Commons Sitting of 18 February 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Minute of the Board of Education, dated,15th February, 1918, modifying the Regulations for Special Schools (i.e., Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Children), dated 20th March, 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Copy presented of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 2 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act,1899, that they are of opinion that the provisions of the British Aluminium Company (Lochaber Water Power) Order are of such a character and raise such questions of policy and principle that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order, that save as aforesaid the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as they may hereafter make with respect to the several Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN WALES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Final Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into and report on University Education in Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
Estimates, presented for the year 1918–19 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1917–18).
Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 5.]
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1918–19).
Estimate presented for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1919, with Memorandum [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 6.]
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1918–19 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
Estimate presented showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1919 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 7.]
NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
Account presented of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845, to 5th January, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 8.]
DEVELOPMENT FUND.
Copy presented of Abstract Account of the Receipts into and Issues out of the Development Fund in the year ended 31st March, 1917, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 9.]

WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Abstract Accounts presented for the year ended 31st March, 1917, with the

435
Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 10.]

TREASURY CHEST.
Account presented for the year 1916–17, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 11.]
ARMY.
Copy presented of Third and Final Report of the Committee on Promotion of Officers in the Special Reserve, New Armies, and Territorial Force, together with a Note by the Army Council [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRISONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Thirty-ninth Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1916–17 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
Copies presented of Orders made by the Board under the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1.Public Records (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division)—Copy of Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of Affidavits filed in the late High Court of Chancery or in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, which are now in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act];

2. Public Records (General Registry Office (England)—Copy of Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of Documents existing or accruing in the General Register Office and in the Offices of the Local Registration Officers which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    RUSSIA (PASSPORTS).
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is authorised on behalf of the Russian Government to visé the passports of persons proceeding from this country to Russia?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The Government at Petrograd has authorised its agent in London to visé the passports of persons proceeding from this country to Russia.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who the agent is?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Mr. Litvinoff.
    Mr. BILLING: Has Mr. Litvinoff a passport; if so, by whom was it issued, and is it proposed to allow him to retain it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    PALESTINE.

      ZIONIST COMMISSION.
      Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to send a Zionist Commission to Palestine shortly; if so, what are the objects; and who are the persons appointed?
      Mr. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have acceded to the request of the London Zionist Central Organisation to permit a Zionist Commission to proceed to Palestine at an early date. The functions of the Commission are to investigate the present condition of Jewish colonies in Palestine, to organise relief work, and supervise reparation of damage done to Zionist colonies during the War in as far as circumstances will permit. The London Central Zionist Organisation has already submitted the names of Dr. Weizman, Mr. J. Cowans, and Mr. Simon. It is probable that other names will be added to the list, but the matter is still under consideration.
      Mr. KING: Are they likely to leave this country at an early date?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have said so.

    MONTENEGRO.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since the outbreak of the War, a subvention was promised to the Government of Montenegro either by the British Government or by any Allied Governments jointly; if so, whether such subvention has been paid; whether it is now being paid; and, if not, for what reason is payment withheld?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Wirral on the 22nd November last.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      SUGAR.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can supply any information regarding the scheme for diverting supplies of sugar from businesses in which confectionery is one of the several concerns to businesses in which it is the sole concern; whether such scheme will be worked out by the Food Controller; and, if so, in what manner?
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The suggestion is under consideration at the present time, but I cannot yet say whether any satisfactory scheme for this purpose will be found practicable.

      CROPS DAMAGED BY DEER.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that considerable damage is done by red deer to farmers' crops on the borders of Exmoor; and whether, in the interest of food productions, steps can be taken to reduce the number of deer in and around Exmoor?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The Board have no power to require deer to be killed, but inquiry will be made as to the extent of the damage to which my right hon. Friend
      438
      refers, in order that the Board may consider whether powers should be obtained.

      SPECULATIVE LAND PURCHASE.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of insecurity to tenants caused by speculative purchases of land; whether he is aware that security is essential to secure the maximum amount of food and agricultural products; and whether measures will be introduced to ensure security for tenant farmers; and, if so, when the announcement of such measures can be made?
      Sir R. WINFREY: Changes of ownership of farms occur from various causes every year, and the speculative purchase of farms must to a certain extent follow. The Department are well aware that any displacement of tenants who are farming well is specially undesirable just now, and in certain eases have used their influence with new owners in order to defer changes of tenancy. The President doubts whether the number of such cases in which the national interest is prejudiced by notices to quit is such as to justify new and contentious legislation to deal with the point.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Will such legislation be contentious?
      Sir R. WINFREY: That is a matter of opinion.

      POULTRY.
      Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the disquiet aroused by the announcement as to the limitation of poultry food; whether the Board will take further practical steps by the formation of local committees or other wise to make an immediate census of existing poultry with a view to weeding out unproductive stock; whether, if such stock is killed off at once, there is a reasonable prospect that a good number of pure-bred sittings can be hatched in March for egg production only; and whether State assistance and advice will be given?
      Sir R. WINFREY: Such a scheme as my hon. Friend suggests would not be practicable, for the reason that poultry keepers are themselves the best judges of their business, and must be allowed to know when is the best time to market their birds. They also know to what extent they can manage to feed their existing stocks without the supplies of

      439
      grain feeding-stuffs on which they have been accustomed to rely. The Board have warned them of the present and prospective shortage of purchasable feeding-stuffs, and a scheme is now under consideration by the Ministry of Food and the Board for distributing the limited supplies among owners of the best utility stocks of poultry in the country. The Board, through the Poultry Advisory Committee, are giving poultry keepers whatever assistance and advice are possible.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Have not the various instructions which have been issued from the hon. Gentleman's and other Departments on this question been of an extremely contradictory character—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.
      Mr. CROOKSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that, in consequence of the difficulty in obtaining food for poultry, working-class families are killing off their stocks; and whether, in view of the economic effect of this, any arrangements can be made whereby those keeping poultry may be able to obtain the necessary food?
      Mr. PARKER: I am aware of the general scarcity of cereals for poultry food. It is, however, hoped that sufficient supplies will be available to enable hen birds hatched since 1st January, 1916, to receive a ration of dry food not exceeding 1 oz. a day.

      HOARDING (FARM PRODUCE).
      Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he can explain definitely and clearly the position of a farmer under the Regulations directed against food hoarding who has a stock of home produce consisting of bacon and jam; and whether the farmer under such Regulations is required to give such stock up, less two weeks' supply, to the authorities at half-price?
      Mr. PARKER: The Food Hoarding Order does not apply to any home-produced or home-made article of food in the possession of the producer or maker.
      Mr. TERRELL: Is a farmer entitled to use such stock for his own consumption, regardless of his food tickets?
      Mr. PARKER: The hon. Member must take the answer I have given.

      POTATOES.
      Mr. CLANCYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Government has determined to offer no guaranteed prices for potatoes in Ireland in respect of the 1918 crop, except for the exportable surplus, although wholly different terms, involving no such limitation, have been arranged as regards the potato crop in England and Scotland; will he state the reason for this discrimination against Ireland; and whether the Food Controller will modify the Regulation made for Ireland by doing away with that discrimination, and so removing an obstacle to the production of potatoes in the largest quantity in the year 1918?
      Mr. PARKER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in assuming that there is any discrimination against Ireland in the arrangements for the potato crop of 1918. Up to 1st November there is a free market for potatoes in the United Kingdom, subject to the possible operation of certain maximum prices. After 1st November the Food Controller will take over and distribute potatoes grown in England and Scotland. So far as Ireland is concerned, it has been decided, after consultation with the Irish Department of Agriculture, that the interests of Ireland will best be served by allowing distribution to Irish consumers to proceed on the usual lines instead of being undertaken by the Government, and that the Ministry of Food shall not intervene except to the extent of offering to buy the surplus available for export at remunerative prices.
      Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary whether, as Minister for Ireland, he has had his attention drawn to the fact that, under the Orders of the Food Controller regarding the payments to be made for the encouragement of potato cultivation in the United Kingdom in the present year, every British farmer will be paid £5 to £6 per ton for the potatoes he produces on an area equal to that which he had sown in 1916, and £6 to £7 per ton grown on an acreage in excess of that sown in 1916; whether, in consequence of this encouragement to a

      441
      greater production of potatoes in Great Britain and of the restriction of any payment for the production in Ireland of any but the exportable surplus produced there, the result may be that Ireland will receive no share whatever of the money paid for the encouragement of potato growing, though the taxation imposed on Ireland will supply a share of the money required for financing such an arrangement; and whether, as Minister for Ireland, he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps to protect Irish interests in this matter?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The prices of £5 to £6 10s. per ton for potatoes to be grown in the United Kingdom in 1918 are not for the whole crop, but for the part available for sale, and they do not include potatoes grown on any holding where the area under potato tillage is less than 1 acre. The price of £6 to £7 is a fixed contract price, not a minimum price. The minimum price announced for Ireland is £5 5s. to £6 5s., free alongside ship, for the exportable surplus, the potatoes to be purchased by committees on which will be represented growers and dealers. No limit is placed on the quantity to be purchased, which will be irrespective of the amount of the British crop offered to the Government. As sufficient potatoes must be kept in Ireland to meet Irish requirements, a contract which would involve the export of a portion of the crop regardless of the needs of Ireland could not be entered into. If, as the Department of Agriculture hope, farmers plant this year a largely increased acreage, granted a-favourable season, Ireland should be in a position to export a considerable quantity at an average price to the farmers which should closely approach, and may possible exceed, £5 per ton. Even in these times this must be regarded as a good price. It should be noted that the potatoes to be purchased from British growers may be sold to consumers by the Ministry of Food at a price which would not involve any loss to the Exchequer. The Food Controller has announced that the differential treatment given to Scottish potatoes reflects his desire to relieve transport difficulties by putting the highest premium on the potatoes grown nearest to the principal consuming areas It also follows the ordinary custom of the trade, and takes into account the fact that Scottish farmers obtain their seed cheaper and command a higher price for it than English farmers.

      EXPORTS FROM IRELAND
      Major NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is satisfied that the population of London are not being unjustly deprived of food at the instance of certain food committees in various parts of Ireland, who are endeavouring to forbid the export of food of all sorts to this country, and intimidating dealers who have food to export; and will the Food Controller satisfy himself as to the quantity of foodstuffs which can fairly be demanded from Ireland, and use, or obtain, if he has not got them, summary powers to prevent the embargo which it is being sought to establish?
      Mr. PARKER: The decisions of the Food Controller as to the quantity of foodstuffs available for export from Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom are made after consultation with the Irish Department of Agriculture find the Food Control Committee for Ireland. While it has been necessary to prohibit the shipment of certain articles required for Irish consumption, the export of supplies generally is of the normal amount.
      Major NEWMAN: Is the hon. Member aware of the endeavours made by unofficial committees to hold up food against England?
      Mr. PARKER: No; I am not aware of that fact. The information which the Department have in their possession is that the supplies coming to England are the normal amount.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is the Food Controller reconsidering the prohibition against the importation of butter from Ireland?
      Mr. PARKER: I must have notice of that question
      Mr. BOLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that during the winter months there is no export of surplus butter from Ireland?

      MEAT.
      Major NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has obtained any report as to the condition of the meat arriving at Smithfield and elsewhere from Ireland; whether he is aware that the sides of beef so arriving have been described as so old and lean that they would not have been bought to feed hounds on and warranting the assumption that the-beast was in such

      443
      poverty of condition that it would not have borne the voyage across the Irish Channel; whether he is aware that the meat further shows signs of exposure and rough handling and a large percentage of it has had to be condemned; and will he take steps to have all beef examined and graded in Ireland before export and so save waste of tonnage?
      Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller is aware that meat has been received from Ireland in an unsatisfactory condition, and he is in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland upon the subject.
      Major NEWMAN: Will the beef be examined and graded in Ireland before it is shipped to this country?
      Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I cannot answer that definitely. There is a consultation taking place in regard to the matter.

      MEATLESS DAYS (HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS).
      Sir A. FELLasked if the Regulations relating to rations and meatless days at hotels and restaurants apply to Scotland and Ireland equally with England?
      Mr. PARKER: Yes, Sir.

      HOARDING.
      Sir A. FELLasked if the law relating to food hoarding applies to Scotland and Ireland as well as England; and if any prosecutions have taken place for hoarding in Scotland or Ireland?
      Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I only know of one prosecution for food hoarding in Scotland, and I have not heard that any prosecutions have taken place for hoarding in Ireland.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the various categories of homemade produce which may be held in reserve for household use during the season without involving a charge of hoarding under the Hoarding Order?
      Mr. PARKER: There is no limitation under the Food Hoarding Order as to either quantity or kind of home-produced or home-made articles of food which may lawfully be in the possession of the producer or maker.
      Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Parliamentary of the Ministry of Food the desirability of making it perfectly clear what articles come under the definition of home-made produce, on account of the difficulty in knowing what is included?
      Mr. PARKER: I will convey the request of the hon. Member.
      Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the American Food Controller has been able to state what is and what is not hoarding? Is it past the intelligence of the Ministry of Food to do so?
      Mr. PARKER: I cannot tell the hon. Member what is past the intelligence of the Ministry.
      Mr. BILLING: I can.

      AERODROMES (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).
      General COLVINasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry whether, having regard to the fact that men are still being taken away from agricultural employment to work at aerodromes, steps will immediately be taken to obtain the necessary labour from elsewhere, in order to terminate a system which is making farming in some districts almost impossible?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): Instructions have been issued to contractors that they are to engage labour exclusively through the medium of Employment Exchanges, and the latter are being instructed not to send forward for employment on aerodrome construction men whose last employer was a farmer, or who are known to be agricultural labourers.
      Mr. BILLING: are German prisoners still employed on aerodromes under active service conditions?
      Major BAIRD: Yes.

      GELDINGS (CORN RATIONS).
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked how much longer the Government propose to allow rations of corn being given to geldings used as racehorses, under the pretext of improving the breed of horses in this country?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The arrange-

      445
      ments with regard to the running of geldings in steeplechases comes to an end in April. I take this opportunity of apologising to my right hon. Friend and the House for a slip which I made in answer to a supplementary question by him in which I stated that this subject had not been brought before the Cabinet. I find that it was discussed at the Cabinet in December last, when the decision which is still in force was taken.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is it intended to continue this rationing of geldings after the period specified?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that it is intended that it will not be continued unless a new statement is made to that effect.
      Mr. FABER: Is it not a fact that the cross-country racing ends anyhow in April, and is it not absolutely deplorable that 15 lbs. of oats per day are being allowed to a lot of these worthless animals—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is using unnecessary adjectives.
      Mr. FABER: To a lot of these animals?

      LAND ACQUISITION.
      Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary, with reference to his promise to inquire into the question of conferring compulsory powers for the acquisition of land for the production of food on local authorities in rural districts such as have recently been given for the acquisition of land in and near urban districts, he is now able to announce the result of his inquiries; and whether he will bear in mind the necessity for immediate action in the matter if any action is to be taken at all?
      Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have power under Regulation 2L of the Defence of the Realm Regulations to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of providing food for residents in any locality in the case of land in or near an urban district which is immediately required for the purpose of being cultivated in allotments and the use of which for that purpose is unreasonably withheld, and in the case of land which is for the time being unoccupied; that is to say, where no person is liable for payment of the poor rate. The Department have also the power to arrange for the cultivation of a holding to which the tillage Regulation 2 P applies if the occupier has neglected to comply with the Regulation. Rural district councils have certain
      446
      powers under the Labourers' Acts of obtaining land for the purpose of allotments in rural districts. These powers seem at present to be sufficient for the protection of the public interests. I may add that the Local Government Board do not think there is any real necessity for extending Regulation 2 L to rural districts generally.

      PRISONERS OF WAR (RATIONS).
      Sir A. FELLasked the Undersecretary of State for War if the rations of the prisoners of war in this country are reduced to the same scale as those of the civilian population; if they have two meatless days a week; and if the officers are still allowed to purchase wines, cigars, liqueurs, and other delicacies?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The new revised scale of rations is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. On two days in the week salted herrings are issued in lieu of meat. Officers are allowed to purchase light wine's, if procurable. Tobacco, in any shape or form, from sources in the United Kingdom is limited to ¾ oz. per man per week. Liqueurs and other delicacies are prohibited.
      The following is the scale above referred to:

      Daily scale, except where otherwise stated.

      *Bread

      9

      ozs.

      Biscuit (broken)

      4

      ozs.

      (In cases of bad teeth, bread may be issued on medical certificate.)

      Meat

      6

      ozs.

      (Five days a week. Pickled beef will be issued on two of these days.)

      Herrings (salt cured)

      10

      ozs.

      (two days a week.)

      Tea

      ¼

      oz.

      or

      Coffee

      ½

      oz.

      Sugar

      1

      oz.

      Salt

      ¼

      oz.

      Potatoes

      20

      ozs.

      Other fresh Vegetables

      4

      ozs.

      Split Peas or Beans

      2

      ozs.

      *Rice

      1

      oz.

      *Oatmeal

      1

      oz.

      (If full ration is not obtainable, an equal quantity of rice may be issued in lieu.)

      Jam

      1

      oz.

      *Cheese

      1

      oz.

      Pepper

      7½

      oz.

      *Maize Meal

      ½

      oz.

      Bread

      4

      ozs.

      Oatmeal or Rice

      1

      oz.

      Cheese

      1

      oz.

      Maize Meal

      ½

      oz.

      * When men are not employed on work, the following deductions will be made, unless the medical officer advises to the contrary in any particular case—

      Bread

      4

      ozs.

      Oatmeal or Rice

      1

      oz.

      Cheese

      1

      oz.

      Maize Meal

      ½

      oz.

    INDIA (COTTON TRADE).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India appreciates the necessity for developing a class of cotton suitable for use in the hosiery trade, in view of the, probably permanent, inability of America to continue to provide its hitherto usual supply in this behalf?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Cotton Committee recently appointed in India will, no doubt, consider the hon. Member's suggestion. It will be communicated to the Government of India.

    MUNITIONS.

      PETROLEUM.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any borings for petroleum have yet been carried out in the United Kingdom; whether any petroleum has been discovered; if so, whether such discoveries give ground for expecting to secure economical supplies; and whether, beyond an equitable price for land taken or equitable compensation for damage done, any payments to owners of petroliferous land have been made or agreed upon or promised?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir W. Evans):I have been asked to answer this question. No boring for oil has been carried out in the United Kingdom. The other questions do not, therefore, arise.

      PERCUSSION FUSES (EXAMINATION).
      Mr. CROOKSasked the Minister of Munitions whether, as a result of com plaints made, an inquiry was held into the system of examining and passing time and percussion fuses at Woolwich Arsenal; whether the complaints were proved to be well founded; and whether, as a result of the injury, the system has been remedied and those responsible for the previous state of affairs punished?
      Sir W. EVANS: I am not clear what inquiry my right hon. Friend is referring to. If he will supply me with further details I will have the matter investigated.

      LICENCE HOLDERS.
      General COLVINasked the Minister of Munitions whether the rule in force at the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey and the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock, with regard to the non-employment of licence-holders as munition workers, applies equally to all other Government factories; and whether, in view of the financial loss a man will incur if compelled to dispose of his lease by the enforcement of this rule at the present time, some modification of the rule may be considered?
      Sir W. EVANS: The rule referred to is not enforced in all Government factories, though it is of almost universal application to Government explosive factories. Six months have been allowed to the licence-holders to dispose of their interests and if in any special case hardship is proved an application for extension of the time will be considered on its merits.
      General COLVIN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of dispensing with the rule altogether?
      Sir W. EVANS: No, I am not able to say that that can be.

      AEROPLANE ENGINES (STANDARDISATION).
      Major NEWMANasked the Minister of Munitions whether advantage will be taken of the fusion of the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps to standardise as far as possible the many types of engines in use; and whether, to increase the output of the three or four types of engine which may be selected, all contracts which are at present outstanding for non-approved types will be cancelled and the firms thus deprived of work diverted to the production of one of the approved types?
      Sir W. EVANS: Action has been taken in the direction indicated as far as possible. My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that it is impossible for me to give a detailed reply to his question.
      Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Germans have standardised four types of engines with success, and we have standardised forty-four types of engines without success, and will he see that the spare parts of these engines, which are of no further use, are not occupying the time of our munition workers?
      Sir W. EVANS: I cannot confirm my hon. Friend's statement.

      LEE ARROW FACTORY, CORK.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the valuable work for munitions carried out by the Lee Arrow Factory, in Cork, steps will be taken to arrange for a continuation of the output?
      Sir W. EVANS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Cork City on the 4th February and 24th January last.
      Mr. BOLAND: In view of the valuable output of this factory, do I understand that no further work is to be given to it?
      Sir W. EVANS: If the hon. Member will read the answers I have given, I think he will find I have answered just that question.

      SKILLED WORKERS (WAGES ADVANCE).
      Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Minister of Munitions which Government Departments and what other persons were consulted before the 12½ per cent. advance was given; were the employers consulted; if so, which; whom did the War Cabinet consult before giving the original advance to skilled workers and before making the extension to semi skilled and unskilled workers; what, if any, connection these advances had with the abolition of leaving certificates; and what effect the abolition has had on output?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINSTRY Of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): A full statement on this subject was made by my right hon. Friend on 14th January in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich. To that statement I would refer my hon. Friend.
      Mr. ROCH: Since that date, has not an important statement been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes), and cannot the hon. Gentleman therefore, answer this question, which deals with an entirely different point?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Any question as to the statement made by my right hon. Friend must be addressed to him.
      Mr. ROCH: Cannot my hon. Friend say what is the effect on output of this 12½ per cent. bonus?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I think my hon. Friend will find that that question was answered in the statement.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Was it stated in the reply what Departments, and what other persons were consulted in regard to the 12½ per cent. bonus, and whether the employers were consulted, and if those questions were not answered cannot he give an answer now?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Both those questions were answered.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that the Engineering Employers' Federation were consulted, and advised against it, and their advice was turned down?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I know the Engineering Employers' Federation was represented in the discussions that took place before the decision was come to.
      Mr. TERRELL: And is it not a fact that their advice was turned down?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Advice which must be accepted is not advice, but direction.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Munitions Supplementary Estimate this afternoon.

