Commons Sitting of 9 March 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following Bill, referred on the Second Heading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Great Northern Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill [Lords].
Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation (Transfer) Bill [Lords].
Henry Bath and Son's (Delivery Warrants) Act, 1890, Amendment Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Hastings Tramways Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Acts, 1861 and 1918, relating to an area drained by the River Ouse
1076
and its tributaries," presented by Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  Major BOYD-CARPENTERasked the Secretary "of State for War whether he is aware that Regular soldiers who were invited to transfer to the Royal Flying Corps and have done so, and who are now stationed in Egypt, are debarred from receiving the same treatment as warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, &c., on the married strength of an infantry unit in the same country, in that refusal has been given to the passage of wives and children of such transferred men, and that under these circumstances these soldiers are suffering from differential treatment, which is felt to be a grievance in that their period of service in Egypt has three more years to run; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with this situation?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Tryon): I have been asked to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question. At present there is no married establishment for the Royal Air Force as there is for the Army, and differences of treatment are therefore inevitable. The matter has been, and still is, under consideration.
  Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the case of men, long service soldiers, who were invited to transfer to the Royal Air Force who are at present in Egypt and are suffering from the circumstances mentioned in the question?
  Major TRYON: I am anxious to get the question settled as soon as possible. Their ease will be taken into account.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LANCASHIRE FUSILIERS (PRIVATE W. SHYRME).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for War whether the

    1077
    late Private William Shyrme, No. 64,578, C Company, 1st Battalion, Lancashire Fusiliers, was sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment for trying to obtain leave under false pretences; whether these pretences were that when on leave his mother, a widow with six children, and managing two retail shops and desirous of closing down one shop, requested him to apply fur an extension of his leave, he did so, and the usual police inquiries took place, and a promise made to secure the leave desired, yet the report sent in was business worries not urgent; whether, when ordered to return to Aldershot, he did so two hours before his leave was up yet was sentenced to the punishment stated; whether such punishment was excessive seing he had not overstayed his leave; and whether, while in prison, he was given two cold baths without reference to the state of his health, with the result that within two days he was removed to hospital, temperature 105, where he died of influenza.
    The SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I regret that my investigations in this case are not yet complete, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    DESERTION AFTER ARMISTICE.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the representations now being made by the various societies of ex-service men in favour of leniency to those soldiers undergoing terms of imprisonment for desertion after the Armistice, he will consider each such case individually to ascertain whether there may be special grounds justifying compassionate treatment; and whether these prisoners are, in any case, sufficiently punished by the loss of their gratuity?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for Plaistow and Wigan

    SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether a 20-shot automatic was given extended trials by the Army authorities in France in 1917 with highly satisfactory results and was adopted for use in the Army; whether manufacture was started on a large scale in this country in 1918;
    1078
    and whether this weapon is yet in the; hands of the troops?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Trials were carried out with a self-loading semi-automtic rifle in France in 1917. These trials were confined to ten specimens made by hand. The War Office asked for supplies of these weapons in the spring of 1918, and arrangements to manufacture were commenced. Owing to the length of time necessary to produce a rifle of this description in large standard quantities by machinery, and in view of the changed military situation, it was decided in October, 1918, to abandon the manufacture.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: Has any compensation been given to the firm?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That question must be addressed to the Minister of Munitions.

    RUSSIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether a decoration will be awarded to the officers and men who served in any of the Russian Expeditionary Forces?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Officers and men who served on the establishment of a unit with the Russian Expeditionary Forces will be entitled to receive the British Medal and the Victory Medal. In the event of clasps being awarded, they will also receive the appropriate ones.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Supposing an, officer served with Denikin, does he get a medal?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, he will get the Victory Medal and the British Medal.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is it proposed to issue a clasp for this particular expedition and for no other expedition?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole question of clasps has been the subject of the most careful investigation, and I am not prepared to deal in a piecemeal fashion with the general issue of clasps.

    COMMITTEE UPON COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Lieut.-Colonel CLAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Report of the Committee upon Courts-Martial has yet been considered by the Army Council; whether he proposes to adopt the recommendations of either the

    1079
    majority or minority Reports of the Committee; and, if so, whether the necessary Amendments will be proposed by the Government in Committee on the Army (Annual) Bill?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question it is proposed to accept the recommendations of the Majority Report with a few exceptions, and in accordance with a recommendation to that effect contained in the Report itself I have appointed two small expert Committees to draft the necessary Clauses, Rules of Procedure, King's Regulations, and other documents, and to work out certain of the proposals in detail. With regard to the last part of the question the greater part of the Recommendations in the Majority Report do not require legislation. It may be found practicable to embody the specific proposals which involve legislation in the Army Annual Bill of this year. It will not, however, be possible to deal this year with the general revision of the Army Act and scales of punishments thereunder recommended by the Committee.

    DISPOSAL BOARD.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War what is the number and cost per day of the personnel engaged in the care and maintenance of stores handed over by the War Office to the Disposal Board; whether such cost is debited against the Disposal Board; and whether systematic and periodical comparison is made between the cost of the care and maintenance of a particular dump and the estimated amount realisable therefor?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Inter-Departmental Conferences overseas are now estimating the numbers of military personnel lent to the Disposal Board in connection with the care and maintenance of surplus stores, and the Ministry of Munitions will be debited with the cost of this personnel, with effect from 1st February, 1920.
    As regards stores at Home, I would explain that there are at present depôts and dumps which contain only stores for disposal; and depôts and dumps which contain stores both for disposal and for the needs of the Army. In the former case the Ministry of Munitions become
    1080
    responsible for care and maintenance. In the latter case, as divided control is not sound, military personnel handle both descriptions of stores. It is therefore impossible to give a categorical reply to the question. The last part of the question should be addressed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it within the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that such comparisons are made and further, does not he see that unless such comparisons are made it is quite clear that there must come in the case of any particular dump a vanishing point at which the amount realisable will not cover the amount of charges?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Obviously, that would be one of the first considerations of the Ministry of Munitions with regard to any dumps handed over to them. With regard to dumps containing surplus stores for the Army, the reserves for the Army do not enter into the question, but it is possible that where other stores belonging to the Ministry of Munitions may be kept in a dump where the stores are mainly reserves for the Army the same high economy may not prevail. That is a matter which must be carefully looked into.

    LORRIES (SALE IN COLOGNE).
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army lorries, including the Thorneycrofts, recently sold in Cologne were put up to public auction and how, if this is not the case, the maximum price possible is secured for the nation: whether the profit on some of these lorries, even after removal, custody, and transport expenses are paid, is often 100 per cent.; and whether, in view of the sums involved and the criticism of the transactions in expert motor circles, greater care can be taken to realise national property to greater national advantage?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is, No, Sir. I am satisfied that the highest price would not have been secured had the vehicles been sold in Cologne by auction, and I do not agree that sale by auction necessarily secures the highest price in this

    1081
    country. I am not aware that any of the vehicles referred to have been re-sold, and I understand that the purchasers have not yet received the lorries. The greatest care is taken by the Disposal Board to ensure that surplus Government property is disposed of to the best advantage. I would remind my hon. Friend that the usual contention of the critics of the Board's transactions is that the prices obtained are excessive.

    TASKS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDERasked the Secretary for War whether the final design of the new type of tanks for the purpose of war has been decided upon; and, if so, before embarking upon the heavy expenses connected with standardisation, whether he is satisfied that they will reasonably overcome all known obstacles or methods both of attack and defence?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A stage in the design of tanks has been reached which is considered to be a distinct advance upon all earlier types, but it is in no sense regarded as the final design for war purposes Tanks are still in their youth, and as the result of research and experiment it should be possible in the future to design and produce tanks in every way superior to the latest type now in existence. While, therefore, it may be necessary from time to time to incur certain expenditure in manufacture in order that a particular design may be thoroughly tested, there is no intention of embarking upon any heavy expenditure to standardise a type that is bound to become obsolete as research and experiment proceed.

    POISON GAS.
    Mr. WATERSONasked whether the British troops in Ireland, Egypt, and India are equipped with poison gas; and whether this weapon had been used in those countries?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are stocks of gas shell in Egypt left over from the War, but not in Ireland and India. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative; a very limited amount, however, was fired away in Palestine.
    Mr. LAWSON: In view of the protest that the Allied powers made against the use of gas as a method of warfare, are
    1082
    the Allied powers considering the wisdom of abolishing gas as a recognised method of warfare?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a very important question which ought to be debated by the League of Nations. At the same time, the difficulty of preventing studies in this form of warfare, and the danger that discoveries and preparations may be made make it very necessary that we should be in a position to protect our troops against any warfare with this kind of attack.
    Mr. SHORT: Has consideration of the subject been remitted to the League of Nations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Not at this moment, because the League of Nations is still in an embryonic condition; but it is one of those subjects which must engage the attention of a great international body.

    LINCOLNSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE J. JACKSON).
    Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTSasked the Secretary for War whether he will consider releasing from the Army Isaac Jackson, No. 65,115, B Company, Lincolnshire Regiment, who enlisted at Grimsby at 17½ years of age, giving his age as 18 years, but who will not be 18 years old until 17th April, 1920, in view of the fact that his father is in' the United States of America and his mother, who is an invalid, together with five sisters and brothers younger than himself, are practically dependent upon this boy's earnings?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This case has been referred to the General Officer Commanding the Command for consideration.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (MEDAL).
    Major NALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the unfortunate impression created amongst men of the Territorial Force by withholding the overseas medal from those who have the 1914 and 1915 stars; whether the whole idea of this medal was to recognise those who, although civilians, had trained in peace time and were ready to go abroad in the first few months of war; and whether the fact that they have any other medal is irrelevant to this main point?
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the proposed Territorial Medal is being granted in recognition of the fact that officers, non-commissioned officers, and men had served for four pears prior to the War and at the outbreak of War undertook Foreign Service liabilities?
    Major BORWICKasked why active service abroad in 1914 and 1915, when it was most needed, is to disqualify pre-War Territorials from the award of that medal which is going to be given to similar men who did not go abroad till 1916?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It was originally proposed that this special medal should be granted to all Territorials who were serving on the 4th August or who had served for a period of not less than four years prior to the War and who rejoined the Force on the outbreak of War provided they undertook to serve overseas on or before the 30th September, 1914, and were passed as physically fit and accepted for service overseas. After full consideration, however, it was decided that it was undesirable that any soldier should be in a position to earn four medals for service during the War, and it was accordingly provided that those who were entitled to the 1914 or 1914–1915 Star should not participate in this award.
    Major COPE: Will this medal be granted to officers and men of the Territorial Force who volunteered in August, 1914, and did not go overseas until 1916?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. The medal is intended to meet such cases.
    Major COPE: They volunteered in August, 1914, and their services were accepted then.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Since the reply is in the affirmative what justification is there for refusing to grant the Territorial medal to those Territorials who possess the qualifications and who were specially selected to go to France in 1914 and 1915; and will, regular soldiers who have the 1914 or. 1915 Star be deprived of the long service and good conduct medal?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The decision was taken on the ground that it was not desirable to give four medals.

    INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (PAY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, considering that officers of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all drew full pay while prisoners of war, and that the scale of pay of officers of the Air Force was in some cases even higher than that of the Indian Army, he will state why officers of the Indian Army should have been alone deprived of half their staff allowance after the first two months of captivity?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): I am afraid that I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject.
    Colonel YATE: Does that mean that the reward of these men for their heroic defence of Kut is that they are to be deprived of half of their staff pay?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No. It simply means that the Indian officers receive a higher rate of pay than British officers, and I see no reason in justice why they should be given treatment substantially better than that given to British Army officers while they are prisoners of war.

    DEMOBILISATION.
    Major CAYZERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists owing to the long delays that are being experienced in the settlement of accounts for credits and war gratuities due to soldiers on their demobilisation; whether he can give an assurance that steps will be taken to expedite the settlement of these accounts:
    (2) whether, in cases where exceptionally long delays have occurred, through no fault on the part of the soldier, in the payment of credits and war gratuities due on demobilisation, interest can be allowed on the total sum due to the soldier, such interest to be charged after a period of, say, two months has elapsed from the date of demobilisation, and to be calculated from the date of demobilisation to the date of payment?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Delay in the settlement of the accounts for credits and gratuities is inevitable in the case of soldiers who have returned from India, owing to Last Pay Certificates and other necessary information being outstanding

    1085
    In these cases, provisional settlements are made and the required documents, &c, are cabled for. I am not aware of any other cases of delay. I regret that I am unable to entertain the proposal to allow interest.

    CHILWELL (STOREHOLDERS AND FOREMEN).
    Mr. BETTERTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction at present existing among the storeholders, principal foremen, and foremen at Chilwell; whether a report from the local authorities was called for on or about the 20th February; and, if so, whether he will state the purport of its contents?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: This matter is one of several in connection with this Department which are being considered at the War Office to-day. I hope it may be possible to arrive at a satisfactory settlement.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SERGEANT F. C. NEWBOLD (WAR GRATUITY).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for War whether Sergeant F. C. Newbold died in hospital on 4th September, 1918; whether his relatives have been in communication with the authorities in relation to the war gratuity due, with the result that it was admitted that.£18 10s. was the amount to be paid; whether the money is not yet paid, although the Warrington War Pensions Committee has sent three letters, which have been ignored, on the subject; and whether he will state the reason for the delay in payment, seeing that letters of administration were in the hands of the authorities as far back as 14th July, 1919?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I regret the delay that has occurred in this case. The Department is now in communication with the relatives, and I will see that a settlement is expedited.

    WOMEN TELEGRAPHISTS.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Secretary for War whether he will explain why many Post Office women telegraphists who were members of the 'Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps have
    1086
    not been paid the Army of Occupation bonus; whether he is aware that these women were forbidden by the Postmaster-General to re-enlist, under the penalty that the' period of re-enlistment would not count in respect of service for pension, leave, and marriage gratuity; and whether, seeing that these women telegraphists were soldiers on active service, he will consider the possibility of paying them a retention bonus of agreed amount to that which was paid to all men retained for the machinery of demobilisation?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No members of the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps were eligible for the Army of Occupation bonus unless they entered into the necessary engagement for further service. I regret that I am unable to make any exception to this principle.

    GRATUITIES ON DEMOBILISATION.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to reconsider the gratuities paid to men who served in His Majesty's Forces during the late War, and is he aware of the dissatisfaction of demobilised sailors and soldiers with their treatment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The scale of gratuities was settled by His Majesty's Government after careful consideration, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regrets that he is not prepared to reconsider it.
    Mr. STANTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why my question has been mangled and why the most important part of it does not appear?

    HOME TREATMENT (CIRCULAR WITHDRAWN).
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the. Pensions Minister if he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused amongst disabled men by the issue of Circular 204 (Home Treatment); and will he take steps to withdraw the circular forthwith.
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am aware that Circular 204, as originally issued on the 8th January last, caused some dissatisfaction. That circular was withdrawn and re-issued on 6th February, and I am not aware that in its amended form it has given rise to any dissatisfac-

    1087
    tion On the contrary, it has resulted in bringing to notice each man's special requirements and of securing for him the most suitable form of treatment.

  GERMAN PRESS REPRESENTATIVES.
  Mr. SPOORasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that requests to send German press representatives to London have been made to the British Government by three German newspapers of high standing and that up to a recent date no answer or even acknowledgment of these requests had been given; whether the Government had considered the question of allowing press correspondents from ex-enemy countries to visit this country; whether a decision has been reached; and what action it is proposed to take?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have received through the British representative in Berlin one application by a German newspaper for permission to send a German correspondent to this country. It is now being considered. I am not aware that any other application from a German newspaper has reached the Government. I have considered, in consultation with the proper authorities, the general question of allowing press correspondents from former enemy countries to come to this country, and have decided that if the application is made by a newspaper of standing in its own country, and the individual is not an alien whose presence in this country is undesirable, he may be admitted under suitable conditions.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: How long will the restrictions be imposed on press representatives coming from Germany?
  Mr. SHORTT: So long as the correspondents are former enemy aliens they are subject to the Act of Parliament.

  SOUDAN.
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any report from the Government of the Soudan as to the progress made with works authorised under the £6,000,000 loan of 1919; whether the
  1088
  Soudan Government is satisfied that the amount will enable it to complete the approved scheme; and if he will make representations to the Soudan Government of the urgency of the work and the consequent development of cotton growing?
  The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): Lord Allenby reported on December 6th that a great deal of work had already been done on the Sennar Dam and over one million pounds had been expended on it. The reply to the second part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, and in reply to the third part I can assure the hon. Member that the Soudan Government full realise the importance of completing the approved scheme at the earliest possible date, and representations to them on this subject are therefore unnecessary.
  Mr. SUGDEN: Can the hon. Baronet give the amount of baleage, and when does he hope to deliver in this country from the Soudan this money which is being spent?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must ask for notice of a question dealing with detail like that.

  CHINA (BRITISH MINISTER).
  Mr. FORRESTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the name of the new British Minister to China?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: The appointment of Mr. B. F. Alston, C.B., as His Majesty's Minister in China appeared in the Gazette of March 3rd.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH TRADE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the present position in Siberia and the Maritime Province; and are steps being taken to assist British merchants to open up trade with Vladivostock and other Russian ports in the Far East?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is that a recent report states that Irkutsk has been recaptured from the local Soviet by a remnant of the late Admiral Kolchak's army. General Semenoff is at present in control of Chita. A Zemstvo Government is in power in Vladivostock. With regard to the second part of the question, the present insecurity of the position, and the difficulty of communication do not lend themselves to the promotion of trade, but the matter is not being lost sight of.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is any obstacle being put in the way of trade with these important and rich districts?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly not. No avoidable obstacle is put in the way of trade with any country.

    INDUSTRIAL SITUATION.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government can confirm the reports, as published in the politico-economic organ of the Soviet Government of Russia, to the effect that the chief cause of the terrible situation of the Russian industries is the lack of all discipline and order in the factories; that the works councils and factory committees, whose function it was to establish order in the factories, have only done harm, and have destroyed the last vestige of discipline and played havoc with the plant; and that all these circumstances have compelled the abolition of works councils and the appointment at the head of the most important undertakings of dictators with unlimited powers over the lives of the workers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. LYLE: Could not the hon. Baronet possibly consider whether he could issue a statement regarding the diabolical state of affairs in Russia to-day in order to counteract the propaganda which is going on on the other side pretending that things are all right there?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    DEATH PENALTY.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government can confirm the information that, although the Soviet Govern-
    1090
    ment had declared that the death penalty had been abolished, quite recently 227 people were shot by commissaries armed with revolvers at a railway station on the Irinorskaia Railway.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have received no official confirmation of the report referred to.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the details of this wonderful revolver episode be brought to the notice of the Minister of War?

    BRITISH MISSIONS (CASUALTIES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for War whether he can make any statement with regard to the members of the British military, railway, and other missions recently in Siberia; are any of these British subjects known to have been captured by Red forces; and, if so, will any steps be taken at Vladivostock or elsewhere in the Far East to negotiate for their exchange?
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary for War whether he can give any information as to the alleged murder by the Bolshevists of certain British officers who were captured with Admiral Koltchak?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The British Military Mission, including the Railway Mission, now numbers 50 officers and 67 other ranks. It is being withdrawn at an early date, and preliminary arrangements are already in progress.
    Twelve officers and six other ranks are known to have fallen into the hands of the Bolsheviks. A report states that four of these officers have been shot by the Bolsheviks, but this has not yet been confirmed. According to a Bolshevik report the remainder were alive and well about the middle of February, but no later news has been received. Negotiations for their exchange are in progress.
    With regard to the question by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds, no British officers or men were killed by the Bolsheviks at the same time as Admiral Koltchak. A British officer was present at Irkutsk at the time, and his report on the death of the Admiral makes no mention of any such occurrence.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to get farther information about the fate of the

    1091
    four officers alleged to have been shot, and will he try to get some redress for their fate?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that these missions are being withdrawn, is there any truth in the report in the "Times" to-day that two of these officers have gone to Chetah and joined up with General Seminoff? Is that in accordance with the policy just announced?
    Mr. CAPEasked the number of casualties suffered to date by the officers and men of the British military mission with General Denikin?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The information asked for is as follows:—
    Officers.—Died of sickness, four; missing, three (one believed captured by Green Guards; two, according to Russian report, captured by Bolsheviks at Rostov and murdered); wounded, one.
    Other ranks.—Died of wounds, one; died of sickness, sixteen; missing, one (believed captured by Green Guards).
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the missing officers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not the names here now.

    SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND PEACE.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Russian Soviet Government has recently made offers of peace to the Governments of Japan, Roumania, and the United States; and whether His Majesty's Government has been consulted in the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May I ask whether it is not the usual custom to consult the other Allies before entering into negotiations, and why a deviation has been made in this case?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know that there is any universal custom in such cases. As the House knows, this was a matter for the countries concerned.

  ROUMANIA (OIL CONCESSIONS).
  Mr. ATKEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of our national need for a cheap and adequate supply of petrol, he will immediately take steps to secure for the British Government, on suitable terms, such concessions in relation to the production and export of oil as Roumania will be prepared to grant?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: The possibility of securing increased oil supplies from Roumania and other fields has not been overlooked, but no undertaking of the nature desired by the hon. Member can be given.

  TURKEY.

