and I think I may say that everything has been done by the Poor Law authorities to make their institutions, buildings, etc., available for war purposes, and I can assure the Committee, who would naturally wish for an assurance of this kind, that while we have provided these extra services during the War, we have been careful to see that there has been no interference with the necessary requirements of these institutions; no want of accommodation, or anything of that kind. In addition to the 40,000 beds, accommodation has been provided by the local authorities for infectious diseases among the soldiers. One-half of our medical staff has been engaged upon war work, and the work which we have especially undertaken has been the visiting of camps and billets and the inspection of food, both here and abroad. I am glad to say that I have had it from soldiers at the head of these great branches of our War Department that they believe that in no small degree it is due to the co-operation of my Department and the admirable services rendered by the officers of my Department, both here and abroad, that they have been able to maintain so high a standard in the food provided for our soldiers. I think it is a matter of common knowledge that never have soldiers either at home or abroad been fed so well as—ours have been in this War, and I believe the enforcement of the necessary regulations to secure an ample supply of food, of good and wholesome food, is in no small degree due to the assistance which the officers of my Department have given and are glad to give to the War Office. There has been a complete system of co-operation. We have dealt with wastage in the camps, and have dealt with the most important regulations which are necessary in order to control disease and to secure the notification and prevent the spread of disease.

It is really most remarkable that during the period of now nearly two years, when we have had enormous numbers of men suddenly collected in certain areas of the country, where there was all too often at the beginning very insufficient accommodation for them, no sanitary arrangements, and none of the provisions which are necessary to defend the health of the community were to be found in existence, notwithstanding these facts the health of the country has been wonderfully maintained. There has been a steady decrease in enteric fever, cerebrospinal disease, which at one time caused a great deal of anxiety, is now practically causing little or no anxiety. Small-pox, as the Committee know, which was at one time the cause of some alarm in the country, has now been satisfactorily dealt with, and there is no cause for anxiety at all now, no possibility of any raid by this terrible disease upon our people, and I believe this is largely due to the prompt action taken by the officers of my Department, presided over by the medical officers, to secure that, amongst other things, no less than 3,000,000 tubes of lymph manufactured by us on the latest principles were supplied to the War Office for the British Army. That is a not unsatisfactory record of the public health and other work done by the Department in regard to administration, and the Committee will perhaps allow me to turn to something which is not merely administrative, but is another branch of the public health question. Probably one of the most grave facts borne in upon us by the daily announcements which we hear and read in connection with the health of the country is that we are suffering, and must of necessity suffer, the loss of some of the best, healthiest, strongest, and most gallant of our male population, and never was it more incumbent upon Parliament and upon our great Government Departments, and upon the whole country, than it is to-day, to strain every nerve to see that our population from its youngest days is brought up under conditions which will provide us with healthy men and women. In connection with this there is probably nothing more important than the work associated with the welfare of infants, and of women both before and after the birth of their children. We have done our best to get the local authorities, and they have most willingly co-operated with us, to adopt schemes for that purpose.

Mr. KING

Not all the local authorities equally.

Mr. LONG

The local authorities have done extremely well. I do not know what is the suggestion of the hon. Member. There may be here and there some delay in a time of great pressure, but I adhere to what I have said, that the local authorities have co-operated with splendid spirit and devotion, and are doing this work with remarkable unanimity, considering the great difficulties that are associated with the work of local government at the present time, when the staffs are depleted owing to the fact that so many men have gone to the Colours, or are serving the country in some other way. I do not think the hon. Member can say anything in the way of criticism of our local authorities in that particular direction.

Mr. KING

I will do so in a minute.

Mr. LONG

We have secured the adoption of schemes to safeguard the health of expectant mothers, of nursing mothers, and of infants and young children. Nearly all the large urban districts, and many of the small ones, have adopted these schemes. The Notification of Births Act which Parliament was good enough to pass in 1915 has already had many excel-lent effects, and I believe we shall see as time goes on most admirable results following this important change in the law.

We have made a number of Grants to local authorities equal to half the cost, and last year the amount was £42,000. Local authorities and voluntary societies are all doing their best, and the great majority are willingly co-operating one with the other. No less than 900 health visitors have been appointed, and a great many voluntary societies are engaged in the work of home visitation. The scheme consists of health visitors, maternity and child welfare centres, and the supply of mid-wives, and the Nursing Association are doing admirable work, and in addition to visiting there is inspection by the inspectors of the Department. On the whole, I think this is a good record, one which we may look upon with pride as preserving the health of the country generally. We have been able to assist in the Notification of Measles Order. Some of the local authorities have been able to provide nursing. The London nursing scheme has been notably a valuable contribution to this work. We have made a Grant of £50,000, and we are only too willing to make an increased Grant if more is needed, and some effect has been caused in the reduction of infant mortality as shown by the figures. Per 1,000 births the number of deaths averaged 119 from 1904 to 1913, and in 1915 it was 110. In 1916, for the first quarter, the figure was much lower than in the corresponding quarter of 1914 and 1915. I would ask the Committee to be allowed to say one general word about this question of control and care of public health work by Government Departments. My excuse for saying this is that I have been so long in public life in one office or another, and I have had many opportunities during that period, which covers more than a quarter of a century, of watching the effect of various efforts upon the health of the country, and I am confident that if there is one thing which shows a tendency to increase, and I would ask the Committee to bear this in mind when considering proposals for legislation in the future, it is the tendency of Departments to break out into work which is often really not connected with their Department, and the result is overlapping, and what is often worse, a diminution of the responsibility of the particular Department concerned. I have noticed during the past ten or twelve years that there has been a tendency for Departments to take up work which really belongs to other Departments, and the result is that you get two inspectors visiting the same home, two, views taken as to what ought to be done, and the people whom you are seeking to help and guide resent this dual form of control, they are puzzled by receiving varied advice from different Government officials, and I am confident it leads to weakness of administration rather than strength. With regard to public health, I venture to say that the Department with which I have the honour to be connected is the one that ought to be charged with the sole duty of caring for the public health of the country. There ought to be and there need be no competition. There ought to be no interference with our Department. Let any other Department do the work for which they may be suited, but when it comes to visiting the homes of the people, whether in the cases of infants or of adults, let all that work be concentrated in one Department. If the Committee agree with me, as I believe they will on giving further consideration to this question, I hope that they will in future devote their energies to preventing anything like overlapping, and that they will never lose an opportunity to press upon the great Department over which I for the moment have the honour to preside that probably their most urgent and most sacred duty is to see that everything that can be done is done to give our people healthy surroundings and conditions which are likely to be healthy.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he deal with the question of the relation of the Board of Education to the health of school children?

Mr. LONG

It is not my business to deal with the relation of the heads of the Education Department to the health of school children

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Have they no concern with the health of school children?

Mr. LONG

I do not wish to argue individual cases. If my hon. Friend wants my opinion, I shall be delighted to give it for what it is worth. In my opinion the Board of Education exists for education. My Department exists to care for public health. I believe Parliament will do well as it goes on to increase the responsibility, and, if necessary, to increase the powers of the individual Departments to do all they can to prevent overlapping.

Mr. KING

Does not the Report of the chief medical officer of the Board of Education, Sir George Newman, cover a great deal of child welfare before school age, and does it not therefore overlap with the work of the Local Government Board?

Mr. LONG

It does.

Mr. KING

Then that is overlapping.

Mr. LONG

You get overlapping not because officials do their work improperly, but because so long as Acts of Parliament are passed, as they have been passed for years, throwing these duties upon different Departments, the inevitable result is overlapping, consequential unsatisfactory administration, and, in a great many cases, a great wastage of money, because you are paying twice over for a thing that could be got much more cheaply and, I believe, much more efficiently. Dealing also with public health, during this year we have had a very important Report from the Royal Commission dealing with venereal diseases. I am glad to say that I have been able to make a beginning and to adopt, to a very large extent at all events, the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I desire here to pay a tribute of gratitude on behalf of the Government—and may I also say on behalf of the House of Commons?—to the Royal Commission for the splendid work they did. I do not invite anybody to study the history and the consequences of these terrible diseases. I believe there are no diseases which have eaten more into the life of the people, which have more destroyed soundness in the people and which have been more terrible in their consequences, for the reason that these diseases, with their evils, their terrors, and their sufferings, too often appear not in the generation that has has incurred the trouble, but it may be in the next, or even in one further on. There is nothing more horrible than to see, as I have seen, little children who have inherited this horrible thing, and who, if they are not cared for at once, are doomed to go through a life of misery and of health so bad that they will never be able to be self-supporting citizens. Anything more horrible than that picture nobody can contemplate. Therefore we owe a very great debt to the Royal Commission for the fine work they did.

In their recommendations have already been found proposals which, being followed up consistently by the country, will give us no small measure of relief.

I cannot now, of course, deal with these-matters, except very briefly. The Royal Commission suggests that there should be facilities for diagnosis and for treatment; that they should be available for the whole population; that they should be free of cost, and that, if the work is done through local authorities, 75 per cent. of the cost should be found by the—State. I am glad to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to accede at once to my suggestion that that Grant should be given, therefore the announcement was made by me some weeks ago to this effect, and our schemes are now actually coming into existence. They are that counties and county borough councils should organise measures by which facilities in connection with existing institutions like our larger hospitals, etc., should be provided. We are issuing an Order now—I approved it only the other day, and it will be issued directly—imposing this duty upon local authorities. The measures which we call upon them to take are: first, that there shall be laboratory facilities for free diagnosis; secondly that there shall be clinics at the large hospitals for treatment; and, thirdly, that there shall be a gratuitous supply of that great remedy, salvarsan. I have seen myself in one of our great London hospitals a ward set apart for this work of mercy' and of care, and I most earnestly hope that all the great hospitals in the country will give us their immediate aid in this work. I know that some of those who are responsible for our hospitals entertain a fear that, by the importation into their establishments of this kind of case, they will be injuring the reputation of the hospital. They will do nothing of the kind. I saw this ward in a great London hospital the other day. That London hospital has not suffered, because it is well known that it has made provision of this kind for these unfortunate sufferers.

It is only possible to deal with these fell diseases satisfactorily if the provision is universal. If patients have to go long distances in order to get hospital treatment, I am afraid they will not do it. They will not take the trouble. They will not like to go so far from home, and the remedies will not be available for them. I am confident that there is no reason to fear that, by offering facilities for the treatment of these diseases, any hospital in the country will suffer in credit or in the good opinion of those who support it—quite the contrary. On behalf not only of the Government but of the sufferers from these horrible troubles, I invite, as I am receiving the co-operation of local authorities, hospital authorities, medical men, and the general public. I hope also that in this work we may have the co-operation of all those people, especially ministers of all religions throughout the country, who can do a great deal to help us in this munificent work, because naturally there is a feature attached to these diseases which does not belong to the ordinary troubles of health. The patient does not like it to be known that he or she is suffering from this disease; they like to conceal the fact; they do not want it notified. There-fore, if we are really going to deal with our suffering population, we must take care not only that there is proper provision for their treatment, but that everything is done that can be done to get it without notification. One of the conditions I have endeavoured to establish in connection with these hospitals throughout the country is that in consequence of their getting this big Grant of 75 per cent. from the State, it shall not be considered essential that the patient using a hospital should belong to the particular district which that hospital serves. What I am imploring them to do is to take the patients in and welcome them from wherever they come, to ask them no questions, and seeking in no way to identify them with this horrible misfortune that has overtaken them. It is all very well to say that we must point out to them the error of their ways, or must take the opportunity to give them other information. That is not what we want to do now. We want to cure them. We want to eradicate this horrible disease. It can be done. If the Government receive the same assistance from people of all classes, to whatever calling in life they belong, I believe, nay, I am very confident that the time is not very far distant when this disease may be added to those the real permanent ill effects of which have been eradicated by satisfactory and successful treatment.

Mr. G. LAMBERT

I hope you will be as successful with this as you were with rabies.

5.0.P.M.