    ELECTRIC MOTOR CARS.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is about to make any Regulations as to the consumption of electricity by vehicles used for purposes of pleasure on similar lines to Regulations already made for the consumption of coal-gas, petrol, and petrol substitutes?
    Sir C. HENRYasked whether the same regulations apply to motor cars propelled by electricity as those which apply to cars propelled by petrol or gas?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): There is no intension at present to issue regulations as to the consumption of electricity in motor vehicles.
    Sir C. HENRY: Why is this differentiation made between electricity and gas?
    Mr. WARDLE: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before electricity can be obtained to propel a car coal-gas or petrol or something of the kind has to be employed to generate the electricity?
    Mr. WARDLE: Yes, I am aware of that.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not the intention of the Board of Trade to husband this petrol and gas?

    MERCANTILE MARINE (RECOGNITION OF SERVICES).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade when a recognition of the silent heroism of sailors who have been torpedoed more than once, and who are still braving the submarine danger, will take place?
    Mr. WARDLE: The services rendered by the officers and men of the mercantile marine, are, I think, fully recognised both by Parliament and by the country, but the precise form which that recognition should take must depend on what is done in the cases of the Army and Navy. There will be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same reply was given a fortnight ago; and cannot this matter be expedited?
    Mr. WARDLE: It is a rather complex matter.
    Mr. JOYCE: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the officers and men of the mercantile marine, are the pilots of the United Kingdom, who have done splendid work, included?
    Mr. WARDLE: Certainly.

    PAPER RESTRICTIONS ORDER.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have
    452
    been taken to secure that the paper diverted from commercial purposes under the Paper Restrictions Order has not been put to uses of less national importance than the trade of the country, such, for instance, as so-called comic papers and cheap novelettes?
    Mr. WARDLE: The question of restriction of the uses to which paper may be applied is still under consideration. Steps have already been taken by means of priority certificates to ensure that available supplies should be allocated for purposes of national importance.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that if a cheap novelette is to be published, the publisher can go into the market and buy paper freely, whereas if a man wants to get paper for the purposes of advertising he cannot do it?
    Mr. WARDLE: No, I do not think that is a fact.
    Mr. BILLING: Have the Government yet decided what is a "comic paper," and are any of the present dailies included?

    KELLNER-PARTINGTON PAPER PULP COMPANY.
    Sir ALFRED YEOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Kellner-Partington Paper Pulp Company, which is now controlled by Norwegians, has sold its Barrow works to an English company?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am informed that the Kellner-Partington Paper Pulp Company has not sold its Barrow works.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is the Kellner-Partington Company still an English company?
    Mr. WARDLE: Yes, I believe it is.

    MINES AND QUARRIES (OUTPUT).
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the statistics of the output of mines and quarries in the United Kingdom during the year 1907, set out on page 21 of the final Report of the Census of Production, Cd. 6320, the net output is arrived at in each case by deducting from the selling value of the gross output the cost of obtaining it; whether the cost

    453
    thus deducted includes mining royalties and wayleaves; and whether information is available as to the gross and net output of these mines and quarries during any later year?
    Mr. WARDLE: My hon. Friend will find the answer to the first part of his question at page 38 of the Report to which he refers, where it is stated that the term "net output" is applied in the Report to the result of deducting from the value of the gross output the total cost of materials. It is further stated on the same page that royalties and other similar charges have to be defrayed out of net output as thus defined. I regret that the greater urgency of work connected with the War rendered it necessary in the autumn of 1914 to stop the work upon the Census of Production Returns for 1912, and that it has not been found possible to resume the examination and classification of the information secured. The information for any later year than 1907 is, in consequence, not available.

    MOTOR SPIRIT ORDER.
    Mr. GULLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the feeling aroused in Scotland by the operation of the Motor Spirit Order, dated 3rd January, 1918, whereby a private motor may be used for shopping but not for attendance at church, for presence at a parish council meeting but not at a Sabbath school; and whether, in view of a recent decision of the High Court of Justiciary, he will amend the Order so that the use of a private motor be allowed for attendance at church when no other suitable means of conveyance can be found?
    Mr. WARDLE: The decision of the High Court of Justiciary, to which my right hon. Friend refers, was given before the present Motor Spirit (Consolidation) and Gas Restriction Order, 1918, came into force. The question of the use of motor cars for the purpose of attending Divine Service has received full consideration, and I regret that the necessity for the utmost economy in the use of motor spirit precludes the possibility of any amendment of the Regulations as suggested.
    Mr. GULLAND: Why is church attendance the only prohibited purpose, and if a man may take a taxi to a theatre why may he not use a motor to go to church?
    Mr. WARDLE: Taking a taxi to the theatre and taking a taxi to church is quite a different matter. He does not take a taxi to a theatre on Sunday.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what the difference is?
    Mr. WARDLE: The question that is put to me is not a question of taxis, but of motor cars.

    ALBANIA.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Albania was, in 1913, recognised by the Great Powers as an independent State and declared neutral and taken under protection; whether Albania is still regarded as an independent neutral State; whether any undertaking given by, or agreement made between, any of the Allies must be construed subject to Albanian independence and integrity; and whether the doctrine of the self-determination of peoples is applicable to Albania?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The arrangements come to in 1913, to which Albania was not a party, have ceased to have binding force, as all the signatory Powers are now engaged in war. As regards the future, I can say no more than that His Majesty's Government would be glad to see the principle of nationality applied as far as possible to this as to the other difficult questions which will have to be settled at the Peace Conference. I may add that the greater part of Albania is now in the occupation of the enemy.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Are we to understand that where all the signatories to a treaty or guarantee of neutrality are at war the treaty or guarantee of neutrality becomes void?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Treaties between Powers at war, of course, become void.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: What becomes of the argument regarding Belgium? Is not Albania in the same position as Belgium— is it not a scrap of paper?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is exhibiting an amazing confusion of ideas. Germany attacked Belgium contrary to her treaty obligations.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has not a treaty been signed between Italy?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper relates to Albania.

    UKRAINE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information to the effect that, by a secret treaty or secret clauses to the treaty of peace with the Ukraine, Germany or the Central Powers have guaranteed the integrity and independence of the Ukraine Republic?
    Mr. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have no information to the effect that the Central Powers have guaranteed the integrity and independence of the Ukraine?
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ukraine consulted France or any of the Allies before concluding a separate peace with Germany?
    Mr. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such consultation.

    KINGSWAY TENANTS (TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION).
    Sir J. AGG-GARDNERasked the First Commissioner of Works if, before steps for the wholesale eviction of the tenants in Kingsway were taken by his Department, any effort was made to discover other premises suitable for the purpose required; and if he can give an estimate of the expenses likely to be incurred in meeting claims for compensation arising out of the evictions?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The most strenuous efforts have been made for many months to find the most suitable and most economical accommodation for the various requirements. I am not in a position to offer any opinion on the probable cost of meeting claims for compensation.

    ADMIRALTY RESERVE (CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC BODIES).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a man in the Fleet who, when in the Reserve, was granted permission to become a borough council candidate and was elected is at liberty to address meetings of his constituents in uniform?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The ordinary rule of the Service is that men belonging to the Reserves when called up for active service during war are expected to wear uniform on all occasions. If my right hon. Friend will communicate to me the actual circumstances of the case which he has in mind. I shall be glad to inquire into it and to inform him whether it is considered to require the application of any other rule.

    SCHOOL CAMPS (MILITARY DRILL).
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education whether Clause 17 of the Education Bill will make it possible to introduce military drilling into school camps?
    Mr. HERBERT FISHER: The object of Clause 17 is the promotion of social and physical training for educational purposes on educational lines; it does not contemplate military drill for military purposes.
    Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring in a Clause which will make it impossible to introduce military discipline?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does not the Clause referring to this question leave the matter in the discretion of the local authorities as to whether they introduce military drill or not?
    Mr. FISHER: No, Sir. The Clause requires that the arrangements made by the local education authority shall be subject to the Board of Education.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that all over the country, both in England and Scotland, schoolmasters find that the manuals of military drill are adapted for the work they have to do?
    Mr. SMITH: Is it not the case that Swedish exercises are far the best form of drill?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are anticipating the discussion which will take place.

    BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to publish the Report of the Balfour of Burleigh Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As it is necessary to consult the Governments of the self-governing Dominions and India, I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Mr. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he thinks this Report can be published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I must await the reply from the Dominions.
    General CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it is since the Report was published and sent to the Dominions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No.

    RUSSIA (ATTITUDE OF ALLIES).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the attitude of the Allies towards the present Government of Russia was considered at the last meeting of the Versailles Supreme War Council; whether a common action, policy, or attitude was then agreed upon; and whether, if so, such policy is supported by President Wilson?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in the House on Wednesday last.

    ATTORNEY-GENERAL (VISIT TO UNITED STATES).
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. LYNCH:
    To ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the reasons which led to the early return of the Attorney-General from the United States; and whether the Government are taking steps to alleviate the ill-feeling that has since prevailed in influential quarters which had previously been co-operating heartily with the Allies?
    Mr. LYNCH: This question has been altered from the original form. May I postpone it, Mr. Speaker, in order to consult you as to your reasons for having altered it?

    SIR GEORGE ALBU.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister the date upon which Sir George
    458
    Albu obtained his naturalisation papers; what was his nationality prior to that date; whether he is acting as Consul to various countries; if so, to what countries; on what date he received his baronetcy; what was the nature of the public services for which this distinction was conferred; whether he is aware that, subsequent to his British naturalisation, he received at the hands of the German Kaiser an important German decoration; and whether it is at the pleasure of His Majesty's Government that recipients of British honours should retain or display simultaneously the honours conferred by our enemy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Sir George Albu was granted a certificate of naturalisation in this country on the 23rd November, 1911, and took the Oath of Allegiance on 23rd December, 1911, but he previously obtained local naturalisation as a British subject in the Transvaal in 1887. His original nationality was German, as he was born in Berlin of German parents, but he may have lost his German nationality under German law by long absence from Germany or as a result of his naturalisation in the Transvaal. I am informed that the only Consular appointment held by Sir George Albu is that of Consul of Denmark at Johannesburg, in respect of which he was granted an exequatur on 30th March, 1913. He was made a baronet in 1912. I have no information regarding the allegation that he holds a decoration, and there is no record of his having been granted His Majesty's licence to wear any such decoration.
    Mr. BILLING: What was the particular public service for which he was made a baronet? Is it not the fact that he gave £10,000 to the Liberal party funds?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that I am likely to be aware of that.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any other reason?
    General CROFT: Does not that point to the desirability of explaining the reasons why titles are granted?

    LORD BEAVERBROOK.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the appointment of Lord Beaver-brook as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and as Minister of Propaganda involves the communication to him of con-

    459
    fidential official information; and whether Lord Beaverbrook retains his interest as proprietor of the "Daily Express"?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, the rights and duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are precisely similar to those of other Ministers of the Crown The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative, but I am informed that he has resigned from the board.
    Mr. WHYTE: The answer does not meet the second part of the question. Does the Minister of Propaganda receive confidential Government information?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I presume he does. Naturally he receives whatever information is considered useful for his work.
    Mr. WHYTE: Are we to understand from the announcement made in this morning's Press, that another newspaper owner is also to be made the recipient of confidential Government information?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not know what answer I can give. I presume that my hon. Friend alludes to the appointment of Lord Northcliffe as Minister of Propaganda in enemy countries. I was not aware of the appointment, but I believe that it was given on the ground that it would be done more efficiently by Lord Northcliffe than by anyone else.
    Mr. WHYTE: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that appointments of this nature seriously undermine the confidence of the country?
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Was the appointment of Lord Northcliffe made by Lord Beaverbrook or by the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that I cannot answer in detail. I am sure that it would not be made without the knowledge of the Prime Minister.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Is there any reason for imagining that Lord Beaverbrook should not be entrusted with matters of a confidential nature? Has he not both by his conduct in this House and his services to the Empire proved himself to be not only one of the most enlightened but also one of the most trustworthy members of the Government?
    Mr. BILLING: I would like to ask the Prime Minister—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, Order !

    IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether it is the intention of the Government to invite representatives of the Dominions to another Imperial Conference in London in the near future?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As was announced in the gracious Speech from the Throne, the Imperial War Cabinet will be held during this year, and the opportunity afforded by it will be made the occasion of holding an Imperial Conference.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the constitutional grounds on which His Majesty was advised to use in the Speech from the Throne the expression "My Empire" as including Australia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 18th of June last.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer hon. Members to an answer given in another Session?
    Mr. SPEAKER: He can refer to any answer which was given here.
    Mr. BILLING: We have entered on a new Session now, and that answer was given in another Session? Is it in order for a Minister to refer an hon. Member to an answer given in another Session?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, even as far back as ten years.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I call your attention, as guardians of our liberties in this House, to this usurpation, and may I beg that you will so inform His Majesty on my part?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I may remind the hon. Member that he has no right, according to usage, to introduce His Majesty's name.
    Mr. LYNCH: I adhere to what I have said.

    SUPREME WAR COUNCIL.
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to state specifically whether or not Sir Douglas Haig

    461
    and Sir William Robertson, both or either of them, approved of the recent decisions of the Versailles Council?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject will be dealt with in the course of the Prime Minister's statement.
    Mr. FABER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any further delay in making a full and candid statement on this matter is likely to precipitate a very grave political crisis?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: When will the Prime Minister's statement be made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am rather anticipating that a question on that subject will be asked me at the end of questions.

    GENERAL SMUTS (SWITZERLAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether General Smuts had authority from the War Cabinet to enter into negotiations in Switzerland with any representative of the Austrian Government; and, if so, whether any statement can now be made as to the result of such negotiations?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I can add nothing to what I said on this subject on Wednesday last.
    Mr. LYNCH: Did the right hon. Gentleman say anything?

    RUSSIANS (RESIDENCE IN UNITED KINGDOM).
    Major HUNTasked whether the Government intend to allow Russians of military age to stay in this country and take the businesses and employment of our own men taken for the Army; and whether Russians of military age are to be allowed to continue to come freely into this country and consume the food required for our own people?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): As regards the first part of the question, the action which should now be taken with regard to Russians of military age in this country is under the consideration of the Minister of National Service, and I stall be ready to co-operate with him in the matter. The suggestion in the second part of the question that Russians of military age are allowed to come freely into this
    462
    country is without foundation. As I explained to the hon. and gallant Member in reply to his question on 22nd October last, the most stringent restrictions have been in force with regard to the admission of aliens to this country since the outbreak of war, and there is no free admission of Russians or other aliens.
    Mr. BILLING: How did Litvinoff get into this country? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is addressing a public meeting to-night, and will he have that meeting stopped?
    Major HUNT: Does the Government make any difference in letting aliens into this country according to whether they are of military age or are not?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not sure of that, but they have to show very good reasons for coming. They have to obtain passports from our representative abroad, and they are under the supervision of the Aliens Officers.
    Mr. BILLING: Will this meeting tonight be allowed to take place, and will Mr. Litvinoff be allowed to advocate revolution in this country?
    Mr.SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question, and—
    Mr. BILLING: Will this meeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member would do me the courtesy of listening to me, he would understand that his question does not arise out of the question on the Paper, and requires notice.
    Major HUNTasked whether Lenin, Trotsky, and Kameneff, or any of them, are to be allowed to come into this country and advocate revolution, as has already been done by M. Litvinoff?
    Mr. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any intention on the part of Messrs. Lenin or Trotsky to visit England. It is understood that Mr. Kameneff is coming to England, but there is no question of permitting a revolutionary propaganda.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the last-named gentleman to be allowed to address revolutionary meetings, or will the Home Secretary prevent it?
    Major HUNT: Will the Government allow M. Litvinoff to go on with his revolutionary propaganda, and is M. Kameneff to be allowed to advocate revolution?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting the same question which he has already put on the Paper.
    Mr. BILLING: In view of the urgency of the matter, am I in order in repeating my question to the Home Secretary as to whether he is going to stop this meeting in London to-night?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have just been informed of the meeting, and I am going to take what steps I think proper.

    GERMAN PRISONERS (KAISER'S BIRTHDAY).
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the German flag was lately hoisted at the German prisoners' camp at Sandhill Park, Somerset, on the Kaiser's birthday; and whether he is aware that this was resented by the men guarding the camp and by the inhabitants of the district; and, as the Union Jack is not allowed to be hoisted in Germany, will he take steps to prevent this sort of thing happening again in this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; my hon. and gallant Friend is misinformed. The German flag has never been hoisted at Sandhill Park, Somerset.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can furnish a schedule of the rates of depreciation for Income Tax purposes allowed in the engineering, textile, and printing trades by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on plant, machinery, tools, buildings, and other wearing-out and wasting assets'?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Income Tax allowances in respect of the depreciation of machinery and plant fall to be determined not by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but by the respective bodies of Income Tax Commissioners, upon whom it devolves to allow such deduction as they may think just and reasonable
    Mr. TERRELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to have a list of the different rates published; and is he not aware that different rates are allowed in different parts of the country by the same Commissioners; and, in view of the
    464
    Budget, is it not most important that the House should be in possession of the information at the earliest stage?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend knows the exact conditions under which the work has to be done by the Inland Revenue Commissioners. They have done their utmost in the past to secure uniformity, and they can do nothing more than that.
    Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which relates to publication and furnishing Members of the House with a list of the rates?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite impossible. It cannot be done absolutely uniformly in regard to any of these things, and there are other circumstances that have to be taken into account.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to consider whether it would be possible to collect in one Paper such rules as are of general application; for instance, the rules relating to depreciation of shipping, the rules relating to depreciation of machinery, and any others which are of general application?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will certainly consider whether that can be done. In the case of shipping I believe there is a uniform scale, and I will see whether there are any other interests that can be put in a White Paper.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. D. WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate to what extent the provisional valuations of land under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, have now been made; whether they have been made in almost every portion of Great Britain; and whether they include agricultural land?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Provisional valuations of the surface land (including agricultural land) in Great Britain, which are required to be made under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, have, with some trifling exceptions, now been made. In consequence of the suspension of the Revenue Bill of 1914 it has not been practicable to serve the whole of these provisional valuations upon the interested persons.
    Major NEWMAN: Has this valuation been made in Ireland as well as Great Britain?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I must ask my hon. Friend to give me notice.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce legislation in regard to the measure of 1914?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to make any statement as to what proposals may be made in the Budget.

    CURRENCY NOTES.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the value of the currency notes issued up to 1st January of this year by the Treasury of the face value of both £l and 10s.; and what ratio the paper issue bears to the gold reserve held?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the Return published in the "Gazette" of Friday, the 4th January.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed issue of 5s. currency notes is due to a shortage of silver; and, if so, will he state the reasons for that shortage?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There has been an abnormal demand for silver for currency purposes in almost all countries of the world owing to war conditions, and a stock of 5s. currency notes has been printed as a measure of precaution in case the supply of silver offering should be insufficient to meet future demands.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any member if the present Government is in any way interested in the fluctuation of silver?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I know, the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. D. MASON: Will not anything be required for the issue of these 5s. currency notes? Does the Act provide for it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend is quite right. We cannot issue them without the sanction of legislation.

    RATES OF EXCHANGE.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state
    466
    the rate of exchange of an English pound in New York, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, and Bombay in July, 1914; and whether he can state the rate of exchange obtaining in these capitals to-day?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am circulating a statement containing this information.
    The following is the statement referred to:

    RATES OF EXCHANGE ON LONDON.

    1st July, 1914.

    13th Feb., 1918.

    New York (Sight) dollars to£l

    4.8760

    4.7525

    Paris (Sight) francs to £1

    25.14½

    27.16½

    Rome (Sight) lire to £1

    25.25½

    41.10

    Stockholm (Sight) kroner to£l

    18.25

    14.27½

    Bombay (T.T.) sterling to

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    rupee

    1

    3 3/2½

    1

    4 3/3½

    GOLD (PRICE).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the price of raw gold per ounce in July, 1914, and what is the price to-day?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In July, 1914, the market price of raw gold approximated to the; price paid by the Bank of England for refined gold, namely, £3 17s. 9d. per standard ounce. At present, owing to the Customs prohibition of general imports, there is a very small amount of gold available for the arts, and the price of such gold is a matter for negotiation in each case.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the increased cost of essential commodities, he will make provision for a further additional allowance of 2s. 6d. per week to each pensioner or claimant for a pension under the Old Age Pension Acts where he or she lives alone, or is one of a married couple living together, or is one of two pensioners or claimants for a pension living together by themselves, provided that such additional allowance is recommended by the Old Age Pensions Committee and supported by the pension officer; whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Old Age

    467
    Pensions (Local) Committee of Bradford in support of this proposal; and, if so, what reply he has sent to the said committee?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. My right hon. Friend has received the resolution referred to which has been duly acknowledged.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister whether the cost of a blanket in which a soldier killed in battle is buried is deducted from his widow's pension?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): I am obliged to the hon. Member for furnishing me with the opportunity of giving an emphatic denial to this allegation, which I have observed in the Press. The idea is a shocking one, and its circulation harmful and disgraceful.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister whether Army Form 3529, relating to pensions of discharged men liable to be recalled to the Colours under the Review of Exceptions Act, was approved of by the Ministry of Pensions before issue; (2) whether discharged men who have signed Army Form 3529 are in any way differently treated as regards pensions to men who have not signed it; if so, will he state precisely what the difference is; if not, will he explain the object of asking men to sign a form relating to their pensions when it was immaterial whether they signed it or not; and (3) whether the fact of a man having signed Army Form 3529, prior to rejoining the Colours, has any prejudicial effects upon any rights he might otherwise have had under paragraphs 1 or 2 of Army Council Instruction 1131 of 1917, or under 1502 of 1917?
    Mr. HODGE: Any disability pension due to a re-enlisted soldier will be paid to him whether or not he has signed Army Form 3529, which I have seen neither before nor after publication, and of which, in fact, I know nothing whatever.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the fact that the man concerned can also apply for a renewal of his pension when it expires?
    Mr. HODGE: Exactly.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to issue a form to deal with these matters?
    Mr. HODGE: I cannot undertake that.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.
    Mr. GULLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in making Regulations under the Representation of the People Act, he will make it clear whether, where a woman occupies unfurnished lodgings, the lodgings must be of a yearly value of £5, in order that she may be qualified as a Parliamentary elector?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply for my right hon. Friend. I am not empowered to express any authoritative opinion, by Regulations or otherwise, on the question put by my right hon. Friend. It would, however, appear to me, as at present advised, that a woman who separately occupies unfurnished lodgings of any value, and who is otherwise qualified, would be entitled to be registered, both as a local government and Parliamentary elector.