    BRITISH OFFICERS IN CONSTANTINOPLE.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked how many British officers are now stationed in Constantinople and how many motor cars are allotted for their use?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are 1,103 British officers in the Army of the Black Sea and the number of motor cars is 80. Without making special inquiry of the General Officer Commanding, I cannot state the actual number of officers and motor cars in Constantinople.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers who are not on the staff are beginning to write home from Constantinople and to comment on the use of military motor cars for joy riding and other non-military purposes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be glad to receive any information bearing on that point.
    Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Might not some of these cars be very useful in Armenia?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    PARACHUTES.
    Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the strongly held opinion that the casualties to our airmen during the War could have been considerably decreased, and the morale similarly increased, if parachutes had been fitted to their machines in the same way as the

    1093
    Germans were able latterly to do to theirs, he can say if parachutes are now being fitted as standard to Army machines in order to protect pilots as much as possible from the dangers of fire, collapse, and collision in the air?
    Major TRYON: I have been asked to reply to this question. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this matter is receiving very careful consideration. Arrangements have been made to provide a large number of training machines with parachutes of a standard pattern and the work in connection with the modification of existing types of fighting machines to enable parachutes to be carried is being proceeded with, but some time must elapse before all existing machines are modified in this direction. It, has also been laid down that the best method of fitting the machines with parachutes shall be considered as and when new designs are submitted.

    CIVIL PILOTS.
    Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the suggestion that in future a civilian pilot s certificate shall be obtainable only under the same conditions as are laid down for Air Force pilots, thus ensuring that by obtaining a knowledge of machinery, gunnery and aerial manœuvres these pilots will automatically form part of the reserve of the Royal Air Force and thus obviate delay or shortage of trained fighting pilots in time of emergency?
    Major TRYON: I have been asked to reply to this question. The necessary machinery for training civil pilots in gunnery or air pilotage does not at present exist, nor is the necessity for setting up special machinery to create a reserve of the character indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend an urgent matter at present, in view of the large numbers of fully trained pilots who have been demobilised. The effect upon transport firms of withdrawing their pilots for more or less lengthy periods has also to be taken into account. The question, however, is not being lost sight of.

    CHAPLAINS.
    Major BLAIRasked if the chaplains' branch of the Royal Air Force is to be continued; what is its annual cost; and whether the Army chaplains' branch could undertake the work?
    Major TRYON: The cost of air pay and allowances of permanent and temporary chaplains for the coming financial year is estimated at £25,000 and of capitation payments to officiating clergy at £4,000. A separate chaplains' service for the Royal Air Force was organised and appointments made to it shortly after the Armistice, but; the question of amalgamation with the Army chaplains' branch is being considered.

    AERONAUTICS (EDUCATION AND RESEARCH).
    Mr. CHADWICKasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he proposes to take action on the Report of the Committee on Education and Research in Aeronautics; and whether arrangements will be made for the common use of research establishments by the various interests, including industrial firms of aircraft constructors?
    Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that the recommendations of the Committee on Education and Research in Aeronautics have been approved in principle by the Air Council, and steps are being taken to give effect to them, more particularly with regard to the formation of an Aeronautical Research Committee and the provision of instruction in aeronautics at the Imperial College in connection with the Zaharoff Chair of Aviation.
    As regards the second part of the question, the results of such research carried out at Government establishments as are of interest to aircraft constructors generally, are already made available; but it would be quite impossible for industrial firms to have common use of Government Research establishments.

    AEROPLANE DISASTER IN MID-CHANNEL.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether one of the three aeroplanes lost in crossing the Irish Channel was seen to fall in the vicinity of Land's End; if he will state whether he attributes this disaster to a faulty compass or faulty navigation, or both; and what steps are being taken to prevent similar occurrences?
    Major TRYON: In regard to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, the only information I have on this subject was contained in the com-

    1095
    miniqué issued to the Press, and was to the effect that one machine was seen to descend in the sea 85 miles S.W. of the Scilly Islands. As to the second part, I regret that I am not in a position to make any further statement in regard to this most regrettable event. A Court of Inquiry is being held.
    In reply to the last part of the question, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that every endeavour has always been made, and will continue to be made, to prevent such occurrences.
    I feel that I ought to express the deep regret of all connected with the Royal Air Force at the loss of these three gallant officers.

  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.

    INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary for War whether he can state the number of soldiers who during the War have become totally deaf through shell-shock or other causes; and whether institutions will be provided for these men to be taught lip reading and useful occupations, on the lines of St. Dunstan's Hospital for the Blind, so that they may be enabled to earn their livelihood?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked to reply to this question. The number of the totally deaf cannot be stated, but approximately 30,000 men have been pensioned for deafness of greater or less degree. Medical Boards are instructed to recommend a course of tuition in lip-reading where the degree of deafness is such as to render this desirable. Lip-reading classes are held in London at the Ministry's Aural Clinic (28, Park Cresent, Regent's Park), and at 30 other centres throughout the country.
    Mr. LAWSONasked if he will state how many houses or hospitals are provided under his Department for uncertifiable cases of loss of mental balance occurring among soldiers; where are these houses situated; what is the accommodation in each; and whether it is still the policy of the War Office to retain these cases of nerve strain under military control in so-called war hospitals staffed by lunacy officials and lunacy attendants?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I assume the hon. Member is referring to accommodation for cases of mental disorder. Soldiers suffering from nerve strain are not sent to war (mental) hospitals unless the condition of the patient constitutes actual mental disorder, but are treated in neurological hospitals or neurological sections of general hospitals. There is one hospital for eases of mental disorder, namely: Lord Derby's War Hospital, at Winwick, Warrington. There are 1,000 beds in the hospital, and the number of patients at present is 741. It is still the policy to retain such cases in the hospital until they are cured, if this seems likely to occur. Otherwise, they are discharged to the care of their friends, or to appropriate institutions.

    RE-CONSTRUCTION WORK, IRELAND.
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIESasked the Secretary for War whether any steps have been taken to ensure that the money granted for works of reconstruction for the employment of ex-service men in Ireland is expended on the work for which it was intended; whether he is aware that men of no military service have been employed on such work and that ex-service men have been discharged from the works of the Royal Dublin Society whilst a civilian was retained; and whether he will give instructions that in future preference shall be given to disabled ex-service men?
    Mr. GILMOUR: All possible steps are taken to ensure that the Funds referred to are expended on the employment of demobilised soldiers and sailors. While this is so it is occasionally necessary for special reasons to employ a man who has not served in the Forces. For example, the work of painting at the Royal Dublin Society's premises is being carried out by ex-service men, but the foreman painter who has not seen service is employed on account of his exceptional experience, no similar type of man being; available.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    TROOPS IN EGYPT.
    Lieut.-Colonel M ALONEasked the number of men now in Egypt who are overdue for demobilisation; and when it may be expected that they will be able to return to England?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On 1st March, 1920, there were in Egypt 1,580 men whose demobilisation was overdue owing to a temporary shortage of shipping; of these, 68 were in hospital undergoing treatment. It was hoped that 800 would embark on March 4th, and the remainder on March 9th, 1920.

  BICYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of letters, petitions, and signatories thereon, which he has received both in favour of and against the continuation of the Order under the Defence of the Realm Regulations requiring rear lights to be carried on bicycles?
  Mr. SHORTT: Since the Lights Vehicles Order was revoked in August last, I have received numerous representations from public authorities urging the desirability of retaining the requirements of the Order as a permanent measure. These include representations from conferences of Chief Officers of Police, and individual Chief Constables. Resolutions from 42 town councils and from the Association of Municipal Corporations, from the London "Safety First" Council, the Accident Offices Association, and the Transport Workers' Federation. The only representations against the Order have been from eight cyclists' clubs (including a petition with a large number of signatures from the Cyclists' Touring Club); one resolution from an Association of Team Owners, and letters from two private individuals.

  PAPER CURRENCY (FALSE NOTES).
  Mr. DOYLEasked whether great numbers of false £1 and 10s. notes are in circulation throughout the United Kingdom; if such spurious money is coming into the country from oversea; if so, what is the country of origin; and what steps are being taken to cope with the evil at its fountain head?
  Mr. SHORTT: There have been a few cases of the uttering of false £1 Treasury notes, but it is believed that they were all made in this country and that the author of at least some of them was a person who was convicted and sentenced
  1098
  a few months ago. Though specimens of forged British notes, believed to have been printed in Russia, have been sent to this country from South Russia for identification, there is no reason to believe that spurious money is coming into this country from oversea. The forgeries were so badly done that they would scarcely have passed in England.

  POLICE (PENSIONS).
  Sir J. REMNANTasked if policemen who had retired and were in receipt of pensions previous to the Police Emergency Act were compelled on rejoining to resume their pension contributions out of their wages without getting any increase in their pensions?
  Mr. SHORTT: Those of the police in question who rejoined did so voluntarily. In order to comply with the provisions of the Police Act, 1890, a nominal deduction of 1s. per annum was made in the Metropolitan area, and I am informed a similar nominal deduction was made in other forces. The terms of rejoining did not include any increase of pension.
  Sir J. REMNANT: When the right hon. Gentleman says any other force does he mean all other forces? Has he information which will enable him to say whether the East Riding authorities deducted a nominal sum?
  Mr. SHORTT: I will look into that. I am not able to answer at the moment

  NATURALISATION LAW (CONFERENCE).
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether the conference of experts to consider alterations in the law of naturalisation which was promised by the late Home Secretary (Sir George Cave) on 12th July, 1918, has been held; who are the members of that conference, and how many sittings they have had; if such conference has not been held, what is the reason for such omission, and when this conference will be held; and whether he will state the number of communications which have passed between the Home Government and the Governments of the Dominions and India since 12th July, 1918, on the subject of alterations in the Law of Naturalisation?
  Mr. SHORTT: A meeting of the Special Conference, to which certain questions of nationality and naturalisation were referred by the Imperial Conference in the year 1918, was held on 31st July of that year. It was attended by representatives of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India, besides representatives of the Home Government. Shortly after the meeting most of the Overseas representatives went away, and no further meeting has been held. It was agreed that, pending the opportunity for further meetings, the subject should be pursued by the circulation of papers. Since then various letters and memoranda have passed between the Home Country and the Overseas Dominions.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are many serious questions awaiting solution, especially such questions as whether naturalised British subjects should have the same rights as natural-born British subjects?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir.

  SOLDIERS' CHILDREN IN WORKHOUSES.
  Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the children of fallen soldiers in this country in many cases are now in the workhouse; and whether he will take steps to secure that these children shall be removed to proper homes?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am aware that there are still a number of children of deceased service men in Poor Law institutions; but I am taking all possible steps to remove every child for whose care I am responsible, unless that is absolutely incompatible with the interests of the child itself. A large number of children who were under the Poor Law have already been placed with private families. I do not wish to separate children of the same family, and it is not easy to find suitable homes when there are three or four brothers and sisters.

  LICENSED TRADE EMPLOYES.
  Captain MARTINasked the Prime Minister whether he will have a Clause inserted in the new Licensing Bill that
  1100
  75 per cent. of all employés engaged in hotels and restaurants holding Excise licences must be British-born?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be advisable to adopt this suggestion.
  Captain MARTIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this would be a means of finding employment for thousands of demobilised soldiers and sailors?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think this proposal is impracticable. If there be only one attendant, how can you have 75 per cent. of him?

  SILK SEWINGS (PRICE).
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an association of merchants, holding a monopoly in sale of silk sewings, have fixed the selling price at 80s. a lb., as against a pre-war price of 21s. to 23s., and that the middleman who sells to the tailor or to the public is bound by an agreement to sell at a price not less than 80s. under a penalty of being excluded from further opportunity of obtaining silk sewings; and what action does he propose to take to prevent such holding up of price against the consumer?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. My attention had not previously been called to the circumstances referred to in the question, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will supply me with particulars of the association referred to, I will have inquiries made.

  NECESSITIES OF LIFE (PRICES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Supreme Council have considered consultation with the Governments of nations other than our Allies of the late War, with a view to checking the continued rise in prices of the necessities of life by joint international action; if so, what decision has been reached; when will consultation take place; and, if not, how it is supposed that anything effective can be done without the co-operation of all nations concerned?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Supreme Council have considered the economic questions from a general standpoint, and I believe that the conclusions they have arrived at, which will, I hope, be published to-morrow, will command assent in every country. I hope that an opportunity for the further examination of these questions by representatives of all countries will be afforded by the International Conference which, it is hoped, will be convened shortly by the League of Nations.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to His Majesty's Exchequer during each of the last five years of the relief to the owners of tithe rent-charge in respect of local rating?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The relief given to the owners of tithe rent-charge under the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899, is a charge on the estate duty grant to the Local Taxation Account. The total amounts so paid during each of the five years to 31st March. 1919, were:—£176,703, £181,030, £172,230, £193,330, and £244,409, respectively. It is estimated that the amount for the current year will be about £340,000.

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (UNPAID).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of the £175,000,000 excess profits duty and munitions levy in assessment but unpaid at 1st January, 1920, was in respect of accounting periods ended in the years 1915, 1916, 1917, and 1918, respectively; and what further amount of excess profits duty assessed in respect of accounting periods ended during the year 1919 remained unpaid at 1st January, 1920?
  Mr. BALDWIN: No analysis has been made of the arrears in question in the form desired by the hon. Member, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to authorise the preparation of this information in view of the time and labour which would be involved. The excess profits duty assessed and outstanding at 1st January, 1920, in respect of accounting periods ended during the year 1919 amounted approximately to £90,000,000;
  1102
  but of this amount it is estimated that upwards of one-third was not due for payment by the date mentioned.

  AMERICAN LOANS TO EUROPE.
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of money lent by the United States of America to France, Italy, Russia, Belgium, Japan, and other Allied countries, excluding Great Britain; whether the payment of interest and capital from such countries is to take precedence over the claims of this country; and what length of time has such money been lent for?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division yesterday.

  SECRET SERVICE (REPORTING SPEECHES).
  Mr. WATERSONasked the Home Secretary whether instructions are still issued to secret service agents and others to take reports of speeches made by Members of Parliament and others in Great Britain; and, if so, how long it is proposed to continue this practice, which is an expense to the country?
  Mr. SHORTT: No instructions are issued to secret service agents or others to take reports of speeches made by Members of Parliament.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to accept the word of an hon. Member of this House that an agent did visit a meeting and take a report of a speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] If that is the treatment that an hon. Member of this House receives, what is the treatment that an ordinary citizen will receive? [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]
  Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member asked whether instructions had been issued. I said, "No." It may be that the local police, for their own purposes, attended a meeting and took notes.
  Captain REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply apply only to Great Britain?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Are we not part of the United Kingdom?

  POCKET-PICKING.
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the remarkable increase in the crime of pocket-picking; if he will give the number of complaints made to the police, with the number of arrests and convictions during the last six months; and if he has reason to believe that schools exist for the training of youthful criminals?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have no reason to think that there has been a remarkable increase in these offences. No complete figures are available, but the returns made indicate that the number of such offences in the Metropolitan District during January and February was smaller than for the corresponding months in 1914. The police have no reason to believe that schools for the training of young criminals exist, although it is well known that youthful offenders are often led astray by their more experienced elders.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that these pickpockets belong to what is known as the intellectual class?
  Sir M. DOCKRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that cinema shows provide all the educational facilities necessary?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman put the curfew law in operation in England?

  ALIENS ACT (PASSPOKTS).
  Lieut. - Colonel MURRAYasked the Home Secretary whether he will state to what extent the visé on a passport is necessary for the carrying out of the restrictions imposed by the Aliens Act?
  Mr. SHORTT: The risé is required for the purposes of the Aliens Act on the passports of aliens desiring to enter this country.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: What particular use is made of the visé?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is used to help the emigration officers on this side as far as possible.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What was done before the passport system was introduced into this country?

  CORONERS (LAW AMENDMENT).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to his answer in this House on 27th November last, he is now in a position to introduce legislation to amend the Law relating to Coroners and Coroners' inquests?
  Mr. SHORTT: I regret that, owing to pressure of other work, it has not been found possible to introduce the Bill, but the Home Office are working out the details, and the Bill will be produced without any avoidable delay.

  NEURASTHENIC EX-SOLDIERS.
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Pensions Minister how many houses or sanatoria are provided under his Department for ex-soldiers disabled through nerve strain, but whose loss of mental balance is not such as to necessitate certification; and whether he will take steps to secure that, for the cheer and encouragement of such patients, the voluntary houses which are so greatly needed shall be kept wholly apart from lunacy administration and unconnected with the Lunacy Board?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There the twelve special institutions, with accommodation for nearly 1,500 patients, available for the treatment of neurasthenic cases. A considerable number of beds are also reserved for such cases at other Ministry hospitals. These institutions are all under the direct control of this Ministry, and are unconnected with lunacy administration.
  Captain REDMOND: Are there any of those institutions in Ireland?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Irish law is not the same as here. We have a Ministry institution in Ireland, although I think the accommodation is not sufficient.
  Mr. LAWSON: May I ask if these houses are really part of the lunacy accommodation?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Those are Ministry of Pensions institutions, and have nothing whatever to do with the Board of Control.

  LIVERPOOL DOCKS (CONGESTION).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he is aware that on the morning of the 1st March 30 vessels were awaiting discharging berths at Liverpool; that at noon nine of these vessels were provided with berths, some of which were not clear of previous cargoes, leaving 21 vessels unprovided with discharging berths; whether he is aware that during the month of February the number of vessels each morning waiting for berths ranged from 35 on 4th February to 24 on 27th February; that subsequently at neon on each day discharging berths were allotted to limited numbers of these steamers, ranging from 15 to five, but that alter the available berths had been allotted the number of vessels daily left unprovided with discharging berths ranged from 25 on 14th February and 16th February to 12 on 19th February and 21st February; and that in many of these instances the berths were not clear berths for discharging; whether he is aware that it now takes about four times as long to discharge and load a steamer as it did before the War; and if he will state whether this delay is due to any other cause than inadequate transport and congestion of warehouses?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): The facts are substantially as stated by my hon. Friend in the first five parts of his question. With regard to the sixth part, it is impossible to lay down any general average as to turn round of ships at the present time, as each case of discharging or loading would require separate investigation, but undoubtedly the utility of the Mercantile Marine is being seriously lessened by the delays in port. The delay is due to a variety of causes and there will be an opportunity of discussing this question on the Motion which is to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham.

  SHIP SALES.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether the ss. "War Charger," 5,703 tons gross register, built in 1918, and owned by the Shipping Controller, was recently sold to Greek buyers; whether, at about the same time, permission to sell to Greek buyers the ss. "Clan Lamont," 3,594 tons gross register, 20 years old and due for survey, was refused by the Shipping Controller; and if he will state the reasons for this refusal to sell an old ship, in view of the fact that the Shipping Controller at the same time sold a new ship to Greeks?
  Colonel WILSON: The facts are as stated in the question. Each case of proposed transfer of a privately-owned British ship to a foreign flag is dealt with on its merits, and in the case of the "Clan Lamont" it was decided after very full consideration that sanction to the transfer could not be given.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate the particular reasons for that decision that the sale of an old ship should not be allowed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

  CHARTERING AGENTS' POOLS (STEAMERS).
  Colonel LAMBERT WARDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping if he will say what is the total remuneration that has been paid to the chartering agents' pools on all steamers directed by the Ministry of Shipping since the initiation of the scheme by which chartering agents were to receive compensation?
  Colonel WILSON: It is understood that the total amount paid to date to the Institute of Shipbrokers for credit of the War Pool is £18,209 14s.

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND SETTLEMENT ACT.
    Major W. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland how many ex-service men and others are now actually in occupation of land as a result of the Scottish Land Settlement Act?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The Land Settlement Act only became law on the 23rd of December. Further land has been acquired since that date and good progress has been made under the schemes which the Board of Agriculture already had in hand in anticipation of the passing of the Act. Out of a total of 419 persons who have been given entry to land since the beginning of 1919 (of whom 305 were new holders), 263 were settled at Martinmas or have been settled since that date. I may add that of the 305 new holders referred to 243 are ex-service men. My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that in normal course entry to the land is given at the Whitsunday and Martinmas terms.

    WHALING LICENCES, SHETLAND.
    Mr. C. BARRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland when an announcement may be expected as to the Government's intentions regarding the issue of whaling licences in Shetland?
    Mr. MUNRO: Under the existing law, whaling licences can only be terminated by the Fishery Board for a breach of their conditions. Any change in the existing position would, therefore, require legislation. I am considering the propriety of adopting that course, and an announcement of policy will be made as soon as possible.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. R. McLARENasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction existing among the officials and staffs employed under the local authorities in Scotland with reference to war bonus; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have received representations, chiefly through associations of local government officers, asking me to recommend the application of Civil Service war bonus arrangements to officials of local authorities in Scotland. I have no information as to the, salaries actually paid to these officials, and I do not control their remuneration. I am willing, however, to issue to local authorities statements of the awards of war bonus authorised for the Civil Service, in order that they may have this information before them in considering the salaries of their staff.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Major W. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any of the small holdings at Locharwoods have been awarded or will be awarded to persons dwelling in distant counties; and whether, in view of the large local demand for small holdings which exists in Dumfriesshire, he will consider the advisability of satisfying local requirements before this is done?
    Mr. MUNRO: Except for two ex-service men who were trained at one of the Lochardwoods farms all the holders selected are Dumfriesshire men. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland in selecting holders always take into account the claims of local applicants, but I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate the fact that it would be impracticable, in dealing with ex-service applicants, to exclude from consideration men who do not happen to possess this local qualification, but who are in other respects suitable and are urgently in need of holdings.

  HOUSING

    SELKIRK SCHEME.
    Major STEELasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the housing secretary of the Scottish Board of Health wrote to the county sanitary inspector of the county of Selkirk, on 13th December, 1919, asking him whether he agreed with the Report of the Selkirk County Council as to the requirements for new houses in the county; whether it is customary for a Government department to invite the opinion of an official employed by a county council upon the decision or Report of the members of that council; and, if not, will he take steps to ensure that such procedure does not recur?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that under the Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland) Act of last Session, the Scottish Board of Health have a duty placed upon them to consider the adequacy of schemes submitted. It is obviously impossible for the Board to discharge this duty without free recourse to local sources of information. It may be that the form of inquiry adopted in

    1109
    this case is open to objection, and I have brought this aspect of the matter under the notice of the Board. The Board, however, have an unrestricted statutory right to require information from sanitary inspectors, and I cannot, give any undertaking which would debar them from the exercise of this right in regard to matters bearing on local administration.