Mr. LONG

While we have progressed in these new fields of public service, we have not allowed the ordinary medical work to fall behind. I am very happy to say that although there is, of course, a considerable shortage of medical men, there are to-day no less than 290 sanatoria and hospitals, providing 11,743 beds which have been approved for the treatment of tuberculosis in England; 359 dispensaries have been approved, and there is to-day sufficient accommodation for all our present demands. All soldiers and sailors discharged on account of tuberculosis can be provided for in these institutions. Of course most of these cases are insured persons, and arrangements are made for them through the insurance committees, but there are a good many soldiers and sailors who are not insured, and for them arrangements are made by my Department, with the approval of the local authorities. We have also special arrangements for the treatment of officers at King Edward's Sanatorium at Midhurst. This will show that we are not allowing our normal work in connection with public health to fall behind even though we are departing into no new fields of enterprise, and the demands upon our staff and upon the medical men of the country have been, in consequence of the War, excessive, and in some cases so great as to throw an immense burden of work upon our medical men. I am sure it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the life-saving work of protecting men, women and children from the mortality which follows from a preventible disease. Some of these diseases if they are not actually traceable to them are undoubtedly aided and abetted by over-crowding, by insanitary conditions in our homes, and many of those social evils which we have been combating for so many generations, and I am sorry to say the solution of which is not yet nearly within sight. We have done our best to maintain sanitary services, and I think on the whole, considering the movement in the population and considering the fact that there has been so great an aggregation of people in new and unprepared areas, the record I am able to present to the Committee is one which they will feel is not altogether unsatisfactory. So much for our ordinary work.

Now for our new operations. We are not overlooking the fact that after the War many problems will present themselves for immediate consideration and for prompt action—the housing of the people, public works, further health provision. I am happy to say the Government has got the Reconstruction Committee, as it is called, in existence, and all these problems are under our careful survey and examination. I am not going to deal with them now. Every member of this Committee is as familiar with them as I am. But if we are really to improve the health of the people, if we are to make it possible that the infants of to-day shall be the healthy men and women of the future, it will not be by one Act alone, it will not merely be by the enthusiastic and devoted work of those public officials, whether in our Department or in the country, who labour incessantly in this cause, it will not be by passing Acts of Parliament, it will only be if the nation realises that the health of the people is its first consideration, and the promotion of the health of the people is the most sacred duty of Parliament and all loyal citizens. Once this great central idea is grasped and followed up by Parliament and peoples, I believe we may live to see the day when the general condition of the health of our people is better even than it is now. In some respects there' is great room for improvement. There is no field of enterprise so worthy of the best efforts of our citizens than this one which I commend to every man who desires to do something for his country. During the last year or two there has been an enormous amount of voluntary work on the part of people of all classes. We are immensely indebted to men and women alike who were not able to go and fight, who had no particular vocation which enabled them to do what is called war work. On all hands they have co-operated. Voluntary service has become the rule and not the exception. To them all we are greatly indebted, and I desire to pay a special tribute to the doctors in town and country. All our new legislation, insurance and other, has thrown upon these men an enormous burden of work. Doctors have been taken to go to the front. I told the Committee last year the large number of medical men by whom the R.A.M.C. has been reinforced. This results naturally and necessarily in diminishing the number available for the work at home. Cheerfully and bravely have these men done it. Let anyone examine the diary of their day's work and see what it is now for a country doctor or a doctor in one of our great towns. Hours and hours do they labour, and when they come home there is a great deal of writing work to be done in the making up of the returns There is no complaining and no grumbling. They are doing it with all the will in the world, and I think the nation owed a special debt of gratitude to these men who are labouring in order that we and the rest of the population may be sustained in good health. To them I desire to pay a special tribute, because I believe of all the civil professions there is none which has played so great a part in war time as these men have who are doing so much at this moment.

Since I moved our Estimates of last year the Civil Service has lost one of its oldest and most distinguished members, Sir Hugh Owen, who put in sixty years of public service, was the permanent head of the great Department with which I am connected. I knew him intimately. I had the good fortune to be able to learn at his feet. An abler, more distinguished, more single-minded Civil servant never lived, and his death is a great loss to the Civil Service and to the country. But our country is better in that he lived, and I am confident that his example will be followed and emulated by all those who are fortunate enough to have known him. I hope the Committee will allow my Department to feel that, on the whole, it has not played an unworthy part in this tremendous period of our country's history.

Mr. LAMBERT

Rumour has been very busy with the name of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am certain that the whole country will rejoice that he is still a member of the present Government and is presenting the Estimates of the Local Government Board this year. I have had the good fortune to work sometimes with and sometimes against the right hon. Gentleman for a good many years, and I am quite certain that it would be a national calamity if his services should be lost to the country in an official capacity through any point of domestic controversy, and I sincerely hope that next year, if the Coalition Government last so long and the War lasts, he will be occupying the present position which he fills with so much distinction. Now, being in a position of less responsibility, I am able to agree absolutely with what the right hon. Gentleman has stated about the inspection of public health. There has been a tendency for a good many years to create and increase inspectors, and really it has come to the point, or it had before the War, that a considerable part of the population was engaged in inspecting the other part. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that all this overlapping is wasteful. It is demoralising to the local authority who have to have all these examinations, and I wish him well in his effort that the public health shall be under the Local Government Board and that that Department shall be responsible, and its inspectors only shall inspect local authorities and their work in the interests of the health of the community. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one dread disease. I interjected across the floor that I hoped he would be as successful in dealing with that disease as he was in dealing with hydrophobia. We all know what odium he incurred through having the courage to muzzle dogs. He did it, and rabies was practically extinct. I hope the right hon Gentleman will be equally successful in dealing with the disease which he has mentioned.

He told us that there were very few unemployed, and that the unemployed question at present was practically non-existent. That is perfectly true at the present moment, but will these conditions last? The War will come to an end some-time, and is the Local Government Board providing machinery to meet the dislocation which must ensue when the War comes to an end? So far as I can foresee the future there must be an immense deal of distress when Government orders cease. There is an enormous number of people employed upon producing war material. That must come to an end at some time. The industrial population of our country is revelling in fictitious prosperity. There are high wages and plenty of employment, but that is due entirely to Government expenditure. Directly Government expenditure stops I fear there will be a great wave of unemployment, and I hope the Local Government Board is making provision for dealing with the dislocation which must inevitably ensue.

I want to draw attention to the work of the local tribunals, and to the work which the Local Government Board has under-taken in directing these local tribunals as regards their duties in dealing with the various industries. I cannot help feeling that the Local Government Board in the circulars which they have issued—and I have one here—have not given sufficient attention to the very important industry of agriculture. I have read all their circulars. They have sent them to the local tribunals, but the local tribunals have not taken that notice of the circulars of the Local Government Board dealing with the food production of our people to the extent which I think the Board itself would wish to be done. I feel that in this matter they might have given more precise directions to the tribunals. The tribunals often do not feel that they have got the Local Government Board behind them in this matter. I had the opportunity, the other day, of making an appeal before a local tribunal for the exemption of a ploughman. I was armed with the circulars of the Local Government Board, and I pointed out to the tribunal how necessary it was that this ploughman should be retained. I even quoted the words of the Prime Minister, but the military representative said, "Oh, never mind what Mr. Asquith says!"

The CHAIRMAN

We are dealing with the Local Government Board now. That is a War Office matter.

Mr. LAMBERT

No, Sir, I submit that it is a matter for the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board issue these instructions, and what I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman is that they should give more explicit directions to the local tribunals, that agriculture is of the first importance. Here is a circular issued on the 6th July. It draws attention to the home-grown timber trade. That trade is important, but it is not so important as food production. The circular also draws attention to shipping. Shipping is most important, especially for war materials. Surely agriculture might have been included in this circular. I do assure the Parliamentary, Secretary to the Local Government Board that this question is getting into a most chaotic state, and unless they take direct steps to prevent the local tribunals from taking more men from the land there will be an enormous shortage of food production next year. That is the only thing I wish to say about that point; but I do hope that the representative of the Local Government Board, when he comes to reply, will promise that he will issue a circular to the local tribunals on this point.

Sir G. YOUNGER

That is already done.

Mr. LAMBERT

If that is so, they do not take any notice of it.

Sir G. YOUNGER

There is a specific circular which has been issued.

Mr. LAMBERT

My hon. Friend is a member of the Central Tribunal, and, of course, he is more conversant with the facts than I am. I am afraid, however, that the information which my hon. Friend has given to the House has not reached the tribunals in Devonshire.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I think so.

Mr. LAMBERT

They have not acted upon it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board will give us a promise that he will issue explicit directions to the local tribunals to exempt necessary agricultural labour.

Sir G. TOULMIN

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) has been able to present to the Committee a most gratifying Report of the year's work which has been done by his Department. I have had the pleasure of listening to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject both sitting before him and behind him, and I have had great pleasure this year in being a supporter of his as he has delivered the speech to which we have just listened. There is undoubtedly a strong team at the Local Government Board at the present time, and one would almost wish that they could have had a time of peace in which to carry out the very admirable programme which has been set forth this afternoon. Unfortunately, the long experience that both the President and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board have had in public work has led to their employment in various directions not necessarily bearing upon the administration of their office, with the result that they have very important duties in other ways. Therefore, I think they have kept their office very efficient in regard to its proper work so far as their depleted staff has been able to cope with it. Very largely the speech we have had has dealt with matters arising out of the War. I wish to turn almost entirely to the ordinary work of the Department. I think our duty, when this Vote is before the House, is to guard against the lowering of our standards in any way, even in these times of emergency, particularly in regard to children, who come more directly under the care of this Department. I welcome—and I think the House will welcome very strongly—the claim which the President of the Local Government Board has just made that his Department should be considered the real health department of the State, charged with the health of the homes of the people throughout the country. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall remember his claim, and that we shall enforce his responsibility for securing healthy surroundings in order that we may have a healthy generation. I rather favour the idea which has been thrown out of a proper and definite separation of the functions of the various Departments of the Government. There is an interlapping and interchanging in more than one direction. I admit that the point raised by one hon. Member is rather at difficult one.

The health of the children at school arises very largely, almost entirely, from the health of the children at home, and I do not quite see that we must blame the Education Department for thinking about it. I think the responsibility must be fixed definitely upon the Local Government Board, and they must take such measures as will secure healthy homes for the children who go to school. The schools offer a gathering ground for information. They offer an opportunity whereby the developing health of the children may be noticed at various periods, and that information can be so collated that it may bear back upon the Local Government Board and assist them in the direction of their efforts in order to secure healthy homes. One part of the right hon. Gentleman's comprehensive speech, which I am sure was listened to with very great pleasure, was where he dealt with the health of infants and of mothers. That problem is beginning to be attacked at the proper end, and that is almost before the birth of the child. You cannot secure a healthy race unless you have healthy mothers, and a healthy mother cannot have healthy children unless she is in healthy surroundings. Nothing could be better for the health of the nation than a vigorous prosecution of the programme which the right hon. Gentleman has just set forth. We want a vigorous administration of the Notification of Births Act. We are gratified to know that there are 900 health visitors already appointed, to learn of the spread of maternity centres, and of the growth of nursing schemes, and other very good developments which should bring about great changes in the coming generation. The right hon. Gentleman has said; a word about the economy which he has endeavoured to secure. We desire economies in the administration of any Department of the Government, but it ought not to affect the physical and mental growth of the children. Recently a Committee of this House has had the duty of going through the statistical publications which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, and they found that the Department had either suspended or curtailed their publications, wherever reasonable. That is a form of economy we shall be all very glad to welcome, for I am sure the House must feel overwhelmed with the torrent of figures which sometimes is poured upon it.

I should like to refer to the amount of money given in some cases for the sustenance of boarded-out children. In work-houses and the village communities the board of guardians have to pay increased prices, but how are they dealing with the boarded-out and out-relief children? If they had to supply these children with food and clothing they would have to pay an increased price. They would have to meet the 33 per cent. or 50 per cent. increase which has taken place in these prices. From the Board of Trade this afternoon we had a statement that prices, including rent which has not risen, had risen 33 per cent. If you exclude rent, as I think would be reasonable in discussing what it costs to keep a boarded-out child, I think it is not unreasonable to say that the figure is something like 50 per cent. Therefore if some person is receiving 5s. per week for looking after a boarded-out child the amount expended on it upon food has increased to such an extent that they ought certainly to get from 6s. 6d. to 7s. 6d. now. I recognise that the Local Government Board has notified its willingness to sanction a payment for boarded-out children now of 6s. instead of 5s. In many cases, particularly in the rural districts, in all probability 6s. is a very good figure. The Local Government Board inspectors have called the attention of boards of guardians to this matter, especially where the guardians are inclined to be parsimonious. It appears to me that in maintaining the low fees which are paid in some of the Western districts of the country, the guardians really are trading on the affection of the foster parents for the children whom they have taken. They have taken these children, in some cases a year or two ago, for such a pittance as 3s. 6d. a week. The child has endeared itself to them, and now that the cost has gone up, the foster parents cannot find in their heart to send the child back to the workhouse, for that is the only alternative where the guardians will not recognise the increase in the price of food. Some of the more ignorant and backward guardians seem to resent the remarks of the inspectors. I hope that the President of the Local Government Board will absolutely support his inspectors in this matter, because they are only doing their duty in calling the attention of boards of guardians to these things as they arise. I should like to mention one or two cases. At Llanfyllin, Miss E. M. Jones, Local Government Board inspector, in the course of her duty, very properly reported complaints from foster parents as to the inadequacy of payments in face of the present cost of food. The present payment is 4s., which, of course, is inadequate. Because the amount had been raised a little while ago from 3s. 6d. to 4s., an increase was refused, and one of the guardians thought it consistent with good taste to make certain remarks as to the personal qualifications of this lady inspector—a course which, I think, ought to be very strongly reprobated. My own experience of these inspectors, both ladies and gentlemen, is that they show very great tact, and very great discretion. They have accumlated a very great deal of knowledge, and boards of guardians would do very well to listen more than they do to the advice which these inspectors give them. At Taunton, where 4s. 6d. is paid, a motion was made that 5s. should be given, but that was defeated. It shows the kind of idea which is in the minds of some guardians, when such a reason as this was given for defeating the motion.