    NATIONAL LEAGUE OF THE BLIND.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the Irish branches of the National League of the Blind have not been represented on the Advisory Committee for the welfare of the blind in Ireland, seeing that this representation has been given in the case of England and of Scotland?
    Mr. DUKE: A representative of the Dublin Branch of the National League of the Blind has been co-opted on the Industrial Training and Workshops Sub-Committee of the Irish Advisory Committee on the Blind.

    FLAX CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. BOLANDasked what steps, if any, have been taken to secure an in creased area under flax in Kerry and Cork?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture for a number of years past have afforded growers in the Clonakilty and Rosscarberry districts of county Cork the services of an instructor in the cultivation and handling of flax, and during the past two seasons they have given the Fibre Corporation, Limited, the services of three instructors for work in counties Cork and Kerry. This company contracted with farmers for the growing of a large area of flax. A few loans for the equipment of scutch mills and Grants towards the cost of training scutchers have been made to persons in county Cork. The County Cork Committee of Agriculture also have allocated a sum of £100 for prizes for the best crops of flax in 1918. I am informed that the area under flax in counties Cork and Kerry was 257 acres in 1915, 767 acres in 1916, and 1,548 acres in 1917.

    RECONSTRUCTION SCHEMES (IRELAND).
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any steps have been taken to deal with the problems of Irish reconstruction after the War; and whether any schemes have been or will be considered for the revival or promotion of Irish industries through State assistance?
    Mr. DUKE: The Minister of Reconstruction informs me that due consideration has been given to the view of representatives of Ireland on the various committees which have been appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction and other Departments to consider the questions arising at the conclusion of the War. The Minister of Reconstruction has not under consideration the revival or promotion of Irish industries, as he is advised that the Irish Departments concerned have for a long time past been actively engaged in that matter.

    ARMY SERVICE CORPS, WOMEN'S LEGION.
    Sir EUSTACE FIENNESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the women of the Women's Legion employed in the Army Service Corps, who are employed day and night driving heavy ambulances and motor cars for the Army, are being paid 35s. a week, out of which
    470
    3s. 6d. a week for rent is being stopped for their quarters in barracks and 6s. 6d. a week for their rations, added to which they have to pay 3s. 6d. a week each to supplement the rations with necessary food bought by the men out of the 5½d. which is not allowed to the women; and, if so, having regard to the character of the duties that are being performed by these ladies, he can see his way to allowing them free quarters and rations, thereby making their position comparable with men doing similar work and with women employed in other branches of the Service doing less arduous and responsible work?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Under the terms of their engagement, these women are paid an inclusive rate of 35s. a week, subject to a reduction if food or accommodation is provided. They are paid extra for overtime. These terms are considered fair in comparison with women employed otherwise in connection with the Army.

    LONDON CYCLIST BATTALION.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he will take steps to put an end to the treatment by the officers of the London Cyclist Battalion, Saxmundham, who speak to the men in an abusive manner and inflict minor punishments on trumpery charges?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If the facts be as stated, the men concerned have their remedy under the Army Act.

    FRENCH CIVIL ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. KINGasked the Undersecretary of State for War (1) whether he has made inquiries as to an alleged brothel at Cayeux-sur-Mer, Somme; if so, with what result; what action is being taken; (2) whether the Secretary of State for War has received since August, 1916, protests and memoranda concerning alleged licensed and medically regulated brothels at Rouen, Havre, Marseilles, and other places in France; and whether inquiries have been made or action taken?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries have been made in the oases referred to. The matter is one entirely for the French civil authorities, and we cannot, therefore, take any action.
    Mr. KING: Is it not the fact that action might be taken, as, for instance, warning commanding officers of the dangers in the vicinity of these camps; and will that action be taken?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; I am not prepared to interfere with the French civil authorities.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Can the hon. Gentleman state what reply in connection with this matter has been sent to the detailed statement made by the Bishop of London?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If either of my hon. Friends care to come to see me at any time at the War Office, I will explain.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: With regard to British soldiers, are these places out of bounds to British soldiers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand not.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it the fact that the French military authorities state that this was done at the request of the British military authorities?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; it is not the fact.

    KYNOCH'S FACTORY, ARKLOW (COUNTY WICKLOW).
    Mr. DONOVANasked the Minister for Munitions of War whether it is a fact that the Ministry of Munitions has ordered the reduction of production and the immediate dismissal of hundreds of the workers employed in Kynoch's Factory, Arklow, as a preliminary to the closing down of the works altogether in the shortest possible time; whether he is aware that such action will entail the disemployment of over 3,000 workers, causing grave distress amongst these workers and their families and dependants, and bring ruin to the town of Arklow; whether he is aware that the quality of the explosives turned out by Kynoch's Factory, Arklow, is, in the opinion of the Government's own experts, practically the best produced, being superior to that of any other cordite factory in Great Britain; whether in contrast with Great Britain, Ireland is only receiving an insignificant amount of war work; whether he is aware that the present step of the Ministry of Munitions in closing down this factory, which was started so far back as 1895, is taken in
    472
    defiance of a specific undertaking given by the Minister for Munitions that this factory would not be injuriously affected by changes based on war reconstruction or otherwise; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, and of the fact that an outburst of indignation has been provoked all over Ireland by the present action of the Ministry of Munitions, he will take steps to withdraw forthwith the orders issued for the reduction of production and the dismissal of workmen at Kynoch's, and permit that concern to continue its work as hitherto?
    Sir W. EVANS: My right hon. Friend is well aware that any reduction of output in Kynoch's Arklow Factory must cause some displacement of labour, and the steps he is taking will, he hopes, mitigate the hardships so far as possible. The reduction is necessary, but will be made gradually. My hon. Friend is wrong in making a contrast with other factories in Great Britain, for some factories are being closed entirely and the output of others is being largely reduced. If it were not for my right hon. Friend's desire to meet the representations made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, the Arklow Factory, having regard to the stocks in hand, would be closed on account of the extra cost of the supplies and for reasons of tonnage, but, in order to meet the hardships attendant upon a sudden closing the reduction in output will be gradual, and I hope that when the facts are known it will be recognised that in the steps taken every consideration has been given to Irish interests.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.

      "TRIBUNAL" PUBLICATION.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if, on Friday last, Inspector Maclean and Inspector Blythe called at the London premises of the National Labour Press and asked for files, proofs, and manuscript of the "Tribunal" for that week. If these were handed to them, and if Inspector Maclean then said that he had instructions to dismantle the printing machinery; and if, on being asked what was taken exception to in the "Tribunal," he answered that he did not know; and if the integral parts of several valuable machines were taken away; and if Inspector Blythe admitted

      473
      that he had no warrant for his visit, and that he was acting on instructions over the telephone from the Home Office to dismantle the machinery; and will the Home Secretary say by what authority and for what reason this action has been taken by the police?
      Sir G. CAVE: The police acted under No. 51 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations and upon my instructions. Their action was taken in consequence of an article entitled "The Moral Aspect of Conscription," which appeared in the "Tribunal" of the 14th February over the name of a person who had been convicted at Bow Street on the 9th instant of a similar offence against the Regulations. No warrant was necessary, and instructions were telephoned to the police in order that immediate action might be taken.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under Regulation 51, which he has just quoted, the police constable or police officer who carries out a search must himself have some evidence, or good reason to suspect, that something illegal is being done on the premises, and, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman admits the message was given over the telephone, will he say what security any person has against police action when any person may send a telephone message giving information to the police?
      Sir G. CAVE: I did not say that information was given to the police over the telephone. They were aware already of the facts as to the offence, but the instructions for authority to act were given over the telephone.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman took similar action and dismantled the machinery of the "Morning Post" next morning, or is it only the Labour Press?
      Sir G. CAVE: In that case we think appropriate action has been taken.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it a smaller offence to give information to the enemy than to publish an article on "The Moral Aspect of Conscription"?
      Sir G. CAVE: Nor do I think the penalty is smaller.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is a paper only safe so long as its proprietor is a member of the Administration?

    PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTION.
    Mr. LYNCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not sent me a copy of this.
    Mr. LYNCH: I sent a copy, which was posted yesterday.
    Mr· SPEAKER: I have not received a copy, nor have the Admiralty received one.

    GENERAL STAFF CHANGES.

      SIR W. ROBERTSON.
      Mr. ASQUITH: I should like to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell us whether we may expect to-morrow from the Prime Minister a statement in explanation of the communication which appears in the Press to-day on the changes in the General Staff; and, if so, whether there will be an opportunity for immediate discussion in the House thereupon?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry to say my right hon. Friend is suffering from a very severe chill, but I have spoken to him this morning by telephone, and he hopes to be able to be in the House and to make his statement to-morrow. The opportunity is suitable in a way, as it is that you, Sir, leave the Chair on the Array Estimates. It will give an opportunity for discussion, but if it is desired that there should be an opportunity for a vote, the Government will, of course, be willing to meet the wishes of the House in that matter.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any foundation for the rumour that Sir William Robertson has been offered and has accepted a very important military post?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; it is a fact that Sir W. Robertson has accepted the command of the Eastern Division, which was offered him to-day.
      Mr. HOGGE: Why not the Boy Scouts?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Have you given him a. rise in salary for that?
      Mr. TENNANT: Arising out of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said, may we assume the Prime Minister

      475
      will be the first to address the House, and that we shall not begin the Army Estimates in the usual way?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite understand that will be the course desired by the House.
      Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, is the House to understand that Sir W. Robinson did resign, or was dismissed, because, according to his statement in the daily Press, he did not resign?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: There is really no mystery about that, and I think it is a pity to anticipate the discussion.

      INSURANCE COMMISSION, WALES.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he will state what has been the result of his inquiry into the question of the position of officers of the Welsh Insurance Commission who are also members of the university college council of Cardiff?
      The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Edwin Cornwall): I find that the secretary of the Commission has never been a member of the committee referred to in the question, and that he resigned his membership of the council last autumn, on realising that his- duties at the War Cabinet made it impossible for him to render useful services to the council. The acting secretary had resigned his membership of the committee before my inquiry reached Cardiff, and had taken no part in the discussion of the subject upon the only occasion on which his colleague's name had been mentioned in connection with the principalship.
      Sir J. D. REES: Will they be allowed in future to occupy such positions, when the hon. Gentleman has to explain that they did not avail themselves of the opportunities they had; or will they be allowed in future to be able to take such action as to require the hon. Gentleman's apology or explanation?
      Sir E. CORNWALL: I have given the hon. Member certain information. I have not apologised, and I make no apology in regard to these officers. So far as I know they are not occupying any position which is contrary to the public interest.
      Sir J. D. REES: May I withdraw the word "apology" if the hon. Member objects to it, and ask whether it is intended in future that those officers should or should not be members of other bodies, which membership exposes them to this charge, however ill-founded?
      Sir E. CORNWALL:I do not think they are exposed to any charge. The hon. Member has asked me for information, and I have given him the information, and the public interest in no way suffers or is likely to suffer from any action which has been taken.
      Sir J. D. REES: Will they or will they not be allowed in future to occupy a position like this?
      Sir E. CORNWALL: I see no objection to their occupying the position which they now occupy.

      SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
      Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will arrange for the issue of a White Paper at the end of the financial year showing in detail the way in which the proceeds of the Grant for improving the position of secondary teachers have been distributed?
      Mr. HERBERT FISHER: I propose to obtain a Return of salaries of teachers in secondary schools, with a view to ascertaining the improvement which has taken place since the additional Grants became available. But I cannot commit myself at present to the details of the Return.

    BILL PRESENTED.
    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL,— "to amend the Trustee Savings Banks Acts, 1863 to 1904, with respect to Special Investments and the Separate Surplus Fund," presented by Mr. Baldwin; to be read a second time To-morrow. and to be printed. [Bill 1.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the administration of the Defence of the Realm Act by the Home Office, and particularly the treatment of prisoners, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Snowden.]
    SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, to call attention to the urgent necessity for the equalisation of rates of Navy separation allowances and those of the Army, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    RECRUITING (IRELAND).
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to draw attention to recruiting in Ireland, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Newman.]
    FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the immediate necessity of establishing a Foreign Affairs Committee in this House, and to move a Resolution. —[Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Ponsonby.]

    FOOD CONTROL AND PRODUCTION.
    Major BOWDEN: May I ask a question? I desire, on the Navy Estimates, to call attention to the difference of the rates of allowances between the Army and the Navy. That has already been done in the case of the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher).
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has the choice either of putting down the same Motion and taking his chance of the hon. and learned Member not being here, in which case he would come first, or of giving notice of another Resolution.
    Major BOWDEN: Then I will give notice of another, under, I presume, the Civil Service Estimates. I wish to give notice to move a Resolution dealing with the Food Controller, and the method by which the production of food has been treated in this country.

    AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SUPPLY.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the subject of agriculture and food supply, and to move a Resolution.— [Mr. Macmaster.]
    FOREIGN OFFICE.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the relations of the Foreign Office to the House of Commons, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Fed.]
    AEROPLANE MANUFACTURE.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Air Ministry, to call attention to the manufacture of aeroplanes, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Denman]
    AVIATION GROUND (AYRSHIRE).
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Air Service Estimates, to call attention to the scheme for an aviation ground in Ayrshire, and to move a Resolution. -[Mr. Harcourt.]
    MEDICAL SERVICE (AIR MINISTRY).
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Air Ministry, to call attention to the Medical Service of the Air Ministry, and to move a Resolution.—[Major D. Davies.]
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES; 1917–18.
    Considered in Committee.
    [The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean) in the Chair.]

    CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES; 1917–18.

      ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
      4.0 P.M.
      Mr. LOUGH: The first item in this Vote is £1,500 for the new offices of the Ministry of Food. I should like to take the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir A. Mond) a few questions. The Ministry of Food is one of the

      503
      largest housed of the many Ministries. It commenced at Grosvenor House, and then, so far as I understand, entered into occupation of three or four other places. After a few months, becoming dissatisfied with the accommodation provided, they came down to buildings at Westminster, opposite the Houses of Parliament. We see that, instead of commandeering buildings on which a good deal of money has already been spent, the Ministry go out to South Kensington and commandeer a building there. My right hon. Friend will be able to tell us some of the reasons why this Ministry wants so many large buildings. He will be able to tell us the cost of the existing buildings, the number of the staff accommodated, and so on, and then we can judge whether this other building should be placed at their disposal or not. As to the building itself, the new museum, it has apparently cost £110,000. Has it been completed? If so, was it applied to the purposes of art and science before it was occupied by the Ministry of Food or has it been specially completed for the purposes here provided in the Estimate? Is the situation considered a suitable one for the Ministry of Food? If we might judge by some of the Orders issued lately in connection with the Ministry of Food, the proper locality should be further east, so as to be better able to deal with the matter of sugar, meat, and tea in the close way evidently contemplated in the new Order issued so recently. It is now quite clear that the movement westward to South Kensington was a very bad move. Certainly some of the late Orders issued, especially the Tea Order issued on Saturday, will make a constant movement and interference with that great trade necessary, and, under the circumstances, the Ministry of Food had better have taken one of the houses in Mincing Lane or somewhere in the City. At any rate, I think South Kensington an unsuitable place, for reasons which could easily be stated. We shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some information on the points I have raised, and as to whether it is necessary that there should be such a large extension of premises for the Ministry of Food.
      Sir CHARLES HENRY: I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely that, as the Food Ministry has to deal with articles which are essentially dealt with in the
      504
      City of London, South Kensington, of all districts in London, is the most unsuitable for the housing of any of that Department. The Office of Works could have found accommodation in the City about Mark Lane, or the docks, and the Ministry of Food would then have been able to carry on the reception and distribution of food under much, very much, better conditions than at South Kensington. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee to what extent the museums have been encroached upon? We all remember that towards the end of last year steps were taken by the Commissioner of Works to commandeer the British Museum. All sections of the House, I think, were gratified when that ambitious project was not allowed to materialise. I should like to know to what extent the right hon. Gentleman or his Department have commandeered other museums or sections of them? There is another point in connection with this Vote on which I should like to put a question. I see, under Item D, £2,500 Supplementary for fuel, light, water, and household articles. I would like some particulars of that. Does it apply only to the buildings at South Kensington or to what buildings does it apply? I do not know whether the present is the occasion to raise the question of the charge for fuel and light, and other similar services of the different Departments which require these things. I hope that will be taken up later. I do ask, however, as to this amount, £2,500, that the right hon. Gentleman should enumerate to what Departments it applies? I would urge my right hon. Friend, when he takes new accommodation, not to confine himself entirely to South Kensington, or even Whitehall, but to distribute his needs for premises all over London so far as possible, and that he should get accommodation in the locality where the work can be carried on under the most satisfactory conditions.
      Sir J. D. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to this, I should like to inquire whether this fuel is chiefly for radiators or to any large extent for the open coal fires, which are exceedingly expensive and which are only used in this extravagant country? So far as I know they do exist largely in Government offices, and are frequently going for hours together when the rooms are not occupied. When any officer is not coming back to his room which has a fire of this sort, is it

      505
      required of him, or is it a rule of the office, that he should pass the word, saying that that open coal lire is not to be kept burning this precious substance unnecessarily, so as to put up the coal bill and diminish the supply of that which is of the utmost military and economic importance at the present time? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am speaking in this way from my own observations. This might appear to be a small matter that one ought not to trouble the House with, except one considered the circumstances of the time. As to the £l,500 on account of the new Science Museum, is it really the case that the Government are carrying on the erection of a new Science Museum at a time like this? Are we really erecting homes for luxuries of this description at this crisis of the country's fate? As regards the distribution of new Government offices, I think it is better done than the hon. Baronet beneath me imagines. It really is the case that all the buildings taken up by the Government are not clustered together in one particular district. For instance, my hon. Friend probably does not know that Covent Garden, as I have reason to know, is full of buildings taken over by the Government, and that the Government is about to commandeer more in that classic region.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I wish to raise a question of principle connected with these Votes. For my own part I desire to express regret that so many of these educational institutions of the country are being commandeered by the right hon. Gentleman, and diverted from educational purposes in order to meet temporary needs for office accommodation. It would be out of order for me to deal with other Votes, and of the other occasions when the right hon. Gentleman has done what i, for my part, think he should not have done, and taken educational buildings for other than educational purposes. But the question arises distinctly in regard to sub-divisions A and B of this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman has stopped building on the Science Museum, so far as it was being built as a Science Museum, and instead of proceeding with the work of a science college has adapted a portion of it for temporary needs. My point is this: It means that until the end of the War no progress can be made in building and equipping the new Science College at South Kensington. I submit that that is a very great loss to the educational needs of this
      506
      country. It is a department which ought not to be taken at all, seeing that there is no real occasion for it. Similarly under sub-division B, the science and art buildings which have been closed to the public are diverted and used by the Education Department, which ought never to have been ejected from Whitehall. The reason which has rendered it necessary to put in a Supplementary Vote of £2,500 for heating purposes for the Board of Education is really, I think, quite scandalous when we remember that it is caused by the ejectment of the Board of Education from Whitehall, and their being placed in a very inaccessible and most unsuitable place in South Kensington.
      I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee whether he is going on to commandeer educational buildings in order to find office accommodation for these. innumerable new Government Departments which spring up? I suggest to him that the proper course to follow is to take. not educational buildings, but to build temporary buildings, or to commandeer any of the buildings which exist which are not directly concerned with such a vital national thing as education. By commandeering educational buildings he might get over the difficulties of the moment, but the nation itself will suffer in consequence a very serious loss indeed. Finally I wish to protest, seeing that these buildings are diverted from their proper educational use, that nevertheless, owing to the method in which the accounts are presented, which is, I suppose, a matter for the Secretary to the Treasury, it would still appear that we are spending amounts upon the original purposes for which these buildings were erected. There is an item of £1,500 expenses incurred to make these buildings suitable for the Ministry of Food, and that will be debited to the new science college just as though it were an expenditure incurred in the course of education.
      Mr. HOGGE: I do not share the views which have been expressed by the hon. Gentlemen who have just sat down, for in my opinion the authorities are perfectly right to take possession of all these public buildings, which very few people ever enter even in times of peace and prosperity. Even if you look at the most popular educational institutions, the attendance of the general public is so small that no great hardship is put upon them by these buildings being used for

      507
      other purposes during the War. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay no attention to the request which has been made by my hon. Friend opposite. What I would like to ask is whether this is the same building as was originally intended to be used for the headquarters of the Pensions Ministry?
      It is fifteen months since the Government promised this House that the pension administration was to be brought under one roof in a building at South Kensington, and I believe that this was the building which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) promised would be used for that purpose. Since that time nothing has happened in that particular direction, and I believe the Ministry of Pensions is still distributed in, I think, about twenty-eight separate buildings about London. If this is the same building I very strongly object to its being used for the Ministry of Food, because an office for the purposes of the Ministry of Food ought to be placed more among the people who will have to go there. With regard to accommodation for the Ministry of Pensions, it would not be inconvenient at South Kensington for those who would have to use it, although for the other purpose it would be very inconvenient to business people. In replying, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say if this is the same building, and why the Government in this matter have departed from their original intention.
      Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I would like to know whether it is through the Department of the right hon. Gentleman that certain galleries of the British Museum are being prepared for some use in connection with war administration, and what use exactly those galleries are to be put to?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): That is a question which the First Commissioner cannot answer on this particular Vote.
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), I should have been able to give much fuller information had I received notice, and many of the points are a little far away from this Vote. The Ministry of Food began its operations at Grosvenor House and four
      508
      houses in close proximity to that building, and they are still in possession of the Ministry of Food. The headquarters of this Department have been accommodated at St. Stephen's Chambers, and in addition accommodation is afforded there for the, Wheat Commission, which is an independent Department. Then the County Council Hall is being prepared for another section of the Ministry of Food, as well as the Imperial Institute.
      Mr. LOUGH: Is the whole of that great new building being occupied by the Ministry of Food?
      Sir A. MOND: Not the whole of it, but a certain part. The Imperial Institute is occupied by the sugar rationing scheme of the Ministry of Food. With regard to the position of accommodation, I am not responsible for the district in which a certain Department demands to have offices, but as far as the sugar rationing scheme is concerned, I think the accommodation at South Kensington is quite as suitable for that purpose as the more expensive buildings would be in the City. There appears to be some misunderstanding about the position of the new Science Museum. It was in course of construction when the War broke out, and it was in an incomplete condition. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. White-house) seems to think that. I ought to go on with the building of this museum during the War, but that is not a matter which comes within my province, and if the Department concerned refuse to proceed I am not able to go an building the museum. The building referred to was one upon which considerable expense had to be incurred fitting it up in order to make it suitable for the accommodation required, but this expenditure will eventually prove to some advantage to the museum, and so far from abusing me, I think the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark ought to congratulate me upon my ingenuity in combining a Government use of this building which will ultimately be of some benefit to the museum. My Department is frequently charged with extravagance, but here you have a number of Government buildings which cost us nothing in the way of rent, and which to use for war purposes inconveniences nobody, and I should have thought that this Committee would have been very glad to see buildings of this kind used instead of taking over fresh buildings. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member