    LENNOXTOWN, STIRLINGSHIRE.
    Mr. HARRY HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the great shortage of houses in Lennoxtown, Stirlingshire, and that this shortage is accentuated by residents in Glasgow taking small houses and only occupying them in the summer months or in sub-letting to summer visitors, whereby ex-Service men are unable to get accommodation for themselves and their families, he will make an inquiry locally with the object of freeing such houses for the use of demobilised men?
    Mr. MUNRO: I understand that the local authority at Lennoxtown are proposing to proceed with a scheme for the erection of 25 houses in that village. I may remind my hon. Friend that local authorities are further empowered by Section 11 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, to acquire houses suitable for the working classes. This power appears to be sufficient so far as my information goes.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    IMPORTED STOCKS
    Mr. INSKIPasked the Minister of Food whether the stocks of imported food under his control are kept for any longer time than is necessary to enable inland transport to be provided; and whether he can say that no food is stored when there is an immediate market available?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): In the case of articles in short supply, such as sugar and butter, it is necessary to maintain reserve stocks in order to ensure the regularity of the ration; otherwise I can safely say that no food under the control of the Ministry is stored when there is an immediate market available.

    COCOA.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Minister of Food what are the grounds upon which
    1110
    the Food Ministry is maintaining the restrictions on dealing with raw cocoa imported from our Colonies?
    Mr. McCURDY: The only restriction on dealings in raw cocoa is the placing of a limit on the amount which may be re-exported from the United Kingdom. This Regulation applies to all raw cocoa, whether imported from the Colonies or from foreign countries, and is intended to ensure the maintenance in this country of sufficient supplies at reasonable prices. At present, the actual amounts exported have been considerably below the permitted figure.

    MEAT (STORAGE).
    Colonel BURNasked the Minister of Food if there is sufficient meat stored at the docks to last three months, and a further three months' supply waiting to be discharged, in addition to home-killed meat; what are the total charges paid to-day to the Port of London Authority for the storage of this meat per week; what is the demurrage paid per steamer and the number of steamers waiting to be discharged owing to lack of storage room; and will those charges have to be added to the price of the meat and be paid by the public?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply to this question. There are in all the cold stores in the United Kingdom, in ships discharging in all ports, and in steamers waiting to discharge, about four months supply of imported meat, at the present rate of consumption, which, however, is rising. The storage rates charged by the Port of London Authority are, per ton of meat, 22s. plus 85 per cent. for the first month, 18s. 6d plus 85 per cent. for the second month, and 17s. 6d. plus 85 per cent. for the third month. Seven ships are waiting to be discharged. Rates of demurrage are at present under consideration. If meat is to be sold without loss, all charges on it must be included in the selling price.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to keep four months' stock of meat in storage?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir; but, as I explained yesterday, it was owing to the supplies from Australasia which were held up during the War, and are now coming in quite abnormal quantities.
    Mr. THORNE: If a good deal of this meat was released would not the price of meat come down about threepence in the pound.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The question is how much loss would be incurred by the Government.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman state the tonnage of frozen meat either in storage or on board ship?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which the hon. Member should give notice.

    WHEAT.
    Mr. ROYCEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that certain farmers contemplate ploughing up their winter wheat already sown, and re-sowing the land with barley for consumption by their own stock or selling off the farm; whether, by adopting this process, a profit of over £7 per acre can be shown; and what steps he proposes in the above event to safeguard the nation's food?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not aware that any farmers intend to plough up their winter wheat, but I have heard that some farmers propose to cross-drill their wheat with barley or oats so as to secure a crop of mixed corn which can be used for stock feeding. Such action would not constitute any offence against the law, but I should deprecate it as being contrary to the national interest.
    Mr. E. WOOD: Are the Government yet in a position to say they have amended their statements in the direction of being prepared to give fairer treatment for 1920 growers?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not in a position to make any further statement.

    RAW COCOA (EXPORTS FROM GOLD COAST).
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state, for the years from 1914 to 1919, the tonnage of the exports of raw cocoa from the Gold Coast Colony to the United Kingdom, and the corresponding figures of raw cocoa exported to the United States from the same source?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The exports from the Gold Coast to this country from 1914 to 1918, both years inclusive, are as follows:—28,672 tons, 51,711 tons, 37,485 tons, 40,553 ions, and 30,606 tons. The exports to the United States during the same period were:—2 tons, 4,515 tons, 9,370 tons, 29,307 tons, and 31,384 tons. Detailed figures for 1919 are not yet available.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Am I right in inferring that the almost infinitesimal amount exported in 1914 to the United States has grown to a larger amount now than that exported to Great Britain?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes. In 1918 the actual amount sent to the United States of America was somewhat greater than that sent to Great Britain. My hon. Friend will remember that the shipping position during the War naturally tended to divert trade from this country to the United States.

  ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (WAGES)
  Mr. SITCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he has received a communication from the employés in the Royal Gardens, Kew, with regard to the inadequacy of the present wage and bonus to meet the increased cost of living; and whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living since the last bonus was awarded, he will recommend an all-round increase of £1 per week?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Yes, Sir. A communication on this subject was received from the employés in the Royal Botanic Gardens on the 19th of August, 1919, and subsequently, by an award of the Civil Service Arbitration Board, an increase of war bonus to the extent of 10 per cent. on wages was granted as from the 17th November last.

  RAND MINES (STRIKE OF NATIVES).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, during the strike on the Rand mines, police entered the compound of the Village Deep Mine; whether orders had been given to the police to

  1113
  compel the Natives to resume work; (2), if he will state, in connection with the strike of Natives on the Rand, whether the recent conflict between the police and the Natives in the compound of the Village Deep Mine occurred because the Native strikers thought that the intention of the police was to compel them to resume work; what were the orders given to the police on this occasion; and whether any steps were taken to dispel any misunderstanding among the Native strikers as to the intentions of the police?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I fear that I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply returned to a similar question on 2nd March.

  SAMOA (INDENTURED LABOUR).
  Mr. JAMES BROWNasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether indentured labour is being used for the development of Samoa?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir. The New Zealand Government found the system in operation and are, I understand, in the exercise of their discretion continuing it.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does the indentured labour come from the neighbouring island, or from New Guinea, or the Malay States?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: As far as I know, the main source of indentured labour in Samoa under the German régime was China, and the New Zealand Government are continuing a certain number of Chinese indentured labourers.

  HYDE PARK (SHEEP).
  Mr. SITCHasked the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been drawn to the statement that the flock of sheep at present feeding in Hyde Park has been brought with their shepherd from Aberdeen; and whether, in view of the present difficulties of transport, he can explain why this arrangement was made?
  Commander EYRES - MONSELL (Treasurer of the Household): The grazing of Hyde Park is the subject of a
  1114
  contract which was entered into, after tenders has been invited last January, with Scottish graziers, to whom the sheep belong. Under the conditions of the contract, no powers are reserved to specify the places from which the sheep or the shepherds come.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Were not any English sheep available?
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is it not due to the fact that the Aberdeenshire-sheep are far better?

  HORSE GUARDS PARADE.
  Major MORRISON-BELLasked the First Commissioner of Works when the Horse Guards Parade is to be cleared of its present unsightly encumbrances; and if he will take into consideration the desirability of having it vacant in time for the annual trooping of the Colour on His Majesty's birthday?
  Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I have already given most careful consideration to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member and am strongly in sympathy with his views. I regret that I have found it impossible to clear the Horse Guards Parade of the various huts this year, on account of the shortage of accommodation to house existing staffs and the necessity for releasing certain private houses commandeered during the War, and whose owners have for some time been pressing for their surrender. I have, however, given an undertaking that the Horse Guards Parade will be sufficiently cleared of its present incumbrances to enable the Trooping of the Colour on His Majesty's birthday to take place in the year 1921.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that several of these buildings are not required or are unoccupied for a very large part of every day?
  Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am given to understand that they are required.
  Sir H. CRAIK: They are not occupied.

  NAVAL COURTS-MARTIAL (SENTENCES).
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he

  1115
  will state the number of naval ratings now serving sentences of imprisonment or penal servitude inflicted by courts-martial for offences during the War and since the Armistice, respectively?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The number of naval ratings now serving sentences of imprisonment or penal servitude inflicted by naval courts-martial for disciplinary offences is as follows: pre-Armistice cases, none; post-Armistice cases, 41.

  BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.
  Mr. REMERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the brothers Dreyfus, who are managing directors of the British Cellulose Company, were on the black list of Admiralty contractors during the War?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir! The brothers Dreyfus were not on the Admiralty black list of contractors during the War. I may perhaps add that, as the result of trials of a brand of dope submitted by Dr. Camille Dreyfus, orders were placed in 1916 with the British Cellulose Company. At the end of that year, owing to suspicion of the nationality of Dr. Dreyfus, orders were temporarily suspended. As the result of enquiry, these suspicions were removed, and in 1918 orders to the company, I am advised, were resumed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the nationality?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

  POSTAL LETTER RATE.
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to raise the postal letter rate from 1½d. to 2d.?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The question of increasing postage rates is under consideration, and when a decision has been arrived at it will be announced in due course. I cannot make any statement on the subject at present.

  MINISTER OF FOOD.
  Captain TUDOR REESasked the Prime Minister whether it is not the fact that the delay in filling the Office of Minister of Food involves the postponement of important Orders now awaiting signature, and whether he can state the reason for such delay, and when and by whom the Office will be filled?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No such serious inconvenience as is suggested in the question has so far arisen, but I hope to be able to announce the appointment very shortly.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: In view of the Ministry of Munitions questions not having been reached again to-day, may I ask a question by giving private notice?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman submitted a question to me, and it did not seem to me to be an urgent one.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the adjournment to-morrow night, as it involves a matter of very grave irregularities in the Ministry of Munitions.

  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    WAR PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION.
    On this day fortnight, to call attention to the scale of pensions for certain classes of dependants of Service men, and the medical treatment of discharged and demobilised men, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. William Graham]
    PROFITEERING.
    On this day fortnight, to call attention to the questions of profiteering and high prices, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Doyle.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this day, To-morrow, and on Tuesdays the 16th, 23rd, and 30th March, and Wednesdays the 17th, 24th, and 31st March Government Business do have precedence, and the Notices of Motions standing in the Order Book of the House for a quarter past Eight o'clock this day and To-morrow and

  1117
  on Tuesday the 16th March and Wednesday the 17th March shall be set down for Wednesdays the 14th, 21st, and 28th April and 5th May, respectively, notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order No. 7.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Mr. RENDALL: I am the first private Member whose Motion will fall under the guillotine presented by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I am quite aware that the House approved this proposal yesterday and that a Committee was formed in order to carry it out, and also that the House is going to confirm it. I have had every sympathy extended to me in reference to my Resolution (calling for legislative effect to be given to the recommendations of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce), which had been put down for to-night and was generally expected to be discussed to-night, but which will now be postponed. I am sure I shall get a place later, and I understand it will be on Wednesday, April 13th, the day after the House resumes, which is not a very good Parliamentary day. I am rather surprised at the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, whom we have always regarded as a jealous guardian of the liberties of private Members, but who at 12 hours' notice has done me down. I think he might have let me know a little earlier that he was going to do it.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Of course, I am very glad that a new policy has been adopted by the Government of consulting private Members, and, as in the present case, of coming to an agreement, but I imagine that insufficient attention has been paid to the Motions which are excluded, and particularly to the Motion which stands in my name for to-morrow night. This Motion has to deal with the congestion at the docks and the consequent inflation of prices. Therefore, I think it is a matter that requires the immediate consideration of the House, because the one great grievance to-day is the high price of living, and we had the announcement yesterday from the Prime Minister that the price of flour was to be increased.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to indicate the lines of a speech which he intends to make on a future Motion.
  Mr. TERRELL: No, that was not my intention at all. My object was to show to the House the importance and the urgency of the Motion which stands in my name. To do that it is really necessary to refer to other matters which have happened within the last few hours which had an important bearing upon it. The object of the Motion in my name was to show that by alleviating congestion at the docks food prices could be reduced. Instead of the reduction of prices, you are going to have an inflation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would be violating the rule I have just laid down.
  Mr. TERRELL: If I may, I should like to make an appeal to the Leader of the House that, instead of excluding my Motion to-morrow, it should be allowed to stand. This is, as I have already stated, a matter of considerable urgency. The facts, in a disjointed form, have been before the House, and I submit that an opportunity should be given so that they may be debated, and, if necessary, some steps taken towards reducing food prices.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure that it was a satisfaction to the House that both hon. Members, who have expressed natural human feelings, are pleased with the decision to which the House has come; but, obviously, that does preclude the course which my hon. Friend has suggested. I would remind him that to-day, as I hope, there will be an opportunity of discussing the Transport Vote, and I think it will be competent for him to get part of his speech in on that Vote. I may say, further, that if my hon. Friend has any suggestion which will help the congestion at the docks, I am sure the Minister of Transport will be delighted to hear from him.
  Mr. DOYLE: May I ask, in view of what has been said, and in view of the fact that I have just been successful in the Ballot, whether I shall have the opportunity of moving my Motion on this day fortnight?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members who have precedence are not in their places when their Motions are called upon, the hon. Member will probably get his opportunity.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That this day, To-morrow, and on Tuesdays the 16th, 23rd, and 30th March, and

  1119
  Wednesdays the 17th, 24th, and 31st March, Government Business do have precedence, and the Notices of Motions standing in the Order Book of the House for a quarter past Eight o'clock this day and To-morrow and on Tuesday the 16th March and Wednesday the 17th March shall be set down for Wednesdays the 14th, 21st, and 28th April and 5th May, respectively, notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order No. 7.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS AND MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  Ordered,
  That on any day until and including the 25th March any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of Government Business, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [Lords].
Message from the Lords,
That they have come to the following Resolution: That it is desirable that the Law of Property Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

SECRETARY FOR WALES BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 26th March, read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Sir Robert Harmsworth and Mr. Hudson: and had appointed in substitution: Commander Bellairs and Mr. Haslam.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Ready-Money Football Betting Bill): Mr. Baird, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Gilbert, Sir Peter Griggs, Mr. John Jones, Major
  1120
  Kerr-Smiley, Sir Robert Lister, Mr. Morris, Colonel Sir Henry Norris, Mr. Perring, Major Prescott, Mr. William Thorne, Colonel Penry Williams, Sir Alfred Yeo, and Mr. Robert Young.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

    (Class 2.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the Agricultural Wages Board, of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and of the Food Production Department, including certain Grants in Aid."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it would be in order on this Vote to discuss the question of wheat prices? I notice that in the details of heading S. 1 there is a reference to "minimum prices of wheat and oats." The next Vote to be taken, I understand, is the Bread Subsidy Vote, and naturally the Committee will not want to have two discussions. I thought, therefore, I would put it to you as a point of Order on which of these two Votes, if either, the discussion on wheat prices would be in order?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): May I say a word on the point of Order? This sub-head S. 1 refers entirely to certain steps taken in connection with the wheat prices of last year. I submit, therefore, it would not be in order to discuss any announcement made or any steps that have been taken in connection with wheat prices in the present year.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it is clear with regard to the first Vote, that is, this Supplementary Vote for the Ministry of Agriculture, that there is no opening for a discussion on what I understand to be the hon. Member's point—the recent announcement with regard to the future prices to be paid to the home growers of wheat. That is the point?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think there would be any opening on this first Vote. With regard to the Vote which stands second, namely, that of the bread subsidy, it might be argued there that the different policy with regard to home-grown wheat would, or might, make the application for this Supplementary sum unnecessary.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to make a general statement as to the Supplementary Vote, and the reason why it has' been necessary for us to come to the House for a Supplementary Vote at all. This is a large Vote, amounting to £809,000, and it extends practically over the whole sphere of financial services. It is indeed only in form what is called a Token Vote in the sense that we only ask for £10, and we do not really require any more money for services. What we do want is the authority of Parliament to spend on our services a saving which will be effected under other sub-heads. For that reason we have to put down what is called a Token Vote, and to come here and get the authority of Parliament. It may be asked, very naturally, how it comes that in the case of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries the amount that we require shows such a great discrepancy from our original Estimate. I agree that the sum of £809,800 is a very large Supplementary Estimate, certainly far bigger than anything that has ever before occurred in the history of the Ministry; but our original Estimates were framed immediately after the Armistice, before the nature of our services had been decided, and before the policy of reconstruction had been decided, or indeed before much of it had been thought about. That is particularly true with regard to land settlement as it is generally known. It was understood in a vague way that steps were to be taken to facilitate settling ex-service men upon the land, but the particular steps to be taken had not been decided in any way when the Estimates were framed. It was only in August last year, when the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act was passed that those steps were definitely settled, and it was impossible for us to include in our original Estimate any figures which would really represent the work that we should be called upon to carry out in connection

    1133
    with that great scheme. Therefore it is absolutely necessary, as regards that and many other matters of policy, that we should come here for money for expenditure which could not have been foreseen at the time that the Estimates were framed. I will, very briefly, touch upon the various sub-heads, and, if any hon. Member wishes for any further information, I will endeavour to give it to the best of my ability. One of these subheads deals with an entirely new service. It is sub-head S. 1, Salaries and Fees of Inspectors of Crops, Assessors and other staff appointed temporarily for the purposes of Part 1 of the Corn Production Act, 1917. Under that Act it was proposed to guarantee the prices of wheat and oats. If the average price for the seven months commencing 1st September in any year fell below the guaranteed price, then the State made up the difference with a grant. It was to be done, not by taking the whole yield of the crop, but on an acreage basis, it being assumed that on the average four quarters of wheat and five quarters of oats would be grown to the acre.
    It is perfectly clear, if the State is to pay what it is due to pay, that it must have a correct return of acreage; otherwise, the State may be called upon to pay a great deal more than it ought to pay. Therefore, we thought, that it was necessary carefully to check the returns that were made of the acreage of the various cereal crops. It was not thought necessary to correct the returns in 1918, because it was perfectly obvious that there was not the slightest chance of the prices falling below the guarantee. My Noble Friend (Lord Ernie), by a statement made in November, 1918, practically raised the guaranteed price of wheat from 55s. to 71s. 11d., and the guaranteed price of oats from 32s. to 44s. 1d. He also included barley and rye. After we had promised that these prices should be guaranteed instead of the prices in the Act, there was a period when it looked very probable, both in the case of wheat and of oats, that the price might drop below the guarantee. I remember the long discussions that took place at the Board of Agriculture. It was thought very likely that there might be a break in the price of wheat, and that it might come down below 71s. 11d., in which case the State would have been called upon to pay a
    1134
    very large sum. There was a similar fear with regard to oats. About a year ago it appeared probable that there would be a large importation of maize. That maize would have taken the place of oats for feeding stock, and the chances were that the price of oats would have fallen below the guarantee. There was a time when we estimated at the Board that under these new guarantees given by Lord Ernie the State might be called upon to pay anything from £10,000,000 to £20,000,000.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Could my right hon. Friend say what was the guarantee for oats?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: This year?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Last year.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have given the figure. In the Act it was 32s. for the Imperial quarter, and the guarantee promise by Lord Ernie was 44s. I quite agree that the fall did not take place, though, in the opinion of our best expert advisers, it was thought likely that it would fall below the guarantee and that we might be called upon to pay for a very much larger acreage than actually existed. Therefore, we appointed a number of inspectors to verify the returns of acreage. Altogether, we appointed one thousand. Of course, they were purely temporary appointments. They were each paid £100 and on the average they each verified 6,100 acres and dealt with about 240 holdings. I am glad to say that they proved that the returns that had been made by the growers were on the whole substantially accurate and that no attempt had been made to defraud the State. I am very glad to make that statement, because frequently I hear hon. Members of this House and people outside bringing wholesale charges against farmers as profiteers, and so on. Here was an opportunity which they might have used had they had the desire, but they did not use it because the returns were marvellously accurate. It is quite true that the work did not bear any absolute direct fruit, because, owing to circumstances over which we had no control and which we could not foresee, the prices never fell below the guarantee, and therefore the payments never had to be made by the State. We did; however, obtain a great deal of very useful information, and, if we are charged with having spent

    1135
    money unnecessarily, I would point out that the amount placed at our disposal by the Treasury was £200,000 and we only spent £130,000. I know that some hon. Members have criticised us, not for making the appointments, but for making wrong appointments; but, when you are appointing one thousand inspectors in a very short time, it is not surprising if you make one or two mistakes. At all events in every case we took the advice of the Local Agricultural Executive Committee. We could not do otherwise. We could not pretend to know, sitting in an office in London, what were the qualifications of these people. We took the best advice that we could, and personally I was surprised at the small number of complaints regarding the selections that we made. That accounts for this particular item, which is an entirely new service, and I think the expenditure was justified as a measure of precaution under the circumstances which existed at that time.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: What time of the year was it that these appointments were made?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They were appointed in May, and they did their work in June and July. I now come to the other sub-head, all of which deal with services in respect of which we are asking for more money. I take Item A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, £105,500. In the first place, the additional war bonus accounts for £46,000 or nearly half, and in regard to the rest £10,000 is due to extra costs in connection with the Corn Production Act. It represents the central staff which was used to check these returns of which I have just spoken and the cerical staff necessary for informing the farmers that they were entitled to the guarantees if the prices fell below them. The next item, £5,000, is for the Farm Colonies Act, under which we have been setting up farm colonies all over the country for the settlement of ex-service men. There is a further item of £14,500 for the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, which, of course, was an entirely new service and necessitated extra staff, commissioners, sub-commissioners, architects and others. That expenditure could not have been foreseen, because that Act did not pass until August, 1919.
    Mr. E. WOOD: Will that be a permanent figure or a reducing figure?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It must go on for some years. It is quite possible that the figure may grow temporarily and then diminish. There is an enormous amount of work being done, and, if we did not carry out that work, we should be justly blamed by the House. As a matter of fact, that particular figure is for the central staff. All this has thrown upon the Ministry a great strain, which has involved another figure of £30,000 for additional temporary staff.
    The Committee, I am sure, will wish to know something about what has been done in the matter of land settlement, and why we are asking for this extra money. We appointed additional commissioners and sub-commissioners, architects and others, and I think I may say we have made substantial progress. The total number of applications by ex-service men for small holdings was 31,000, and by civilians 11,000. Of the ex-service men, 18,000 of the applicants have been approved and 7,000 are waiting. We have actually settled up to date on farms and small holdings 4,334 ex-service men and 872 civilians, and when you consider that the Act only became law last August, that up to recently the purchase of land for this purpose had been stopped, and that it takes much time to carry out a settlement of this kind, I do not think it is a bad record, when we have already settled so many. In addition we have settled ex-service men upon our own farm colonies to the number of 465, including 13 women who rendered good service in agricultural labour during the War.
    Captain FITZROY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the acreage of these small holdings?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not sure that I have that figure. I will gladly give it to the hon. and gallant Member privately. As regards the land acquired, 194,071 acres have been acquired. That is not an unsatisfactory record, I think. We have often been charged with allowing high payments to be made for the land. The average cost of the land acquired by the county councils for small holdings is £43 an acre. Before the War the average cost of the land was £34 an acre. Having regard to the manner in which everything else has gone up, I do not think we have been paying excessive prices. Com-