There is more employment for the children now. They can earn a nice little bit of money in the summer time, even now. If the children, for whom, 4s. 6d. per week is being paid, can earn a little money, surely that ought to go to increase the narrow margin of comforts which they have. For instance, to provide an additional pair of boots, or something of that kind. At .Uppingham 4s. 3d. is paid, and an increase has been refused. These are cases where increases have been refused. There are numerous,others where increases have been given. At Ely, an allowance of 5s. has been raised to 6s., and at Weymouth the 5s. allowance has been increased to 6s. At Halstead the maximum is now 5s. 6d. At Grimsby increases have been given of from 1s. to 1s. 6d., according to age. That introduces a principle which I think is worthy of consideration by the Board, and that is as to whether there should be in these cases any graduation according to age. Where the Board has to consider any possible increases of the 6s. limit, they might consider whether permission might not be given for something greater when the children are older. I was talking to an old grandmother, whose son and daughter-in-law had both died, and she had one of her grandsons who had just gone to work. The payment for him had been dropped, and now she had to content herself with a few shillings a week as wages. She told me how hard it was. She said, "He only gets a lad's wage, but he has a mon's appetite." I am inclined to think that when some of these boys are growing fast, we find that these allowances of 4s. 6d. per week are very short. I am glad to be able to include Grimsby among the more enlightened boards, because I should like to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the overcrowding of children there is being remedied. I hope that the point has not been lost sight of. The Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham would have liked to raise this point, but he was not able to be here this afternoon. The limit in certified schools has, I think, been raised, but I would like to know when inquiry is to be made to see whether the increased cost has really been met by the increased allowance which has been granted.

The children who are boarded out and the children who are accommodated in cottage homes one may say are efficiently looked after, but there is one class of children as to whom the control of the guardians, and certainly of the Local Government Board, is rather difficult. These are the out-relief children. If there is one class that does deserve our sympathy it is the widows with families and the out-relief children who are living with relatives. In my opinion there is no sweating in the Kingdom does harm equal to the sweating of mothers with children. I call it sweating when mothers with four or five or more children are made to work in addition to having to look after their family. I do not think that any mother can efficiently do all the manifold duties which require to be looked after and go to work or take work at home. There is one case—unfortunately I have not been able com- pletely to verify it—in which I am told that a widow with eight children is allowed 10s. a week, because she can take in washing. She has to take in washing and look after eight children. I think that that is a piece of the most scandalous sweating. Personally, I should be prepared to forbid by law any mother in that condition who has not other resources, any mother who is dependent on the State for the sustenance of herself and her children, from going to work when she has four or five children. If you want to compare cost, compare the cost to the guardians of those children and the cost in a cottage home or when boarded out, and you will find that the amount which is paid for them would be very much cheaper, even if the guardians give what appears to be a very liberal allowance. It is a pound-foolish policy to starve a family like that, because if they are well treated and the children are brought up healthy within a very few years they would form a very comfortable little family and would sustain themselves. In reference to the treatment of these out-relief children where it is not adequate, I know that the Local Government Board-have issued a circular demanding that it should be adequate, but I believe that even more pressure should be brought to bear upon boards of guardians. Treatment which is not adequate has a very bad effect in lowering the vitality of the whole nation. Wherever a child touches the State its condition ought to be improved, and the State ought to make it an occasion of raising the normal average.

There is one point to which I should like attention to be paid—that is the treatment of mentally deficient children. Unfortunately, that is one of the things in which the War has interrupted schemes which we hoped to have seen developed by now. Almost necessarily those schemes are suspended, but workhouse accommodation is being offered to municipalities in some of these cases and the consent of the Local Government Board is being asked. I hope that special regulations and arrangements will be insisted upon, and especially that it will be made known that any such arrangements entered into by municipalities will be purely temporary to meet the present emergency. After listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I feel confident that this point will not be lost sight of, and that progress will be made as soon as possible according to the scheme in hand. Like the right hon. Gentleman on the opposite bench who has just sat down, I have some apprehension as to what may happen after the War when thousands of millions of pounds cease to be spent on war purposes. There must come a time of readjustment when boards of guardians will be tested. I do not think that they should be hampered with too many of these emergency schemes. There are now old folks earning money who never expected to earn any more money; they are living with relatives whose earnings are increased. They will be the first to suffer, and the accommodation of the guardians will be called upon. "We cannot see too far ahead. I know, and I think we all knew before the right hon. Gentleman told us, that the very valuable services of some of the chief officials of the Local Government Board are being used in this War. But I do hope that some foresight is being shown that in the difficult times which are to come we may not be taken unawares. The statement which we have heard was satisfactory to the House, and has given a feeling of great confidence that all that can be done by the Local Government Board will be done.

Mr. CROOKS

It is not often nowadays that I trouble the House with any observations of mine, but I must certainly say that the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides with so much dignity and helpfulness might easily nowadays change its name, and instead of being called the Local Government Board it might be known as the Good Samaritan Department. I have had frequent conflicts with that Department from time to time, some of which have been repeated over and over again, and now I come down praising this Department for its attempt to deal with various departments of the Poor Law. I reecho the sentiments of the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) as to out-relief and boarded-out children. I am afraid even nowadays that they are taken for profit rather than for love, and where they are taken for love and kept for love the guardians take good care to save on the love and affection of the parents. I well remember many visits which I made to boarding-out centres years ago, and how it was impossible to get rid of the pauper taint. Apparently that has gone now to a very great extent, and people do not know that the children are chargeable to the Poor Law. In some places which I visited I asked where certain lads lived, and I was pointed to a particular division where the Poplars were, and the children from Hackney and Shoreditch. Then again I asked parents how they are getting on, and I was told, "They are doing very well. They are now getting to be rather big, and they are eating such a lot." If that applied years ago, it applies still more nowadays.

I hope that the Department will act up to the new Regulations, and insist upon people taking care of these children. As I have said hundreds of times in this House, you may make a mistake with regard to buildings, roads, tunnels, rivers, or canals, but if you make a mistake in the bringing up and feeding of children they are ruined for all time. I wish to say something about the guardians' power to assist in the matter of adequate old age pensions. I suppose I should be out of order in raising that now, but there is an Order of this Department which encourages guardians to give some relief on the advice of doctors. I think that if that was generally enlarged upon and pointed out, it would do good. Nowadays when food has gone up by 25 per cent., it is not unreasonable to ask the guardians of the poor to make this better known than it is now. A speech in this House would go a greater distance than a placard on any guardians' office wall. If that is done, it will practically meet all the criticisms which I wish to make. I was going to raise another question entirely—the Statutory Committee, the committees of local authorities dealing with pensions—but I have been told that I should be out of order. I should like it to be known that we did make some attempt to get in these committees, but as this is out of order I will not pursue it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. Wilson)

That is included in Special Vote 7 under Clause 6. Therefore it is out of order.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

The Statutory Committee now is under the control practically of the Local Government Board, and they are responsible in this House for all its actions, and unless we can raise the question upon this Vote, I do not see upon what Vote we can raise it. I understood that the salary of the new chairman of the Statutory Committee was in this Vote. There is no item that would indicate it, but I may point out that there is a very great deal of unrest in the country with regard to the action of the Statutory Committees, both in London and in the provinces, and many of us were requested by municipalities to take action, and they understood certainly that the Local Government Board are responsible for overhauling the work of the Statutory Committees and having some supervision of the circulars which they are sending out.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

On the point of Order raised by the hon. Member. It has been the universal custom of this House that when an item is included in a Special Vote it is declared out of order on the original Vote. When this Vote 7 of Class VI comes up before the House then the representatives of the Local Government Board will be prepared to answer in respect of any criticism that is made.

Sir JOHN SPEAR

I desire also to be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the great ability of the statement which he has made, and on the renewed evidence which it affords of the very beneficial influence which the right hon. Gentleman exercises in presiding over this great Department. It is a matter for great congratulation that such a report is able to be made in this House. Having regard to the terrible War in which we are engaged, when we hear details given of the decline of pauperism and unemployment and of the many signs of better conditions in which the poorer classes, especially children, are living, it is a matter of congratulation that, as we all feel, the poor are being catered for in this country better than ever was the case before. The right hon. Gentleman has given a testimony as to the value of the services of local bodies. I think that he is quite justified. The local bodies have responded loyally to the appeal to deal economically with their finances, and the right hon. Gentleman, by the Votes which we are asked to pass to-day, has shown that he, at any rate, to some extent, practises the principle which he inculcates on local administrative bodies. In regard to the boards of guardians in the country, there are two or three points to which I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention, and in regard to which I would observe that I hope, after the statement which has been made here to-day in regard to the work of these bodies, we shall hear no more, for a generation at any rate, of the theory about scrapping boards of guardians. Those bodies have done their work well and earned the gratitude, I think, of the community, and it was gratifying to hear the right hon. Gentleman bear testimony to the efficiency of their work. I think such testimony shows the value of the work which has been done by the boards of guardians, who have given so much time and anxious care to their duties, inquiring into every case of poverty. I submit that both the men and women members of the boards of guardians well deserve the praise which the right hon. Gentleman has bestowed. May I suggest to him, as I have done on previous occasions, that it would be a fitting compliment if the chair-men of boards of guardians were made ex-officio justices of the peace? The chairman of a board of guardians, because of his ability, experience, and knowledge, if he were appointed to the position of a justice of the peace, would be able to show that he was eminently suitable for the important duties of such a position. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot promise that, in normal times, or at any rate as soon as possible, the chairmen of boards of guardians shall be made ex-officio justices.

An experiment has been made in respect of the annual audit of accounts as against a six-monthly audit. I should be glad if the President of the Local Government Board can tell us what has been the result of that change, which relieves boards of guardians, and especially their clerks, of a considerable amount of work, and, if the change should be satisfactory, I hope he will continue the annual audit instead of a six-monthly. I think it is desirable that should be done. In reference to the commutation of pensions, I am not quite sure whether I am in order in mentioning that subject, but it is felt by the Poor Law authorities to be very desirable that pensions should not be commuted for a long time, and that the payment should be made monthly. A great many of the pensioners are persons of discretion, but others are not, and some who are paid every three months find that their money is soon gone, and that they are quickly in poverty, but if they were paid monthly that would be avoided. If the matter is not within the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, perhaps he will make representations in the direction I have suggested to the Department which is concerned, for I think the boards of guardians would be assisted in that branch of their work if the suggestion which I make were carried out. I had made some notes in regard to the question of giving assistance to old age pensioners in this period of crisis without menacing their pensions, but if that subject be not in order I will not pursue it. The guardians are surely bodies conversant with all the cases which ought to have some little allowance during the War, when the prices for the necessaries of life are so high. With reference to the boarding out of children, I believe it has been a complete success, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in claiming that they are being well taken care of. The number of vagrants has declined immensely, partly because work is so plentiful, that even these men, who do not like work, cannot help falling up against it. But the time will come when they will be on the road again.