      509
      for Wellington Sir (J. Henry), we are utilising as offices a large part of the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Wallace Gallery, the Victoria and Albert Gallery, and a small part of the British Museum. With regard to the item for the cost of fuel and lighting in Government offices, it must be remembered that the cost of these items has gone up considerably. The Board of Education are in occupation of the greater part of the Victoria and Albert Museum. With regard to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), my Department has urged the greatest economy possible in regard to fuel, and I think an effort has been made to secure more economy in the use of coal. I know that sometimes there is a certain amount of prejudice in regard to this matter, but, on the whole, I think Government Departments are endeavouring to fall into line. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), as to the headquarters of the Pensions Ministry, I would not like to say whether this particular building has been used for that purpose.
      Mr. HOGGE: A promise was given to that effect.
      Sir A. MOND: Personally, I do not think the building referred to would be anything like big enough to accommodate the whole of the Pensions staff, who require a large building.
      Sir C. HENRY: My right hon. Friend stated that he had no jurisdiction as to where the Department should select a site for their offices, and I was rather surprised to hear that statement. I thought we had an Accommodation Committee, who came between the demands of the different Departments, and decided as to how their requirements would be dealt with. Are we to understand that any Department is to lay down any condition and demand offices in any particular situation, irrespective as to whether the Accommodation Committee think they are entitled to have those offices in that particular district? I think this is a matter which ought to be dealt with very drastically. Very often Departments are very exacting in their demands for accommodation. I am sure we all recognise the difficulties in which my right hon. Friend finds himself, but I think the Committee over which he
      510
      presides should have the power to decide in which district it is necessary for these different Departments to be housed. I know from evidence which has been brought before me that there is a great desire on the part of many Departments to be housed as near as possible to Whitehall. I do not think it is necessary for some of those Departments to have that situation at all, and I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot get greater power to be able to decide when he considers it is not necessary to have accommodation in a particular situation when in point of fact it is disadvantageous in the interest of the public that a Department should be housed just in the place where that particular Department has chosen.
      Mr. LOUGH: I really think the Committee ought to give some attention to the protest which has been made by my hon. Friend opposite, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say if all these Departments are undertaking any work or taking over any buildings which they ought not to take over, or are they ordering any work to be done without any regard to economy, and is the right hon. Gentleman giving any advice as to the course which they ought to take? The other day we all received a White Paper of a most startling character, from which we find that a new Department with regard to printing declined to consult the Stationery Office, and they put us to a great deal of extra expense by that course. The struggle is going on between the Stationery Office and the Department. This seems to me to be an illustration in a different sphere of exactly the same thing. What is the use of having an Office of Works if it does not see to all the buildings and all the works that all the various Government Departments have to carry out. If new accommodation is wanted, the first person to be consulted should be the head of the Office of Works. He should be asked whether he has any stray palaces or empty buildings that he can put at their disposal, and so save expenditure in other directions. I really think that in this matter of the extension of buildings for new Departments the right hon. Gentleman might have got all the particulars before he presented the Vote to the House. He has told us of these great buildings that the Ministry of Food are occupying, and now they are going to have a further

      511
      extension. My right hon. Friend did not understand one point that I made, but if he had studied some of the Orders made by the Ministry of Food he would see that they touch merchants and dealers very intimately, and he would realise that it is a great inconvenience to them to have to go to the remote district of Kensington in connection with claims for rebates, etc. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend to assure us that he is restraining the expenditure of these Departments, that they cannot take new buildings and spend money on public works without consulting him, and that he will see that in every way economy is exercised.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman gave us a piece of information which appears to be contradictory of the item on the White Paper. It is described as due to increased consumption of fuel owing to the occupation of part of the Victoria and Albert Museum by the Board of Education. He said that the item represented the cost of consumption of fuel, or part of it, of the whole of the Government buildings that had been taken over. If that is so, it is very important, because it makes relevant to this discussion the inquiry addressed to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. M. Robertson), who wished to ask a question with regard to the occupation of the British Museum. If the cost of consumption of fuel, or of part of it, of the British Museum is included, it makes that inquiry relevant, and it is a point in which a great number of members of this Committee are very deeply interested. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question and taunted those Members who had protested against the use of the British Museum for the purposes of the Air Ministry for not having raised criticisms earlier as to the occupation of the museum by certain small Government Departments. The reply is very simple indeed. Very many members of the Committee greatly deplore the decision of the Government of the day to close the British Museum, and to refuse that important educational influence to the nation at this time. Many of us were entirely unaware that in addition to the closing of the British Museum, it was being used for the purposes of Government Departments other than educational Departments. The matter came to a head when it was publicly announced that a great portion
      512
      of it was going to be used by one of the combatant Services. I deeply resent the fact, and the educational authorities in the country deeply resent the fact, that the British Museum should be closed, that any disturbance should take place of the internal arrangements and of the priceless exhibits that it contains, and that it should be used for wholly unnecessary purposes, seeing that other and more suitable accommodation can be obtained. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will state whether it is proposed to continue to keep the museum closed and to continue to use it for purposes other than that for which it was founded, and what arrangements he has made to adequately guard the treasures that the museum contains.
      Sir J. D. REES: Surely it is right at a time like this that the accommodation of the British Museum should be used for public purposes. I cannot see what objection there can be. When the hon. Gentle-man suggests that every refinement of education can be maintained in the height of a great war, he seems to me to press his case much too far. ·I asked my right hon. Friend a question about fuel. This Vote deals with fuel, and it is a very large item. I asked him whether he would take steps to provide that the heating should be done by radiators and not by open coal fires, which is notoriously the most extravagant method of heating. On the Continent they would regard anybody as mad if he heated offices by open coal fires, but we have them blazing away, often when rooms are unoccupied.
      Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
      Sir J. D. REES: I was about to urge upon my right hon. Friend the necessity of providing means whereby people engaged in Government Departments removed from Whitehall can obtain luncheon. In one office in which I am interested there are 300 ladies and no luncheon is provided in the place. There is ample luncheon accommodation in the offices round about Whitehall, but outside the charmed circle of Whitehall it is necessary that some arrangements should be made for providing these ladies with luncheon. I myself have experienced the difficulty, and I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter in hand and move in the proper quarter if he himself is not the proper authority.
      Sir A. MOND: My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) questioned the procedure which is now adopted on the subject of accommodation. When I came into office I found a good deal of overlapping, friction, and irritation, and at my request the Prime Minister appointed a small Committee to deal with all questions of Departmental accommodation. This Committee had very wide powers conferred upon it by the War Cabinet, and now any Department requiring accommodation has not only got to state the accommodation it requires, but it has to fill up a schedule stating the number of clerks employed and the class of accommodation needed. The matter is very carefully investigated by two inspectors with professional ability, and buildings are then proposed to the Department. If the Department does not accept those buildings, negotiations necessarily take place, but the ultimate decision both as to the suitability of the premises and their situation is entirely in the hands of the Cabinet Committee. I can assure my right hon. Friend it is not a case where the Departments have a claim to any particular building in any particular locality. Naturally, my office carries out all the alterations and all the works that are done, and these have all to be authorised by my Department. Obviously, when dealing with great and important Government services, one has to give a considerable amount of attention to the arguments put forward by responsible Ministers as to what will lead to efficient and to non-efficient working in the Department, because after all it might prove false economy to have a cheap office. Instructions have been given that no fire is to be used in offices where radiators exist, and that rule is being pretty well followed by all Government offices. If my hon. Friend knows of any instance where it is not being followed and will give it me, I will certainly see that it is attended to. The greatest economy in fuel possible is being practised. Of course, if any one leaves his room and does not intend to return it is obviously his duty to inform those attending to the fires, so that the fire is not made up and kept burning. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this question, and I hope that it will have a very salutary effect throughout all Government buildings.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I have a reply to the point that I raised?
      Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member asked a question about the British Museum. Some of the galleries, with the concurrence of the trustees and the full agreement of the responsible staff, have been allocated to non-combatant services, and seeing that the trustees and the very responsible officials are satisfied, I think my hon. Friend may be assured that there is no danger to the collection.
      Colonel Sir C. SEELY: With regard to the British Museum, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot reconsider the question of keeping it so much closed as at present. At the time the decision to close was come to it was thought that the War would last for a very short time, but that hope has been disappointed. We have a number of men who come here from Australia, New Zealand, and other parts of the Empire, and it is a little unfortunate that, being here, they should not have the opportunity of seeing what are, after all, some of the greatest possessions of the home land. I do not know to what extent it would be possible to relax the present regulations, but I do suggest it is undesirable that an institution of such educational value should continue closed, and I would, therefore, press upon the right hon. Gentleman to give consideration to this point. I should also like to say a word with regard to fires. I hope, when the right hon. Gentleman presses upon Government offices the necessity of economy in this matter he will not forget that a large number of women are working in the Government offices, and will be careful to ensure that the rooms in which they are employed are properly warmed I have heard of cases in which the rooms have not been properly warmed and where economy is exercised in that way it may result in a considerable amount of sickness. I trust, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will not put too much pressure on people in Government offices to economise fuel unless he is careful to see that the economy does not result in insufficient warming of the rooms. With regard to the British Museum, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is being used by certain Government Departments, and that he is quite satisfied that this use of it does not entail any additional risk from fire to the extremely valuable collections which are contained in the Museum. There ought not to be any necessity for such a statement, but I am afraid that

      515
      the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman's Department when it was first proposed to take over the British Museum showed that the Department was not sufficiently alive to the value of these collections, because no one who did appreciate their value would have ever listened to the suggestion that the Museum should be used as proposed. I should be glad to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in any use made of the British Museum the enormous value, not only to this country, but to the whole world of the collections housed there will be borne in mind, and that nothing will be done which will increase the risk from fire which is a great danger to these collections.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: I should like to take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman as to the policy of the Accommodation Committee of the Cabinet with regard to open spaces in London. Will he give the Committee a pledge that no further open spaces or parks in London will be covered in—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed a very great amount of latitude on this Estimate, but I think the point the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now bringing before the Committee is rather outside even those limits.
      Mr. ROCH: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied on the question of Government offices that existing accommodation is suitably used before additional expenditure is launched upon. It must have struck most of us who have been in the habit of visiting Government Departments that quite large rooms are used for small staffs and, while no one would wish that Ministers should not be suitably housed in accordance with the position they occupy, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to satisfy himself that existing accommodation is made use of to the best possible advantage.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: With regard to the question of staffing accommodation, will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an assurance that he will have regard to the Report of the Staffing Committee presided over by Sir John Bradbury, and that before he presents any Supplementary Votes for further buildings he will obtain from the Departmental Committee all the up-to-date information he can so as to avoid taking any fresh
      516
      buildings unless it is absolutely necessary? It may be possible, for instance, by the-reorganisation of a Department to find room for additional staff.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I wish to offer my sincere sympathy to the right hon. Gentleman, who has a very difficult task to perform. I rather resented his request that the Central Offices of the Unionist party should be given up for the purposes of the Food Controller, but I satisfied myself that he had done his level best to secure accommodation for these people before he decided to commandeer these particular offices, and. since then he has made every possible effort to minimise the inconvenience to us as much as possible. There has been a great deal of talk about this matter, and I felt it my duty to say that, so far as I am concerned, I have nothing whatever to complain of regarding the action of the right hon. Gentleman. On the other hand, he has done his best to reduce the inconvenience as much as possible.
      Sir A. MOND: It is very gratifying to hear remarks of that nature. I have to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Koch), that every effort is made to see that existing accommodation is taken the fullest advantage of before further accommodation is provided, and on more than one occasion our inspectors have been able, by a rearrangement and reallocation of existing offices, to provide in those offices for large numbers of the new staff for which accommodation was being demanded. I can assure the Committee that, as far as we can, we see that no accommodation is wasted, that no unreasonable demands are conceded, and that no Government money is spent which can possibly be avoided. With regard to the British Museum, the question of the opening of that institution is one entirely outside my jurisdiction, and therefore I cannot deal with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. On the subject of fires, I can assure him that every possible precaution will be taken by my Department to see that the risk of fire is not increased in any way.
      Sir C. SEELY: There was another point in regard to fires. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that open fires would not be used in places where there were radiators, but often the radiator is not sufficient in a large room, and I would be glad to have an assurance that the rooms will not be allowed to be too cold.
      Sir A. MOND: I rather incline to the opinion that where there is a proper radiator the open fire is more of a fad than a necessity. With regard to the Bradbury Committee, as to which a question has been asked, up till now no Report has been received from that Committee, which has not been established very long. I shall be only too grateful if it is possible to find a method of inducing Departments to reduce their staffs.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.— Class 1.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
      Mr. KING: There is one point upon which I should like to ask for an explanation. We are told that the sum of £l,000 is wanted for adverse rates of foreign exchanges. The total of the Vote is only £42,000, and I should like to know if the exchange rate is so much against us as to involve a loss of £1,000 on that total?
      Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member must know that most of the exchanges are very adverse at the present time.
      5.0 P.M.
      Mr. PRINGLE: But surely in estimating the. right hon. Gentleman's Department must have taken a too optimistic view on the point as to what the rates of exchanges were likely to be during the coming twelve months. There is another item in this Estimate on which I want an explanation: it is a sum of £l,800 additional to a total estimate of £11,400 for Consular buildings at Tsinanfu. The explanation given here is that the sum of £6,000 proved insufficient, owing to the works being completed more rapidly than was anticipated—a very unusual state of affairs—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us why this happened? I should like to know whether this is confined to what has been regarded as the backward country of China? Is it that in China there is a new era under which they are able to do things more rapidly than is conceived of here? I think the whole item requires some explanation.
      518
      first of all, as regards the thousands of pounds having been due to the work having progressed more rapidly than v as anticipated, and, secondly, as to what are the unforeseen works that accounted for the £800.
      Mr. KING: I suppose that the loss on the exchange or £1,000 is, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) pointed out, some-thing that might have been provided for originally. It is not only a question of being 2½ per cent. on the total amount, but it is 2½ per cent. more than the Supplementary Estimate, the revised Estimate which we had a few months ago.
      Mr. PRINGLE: This £1,000 is only on rents, insurance, etc.
      Mr. KING: I do not know about that, but as I see my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works now in his place, and as he knows everything and is so capable to answer questions, I will give way to him.
      Sir A. MOND: The reason why this Consulate has been proceeded with at all, contrary to the general policy of avoiding expenditure on diplomatic buildings where-ever possible, is that, first of all, this building is a very bad one, and, still more, that a great deal more work has been thrown on this particular office in connection with the employment of Chinese labour for war purposes and for payments to the families of the coolies who come over. The office accommodation was quite insufficient for the work, and that is the real reason why it is being proceeded with and why this money is being spent. My hon. Friend asks why the work has gone on more rapidly. I do not know that I can tell him that, but I am very glad it has done so. It is useful that it has, because my experience is that the more rapid the execution of work is the cheaper it is in the end. With regard to the adverse rate of exchange, my hon. Friend probably knows as well as I do that the Eastern exchange has been the most incalculable thing in recent times for anyone to foresee. The question of what the rate of exchange will be at a particular time is a thing that the Department has to take into account, but I do not think anybody in the present circumstances can make any point that such exchanges have been estimated correctly. I do not think anyone could give an accurate estimate twelve months ahead of these Chinese exchanges.
      Mr. KING: This has brought out the fact that money is being spent on Chinese labour. There is nothing whatever in the statement to tell us that. It is only thrown in incidentally, but it is a matter of the very greatest importance to many of us. In view of this sort of thing, I think we shall be justified in continuing our criticism and interrogatories on the reason for these Votes. We really should be given as full a statement as possible as to why money is wanted and why these Supplementary Estimates are required. I really must protest.
      Mr.PRINGLE: I think the explanation which my right hon. Friend has given makes it necessary to go into this matter somewhat more fully. He has told us that at Tsinanfu it has been necessary to establish a much larger building for the Consulate, for the purpose of recruiting Chinese labour and for paying separation allowances to their wives and families. We naturally wast·to know whether these new and larger buildings are buildings on a permanent basis. We are told that these new Consulate buildings were started before the introduction of Chinese labour in the West was under contemplation, but apparently they have been hastened and put up on a much larger scale because of this introduction of Chinese labour. We want to know whether the Government have erected these buildings for the purpose of dealing with these Chinese recruits on a permanent basis. Obviously the building will not be necessary for the ordinary work of the Consulate if in the future we are not going to recruit Chinese labourers for work in the West. On the other hand, if they have put up permanent buildings on this basis, then it will be clear that there is a permanent policy of the recruitment of Chinese labourers for the purpose of work in the West here. I am sorry my right hon. Friend dismisses the question of the exchange in the airy manner he does. I would point out that the difference in the exchange only refers to sub-head D, not to the original Estimate of £38,775, but only to the £8,850 under sub-head D, rents, insurance, etc. A thousand pounds is an increase of 12 per cent. on the original Estimate. That seems a very extraordinary situation, and I think that some better explanation should have been offered of it than that which my right hon. Friend has given. There is also given an adverse rate of exchange under sub-head B, which is somewhat similar. It says:
      520
      "Provision of safes and adverse rates of foreign exchange."
      This sub-head deals with maintenance and repairs. Apparently under sub-head B, which is an estimate of £20,950, the difference on the rate of exchange, and allowing for the provision of safes, amounts only to £600. Why is it that on B, which is a larger Vote, the difference which covers both safes and rates of exchange only amounts to £600, while on the relatively smaller Vote D of £8,850, the right hon. Gentleman has to ask for a Supplementary Estimate of £l,000? I think that shows some serious mistake, either in his Department or in the Foreign Office, and that, instead of covering it up in this way, he should give the true explanation of this extraordinary difference.
      Sir A. MOND: I do not know why my hon. Friend should think there is any mystery about it. The matter is quite a simple one. I have already explained that this expenditure is in connection with offices in China. The variation in the Chinese exchange has been 20 per cent.; when the Estimates were made, the fact that there would be a variation of 20 per cent. was not foreseen, and the fact that there has been a variation of 20 per cent. has caused the difference. I have already pointed out that I do not think any financial authority in the City of London would have been able to foresee the exact rate of Chinese exchange, for a more incalculable thing I do not know. As regards the question of the buildings, it is not the fact that it has been put up merely to serve as a pay office for the Chinese seamen. That is only one reason for proceeding with it now. This Consulate has been a bad one for a number of years, and is in one of the most important trading centres in China. I think my hon. Friend will admit that in the past we have been rather mean about our Consular buildings, compared with the Germans, in the East, and that the new policy of having better Consular buildings more in accordance with the new scheme of developing our Consular Service is a good one.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I think my right hon. Friend has not dealt with the point I made. It is only under this sub-head D that you have this figure about the exchange, that the Estimate has been wrong to the extent of £1,000. Under B, where you have maintenance and repairs, and which provides for an Estimate of

      521
      £20,950, the difference, covering the provision of safes and adverse rates of exchange, is only £600. Why, on an Estimate of £8,850, should you have a difference of £l,000, while on an Estimate of £20,950 you only have a difference of £600, and nothing whatever on the original Estimate of £8,975 for new works?
      Sir A. MOND: The hon. Gentleman is not doing credit to his own intelligence. I thought I pointed out that the variation of 20 per cent. must make a much bigger amount in respect of the Estimate of £8,850 than on the £20,950, the expenditure in respect of which has been in a country in which the rate of exchange is not so much against us. Therefore, you only have a difference of £600. In the one case the bulk has been spent in China, where the rate of exchange is much more adverse, and where, therefore, you get a much larger difference.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that under sub-head D, rents, insurance, etc., the great bulk of the £8,850 covers buildings only in China, and that there are really practically no insurance of our buildings in other foreign countries accounted for under this sub-head D? I had not the original Estimate here, but my recollection of former Estimates is that they cover insurance of Consular buildings on all the Continents, and consequently to say that the great bulk of this £8,850 has been spent in China is really a mistake on the part of my right hon. Friend. I should be inclined to think that in respect to proportions the proportion attributable to rent and insurance under D is very much the same as the proportion attributable to repairs under B, and, if that is so, the explanation which my right hon. Friend has given does not cover it.
      Sir A. MOND: I have given the best explanation I can.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND INSURANCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £33,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Expenditure in respect of
      522
      Ministry of Labour, Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain."
      Mr. PRINGLE: I think this is also a Vote which requires some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. The first sub-head A deals with new works, alterations, and purchases. In the note at the foot we are told that III. relates to urgent and unforeseen works, that in England and Wales £18,000 has been spent, and that in Scotland £2,000 has been spent. I am not going to enter into any question as to the relative amounts spent in the two countries, but one naturally desires to know why it should have been necessary to estimate for £20,000 in respect of urgent and unforeseen works since March of last year. Everybody knew that the new Ministry of Labour had been established before the Estimates for the year were drawn up. It was known also that the Ministry of Labour had charge of the Employment Exchanges, which were formerly called Labour Exchanges, and that as the Ministry of Labour had little other work they would naturally endeavour to glorify themselves by making the Employment Exchanges as considerable a feature as possible. With this knowledge before them, it is extremely remarkable that it should have been necessary to put forward a Supplementary Estimate of £20,000 for "Urgent and Unforeseen Works." I notice also that there is an Estimate of £4,000 for furniture, which I expect naturally arises from the urgent and unforeseen works, because as they have put up urgent and unforeseen buildings, therefore there has been an urgent and unforeseen demand for furniture, carpets, and so on for those buildings.
      The increased provision is said to be caused by the extension and improvement of Employment Exchanges. I should like to know whether there has been any change of policy in connection with these Employment Exchanges since the original Estimates were prepared? I understood that the whole policy in regard to those Exchanges was announced a considerable time before the Estimates were prepared Consequently, the Department and the Treasury should have been in a position to estimate exactly the expenditure which would be incurred. There is a further Estimate here for National Health Insurance buildings. I am somewhat surprised to find that there should have been any alterations, additions, and purchases for national health insurance purposes. As