    1137
    ing to the Small Holdings Account (additional contributions to the Small Holdings Account), there has been provided for the purchase of equipment and farms under the Farm Colonies Act a sum of £217,000. Why do we ask for that additional sum! I may explain that in the original Farm Colonies Act we were only allowed either to hire land on lease or to buy it by an annuity. Under the Land Settlement Act of last summer, we were allowed to buy for farm colonies the land for cash, and this enabled us to buy a large amount of additional land for farm colonies which has been exceedingly suitable. We had only four farms, Patrington, Holdbeach, Pembury and Heath Hill. We have acquired ten additional farms with 14,000 additional acres, and we have paid for this land an average price of £28 10s. an acre, which is very satisfactory. We may be asked, why are we doing this when the county councils are carrying on their land settlement schemes as well? The answer is that there are many men who find it easier, or who prefer, to go to a farm colony rather than to have small holdings where they would be without help or support. We have got these colonies and have already got 465 men settled upon them. There is a central farm which supplies machinery, buys for them, and does their marketing and helps them in every conceivable way. Around the central holding are the small holdings which are cut off and let to these men. Another type of farm colony is entirely co-operative, a co-operative farm on which the men who work there are shareholders and take their share in the profits. Both these systems are working well and both are popular. In the ease of men who do not care to start small holdings entirely on their own it is a very useful system, and one which I think should be encouraged.
    In respect of the extra land which we have bought for farm colonies we are asking for this £217,000. But I should explain that it really imposes no extra charge upon the State, for this reason, the Treasury under the Land Settlement Act has allowed £17,250,000 for the purchase and equipment of small holdings to be paid by the Public Works Loan Commissions and by them advanced to the county councils. We receive the money for the farm colonies that we buy out of the Small Holdings Fund, and whatever
    1138
    we get from the small holdings account is set off against that £17,250,000. In other words the more we pay the less they buy, the more we spend the less they spend, and therefore, though we are asking for this extra £217,000 for the small holdings account, it is really a deduction from the £17,250,000 which would be otherwise issued by the Treasury to the county councils for the purchase and equipment of small holdings. Then we come to Vote E, which has regard to agricultural and dairy education and there is £252,000 for maintenance grant and other expenses of the training in agriculture of demobilised officers and men. That is really not an additional sum which concerns this Ministry directly; it is work we have undertaken and which falls upon our Vote at the request of, and on behalf of, the Ministries of Pensions and Labour. Under the Royal Pensions Warrant, soldiers, sailors and airmen who had been unfitted by disablement and wounds from taking up their old occupations, are entitled to got training in some other useful occupation, and the Ministry of Pensions, when I was at that office, used to undertake the training itself. The men during the training received an allowance equal to the pensions at the highest rate, and separation allowance.
    This duty of training was handed over by the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Labour now provides the industrial training, but as regards agricultural training it was considered that the Ministry of Agriculture was obviously the proper body to do it, and therefore it was handed over to us. But it is not part of our regular work; it is work from other Departments. The Committee may be anxious to know the extent of that work. We have two schemes, one dealing with officers, and the other with men, in each case disabled. Taking officers first, the number in training on the 1st October, 1919, when we took it over, was 67. We have placed in training 90. Six have left on completion of the course, and eight have given up training for other reasons, and there are 143 in training now. With regard to the men, the number in training on the 5th August, 1919, was 503. We have since placed in training 1,384; 213 have left on completion of the course and 221 have given up training for other reasons, and

    1139
    there are now 1,453 in training. I think that is a most important duty, and a duty owed by the State to these gallant men who have suffered by the War and cannot go back to their own occupation. It has been placed upon our Ministry although it is no part of our regular duties, but we have gladly undertaken it, and we are obliged to ask for the money.
    Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: What is the length of the course of training?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think it is about a year. The men are there for about that time.
    Mr. MOUNT: Has he any training of the kind for ex-officers who ate not disabled?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; but we are dealing with that on a large scale. We are not asking for money for that to-day. We now come to the heads BE and CC, which is a sum of £85,000 for the purchase of seed wheat and seed oats and resale of fertilisers and transport. At the close of the War it was felt that the Board should take care that certain necessary articles should be available for farmers, and we purchased this seed wheat, seed oats, seed potatoes, potash and other fertilisers in order to secure a supply, and we re-sold them to the farmers at about cost price. I am not asking for any more money there, but I have to show why this is the amount which occurs in the current year's Vote. The system has now been wound up and will not occur again. Then there was a fertilisers distribution and transport schemes. We took steps to see that there was a fair and proper distribution of the fertilisers during the War. In order to economise transport the Ministry arranged for the distribution of these fertilisers at a uniform charge throughout the country. In the cases where the carriage paid by the manufacturer was more than 12s. 6d. per ton, the Ministry paid him the difference. Where the cost was less than 12s. 6d. a ton the manufacturer paid the difference to the Ministry. The scheme applies only to transactions up to the 31st May, 1919. The only reason why I am obliged to come and ask for this sum of money is that a large number of the accounts remain over for settlement from the last financial year. The scheme really was entirely self-supporting, and has come to an end.
    1140
    Now I come to Item CC, that is, additional grants for farming operations undertaken by Committees under Regulations 2 M of the Defence of the Realm Act. Under that Regulation, in cases where there was shockingly bad cultivation, Agricultural Executive Committees were ordered, after due warning to the occupier, to enter on the farm and cultivate it themselves. That was done in a considerable number of cases, but in order that the Agricultural Executive Committees should be in a position to do this work it was necessary that they should have the use of tractors and a certain amount of agricultural machinery. During the War and for some months afterwards they used tractors which belonged to the Ministry, nominally on a payment. As soon as the Armistice was concluded we proceeded to demobilise the tractor scheme, and, as Appropriations-in-Aid show, we practically sold all our tractors and machinery at a very good price. County Councils have been compelled to purchase sufficient machinery to enable them to carry on their operations for a short time longer instead of hiring. As we were selling all our stuff, it was necessary for them to retain a certain amount. We found them the money to buy the machinery, and, of course, they pay the money back to us. But I have to show it, because it is a reduction on the sum we should otherwise have received from the sale of our machinery. The money is going to be used only for machinery, tractors, ploughs, and so on, used by Executive Committees to cultivate, that land which they have in hand. The amount of land they have in hand is comparatively small, only 10,000 acres, because, in the great majority of eases, they have been able to arrange with land owners to find a new and suitable tenant. It is only where it has been impossible to find a new and suitable tenant that they have taken over the land. But they must have the machinery, and it is very much better that they should retain a certain amount of machinery which we should otherwise sell rather than buy fresh machinery or hire other machinery.
    I have covered practically every one of the sub-heads of expenditure. There are very large Appropriations-in-Aid. These really cover the whole of our additional cost. The Appropriations-in-Aid are of two characters. First, there is a large

    1141
    saving, £250,000, on sub-head Z, tractor ploughs. Since the Armistice we have practically closed down that business and we effected that large saving. Then there is the still larger amount, £474,790, additional money which we realised by the sale of tractors and the rest of the machinery. We had estimated that we should receive in a matter of these sales £1,113,000, and we have received £474,790 more, and I am glad to say the whole of this machinery has been sold to a great advantage. The prices realised were excellent, and it has also been sold locally so that in nearly every case farmers in the neighbourhood had the opportunity of buying; and although it may be objected that this is using capital money in order to defray revenue expenditure—
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is very wrong.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are utilising what we can realise from the sale of surplus stock purchased during the War to defray special War expenditure which never would have been incurred unless there had been a war. All this expenditure on tractor ploughing, and so on, would never have been thought of but for the War, and it is only right and proper we should use the surplus we have received to pay what was a special expenditure incurred during the War. I have ranged over a wide area. So many topics are ranged by this Vote, and I apologise to the House if I have occupied an undue amount of their time. I have been trying to show that this work has been necessary and that scarcely one of those items could possibly have been foreseen at the time the Estimates were originally drafted. I hope, therefore, the Committee will consider that we have been endeavouring to carry out a large number of additional duties in as efficient and economic a way as possible, and that the Committee will readily agree to the Supplementary Vote.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I think the Committee must have been rather alarmed at the prospect, or lack of prospect, of anything approaching real economy in this Department. Hon. Members will see this striking fact, that the original Estimate last year amounted to £1,259,600, and the additional sum required as the result of miscalculation is no loss than £809,800, more than half the original Estimate. I do not wonder that my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen)
    1142
    has ranged over these Estimates. It was a very necessary thing to have some explanation of them. The very first item which leaps to my mind as requiring considerable investigation by the Committee is the sum which was paid under the Grain Production Act of 1917 of no less than £130,000. I do not think that is the whole of the story, because, under A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, there is an additional sum of £30,000 for a temporary clerical staff. A very large proportion of that, I assume, was required for carrying out this inspection under Sub-head F1 of the Corn Production Act of 1917. I should like to know if my right hon. Friend can tell the Committee how much of that additional £30,000 should be added to the £130,000, to know exactly what the cost to the country was of this inspection. I am not an expert in these matters, but I should have thought it would have been quite open to the Department to bring into operation the assistance of county councils; but apparently their decision was taken very quickly. Some investigation took place probably in April. My right hon. Friend tells us that these appointments were made in May and the work was done in June and July. I heard an interjection from an hon. Member opposite that some of the inspectors did not know the difference between rye and oats. This was done with great haste. The Department launched into nothing short of a huge expenditure with apparently very little consideration of how the country's money could be saved by utilising the official organisation in the various towns.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The county council could not possibly inspect every field in their county.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not suppose they could, but they have an immense amount of information at their disposal. Surely something could have been done in that way. Everybody knew how the prices of corn were soaring. Some expert information was given which suddenly alarmed the Department and they rushed out and appointed a thousand inspectors, resulting in a charge to the country, for information which, apparently, was not needed, of well over £130,000, if you bring in the clerical staff and the additional war bonus which was paid. Whatever may be said about the efficiency of the Ministry of Agriculture, at least they were doing themselves very well as far as

    1143
    expenditure was concerned on their staff and on the whole organisation. I hope that other Members who are more qualified than I am to deal with these matters will investigate these sub-heads very closely, and I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend will frankly give all the information he has at his disposal. Here I think we have a clear example of how the cry for economy which has been ringing through the country all these months has been met. This Department, I presume, has also been served with the Prime Minister's famous letter. What savings have been effected? As far as I have been able to understand from the perusal of the Estimates themselves or from my right hon. Friend's statement, this Department has not in any way met the demand the country is making on all Departments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has very rightly drawn the attention of the Committee to the very bad Estimate made by the Board of Agriculture. The increase on the original Estimates is 75 per cent., which is an enormous increase, especially in view of the fact that there is a general desire, that, however good the object on which the money is to be spent, that we must first of all consider, not whether the object is good, but whether we have the money to finance it. I do not see that the Board of Agriculture has thought of that at all. They seem rather to have been inclined to say: "Here is a good object, let us go and spend money on it." We are indebted to my right hon. Friend, (Sir A. Boscawen) for the very clear statement he made as to the various items. He excuses himself from taking capital to defray revenue expenditure by saying it was on a good object, and that the War had something to do with it. From time immemorial, whenever a spendthrift has got through his patrimony in order to find means of gratifying his extravagances, he has always found a good reason for it.
    As the world goes on good reasons will always be found, but that is not an excuse, especially for the Government doing what is absolutely wrong at the present time when we have this enormous burden of debt—taking what is really capital and using it as revenue.
    I should like to say a few words about these inspectors who were appointed at a
    1144
    cost of £130,000. They were appointed in May, and did most of their work in June and July. I know one case where they came in September, after the corn had been cut. In fact they did not come because the corn had been cut, and they were told it was no use coming. They did not come anyhow. If they had they could not have told whether it was or was not a fine crop. What was the reason for making these appointments? My hon. and gallant Friend said in the summer of last year, there was a general idea that corn prices would come down.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In the early spring; about this time last year!
    Sir F. BANBURY: As these men we know were appointed in May or June, surely that idea about the prices coming down had rather evaporated. My recollection of what took place was that there was a general fear amongst farmers, not that prices would decline in this particular year, but that in two or three years there would be a fall, and that they, therefore, did not care to increase, or to maintain, their present acreage unless they knew there was to be a guaranteed price for a certain number of years. Therefore, there was no particular reason for appointing these persons to see whether or not the farmer was cheating—because that is what it comes to. But the Board of Agriculture did not only appoint these inspectors to see that the farmers did not make false returns, but they spent more money on other people to check the inspectors, to see, I suppose, if their returns were correct. I do not see what was the use of this double check. May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a few questions on the letter he has, I suppose, received from me? Has he got it.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I am sorry to say I have not received it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Well, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will receive a letter from me, and in it I have taken the opportunity of putting a few questions to him. I will put those questions now, and if I am not quite correct in my memory of the letter, which I only myself received this morning, he will forgive me. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to Item CC. He said it was necessary to spend an increased sum—£50,000—which

    1145
    was required for the cultivation of farms which the War Agricultural Committees—I think they are now called the County Agricultural Executive Committees—had taken over. He went on to say that the acreage of these various farms is about 10,000. In a majority of cases, he said, the Committees which had taken over these farms had been able to find suitable tenants, but not in every case. But is it wise for this Committee to grant this further sum of £50,000 in view of the fact that in many cases the Committees have not acted wisely, and certainly they have acted very harshly. A case I want to mention is that of the owner of a farm of about 230 acres. He had his farm taken from him in 1917, and has never received a single farthing. If my information be correct, at the present moment the authorities refuse to give him back his farm, and are pretending to cultivate it by getting one or two neighbouring farmers to go in and do a little when they have the time to spare. The letter is a very pathetic letter. I have not checked it, and, therefore, I do not know whether or not it is true, but the wife of the owner of this particular farm writes to me to say that she herself worked very hard during 1917. She cut 90 acres herself. She says that, notwithstanding this, that they have not had a single farthing of rent from the particular Executive Committee during the whole of that period. This is not an isolated case. I trust when he gets my letter he will investigate it. I hope that he will be able to do something in the way of putting right these injustices. I do not say there are many cases. Very likely, in the majority of cases, these Agricultural War Committees have done the right thing, but in many cases they have not, and in many cases they have been very tyrannical. We know the quotation about
    "Man dressed in a little brief authority."
    He exercises it in a very wrong way sometimes. This is not the only case which has been brought to my knowledge. I hope hon. Members will support me when I say that a proper inquiry should be made into cases of this sort, and if it is found that the allegations are true, that steps should be taken to recompense these people.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Hear, hear!
    Sir F. BANBURY: For the loss they have sustained. I understand from that interjection that my hon. and gallant Friend will look into the matter. I would only express the hope that when we have the Estimates for this year they will be drawn in such a way as will not make it necessary to have enormous Supplementary Estimates.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I would only say one word from the practical point of view about these inspectors. I really think the appointment was unnecessary, and an unnecessary expense. What were they to do? Not to check corn grown or harvested on any particular piece of land, but to check the acreage returns of the particular amount of corn grown on a particular area, and also, I presume, to see whether the land upon which that corn was grown was fairly well cultivated. A farmer claimed that he had grown 50 acres of cereals—wheat, oats, barley. What the inspectors had to do was to verify the fact that there were 50 acres of cereals, and that these acres were under proper cultivation. I suggest to the Board of Agriculture that it is quite impossible in June or July—of all months in the year—to judge that. It is not practicable to say how the land has been cultivated. If you desire to know that you must go when the crop is off the land. It would require a great expert to judge very much on the point. A far more economical and effective method to pursue in this matter would have been after the crop had been harvested, and if the Department heard that a fall in price was likely—and I am bound to say that the experts of the Board of Agriculture differed from the general agricultural opinion all over the country, and the fact that the Government had any idea that the price was likely to fall anywhere near the guaranteed price, so far as the minimum prices were concerned, has been made great play of both in this House and in the country—then to have looked into it. No farmer has ever had one penny piece out of the proposal and, in my opinion, never will. From the agricultural point of view I, for one, attach very little value to minimum prices, and to put inspectors on to discover whether or not the State was likely to be liable to pay this minimum price was unnecessary.
    The Board of Agriculture should simply have said: "We do not know yet whether

    1147
    or not we are likely to have to pay anything under the guarantee, but if we have anything to pay, if any claims are made, we can perfectly well, after these claims are made, and immediately it is clear that there will be a claim, send down a representative to look at the land, if it is necessary, and ascertain whether or not the claim is a proper one. That would really have been the practical thing to do. If I had been liable as a landlord for a guarantee of that kind to my tenants, if I, under similar circumstances, had been obliged to guard myself against any possible fraud, that is the course I should have adopted. In the position in which the country is, that £130,000 an important sum—might have been saved. I do not blame my hon. and gallant Friend in the least, but I do think that the Board of Agriculture in this and in some other matters have been badly advised from the practical point of view, for what is really wanted is practical knowledge—somebody who knows and realises from everyday experience what a growing crop of corn is like. This action really follows an official theory as to liability, and therefore with that theory, according to the standards of a Government Office, they must send Government Inspectors, and follow up with other Inspectors to watch them. Under the circumstances in which we are dealing with a practical industry like agriculture, if that £130,000 could have gone into the industry to help wages or help the farmers to make both ends meet, it would have been a great deal better spent, for by admission of my hon. and gallant Friend it has been absolutely wasted.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. ROYCE: I should like to add my quota of censure in the matter of the cereal inspectors. I have been very much interested in that subject from the first inception of the idea by the Department, and I have put questions to the right hon. Gentleman of the purport of which he could have no doubt from very early days. People in my part of the country describe the proposed expenditure on cereal inspectors as profligate. I do not think the word is too strong under the circumstances. Reference has been made to the fact that they have not been of any practical value, but, perhaps, they have done one good service in verifying the statements of farmers with regard to the area of their crops. If, in that sense,
    1148
    they have tended to rehabilitate the agricultural community in the opinion of the country, it is something to the good. I am not going to quarrel with the appointment altogether, or with the work afterwards performed by these men, but I shall have something to say in a moment or two with regard to the quality of the men. I want to say that the work could have been performed by the agricultural committees without any cost to the Department, for the machinery was there and all the arrangements could easily have been made. But the Department decided to appoint inspectors, and to do what? To report on something like 67,000 acres of cereals; if it were true that they had to report on that area the work could have been done in a fortnight, and I would suggest further that the sum paid of £100 per inspector was altogether ridiculous and in excess of the value of the services rendered. Be it remembered that, in addition, the travelling expenses of these officials had to be paid.
    One would have thought that the Board of Agriculture whose solicitude in the matter of discharged ex service men is so praiseworthy would not, as in this instance, have been so negligent as they proved to be when they sued their orders for the appointment of cereal inspectors. One would have imagined that their first thoughts would have turned in the direction of those who had served their country. But no such instructions were issued, and graziers and tinsmiths and all kinds of people were appointed to these posts without any special qualifications for the work. If it had been a question of requiring men with technical knowledge surely they would not have appointed the class of men they did. In my own part of the country they made a wonderful appointment. While there were a great many ex-service men capable of doing the work, and wanting a job, they appointed as a Corn Inspector a man who held the office of local Coal Controller, School Attendance Officer and a Controller of the Food Department, together with a few more appointments, and when I brought that fact to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman he excused the Department by saying that it had left the appointment to the local committees. That is not the way in which to do the business of the Board of Agriculture: it should be done by the Board itself.