As I have said, there has been a great decrease in their number. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to forward to me statistics, showing the influence of the way-ticket in reducing the number of vagrants. I think the result was very satisfactory, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when there is a recrudescence after the War of vagrants it shall be made compulsory in every union that there shall be this way-ticket system. If that were done generous people would abstain from giving assistance to these persons, and it would cease to be worth the while of vagrants to pursue that line of life, and they would have to find a better system of living. The public would know that they were not really bonâ fide, or in need of assistance, and they would have to go to work. In reference to the question of housing, I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not need any prompting in that direction, but I do venture to submit that it would promote the increase of the rural population very much more than any system of colonies that we may set up if plenty of good cottages were provided throughout the country; and there would be work that can be found at a very much better remuneration than would be paid in certain senses where there is a very small outlook on life.

One thing of great importance is the action of some of the tribunals. I think we must all admit that here, as in other departments of public work, the tribunals as a whole have rendered great service in undertaking an enormous mass of some what disagreeable work, and, generally speaking, I believe that they have acted fairly. But I submit that there has been a lack of guidance on the part of the Government which has caused an irregularity of action that has been extremely serious, and, if I may say so, I cannot help blaming the right hon. Gentleman a little for the delay which took place in issuing the arrangement that was made between the War Office and the agricultural authorities, as to the basis upon which the tribunals could leave men for the working of the farms. We do not claim for our industry special treatment, but we do say-that the provision of food is as necessary a branch of equipment to win this War as the provision of soldiers, and all that we ask is that the necessary men, the absolutely necessary men shall be left, in order to accomplish the purpose of producing the food supply. The right hon. Gentleman said he had issued recommendations; they were called recommendations, but I submit they ought to have been described as instructions. Those recommendations provided that there should be one man left for a team of horses on the farm, one man for twenty-five milking cows, one man for fifty indoor cattle, and one shepherd for 200 sheep. I am sorry that the tribunals have not acted upon that principle. I have here two letters which I received to-day, both complaining of refusals of exemption to farm hands. I do not see the use of instructions being issued such as those I have read, unless they are carried out.

We all know how important it is to have men for the Army, and I think farmers have done their part and are willing to do their part in that direction, but we cannot maintain or increase the output of food unless we have the men absolutely necessary to do the work. I believe the tribunals are desirous of doing what is right, but I submit with all respect that they ought to have definite guidance, and having that guidance it should be obeyed. Some of the military representatives on these bodies have acted in a very arbitrary way, but on the whole, important and good work has been done, though there have been those difficulties to which I have referred. If the right hon. Gentleman insisted on the tribunals acting on the arrangement between the War Office and the local tribunals, I believe he would do an act of justice to agriculture, and would be supporting the food supply, while still securing the right men for the Army. I can only hope that he will give this matter his special attention. The letters I have received in regard to it are extremely plaintive. Large breadths of corn and hay cannot be dealt with; there is no one to go with the horses, and, when it has been promised that a man would be left for a team of horses, I think those concerned in agriculture have a right to expect that the promise will be carried out.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I should like, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so, to add my tribute for the very sympathetic review which he made of the work falling within his Department. I am quite sure that the Committee will be fully conscious of the broad and human sympathy which was reflected in the opening address of the right hon. Gentleman. But, if he will allow me, I should like to criticise one statement he made—because I think it would be unfortunate if it went forth as the verdict of this Committee—about the overlapping of Departments, and his claim that the Local Government Board was the proper Department for dealing with all questions of health, both for children and adults, thereby touching on a very acute controversy as to the respective functions of the Board of Education and the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman's views were accepted by the Committee and the House of Commons, it would mean that the whole medical oversight and care which have been so properly exercised and developed by the Board of Education, respecting the school children, would be really outside the province of the Board of Education. The observation of the right hon. Gentleman must be limited, it must surely receive only a very limited assent, for it would be a great pity if anything were said by a Minister of the Crown which would discourage, or limit, or throw any doubt on the propriety of the work undertaken by the Board of Education in connection with the physical care of school children.

Mr. LONG

In the school.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

In the school and in their homes. Certainly there is no other body as capable of looking after and taking care of the school children as the body which has the control of their education. So far from the view of my right hon. Friend leading to a diminution of inspection and overlapping, it would greatly increase both inspection and overlapping. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman does recognise that the physical care of school children must remain subject to the Board of Education.

Mr. LONG

In the school.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the school treatment influences the home, the parents, and the children.

Mr. ALDEN

There are visits to the home.

6.0 P. M

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

As my hon. Friend reminds me, there are visits to the home. I think he will see that it is quite impossible to draw any arbitrary distinction between the physical care of children of school age in school and at home, and that those two departments of the question cannot be separated. I would go further and say that some of the functions which the Local Government Board exercise at present ought to be transferred to the Board of Education. We look forward to the time when there will be a scientific rearrangement of the duties of these two Departments, and when the school children, at present under the care of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, will be transferred to the care of that Department which obviously should have their care, namely, the Board of Education. I am really digressing from the points I wish to put, but this point seemed to me so important, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that I am sure he will forgive me for having referred to it.

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer in his opening address to a very great and very new question which has been dealt with by his Department. Since the outbreak of war we have had the spectacle, almost unique in the history of this country, of a great portion of the population of another country coming to these shores in numbers unparalleled in history. I had hoped to hear some reference in the right hon. Gentleman's address to the position of the Belgian refugees in this country, the schemes that have been undertaken for the organisation of their work, and some information with regard to their numbers. I trust we may hope before the Debate concludes that some information on this subject will be given. It has been my privilege to have been closely associated with the arrangements for the reception of the refugees. I would lay down this principle: I think the lessons of history prove to us that in the case of refugees coming to this country they have never remained permanently separated from the rest of the community. In each case they have become merged in the general national life. They have brought their own special skill, their own peculiar handicrafts and trades into the national life, and they have greatly added to the national wealth and character. These refugees in the past have always been looked upon at the moment as temporary, but nevertheless they have proved to be permanent. Following on these reflections, and considering the problem that confronts the right hon. Gentleman, I think it would be a great mistake if he attempted, and I do not think he is doing so, nor do I suggest that he is going to do so, to keep the refugees in compartments by themselves, living their own life. I think the easiest way to solve the problem of the refugees, and to get the greatest possible national benefit from their arrival in this country, is to treat them as fellow citizens and to receive them into our trade and industry without seeking to restrict them in any arbitrary way. I am sure that on those lines the final solution of a very great problem, unique by reason of it dimensions, will be found.

I desire also to refer to the question of the tribunals so far as they are under the care of the right hon Gentleman. I am not going this afternoon to make any general attack upon the work and methods of the whole of the tribunals, but I would remind the Committee that since the passing of the first Military Service Act the complaints of the conduct of the tribunals in many individual cases have been numerous and long continued. My right hon. Friend would, I believe, be the last man to deny that the tribunals, faced with this novel work, have made frequent mistakes. I want to put this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. These tribunals, created for a novel purpose, and having to take decisions of so grave a character affecting men's lives and going to the roots of society and of our social system, obviously must be subject not only to the occasional advice of the right hon. Gentleman, but to his constant oversight and care. It is no good creating these tribunals in an Act of Parliament under the conditions under which they were created and then think that they will run themselves, and leave it to fate to adjust the mistakes that are made. I believe that the present injustices can only be met by the right hon. Gentleman with sympathy, watching the proceedings of the tribunal, and interfering whenever he sees that either the manner of receiving evidence or the action of the military representative or the reasons given for decisions require interference by him. He will say that the tribunals are independent bodies and need not accept his advice. That may be so according to the letter of the law, but in practice, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, he is able to exercise a great amount of guidance and control, and, as an hon. Friend reminds me, it is his duty to make Regulations. He should not be content with a set of Regulations issued at rare intervals, but he ought to add to them as he sees that the existing Regulations do not meet the needs of the case, and to watch the actions of the tribunal in connection with the Regulations and the conduct of the military representatives at the tribunals. There is no other Department that will interfere unless he does so, and frequently the advice given to the tribunals by military representatives requires controlled interference by the President of the Local Government Board. I think a great part of the public were scandalised only a few days ago, and certainly our ideas of justice were shocked, by the proceedings at a tribunal. I fancy the right hon. Gentleman remembers the case where a man claimed exemption on the ground of ill-health, and where the military representative said to the tribunal, "Let him go into the Army, and if he is unfit he will soon crack up." That is a case for interference by the President of the Local Government Board.

Mr. KING

What did the tribunal do-in that case? Did they send him?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I believe the chairman of the tribunal expressed regret that such advice should be given by the military representative, and insisted on making further inquiries. I want it to be quite clear that I am not complaining of the action of the tribunal in this case. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to watch the conduct at the tribunals of the military representatives. Again, take the proceedings at the Cambridge tribunal recently, where methods; were adopted which certainly were antagonistic to our ideas of fairplay and justice. I refer to the case of Professor Pigou, a distinguished professor at Cambridge. I think it was an amazing thing that the military representative should have been allowed to appeal for Professor Pigou to be conscripted because another professor, Professor Boxwell, had offered to do his work if he were conscripted. For it to be possible for occurrences like that to take place is a very lamentable thing, and shows the need for constant care to be exercised by the President of the Local Government Board. Finally I come to the very vexed case, the most difficult of all the cases, and the case so full of trouble, namely, that of the conscientious objector. Every time a conscientious objector is refused the provision given to him by the Acts of Parliament endless social difficulties and suffering are caused, and a great amount of trouble has to be gone through before that initial injustice is put right. I believe that, as the right hon. Gentleman sees injustice being committed by the tribunals, by being firm in his advice to the tribunals, and by insisting upon his Regulations being obeyed, he will largely reduce the difficulty of the conscientious objector. Let me give an instance which occurred within the last few days. A man claimed before a tribunal for exemption as a conscientious objector. That claim was supported by evidence of the most conclusive character. But ultimately the tribunal decided that he was not a conscientious objector, notwithstanding the evidence that had been given, because, forsooth, he had been instrumental in carrying out insurances against air raids, and it was thought, because he had carried out those insurances that he could not possibly be a conscientious objector to war and that he was not entitled to the benefit of the Act. That is a case I suggest for interference by the President of the Local Government Board. If he will interfere in these cases with sympathy and tact and strengthen the Regulations where they are found to be inadequate, and insist upon their observance, and introduce new Regulations where those are proved to be necessary, he will do a great deal towards removing the many injustices which still occur in the hearing of cases before the tribunals.

Mr. HORNE

Attention has been drawn to the subject of unemployment after the War, and in connection with that I would wish to mention the subject of the arterial roads of London, a scheme which I believe has been under consideration for some four years. I would suggest for the consideration of the President of the Local Government Board whether a Bill might not be brought in later on which would define these roads, and would have a schedule of the land which is to be taken, and also a proper plan. Of course, I do not suggest at the present time that any money should be spent, but it would be a very great economy in the future if this could be done at the present time, and if this land were what I would call ear-marked for this purpose of roads. In that way greater economy would be obtained when the land comes to be used.