      523
      I understand the matter, the tendency has been rather to restrict the staffs engaged on national health insurance during the War. I know, for example, that there has been rather a concentration than an expansion in regard to this matter. I have no doubt that the Comptroller of the Household will be able to confirm that, and he will no doubt have some explanation why there have been demands for £5,000 in England and Wales for urgent and unforeseen works and in respect of alterations, additions, and purchases. I understand that the National Health Insurance Commissioners have surrendered part of their central offices for the purposes of another Government Department, which will be discussed at a later period this afternoon, namely, the Department of Propaganda in Enemy and Neutral Countries, and that a gentleman we used to know very well in this House a long time ago, and who unfortunately has never returned—Mr. Charles Masterman—has a comfortable office there. It is remarkable that after the National Health Insurance Commissioners have surrendered a large part of the sumptuous hotel—I think it was the first hotel obtained for Government buildings—to Mr. Masterman, they should now be asking us to vote a Supplementary Estimate of £5,000 for urgent and unforeseen works in connection with national insurance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a clear and more convincing explanation of these items than he was able to do on a previous Vote.
      Mr. PRICE: I find on examining these figures that the original Estimate for rents, etc., was £68,000 which is now increased to £72,000. I believe the original Estimate was £19,000. The present figure, therefore, shows an enormous jump from the original Estimate. Usually we find that the original Estimate is a big one and that the Supplementary Estimate is a small one, but in this ease the Supplementary Estimate is considerably more than double the original Estimate. I hope that the Minister in charge will give an explanation of how it comes about that there is such an enormous increase in the revised Estimate as compared with the original Estimate.
      Major NEWMAN: I should like to know whether part of this Vote ought not to be debited to the Ministry of National Service. I understand that the Ministry
      524
      of National Service has now practically taken over the Employment Exchange buildings, therefore the Vote ought to go to him altogether and not in part and ought not to be put down to the Ministry of Labour. I should like to know whether or not that is the case?
      Sir A. MOND: I do not think the hon. Member is correct in his statement. At any rate, it is no concern of my Department. With regard to the question of the large increase in the Supplementary Vote, it really arises from a question of policy and from the urgent demands made by the Ministry of Labour both for improvements in and increased Labour Exchanges for the purposes of demobilisation. The matter was the subject of conferences between myself, the Ministry of Labour, and the Treasury on more than one occasion, and it was only settled after the Estimates for the last financial year had been presented. Therefore, it had to come in the form of a Supplementary Estimate, and naturally there was a very large Supplementary Estimate. The programme is a very large one. it is still proceeding and will take considerable time to complete. There is one item worded in a manner which produces an impression which is not quite justified. That is the item of "unforeseen works." The phrase "unforeseen works" is not really correct. What is meant is that there is a number of works which you see you are going to do, but of which it is practically impossible to give a detailed estimate. The work in connection with the Labour Exchanges largely consists in adapting all kinds of shops and small premises in a large number of towns into offices, and repainting and work of that kind. It is work of a detailed character spread over a large area and is very difficult to estimate. The urgency demanded is very difficult to work out in detail. There are a good many items which really ought not to appear under the term "unforeseen works," and I will endeavour next year, if I am still in office and responsible for the Estimates, to see if some better phraseology cannot be invented for this purpose. The amount of work is very large. New premises, extensions, and outhouses in England and Wales are 119, in Scotland 15; alterations in England and Wales 34, Scotland 4; minor alterations in England and Wales 45, Scotland 9. There are 170 cases where board room is required. There is a very large extension of the programme. I have a list of the new premises, extensions, and

      525
      outhouses, and the- money to be voted for them, but I do not think the Committee would thank me for going through the whole list. I may tell the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) that. part of the new expenditure is due to a very large new Labour Exchange in Partick.
      Mr. PRINGLE: There is no need for it there. Nobody is unemployed there.
      Sir A. MOND: I understand that the programme is largely due to demobilisation after the War, and the possibility of unemployment. So far as I am concerned, the question of policy is not one for me, but for the Ministry of Labour and the Treasury. It is in no way the fault of my Department that we have had to introduce this large Supplementary Vote. As to Insurance (National Health) buildings, part of the Supplementary Vote is due to the rehousing of a part of the national health insurance staff, which was temporarily housed. When my attention was drawn to the conditions under which the staff were working I had the matter investigated, and I came to the conclusion that it was really quite impossible to ask people to work under those conditions, which were bad to a degree, and which really ought to have been attended to at a much earlier date. Girls were working in buildings which were cold, with the water leaking through the roof, and generally in a very unsatisfactory state. Being a temporary arrangement, the place has not got better as time has gone on. We have rehoused a large part of the staff in better buildings. Another point which arises, also in connection with health insurance in respect of the Army and Navy, is that we have had to commandeer premises for Army and Navy health insurance.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Does that come under "works "?
      Sir A. MOND: Yes; "new works, alterations, additions, and purchases." There are no works in the sense of actually building. I think I have dealt with all the points raised.
      Mr. PRINGLE: The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given proves that there has been a change in policy. I have been looking at the original Estimate, and I find that on the Estimate as originally presented the right
      526
      hon. Gentleman was able to get great credit as an economist. For instance, on the first item, namely, new works, alterations, additions and purchases, he was able to compare the estimated expenditure of £13,200 for 1917–18 with an actual expenditure of £104,585 for 1916–17, and he was thus able to come before the House in the guise of an economist to the extent of £91,385. That was extremely satisfactory. But now we find that by underestimating he is an economist to the extent of £71,000 only. The explanation which he has given can only show that the credit for the low estimate in the original Estimate was obtained by underestimating what the Department was intending to do, because if it is impossible to believe that all this change has been due to a revision of policy. The Ministry for whom these buildings were intended was in existence at the time the original Estimates were prepared, and it must at that time have pretty well known its policy. He was endeavouring to get credit at that time for economising money to the extent of £91,000. Now we find that the reduction of £91,000 is simply an under-estimate and that the true amount should have been £33,200, which is a very much smaller diminution of the original Estimate. The explanation the right hon. Gentleman has given as to the National Health Insurance building will quite satisfy the Committee, and it is entirely creditable to his Department that he should have provided accommodation for all the workers in the temporary building under the National Health Department.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.— Class I.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £74,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
      Mr. KING: This raises a very interesting and an important question, because I see in the note that the Government has acquired a leasehold interest in Montague House, Whitehall. We ought to know something about this. So far as I am aware no announcement has been made

      527
      either in the public Press or in this House as to what the Government is doing with Montague House, which is one of the finest private houses in London. I noticed as I passed by that they are covering the whole of the forecourt with extraordinary buildings of brick and iron, which look as if they were to be more or less permanent. We now understand that the leasehold has been acquired for £49,500 This gives an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman to explain his proposal and his intentions with regard to this building. I hope he will do so in such a satisfactory manner as to save me the trouble of any further remarks.
      Mr. PRICE: I entirely approve of my hon. Friend raising this question. A good deal of public discussion took place about this house some few years ago when attention was called to the ground rent that this place paid. We should like to know what was the ground rent, what was the property assessed at, what proportion does the total amount of £49,500 bear to the ground rent, and what proportion does it bear to its assessed rent. There is a piece of land at Gourock which the Government acquired at 2,100 years purchase. It would be very interesting to find out at how many years' purchase this works out, and as the right hon. Gentleman used to take a profound interest in this subject some time ago, it would be interesting to find out whether he is now, in his official capacity, assenting to a principle which he was always fighting against when he exercised freedom on the other side of the House. I trust we shall have a full explanation.
      Sir A. MOND: I shall be pleased to give an explanation of what I think is a very good bargain on the part of the Government. Montague House is held on a Crown lease terminating on 1st January, 1954. The ground rent is £906 per annum, and it is subject to Land Tax of £119 3s. 4d. We had agreed to rent it from December, 1916, for a period of three years, terminable by the lessees after the conclusion of peace by three months' notice, for £5,000, including ground rent and Land Tax. In addition to that sum, £14,000 has been, or will be, spent on temporary buildings which are being erected in the forecourt and grounds. The hon. Member asked who was occupying the house? The Ministry of Labour has
      528
      occupied it for a very considerable period, and the Ministry of Munitions is occupying a part of it, too. An opportunity occurred of buying the property for the Government, and I came to the conclusion, as also did the Treasury, that if it could be bought at a reasonable price, it would be a very economical bargain. We should probably have had to pay £10,000 in rent, to destroy the whole of the temporary buildings, which cost £14,000, besides the expense of removing them, and we should have had to reinstate the decorations of the house, which cost a large amount of money as well. So that we are really getting the house for practically less than nothing.
      Mr. PRICE: What proportion does the rent of £5.000 bear to the assessed rent? The Government has taken no end of property from other individuals, and in some eases has not given them anything. Why not have commandeered the place, and then assessed the rental, as has been done in other cases?
      Sir A. MOND: Unfortunately, the agreement was made before I took office. The house was let in December, 1916.
      Mr. PRINGLE: You took office before that.
      Sir A. MOND: No, in 1917.
      Mr. PRINGLE: You took office in December, 1916.
      Sir A. MOND: The arrangement was made before I took office.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Give us the date.
      Sir A. MOND: I have not got it exactly.
      Mr. PRICE: It is not enough when this Vote comes before the Committee for my right hon. Friend to say the transaction was entered into before he took office. He is bound to defend the transaction of his predecessor. This is the first time this transaction has come before the Committee, and we have a right to know about it. I want to know, if you had an arrangement to pay this proprietor £5.000 a year, what relation that bears to its assessed rental before it was taken. I know a lot of private houses which have been taken over without a penny of rent being paid. How is it you make an exception in this case? My right hon. Friend must give us an explanation, and not say he was not in office, but must tell us all about it.
      Sir A. MOND: I do not know that I have the exact figures of the assessed rental. As I have explained, we should have incurred an expenditure of £25,000 to £30,000, and then at the expiry of the agreement we should have had no house. Therefore, I considered it a very good bargain for the State to get the house in perpetuity. It cost £120,000 to build. That was a long time ago, when building was cheaper than now. There were other parties in the market who were prepared to pay a very much larger sum. Outside valuations show that the amount the Government has paid is entirely reasonable. As a matter of fact, I think the Duke could have got a higher price, but he was selling his house. The Government had the first opportunity, and took the first chance of obtaining it. He made some sacrifice personally to let the Government have it at the price which has been accepted, and which, taking all the circum stances of the case into consideration, appears to me to be a very useful transaction, especially when one recollects how few sites are left along Whitehall for any future Government building on a considerable scale. That, of course, was one of the chief inducements which led us to consider the question.
      Mr. PRINGLE: It would have come to the Government in 1954.
      Sir A. MOND: We get immediate possession of premises which the Government will want for some time after the War. I hope the explanation will satisfy my hon. Friend.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Why did you not commandeer it, and then settle the price, as has been done in other cases?
      Mr. PRINGLE: I want to know where Montague House is accounted for in the present Estimates. In the Vote we have just passed there is a Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Labour and Unemployment Exchange and Insurance Unemployment buildings. That must have included Montague House. [Interruption.] If this had been carried through by the end of the year, in December we would expect one-fourth of the rent to be remitted. Consequently there would be something over £1,000 that would be saved in Appropriation in Aid under this Vote. Apparently there is no Appropriation in Aid under Vote 9. There should have been an Appropriation in Aid in view of the fact that the rent is not to be paid
      530
      for the current year. I think it was right that my hon. Friend (Mr. Price) should have raised the question as to the assessed rental of this building, because we want to know the relation between the assessed rental and the price which is actually paid for the leasehold. It is also interesting to have it compared with the £5,000 which the Government apparently agreed to pay by way of rent for this building. Apparently this building was acquired on very favourable terms to the owner—more favourable terms than were given to most hotels and private houses. My right hon. Friend is able to make a case that the Government actually conclude a good bargain now because in December, 1916, at a time when he said he was not responsible, they made a bad bargain. That seems to be the only way in which he can defend himself. He says that in December, 1916, the Government took this building at a rental of £5,000 for three years, that at the end of three years they would have to restore the decorations, and that by this bargain they were now going to save £10,000 in rent and the cost of the restoration of the decorations, also the cost of removing the temporary structures. In any event it would be necessary to remove these ugly structures. No one would tolerate their continuance after the War, so that I think he might have left that out of account. The situation is reduced to this, that in order to justify this present contract the right hon. Gentleman proves that his predecessor made a very bad bargain in agreeing with the Duke of Buccleuch in December, 1916, to rent this house at a time when it might have been commandeered, and when the owner would have been forced to go to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission in order to have the terms of compensation fixed. Why was the agreement then made with the Duke of Buccleuch, and why was he not left to the same remedy which is available to the less favoured of His Majesty's subjects? I thank the right hon. Gentleman should tell us something about the leasehold of this house.
      Sir A. MOND: I have already explained that this building was not commandeered. It was taken by agreement at what was considered a very reasonable rental, and I do not know why the hon. Member assumes that it was extravagant.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Yet you consider that you have made a good bargain now?
      Sir A. MOND: I do consider that we have a very good bargain, and I do not agree with the hon. Member that the only justification for buying the lease now is that somebody made a bad bargain two years ago. I never contended that. I only said that the fact of our not having to pull down these temporary buildings immediately after the War, and not having to reinstate the decorations, enhanced the value of the bargain.
      Mr. KING: I think the right hon. Gentleman has done his best to answer the question, although I think it is not a very satisfactory best. We shall have a Report stage of this Vote, and I hope on that occasion to be present and to have from the right hon. Gentleman the actual rateable value and the assessed value of this house. He can tell us that on the Report stage, and also tell us who was responsible for taking these premises. There is a mystery about it. He says he is not responsible, although he was First Commissioner of Works at the time.
      Sir A. MOND: I was not First Commissioner at the time.
      Mr. KING: There is some mystery. Let it be cleared up on the Report stage.
      Sir A. MOND: There is no mystery about it. This agreement was made before I took office.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Who made it?
      Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member knows as well as I do who was First Commissioner at the time. I took office in December. This agreement was made before I took office.
      Mr. KING: Then it must have been made by Lord Harcourt.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      HARBOURS UNDER THE BOARD OF TRADE.— Class I.
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, to pay the expenses of maintaining certain Harbours under the Board of Trade and for Grants for Harbours."

      RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.—Class I.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,000, be granted to His Majesty,
      532
      to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."
      Sir C. HENRY: With respect to the rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc., in respect of Government property, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the proportion of these rates, which is chargeable on the Admiralty, the War Office, the Post Office and other public buildings, is charged to the different Departments? The Office of Works supplies the buildings, but this is a charge paid by the Treasury, and I should like to know whether these different Departments are exonerated from these rates or whether the Treasury reclaim them and get credit for the amount? I quite realise that the rates which are paid with respect to houses occupied by the representatives of foreign Powers are charges which the Treasury rightly pay but I maintain that where rates axe paid in respect of Government Departments they should be charged to the particular Department if we are to get a correct expenditure of the respective Departments.
      Major NEWMAN: With respect to the charge for rates on houses occupied by representatives of foreign Powers, the Committee will know that the Government pays the rates on houses occupied as Embassies and Legations in London. I should like to know whether at the moment we are paying rates on perhaps the most handsome, the biggest and the most valuable Embassy house in London? I refer to the house in Chesham Place, which until recently was occupied by representatives of the late Russian Government. As hon. Members know, Count Beckendorff died in that, house a few months ago. I think the revolution in Russia had taken place a short time before his death, but he had been carrying on as representative of the Russian Government to the Court of St. James. After his death, I think Monsieur Sassonoff was appointed by the Russian Government to take his place, but no representative was actually sent over.

      533
      The powers of the Embassy was taken over by one of the secretaries, and then the Provisional Government passed away and the Bolshevik Government came along. I want to know whether we still regard this magnificent house in Chesham Place as the home of the representative of the Russian Government in this country, and, if so, are we paying rates on it? When we are dealing in millions this may be a very small amount, perhaps the rates will not be more than £400 a year, but, at any rate, it is an interesting point whether we are still paying the rates on this house, and whether we still regard this house as being the place where the Leader of the Russian Government in this country resides. We know that Monsieur Litvinoff, who has been appointed Ambassador by the Bolshevik Government, has taken up his position, not at Chesham Place, but at 82, Victoria Street, where he occupies a modest set of chambers. To-day we have this great house empty, except for the annexe, where a number of clerks still carry on a certain amount of work, or perhaps smoke cigarettes. Surely this big house might be taken over by the Government and turned into some sort of Government offices? Are we still paying rates on it? Do we consider it belongs to the Russian Government? Do we think that we ought to allow it to stand empty and not make use of it for Government offices? I would like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to answer these questions.
      Mr. KING: What about the rates on the new temporary buildings? Their rateable value must be very considerable. We are told that the buildings at Montague House represent a cost of £14,000. Are they assessed for local rates, and, if they are, has the Government to pay the rates?
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): In regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend (Sir C. Henry), the rates and contributions in lieu of rates are charged to the Departments concerned. With regard to ordinance factories, they come back as Appropriations in Aid under this account. In regard to the question about the Russian Embassy, the hon. and gallant Member must know as well as I know that it is impossible for anyone to give a definite answer at this moment as to the position that exists in regard to
      534
      Russia and its Empire. I doubt very much whether it would be possible at this moment, in the state of our relations with Russia to say whether this Embassy will continue to be held for the Russian Government or not. That is obviously a point that cannot be settled on a question arising out of a Supplemental Estimate.
      Major NEWMAN: We are paying rates on it.
      6.0 P.M.
      Mr. BALDWIN: Obviously, we must continue to pay until we reach the point if and when the Government say there is no representatives of Russia in this country, and there is no house in which Russians can carry on their business. That is entirely out of my Department. It is a matter of policy, and when the matter of policy is settled, of course, the matter of rates will settle themselves. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerset, the broad line is this, that on all buildings of a permanent nature the amount of rates paid, or the subsidy given in lieu of rates, is charged here, but on Government buildings entirely connected with the War and the prosecution of the War the charge is taken from the Vote of Credit. The question is whether the charge is one for objects directly and wholly connected with the War, or objects of a permanent nature. I think that that answers the question as simply as it can be answered without going too much into detail.
      Mr. KING: Are these buildings assessed at a definite sum or is a lump sum given as a contribution in lieu of rates?
      Mr. BALDWIN: A contribution is given in lieu of rates.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I notice that the Supplementary Estimate for the rates on these houses of foreign Powers amounts to £1,000. I do not think that my hon. Friend has told us the reason for this increase. It is very important that we should know. In that case there is an Appropriation in Aid, because the representatives of foreign Powers pay a portion of the rates on the houses and that sum in the Estimates for 1917–18 amounts to £2,300. In respect of this increase of £l,000 on the original Estimate is there to be no payment from the representatives of foreign Powers, or is it because the Russian Government now is not making any payments that you have

      535
      this revised Estimate, or is there any other reason why you should have an increase of £1,000?
      Sir C. HENRY: As I understood my hon. Friend, the amount paid by the Treasury for these rates comes from different Departments. If what he said is correct, and I assume that it is, why is there an Appropriation in Aid of £3,000 from the War Office and no Appropriation in Aid from the Admiralty, the Post Office and other public Departments? I see that there is repayment, so that the amount was paid back by the representatives of the foreign Powers.
      Mr. BALDWIN: I have made a slip. My hon. Friend is quite correct. I made an error in the way I put it.
      Sir C. HENRY: Why is the differentiation made between the War Office and the Admiralty and the Post Office? Why do you recover rates from the War Department for Ordnance factories and not from other Departments?
      Mr. BALDWIN: My only answer to that would be—and I do not think that my hon. Friend will think it satisfactory—that it is the usual practice. Why it is the practice I cannot tell; it is a curious way of accounting, but it is a matter of policy that has been followed. I think that my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to it.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I was wrong about the Appropriation in Aid of £1,000.
      Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, we get that back.
      Major NEWMAN: About the German and Austrian Embassies—what are we doing as to those two big houses? Are we paying rates on them?
      Mr. BALDWIN: There was a mutual arrangement made soon after the outbreak of war between our Government and the enemy Government, by which the rates are paid and recovered. The same thing is done with our Embassies abroad.
      Mr. P. A. HARRIS: It is a very remarkable thing. Are we to understand that there were communications between the two Governments on this matter?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Trading with the enemy!
      Question put, and agreed to.