    1149
    I was going to say something in the nature of a compliment to the right hon. Gentleman, but he is not taking this subject sufficiently seriously, and I shall therefore continue to censure him. It is a subject of very great importance. The Board have been negligent in their duties. While the Government is complaining of the action of hon. Members on these Benches who are associated with the trade unions, they themeselves, when they could have afforded employment for many ex-soldiers, have neglected to avail themselves of the opportunity. What an example of Government administration! Why were not the 1,000 inspectors who were appointed at a fee of £100 each, with travelling expenses, ex-service men? The right hon. Gentleman will find it rather difficult to answer that question. I will therefore not pursue it any further.
    Now, may I turn to a rather brighter side! I, in common with everybody else, have been very much interested and have very much appreciated the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman as to the work already done by the Board in the matter of land settlement and small holdings. So far as I can gather, this section of the work of the Ministry of Agriculture has been carried out well. It might have been done, perhaps, a little more rapidly, but, then, I am quite conscious of the many difficulties with which the Department has to contend. I wish to compliment the Board of Agriculture in this connection, but, still, I hope that, while they are concentrating their energies upon this section of their work, and it is, perhaps, the most important work of all, they will not neglect another duty falling upon the Ministry which has been imposed upon them and expected of them in relation to agricultural communications. I am not going to deal with that now. I realise it is outside the question before the Committee. I am afraid I have seen some signs that the Ministry is falling from those high ideals with which we credited them when they started upon their career. But we hope they will still maintain those ideas. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will regard this as a word of warning or as a helpful suggestion. At any rate, he quite understands what I am referring to when I say I hope that the Board will not neglect their duties in respect of providing better means of com-
    1150
    munication You cannot establish farm colonies in out-of-the-way areas unless you look after the communication, and take steps to enable the holders of the farms to get their produce to market. Therefore, in the rush of his other duties, and they are many, which the right hon. Gentleman is called upon to perform, I trust he will not forget this very important question of communications.
    I listened with a great deal of interest and sympathy to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) with regard to the complaints made by those whose land has been taken over by the War Committees. It is a very difficult question, and I should like to support the right hon. Baronet in his desire that those people, if they have been badly used, should be compensated. But before pledging myself to the view that they have been badly used, I should prefer to have a full investigation. I have been connected with similar circumstances, and, probably, like charges have been levelled against the Committee of which I am a member. The circumstances were undoubtedly very difficult. The country demanded good cultivation, and when once a farm was taken over it became a very difficult thing to let it go. I believe the Committee with which I am associated has practically cleared up the whole of its business. There is, however, a point which should be borne in mind. After the strenuous work of the War, Committees are apt to get lax and to let things slide. I suggest the right hon. Gentleman should take all possible precautions to keep existing Committees in proper working order until the new Committees, which it is proposed to form, are in office. During this period grave injustices may occur. I know some that are possible, and I hope, therefore, the. Department will take steps to see that this is done. Generally speaking, I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the statement he has made, and, so far as this section of the House is concerned, upon the work he has accomplished in the settlement of soldiers on the land and in the work of providing small holdings, especially the latter, to satisfy the demand, which is very great indeed, on the part of ex-soldiers. So long as the Department will pursue this course it will have the support of the party with which I am associated.
    Mr. MOUNT: I do not want to belabour my right hon. Friend with regard to the question of the Corn Inspectors. I am in agreement with what has been said on that subject. But I particularly want to draw attention to the delay in paying the grants to the Agricultural Committees. There has been very great delay, and at a time when payment was of great importance to the Committees to enable them to carry on their work. Payment has become all the more important, because these Committees are now Sub-Committees of County Councils, and have to be financed in the first place by the County Council. The County Councils themselves are extremely hard up, and if the payment of these grants is to be delayed, and the County Councils are to find the necessary money, it may hinder the operations of the Committees for a considerable time. I would therefore venture to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should urge upon the Treasury the necessity for the prompt payment of these grants, so that the work of the Committees may not be hampered in any way. I would like to add my congratulations to what has been said with regard to the Board's work in settling ex-soldiers on the land. It is work which is extremely difficult, but I am bound to say that, on the whole, the Land Settlement Committees have had a considerable amount of help from the Board, and I trust that that help will be continued, because there is still a great deal of work to do, and the Committees will require all the assistance we can give them if they are going to make the movement the success we desire it to be.
    Mr. H. HOPE: We have heard a good deal of complaint against the Board, especially with regard to the outpouring of £130,000 on Corn Inspectors, but is there not another side of the question? The Government incurred a considerable liability under the Corn Production Act, and had it not taken reasonable steps to protect the country against excessive claims, I think there might have been complaints on that score, and the Governments would have been blamed for not taking reasonable precautions. To my mind, it is a very satisfactory state of affairs that this inspection work has resulted in the farming community being cleared of any imputation of having made
    1152
    erroneous returns, and if this £130,000 has no other result than merely confuting accusations that might have been made, I think we can claim it has not been badly spent. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean) also complained about £217,000 having been spent on the purchase and equipment of farms acquired under the Farm Colonies Act. We all know how this House has urged the Government to go ahead faster with these schemes, and, therefore, seeing that the expenditure has been incurred simply in order to carry out the wishes of the House itself, I cannot find justification for the criticisms which have been indulged in. Then the right hon. Gentleman also referred to the large expenditure of £222,000 under Sub-section E for the training of officers and men for agricultural pursuits. There again surely there was work that needed to be done, and though this is a very large sum of money I cannot help thinking that a grateful country, recognising all that those men did for her in the hour of stress, will not grudge this money. Therefore, when I hear a great deal of these criticisms I am inclined to think that it has not all been misspent money. There is one matter to which I wish to refer to under the heading BB about fertilisers. We have been getting phosphate from America instead of from Algiers. That which comes from Algiers is a higher class super-phosphate and we are suffering at present by getting an inferior grade. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that in future we get, as we used to get, a good supply of phosphate from Algiers instead of from America.
    Sir B. STANIER: Under Item A, I find that £30,000 is asked for for temporary clerical staff. We ought to know a little more for what these temporary clerks are required, because above you have the Corn Production Act, £10,000, farm colonies, £4,000, and the Land Settlements Acts, 1919, £14,000. We ought to know who these temporary clerks are and what they are used for. Again we have additional war bonuses. Are they for the temporary clerks or for the whole? I suppose they are for the whole, but we should like to know a little more. Item E is for maintenance grants and expenses of training in agriculture for officers and men demobilised from the forces. It would be very interesting if we could be

    1153
    told where these training stations are, and how long these officers and men may stay there in order to be trained. It is absolutely futile and throwing the money away if they are not given sufficient time to learn the work. There is a note—additional expenses. That is rather confusing because this is a supplementary grant. I take it the original grant was not made to the Board of Agriculture. I think it was made to the Ministry of Labour and was transferred.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no doubt that in the case of the Ministry of Labour or Pensions, in their original Vote sums were included for this training of disabled officers and men. We were asked to take it over and therefore the expense has to appear on our Vote. We could not include it in our original Votes because we were not then doing the work, and it has to some in a Supplementary Vote. As regards their Estimates, no doubt it will be shown as a saving.
    Sir B. STANIER: I am glad to hear that. This £222,300 is part of the grand total which was given for the whole scheme. I agree with what has been said on the subject of inspection, but I think the County Council Executive Committees have the blame chiefly on their shoulders for not putting the right men in. In my own county not only have soldiers been put in, but soldiers who have been physically maimed. The man who inspects my own part is a soldier with only one arm. That is what we want to see. He had farmed all his life till he joined the forces. Those are the men we want. Someone said something about tinkers and tailors. Those are the men we do not want. The blame lies on the County Council Executive Committees. I should like to ask a further question about seeds and fertilisers. I have always taken a great interest in the subject of potash. I have egged my right hon. Friend on to try to provide it. At present the land is very deficient in potash and many of the weeds which are smothering our crops are there because there is no potash to destroy them. Also we cannot get the best crops out of the land unless we get this potash. Some of it is being sent over from France and some from Germany but not in sufficient quantities, and the price is prohibitive. Can my right hon. Friend not help to persuade the different Government Departments who have to come along with
    1154
    him to bring this over, to get more into this country and lower the price?
    Mr. HOHLER: This Supplementary Estimate is disappointing compared with other Estimates that we have had. Every Department seems to spend money. If these inspectors were thought to be necessary why did not my right hon. Friend make an Estimate for them when we had the original Vote? So far as I know, not a half-penny has been paid to any farmer under the Corn Production Act, or ever will be. The guaranteed price for wheat last year was 55s.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have pointed out that that was under the Act. But by subsequent announcement of Lord Ernie the guarantee was raised to 71s. 11d.
    Mr. HOHLER: 71s. 11d., when we know that the Government were paying something over £5 a quarter to the foreign producer! Really in these circumstances for a Government Department, knowing that another Department was paying at least £5 and knowing that there was a world shortage and that there were starving countries in Europe, to appoint these inspectors seems to be throwing money into the gutter. I cannot understand why it is brought in. No one contemplated it when the Estimates were originally made and this expense is saddled on the country, and unless we vote against the Government and turn them out there is no redress. The money is gone. How long were these gentlemen appointed for? Who appointed them, and where did they travel?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I made a complete statement about the whole of this matter. I said they were appointed temporarily for two months.
    Mr. HOHLER: One would ask what on earth they could do in that time and at that period. It is true those who do not understand agriculture think that is a proper time for appointing them, but it is ridiculous until you see the crop and know what it is going to yield, when no question could arise in regard to price. But it is not only that. These inspectors require an expensive staff, and then look at the waste of paper in connection with the whole thing. Dozens of forms have to be filled up and thrown away as waste paper. This is going on in every Department, and not in one only. In my judgment at least £400,000 have been purely

    1155
    wasted. Look at what is going on. Instead of being asked for ten sovereigns, the House is asked for practically £500,000 for this, and if you look at the figures which produce that £500,000 they have been selling our assets. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Munitions Ministry, and every one has been telling us what assets we have got; and so we have, and if we ever get to the Vote for the Munitions Ministry we shall ascertain that they have been wasting our assets in the same way in payment for these enormous staffs. We thought we had something to fall back upon to reduce the National Debt and save expenses, but it is frittered away and wasted by these Departments. I do not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman at all. If he had not come to us at all and had shown a saving well and good. I hope it may be true that this expenditure on small allotments and on training our wounded officers is saved on another Vote. But I expect the truth is that when these Votes come up it will be put in an Appropriation in Aid, and they will ask for double as much for something else. That is how the whole thing rolls round. These things are transferred from one Vote to another and we are cheerfully told there will be a saving on another Vote. What guarantee have we got of that? We are going on in a perfectly reckless way. It goes on unchecked, and when anybody gets up in this House to attempt to check it we are threatened by being told to find another Government. The country is fully alive to this matter, and I am perfectly satisfied that they will not stand it much longer. Assets are wasted, and then Government Departments come down in this way and ask for large extra sums in this way. I protest against it.
    I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the education of ex-officers who are being trained under the Ministry of Agriculture. In one particular case which has come to my knowledge, and of which I can give the right hon. Gentleman details, no fewer than four officers were sent to a small holding of twenty acres, and on that twenty acres there was a certain amount of fruit, a little grass and a few potatoes. The officers were doing the work of agricultural labourers who were dismissed because the officers could do the work
    1156
    adequately. If that is training officers in agriculture we are wasting our money again.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Where is it?
    Mr. HOHLER: In Kent. I can give my right hon. Friend full particulars. I can give him the names of one of the officers from whom I had the information (Lieut. Radford). I had the facts from this officer If that is what is going on, and if that is how our money is being expended, then I say that far from enabling these officers—who have served us so splendidly in the War—to become competent farmers and to be able to take up their own holdings and obtain their own livelihood, after having gone through this period of apprenticeship for two years, they will come out of it practically as ignorant as when they went into the course. I have heard compliments paid to the Department by hon. Members to-day, but I could not allow the Estimate to go through without expressing what I believe to be the feeling of this country in regard to the gross extravagance and the gross waste that goes on in these Government Departments. They are allowed to spend what they like, and then when they have spent it they come down here, and we have to either vote the money or turn them out.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Generally speaking, I have to express my gratitude for the very kind reception that has been given to me in performing what is not the very pleasant task of having to ask for a very large additional sum. As I have already pointed out, the greater part of this extra expenditure could not have been foreseen when the original Estimate was framed, while some of it, that in respect of the training for officers and men, we have been compelled to take over—and we were very glad to take it over—from another Department. I will endeavour to answer the criticisms that have been made. It is obvious that the principle criticism is directed against the appointment of the Corn Inspectors. We have been twitted on having shown a great want of foresight in supposing that the price was likely to fall below the guarantee, though, as I pointed out, the guarantee included the larger guarantee that had been promised by Lord Ernie of 71s. 11d. for wheat, and corresponding increases for oats, barley and rye. It has been said that everybody knew that while we were paying these

    1157
    enormous sums for wheat to foreign Governments there was not the slightest chance of the price coming down. I asked the Committee to realise that that may be the case now, but it was by no means the case a year ago.
    We are told that we ought to have consulted experts who really knew. The greatest expert on that sort of question, or, at any rate, the man supposed to be the greatest expert was Sir James Wilson who was our representative on the International Agricultural Commission at Rome, and he predicted a year ago that there was likely to be a break in wheat prices which would bring the price down within a few months to 45s. Hon. Members must give us credit for having consulted the man who was regarded as the greatest expert, and who was deliberately selected as our representative on the International Agricultural Commission at Rome. [HON. MEMBERS: "One of your officials!"] He is not one of our officials; he was in no way connected with the Board. He was regarded as the best expert, and I put it to the Committee, as has been rightly suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and Stirling (Mr. Harry Hope), that we should have been subjected to a great deal of criticism if, in view of the possibility of a fall in prices like that, we had not taken steps to check these returns. We might have found ourselves landed with a very big sum to pay. We might have had to pay £10,000,000 or £20,000,000. What would this House have said if under those circumstances I had stood at this box and admitted that these huge payments had been made, and that no steps had been taken to check the returns? It was not only in the case of wheat but of oats similarly. It was prophesied by people who were in the know, or who were supposed to be in the know, that large importations of maize would bring down the price of oats. Though I regret that this money was expended, and that no direct result accrued, I do say that we should have been very justly criticised if a big payment had had to be met unless we had taken some steps to check the returns. In regard to the character of the men appointed, I know that the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) always criticises any particular appointment made in that Division. It seems that the local Pooh Bah was appointed. At any rate, he was
    1158
    appointed on the advice of the agricultural executive committee of the district. We could not know who were the best men everywhere, and, so far as possible, we followed the advice that was given to us.
    My. hon. Friend also criticised us for appointing in many cases men who were no ex-service men. There again we followed the advice of the local agricultural executive committees. Speaking generally, no Department has taken greater care to give a preference to ex-service men than the Ministry of Agriculture. In all such matters as the appointment of the directors of farm colonies, commanders under the Small Holdings Act, or any other such appointments, it has been laid down absolutely as a rule that, other things being equal, ex-service men should be appointed. On repeated occasions I have made representations in the proper quarter with respect to recommendations for appointments and have asked whether a suitable ex-service man could not be found. That is the policy deliberately adopted, and I hope it will always continue. My hon. Friend also called attention to the need for better transportation. He did not pursue the subject because it hardly arises on this Vote, but I may say that we attach great importance to it, and we are constantly putting before the Ministry of Transport proposals and suggestions for light railways, and so forth, for the benefit of agricultural districts My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) spoke about a certain case where, apparently, an injustice had been done where a county committee had taken possession of a farm. I did not quite follow what he said. He said the man was getting nothing whatever. The usual case is that the tenancy is terminated and the man is paid out. He gets his valuation, whatever it may be.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In this case he was the owner and occupier.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That being so, what my right hon. Friend means is that he is getting no rent. He has a perfect right to claim compensation for the loss of his rent or for any other loss he has sustained, and if he makes a claim the matter will go for arbitration and will be settled in the usual way. If my right hon. Friend will send in the case—
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have done so.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In that case I will take every possible step to see that the matter is dealt with promptly.
    Mr. HOHLER: Does this class of case come before what is known as the Duke Committee? I know of a case where land was taken by a county council and we cannot even identify the particular parts of land that were taken.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my hon. and learned Friend will give particulars of the case, we will endeavour first to identify the plot and then take any other steps that are reasonable My hon. and learned Friend mentioned a case where he suggested that the training of officers had been entirely insufficient and that it was a mockery. If he will let me have the case I will inquire into it. I cannot inquire into it without having the details. Speaking generally, I should be very sorry if the case he mentioned is a bonâ fide one, because. I have taken some trouble to ascertain the kind of training that is given as a rule to disabled officers and men, and I find it to be exceedingly good. I was also asked a question with regard to delayed payments to county councils. I will see that that matter is inquired into. The hon. Member for Stirling spike about phosphate rock. He said the super-phosphate we are getting now is inferior because it is not made from Algiers rock. I think he is mistaken in that. All through the War we took active steps to procure phosphate rock from Algiers through the French Government. This is an international question. The phosphate rock has to be distributed on a fair basis between the various Allied Powers, and we are getting a large quantity at the present time. I hope that a sufficient supply will be available. I was also asked where the training schemes were. I cannot possibly give a detailed answer now. There are thirty or forty of them scattered all over the country. The usual period for training is one year. I was also asked what had caused the increase of staff. It is due to the vast amount of additional work that has been put upon the Department. Only to-day hon. Members have been asking us to make arrangements for the importation of phosphate rock, and we have been asked to make further arrangements for the importation of potash, a
    1160
    matter which we have in hand. All these additional duties imply and necessitate an additional staff, and the increase of staff referred to is really spread over the whole Department. The hon. and learned member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler) asked why this sum of £130,000 for corn inspectors was not included in the original Estimate. The reason is obvious. The original Estimate was prepared in November or December, 1918. The new guarantee and the manner in which it has to be worked out was only made effective in April, 1919. The new guarantee made a difference. So long as you had the original figures under the Corn Production Act it was clearly unnecessary to have the inspection, but when we had to put up these much higher figures the inspection was, in our opinion, necessary.
    Mr. HOHLER: Was not the guarantee based upon the subsidised price of bread? In other words, was not foreign wheat, brought in at a certain price per quarter and sold to the millers at the rate of 73s. or 74s., the same price as was guaranteed? Is not that how the subsidy was worked out, and was it not by virtue of that that you arrived at the guaranteed price of 73s. 6d., which was substantially the same price as the previous year?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is quite true, but the actual promise that the payments should be made under the Corn Production Act only was given early in 1919 after the Estimate was framed. It was afterwards we agreed we would substitute these much higher figures for those of the Corn Production Act. That accounts for the whole thing. Having regard to the fact that the most eminent experts thought that a fall in prices might come about, and we might have to pay a very big sum, it would have been most unwise if we had not taken effective means of cheeking the figures.
    Sir B. STANIER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about potash?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We have taken steps to import a considerable amount from Alsace and also a considerable amount which has come down the Rhine. There has been delay in getting potash from Germany. It was held up, I think, by want of shipping from Rotterdam, but I believe that a great deal of it is now over and will be distributed. I shall be glad to answer any further questions on

    1161
    that point. I thank the Committee for, generally speaking, the kind reception which they have given to these Estimates, and though we have been obliged, owing to circumstances quite unforeseen, to ask for an exceedingly large additional Vote this year, I can assure the Committee that we are as well aware of the need for economy as any other Department, and I hope that we shall not have any large Supplementary Estimate next year.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move that Item S. 1 [Corn Production Act, 1917 (Part I.) Expenses, £130,000] be reduced by £100.
    I am sure that the Committee appreciate the frank manner in which my right hon. Friend has dealt with this whole question, but I regret that I am not satisfied with his explanation as to these inspectors, and therefore beg to move this reduction.
    Captain S. WILSON: As far as I can make out the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, we have been involved in this large expenditure on inspectors owing to the rather remarkable advice given to the Government and to this Department by a gentleman who bears the not uncommon name of Wilson. He has been quoted by
    the right hon. Gentleman as a well-known expert. All I can say is that anybody who thought for a moment must have known that he was wrong. I do not see how he could possibly think that the price of wheat could come down during the course of the past year, or, indeed, of next year. The shortage of ships is such that there are not sufficient to carry the corn to this country. Again, the whole of Europe is starving. In those circumstances, how could any expert tell the Government that the price of wheat was bound to go down? On that advice, we were involved in this huge expenditure for these most unnecessary inspectors. I would recommend my hon. Friend the Member for Holland (Mr. Royce) to read the lesson to members of his own party, and point out what will happen when the land is nationalised, because it is an admirable illustration of the bungling of Departments and of a bureaucracy, in the appointment of unnecessary inspectors throughout the whole country, many of whom, as the hon. Member tells us, have no knowledge of the work which they are appointed to do.
    Question put, "That Item S. 1 be reduced by £100."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 218.

    Division No. 37.]

    AYES.

    [5.53 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Robertson, John

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Sexton, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Briant, Frank

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Smith, Captain A. (Nelson & Colne)

    Bromfield, William

    Irving, Dan

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Spencer, George A.

    Cairns, John

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Spoor, B. C.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Tootill, Robert

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Turton, E. R.

    Donnelly, P.

    Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, East)

    Wignall, James

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Finney, Samuel

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Gardiner, James

    Myers, Thomas

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Gould, James C.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Onions, Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Hogge.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Redmond, Captain William Archer

    NOES.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Atkey, A. R.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Barrand, A. R.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Haslam, Lewis

    Purchase, H. G.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Remer, J. R.

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Hinds, John

    Rendall, Athe stan

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hood, Joseph

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Hope, H. (Stirling S Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Briggs, Harold

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Royden, Sir Thomas

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Brawn, Captain D. C.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Jesson, C.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Seager, Sir William

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Kidd, James

    Seddon, J. A.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    King, Commander Henry Douglas

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

    Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

    Simm, M. T.

    Casey, T. W.

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Clough, Robert

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Stan er, Captain Sir Beville

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major P.

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Lorden, John William

    Stewart, Gershom

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Sugden, W. H.

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Martin, Captain A. E.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Edge, Captain William

    Matthews, David

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

    Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

    Waddington, R.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Wallace, J.

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Mosley, Oswald

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Murchison, C. K.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Foreman, Henry

    Meal, Arthur

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Younger, Sir George

    Grant, James A.

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Oman, Charles William C.