Mr. MORRELL

My object in rising is to refer to the question already referred to by my hon. Friend, namely, the action of the tribunals under the Military Service Act, and especially with regard to conscientious objectors; and I want at once to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I want to ask him whether he has taken any steps, and, if so, what steps to see that the administration by the tribunals of the second Military Service Act is just and more satisfactory than was their administration of the first Act? That is a specific question on which I hope we may get some answer this evening when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply. This question of the conscientious objector and the action of the tribunals, has for the last three months, at least, continually occupied the attention both of this House and of the other House of Parliament. It has occupied an enormous amount of attention in the Press, and it has, I believe, stirred very deeply the feelings of large masses of people in this country. I believe they are shocked at the things that have happened. I believe they are scandalised at the treatment that a great many men—men of the highest character, of good reputation and of deep conviction—have suffered in prison, in the Army, and in all sorts of ways as a result of the Military Service Act. Although I quite recognise that lately the Government have made an attempt, and a very sincere attempt, to get this question settled, I think the Committee would be very much mistaken if it it imagined that at present it was in a satisfactory condition. I want to show that it will really rest with the action of the President of the Local Government Board whether this great problem with which we are faced of the conscientious objector is satisfactorily settled or not. What I want to show, first of all, is that everything that has happened has really justified the warning which some of us gave when the first Military Service Act was introduced—the warning we gave to the right hon. Gentleman as regards the action of the tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman at that time scouted all that we said. He would have nothing to say to it. He said over and over again that with very few exceptions the action of the tribunals was satisfactory. On the 21st of March he said: They are doing their work well, and holding the balance evenly. I am not prepared to admit that all the criticisms addressed against the tribunals are based on fact. And, over and over again, he has said that the tribunals have done their work admirably, both as regards ordinary applicants, and especially as regards conscientious objectors. What do the facts show, the facts of the last three months? The facts show that over and over again, not in scores of cases, but in hundreds of cases, I venture to say, even in thousands of cases, but certainly in hundreds," the tribunals have utterly declined to acknowledge the genuineness of the objection held by the applicant before them, and they have not given him the relief which Parliament intended that he should have. What is the reason of all the trouble? It can all be traced back to one thing, the mistake of the tribunals before whom the men were called. To-day a question was asked about thirty-four men who were condemned to death in France. Here you have thirty-four men, well known, of good education and high character, who were taken over to France, and who, because they refused to obey military orders, were condemned to death, and after-wards to ten years' penal servitude, which, presumably, they are now undergoing. Who is responsible? Ultimately it is the tribunals who fail to recognise the genuineness of the conscientious objection of these men. What these men had suffered and are prepared to suffer is absolute proof that the tribunals before whom they came acted wrongly. These men suffered over and over again what the Secretary of State for War called horse play, but what most people would call torture and persecution, and all because their consciences prevented them obeying military orders. Who was responsible? Again, it can be traced back to the tribunals who failed to discover the real conscientious objection that these men held, and failed to give them the relief which Parliament intended them to have under the Act. As a matter of obvious fact, this shows that we were right, and the right hon. Gentleman wrong in saying that the tribunal would act fairly in regard to this matter. If I want any further evidence I would call the Government's attention to the speech made in this House on 30th May by an hon. Member who would certainly not be accused of any undue sympathy with conscientious objectors, or of being out of sympathy with the Military Service Act, as some of us are supposed to be. I refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith). In his speech on that occasion he said: I say with great respect to the large body of men who are rendering voluntary and valuable services on the tribunals, that there is still a large number who are not administering the Act and not treating the conscientious objector in the way which Parliament rightly or wrongly decided he ought to be treated. He added: I must say with respect to a great many tribunals which I have attended that I think when a conscientious objector comes to the chair the judicial mind of the tribunal generally ceases. Lower down he says: Every case such as that mentioned by the lion. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) of a man who is to-day standing first of all, ridicule, the abuse, the contumely to which he is subjected, and finally imprisonment—I say, without fear of contradiction, that every such case is a standing example of a mistake which has been made by a tribunal. There are no less than 1,200 of such cases to our knowledge—1,200 cases of men of high character willing to be arrested and imprisoned, and to be subjected to all the suffering to which conscientious objectors have to submit, and each one of those cases proves that a mistake has been made by the tribunal. Therefore, I am entitled at once to ask what steps the Government are taking to see that the administration of the second Military Act will be better than the administration of the first Act. So far as I can gather from information which has been brought to me, although there has been improvement, and although a good deal has been done, and although the Government has shown themselves willing to see that things are put right, there are still deplorable instances of miscarriages of justice that are going on. There is the case of a conscientious objector from my own Constituency-a man who was a local preacher, and who is described as being very devout. He obtained total exemption from the local tribunal, but when he was brought before the Appeal Tribunal he was denied any exemption of any kind. He was sent into the Army and has undergone arrest and imprisonment. Here is another case of a similar kind—a man called Theodore Pumphrey, a Quaker. He joined the Friends' Ambulance Unit, and went out to France. He obtained from the War Office, in March, 1916, a certificate which stated that exemption was absolute, and which also stated that the ground on which his exemption was granted was conscientious objection. That man, having got absolute exemption, was brought before the local tribunal at Tottenham in June, and was granted the absolute exemption to which he was entitled. He was a perfectly conscientious man, whose views were well known. The military representative appealed against this decision, and in July this man came before the Westminster Appeal Tribunal, which is presided over by a Member of this House—I am sorry not to see him in his place at present. The clerk read this man's original appeal and the notes by the local tribunal, which stated that they were satisfied that the man was a conscientious objector. That local tribunal acted in accordance with the Act; it found that his objection was genuine, and gave him the form of exemption which met the case. The military representative objected to this, and said it was wrong to give any man absolute exemption under the Act, and then a long conversation went on between the chairman of the Appeal Tribunal and this applicant. The result of it was that, at the end, the chairman said, "Now, Mr. Pumphrey, we want to be quite fair to you. I am going to give you agricultural work under the Friends' Ambulance Unit. Will you accept that?" The applicant said, "No, sir"—on the ground that he was entitled to total exemption, which he claimed he had received from the local tribunal.

Mr. BOOTH

Why did he not accept?

Mr. MORRELL

He wanted to do his own work.

Mr. BOOTH

What age is he?

Mr. MORRELL

The chairman said, "Very well, you are given non-combatant service." The applicant replied, "I cannot accept that." The chairman then said, "You will not accept that? Very well, we have your refusal in your own words; you will have combatant service only." The applicant replied, "There are already 1,200 men who are suffering because they have cons ciences like mine; I am proud to take my stand at their side." The chairman's only reply was, "Next case."

HON. MEMBERS

"Hear, hear!"

Mr. MORRELL

Hon. Members cheer, but this man will ultimately be persecuted; he will be driven into the Army, is being driven into the Army, to a position his conscience will not allow him to accept. He will then resist orders, and "be sentenced to imprisonment, and suffer for it as other conscientious objectors have suffered. That is the sort of thing that is going on to-day, and which this House, when it passed the Military Service Act intended to provide against. Here is an-other case which occurred at the Maiden-head Rural Tribunal on 5th July. The letter to me is written by a man called Mr. Stansfield, who says that he was present and saw the case of a man called Tavener, a Quaker. Before he was heard the tribunal went into a room and brought back a written decision. Thus the applicant had no opportunity to add to written answers to questions. The tribunal explicitly admitted his sincerity, and recognised that they were not satisfying his claim, but said they had no power to give him full exemption, and in support of this decision they quoted a case before the Central Tribunal, in which a similar decision had been given in the case of a Friend. Here is an instance of a tribunal denying the power given by this House—that is the power to grant absolute exemption to conscientious objectors. The writer of this letter says that he heard half a dozen or so previous cases in which business or domestic grounds for exemption were put forward, and he states that this tribunal was completely dominated by the military representative. The chairman repeatedly asked him, "May we do this?" "Do you agree to this?" and so on. In cases where I myself have been present I can bear out what the writer of this letter says, that the military representative in the case of these local tribunals still dominates the decision of the tribunal. I will give one other instance to the House in which I think injustice has been done to one of these men. This is the case of an applicant for exemption which was heard by the Liverpool Local Tribunal: After retiring, while the tribunal deliberated, I was recalled, and the Chairman said,' We have decided to give yon exemption from combatant service, but only on condition that you accept this decision, and agree not to appeal further.'… The man had a legal right to appeal against the decision. Obviously the chairman had no right to limit him in that way.

I was given time to consider my answer, and replied that the question of appeal was a matter of form, which I should decide in due course, and that it would be wrong to say that I accepted the decision. I had stated in my application that I would not consent to non-combatant service. 'No exemption' was then pronounced. Because the man would not say that he accepted non-combatant service, and would not say that he would agree not to appeal, they said, "We will give no exemption at all." That is the sort of arbitrary, high-handed proceeding which leads to the scandal which has been going on in the Army in regard to the conscientious objectors. That is the sort of thing that leads to these men being forced into the Army, and there finding themselves unable to submit to the orders, then being sentenced to penal servitude or condemned to be shot.

Mr. KING

May I ask my hon. Friend whether the Local Government Board is not really trying to correct these grave mistakes which have been made?

Mr. MORRELL

I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. That is just the point I was coming to.

Mr. KING

Let us know whether or not they have been successful.

Mr. MORRELL

The cases I am quoting are very recent cases, cases of what I should call miscarriage of justice, and cases which have occurred in the last few weeks. I think these cases tend to show that, although the Local Government Board have, no doubt, made attempts to regulate the procedure of the tribunals, more can be done than has been done to see that these conscientious objections are not allowed to continue. That is what I want to ask the Local Government Board to do. It seems to me that what the Local Government Board first want is a special set of conditions or regulations dealing with this peculiarly difficult case of the conscientious objector. I quite agree that when a tribunal is asked to decide whether the conscientious objections are genuine or not they have a most difficult and delicate task put before them. I will go so far as to say that some cases of miscarriage were almost bound to happen; that is in the nature of the Act. But I would say this: cases of miscarriage of justice need not be so frequent as they are. I venture to submit that if the Local Government Board would use their powers to issue Regulations dealing solely with conscientious objectors, showing the way in which they ought to be treated—the way they have not been up to the present—the Local Government Board might do a great deal to see that these men are treated more fairly than they are now treated. Principally what I want is this: that the Local Government Board should issue Regulations—not merely advice—to the effect that when any tribunal is satisfied that the objection of a conscientious objector is a genuine and bonâ fide one, it becomes the duty of the tribunal to give him a form of exemption which will meet his case. Parliament has already decided this. It has decided that a man who has a conscientious objection to military service is entitled to have absolute exemption, or conditional exemption on his undertaking work of national importance, or, thirdly, he is entitled to merely what is called non-combatant service. It seems to me that it is the duty of the tribunals not to impose upon an objector that form of service which he in his conscience cannot accept. That is my view, and I think that is the only way. To say to a man, as the tribunal does, "We recognise that you are a conscientious objector, and we therefore put you into a Non—Combatant Corps," only to evoke the reply, "Non-combatant service is making me part of the military machine, and I decline to accept it," is only to make further trouble, and really only aggravates the difficulties of the situation and the sense of injustice. Non-combatant service—that is to say, being a non-combatant member of the Army—ought not to be imposed upon any conscientious objector against his will. You will never get a satisfactory solution to this great problem until you see that a man's conscience is not to be forced in the way it is now being forced, by his being driven into the Army and treated in the manner that I have described. I think that is the first and most important thing to lay down. Lastly, I do think that the Local Government Board might well provide more frequent revision of the cases where injustice has occurred. We are continually appealing to them in various cases, saying, it is obvious that the local tribunal, or the Appeal Tribunal, has not judged this or that case fairly. We get the same answer, "Oh, well, we must leave it to the tribunals; we see no reason for revising the case." In that way again you are laying up for yourselves trouble in the future. We get the scandal and the discredit which has already been caused by endeavouring to force these men to be soldiers against their will. After all, as regards the military question the whole problem is a very small one. There is nothing to be gained from a military point of view by forcing these mens' consciences. It is mere persecution, for no benefit whatever. What the Government, if they want to deal with this question-and I believe they do-ought to do to get it out of the way once and for all, is that they should deal with the matter thoroughly now, and see that the tribunals do not add to the second Military Service Act similar difficulties to those created in the first.

Mr. KING

We have heard a very comprehensive and interesting discussion of the ordinary kind. That is to say, such a discussion begins by the Minister getting up and telling the House what a wonderful Department is his; what a wonderful achievement there has been during the year; what marvellous work he has done—far greater than that of any predecessor or any other holder of the office; what wonderful economies have been effected! In fact he almost overdoes it. So much so that one is almost afraid to offer any words of criticism at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] I am justified in this bold course at the moment because both the representatives of the Local Government Board have left the Chamber. That is, of course, quite natural. I do not expect them to pay any attention to me, or to consider my remarks as being of any value at all. They are not obliged to stay and listen to me, and they are perfectly at liberty to go away. If I had much respect for them, and desired that they should hear what I have to say to them it might perhaps bring them back into the Chamber, or if I followed the usual tradition on such an occasion I should ask leave to report Progress, in order that the representatives of the Local Government Board, now that the Local Government Vote is under discussion, should be, as they ought to be, now in their places. I do not do that, but I simply make these remarks in order that I may be able, possibly on some future occasion, to refer to the fact that my ideas were justified. I am glad, however, to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has now come back to his place

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher)

I have been absent for one minute during the whole of the afternoon!

Mr. KING

I do not wish to make any reflection whatever. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to go out as much as he likes. If he chooses to do me the honour of listening and making a few notes, mental or otherwise, of my remarks, I shall be obliged and pleased. As regards the remarks we have had to-day from the President of the Local Government Board, I failed to observe any reference to the extreme difficulty under which local authorities are carrying on their work at the present time. That work is being carried on under very great difficulty, and it is suffering in consequence. In the districts where I go, and where I live, sanitary inspection is almost for-gotten. I observe many cases of nuisances, of bad conditions of housing, that are left over until after the War. I observe many cases of roads getting into disrepair, and even into dangerous disrepair, and when I remind the inspector, what he says is, "You seem to forget a war is on!" The War covers a multitude of omissions. I want to suggest that in these matters we ought, as far as possible, to keep up the efficiency which is necessary, and that certain public services, such as sanitary inspection, the upkeep of the roads, ought not to be in an absolutely dangerous condition. The Local Government Board should not let off the public authorities, and inspectors, and others, ought to be required to see that essential work of that character is done. At the present moment there is a great amount of economy, so-called, going on by reason of doing away with the watering of the streets and of public places. That is false economy. The dust that is spread about in consequence is very deleterious to health. Certainly the dust is unpleasant, and extremely irritating to people's nerves. The dust of the London streets, and its effect upon the mucous membrane, is acknowledged by medical authorities to be the cause of very grave irritation. Therefore, I wish to put in a plea that local authorities should be encouraged to do watering in the streets and public places, and especially in the poorer parts of London, where such economy only means increased disease.