      SECRET SERVICE.-Class II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
      Mr. PRINGLE: I know that in times past all information has been refused to this House in regard to the Civil Service Vote, but I think that at the present time there are certain conditions which make it advisable that at least the questions which I am going to put should be answered. Certain new appointments have been made during the past few days in what is called the Department of Propaganda. A Minister has been definitely appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in place of Lord Cawley. In addition to that, the newspaper proprietor who has general charge of propaganda has appointed another newspaper proprietor, Lord Northcliffe, in a somewhat subordinate capacity, to be in charge of propaganda in enemy countries. I desire to know whether any of this additional sum of £200,000 is being used for the purposes of that propaganda, which is being carried on by these two distinguished and noble Pressmen, or whether they have any control over those on whom the money is spent? I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is in a position to give an answer on that point.
      Mr. BALDWINindicated assent.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Very well; another question. We have not only a Secret Service in foreign countries, but we know now that there is a Secret Service in this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, whom we all welcome back from America, in the course of one of the legal cases in which he has been engaged, that of the conspiracy against the Prime Minister's life, showed in evidence that there was a Secret Service in this country, and some of the evidence in that case along with other evidence, shows that some of these Secret Service agents are very like agents provocateurs. I am perfectly certain from information which has come to my knowledge that in certain strikes in this country the secret agents of the Government have deliberately fomented unrest, with a view to bringing about strikes. I want to know whether Secret

      537
      Service money is being used for the purpose of paying these men who are fomenting unrest in this country, and causing a great deal of the industrial agitation which has given us all so much concern. I know, for example, that at a recent meeting held in connection with the engineering dispute, one of the speakers on the platform was an agent of the Government. I want to know whether these people are paid out of Secret Service or not. I cannot, of course, say who the gentleman was, but I have the evidence which satisfies my mind. Under conditions of that kind this House is bound to make inquiries regarding Secret Service, which is different altogether from Secret Service acting abroad, as to which I think the Government are entitled to refuse all information to this House. But where you have Secret Service operating in this country, through agents whose efforts result in the increase of agitation, I think that the Government is bound to say who are paying them—whether it is done under the ordinary Secret Service, or whether the money is voted out of the funds of some other Department?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I ought to have stopped the hon. and learned Member before he had got so far as he did, because he must be aware that this is a Supplementary Estimate, and none of his remarks, except his earlier inquiries, so far as I can make out, deal with the Question which is the sole question that we can discuss—that is the reason for the increase of £200,000 which the Government is now asking the Committee to grant it.
      Mr. KING: I have frequently spoken upon this Vote, and regret that the last time I spoke I created in the minds of one or two of those who did me the honour to listen to me the idea that I objected to Secret Service in war time and in foreign countries. I have never done so, and I admit moreover that in war time you must increase the amount of your Secret Service in foreign countries. What I objected to on the last occasion was that the Government would make no reply of any kind, and I cited the case of two recent books, one by a very well-known man, who declared that he was in the Secret Service at various times, and—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member heard the remarks which I addressed to the hon. and learned Member for Lanarkshire, but
      538
      obviously he is now dealing with the policy that arises on the original Vote. He must confine his remarks to the reasons for the increase of £200,000.
      Mr. KING: I quite appreciate the point, and I was coming to the application of my former remarks, which I think would be appropriate to this Vote.
      Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is it not the practice of this House to treat the Secret Service Estimates on a different footing? The original Estimate of the Secret Service is never intended to be a complete Estimate, and consequently you have always a Supplementary Estimate on Secret Service, on which questions can be raised as relevantly as on the original Estimate, because in some cases the Supplementary Estimate has exceeded the original Estimate.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what rulings may have been given previously, but, so far as I am concerned, the position which I take up is the one which I have already indicated. That is that the whole general policy of the Secret Service cannot be reviewed in the Committee here to-day on this Vote.
      Mr. KING: My remarks refer to the appointment—of which we are informed in this morning's paper—of Lord Northcliffe as head of the propaganda in enemy countries. It is perfectly obvious that this is a new appointment, and that he must employ secret sources of expense. I take it, therefore, that this is a new Vote which we have to-day, and that it is applicable to his case. I want to raise a very strong protest against the appointment. If you are to have enemy propaganda in enemy countries, I think one might reasonably conclude that the head of it ought also to be kept secret, and if this Service is to be carried out with Secret Service money then the name of its head ought not to be disclosed.
      Mr. BALDWIN: On a point of Order, Sir. My hon. Friend wishes to raise the matter of the appointment of Lord Northcliffe on this Vote, and, in reference to the point of Order, I would suggest that the hon. Member would have a better opportunity of raising that point on the Vote of Credit, because the money contained in this Vote has either to be spent or to be surrendered on the 31st March. Whatever was decided in regard to this money was settled before Lord Northcliffe's

      539
      appointment. I have no knowledge of the way in which this money may be used or has been used, but it is quite clear that between now and the 31st March that amount has to be spent, or if there be any balance it must be surrendered. I submit, therefore, that it is out of order to discuss Lord Northcliffe's appointment on this Supplementary Estimate, which is only to carry us to the 31st March, and which cannot include anything in regard to Lord Northcliffe.
      Mr. KING: We do not know that Lord Northcliffe has only just been appointed. He may have been appointed a long time ago, and the announcement only now made. I hope for the credit of the Government that the announcement that Lord Northcliffe has been appointed is preparatory to the announcement to-morrow that he has resigned.
      Mr. D. MASON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Vote of Credit will be taken?
      Mr. BALDWIN: There is no date fixed for the Vote of Credit, but my hon. Friend must know that it cannot be postponed for very long. I think there must be a Vote of Credit before the close of the financial year.
      Mr. MASON: The hon. Gentleman has already said that this question could be better raised on the Vote of Credit, and I understand that it is not in order to discuss the appointment now.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: After what has now transpired, the question of Lord Northcliffe's appointement does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.
      Mr. DENMAN: Does the expenditure of the War Aims Committee come under this Vote?
      Mr. BALDWIN: I think my hon. Friend will agree that there is great difficulty in saying what comes out of this Vote and what does not, but I cannot imagine that the expenditure of the War Aims Committee can come under the Vote for Secret Service.
      Mr. DENMAN: I put the question because I notice that the amount of the Supplementary Estimate, £200,000, was the very amount which was referred to as being the amount of the expenditure of the War Aims Committee, and if this
      540
      money is required for that purpose it would, perhaps, be convenient that I should make one or two observations.
      Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that there can be question of any item of £200,000 for the War Aims Committee under this Vote.
      Mr. DENMAN: I accept that.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will my hon. friend answer this question? Can he say Yes or No to this question: Does any of this sum of £200,000 go in payment of secret agents in the employment of the Government, and who are now engaged in different parts of the country in provoking discontent and disorder among the industrial population by inciting men, in various ways, to take certain courses?
      Mr. BALDWIN: With all respect to my hon. Friend I do not think that is a fair way to put the question, for he has been enabled to express his opinion freely before the House and I am not in a position to contradict him. My hon. Friend knows what I mean. He makes some charges against some people of whom I have no knowledge, who have undertaken certain work of which I have no knowledge, in regard to which what the hon. Member says may be true, or he may be misinformed, and as to which I have absolutely no information. It is impossible for me to give any information to the House as to the use of Secret Service money, for two reasons. The first reason is that I have no knowledge myself where the Secret Service money goes, and the second reason is— and it is the reason given by many of my predecessors who have stood in this place on these occasions—that the whole essence of Secret Service money is that it is Secret, Service money, voted by the House as such, and if its destination were made public it would cease to be secret service.
      Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend does not contradict the information I have given. I have another question which I wish to put to him: Can he say whether this money is to pay secret agents who report my speeches, for instance, to the War Cabinet?
      Mr. KING: One point brought out in this discussion is the way in which Secret Service money is treated. All payments that are made under the Estimates or the Vote of Credit are subsequently brought into the House and are under the control of the House through the Public Accounts

      541
      Committee; but Secret Service payments never come back to the House through the Public Accounts Committee, nor is there any account of them or audit in. the usual way. I think that the amount required for Secret Service is rather excessive, the total amount being no less a sum than £750,000, and it is suddenly raided by a very large sum within six, weeks of the end of the financial year. During the recent period we have had various events, among them General Smuts' visit to Switzerland, and the disclosure made of that secret meeting. We have also had the mission of the Attorney-General to America, where he had apparently a very curious experience. Then we also got the extraordinary announcement as to Lord Northcliffe, on which I will not say another word. We have had many indications that there is activity of a secret kind, of which, of course, we only get a mere glimmer, and I submit this is a course which is not calculated to increase confidence and trust among the people of the country. Therefore, I protest against this Vote, and if I thought that I could get sufficient Members to follow me into the Lobby I would divide the Committee, but, as it is, I will not put hon. Members to that trouble. It is not at all satisfactory, and I am quite sure that a great deal of the money is wasted, and also a good deal of it improperly voted. I shall not be content until the day comes when both the necessity and idea of Secret Service money has vanished for ever.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      GENERAL BOARD OF CONTROL FOR SCOTLAND.—Class II.
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,442, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Board of Control for Scotland."
      CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS OFFICE, IRELAND.—Class II.
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for. Ireland."

      PUBLIC TRUSTEE.—Class III.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee."
      Mr. KING: This is only a small Vote, but I am rather disquieted by the note which I see at the foot of the Estimate, to the effect that the Public Trustee has actually been guilty of a breach of trust involving the country in a loss of £2,002. There are many people who, in making their wills, appoint the Public Trustee, who, I believe, does his work remarkably well. In fact, his is a very great public institution, and I am very glad to see that it carries on at so small a cost to the country. I should like to know, however, whether it is the trustee himself or one of his officials who is responsible for this loss, and whether, if it is an official, he has been reprimanded, or the matter has been otherwise dealt with. I should like also to know whether the particular trusts which have suffered loss will be indemnified. A few explanatory remarks upon this subject would be welcome.
      Mr. BALDWIN: The thing that strikes one who is not a lawyer about the office of the Public Trustee is that though we have some cause for complaint in this instance, it is very remarkable, especially in these times, when clerical staffs have been so interfered with by military service, that the office of the Public Trustee gets through such an enormous amount of work of so diversified and technical a character and makes so few mistakes as it does. I can assure the Committee it is a source of regret to us that we have had to put down at all such a sub-head as a loss on this Vote, and due note has been taken of it. I am quite sure my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) would not wish to pillory one in this House for a mistake of this kind, and I do not think that any useful service would be caused by going into the details of the mistake that has led to this loss. I can give him my word that they were not of a grave nature but, as my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General suggests, were of an exceptional nature, and I shall be pleased to tell him. what they were. I feel confident that the members of the Committee would not desire to make the details public.
      Sir W. ESSEX: Were it not for this misadventure we would have had a profit on the carrying on of the office?
      Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.—Class III.
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Change which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
      REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS, IRELAND.—Class III.
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,434, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland."
      DUNDRUM CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM, IRELAND.—Class III.
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."
      TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.—Class VI.
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries."
      GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.—Class VI.
      Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for a Grant in Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

      NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, JOINT COMMITTEE.—Class VII.
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £408,900, be granted to His
      544
      Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including Sundry Grants in Aid).'

      TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS (SPECIAL GRANTS).—Class VII.
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Payment of Grants towards the Cost of the Extension of Sanatorium Benefit to the Dependants of Insured Persons under the National Health Insurance Act, 1911, and of the Treatment of Tuberculosis generally."

      MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
      Mr. ROCH: At Question time to-day I asked the Department which is concerned with this Vote if they could throw a little further light upon the recent grant of a 12½per cent. bonus given by the Ministry of Munitions. I take it that this Vote is cast in such a form that I can more or less roam over the questions which are involved by that bonus. My question to-day directly raised the question of policy which this grant involves, and asked in particular if the Minister in reply would state which Government Departments and what persons were consulted before the 12½ per cent. was given, and whether the employers were consulted and if the War Cabinet were consulted before giving the original advance to skilled workers and before making the extension to semi-skilled and unskilled workers? In reply to that question I was referred to the answer which was given on the 14th January by the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions, and which he claimed completely covered the question which was asked by me to-day. I cannot help thinking that he cannot have given real consideration to this question, because it did not cover points included in my question to-day. A good deal of unrest and misunderstanding has

      545
      arisen amongst those who are interested in the employment of munition workers by the recent grant of the 12½ per cent. It was naturally realised that the policy of the Ministry of Munitions was changed, and that when the leaving certificate under the Munitions Act was abolished that they felt that something was necessary to induce the men who might take advantage of the abolition of that certificate not to seek other employment. What I do not think was quite realised, and I am not sure whether it was quite intended by the Ministry of Munitions, was whether this grant should be as wide and widespread as it was.
      I do not wish to go generally into the whole question of policy involved. There has been a good deal of controversy, and I think a good deal of criticism has been directed towards the Ministry of Munitions, largely in consequence of the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars (Mr, Barnes) some time ago with regard to this 12½ per cent. bonus. Certainly the public impression created by that speech, which was most unfortunately; incorrectly reported, was that this was the action of the Minister of Munitions alone, and it was generally felt that a matter involving millions of pounds in the way of wages should have had some consideration as a whole on the part of the War Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars spoke in rather strong terms about the fact that his colleague had "butted in" on a question on which he had not complete understanding. Out of that controversy there arose friends and supporters of the Minister of Munitions, who said that that did not represent fairly what had really happened, and that as a matter of fact all sections of opinion were heard by the War Cabinet itself, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars himself, and by, I think, Lord Curzon. I felt that when unfortunate differences arise between colleagues, as, indeed, they must arise, that they should not be made the subject of public debate by those colleagues themselves, and, when mistakes are made, that they should be frankly accepted by all. In order that we may have confidence in the Minister of Munitions, I hope he will remove that feeling that he did butt in on this occasion without giving a fair statement of the facts to his colleagues
      546
      and to the War Cabinet, who were the super-authorities entitled to deal with the matter.
      I should like to ask the Minister who replies to give us really frankly the full facts about this matter. Was the full extent of this 12½ per cent. bonus fully and carefully considered? I believe that my hon. Friend below me was largely the author to some extent of this policy, and perhaps he will throw a little light upon it. In particular, I should like to ask him whether he can give us now any estimate of what the cost of this 12½per cent. bonus will be? I do so because most extravagant estimates have been made. I have been told by people well qualified to give an opinion that it will cost anything from £100,000,000 to £200,000,000 on the wages bill of the Ministry of Munitions. I should like to ask the Minister who replies whether an estimate was carefully made by the Minister, and whether it was put before the War Cabinet when they had to consider it. I should like to ask one other point, and that is whether full consideration was really given to the effect of this 12½ per cent. bonus in another way? There was a general hope, I think, that as a result of the War and with the change of management of industrial works, that a good deal of the unfortunate misunderstanding arising from the trade unions on the one side and the employers on the other by arbitrarily cutting down piece rates, for which I think both sides were almost equally to blame, would be removed, and it was hoped that the new policy would so affect these industries as to rely on a piece-work rate rather than on a time-work rate. I am told by people of experience, and I have no personal experience in the matter, that this unfortunate widespread grant of 12½ per cent. bonus has acted in such a way, perhaps not foreseen, but it certainly has resulted in the fact that your piece-work system which has been built up has almost been abolished; and I am told also that this had had a most unfortunate result, not only on production in munitions works, but on production in shipbuilding and other allied industries, which I think also come under the Ministry of Munitions.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman who replies will reassure our minds on these subjects. I will just recapitulate shortly the points I put. First of all, I should like the hon. Gentleman to throw light on the real manner and method by which this 12½ per cent. bonus was finally fixed upon

      547
      by the Ministry. Let us know quite frankly whether the Minister really did butt in or whether all the Ministers butted in. It is only by removing the misconception which has arisen that real confidence can be restored to the Minister in charge of this great Department. I should like him to tell us also what was the estimated charge of this 12½per cent. bonus and what the actual cost to the country is. Thirdly, I should like him to tell us whether he thinks the result of it has been in practice to act upon the working of the piece-rate system, and also to reassure us as to what the effect of this new method and policy has been on actual production.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I am glad that my hon. Friend has given the Committee an opportunity of discussing this question, about which there has been an extraordinary mass of prejudice and misunderstanding, though I do not wish to suggest that my hon. Friend or those associated with him have in any way contributed towards that. The more light that is shed on this subject the better. I do not want to give away any Departmental secrets. Really, I am no great believer in Departmental secrets. The sort of sacro-sanctity which is supposed to surround Departmental secrets has always left me cold. It is impossible to suppose you can have absolute unanimity of opinion where you have men who hold their opinions strongly. It is preposterous to suppose that you will not have differences of opinion between the Departments. I think it will be a bad thing for this country when it is governed by Departments all of whom think absolutely alike from beginning to end on every subject in which they are interested.
      There is no mystery; there is no doubt about the fact that, in regard to this great question, different men approaching it from different points of view, have at different periods of discussion held different opinions with regard to certain aspects of it. So far as the general question is concerned, and the effect which it has had on the industrial conditions in this country, I believe, speaking with a certain amount of impartiality in regard to it, because I was not intimately concerned with the working out of this scheme, I believe that the effect of the 12½ per cent. bonus on industrial conditions in this country has been thoroughly sound.
      548
      Anyone who will compare what was anticipated would be the condition of things in this country in October and November of last year, when nearly all the prophets told us we were in for a period of industrial unrest which would culminate about that time and amount to something like revolution, anyone who will compare those anticipations with the state of things which really has existed during that period, and which exists to-day, will see that somehow or another we have been able to avoid those serious mischiefs. To-day I am glad to say that the industrial situation, judging by the number of strikes, was never sounder. I suppose I ought to touch wood when I make that statement, but it is a fact that there are fewer strikes in this country to-day than at any period during the War. Now that is very remarkable, having regard to the very large issues deeply affecting the fortunes of millions of men. It is a remarkable state of things that after some three and a-half years of war, when the great body of your people have been working with steady devotion under a strain never known before in this country, that you are able to say before the world that the industrial situation has never been sounder than it is now. I claim that the 12½ per cent. bonus is one of the causes of this most satisfactory state of affairs.
      What is the history of it? You had last year about the time of the engineers' strike a very serious state of things in industry. Some hundreds of thousands of men were out on strike for a period of two or three weeks. It was the most serious industrial disturbance we have had during the War. As a result of questions put in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), and others who were interested, it was followed by the Prime Minister setting up a number of Commissions to inquire into the causes of this industrial unrest. With one accord those Commissions reported that a prime cause of industrial unrest was the system of certificated labour which had been in existence in this country for some-considerable time—since the passing of the Munitions Act. At the time the Government of the day decided on certificated labour they were justified in so deciding, and the results showed that they were right; but as time went by, and that system had achieved the results intended,

      549
      you reached a stage at which the irritation and inconvenience arising out of that system more than counterbalanced the advantages attaching to it. At the time the last Munitions Bill was before the House I was strongly pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North - West Lanark to agree to an Amendment abolishing the leaving certificates. I did not agree, because I was aware of the risk that was being taken. But when the Bill came again before the House later under the present Minister, so much had happened in the interval that he agreed, as the result of, and influenced by, the Report of the Commissions on industrial unrest, to abolish the leaving certificates. That was my right hon. Friend's first act of policy in this House as Minister of Munitions. He agreed to the abolition of the leaving certificate, and that system of certificated labour, applying to some 2,500,000 or more workpeople in this country, which had been in force ever since the passing of the first Munitions Act, was swept away.
      That was an industrial revolution of a very far-reaching kind. Its far-reaching character has not, I believe, been sufficiently understood in this controversy. To have restored to these millions of men and women the right to sell their labour in the market where it can demand the highest rate, at a time when there were more employers looking for workpeople than there were workpeople looking for employers, was to put upon them a temptation which would be too much for most men and most women. We were told that the temptation would be too much for the great majority of munition workers, and there would be what was called an ugly rush to all the shops paying the highest rates. Looking back now, we are able to say that that ugly rush did not take place. The movement as the result of the abolition of leaving certificates has been comparatively slight. It has not been sufficiently severe to interfere with the output of essential munitions of war. I claim that one of the reasons of that was the fact that the Government decided on the 12½ per cent. bonus. It was a recognition on the part of the Government of the changed conditions of things. That the action of the Government has been justified is shown by the statement I have already made as to the present industrial situation.
      My hon. Friend asked me who was consulted in regard to this question. The
      550
      first step taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister was to set up a Committee in his Department. That Committee was presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham. It consisted of representatives of the Ministry, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Labour, the Engineering Employers' Federation, the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, the National Employers' Federation, and three groups of trade unions. I think we may fairly say that all the interests concerned were represented on that Committee. I do not think anyone would take objection to the constitution of that Committee on the ground that it was not properly representative. They submitted two Reports—a Majority Report and a Minority Report. The Minority Report was signed by the employers who were members of that Committee. The Majority Report was the one on which my right hon. Friend decided to base his proposals for dealing with the difficulty which had arisen. On the question who was consulted, then, I think, it will be admitted that the Ministry has no reason to stand in a white sheet. We consulted all the parties properly interested. It may be said, "You did not take their advice" It is true. The employers on the Committee made certain proposals not altogether different in principle from the proposals on which the Ministry acted, but different in this respect, that they would have made the granting of any bonus dependent on the workpeople to whom that bonus was granted having had an opportunity of working on a system of payment by results.
      7.0 P.M.
      That brings me to the second point put by my hon. Friend: Has this 12½per cent. bonus interfered in any way with the adoption of a system of payment by results? First, on the question of policy. Ought the Government at that time to have decided to make the payment of this bonus dependent on a system of payment by results? It is no secret that different views were held on that question amongst different members of the Administration. Speaking for myself, I have never had any doubt that the decision of the Government not to make this payment dependent on the introduction of a system of payment by results was a right decision. Rightly or wrongly, the system of payment by results is intensely disliked by a certain section of the workmen throughout this country. I have had some experi-

      551
      ence in connection with that. We endeavoured, in connection with aircraft construction, to get the acceptance of a general system of payment by results. I confess in making that effort that I had a strong bias in favour of a system of payment by results. But we found that to insist on a general system of payment by result would have made an upheaval 'throughout the whole industry. We might have succeeded, after weeks of disturbance and strikes, in enforcing it, but we should have lost far more than we should have gained, and have left a rankling sense of injustice which would have remained. We should have made it impossible to secure this system by agreement, or an extension of it in those shops where it had been already introduced. That is the short reply. It is also the larger reply to the criticism of the action of the Government in not making the 12½ per cent. bonus dependent on a system of payment by results. To have done it would have aroused a controversy which has in the past divided a certain section of the trade union movement. As a piece of policy I think it would have been a profound mistake. What we have done in the Ministry has been our policy throughout—wherever possible to encourage the introduction and extension of the system. I am glad to say that by these methods we have secured considerable extensions. I hope the men who are working it will make their influence felt amongst their fellows who are prejudiced against it, so that the prejudice against it will be entirely removed, and so that we shall succeed in getting that system made the general practice in many of our munition industries. My hon. Friend asked me if I could tell him, on the question of cost, what estimates were prepared, and how far these estimates have been exceeded. The figures given to the House by my right hon. Friend, when he was questioned on this point, was that £14,000,000 represented the cost of the 12½per cent. bonus, so far as it was applicable to those classes for which the Ministry of Munitions is responsible. That is the best figure I can give. That figure remains so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned. The estimate we have made of £14,000,000 is one which I have no reason to cast any doubt upon.
      Mr. ROCH: What is the meaning of that? When the hon. Gentleman says £14,000,000, is that the total cost in the controlled establishments?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not quite mean that. The £14,000,000 represents the estimate of the expense of the bonus to the time-workers.
      Mr. HOLT: Does that mean time-workers paid by the Ministry of Munitions or those paid also by the Admiralty?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The whole body of time-workers who are working for the munitions industries. In addition, there are the piece-workers. As my hon. Friend knows, arrangements for dealing with the piece-workers are in the hands of the Ministry of Labour. I have not seen, nor am I able to give, an estimate of what the cost there will be; but I will speak to my right hon. Friend at the Ministry of Labour, and can then let the House have the figures. The figures which have been given, and to which my right hon. Friend refers—£120,000,000, £150,000,000, or £2,000,000,000, must have come from "Alice in Wonderland" They have absolutely no relation to anything proposed or anything that has been done. Where they have come from I do not know.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Has there not been an official statement that the Government have formed an estimate of £40,000,000 by the inclusion of the pieceworkers?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not seen that figure. As far ts the Ministry is concerned, it has been dealing only with the time-workers. For those, the estimate is £14,000,000. I have not seen the estimate of £40,000,000 to which my hon. Friend opposite refers, but I cannot believe that the inclusion of the piece-workers now under the Ministry of Labour would account for the difference between £14,000,000 and £40,000,000. If, however, I had known that that point would be raised I should have been prepared to meet it.
      Mr. ROCH: I am sorry to interrupt. The point the right hon. Gentleman has enumerated, the time-workers, to whom this was intended to apply. Is not the essence of the criticism, however, that the result of this was that it would, and did, in practice, apply to a great many others? Surely it is not now only a matter of esti-