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Towyn

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Jones.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    BREAD SUBSIDY.
    Motion made, and question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,500,000, 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, 1920, for the Cost of the Bread Subsidy."
    Mr. SWAN: I beg to move, that the Vote be reduced by £100.
    6.0 P.M.
    It must not be assumed that we are against a subsidy on bread. As a matter of fact what we view with apprehension is what will take place when next year the subsidy is reduced to £45,000,000. We realise that it would strike an effective blow against the poorest of the poor,

    1165
    against the old age pensioners, the soldier and his dependants, the police pensioner, and those who are in receipt of insurance benefit.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not now discussing what the policy should be in the future. We are discussing only a Supplementary Estimate of £6,500,000 to the original Estimate, which was £50,000,000. The only point at the moment is whether the Committee shall agree to the granting of that extra £6,500,000. If the hon. Member wants to reduce that sum, or thinks that some step taken by the Government might have prevented their asking for this supplementary sum, he would be in Order, but to discuss the whole question of the bread subsidy is not in Order.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: When Mr. Whitley was in the Chair, I asked him whether on this Vote we should be in Order in discussing the question of the price of wheat and the guarantee to the British farmer, which is a question of policy, and the Chairman indicated that we should be in a position to discuss that.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to show that by some step the Government might have taken they might have prevented the necessity for asking for this supplementary grant, that would be in Order.
    Mr. SWAN: I appreciate the point of Order, and I will attempt not to transgress again. Whatever subsidy is given, we believe that there; ought to be some differentiation as to the manner in which it is administered. We have abundant reason for criticising the manner in which the £50,000,000 has been administered. There was a Committee on National Expenditure appointed some time ago, and they reported that, had this subsidy been used only for bread, instead of for pastries and sweetmeats as well, there would have been £14,500,000 saved to the community. Therefore, instead of the Government having to appeal for an extra £6,500,000, there would have been, approximately, a credit balance of £9,000,000. We have had much talk of economy. It is no good appointing Committees to go into expenditure and to suggest ways and means whereby
    1166
    we can effect economy if the Government totally disregard the recommendations of those Committees It was suggested by the Committee that the subsidy was not used for bread for the benefit of poor people at all. They said:
    "Moreover the price of cakes, pastry, and other goods, or smalls, which are produced by bakeries is uncontrolled, and no doubt very large profits are made by the sales of these articles, which are now produced from subsidised flour."
    Last week I asked a question as to the proportionate quantities used for bread and for pastries. We were advised by the Food Controller that about one quarter went to pastries and the remainder to bread. That being the case, strong efforts ought to have been made by the Government to have saved that amount for the benefit of the nation. There is another aspect of the question as to which the Labour party brings forward criticism. We were told some time ago that by the policy of the Government the cost of living would be reduced by 4s. a week for the average man. We are anxiously waiting for that reduction. Instead of it, the policy of the Government is leading to a substantial increase in prices. We have suggested a means whereby the subsidy might have been reduced. That is, by opening up trade with Russia. Time and time again the Labour party and other Members on this side of the House have recommended that policy. It has been totally disregarded by the Government. We press the proposal forward again and we say that the time has come, if we are to save this country, if we are to effect the security and happiness of the people, to remove unrest and discontent and prevent the social revolution, then we must re-establish trade with Russia and remove the blockade. The Prime Minister said last month:
    "The withdrawal of Russia from the supplying markets is contributing to high prices…"
    Captain S. WILSON: May I ask whether this question of trade with Russia is not a question of policy and therefore out of order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is endeavouring, I understand, to show that if the Government had obtained more wheat from Russia they would not have required to ask for this £6,500,000.
    Mr. SWAN: We suggest that if the policy we advocated had been put into operation there might have been a substantial balance to the credit of the Government, and we might have reduced the cost of living. Instead of that our policy has been ignored. Let me complete the quotation which I was about to read. The Prime Minister said:—
    "The withdrawal of Russia from the supplying markets is contributing to high prices and the high cost of living, to scarcity and to hunger. The corn bins of Russia are bulging with grain."
    We believe that statement is substantially true to-day and we believe it was true 12 months ago. Complaints have been made that we cannot act for want of transport. When there was a railway strike we utilised the ships of the Navy; we put into operation 22 sweepers and 42 other vessels and ten destroyers. If we could use those ships of the Navy when there was a strike, in order to break the strike or to supply food, surely we could utilise them to-day to bring food into the country? We ought to exert every energy and to utilise the surplus food which is in other countries. We are told by the Committee on Expenditure that there is an abundance of food outside the United States of America to supply our requirements, if we would utilise the transport. Why not? Surely the policy we are pursuing is simply guaranteeing high prices for British farmers at the expense of the people? That is a policy which is not likely to maintain peace and to remove unrest. We believe that greater control ought to be taken. We have been subsidising the millers. Taking the case of Spillers & Bakers, in two years they put £250,000 to reserve on a capital of £500,000 and they continued to pay 15 per cent. We suggest that you are taxing the nation for the benefit of those you are subsidising. That policy we consider is not in the interests of the nation. I beg to move:—
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I rather wish that in raising this question it could have been done on a wider issue on which we could have discussed the whole question and policy of the bread subsidy and guarantee. I do not think, however, that even this limited opportunity should be allowed to pass without saying a word on the effects of the bread subsidy; and the guarantee and the price, from the point of view of this increase which is now demanded. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken
    1168
    has fallen into an error because he suggested that this large sum in the way of a subsidy for wheat was being paid by giving guarantees to the British farmer and that that was causing unrest in the community. I am sure his intentions are excellent, but immense harm is done by statements of that kind. It is absolutely without foundation. If unrest and jealousy between different sections of the community is at this moment our greatest danger, surely it is our duty to see that the facts are placed fairly before the country and the different sections of the community. My hon. Friend must know that not one single farthing has been paid to one single farmer under any guarantee of this subsidy; but, on the contrary (as I hope to show) this increase which we are now asked to vote, is mainly and directly due to the neglect of the Government to support agriculture and home production.
    Mr. SWAN: I suggested that the blockade of Russia was really maintaining high prices and that that was assisting the British farmer.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know what my hon. Friend intended to say, but what he did distinctly say was that it was the guarantee to the British farmer. If he desires to withdraw it, I hope he will do so.
    Mr. SWAN: I suggested that the policy pursued was bound to maintain high prices, and that those are going to be paid to the British farmer. If we remove the blockade and get more wheat from Russia and the Argentine, it will reduce the price.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is an entirely different matter. My hon. Friend suggested that it was the guarantee to the British farmer that was the cause.
    Mr. SWAN: No, no?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to suggest that, perhaps he will withdraw it?
    Mr. SWAN: I do not wish to suggest that.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Then that matter, at any rate, is cleared up, and it is not the guarantee to the British farmer which is the cause of this. As far as we can ascertain them, we find that the wheat subsidy has cost about forty-five million

    1169
    pounds per year at the old rate. If it were continued, on the present rate, and the increasing rate, it would be about ninety-five million; and this Vote of six-and-a-half millions really represents the increase at the high rate for a short time. If that were continued for the next financial year the increase would be forty-five millions. Unfortunately, the result of that financially is this: That even with this forty-five million saving which the change adumbrated by the Prime Minister will bring about, we shall still have to pay the same subsidy as before of about 45 millions—even when the loaf stands at a shilling instead of ninepence. What we are really doing in the policy indicated is not actually saving, but merely shifting on to the consumer all that additional part of the subsidy which would be incurred owing to the policy which has been pursued in the past. I desire to point out what has been the disastrous result of that policy on the general finances of the country and on the price of bread and of wheat. One reason why I think the increase in the price of bread to a shilling will have a good effect is that it will make people realise what money is being spent. What has been the policy? The policy has been to buy this wheat overseas. What has been the result? The reason why this additional expenditure has been incurred is mainly because the effect of this enormous buying abroad of wheat, though, of course, not only of wheat, but very largely so, which might be produced at home has put the exchanges constantly against us.
    A very large proportion of this money which we are now voting does not represent money paid at its ordinary rate for value received. It simply represents the fact that instead of getting in America five dollars' worth of wheat for a sovereign, you are only getting three-and-a-half dollars' worth of wheat, and that is where the money goes! Look at the figures—the price of wheat in this country at the present time is about 76s. per quarter, which is the price at which the Government takes it compulsorily from the farmer and sells it to the miller. Therefore, the farmer has his wheat taken from him at a figure which is from 40s. to 50s. below the price which the Government is paying for foreign wheat delivered in the ports of this country. The effect of this, in the first instance, is that the subsidy on wheat, instead of being
    1170
    paid by the taxpayers as a whole, is largely paid by the British farmer. I do not think I shall be transgressing the rules of order if I remark in passing that it is suggested that the farmer can afford to pay the agricultural labourer the same wage as a railway porter—which he would be very glad to do—but it must be remembered that the railway companies are receiving a subsidy of forty millions, whereas the farmer has got to pay a subsidy to the Government of about ton millions. The British farmer has in this manner paid part of the subsidy. I do not want to exaggerate the figures, but I will take the lower figure of £2 per quarter which is being paid for foreign wheat more than the price which the British farmer is allowed to charge. That represents 160 shillings per acre on four quarters to the acre which is being sent abroad, while the British farmer is compelled to take a price which is unremunerative, under present economic conditions. The consequence of that policy is that this subsidy is being forced up in every direction—not only by the exchange directly, but also because less and less acreage of wheat is being grown in this country year by year. The price at home is maintained at the same level, and we have the Agricultural Wages Board putting another four or five shillings upon the wages which have to be paid to agricultural workers.
    The direct effect of this subsidy policy is that more and more land will go out of cereal cultivation, and for every acre on the figures I have given of British land which goes out of wheat cultivation you have got to pay an extra 160 shillings to the foreigner, at the present rate of exchange. That really is not a policy which can possibly commend itself to the country as a whole. Now we have an announcement that the present price of wheat of 76s. is to remain as the maximum price which the farmer can charge for the harvest of 1920. I may say, incidentally, when we raised that point in debate the other night, we were told that the British farmer might hold the 1920 crop to 1921, in the hope that he might get 100s. per quarter. I cannot think that that suggestion could have been seriously made. If anything was likely to breed ill-will between the farmers and the rest of the community, it would be to hold up one

    1171
    year's crop to the next year in order to get a higher price. The thing does not bear talking about. It is quite obvious, if we are to be saved this kind of Supplementary Estimate, something must be done to enable the British farmer to grow wheat in this country at a profit, and that not only on the best land. Whatever you may do, you will always get wheat grown on the best land where you have six quarters to the acre. We live on margins; where it takes, say, four and a half quarters, to pay the cost of cultivation, under present conditions, the land that can only grow four quarters will have a loss. The land which grows six quarters will have quite a big figure compared with old prices; and with three sacks of a margin will have a profit. The poor land will grow inferior crop. It does not help the farmer on the poor land that people are making a profit on the good land. The unfortunate thing about all these controls and subsidies and guarantees is that everything is done on averages. The man who is above the average is all right; but those below are knocked about and the land goes out of cultivation; and the whole country loses.
    I venture to point this moral, that through this policy, which is largely responsible for us now having to vote 6½ millions of money in excess of the original estimate, in addition to this subsidy, the consumers in the country will have to pay another 45 millions in the course of the next 12 months for their bread, because of the exchanges and because of this policy. I suggest that the Government should really re-model their agricultural policy. I know this is an industrial country and that this House makes laws for an industrial country which agriculture has to put up with. We have, of course, to legislate for the benefit of the people as a whole, but it is surely just as much in the interests of the industrial majority as of the agricultural minority that we should produce our food at home instead of having to buy it from abroad, and it is no use tinkering with the question. We must have an agricultural policy which will really make it pay, and the kind of feeling which was expressed by the last speaker is really a bad omen. It is that the industrial community look with some jealousy and suspicion upon the agricultural industry, that they think the farmers are trying to
    1172
    profiteer at their expense, and that they make quite large sums of money out of agricultural land. I can assure them that, although on some of the best land, with special crops and under special conditions, big profits may be made—I do not deny that, but I have no experience of it, because I am not fortunate enough to own or to cultivate any land of that description—but from my own knowledge I know it is absolutely impossible under present conditions to cultivate poor land and make both ends meet, and pay the present wage and the present cost of cultivation under the conditions imposed on us now by Parliament.
    I am farming a large area of land of that description. I was able to farm it without serious losses all through the nineties, which are looked upon as the very worst times that agriculture has ever been through, but I tell the Committee that under present conditions I am far worse off than I was in the nineties. There was land which throughout the War was kept in good cultivation and was producing large quantities of food, as much as you could get out of that poor land, for the people. Now that land—large areas of it—is going straight out of cultivation, and no corn is being grown upon it, and it will not grow grass, and surely it is a short-sighted policy for the industrial community to say that it is in their interests that, in order to secure some fancied advantage, that land should be kept out of cultivation. You have either got to enable that land to be farmed cheaply, or you have got to enable a good price to be obtained for what can be grown upon it. What the Committee is' now being asked to do is an illustration of the difficulty we are being brought into by being afraid of facing the consequences of our action. The Government are to blame, because instead of following the best policy with a view to the future benefit of the whole community, they have followed the line of least political resistance. That is really what it has been. The line of least political resistance seemed to be to give the least possible subsidy, which would not raise the cry of profiteering, and to buy our wheat from abroad. Now we have the Nemesis, and I only hope that the Government and the country will see where this is leading us.
    If we are to avoid such Supplementary Estimates as this in future, and try to get

    1173
    the price of bread down, let us keep it down by natural means, by competition in wheat growing, instead of by taxes and by subsidies, the only result of which is to pile up the expenditure till it overflows, and then you have to go and throw it on the consumer after all. If I had to suggest a policy for the consideration of the Government, it would be this. Do away with your control altogether, and instead of spending your money on a £45,000,000 subsidy, which grows to £95,000,000, it would be much better to let the country pay the natural price for the loaf, and realise what that natural price is, and let natural laws work, and then take the best measures possible to mould them to our requirements. We could then spend the £45,000,000, or such part of it as might be necessary, in giving temporary assistance to pre-war pensioners and such-like poorer classes of the community, upon whom the burden would fall most strongly, and as the prices of bread adjust themselves again naturally and get back to some figure which could be previously stated, those grants should automatically cease. They would not cost you any more, you would get the thing into its natural groove, this artificial machinery, which involves endless expenditure in many other ways than those indicated in this Debate, would come to an end, and we should get agriculture put upon its natural and proper footing.
    Mr. HASLAM: I am sure the Committee has listened with great attention to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I understand the Government is paying considerably more for imported wheat than it is paying to the farmers for wheat. That in itself is discouraging the growth of wheat, and I am sure we all agree that the sooner that kind of control disappears the better for the trade and prosperity of the country. With regard to the remarks of the previous speaker (Mr. Swan), I think he omitted to remember that the reason why we could not get supplies from Russia, even if they were there, is the difficulty of transports. Even in Russia itself the difficulties are such that there are people starving in one part of the country while there are plenty of corn and provisions in another part. The point that I want to raise now particularly is one of vast importance with regard to the health and physique of the people of this country. The responsibility
    1174
    of the Food Ministry and the Government at the present time is very grave indeed, for they have control over the wheat supply and over the milling of flour, and they can therefore do practically what they like to ensure that the people of this country shall be supplied with the most nutritious kind of flour, and therefore of bread. Those Members who have read the memorial and the report which I hold in my hand will have noticed the names of many of the most distinguished medical men, analysts, and scientists of the day, a report in which they all agree that the vital elements in bread are frequently and generally taken out, are not left in the flour, and therefore the people of this country, especially the poor, are not provided with the most wholesome and nutritious form of bread. When we consider the vast number of C3 men who could not be considered fit for Army service, when we consider the medical reports as to the low condition of the national physique, and when we consider that this is shown by the most eminent medical men to be due to the children not having provided for them the most healthy form of nourishment, then I think it will be realised that it is the duty of this House and the Government to take such steps as shall ensure that the essential elements in the flour shall not be taken out.
    A number of us have considered that the question of providing the best and most nutritious flour might well be made to represent great financial economy to the Government. Flour could be made of one quality, or a quality which could be subsidised, which would contain in it all these elements which are so necessary for health. This flour, which I am suggesting should be standard flour, would be the only class of flour which would receive the subsidy. The poor would then be certain of getting the best kind of bread for their children and for themselves. It has been proved beyond doubt that when ordinary white bread is given to the lower animals—experiments have been tried on various animals—they become rickety, and they eventually die, unless they have some substituted food; but, on the contrary, directly they are provided with the real bread containing the essential qualities for health they begin to thrive at once. It is known that a case of beri-beri has been brought about by the use of polished rice, and that when the rice is supplied unpolished the disease disappears. I

    1175
    think it would be very wise of the Food Ministry if they would get their officers carefully to consider how this policy might be carried into effect, for it would produce very valuable results. One would be that those who most require cheap food would get the healthiest food at the cheapest price, while those who want fancy cakes and other delicacies would have to pay the full price. After consulting a good many experts, I suggest that the means could be found by which the Government could, with their control, make it absolutely certain that the flour provided to the people in this country should be the standard flour Some years ago the "Daily Mail" started what was known as—
    The CHAIRMAN: This is only relevant to the subject now before the Committee in so far as it would save money in the Subsidy.
    Mr. HASLAM: Perhaps I was wrong in mentioning any particular newspaper. I want to try to show the policy I am now enunciating was a failure when enunciated by some daily papers. The reason was that the bread was called standard, but there was no standard. No one knew what it contained at the time. Some was good, some bad and some indifferent, and the worst millers, I am told, took the opportunity of putting into this standard bread all the rubbish they could find and, of course, the result was disastrous. What I am proposing now is that the Government should see to it that the standard flour I am proposing should be absolutely pure and of the best quality, and there should be no doubt that when people got this bread it would be of the best possible quality. With regard to standard bread, to have a standard by name only and not in effect is, of course, bound to produce failure. I hope the attention of the Government will be very closely given to this very important subject, which, if carried into effect, would make a very large saving in the subsidy and provide people of this country with a healthy and nutritious form of bread.
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his very interesting discussion as to the quality of bread. It seems to me we have got to consider something far more fundamental, because if we go on with the present Government policy, we shall not have any bread at all except at a most
    1176
    terrible cost to the British taxpayer. It is not often that I venture to take part in any discussion about agriculture, except as a listener, but really this matter of a bread subsidy seems to me so vital, that it should be dealt with on proper lines, and the injustice of the present system is so patent to those who represent agricultural constituencies, that I hope the Committee will forgive me just saying a word or two as to how it looks to us in the Eastern counties. I was down there last week, and saw a good many farmers, and the farmers, generally speaking, in the Eastern counties are a very patient and long-suffering race of people who do not expect very much from politics or from Parliament, but I have never seen them in such a state of anger and disquiet as they now are. We object to the wheat subsidy under the present system, because it makes no provision for enabling this year's wheat to be sold by the farmers even at a price to cover the bare cost of production. The facts as to this are not in dispute. Lord Lee, in his Memorandum published about a fortnight ago, said that
    "The price of 76s. per quarter, which is in effect the maximum price, was fixed in 1918, when the costs of production, and notably wages, were far lower than they are to-day. It has been ascertained that the equivalent of 76s. in 1918 is not less than 95s. in 1920.".
    The position is very much worse since Lord Lee made that announcement, because we are informed in Suffolk that we are likely to have a further rise of 5s. 6d. in the agricultural wage, and, therefore, the 95s., which Lord Lee mentioned as being the equivalent of the 76s., which was supposed to give a fair price to the farmer in 1918, is now increased to a figure well over 100s. before the farmer can be assured of a reasonable return for the money he sinks in the cultivation of wheat. When the farmers sowed last year's crop, they thought that 76s. was going to be the minimum, and not the maximum. That is the invariable opinion given. They may have been wrong, but they only took the statements of Ministers at their face value. They have been let down once, and they are very suspicious as to the Government getting into the habit of letting them down year by year. The announcement which was made to the Prime Minister yesterday is going, I think, to be the last straw, because the farmer will see that the new flour price of 63s. 6d. is about equivalent to

    1177
    a wheat price of 100s. a quarter. The farmer is now subsidising bread under a system which forces him to sell wheat below the cost. That, I think, is contrary to all sound canons of taxation, because it is entirely against the system of equality of sacrifice. If there is to be this burden to give cheap flour, it must be borne by the whole community. Any how, the farmer has had this burden put upon him for the last two years. He was already very restive under it, but when he sees that this new wholesale price of wheat justifies a price to him of £5 a quarter, the hardship will become so obvious as to be quite intolerable.
    I think if there is to be any wheat grown in the Eastern Counties in future, it is imperative at the earliest moment to cancel the instructions to millers to keep down the price to 76s., and immediately to authorise them to pay 100s. for the wheat which is now marketed, failing which I do not think there can be any home-grown wheat sown this autumn on a great deal of land which would otherwise be put under this crop, and if we do not have this home production, it is obviously going to be a very terrible burden either on the consumer or the taxpayer. This House cannot make the farmer grow wheat against his will. D.O.R.A. in her most exacting mood only insisted on good husbandry, and it has never been held to be good husbandry to grow good crops at a loss. Already there is a shrinkage of half a million acres in the cultivation of wheat, and it is perfectly certain, from all present indications, that that process of shrinking is very rapidly increasing. The only way to get farmers to grow wheat in future years is to save them from an unjust loss on the wheat they are growing this year. They do not ask for a profit. I do not believe that, as a whole, they expect what the right hon. Gentleman just now suggested, that the control should be taken off altogether, and that they should get world prices. I think they would like that, but they recognise that, in return for the minimum price which they ask for, it is reasonable that they should have a maximum. Therefore, I believe it would quite meet the case if they could be allowed to get the 100s. a quarter, which I believe this new flour price would justify.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has suggested
    1178
    keeping wheat in the stack. That was a good deal talked about in Suffolk this week-end, and small farmers told me they cannot possibly afford to lock up money in that way. It may be possible for the big farmer, but the small farmer cannot afford it, and, besides, he wants the straw. I believe that if you treat farmers in this unfair way in future years, it will be no good appealing to them to grow wheat on patriotic grounds. They have been very receptive to that appeal in the past, and I do not think it fair of the community to take too great advantage of them. In view of the importance of home-grown wheat, I believe if the Government insist on their present policy it will be worse than merely unfair—it will be stupid.
    Lieut.-Commander C. WILLIAMS: I only wish to say a few words on this particular subject because I am perfectly convinced that a considerable portion of the blame for this enormous rise in the Estimate, although not entirely due to the fault of the Government, can be directly placed on the Government. It has been quite evident to any of us who, since the War has been over, has had any connection whatever with agriculture, and particularly with big agricultural divisions, that unless the Government did everything in their power to endeavour to make those engaged in the agricultural industry absolutely convinced that there was a future for them in the growing of wheat, you would reduce the wheat supply of this country, and I maintain that we can only hope in the immediate future to reduce prices, particularly the price of wheat, by putting into cultivation every acre which ought to be under wheat at the present time in this country. I do not care to what party you belong, you can only reduce your prices by increased production on every line. We have got this very large increase in the Estimates, and I would like to know one or two things from the Government. First of all, as they foresaw, or should have foreseen, during the last few months in which this very large increase was going on, would it not have been possible rather sooner, or, shall I say, at a rather greater rate, to have reduced the standard of flour? I do not believe for one minute that by taking out a higher percentage of flour from corn it would do anything actually but increase