The President of the Local Government Board took pride to himself on one or two grounds which did not convince me, because I was, as a matter of fact, acquainted with the figures and facts to which he only superficially alluded. One of the matters to which he referred was infantile mortality, which, in the first six months of 1916, he pointed out, was less than in 1915. The fact is that the births in 1916 have been far fewer than those in 1915, and if you take the proportion of infantile mortality to infant births you are in no better position than in 1915. Therefore it is quite futile to leave out one set of figures which is the most important set, and pride yourself on other figures which are immaterial. That is, of course, rather characteristic of men in office, whatever their party or office may be. They try to make out the best case they can, and of course can quote figures to prove anything of that sort.

The subject I will go into still further in connection with the work of the Local Government Board is that known as Child Welfare. My hon. Friend I thought was quite on right lines in pointing out that the real credit for child welfare does not belong to the Local Government Board, but belongs to the Board of Education. It was the medical officer of the Board of Education who, by a series of annual reports, put the Government on the line of policy they are now pursuing-a very good policy, and a very right line on which to work-which is that instructions should be given to mothers before even the birth of their children, so that they may know how to rear those children in health and strength. Instruction of prospective mothers is actually being given in many centres already under the Board of Education. To hear the President of the Local Government Board talk, you would think it was all his duty and all his work, but where he might come in, and where I think he ought to come in, is to insist that all local authorities everywhere should take up work on the lines which have been laid down in successive memoranda, and should do it equally. At the present time he is praising the local authorities because some local authorities do their duty, but there are many local authorities who do nothing at all in this direction, and there are many parts of London in which you get child welfare started by health visitors, Grants from the Local Government Board, and voluntary agencies taking up the work, while there are other parishes in London where there is an absolute lack of all such facilities. I challenged the right hon. Gentleman himself as to whether that was not the case, and, as a matter of fact, I brought the facts out in unstarred questions which can be referred to in the OFFICIAL REPORT a few weeks ago.

It is perfectly notorious that this scheme of child welfare is being most unequally pressed. It is being carried out well in many districts, but it is quite ignored in others. I can prove this from statistics that have been given to me in answer to questions. I asked one question recently about the towns with over a quarter of a million population. The money that they have received out of grants for child welfare come to nearly one-half of the whole Grant. Now the population of this country does not live in towns over a quarter of a million. It lives in smaller towns, and the large towns which are wealthy, and where local organisation, education, and other facilities—hospitals, dispensaries, and so on—are really more available than in many other places, are getting the best of this Grant. I do not grudge for one moment the amounts they are receiving, but I do say that large areas of this country are now without any benefit of this fine work of child welfare. If it were not for causing some trouble to the Department, I should ask for a Return showing what is being done among all the authorities of the country where there are health visitors, how much money is being expended by public authorities in local agencies and so forth, because, of course, it is a complicated question. But if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board will honour me with any attention and any reply at all, I should like him to take this course: Will he see that those authorities which are doing nothing for child welfare shall have something more than a reminder by circular of what may be done. It is all very well to send a circular. It is read before the local authority, and it is put off for a month, or possibly the chairman suggests that it may be left until after the War. There is no good in merely sending circulars to local authorities, and even if you offer them Grants on the top of those circulars that is not enough. I want to suggest a personal visit by the inspector, so that he can bring personal influence on the authority. I would even go to the extent of penalising in some form those local authorities—many of them large ones— which do not act. I could quote one very large Metropolitan borough where practically nothing is being done for child welfare, and where there are thousands and thousands of births a month.

I am now going to say a word or two about the policy which is being pursued in connection with the Report of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases. Of course we are very glad that something is being done—that £75,000 will be utilised, or will be available, for diagnosis, for treatment, and for the supply of that wonderful drug salvarsan. And here let us remember that we owe this wonderful drug, which offers to our nation, and every nation, the possibilities of sweeping away one of the most terrible scourges of disease that the human race has suffered under, to a German Jew who was here in our midst a very few weeks before the War broke out, who was honoured in this land by the medical profession, German Jew as he was, as few other men of our generation have been honoured. Do not let us forget in the time of our hostility, or in our legitimate and bitter hostility, to the German race, that we owe to that man a great possibility for mankind. I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman very heartily for the initiation of a policy in dealing with these terrible venereal diseases. It is intimated that we are to have £75,000 for institutions, hospitals, and so on; but I want to go a little further. I want to ask him whether he is informing all medical men of this policy. I think all medical men who are local practitioners, at any rate all doctors who are panel doctors—and, I will go further and say, all secretaries of friendly societies—ought to be informed of the opportunities that there are available, or shortly will be available, for treatment.

If a man contracts one of these diseases, it is of the very greatest value that he should be rapidly informed of the possibilities that there are for his being cured. He ought to be informed if he can at once, and more than informed. He ought to be able to go to a man of his friendly society, or his doctor, who will at once not only tell him, but will urge him in every possible way to take advantage of this new policy, and I do hope that some means or other will be taken to bring this about. The publicity of it is a matter of prime importance. It must be, of course, tact-fully and wisely done, but it ought to be broadly and widely made known what facilities there are in this matter. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go further in several directions. I have heard of cases in rural parishes where there has been an outbreak of one of these terrible diseases a long way from any town or institution where cases can be treated. I think facilities ought to be given under certain circumstances, on, say, the report of an inspector, for supplying to a medical man in that place drugs for treatment. I have in my mind at the present time one of the most outlying villages in my own Constituency where, I was informed, that one person had recently brought a considerable number of cases of this disease. Let us stamp such a thing out by some such development as I suggest, that in certain circumstances, where means of treatment are not available, you should place—the right hon. Gentleman does not think it is possible; perhaps he is right, but he will, at any rate, see the point I am urging, that in outlying places you may get centres of infection which are terrible. If he is considering that, that is all I ask. At any rate he sees the strength of my point, that this policy must be one the facilities of which are widely known, and can be instantly taken advantage of.

7.0 P.M.

I am; going to add a word or two on the subject of the tribunals. So many Members this afternoon have criticised the tribunals that it is almost superfluous, but, so far as I know, no one has got up in anything but a, mild sort of way to say they have done good service. However bad an Act of Parliament is in this land, there are always genuine, honest Englishmen who will try to make something decent out of it, and, however bad an institution that is set up, there will be some men who will bring themselves credit for it. About one tribunal I have heard constant praise, and especially about the chairman of it, and it is the one which sits under the roof of this building in the corridor upstairs, and is presided over by the Deputy—Chairman of Committees of this House. That is legarded by all parties as a model tribunal. People of different kinds, conscientious objectors, men and women, militarists, and conscriptionists, have nothing but praise for that tribunal. If there is any tribunal which is not doing its work well I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make them sit a whole day upstairs and listen to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman, who often presides over our own deliberations here, conducts the business. I think if he could make them come and see how a model tribunal conducts its business I believe it would be a very good thing. I think that is a practical suggestion. I am going to touch upon the tribunals from another point of view. The right hon. Gentleman knows my Constituency very well, for I believe he sat for an adjoining constituency once. I spent several days at Whitsuntide in my own Constituency, and I find that two adjoining tribunals, both in the rural parts, had very different reputations, one for fairness and the other for unfairness. One had a reputation for looking after the farmers and doing what they wanted and the other had a reputation for giving a fair hearing to poor men and labourers. Why was this? Because the local authority in one of these rural districts is practically wholly composed of farmers and men of that class, while in the adjoining district, which is a large mining area, a number of miners sit on that local body, and there is a totally different atmosphere upon the local authority upon which they sit. The result is that you have a much fairer tribunal in the one case than in the other.

Here you have two tribunals, one of which is constantly putting the Act into force in a different way to what another tribunal does across the border in the next parish. This is very undesirable, and it is not being corrected by the Appeal Tribunal for the county, which apparently always takes a harsh view. In the county I represent I am afraid the Appeal Tribunal for my Constituency has very little to be said in its favour. If these tribunals have still got a great deal of work before them, and I am afraid they have, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter, not by tinkering them up with one circular after another, but now that we have practically got the great rush of the married men's cases just coming up on the tribunals, let him send out a revised and consolidated order which will, at any rate, show them that there must be an attempt to obey the law and the intentions with which Parliament passed the law. If the right hon. Gentleman says he has not the power, let him take the power, and let them know that there is an authority which, if they do not do their work properly will be able to out them out of office and put other people in their place. I could say a great deal about these tribunals, but I will only say this: I urge the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants to avoid friction, suspicion, waste of time, and temper and money, let him take the whole ease in a wide spirit into consideration, and send out new instructions to cover the whole field. I have made a good many remarks about various aspects of the work. I have criticised fairly severely one or two Departments in the work of the Local Government Board. Of course, we all recognise in the right hon. Gentleman a most courteous, industrious, and experienced administrator. He does not always go so far or so quickly as I should wish, and many of his doings, his views and beliefs are not mine, but, personally, I thank him for the way in which he has begun his duties, and I believe, when we make suggestions, we are always making them to a Gentleman who is always sensible and most sympathetic.

Mr. WING

I wish to associate myself with the various tributes which have been paid to the right hon. Gentleman on his annual statement. Several speakers have not only paid their tribute, but they have also presented a number of difficulties. For instance, some speakers, like the last speaker, think that the care of child-life should be left entirely to the educational committees.

Mr. KING

I did not express that view at all. It was another hon. Member.

Mr. WING

Then I am glad to find myself in harmony with the hon. Member for North Somerset. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has to do with these children before the Education Committee comes into contact with them, and I should be very sorry to see any interference with the work which the right hon. Gentleman has in hand. As to the tribunal and the question of the conscientious objector, the more it is discussed the more difficult it becomes. I have watched the operations of these various tribunals and I do not know of one that is entirely satisfactory. There is always a something, because every man who appears before the tribunal, whatever it may be, is a man who desires to be exempted, and if the verdict does not fall in line with his desire, of course, there is disappointment, and the psychological form of decision differentiating one objector from another is exceedingly great. I know that the least friction has been where you have a legal mind as the presiding officer. The hon. Member for West Leeds will bear me out in this in relation to the tribunals in his own city. Allusion has been made to the Appeal Tribunal in this city. What ever may be their disappointment they never leave the tribunals to which I have alluded without feeling that they have really been able to state their case. But when all has been said, there is a feeling that before the verdict is given that the applicant should be asked, "Is there anything more you would like to say before we come to a decision?" I should like the right hon. Gentleman, if he can see his way clear, to multiply the number of men on these tribunals who will have patience to sit and listen to evidence, and who will be led rather by the evidence than any prejudice they might have apart from the evidence, and that would largely meet the objections which have been raised by my hon. Friends on these benches during the last few months.

It is an exceedingly difficult thing for a man who has a conscience to come up against it, but we have to deal with this case and we have to help this man in some way or another. We have provided for him in the law, and I hope we shall do our best to see that he gets the advantage of that which the law grants to him. I specially rose for the purpose of calling the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a matter which I feel certain he will really be somewhat in sympathy with. I am not going to discuss the old age pensions question, but I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to allude to the old age pensions question. In addition to the old age pensioner's difficulty and the decreased value from a purchasing point of view of his pension, the law provides that he shall have medical attendance free. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make this more fully known. I know the reply will be that it is already known, but it is not universally practical. I believe that in Bethnal Green where any medical aid is given it is given as a loan, the result of which is that a number of elderly people are kept from applying for medical aid, when if they knew that the authority granted it free they would apply. In addition to that, I am informed that such applicants for medical aid have to appear before a committee. Now, I do think it should be generally understood that an old age pensioner goes through a sufficiently severe examination before he receives his pension, and I think that ought to be sufficient without further humiliating him by having to go before the committee which grants this aid as a loan. It is surprising how these restric tions prevent the poor in a general way from making an application.