      553
      mate! He must have had the actual practical working, and there ought not, therefore, to be any difficulty in giving us the actual cost rather than estimates.
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not think it would be reasonable to expect an exact figure until the scheme has been in operation for some considerable time. After all, these are not payments made directly by the Ministry; these payments have to be made by a large number of firms throughout the country. It is not, therefore, practicable to give a more exact figure than I have given.
      Mr. ROCH: I rather want the hon. Gentleman to set at rest the suggestion that it has been done without consultation with the War Cabinet—I refer to the important statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes). I should like to have that settled.
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I was not in the House when my right hon. Friend opened his case, and I did not know the subject would come on so early. It is true that I only gave the interests represented on the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend asked me whether the War Cabinet was consulted. I believe that question has already been answered in the statement made by the Minister in answer to a question. The War Cabinet was, in fact, consulted, and the case was entrusted to Lord Milner and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars.
      Mr. ROCH: Were both these Reports before them?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Certainly. The two Reports of the Committee were before them. I think I have dealt with all the points raised except one general point. My hon. Friend asked what effect this 12½per cent. bonus had had on the production in which the Ministry is particularly interested? It is always difficult to attribute a particular effect to a particular cause. Still, I can make this statement, that the last half-year's output, when the 12½per cent. bonus was operative over a portion of that period, showed an increase. In the production of guns the increase was 48 per cent. as compared with the previous six months' output, when the 12½per cent. was not operative at any time. The increase in the production of machine guns was 20 per cent. The increase in the production of aeroplanes was 42 per cent.
      Mr. ROCH: Is that comparing like with like, may I ask?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Oh, yes. The increased production of aeroplane engines was 68 per cent., and the increase in the production of shipbuilding material was 25 per cent. If you take these increases over that period in conjunction with what I have said as to the present position, which must be shown in the increased production, I think it is clear that whatever the effect the 12½ per cent. bonus has had, you cannot say it has interfered with production. I claim that when the criticisms which have been largely personal and almost entirely concentrated on detail and method have been swept away and when you get down to the thing that really matters in connection with this much-controverted subject, that the 12½per cent. will show that we have got through a condition of industrial change, almost amounting to an industrial revolution, without serious difficulty and in a way thoroughly creditable to the common-sense of the great masses of munition workers, and not, as I think, discreditable to the Ministry of Munitions.
      Mr. PRINGLE: My hon. Friend has made a statement which has cleared up a large number of points in regard to the much-debated 12½ per cent. increase originally suggested by the Ministry of Munitions, but subsequently adopted by the War Cabinet. I think he has made out a very good case for his Department. I think, further, that a great deal of the criticism which has been made against that Department would not have been made had it not been for the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars in Glasgow. We know exactly what occurred on the day following that speech. We know that the right hon. Gentleman came down here in a white sheet and admitted that instead of attacking the Minister of Munitions he ought to have included himself as one of the objects of criticism. While the right hon. Gentleman was contrite in that sense, he did not withdraw any of the criticisms he had made. "I ought not to have said that the Minister of Munitions' butted in,'" he said, "but that 'we butted in" While he admitted that on the thirteen occasions to which he referred to the Minister of Munitions he ought to have said the War Cabinet, nevertheless he did not withdraw any of the criticisms which

      555
      in substance he had made to the proposal. For example, he said, "I have always been against encouraging time-work. I believe that if I had been dictator at the beginning of the War I would have put everybody on piece-work." In saying this he ignored the fact that he himself has taken an extremely remunerative time-job. I think he would have had some difficulty in persuading the other members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, having his example before them, with one accord to have gone upon piece rates. There is only one point in the question which my hon. Friend put to-day that has not been answered. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Munitions Department said that the whole question had been completely answered on the 14th January, but his speech this afternoon has shown that that official reply was, to put it mildly, very inaccurate. There was one point, however, which was omitted. The question put was, "Whom did the War Cabinet consult before giving the original advance to skilled workers, and before making an extension to semi-skilled and unskilled workers?' My hon. Friend has answered the first part of the question. He has told us whom they consulted before making the original advance to skilled workers, but he has not told us whom they consulted before making the extension. I had hoped that in the course of the very full statement which my hon. Friend has just made that he would have been able to deal with that point also.
      There is only one other point which I wish to raise in connection with this Vote, and I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to reply. I raised the question of Secret Service earlier this afternoon. I have ground for believing that the Ministry of Munitions employs the Secret Service. I want to know to what extent they do so employ that Secret Service? I want to know also whether the secret agents whom they employ do not in effect provoke strife, increase disaffection, and add to the discontent which undoubtedly prevails. I have grounds for believing that in the case of the celebrated strike in Glasgow, which led to certain deportations, that the greater part of the trouble was made by two men who subsequently disappeared, and of whom all trace has been lost. That, I think, is an established fact. I know that at that time the Ministry of Munitions were very dis-
      556
      inclined to take even Members of Parliament into their confidence owing to the tainted sources of information. It is very important that we should have a clear understanding at the present time, because, although as my hon. Friend says, there are not many actual strikes going on, there is a good deal of what may be called ferment which might at any time lead to trouble. It is of the utmost importance that while there is such ferment that the Ministry of Munitions itself should not be employing persons who may precipitate trouble. I have information at my disposal which enables me to make, this statement; that at a recent meeting in connection with the engineers one of the speakers was a Secret Service agent of the Ministry of Munitions. I quite agree that it may be important to get information of as reliable a kind as possible, and that it may be necessary to employ Secret Service agents. But I think that in no case ought any secret agent of the Ministry of Munitions to be a man who is himself addressing the workers and fomenting discontent. We ought to have an undertaking from the Ministry to this effect, that from whomsoever they obtain reports they ought in no case to have in their service a man who is acting as an agitator, or who is apparently, to his fellows, playing the part of an agitator. I am certain that the trouble which has taken place would not have arisen in many cases but for the fact that these secret agents have played the part of stimulating action as against wiser counsels by those who are not paid servants of the Government. I ask that we should have an assurance that no man from whom the Ministry obtain information should be a, speaker or agitator addressing public meetings and trade unions.
      Mr. ANDERSON: I think the Parliamentary Secretary has certainly made out a very good case indeed in regard to the 12½ per cent. A great deal of nonsense has been talked about that matter, not so much on the actual merits, but for political purposes in certain quarters intended to damage certain persons. I think the abolition of leaving certificates, which was the first act of the present Minister of Munitions, averted a tremendous amount of industrial disturbance and tumult in this country, and that in itself was undoubtedly a safety valve in regard to the industrial situation. The great bulk of what has been said about the 12½ per cent. never would have been said but for the

      557
      speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) in Glasgow, because that was about the first time in history that a Labour representative; has raised a serious objection to an increase in the wages of working people.
      The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the question of payment by results, and he said that the Ministry found a difficulty in setting up the principle of payment by results because there is a deep-rooted suspicion in regard to it in the minds of many of the workpeople. Some hon. Members may think that astonishing, but it is not in the least astonishing when you know the history of the matter. I do not know how far we might set up this principle of payment by results all round, because if it were applied all round there might be very astonishing consequences. If we were to pay all the members of the present Administration by results, the pay might be very scanty and slight in a good many cases. The real reason why the workers have a deep-rooted objection to payment by results is that time and again employers have fixed piece rates, and then there has been a speeding up in regard to those wages, after which the piece rates have been revised and cut down, and the workers have had to work harder than ever for the old wage. Until you get that suspicion out of their minds you will not be able to apply this new principle without serious consequences.
      The only other point is that which is mentioned by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle). There is no doubt that in the minds of many workpeople there is the suspicion—indeed, it is a conviction—that secret agents are being very widely employed at the present time by the Ministry of Munitions or some other Department, and that conviction is very widely prevalent. It is believed that some of those agents are playing a part of provocative agents. They make the wildest kind of speeches, and disappear when the trouble comes. We have had some evidence of that, and we have seen in other directions the provocative agent used. I hope that, so far as possible, an end will be put to that. No doubt we shall have difficulties in regard to overstrain, food shortage, and the emotion and strain of the War itself; and, in view of all this, the Minister of Munitions ought not to add to its troubles, but should try to reduce any friction of that kind to the lowest possible limit.
      Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: In regard to this 12½ per cent., I wish to ask a question relating to clerical employment. I want to know whether it is the case or not that, directly or indirectly, any clerical employés, either in controlled firms or directly employed by the Government, have had the advantage of the 12½per cent. conceded to the workmen? I want to know what has been the attitude of the Ministry on this point in controlled establishments.
      Major HILLS: I am very glad to have this opportunity of removing a misunderstanding. The 12½ per cent. bonus has been attacked on two grounds. In the first place, it was argued that it need not have been granted at all, and, secondly, that it was granted without due consideration. There may be other grounds for attacking this proposal, but certainly those are not substantial grounds, for there never was a grant of increase of wages that rested upon a better basis, and there never was a grant made after fuller consideration. Since the War the skilled man in industry has fallen behind his lesser skilled colleague, although the latter was a man whom he had taught. This, of course, was an injury to the skilled man in many ways, and when the Commission on Industrial Unrest considered the matter seven members out of the eight members reported that the skilled man's grievance was the cause of industrial unrest and ought to be remedied. By that time you had established the fact that the skilled man had a grievance. The same Commission unanimously reported in favour of the withdrawal of the leaving certificate and of regranting to labour the power to bargain. When my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Munitions came into office he had those two concrete facts to deal with. All the employers and those who ought to know were very insistent on the point that the withdrawal of leaving certificates would have a bad effect, but we must take our minds back on this point to last July and August, when the withdrawal was in contemplation and consider things as they were then. All the employers and many others who were concerned in this matter believed that production would suffer when leaving certificates were withdrawn, and my right hon. Friend had to deal with that grievance, and, being in charge of a large Government employing Department, it was recognised that that Department

      559
      ought to be a good employer. On the second head the right hon. Gentleman had to prevent the loss of production which might be expected by the migration of labour.
      The first point I wish to make is that the ease for 12½per cent was a strong one. It is said that the actual solution which the Government adopted, based on the Report of the Committee of which I was the chairman, was a wrong solution, and we were told that instead of giving an advance of a certain percentage it should have been made conditional on the man receiving it Consenting to go on piece-work. I could not appreciate the force of that argument. On the Committee we were very much pressed to make the advance conditional in that way, and at first sight there seemed to be a good deal to be said for that argument. There is no doubt that by piecework you get better results and increased production, but when I came to examine the question more closely I found it was impossible to do that. First of all, you cannot carry through a system of piecework in this way, because it cannot be done centrally and it must be done locally. To try and impose a system of piece-work from the top would, I am convinced, have done more harm than good, and nothing that has happened since has changed my opinion.
      You have also to consider the historical and sentimental objections to piece-work. My Committee sat for a long time, and, after careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that that condition was impracticable. It is said that nobody was consulted, and that this thing was rushed through and done by the action of a single Minister. I think the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary has disposed of that. I cannot imagine more consultation taking place on any question. I believe that I was present at most of the consultations, and certainly they were extremely numerous, protracted, and argumentative. I do not in the least pretend that opinion was unanimous, but the subject was thrashed out to the bottom, and when the matter came before the War Cabinet they had before them all the materials for making up their minds, and I am satisfied that they came to a right decision. After all, you must look at what the advance has done. First of all, through the abolition of the leaving certificates, you have got a largely increased production. Production now, admittedly, is far greater than
      560
      it was six months before the advance was made. In the second place, we have got through the autumn and winter without grave industrial disturbance. It was prophesied last summer that there would be widespread disturbance in the autumn of last year. Fortunately, that did not occur. The high price of food, profiteering, and so on, were accumulative causes, and it was anticipated that they would lead to widespread disturbance in the autumn of last year. That did not occur, and now we have a state of labour which any fair-minded man must admit is far better than it was this time last year. I would ask any Member of this House to look round the country and to carry his mind back to May of last year. He must admit that the present position of labour is far more satisfatory than it was this time last year. I have dealt with the two main items of attacks on the 12½per cent. bonus.
      There is, of course, the question of the cost. I quite admit that the advance cost more than I intended and anticipated. I thought that it could be controlled in a narrower circle, and that if it were given to a few men it need not be extended more widely. I frankly admit that I was wrong. In practice, it was found that the advance could not be confined to the class for whom it was originally intended. Still, those people who cry out about profiteering and blame labour for pressing demands for increased wages seem to me to forget that the War has made everything more valuable. All employers who started the War with a large stock of goods suddenly found that the War had made their stocks more valuable. A landlord with timber on his property, which before the War would have hardly paid for cutting, suddenly found that he had a very valuable asset in his possession. The War has made labour much more valuable. All figures of wage movements are large when you see them, but the wage bill of the country is a large bill, and a figure which looks big individually is not big when compared with the whole of the labour bill of the country. I am convinced now, after all the criticism that has been levied, and after all that has been said about the advance and that can be said, that my right hon. Friend was perfectly right in advising the advance and that the War Cabinet were perfectly right in granting it.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I should like, as representing a large industrial con-

      561
      stituency, to express the satisfaction with which I heard the Parliamentary Secretary and the last speaker refer to the splendid spirit which is being displayed by our industrial workers and also the tribute which has been paid to the value of labour and to the desirability of securing better remuneration for labour in these strenuous times. Reference has been made to the fact that there is undoubtedly a certain ferment in certain districts. I have had some evidence of that from certain quarters, and I am bound to say that the ferment seems to be to be due to some extent to a failure on the part of the Government to recognise, when they did take this step to make the advance, the necessity of seeing how far that step was going to lead them. I have had many representations made to me that, having committed themselves to that policy, they delayed unduly dealing with the difficult questions which were bound to arise and which might have been anticipated. That has created, not unnaturally, a certain amount of irritation in certain districts. I am glad to think that it has been now, to a large extent, allayed by the action that has been taken.
      There were, in addition, other conditions creating unrest which were referred to by the Industrial Commissioners in their Report. I represent a district in which the housing conditions are absolutely deplorable. We have again and again in the middle ward of Lanarkshire asked for the provision of better housing accommodation during the War in order to remove a constant source of grievance and of acute irritation to the workers themselves. I regret that there has not been that disposition shown that I would have liked to have seen on the part of the Minister of Munitions to meet that particular case. I have had to make very repeated representations on the subject, and it is only practically within the last month that even an additional modified scheme of 250 houses has been allowed for the whole of that large populous district, the middle ward of Lanarkshire. I want to warn my right hon. Friend, who I know is anxious to be sympathetic if he can, that the conditions of housing in certain industrial districts in Scotland are really such that it cannot be surprised if the workers themselves display their irritation and their annoyance unless something is done. I tell him that I receive resolutions from my Constituents in that district again and again indicating that unless something is done imme-
      562
      diately there will be serious trouble. It is undoubtedly a condition of affairs that can be relieved, and the Minister of Munitions ought to carefully consider it. I admit that in one or two districts they have provided very limited schemes of housing. In Scotland we felt that they might have gone a great deal further with their Barrow-in-Furness scheme than they were willing to go at the time, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman now will recognise that this is a matter of the most serious importance, and that he will go as far as he possibly can during the War to remove this grievance of the workers. I believe that our Scottish workers are sound at heart. If they are taken in the right way, they will give the best possible labour. They are loyal, and they are hard workers, but they are often placed in conditions of life which are almost intolerable, and amongst those conditions I place particularly the housing question. I should like, therefore, to receive some assurance from my right hon. Friend that not only will there be a very limited effort made to deal with this particular evil in Scotland at the present time, but that every sympathy will be shown when claims are put forward for additional housing accommodation in the large industrial centre to which I have referred.
      The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr.Churchill): I gladly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which ho asks. Everything that is within the scope of the limited and narrowing resources of wartime conditions will be done to remove the excessive congestion and overcrowding which has developed in munition areas, and which to a very large extent in some areas is heritage of pre-war days. My hon. Friend will realise that we have reached a phase in the struggle in which material, even more than labour, becomes the limiting factor, and, in regard to housing, the particular kind of labour is also very severely drawn upon. We have the greatest difficulty in meeting the urgent claims which are made upon us for the improvement of the housing conditions, having regard to the even more imperious demands for works and construction connected with the development of the Air Service, steel works, and every service directly associated with the War. Still, as far as action is possible, it shall be taken, both in the direction of semi-permanent and of permanent dwellings. We shall lose

      563
      no opportunity of extending the policy of relieving the excessive pressure which has been created. That the pressure will continue to be severe is unhappily certain when we consider that the population of this country has been increasing, that emigration has been stopped, and that housing has been completely arrested during the whole period of the War. It is inevitable that we are confronted with an ever lengthening vista of difficulties in regard to the day-to-day problems of the housing of the working classes. That will undoubtedly furnish one of the great and immediate post-war works to which the labour and energy of the demobilised industries and of those who are with the military forces can be directed. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), a little earlier in the Debate, asked about the maintenance of a Secret Service Department at the Ministry of Munitions. It is no more. It came, I think I may say, to a timely end many months ago. A portion of its duties was transferred to the police, and a portion to the military authorities. The Ministry of Munitions has no Secret Service Department of any sort or kind anywhere.
      Mr. ANDERSON: I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does it mean that the War Office is now using in the old way the same agents for the same purpose, and is working in conjunction with the Ministry of Munitions?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I do not think that is so. I am sure it is not so, but obviously questions on that point should be addressed to the Department which is responsible.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that at the present time the Ministry of Munitions receives secret reports from agents formerly employed by them, and who are now in the employment of another Department?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of that. We receive a great volume of reports from the whole field of the munitions industry. Some, no doubt are confidential, but I am not aware whether any of the reports are from the particular source to which the hon. Member refers. I am informed that the clerical employés —and I wish to say this in answer to the hon. Member for Derby—in controlled establishments do receive a benefit according to their scale of pay, and it
      564
      bears a certain relation to the 12½per cent. on their wages, but it finally disappears as higher scales of pay are reached.
      Sir W. COLLINS: And as to those directly in the employment of the Ministry of Munitions.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: It is very difficult to say offhand, but those under Civil Service rules are on a different basis altogether. I will inquire into that point. I did make inquiry into my hon. Friend's question, and the answer I have given does not, perhaps, completely cover it.
      Before I sit down I should like to impress one point upon the Committee and upon those outdoors. We read in the newspapers repeatedly about strikes, and officials and Members of Parliament and others who are concerned with our production are always getting news of strikes and disturbances and fermentation in the great world of munition labour. But we forget the vast area which continues to work day after day, week after week, and month after month with absolutely unbroken regularity, and with ever increasing efficiency and skill. It is a great pity that the nation and other countries should not realise the widespread and unswerving loyalty and resolution with which the production of munitions is being maintained by the 2,500,000 or 3,000,000 men and women continually engaged upon it, or that there should be any fear in the mind of the public, or of those who are their guides in public criticism, that the whole mass of labour is swaying uneasily in that field of industry, and that there is a general air of discontent and laxity of purpose throughout this great area. Nothing could be more erroneous.
      I have had the figures very carefully analysed for the last six months. I have had the number of days that could have been worked multiplied by the number of workers, and I have compared it with the figure of the number of days lost by strikes, multiplied by the number of strikers. The results are astonishing. I very much doubt whether there is anyone who would not be surprised at them. I have asked Members repeatedly what percentage of time they think has been lost by strikes in munition work during the last six months, and the reply has been five, ten, and fifteen per cent., or even more. What are the facts? The loss has

      565
      been less than one-fourth of one per. cent. of the time worked during the last six months over the whole munition areas covering all parts of the United Kingdom and every branch of war production. Considerably more than the whole year is worked by munition workers for one day lost by strikers. Is not that an amazing figure? Such a percentage in any business in the world would be considered almost negligible, and hardly to come within the range of business calculation. It is perfectly true that a day lost by strikes does much more harm than can be recovered in two or three days' work, because of the dislocation caused by the delay in other stages of production. I admit, too, that my figures do not include a certain element of slackness, which, at certain points, very limited and very local, has made itself apparent. But surveying the figures in their entirety, does it not give a feeling of great encouragement and a sense of great security and solidity in regard to these branches of our war production?
      If it were not that the percentage of time lost by strikes and disturbances due to strikes were kept within these extremely narrow limits, how could we be getting the immense output we are now drawing from every conceivable quarter? Our imports are continuously reduced by the need of feeding our Allies and ourselves. Our skilled men are continuously being sent away to the Army. We are continually asked to release men for the service of the armed forces, and have been doing so by thousands and scores of thousands. Nevertheless, although dependent more and more upon dilution, and on the efficient and better organisation of production, our output is steadily increasing, whether it be in guns, or shells, or aeroplanes, or shipbuilding material. Those great lines of production are expanding and growing by the energy of a contented and highly skilled labouring population, employed continually under conditions which enable them to release the greatest volume of output, and I look forward with confidence to the next six-monthly period, when, in spite of shrinkage in many of the materials on which we are dependent, and consequently greater difficulty, in spite of the continued release of men for the Army, I say I look forward confidently to supplying the forces in the field and in the shipyards with a still greater increase than that which has marked the past six months.
      566
      Let it be realised, although we have great difficulties, although undoubtedly the aspect of labour and its interests require most unceasing vigilance and attention from all concerned to-day, the measured determination of the country is to continue and increase the war output, and you cannot possibly study the detailed conditions of munition labour without deriving the greatest possible encouragement and confidence from that study.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
      Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Expense of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the production of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, Ministry of Munitions, and Indian and Colonial Governments, etc."

      MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Shipping."
      Mr. HOLT: I want to get a little more information upon this Vote. If one looks at it as it appeal's on the Paper one may well feel mystified and astonished at the way in which the financial business of this country is conducted. The Vote purports to ask for a sum of £100, whereas it is, in fact, asking for a sum of £95,000,000, and it informs us that that sum, less exactly £100, has been collected from some person or other, but the method of its collection and the person from whom it has been obtained is left to our imagination. The Vote deals with a sum of £100, and says nothing about the way in which the 95 millions has been spent, although there is a footnote which tells us that the Vote will be accounted for by the Ministry of Shipping as far as possible under the sub-heads contained in the original Estimate. That seems to intimate that a certain amount of money included in this Vote is going to be dealt with in a way absolutely unknown. This does

      567
      seem a peculiar way of doing business, and I want to get a little bit more information from the Minister in charge. First of all, I should like to ask precisely what is being paid for out of the £95,000,000 Does it include the cost of supplying transports for the purposes of the Army and Navy, or is the expense of hiring these vessels included in the Army and Navy Estimates? I want to know, further, whether the £95,000,000 includes the hire of vessels which have been employed in the service of our Allies? I want to know, if it includes all the vessels which are being used by the British Government for various purposes? I want to be told quite clearly from which the Appropriations in Aid have come? What is the source from which this £95,000,000 Appropriation in Aid has been derived? I suppose it is the freights which have been charged by Government Departments for the carriage of goods by vessels which have been requisitioned by the Ministry of Shipping, and I presume also it includes money paid to us for the same purpose by our Allies. At any rate, for the purposes of my remarks, I shall assume these subjects are included in these charges and receipts.
      8.0 P.M
      Anybody who had these accounts put before them would, looking at them, be inclined to ask whether the business of the nation with respect to shipping is being properly conducted. This Vote tells us absolutely nothing. I suppose at some future date we shall be given a fuller account; but I would like to ask this, will the amounts which have been spent on these different services be shown separately, and will the money which has been received from these different sources also be shown separately? Will, in fact, the accounts for the different lines of steamships that the Government are now running be shown separately? One interesting point to be noticed is the way in which freights have been raised since the Government took control of the shipping of this country. Before that event took place the ears of the public were filled with denunciation of shipowners as profiteers and extortioners, and one might have supposed that when the Government got control of the shipping it was going to prevent any further extortionate charges being made on the public. But the reverse has been proved to be the case. I have here a Report published by the Liverpool Steam-
      568
      ship Owners' Association—a very careful authority—showing what the difference in freights is. It compares those charged by the shipowners a year ago with those charged by the Government to-day. I find, for instance, that for homeward cargoes, freights from New York have been raised from 78s. to 108s.; from the River Plate, from 110s. to 200s.; from Calcutta the rates are stationary, 240s. From the North Pacific they have been raised from 200s. to 500s., but I do not imagine that these are other than purely nominal figures, in view of the small amount of traffic. From Cape ports from 120s. to 220s; the Mediterranean, from 100s. to 150s.; China, from 112s. to 160s.; and when you get to cotton I am told the freight on North American cotton has risen some 2.30 cents to 6.35 cents, roughly speaking, 2d., and on Egyptian cotton from 2.66 to 4.56, again roughly an increase of 2d. per lb. It seems to me that the House ought to be informed by what authority these additional charges have been made. Take this question of cotton. If you raise the freight on cotton by 2d. a pound, that represents, roughly speaking, though not quite, £20 a ton. That approximates not very far from the total value of the ship. It would not be the total value of the ship now, but very near it; and that for a voyage lasting only a comparatively small amount of time—something from three to five weeks, I suppose, at the outside. That seems a very high charge, and I want to know why it is made, and why the consumers of cotton in this country should, by the Government, and by the decree of the Government alone, be made to pay something like 2d. more a pound for the goods than when they got their freight through, as we were given to understand, the extortionate shipowner. As far as I can understand this account—and, as I have said, it shows little or nothing—it appears to indicate that the Government having taken over the shipping trade are carrying it on at something like a loss. I do not know whether that is true or not, but it appears to be something like a loss. Again I refer to the Report of the steamship owners, and they tell me this:
      "Definite figures are not yet available, but the probabilities are that the Exchequer is getting substantially less from the receipts of the whole of the earnings of the shipowners" businesses under State control than it would have received from shipowners in Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty if these businesses had remained under their own control."

      569
      As far as my own personal experience in the matter goes, I believe that is correct. I believe that what the Government have done in taking over the shipping will put the country in a worse position than it would have been in—and I am speaking purely from a financial point of view—if they had left the shipowners alone, and had taken the taxation authorised by Parliament from them. I think we ought to have that point made clear, so. that the House should know whether the nation is making, financially, a profit or loss on this transaction. If I am right in thinking that the accounts are not coming out very much more than square, I think we are entitled to say that either the Ministry of Shipping have mismanaged this business or else that considerable misrepresentations have been made to the public as to the character of the profits that the shipowners were making. One or the other appears to me to be necessarily true, and I think we ought to get information on that subject. I will remind the Committee the hon. Gentleman (Sir L. Chiozza Money), in answer to a question, said that it was not the intention of the Ministry of Shipping to make a profit out of the running of the steamers, and I believe that assurance is being kept to. If so, that would seem to indicate again that the Government are losing by it. Another thing I want to know about is whether the money we are asked for includes payments for all the ships that have been lost by enemy action, and for the repairing of war damages? I want to know whether the £95,000,000 which we are being asked to vote includes payments for war risks, loss by enemy action, and payments for repairs? Of course the hon. Gentleman understands, but the House may not understand, that by requisitioning the steamers the Government has taken over the liability of damage by the enemy, and I think to that extent the steamship owners will find themselves very considerable gainers. The matter of repairs is a very important one from the point of view of the Government, because all the time that ships are being repaired hire is going on. Repairs, so far as I know at the present time, are going on very badly indeed. They are being conducted with nothing like the dispatch they ought to receive, and I hope we shall get some assurance from the Minister that the Government are going to take very
      570
      serious steps to see that the repair of ships is carried on with much more expedition than it is at present.
      I also want to know by what authority freights are settled and on what basis? Here, I think, we come to a question of rather serious constitutional importance, for if the Government could requisition all the shipping of the country—or, indeed, all the goods in any other trade—and proceed to charge for the use of that property whatever they like, they are then in a position to levy taxes without the authority of Parliament, and, as I have tried to point out to the Committee, the Government have raised the freight on cotton by 2d. a pound, which appears to me to be substantially the same thing as placing an Import Duty on raw cotton of 2d. in the pound. They could not have established an Import Duty without coming to this House for authority to do so, and I confess to finding it difficult to understand what constitutional right the Government has to raise freights in such a manner as, in fact, to place an Import Duty upon a certain article. When we come to another public service which the Government conduct in the matter of trade—that is to say, the Post Office—we find that the charges which the Post Office make are regulated by an Act of Parliament. It was necessary, in order to raise the rates of postage, as was done for war purposes, to get an Act of Parliament for that purpose, and, therefore, I cannot help thinking that there ought to be an Act of Parliament of some sort or other to enable the Government to levy any charges whatever for the use of ships which they are hiring out to the general public. Of course, the same remark applies really to the whole policy of buying and selling goods, but i must confine myself to the matter raised by this particular Vote. Who settles these freights? Are they settled by the mere ipse dixit of the Ministry of Shipping, or is there any sort of consultative body? What is the principle on which freights are being settled? I have talked to people about it, and I have heard people say, "Well, why should not the Government make a large profit out of this carrying trade? After all the working classes do not pay taxation as they should do, and this is a very easy way of rendering indirect taxation without anybody knowing anything about it." I am not saying that is a remark that has been made to me by any official of the Ministry of

      571
      Shipping, but I have had it made to me by people trying to defend the conduct of the Government in making a large profit out of this business. I have heard it suggested as a means of making foreigners pay.
      Then I want to know who decides what goods are going to be shipped? For instance, who is the person who decides that we are not to be allowed to have China tea, but that we are only to be allowed to have India or Ceylon tea? Is that a decision taken in the Ministry of Shipping, or is it a decision taken in the Ministry of Food? I have heard it defended on the ground that it was due to the shortage of tonnage. That, of course, could not be a defence at all, because a very considerable quantity of China tea could be brought into this country with precisely the same amount of tonnage as is used to bring Colombian tea, because the ships come empty from China to Ceylon in order to load Ceylon tea. I want to know why it is that when we are short of tonnage and food, a large amount of shipping under Government control is being used to bring tobacco to this country. It seems to me rather a monstrous thing that tobacco should be brought hero when people are short of food. It is quite as bad, at any rate, as bringing alcohol. Those are points on which I should like to have some information from the Ministry. I want also to know something about our relations to our Allies in the question of putting ships at their disposal. I want to know on what basis our Allies pay hire. Are the Allies paying to the Government the same hire which the shipowners receive? We have had some reason to think that in a good many cases the Allies are being charged freights very considerably in excess of what is afterwards paid to the British shipowners. There were some very interesting questions put to the hon. Gentleman a little time ago by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Sir W. Runciman) as to certain deficiencies between the rate of freights on the bill of lading and the rates paid to the shipowners, and we rather got the impression that the reason was that the same rates of freight were being charged to everybody, and in order to do that and make a profit out of the Allies it was necessary to make the figure very much higher than the amount paid over to the shipowners. I should also like the hon. Gentleman to tell me, if he can, what
      572
      are the rates of hire paid by our principal Allies, France, Italy, and America, for their own ships. What is the rate of hire paid by the French Government to the French ship, by the Italian Government to the Italian ship, or by the American Government to the American ship, and is that rate of hire the same as that paid by the French Government for a British ship? I think we ought to know that.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. Member an amount of latitude which I am sure he will appreciate, but he is now really dealing with this as though it were absolutely the original Estimate. I should imagine from what I have already heard that he has. covered all the possible ground, and I must ask him to recollect now that this is a Supplementary Estimate, and that we cannot go back on the position on which the original Estimate was based.
      Mr. HOLT: I do not want to go into the original Estimate if I can help it, but the Supplementary Estimate is in such a form that I really do not know what is in it and what is not. I trust, therefore, you will excuse me, Sir Donald, if I go, inadvertently, too far.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out that it is obviously based, as the note states, on the sub-heads shown in the original Estimate, and although I do not know how far this increase goes— because the original Estimate was a Token Vote—how far the sum now asked for by the Ministry exceeds what they had in mind when the Committee and the House passed the Token Vote. There was a discussion on the Token Vote on the general position which is now being dealt with by the hon. Gentleman. He will now quite understand what I mean. I do not want to take any pedantic position, but I am sure he will not go into any unnecessary detail.
      Mr. HOLT: I certainly will not go into it any further. I quite appreciate the way in which you, Sir, have treated the matter. I admit frankly that I am in difficulties through not being able to realise, from the form of the Vote, when I am inside and when I am outside the lines of order. That being so, I will not pursue that line of argument. Perhaps I may assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I do not ask these questions in any spirit of hostility to himself or his Department at all. My personal relations

      573
      with them have always been most friendly, and I have very great respect for the work they have done and the spirit in which they have done it, although I personally entirely disbelieve in a great deal of their policy. I have asked for this information because I think that the whole Committee ought to be put in possession of what is going on with this very large sum of money and these very large interests, some of which, I believe, were not in the original service. I cannot state definitely whether they were or not. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me some information on the subject.
      Mr. MILLAR: I am anxious to put one question to the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the tonnage policy of the Ministry of Shipping in dealing with imports. We are aware that a large number of very important industries have been very hard hit already owing to the restriction of imports and I should like to know from my hon. Friend whether the Ministry of Shipping has powers which it can exercise directly to distinguish the classes of goods for which tonnage may be provided, and also whether the Ministry of Shipping has made any special recommendations to the Government with regard to the essential classes of goods for which tonnage ought to be provided in the first instance as against other classes of imports which are not essential or necessary to the life of the nation. I put the question to my hon. Friend because of an answer he gave in this House a week or so ago to a question which I put to him with regard to the output of beer, when he informed the House that if this was stopped it would mean something like 575,000 tons that would otherwise be available for the carriage of foodstuffs, which amounted to twenty-nine ships, each of 5,000 tons cargo capacity, making four voyages in a year. The question I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether, having made that statement in the House, and having also stated that the matter has been placed by the Ministry of Shipping repeatedly before the Cabinet, the Ministry of Shipping have any distinct policy upon the question which they are prepared to carry further? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to put this point to him, whether in this matter they have made definite estimates of the saving which could and ought to be accomplished
      574
      in their judgment as far as tonnage is at their charge, as I understand it is, and what steps they have taken to bring the necessities of the case before the Government? On an Amendment to the Address the other evening we were informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food that besides the carriage of materials for brewing, there was at the present time a great deal of importation and exportation of many other things of an extremely costly and ornamental character. He said:
      "How many ships, say working men, are engaged in carrying costly ornaments and materials for costly and expensive dress."—
      When reminded by a right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench that all those articles had been prohibited for a very long time, and could only now be admitted by Government licence, the Parliamentary Secretary continued:
      " Exactly, but licences go a long way. The figures covering oar transactions of importations and exportations show that there is a wide range covered by those licences." —[OFFICIAL REPORT,. 14th February, 1918, col. 421.]
      And he said that a great many ships were taken up by carrying that class of goods. The question I put to the hon. Gentleman to-night is: "Is it the case that there is any real comparison at all to be drawn between this class of goods— ornaments and dresses—in regard to tonnage as compared with the actual 575,000 tons which can be saved to this country by the stoppage of brewing? I submit that that statement, whether well founded or not, in no way relieves the Government from the duty of providing essential tonnage by stopping a trade which is a non-essential trade, and which is regarded by the great majority of the people of this country as a purely luxury trade. Perhaps my hon. Friend will indicate whether the Ministry of Shipping has defined its attitude on this question and how far the carriage of such articles as ornaments and expensive dresses take up any tonnage at all.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend who has just sat down for raising the question of the imports, for there are such imports into this country of certain luxury materials at this time, of which, perhaps, I may instance silk as a prominent example. It

      575
      is not uncommon for those who look at our current trade returns, and see in them evidence that we are bringing certain materials into the country, to ask why do they come at such a time when, as everybody knows, we are short of certain essential cargoes. The fact is that if my hon. Friend, or anyone else who is interested in this question, will examine the sources of those imports, he would find they come almost entirely from our neighbour and near Ally, France. They come, in the first place, because they occupy no shipping space which could be better occupied, for France no longer is in a position to sell us food or war materials, and, in the second place, because it is the only means by which France can liquidate any part of her indebtedness to us.
      Mr. MILLAR: Do they occupy any extent of tonnage as compared with such other materials as grain, and so forth?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: No, Sir; it is perfectly plain that no comparison can justly be made between the two orders of importation. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because I have often seen in newspapers, letters and articles written by persons who have not reflected upon the sources of the particular imports, and who quite honestly have come to the conclusion that the Shipping Controller or the War Cabinet was permitting the importation into this country of goods that ought not to be here. The other point is also perfectly plain. There is no comparison between the two orders of imports to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is quite impossible for anyone occupying the position of Shipping Controller to do otherwise than to look with a very jealous eye indeed upon every ton of import which comes into this country, and which is not absolutely essential, either to the food of the country or for carrying on the War. That is his general attitude. Anyone who knows the opinions of my right hon. Friend knows well that his attitude with regard to the import of materials for brewing is a very strong one indeed. He never disguises it. I might go further and say I do not think there is a man at the Ministry of Shipping who would not become a teetotaler for the duration if he could be sure that no more material was to come into the country for brewing during the rest of
      576
      the War. I cannot say more than that. So far as the figures and the facts of the case axe concerned, we have published them again and again. Of course, there may be very great differences of opinion, as a matter of judgment, as to whether or not any or all of this material ought to come in for this particular purpose.
      Mr. MILLAR: Will you take any action yourself at the Ministry of Shipping?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I hope my hon. Friend will not press me to go further than I have gone already in that direction. At any rate, there is no doubt whatever that my right hon. Friend has put all the facts very clearly indeed before those responsible for making a final judgment. My hon. Friend raised the question of tonnage priority. That, of course, is a question of the very deepest importance to the Ministry of Shipping, and from the initiation of the operations of the Ministry we have given it the very gravest attention. The final judgment in matters of imports must rest with a high authority. It is not the business of the Minister of Shipping primarily to decide what cargoes should come in, but the Ministry of Shipping is, nevertheless, a very convenient centre for the gathering together and co-ordination of opinion on the subject, and I am glad to think that from the very early days of last year we have given a very great deal of attention to this subject. It was one of the first acts of the Shipping Controller to bring prominently to the attention of the War Cabinet the possibilities and probabilities with regard to the tonnage situation during the year that has just closed. He pointed out that, the expectation of tonnage capacity being such-and-such a figure, it was necessary for the Government not to restrict imports, because that is not the real truth of the matter, but to choose just which imports should come in. The restriction of imports is performed by the enemy and not by the Government. What the Government does is, when the enemy has restricted imports, to choose which imports shall come in—whether A or B. It is very necessary that that should be clearly understood because I have so often heard it said as a criticism that the Government keep out imports. What the Ministry of Shipping has set itself to do from its very early days is to lend itself to the choosing of the right imports—those most essential to the War. In this connection we are performing the very useful process of co-

      577
      ordination. The whole of the Departments of State responsible for imports send to the Ministry of Shipping representatives who form a Committee and who study this question from month to month. We have their demand figures for imports. We put them together and compare them with the estimate of tonnage which will be available to carry the imports. We then get a figure—plus or minus. The Department then, by process of coordination, endeavours to reduce their import demands to fit the ships which we have available to carry them. If they are unable to come to a decision, the matter has to go to a higher authority—in some cases to the War Cabinet. So that the answer to my hon. Friend, when he asks who chooses what imports shall come into the country, is that the final choice rests with the War Cabinet, but that in the ordinary administration of affairs it is usually possible so to co-ordinate and select imports as to make it unnecessary to perform that final operation of coordination. If you take the first six months of the year 1918, this process, not of restriction but of selection of imports has resulted so far in this, that 94 per cent. of the selected imports consisted either of food or war materials and only 6 per cent. of civilian requirements.
      Mr. HOLT: In weight?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes. With regard to the form of this Supplementary Estimate, of course there is only one purpose which it is designed to serve. It is to secure the authority of Parliament to expend money received by the Ministry of Shipping. The form of the return is a common form in the Paper which is before us. Of course I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend when he looks at this big sum and not unnaturally asks what it is made of and where it came from. I hope he will forgive me if I do not go very greatly into detail. The £95,000,000 limit by no means represents the estimated total expenditure of the Ministry of Shipping in the current financial year. It is very far short of it. It merely represents as nearly as possible our estimate of what will be received by the Ministry of Shipping from various sources. It consists mainly of the following items: Payments by the Allied and Colonial Governments, payments to us by the Wheat and Sugar Commissions for the carriage of commodities, receipts under the liner requisition scheme, receipts of such things, for example, as sub-charters
      578
      in respect of commercial cargoes carried in transports, and certain repayments and other details which my hon. Friend will forgive me for not going into in detail.
      Mr. HOLT: Am I right in understanding that the £95,000,000 expended is in substance another Token Estimate?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes; it is in effect, but it really corresponds to what the Department understands to be the gross receipts by the Ministry to be applied as Appropriations-in-Aid during the current financial year. My hon. Friend has said something to-night, as he has done before, with regard to the charges made by the Government for the carriage of goods. The plain fact of the matter is that we carry as far as possible goods for the nation at cost price. But if we extended that principle to the carriage of goods for private merchants we should certainly not be carrying at cost price for the nation. We should be doing it for private individuals. We should be merely putting into the pockets of private individuals, sometimes merchants here, and sometimes foreign producers or foreign merchants, sums which properly belong to the nation and which could only be secured by their being taken by the Ministry of Shipping. The whole of such sums—as for example the undoubted profits as in the case of cotton —where there is profit—are, as far as possible, taken into account in the bookkeeping of the Ministry of Shipping in the endeavour to carry Government stores at cost price. That is to say, whatever outward cargoes there are or wherever the profits are made we endeavour, so far as may be, to square accounts. In the Estimate for the forthcoming financial year we put on the one side exactly the same sum as we put on the other side, because that is our honest endeavour to arrive at that figure. Whether or not we shall arrive at it we cannot tell. We shall not be able to say for some months yet until we receive the accounts of the liner requisition scheme and compare them with the charges actually made. The hon. Member compared the question of freights charged by the Ministry of Shipping with the freights charged by private shipowners as though he was comparing like with like. You cannot deal with a matter of this kind from what he calls the purely financial standpoint. If it were merely the object of the Ministry of Shipping, and if it were merely the object of

      579
      the Government, to secure excess profits, then obviously the best thing would be to throw the ships open to the free competition of the world, to allow British shipowners to get the highest freights they could in any market by carrying the cargoes which seemed best, and then get the profit for the nation in the form of Excess Profits Duty. What would be the result? The result would be that we should not get the most essential cargoes. The result most certainly would be that ships which are now trading to this country would not be trading to it at all—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will forgive me when I point out that we are dealing with the Supplementary Estimate and that he is dealing with a purely general question, for which I had to stop the hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion.
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I must obey your ruling, Sir Donald Maclean, as my hon. Friend did, and I hope I shall be excused for dealing with these very interesting subjects. I will only refer in a few words to what he said in regard to our Allies. He will understand how difficult it is for me to deal with that quite frankly here, but if he will be good enough on another occasion to put a specific question on the subject I shall be very pleased to give him the information.
      Mr. ROCH: I understand we are going to adjourn very shortly, and I hope that this Vote will not be put now, as I know there are many Members who wish to take a further part in the Debate.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am bound to put it.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
      Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Reconstruction"
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow: Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SELECT COMMITTEES APPOINTED.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.
    Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members:
    Committee accordingly nominated of Sir James Agg-Gardner, Mr. Bentham, Colonel Boles, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Rupert Gwynne, Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Hinds, Mr. J. D. Hope, Mr. Howard, Mr. Macmaster, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Rawlinson, Captain William Archer Redmond, Sir Harry Samuel, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Tyson Wilson be members of the Select Committee.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.— [Colonel Gibbs.]

    PUBLIC PETITIONS.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every separate sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
    Committee accordingly nominated of Sir William Bull, Sir James Boyton, Mr. Burt. Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Hackett, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Hughes,

    581
    Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Ronald McNeill, Sir Arthur Marshall, Mr. Mac-kinder, Colonel Pryce-Jones, Mr Reddy, and Mr. Turton be Members of the Select Committee:
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.— [Colonel Gibbs.]

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
    Ordered, That the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members:
    Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Arnold, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Blair, Mr. Brady, Sir Hildred Carlile, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Hazleton, Mr. Haslam, Sir Charles Henry, Mr. Higham, Colonel Sir Herbert Jessel, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Jowett, Sir Robert Williams, and Mr. McKinnon Wood be Members of the Select Committee.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.— [Colonel Gibbs.]
    The remaining Order was read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen, minutes before Nine o'clock.