    1179
    the food value of your flour, and by working it at 78, 79, or 80, I am perfectly certain you would have been able to save a very considerable sum. One of the Members of the Labour party said just now something about the amount of flour being used for pastry. This is rather a difficult question, but I would like to ask the Food Controller whether it was not possible in some way, or by some means of co-operation, to have reduced the amount of flour that was used in that way? I do not know if that is the case, but I think the House might be told something on this point.
    7.0 P.M.
    May I mention one or two things which are opening at the present moment which I think it is to the interest of us here to realise? I think it is fairly common knowledge that at the present time a very large number of farmers are growing barley and wheat together, the result of which will be that they will be enabled to sell it, or use it, as dredge corn, instead of selling it in the market as pure wheat. That is in its turn, I understand, bound sooner or later to have a direct effect on next season's corn supply, and a very direct effect on the amount of corn you will have to go towards relieving your bread subsidy. Then, again, the position in which the farmer has repeatedly found himself is that he has had to sell his wheat and then to buy feeding stuffs, which are of far less value for nourishing purposes, at a higher price, than that which he has been able to get for his grain. It does not seem to be wise to allow this feeling to go on among the farming community. They were asked to grow wheat during the War, and they responded to that request to a very large extent, and now they feel that as the War is over their interests are to be left on one side. They have been actually penalised over and over again. They have to go on buying things to replace the grain that they have to sell. I would really urge that on the Government. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture here. I know he has done his best for the agricultural community, and I welcome what he has been able to do. I hope the Committee will urge upon the Government that the position of the price of wheat must be cleared up, particularly with regard to wheat grown in this country. We may be quite certain that the subsidy cannot
    1180
    be reduced permanently. If we are to have more food the whole world must do its best to produce as much as it possibly can.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I only want to emphasise two points. The first is that in this question we are all interested, not merely some of us because we represent agricultural constituencies who are vitally interested, but primarily we are all interested as consumers. The second point is the interest of the taxpayer. I heard some remarks by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) with very great satisfaction. He said that it was particularly vital in carrying the agricultural policy of this country into effect that we should carry with us the assent of hon. Members who sit opposite and the body of opinion outside which they represent.
    I have always maintained that what the agriculturists have to contend with in this House and in the country is not ill-will but, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, lack of knowledge. If a Debate like this does nothing else it will serve to remove some of the misconception with which this question has been surrounded nearly always. I would lay down two propositions which, I think, can hardly be disputed. The first is from the point of view of the taxpayer. He knows that for every quarter of wheat from abroad you will have to pay from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. more than for a quarter of wheat grown here. Secondly, I would ask hon. Members to listen to the words which I have taken down about the "bursting granaries of the world". I think that was the expression used by the Prime Minister not long ago and repeated by the hon. Member to-day. It leads to the impression that the world is bulging with wheat and does not know what to do with it. I have no special knowledge on the point, but I should be surprised if that were a correct impression to give of the wheat position of the world. I do not know what the position may be in this or that country at this moment, but I believe that the big movements of the wheat forces of the world are against and not in favour of cheap wheat.
    The United States and Canada, year by year, find it more difficult to increase their wheat supplies. I believe it is correct to say that Roumania is not to be counted on for the wheat production which it had

    1181
    in the past. Great parts of Europe are in a state of disorder and temporarily out of gear and, what is more vital than any of these things, you have not only a change in the production of the world but you have a change in the taste of great masses of the population. I believe that in China, Japan and India they are now going in for eating wheat instead of for eating rice. In view of all this I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they are really straining at a gnat. They should not regard the old shibboleths about the cheap loaf, but should look at the real economic forces which affect this question, not only in this country, but all over the world, and which are likely to affect it not only next year but for the next four or five years. On these grounds I deplore very earnestly the position of the Government with regard to wheat in this country. I do not want to develop that point, Mr. Chairman, although you have allowed others to develop it, perhaps further than you might allow me. Even the patience of Mr. Whitley may have its limits. I would conclude by saying that these larger general considerations shall be taken into account by all those who are trying to judge the Government policy, and if they are I shall be surprised if hon. Members do not arrive at the same conclusion as myself, which is that that policy has largely failed.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I did not intend to take part in this discussion. The Vote is one affecting the Food Controller and therefore I should not intrude. I did not expect to speak again this evening, but as the Debate has ranged largely around the question of home wheat prices for this year the hon. Member who represents the Food Controller has asked me to say a word on this subject. I listened with a great deal of interest and attention, as I always do, to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Chelmsford, and I can assure him and other Members of the House who have spoken that we do most earnestly desire to encourage the home production of wheat. That is our agricultural policy. We have shown that by passing the Grain Production Act some time ago, and by giving a guarantee of minimum prices, and we intend shortly to propose to amend that Act by provisions bringing up the minimum price to a figure commensurate with the cost of production. That shows that we are anxious to pro-
    1182
    mote wheat production at home. During the War it was necessary for the national safety to make an appeal to the farmers, and we appealed most successfully to them to produce more wheat. If we had not made that appeal, especially if the War had gone on longer, we might have found ourselves in a position of having to face starvation. When that particular danger had passed away we had to recognise the fact that in the present economic conditions, which have been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, and the position of the wheat production of the world generally, we could produce wheat cheaper in this country now than we could import it. Therefore, from the point of view of the consumer and the taxpayer, the more we could encourage home production the better it would be for them. At the present moment so long as we have the subsidy it is more a matter for the taxpayer than for the consumer, but if the subsidy were taken away it would be more a matter for the consumer. Therefore, we wish to see more wheat produced in this country, in large quantities, and at a price that will give a fair return to the farmer. At the same time it should not be an excessive return.
    We could not be a party to allowing the farmer to get the full world price which has been swollen by the change in the exchange, now so much against us, and which has also been swollen by the high rates of freights. I think it would be a mistake on the part of the farmers if they were to attempt to take advantage of such exceptional conditions which have grown out of the War and which have had an effect upon world prices at the present moment. But, speaking generally, there is no doubt that the more wheat we can produce this year, next year and the next few years, the better it will be for the taxpayer and the consumer. With reference to the urban population, I dislike any attempt being made to draw a distinction between the interests of the urban and the rural population. I believe that from the point of view of the urban population, nothing better could happen than that we should stimulate the production of wheat in our own country I am here as the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture from an official point of view, but I represent a constituency which is purely industrial

    1183
    I have put the view which I am now putting before my constituents over and over again, and I think I have got them to realise that their interests as a purely industrial population is bound up with that of the rural population. I think that is the right line to take. The other evening I was arguing against a proposal for the removal of all food control. We could not accept that without giving the world price to the farmer. I made an announcement with reference to the price of wheat for 1920–21. My Noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture (Lord Lee) hoped that that announcement would help to stimulate the growing of wheat in this country. I think that as far as 1921 goes it is generally conceded that the proposals of the Government are fairly reasonable. Those proposals are that, if control is still continued up to the time when the 1921 crop is harvested, the farmer shall have the world price, with a maximum of 100s., and I understand that there is very little quarrel, in this House or in the country, with that announcement so far as it affects 1921. I realise, however, that the fact that a similar concession has not been made with regard to 1920 has not been well received. I should be simply blind, and unable to appreciate the feeling of agriculturists, if I did not realise that the announcement as regards the 1920 crop, so far from being likely to stimulate the production of wheat, is likely to have the opposite effect. The Committee will realise that I am placed in a difficult position. This is not a matter that I can decide; it is not a matter that my Noble Friend the Minister can decide; it is a matter for the Government as a whole. But I am prepared to say that, so far as the Ministry of Agricultuure is concerned, we are fully conscious of the effect which the announcement has had. We realise that our very announcement, in saying that 78s. in 1918 is about equivalent to 95s. to-day, has rather given the policy away, and that the matter, therefore, will have to be further considered. I cannot say more than that, but I can promise, as regards the particular Ministry which I represent in this House, that we shall ask for further consideration of the matter.
    Captain FITZROY: I will be content to leave where it is the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made,
    1184
    feeling well satisfied that he has been—I will not say induced, but has come to a better frame of mind with regard to this question, and is prepared to reconsider it. The Debate which has taken place has been an extremely interesting one from the point of view of agriculturists, and I am glad to see that, towards the end of the Debate, hon. Members seemed to realise more and more that this was much more a consumers' and taxpayers' question than a question purely for the agriculturist. I do not know whether hon. Members of this House are aware of the anomaly that is created by the present position. Formerly farmers were unable to grow wheat because the price was too low; now they are unable to grow wheat because the price is too high. That is a position which anyone reflecting upon it must see is absolutely absurd. I have heard some arguments from the other side of the House which, I think, were made without giving due consideration to this most difficult question. I agree with the remark that was made that our object ought to be to increase the world's supply of wheat, but although that, no doubt, is the proper policy to pursue, and one that is most desirable, surely, if we want to safeguard ourselves, the policy is to increase the supply of home-grown wheat to the greatest of our ability. Even if we come to the more happy state of having a larger world supply, we must not forget the fact that over that world supply, other than our own, we have no control whatever, whereas we shall always be able to have and maintain a control over our own home supply. That is a consideration which should not be lost sight of in advocating increased production of wheat in this country. It is obvious that, as the position is now, with the exchange against us, we are a loser every time we have to purchase a quarter of wheat from overseas, especially from places where the exchange is against us. For that reason alone, if for no other, it is important that we should increase our home supply, so as to be able to give the people of this country wheat at the cheapest possible rate. I am delighted to hear that the Government have thought fit to reconsider this question, and I hope that without any unnecessary delay they will tell us what they are proposing to do. I am told, and I believe there is some truth in it, that the position of farmers with regard to wheat

    1185
    is so difficult that, at any rate, some of them are taking advantage of the existing absurdity that a mixed crop will fetch a larger price than a wheat crop might sell for, and some of them have, I believe, drilled in some other crops across their wheat crop, so as to ensure, when the harvest comes, that they get the full advantage of the market. I do not advocate that system myself; I think it is most unpatriotic; but it is the kind of thing that people are led to do by these ridiculous policies which the Government pursue. As this is going on, I hope the Government will tell us what their decided policy is without any delay, so that this evil may at the same time be put a stop to.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I just wish to ask my right hon. Friend a question with regard to the announcement which ho has just made, and which is of deep intent to the House and to the country. As I understood it—I did not quite catch what he said—the Government are going to reconsider the announcement which was made by the Prime Minister a couple of days ago in this House.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, no! I was not referring to the announcement of the Prime Minister, which had reference to the bread subsidy. I was referring to the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture, about a week ago, in reference to the price of home-grown wheat. That is quite another matter. I did not say that necessarily the Government were going to reconsider it; I said that the Department which I represent, realising the bad effect that that announcement had had in some quarters, were going to ask for its reconsideration.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of the Debate which I understand is to take place next Monday on High Prices, I think it would be very useful to hon. Members to know what the new development in the mind of the Government is before that Debate takes place, and I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that, if I put a question to him by arrangement, say on Thursday, and if he could tell us what the proposals of the Government are, it would be a very useful factor in next Monday's Debate.
    Sir B. STANIER: I am very glad to hear the statement that, as far as the right hon. Gentleman's Department is
    1186
    concerned, this matter will be reconsidered. I do not think the House quite realises the position of the practical farmer in regard to this question. In farming myself I have always kept most careful records of the cost of growing wheat and of the results I have obtained by selling that wheat. In 1914 I found that the cost of growing wheat was £7 9s. per acre. In 1917 that figure had reached £11, and in the autumn of 1919 I arrived at a figure of no less than £14. Fourteen pounds per acre is the cost of growing the wheat which will be harvested this year. According to the figures that we have at the present moment we cannot receive, on the average of the United Kingdom, more than £15 2s., that, is to say, the 75s. 6d. which the millers give—they will not give the 76s.; they will never give more than the 75s. 6d.—on an average of 4 quarters to the acre. If that is the fact, then the farmer can only make a profit of £1 2s. per acre for growing this wheat at the present moment; ho cannot do more on the average of the United Kingdom. If that is so, is it to he wondered at that farmers immediately think whether it would not be a very much better plan if we could make this wheat into a selling commodity for the feeding of the stock that we have on our farms? If we sell the wheat we only get 75s. 6d. for the 504 lbs. If we buy back the thirds from the mills we have to pay 75s. 6d. for the 504 lbs; and if we buy back the bran we have to pay 67s. 6d. for the 504 lbs. Those are the figures that the ordinary farmer is giving to-day: but at the same minute he has to give £26 5s. per ton for his cake, when he is only selling his wheat at £17 per ton. Therefore he is losing no less than £8 15s. per ton on the difference between the selling of his wheat and the buying of the cake. If that is true, and those are figures that can be verified by anyone, is it not an undoubted fact that, instead of growing wheat, the farmer would be very much better off in his own pocket if he grew the dredge corn that has been mentioned by my hon. Friend behind me (Captain Fitzroy)? In order to do that, he has only to strike the wheat that is growing at this present moment with a mixture of barley and oats, and he immediately turns his figure from £17 to the value of £26 5s. This is a business transaction, and the farmer is a business man, and therefore, if the facts are as I have stated, can we be surprised when we are told that

    1187
    farmers are contemplating at this present moment the action I have tried to describe? I believe myself that the average price of wheat can be brought down in this country by better production. It can be got if the Government will only put this matter on a business footing.
    I am perfectly aware that it is no good for farmers to appeal to the Food Controller. They have always known that the Food Controller was out against the farmer and for the producer. But, on the other hand, we have the Ministry of Agriculture—which ought to be for the producer—to counter-balance the Food Controller. I was very much struck by the statement made at the beginning of the War by one of the chief secretaries in the Department of the Food Controller. He said that the farmer was profiteering and he would smash the farmer down to prevent his doing it. I suppose that attitude was followed by that gentleman, if he remained there, though it is likely he is no longer in that Department. But I do ask at the present moment: Can the Food Controller tell me that the cost of growing wheat, and the value of selling an aver ago amount of wheat per acre, is profiteering when the farmer only makes £1 2s. for doing it?
    If you want wheat—and we are told that we do, and I believe myself that if more wheat be produced in this country it would be not only better for the consumer, but certainly better for the rural district and better for the worker—then we must appeal for fair play. The wheat grower to-day is not getting fair play. If he did get fair play I believe that this large Supplementary Estimate would never have had to be asked for. If you take the figures of wheat grown in 1916 and compare them with the decrease in quantity grown in succeeding years, instead of the £6,500,000, the Food Controller need not have come to this House for anything like this figure, but for something between one million and two millions. If that is so, I make the serious accusation against the Food Controller that it is through his manipulation of the figures, and the very great uncertainty in the mind of the farmer, that the community as a whole is made to pay this figure. I tell him straight to his face that in the future there will be practically no more wheat grown by British farmers in this country.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I do not intend to attempt to cover the whole ground raised by previous speakers in regard to what is or should have been the policy of the Government for the purpose of encouraging the growing of wheat by the British farmer. I could not do so for two reasons: firstly, because it has already been dealt with by my right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Boscawen), and secondly, because, after all, Government policy in regard to agricultural production is a matter which affects the Ministry of Agriculture rather more than the Ministry of Food. The latter Ministry does, perhaps very imperfectly, endeavour to represent in this country, first and foremost, the interests of the consumer. Perhaps this is necessary, because in the observations made by various hon. Members to-night in a Debate which concerns the price of one of the necessaries of life of the people of this country, although a score of Members are heard explaining fully the special position, the special difficulties, and the special grievances of the producer, I have heard only one Member, or at most two, who have been moved to deal with the position of the consumer. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have not been called!"] I apologise; I should have said of the Members who rose.
    Sir F. HALL: Of those who have spoken!
    Mr. McCURDY: I would just say this much on this question of the price of English wheat, as seen from the point of view of the Food Controller, though not in any way discounting the claims for consideration which have been put forward on behalf of agriculture, but merely by way of rebutting the suggestions which have been made, notably by the last speaker, that in the course of the past year the farmer had really been badly treated in this matter. The position is that we derive four-fifths of our supplies from overseas, and I do not think anybody would suggest that by any stimulus to production we shall be able to dispense in the feeding of our people with a great importation of foreign wheat in the future as in the past. As regards the price paid to the British farmer, it was settled in November, 1918, at 76s. I am not suggesting that that is a fair figure now

    1189
    I am bound to say, however, that during the whole of 1919 no representations were made to the Minister that that price was an improper one, that it was a price that ought to be reconsidered. If it has to be reconsidered it must, I venture to say, be reconsidered upon principles other than those which have been adduced in support of their proposals by some of the speakers this afternoon. It can be properly considered on the ground that agricultural prices do not afford the farmer a fair profit or proper inducement to cultivate wheat, and are not calculated to stimulate the best use of the English soil and the highest production of English crops. These are all proper grounds. It is not proper ground to say, because, in the purchase of foreign wheat, we find ourselves suddenly compelled not to pay the foreign grower of wheat a higher price, but to lose heavy sums of money upon the fortune of the exchanges, to be mulcted in exceptional sums of money for freight charges—because we find ourselves in that embarrassment—because we find ourselves purchasing foreign wheat loaded with these conditions that, therefore, on that ground, we should at once be prepared to revise the prices for crops to which these considerations do not at all apply.
    One word in conclusion upon that part of the case. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that there was an official at the Ministry of Food who once expressed some strong views detrimental to the British farmer or to British agriculture. I can assure him there has been no such official at the Ministry of Food since I have been there more than a year ago. No such policy or feeling has ever animated orders put forward by the Food Controller. We do primarily represent the consumer, but we never lose sight of the fact, in fixing the prices for the production of home products, that it is in the interests of the consumer, taking a long view, just as much as in the interests of the whole community, that no price should be fixed which would ever deprive the home producer of a fair profit, or would tend to diminish home production.
    In the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan) there really seem to be two complaints against the policy of the Government. He put forward first the view that if trade relations with Russia could have been resumed the result would be to open to
    1190
    the Western World boundless supplies of wheat. I cannot to-night enter into the general question of the policy of the Government as to our relations with Russia; but I should like to say, in order that hon. Members may not cherish illusions which are, I am afraid, fated to be dispelled, that although from time to time the information reaching us in regard to the state of affairs in Soviet Russia and the territories of Southern Russia have been extremely varied and often unreliable, the latest information to which I have had access does not encourage me to suppose that the resumption of trade relations with Russia, which is the policy of the Government, is likely to open up any very large stores of wheat or grain in the near future.
    In regard to the second complaint, that £14,500,000 would have been saved on the bread subsidy if the recommendations of the Select Committee on High Prices, which some time ago reported in favour of the restriction of the subsidy to the strict purposes of bread making, as distinguished from the use of flour—which is used for making pastry and confectionery—had been adopted; which recommendations of economy have been disregarded by the Government, I assure the hon. Gentleman he is mistaken. A Departmental Committee, over which I myself presided, was promptly constituted by the Food Controller, on the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That Committee had a considerable number of meetings, and most carefully surveyed and explored every possible suggestion for reducing the burden of the subsidy to the taxpayer. The real trouble about attempting to limit the subsidy to the loaf is, of course, that you have parts of the country where the population buy the flour and bake their own bread. The real objection to endeavouring to eliminate from the benefit of the subsidy that portion of the flour which goes in the making of puddings, pastry, and other domestic uses other than bread-making, was that you would have to set up a great and costly machinery of supervision and checks for that purpose, a machinery which in time of peace would be very much resented. We came to the conclusion that when you had done it the total possible saving to be effected, after allowing for inevitable leakages, would be more likely to be five millions than the suggested £14,000,000.
    Mr. SWAN: On that point the recommendation was that the scheme administratively was quite feasible, and could have been put into operation at a cost of not more than £200,000. Surely it would have been well worth while to do that in order to save millions.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: You would not have had the difficulty with Lyons and firms of that description. Your only difficulty would have been in dealing with the small trader.
    Mr. McCURDY: The large factories art-dealt with in another way. They are excluded from the benefit of the subsidy by a system of issuing licences. But the real point raised by my hon. Friend was as to what would have been saved if the flour sued for domestic purposes were not subsidised, and if the subsidy had been confined to the loaf baked by bakers. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member says, that it was the desire of the Committee to try and find a solution on these lines, and in proof of that desire they most exhaustively examined the whole problem. But we came to the conclusion that though administratively the thing could be done, the objections on the other hand outweighed any advantages that would be derived. But the matter did not stop there. After that Committee had prepared its Report, some time elapsed and again we took up the whole question. The Committee was re-constituted and we considered no fewer than four separate and distinct possible ways of reducing the burden to the taxpayer, and it was only after the most elaborate and careful consideration that the Committee for the second time came to the conclusion that they were unable to recommend the adoption of any of the schemes or of any modifications whatever.
    Mr. SWAN: Did the Committee ever consider the possibility of controlling the price of pastry so that the profits would go to the Government instead of to the miller?
    Mr. McCURDY: I do not think that any proposal of that kind was made, and, personally speaking, I am not of opinion that it is a very helpful proposal.
    Mr. SWAN: It could have been tried.
    Mr. McCURDY: I think I have dealt with the hon. Member's point, which was that the Government had lightly thrown
    1192
    away the possibility of saving 14½ millions, which could have been done by adopting the recommendation of the Select Committee. My answer to that is that that recommendation was subjected to long and patient investigation on two occasions, and it was decided not to adopt it. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the Government were guilty of negligence seeing that they acted on the best advice they could got. I pass from that to the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Haslam). The, hon. Member spoke of the great merits of flour of higher extraction than that which the country had been using in the past. I may say that not to the full extent to which I understand the hon. Member suggests, but to some extent the policy of the Government will be found to carry out the views he so ably advocated. I believe the standard bread of which the hon. Member spoke, and which was somewhat fashionable, a few years ago, was bread of the extraction of 85 per cent. The present bread is something of the extraction of 78 per cent., speaking from memory, and I believe an extraction of 30 per cent. will be arranged for without interfering with the fineness or whiteness of the flour, while I am advised that on medical grounds it will prove more healthful and more nutritious. I suggest that I have answered the points as to whether it was possible to reduce the subsidy by an alteration of the, standard of flour or by altering the incidence of the subsidy. My reply is that all these points were carefully considered by the Department, and under the circumstances I hope that the Committee will now feel that this topic has been sufficiently discussed.
    Mr. ACLAND: I only want to deal with two subjects. I am very interested in the controversy, or difference of opinion between the representatives of the Food Ministry and the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan), who, I gather, urged that we ought to have been able, if things had been differently managed, to get, a greater amount of wheat from Russia. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle has evidently been misled by the Prime Minister. If my hon. Friend will carry his mind back to the Debate we had in this House on the Address on the 10th February, he will remember that the Prime Minister used these words:
    "The grain and flour of Russia of all kinds, maize, barley, outs, &c, come to