I got some figures the other day in relation to three great authorities in this big City, namely, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, and Poplar. In those three districts the population at the last Census was: Shore-ditch, 111,000; Bethnal Green, 128,000; and Poplar, 162,000. The out relief in Shoreditch was £2,892; Bethnal Green, £1,113; and Poplar, £33,010. You see the great difference. I suppose this restriction is regarded as a very good way of keeping the poor in their place. We have already had in Bethnal Green an old age pensioner die of starvation, and, whilst it might be said to be quite accidental, still it is a point that last year no such death occurred in Shoreditch, and no such death has occurred in Poplar for very many years. I am not specially referring to Bethnal Green by way of exposing it, because I believe it is representative of a very large number of unions in the country. I really would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to see that old age pensioners, when unwell, are encouraged at once to go to the medical officer and that the medical officer exercises that power which the law at present gives him of granting some assistance, not as a loan, but as a free gift, without humiliating the pensioner by calling him before a committee.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I think all who listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend in introducing the Estimates would say that the outstanding feature of that speech was the intense desire shown for the health of the community and particularly for the welfare of the child. There, I think, we might possibly even be doing a little more. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. King) did not seem to think that I was paying much attention to his speech, but I can assure him that I was. I am altogether at one with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board in my desire to stimulate local authorities to put in force the schemes which they can put in force, if they like, in the direction of maternity welfare. Membere of Parliament themselves might do something. I find my own personal influence has not been altogether lost in approaching those who were responsible for what I thought was some neglect or laxity in not taking advantage of the Acts of Parliament and the Grants which accompanied them, and I think every Member of Parliament, particularly in these days of Coalition, might do something in his own constituency to see that the local authorities are encouraged to set on foot schemes for child welfare, maternity care, and matters of that kind, and to raise their standard up to the level perhaps of their neighbours. In that way we might do infinitely more than we can do by merely issuing circulars, though I do not quite hold the view of the hon. Member for Somerset about the efficacy of circulars. The best way of paying our tribute to my right hon. Friend, who has been connected with the Local Government Board now off and on for thirty years, would be by following up his speech and in every local area seeing that the utmost is done under the existing Acts of Parliament, with the benefits of the Grants, to stimulate the action of the local authorities for the pro-motion of infant welfare, never more necessary than at the present time.

I have to reply to some questions and to comment on some criticisms that have been made to-day. The first criticism was in connection with overlapping by the Local Government Board and the Board of Education in the matter of attending to the health of the child. That overlapping, after all, has come from the zeal of the two Departments to do all that they can in that direction and to take the greatest possible advantage of the various Acts of Parliament that have been passed. There is plenty of zeal in the centre. We have to distribute that zeal so that it may radiate from the centre to the different local authorities. If there is some overlapping, and undoubtedly there is, you will generally find it where new services are partly in one Department and partly in another Department. After all, it is only by experience that you come to delimitation. There is undoubtedly overlapping and there ought to be delimitation, but as one of the two representatives of the Local Government Board I must say that I think it is the Local Government Board possibly whose territory has been encroached upon by the Board of Education, and it is not we, but the Board of Education, who ought to give way in this matter where the two authorities come at any rate into conflict. I know these questions pretty well, and I am certain that any Committee of the House of Commons chosen almost from any quarter of the House would settle this matter satisfactorily at one sitting and would do away with a certain amount, perhaps, of friction which may occur from time to time in carrying out the various. Acts of Parliament.

Sir G. TOULMIN

Why not have a Committee at once?

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I am sure that, it would be an easy matter for them. My hon. Friend who represents Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) addressed to me one or two-questions in connection with the welfare of children. He asked about the children that are boarded out, and he called my attention to the fact that some boards of guardians seem to think that 3s. 6d., 4s., or 4s. 6d. per week is an adequate sum to pay for the boarding out of a child, whereas the circular issued by my Department empowers boards of guardians to raise that payment to 5s. and 6s. In a few cases we have even sanctioned a larger payment than 6s. I should have said that in these days when the cost of living has gone up that 3s. 6d., 4s., and 4s. 6d. are, in all probability, not sums which can wisely be paid by boards of guardians, and that they would do better if they reviewed their decisions and looked to the circulars we have issued and at 5s. or 6s. rather than the sums they are now in the habit of giving. There must, however, be-some difference in different localities. Some localities are undoubtedly more expensive than others. It is true that we do very often find that foster parents do not look at the amount of money they get with the child. They really do get attached to the child and like it, and would even keep it for nothing, but I quite agree with my hon. Friend that you must not play too much on their feelings, though I am sure he would like to know that we have very few complaints from our women inspectors and from foster parents. I will take notice of what he says, and I will have any cases which he specifically brings before me followed and see whether the money is or is not satisfactory to the foster parents, and if there is any chance of the child not getting the food or the care and comfort that it ought to have. The House should remember that this 5s. or 6s. does not cover clothing or medical attendance.

My hon. Friend asked me about children in certificated schools. He asked' whether there had been any necessity to increase the amount of money paid there. Yes, we have issued a circular authorising" an increase of something like 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. Then he asked whether we would pay attention to the question of adequate outdoor relief for children, and particularly for the children of widows with large families. I hold the very strongest possible opinion with him that women with many children should not only not be encouraged, but should be actually discouraged to work, and I might say, by way of example, that the Statutory Committee which has to administer the supplementary pensions and grants are going to lay it down that where a woman has no children and is accustomed to work she is probably better at work, but where she has two or three little children, then, even although she is accustomed to work, she had better stop at home and look after her children. It is better for the nation in the end. There again I will take notice of what the hon. Member has said and see if anything can be done to give adequate relief to widows with large families. The next point that came up in debate was the question of the old age pensioners, but on that I must follow the Chairman's ruling, and I can say very little indeed. It is a question which has been discussed and doubtless will be discussed in this House, but it is a matter rather for legislation, and so far as it is a matter for administration, it is more a matter for the Treasury than for the Local Government Board. Anybody who looks at the tremendous increase in the price of necessities, and particularly of those things for which old ago pensioners have to pay, cannot but have sympathy with them in their position. We have made a great number of inquiries at the Local Government Board, and I am glad to say that the evidence does not bear out the suggestion that old age pensioners are to any large extent giving up their pensions and receiving Poor Law relief. That is probably due to the fact that in most cases they do not rely entirely on their old age pensions, but they have relations and friends who are now enjoying greater wages and are probably even more generous to them than they were before. Still, I am not happy about it; I am anything but happy about it. Whilst the Treasury turns a blind eye, and the Treasury is turning a blind eye, to anything that is urged in regard to old age pensioners—it is neither taking them away nor reducing them, and it has given a hint that nothing of that kind is to be done-possibly other Departments might also turn a blind eye and—

Mr. CROOKS

Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department make it perfectly clear to boards of guardians that doctors' orders cover such things as bread and meat and tea and sugar? Your Department can do that; not the Treasury.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I am not sure what my Department can do, but I will take note of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, who always takes such a deep-rooted interest in this question, and with my right hon. Friend who sits beside me, and who is responsible for the Department, I will consider it and see if there is any possibility of our extending a blind eye in the direction of selected cases of pensioners, because I am not at all one of those who think that it is necessary to increase the pension in every case, without discrimination, by 1s. or 2s. The whole matter could be better dealt with by discrimination, and in all probability in the local area by the local authority, than if could be by any general system of raising the pension, to which I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would strongly object.

Sir G. TOULMIN

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman needs to turn a blind eye. The medical officers are entitled in proper cases to order these com-forts, and that should be well known and recognised by boards of guardians.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

That is so, and we might possibly make that known. There was just one other subject that is rather akin to, at all events it is within the area of, kindness, philanthropy, and mercy, and that was the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid—Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse)—the question of Belgian refugees. I do not exactly know what he desires me to say about them. He asked for the figure of how many there were. We compute them at 200,000, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing, on behalf of us all, our immense gratitude to the committees which, from the very beginning of this War, have taken these unfortunate Belgian refugees by the hand, and with a very kind hand. These commit-tees are still paying the greatest possible attention to the Belgian refugees. Everybody desires that they should have the hospitality of this country—yes, the wide hospitality of this country—to the very end of the war, but I am not sure that I join with the hon. Member for MidLanark in the hope that they will stay with us after the War. I hope that, for their own sakes, they will be repatriated, and I am quite sure that all Belgians will be glad to go voluntarily back to their country when it is freed from the Germans, and is able to be reconstructed, as we all hope will be possible, with help given them, not too willingly, by the Germans themselves. So long as they are in this country, however, we shall want and shall desire to exercise towards them the same hospitality as we are showing them at the present time, and to see if it is possible to improve the method by which we distribute that hospitality.

The main stress of criticism, as I have said, has been directed to the public health, the welfare of infants, and of the mothers; but there is another stream of criticism, and that relates to the tribunals. There was, first of all, my right hon. Friend the Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire (Mr. G. Lambert), who made a bitter complaint that the local tribunals did not give sufficient attention to the needs of agriculture, and that more precise directions ought to be given to them. I really do not think he could have studied the two circulars which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long), who, after all, knows a great deal about agriculture, addressed to the committees. He has quoted in his first circular of the 1st of June, with the Prime Minister's approval, this statement the right hon. Gentleman made in the House of Commons: I can only repeat with emphasis that the Government hold that the maintenance of the highest possible output of home-grown food supplies remains a national object of a most essential nature, and that labour which is essential and irreplacable should be retained on the land for this purpose. Later on, on the 22nd June, he issued a very precise circular in which he set out the scale agreed upon between the Army Council and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries as a general guide for determining the number of men to be retained on farms. It is only a general guide, because there may be exceptions in every case, and it may be that the local knowledge of the tribunals will incline them to allow more or less men than the circular suggests. They may be glad to say, "We know that the labour in this case could be replaced by a woman, and that it is not needed to the full extent indicated in the circular." Or they might take the other view and say, " We know more labour is wanted for this particular farm than is specified in the circular." The circular says: The tribunal, in determining any individual case, must take into account the particular circumstances relating to it, and pay due regard to the importance of maintaining a food supply as well as of releasing for the forces any man who is not essential for that purpose. I do not think the circular is at fault. It is for the tribunals to act up to the circular.

Sir J. SPEAR

The advice is good, but we want it to be made compulsory on the tribunals.

Mr. ANDERSON

There is nothing: wrong with the circular.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I do not think I need pursue that, then. I thought the complaint was that my right hon. Friend had rather neglected his duties, and that he had not shown his very natural sympathy with agriculture. I only want to show that he has done that in the most complete manner. Of course, we have had a good many speeches directed to the tribunals for their general attitude towards-the conscientious objector, and complaints of the most grievous kind were made against them. The hon. Member for MidLanark said that these tribunals ought not to be allowed to run themselves, that they ought to be interfered with, and so forth. My right hon. Friend is always interfering. He is always addressing inquiries to them. I do not think a day passes without his addressing inquiries to them. He is always circularising them, and trying to ascertain the truth about cases quoted in this House, a very difficult matter in many instances. I believe his Department is doing its utmost to see to it that the tribunals follow the instructions laid down in the various circulars of the Local Government Board. They are independent. They must be independent. I myself sometimes have remarks made to me by chairmen of tribunals that it is a little bit more their business than that of others, that they have a perfect right to construe these instructions, and that they have greater local knowledge than I have of the particular cases. I hear that, and hon. Members would do so if they occupied my place and position. It is extremely difficult to keep a judicial mind in the case of a conscientious objector. I think that quite as much applies to the advocates of conscientious objectors in this House. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) paid the judicial mind of a tribunal ceased to exist as soon as it encountered a conscientious objector.

Mr. MORRELL

I did not say that myself. I was quoting the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith). I read from the OFFICIAL REPORT to quote him. I agree, but there are two views.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

So far as the cases which the hon. Member put forward are concerned, he cannot expect me to reply now. Before I could possibly say whether these decisions were just or unjust, or whether they were within the four corners of the instruction or without them, I should have to hear the other side of the case. Conscientious objectors are extremely difficult people to deal with. I am thankful I have never had to deal with them, because I am not certain whether I should' preserve my judicial balance or not, although I should endeavour to do so. There was one particular case, the case of a Quaker. I understand that he had absolute exemption given him practically by the representative of the War Office, and that he was doing work of a most useful kind. He then comes before the local tribunal, and it says, "Oh, no; you are not entitled to exemption at all. We shall give you combatant service"; and they gave it to him.

Mr. MORRELL

That was the Appeal Tribunal.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

Did he ask for leave to appeal, and was it refused?

Mr. MORRELL

Yes; it was the Appeal Tribunal which decided that. The War Office and the local tribunal gave him absolute exemption, but the Appeal Tribunal said that—the military representative.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I think it would be most extraordinarily difficult to set up any tribunal which would give equal decisions or standardised decisions in cases of that kind. There was doubtless a general desire to do the man justice, but, apparently, an absolute divergence of view on that question. So far as I have heard that case, I think I should have given the man exemption, because he has had it before; he had done good work, and he was, apparently, willing to do so again. But the personal factor must come in in a decision of that kind, and if my right hon. Friend himself had to decide in these cases I am sure he would find him- self in conflict with the hon. Member below the Gangway, although he would have every desire to do justice in every possible way. I am glad to know that he thinks that so far as the treatment of conscientious objectors is concerned it has improved compared with what it was. Two Committees have already been set up, one called the Home Office Committee and the other the Pelham Committee. These matters are being looked into, and my right hon. Friend is now giving great consideration to this subject. It is quite possible that he may follow out the suggestions made here, and group together the various instructions, and put them into one new code of instructions in regard to conscientious objectors. Other things he may do. That is for him, to say. All I am empowered to say now is that he is paying very great consideration to this question, although I am not very hopeful that anything will ever satisfy some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who seem to think that a conscientious objector is the most important person in this country. I do not share those views myself. I think there are other matters which demand our attention more closely.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Home) said that we ought to pay the greatest possible attention to reconstruction after the War. That is quite true, and there will be unemployment after the War. I venture to see some consolation in this: if the War has arrested, as it has arrested, social progress in many ways, if it has prevented, as it has prevented, much housing in this country, and if it has prevented many sanitary, water, and drainage works, and others of all sorts of kinds—if these are all held up there is at least this consolation that when the War is over all these matters will require the hand of man. After all, housing will have to be dealt with, sanitary arrangements will have to be made, waterworks and drainage works and all manner of things will have to be done. Our roads will have fallen into great disrepair. These will have to be repaired, and so there is some little consolation that if we have to forego municipal and local amenities and advantages which we should otherwise have enjoyed in time of peace, at any rate they may give some opportunity for the employment of many who will desire employment when this War is over. I can only say generally that that work of reconstruction is engaging the attention of the Government at the present time. There is a Cabinet Committee dealing with this particular question, and we at the Local Government Board are making the best contribution that we can towards the solution of the problems raised this afternoon.

Mr. ROWNTREE

I desire to put forward one definite suggestion to the President of the Local Government Board {Mr. Long) with regard to this question of the conscientious objector. I entirely agree that it is extremely difficult for any of us to keep a judicial mind on this question. I sympathise very warmly indeed with the men who sit on the tribunals, and who have these extraordinarily difficult decisions to come to. I do believe, however, that if the President of the Local Government Board would specially give his mind to the men who are prepared to do work of national importance, and to seeing that they get the exemption that they desire it would save the military authorities a very large amount of trouble. We know that at the present time there is a great shortage of labour in connection with agriculture, and in some other departments, and what I am so anxious to see is that the tribunals when they have decided that a man should get exemption on conscientious grounds should obtain for the man the exemption that he can accept. The hon. Member for Burnley {Mr. Morrell) dealt with those who desire absolute exemption, and I do not wish to refer to those at this moment. The man who gets exemption and is sent to the Non-Combatant Corps and is willing to join that corps is satisfied, and his case is met. I want specially to put to the right hon. Gentleman the point that there are imprisoned to-day hundreds of men—it is no exaggeration to say so—who have been adjudicated as being sincere conscientious objectors by the tribunals, but who have been given an exemption which they cannot accept. A large amount of the difficulty surrounding this subject would be removed if the right hon. Gentleman would in some way put before the tribunals the fact—I believe it is a fact—that men are not so much wanted for the Non-Combatant Corps at the moment, but that there is a great need for men on the land and in one or two other departments. If men who have been admitted by the Courts to be conscientious objectors could be given exemption on doing work of national importance, that would go a long way to solve this very difficult question I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are several tribunals yet who really do not know that there is such a Committee as the Pelham Committee. In reply to a question I put to-day, I see that the War Office have informed the military representative of the Middlesbrough Court that there is such a body, and that men should be, and can be, transferred to that Committee.

Mr. LONG

The military representative has nothing to do with the tribunal.

Mr. ROWNTREE

I mentioned the fact as to the military representative in that case, because he said he knew nothing about the Pelham Committee when the man asked to be referred to it.

Mr. LONG

My hon. Friend said that many of the tribunals know nothing of the Pelham Committee. I do not think he is accurate. Every tribunal in the country is not only aware of the existence of the Pelham Committee, but of their duties and what they are doing. The military representative he quotes has nothing to do with the tribunal. He is a War Office representative.

Mr. ROWNTREE

I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. It was only in my desire to save time that I did not elaborate the fact that several tribunals did not know of the existence of the Pelham Committee Only a fortnight ago there was a tribunal near the city where I come from who knew nothing about the Pelham Committee. I know perfectly well information may have been sent to them, but in the rush of affairs I am afraid a good many members of the tribunals do not read everything that is sent to them. I only state the fact, which I believe I can substantiate, that in several instances this Pelham Committee is not known, and, because of that, men are sent into the Army to join the Non-Combatant Corps who do not feel that they can accept that course. It is true to say there are hundreds of cases of men imprisoned who want to do work of national importance, but who have not been able to get that exemption. Many military men have said to me when I have been talking this matter over with them, "You ought not to blame us for the difficulties that are occurring. We are put in an almost impossible position. It is the tribunals that you ought to blame."

I do not wish to blame anyone at the moment. I am only anxious, if I can, to help the President of the Local Government Board to try to see that the cases of these men who are willing to do work of national importance is met. What is necessary is that if it is a fact, as I believe it to be, that the men are not wanted in the Non-Combatant Corps, but are wanted on the land, then that new fact should be brought to the attention of the tribunals, and that they should be encouraged to say that men who desire that exemption should be given it.

I know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend does not like interfering—it is perfectly natural—with the tribunals, and he and his Department refuse again and again to suggest to the tribunal the rehearing of a case. Several cases have been brought to the attention of the Local Government Board where, if a rehearing had been asked for, the difficulty of sending the man into the Army, and the difficulty of imprisonment or detention and that kind of thing, would have been saved. I had an ex-ample of that only last week. A young fellow came to me from a neighbouring town and told me that he had been given exemption, and had been given a week to obtain work of national importance. He had not found that work. He was rather a dull boy. He had got discouraged after he had asked two people to give him work, and I do not think he had gone on. He came to me a day after the exemption was up. I said to him at once, "Take a bicycle, go into the country, and go from farm to farm to see if someone will not take you on." He said, "I shall be a day late." I said, "If you are a day late, I will write to the tribunal, pointing out that you are looking for work and asking them to overlook it or to give you an extra week." The boy took my advice, and almost at once found a position on a farm. The military representative in that case cordially supported the application of the boy that he should do that work, but, for one reason or another, the tribunal would not overlook the fact that he was a day or two late. Now that boy, against the wish of the military representative and surely against the national interest, is being forced into a position which he cannot accept. That boy wrote to the Local Government Board and received a perfectly courteous reply, saying that it was quite impossible to interfere or to ask for a rehearing.

HON. MEMBER

"Why?"] I do not know why. I know perfectly well that a large number of cases have been sent up to the Local Government Board, without any desire to hamper them in any way, asking them to get over the difficulty that had arisen, but because of my right hon. Friend's natural disinclination and that of the Department, which we can all under-stand, to interfere with the tribunals, those cases have not been redressed, and these men are being forced against the national interest into an impossible position and are causing trouble and difficulty to the Army authorities. My right hon. Friend will, at any rate, acquit me of any desire to hamper him in the administration of this Act.

Mr. LONG

Hear, hear!

Mr. ROWNTREE

If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the two suggestions I have made—first, of pointing out to the tribunals the need for labour, especially in connection with farms, and therefore the need for seeing that men who want that exemption, whose conscientious objection has been granted, should get that exemption, rather than be given an exemption which they cannot accept—I believe it would save hundreds of men in the future being forced into the Army, and there, against their wish, having to hamper and thwart the military authorities; secondly, I believe that if in some way his Department could do a little more to encourage some kind of revision in absolute bonâ-fide cases, a great amount of difficulty would be spared. I have only spoken because of my desire to see removed some of the difficulties that are being caused by the Act, and I believe they can be partially removed if these two suggestions are carried out.

Captain C. BATHURST

I had not intended to participate in this Debate, but it is only fair to say in the presence of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) that this particular subject was discussed only this morning at the monthly meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture—a very authoritative body of agriculturists—arising out of a letter addressed to the Chamber by the Home Office asking them to send representatives to discuss with the Home Office the question of to what extent conscientious objectors could be employed on agricultural land. Rightly or wrongly, the Chamber decided unanimously that they could not see their way to advance the suggestion made in the Home Office letter. Some of them made it perfectly clear that they themselves had a conscientious objection to the employment of these men on their farms in place of those who have gone to serve in the Army. For my part, I believe that if these men are to be employed on the land at all, far and away the most useful kind of employment, and the most advantageous to the country, would be to employ them upon reclamation work, for which there is enormous scope, thus rendering a larger area of land available for use for cultivation after the War is over. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has referred to the latitude with which his Department regards the Regulations under which old age pensioners receive their pensions. I should like to mention to him that a case of complaint has come to me from the county of Suffolk of old age pensioners being given to understand that if they take agricultural employment they would have the amount of their pensions reduced. It is perfectly clear, if that is so, that the instructions coming from his Department or from the Treasury are not in every case being acted upon. I venture to hope, in view of the great anxiety of these old age pensioners who are willing to give us assistance on farms, that no such abuse of his instructions or those of the Treasury will be permitted.

The only other observation I desire to make is that the circulars that are issued to tribunals in agricultural districts allow a great deal of discretion to the tribunals. All I can say is that the Board, short of giving mandatory instructions, has done most useful work by issuing those circulars. But the exemption of indispensable labourers on farms is being granted at a very unequal rate throughout the country. There is no doubt whatever that there is a very strong feeling, which is largely justified in some districts, against the obviously prejudiced attitude of some members of those tribunals against those indispensable labourers who ought to be retained on the farms. In consequence of their non-retention the land is undoubtedly suffering. It is get-ting very foul, and will not produce anything like the amount of food which, in existing circumstances, it ought to produce.

8.0. P. M.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

In reference to this question of conscientious objectors, the difficulty arises, I believe, largely from the fact, in the very nature of the case, that decisions are given from feeling rather than from judgment. It is quite natural, in establishing these tribunals all over the country and taking men who have never had any previous experience in weighing evidence, which must tell against men who are apparently evading their duty to the country, that many of these decisions should not be just, and it is almost impossible that they should be just. But, at any rate, the conscientious objector is recognised as an existing being. He is recognised by the Act of Parliament, and it is the intention of the President that the Act of Parliament should be administered. There have been miscarriages of justice due not merely to prejudice but to lack of knowledge on the part of these tribunals as to what their powers actually were Many tribunals which would have given absolute exemption have given exemption of a character which has landed their victims in prison. Is it possible to devise means whereby cases, decided by tribunals which were not aware of the fact until quite recently that they should give absolute exemption, and which therefore have given these other decisions, can be revised so that, at any rate, the amount of feeling which exists on the part of those who are victims of this acknowledged mistake can be relieved, and by that means a great deal of the injustice which exists can be removed? If the right hon. Gentleman, whose excellent circulars really explain the views which should govern the tribunals in giving their decisions, will make those circulars mandatory or codify them and issue them in the form of regulations which must be obeyed by local tribunals, the tribunals would pay more attention to them in the future, which is going to bring tens of thousands of cases probably before him from amongst the married men who are now being conscripted, you will have, at any rate, fewer cases like those which have happened amongst the single men, and by so much you will reduce the difficulty and the danger and the feeling of injustice which is creating so much trouble.

Mr. KlNG

I should like to enforce what my hon. Friend has just said. The tribunals ought not to be allowed to get away on the plea that they are free and independent authorities. They are trying to get away from the intentions of Parliament and of the Government and from the plain directions which have been given.

If all the various Orders were codified and issued and the Regulations made mandatory, we should probably save a very great deal of friction, time, and trouble. I hope the suggestion, though made late in the discussion, will be considered.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.