    1193
    nearly 9,000,000 tons. The figures are prodigious in every direction. The world needs it. There are high prices in Britain, high prices in France, high prices in Italy, and there is stark hunger in Central Europe. The corns bins of Russia, are bulging with grain. That is our report. You never can get all the facts. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Ac-land) seems to have other information, but that is not my information."
    I at this point asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would give the source of the report, and he replied:
    "No. I am just taking the information given to us by the Russian co-operative societies upon the subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1920. Volume 125, Columns 48–9.]
    I am rather gratified that the information of the representative of the Food Ministry given to us this evening so completely bears out the doubts I ventured to express on that occasion as to the availability of these great supplies from Russia. I am sorry the hon. Member has been misled by the Prime Minister, who now stands corrected by the information we have had given us this evening. On the main subject on which we have been debating I do, not think there ought to be any great cleavage of opinion. We may all differ as to the permanent policy to be adopted in this matter, but as to whether it is necessary, m view of subsequent dangers, that we should make this country far more self-supporting in the matter of its food supplies than it has hitherto been there need be no difference of opinion. There are certain elements in the present situation which may be more or less temporary, but may exist for some years to come, which ought to help us to come to a general agreement as to the desirability of encouraging wheat growing in this country, quite apart from the permanent policy of making this country self-supporting in the matter of food. Unless we pay unreasonable prices for it, the more we can produce at home the more it will save us having to import from abroad, and the better it will be for everybody. The balance of trade is against us, and the only way in which we can get rid of our foreign indebtedness is to decrease our imports and increase our exports. Therefore, within limits, it is well to encourage the home production of wheat for some years to come, at any rate, because the lower is likely to be the price you will have to pay for your aggregate supply. That is rather difficult to be realised by those who
    1194
    cannot have sufficient information on the point. If it is represented to a man that a farmer is asking 100s. a quarter for his wheat, that necessarily means to him that in one way or another ho is called upon to pay the extra charge, either in the price of the loaf or in the bread subsidy through the taxes. If you have to pay a great deal more for the wheat you import then it becomes of real importance to get a cheapening of the aggregate amount of our wheat supply, and, in that case, home production should be encouraged. As long as we are preventing anything which can be called profiteering on the part of the farmer, it is really an important matter that the policy of the Government should be to encourage the production of wheat in the years immediately before us. It is not as if we were permitting, as long as these anomalous circumstances continue, the farmer to take advantage of the open world market. There must be some limitation, and it should be realised that it is to our interest to get the largest stock of wheat at the most reasonable aggregate and average price, and it is, therefore, of direct importance that home wheat growing should be encouraged as much as possible and discouraged as little as possible.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. LORDEN: I was rather surprised at the statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. McCurdy) upon the question of dealing with pastry and pastry cooking. I am under the impression that this £0,500,000 could have been more than saved if the subsidy had been dealt with from that point of view. It takes an old poacher to make a good gamekeeper, and in the same way I think, perhaps, the experience I have had in the past has given mo some insight into this particular question. I understand that in some cases licences are given to factories where biscuits and similar goods are made But there is, and you will see it all round London and other large towns, a very large quantity of pastries and cakes which I do not think are entitled to have this subsidy at all. The subsidy shall go entirely to bread. The Government have neglected that point of view. Some years ago, when the bread subsidy first came in, I was connected with a concern which was dealing very largely with bread, cakes and so forth, and we viewed with very great pleasure the fact that we

    1195
    should have the advantage of the subsidy for our cakes and pastries. In the last few months there has been a large extension in that way. Everyone is going in for sweet cakes, not only the flour, but the sugar as well, and I press on the hon. Gentleman the idea of looking further into the matter. He says a Committee has been set up, not only once but twice, and has looked into it. I do not know where they get their information from, but, looking at it from the other side, there would be a considerable sum, quite sufficient to save this Supplementary Estimate, if he had dealt with this question of cakes and pastries and other goods which are sold which are not really bread. They certainly take the place of a certain quantity of bread, but if they think they are going to deal with small people who bake their own bread, and the people who bake their own pastries, that is going to absurd lengths. I suggest that it should be limited to those who sell them in the open market, and it is always the case, wherever you deal with the bakers' trade you first of all deal with the bread trade and then with his smalls. I am convinced that there would be a considerable saving if that line was looked into more than it, has been. I know something about the subject, and I feel that it is not fair for those companies who sell these commodities that they should have the advantage, and that it should be taken out of the ratepayers' pockets.
    Mr. H. HOPE: The moderation of view which has been expressed ought to do a good deal to enable the House to arrive at a wise settlement of this question. We all have the same object. We all desire to see an increased quantity of wheat. We recognise that the high price of bread is a danger and a great hardship to many people, and when we see foreign wheat imported at something like 120s. per quarter, it would be very much better if we could get an increased home supply and save some of the money. I do not think the agricultural industry desire to get a high price. All they desire to get is a fair price. We do not want to see wheat de-controlled altogether. But we think that the promise made by the Prime Minister of a price of about 100s. for 1921 should be available for the cop of 1920 also. If that was done it would give some encouragement to producers, and if suit-
    1196
    able fertilisers were obtainable and the same time on fair terms, a great service would be rendered to the agricultural community. It is an undoubted and a proved fact that the increased use of fertilisers has an enormous effect in increasing production, and if sulphate was obtainable at a controlled price that would have an effect on the supply. I only hope this Debate will result in the farmers getting fair treatment as regards the price of the article for 1920.
    Major BARNETT: A casual observer coming into the House during this discussion might imagine that we were back in the bad old days of the Debates on the Corn Laws. We have had over and over again the antithesis suggested between the position and the rights of the consumer and of the producer. As representing a large urban constituency and with no financial interest in agricultural land, my sympathies are with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of agriculture. But I oppose this subsidy because I feel it is going to the wrong address. We should like to see it if it were helping the farmers of Suffolk and Essex. At present we are subsidising the bill brokers of New York and the farmers of Minnesota. That is what is wrong with the subsidy. Those hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies who have told us we want a new agricultural policy, are probably not very far wrong. The point I want particularly to reinforce is that made by the hon. Member for Newport. (Mr. Haslam). I do not think it has been answered. He says, "Do not subsidise unless you are getting the proper extraction from the wheat." The Prime Minister announced yesterday in the House that the extraction from wheat was to be increased from 77 to 80 per cent. But what are we going to extract from the wheat? You might raise the extraction from 77 to 80 per cent. and yet fail to take out what is the most valuable constituent of the grain. At present the children of the poor are being starved for want of the active principle of the. wheat which is not in our bread at all. The Bread and Food Reform League three months ago-brought a deputation to this House consisting of men of science. Sir James Crichton Browne was the principal speaker, but there were numerous others famous in science, and they told a large attendance of Members of the House of Commons

    1197
    more about food and bread in the course of an hour or so than we had learned in our lives before. They told us about vitamines. Five years ago we did not know what vitamines meant. All over the world people were dying for want of vitamines without knowing what they were dying for. The Japanese were dying by hundreds of thousands of beri beri without knowing that what they wanted was vita mines. They were being presented with a civilised product known as polished rice, which deprived them of the husk and also of the germ which was the vital principle of the rice, and as they had no other food except rice their physique deteriorated and they died by thousands before this discovery was made.
    The same thing on a smaller scale is happening in England to-day. You and I, Sir, can cat white bread with absolute impunity, because we have plenty of other food which contains the necessary vitamines. The children of the poor very largely live on bread and tea, and if you take out of the bread the vital principle as it is taken out at present, the result is that you get a class C generation—a rickety generation. The bad physique of the children in the back streets is very greatly due to the fact that they are not given proper nutritive food. These leading scientists who came to the House, men of European reputation, one after another got up and said it was essential that the germ should be left in the flour if we were to get proper nutrition from the bread. It is essential to those who have no other diet. This is a matter which affects the poorest of the poor more than any other class in the community. We are asked today to vote £6,500,000 more as a supplemental bread subsidy. We ought not to vote a penny unless we are sure that we are going to get the most economical extraction from the wheat, and that we are retaining this vital factor, the vitamines. Hon. Members laugh when I mention vitamines, but it is a most serious subject. There is a great deal of nonsense talked in this House and elsewhere about the evils of alcohol and the necessity for prohibition. There is more harm being done in England to-day by bad bread-making than by all of the drink that is sold. It is essential that the children of the poor should be given bread that contains these vitamines, which are an absolutely necessary constituent. The suggestion has
    1198
    been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, why should we not have the subsidy dependent not only on the extraction of the 80 per cent. which the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday, but also the retention of the germ and the rich glutinous substance called the flesh of the wheat. Let us have in that 80 per cent. what the scientists say is absolutely essential to life and to the proper nutrition of children. The children are suffering for want of this vital principle, and if the new regulations as to milling were slightly modified to include the necessity of the inclusion of this germ, a very great thing would be done for the life and the physique of the people of England.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I rise to emphasise one point in regard to this Vote of 6½ millions. The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) raised one point of which the Government must take cognisance, and that is, not only the amount they are asking for to-night, but if they do not take some clear definite policy in regard to a vast increase of the production of wheat, the price of wheat during the next ten years will be exceedingly high, and will press with very great hardship upon the poor of this country. While they are considering the Estimate for a subsidy for bread, they might also consider whether in their Estimates they could also suggest some means of developing the reduction of wheat very largely. I have plans in my mind, and no doubt other hon. Members have plans, so that by opening up new railways, by irrigation and by many other means, the production of wheat could be greatly increased. The world price of wheat, after all, is what the English people in their bread will have to pay. The hon. Member for Ripon pointed out that all over the world with the increased standard of living the people are leaving the lower grades of food, such as rye bread, and corn bread, and are turning to the consumption of an increasing quantity of wheaten flour. I can confirm that from many directions, and the result must be that with the higher plane of living that so many people in the world are now reaching this enormous increase in the consumption of wheaten flour must be considered not only by our Government, but by other Governments, because there will be a great scarcity in the years that are coming. We cannot look to Russia to supply 4½ million tons of wheat annually as she has done in the past. It

    1199
    will be years before society and agriculture there reaches the position that it was in in 1912–13. I do urge upon the Government this great question of development within the Empire of our own resources in order to supply the food that we Must have in the years to come.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: It was very satisfactory to hear from the hon. and gallant Member (Major Barnett) who represents an urban constituency such a satisfactory statement about the interests of agriculture, because we have always felt that the representatives of urban constituencies were not altogether in sympathy with the great industry of agriculture. I am certain that in the next few years the country will have to make very large payments one way or another by subsidy or in the increased price of the loaf owing to the world rise in wheat prices. I should like to urge upon the Government that if we have to pay this increased price the money should go to our own producers rather than to those of foreign countries. Whatever we have to pay there is every reason to suppose that the price is not likely to fall for some time, and that there must be a wheat shortage owing to the difficult situation in Russia. If only not only by propaganda, but by offering higher prices, we could persuade our own agriculturists to raise more wheat it is obvious that we should not have to pay any more in the long run, but it would simply mean that we should be paying the money to our own people rather than to the foreigner I hope the Government will take that point into consideration, and if they can see their way to pay for this year's crop what they propose to pay for the 1921 crop they will be benefiting the industry of agriculture, they will not be paying so much to the foreigner, and they will be doing the country a very good turn.
    Mr. J. GARDINER: I do not agree with one or two speakers who suggested that the total foodstuffs that could be produced in this country was an insignificant item. It is quite true that our climate does not favour wheat growing but rather oat growing, and that growing oats is a more profitable occupation than growing wheat, but, given certain conditions, this country ought to be able to increase very considerably the quantity of wheat grown and also the quantity of oats grown. I do
    1200
    not wish to discuss the question of subsidy, but rather the possibility of an increase in the production of wheat. We require to have, not only the scientific knowledge that is necessary, but to apply the proper chemicals in order to increase production, and also to have the practical experience that enables men to produce the greatest amount of wheat to any given acreage. In my experience as a practical farmer we used to be able to grow something like five quarters of oats per acre and thought that was a very good yield, but by scientific search, by plant breeding, by hybridising, etc., we are able to produce something like 10 quarters per acre, an increase of 10 per cent. The only cereal grown in this country the development of which we have not increased is wheat. I do not think this is an impossibility. If those who have been raising new agricultural plans devote their attention to giving us a wheat that will produce 30 or 40 per cent. more per acre, it would make a tremendous difference to the yield of the country. The farmers of this country have been slow to move—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are getting rather wide of the subject under discussion.
    Mr. GARDINER: My point is that increased production in this country, and the cultivation of a larger number of acres, would help materially in the matter of home foodstuffs. The House and the country wish to have as few subsidies as possible, and given certain conditions, the development of wheat growing in this country and increased production can be brought about. We have been promised by the Prime Minister—and I for one trust absolutely every promise which be makes—security of tenure, and when that is given I think that we shall have a very largely increased production.
    Amendment negatived.

  COLONIAL SERVICES.

    (Class 5.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £225,000, 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, 1920, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
    Mr. G. THORNE: I would ask the hon. Member (Lieut.-Colonel Amery) when he

    1201
    is replying to explain the somewhat alarming increase in reference to Somali-land. The Estimate is almost double the original figure and the explanation given as to unforeseen and increased charges is exceedingly vague.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: It may save time if I tell the hon. Gentleman who will reply to the points on which we want enlightenment As regards Somaliland, is this expenditure to meet the cost of the expedition against the Mullah; if so, how was this expenditure incurred in starting what is practically a new war without in any way informing the House? Members of this House have a distinct grievance in this matter. Apparently the expedition turned out remarkably successful. It marked, as we knew, the first time on which the Air Force has really been allowed to come into its own and has fully justified the great hopes which we have of it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this might have been the beginning of a very long, costly, and disastrous operation. There were very uncomfortable, rumours at the time that there was a larger policy being embarked upon than simply to teach a severe lesson to the Mullah to the end of time, and that was to press on into Abyssinia in conjunction with the Italians. This is a matter on which we, as a House of Commons, ought at once to take a stand. There should be a full explanation of why this expedition was commenced without any notification to the House of Commons. If you are going to be launched into new wars, without so much as by your leave, then we are faced with a very serious state of affairs, and one which I do not think the people of this country will stand for five minutes, whatever hon. Members of this House may think
    With regard to the East African Protectorates, the extra sum here is to meet the excess pay of the second Rhodesian Regiment. The pay of the Army was raised some eight months ago and I should have thought that the Rhodesian Force would have received almost automatically a like rise in pay or a bonus. Why has this sum now to be asked for from this House? The Rhodesian expenditure I also think requires a certain amount of explanation. We are asked to vote £115,000 for the war charges in Rhodesia. I do not know if I should be
    1202
    in order—and I do not propose to try—in raising the whole matter of policy with regard to Rhodesia and the British South Africa Company. I hope that we shall be able to raise that matter when the full Colonial Office Vote comes before the Committee, but I think that the explanation of this amount should be much fuller than that which is given under the heading N. 3 on page 59. The finances of the Company and their financial relationship with the Imperial Government also require a great deal of explanation.
    Lastly, about this sum of £13,000 due for Supplementary News Service under Item AA. on page 59, this is to meet the cost of continuing in a modified form arrangements made during the War by the Minister of Information for the despatch of Press messages through Reuter's Agency to our overseas dominions and colonies. Does that mean that we are still asked to find a sum of £13,000 for Government propaganda over the cables? If so, I am afraid that I shall have to move a reduction in this Vote, and I hope that I shall be supported. This is not the time to be spending money on Government spoon-fed information to our overseas dominions. Our overseas dominions have a very good news service. They have very prosperous papers which can well afford to pay for their news and, from what I know of these dominions and their papers, they are very well served, and it is quite unnecessary for us to be asked now to find money for what practically amounts to Government propaganda. There has been much too much propaganda in the last five years. Some of it has been harmless, but some of it extremely objectionable. A distinguished General said recently, that propaganda, when you came down to plain English, in too many cases meant organised lying. I hope that that is not the case. I do not think it can be in connection with the Colonial Office, over which my hon. and gallant Friend presides with so much ability. We want to get rid of any Government subsidy or Government propaganda. It is a most serious matter, and I hope we shall have a satisfactory explanation.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Before the representative of the Colonal Office replies, I would like to ask for some assurance from him that of this £115,000, which is put down for "Rhodesia, Extraordinary

    1203
    War Expenditure," no part will go to meet the provisional claim against the Crown lodged by the Chartered Company. That provisional claim was stated by the Leader of the House in April last to amount to no less than £7,568,435. We were told by some of the principle newspapers of the country that that was only part of a claim that possibly would reach no less than £18,000,000 or £20,000,000. In answer to questions, the Leader of the House gave us an assurance that no part of the claim would be paid before the matter was discussed in this House, and my object in rising is to make sure, if I can, that no part of the Chartered Company's claim is included in the Supplementary Estimate with which we are dealing. I understand that a special Committee is investigating the claim. That special Committee has not, as yet, reported. There is one part of the note which accompanies this Supplementary Estimate to which I would like to direct special attention. It states, "The ultimate liability for this service is under consideration." Naturally, those of us who have been interested in the extraordinary claim of the Chartered Company, and have been keeping a watchful eye on it, are a little suspicious, and when we saw this note we naturally came to the con elusion that it had some relation to the claim.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I hope that I may be able, without difficulty, and without detaining the Committee too long, to deal with the questions raised. As to the Rhodesia item, I hope I shall be able to set my hon. Friend's mind at rest. This particular Supplementary Vote for £115,000 is in respect of certain payments, still outstanding, to be made with regard to military operations carried on in and from the territories under the charge of the British South Africa Company and through the agency of its local administrations. As the Committee knows well, from the very outset of the War the population of Rhodesia threw itself into the fight with th utmost vigour, and sent out as high, if not a higher, proportion of its white citizens to the various fields of War than any other white population in His Majesty's Dominions. Apart from that, at a later period in the War the
    1204
    Chartered Company, at the request of the Imperial authorities, raised considerable, additional forces for the carrying on of the campaign against German East Africa—not only white forces but native forces—and carried out all the transport and supply arrangements of those forces. Under General Northey the forces did admirable work in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty, operating many hundreds of miles from their base, and it was to these forces that von Lettow ultimately surrendered. The operations were paid for at the time by the Imperial Government. The total amount in connection with these operations up to the end of the present month is £1,915,000, the great bulk of it in respect of actual pay of troops and transport and supply of troops. I should mention, in passing, that only the payment of these troops in so far as they were in excess of the military or constabulary establishment normally maintained by the British South Africa Company, was involved. Their normal military establishment continued to be paid by them throughout the War. Besides that, there is an item of £235,000 in respect of interest, which I shall explain later. Of the total, £1,800,000 was spent in the course of the War out of Votes of Credit. Last October there was a sum of £50,000, which was paid provisionally out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, and £50,000 out of the £115,000 for which I am now asking, is simply repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of the money then advanced. The remaining £65,000 is in respect of expenses still continuing in connection with these operations, in the main the payment of war gratuity and pensions to troops, more particularly the native personnel, and partly also in respect of interest. While the Imperial Government provided this money—and I do not know who else could have provided it—for the actual carrying on of the operations, the Colonial Office did contend on a point of principle that some part, at any rate, of this expenditure, in so far as it represented the purely territorial defence of Rhodesia, and more particularly Northern Rhodesia, which was the administration mainly concerned, was a matter which ought to be paid for by the local Government, or, at any rate, contributed to by the local Government. This is not a special question affecting Rhodesia; it is one which has arisen in

    1205
    connection with every one of His Majesty's territories where the course of the Great War has dragged some Crown colony or dependency into the sphere of military operations. I have no authority to speak, or exact information, as to the exact position in India; but I think it will be common knowledge that while India continued to pay not only her normal budget, but something well above it, yet the main cost of those operations carried on by troops levied and organised by the Government of India outside the frontiers of the Indian Empire has been paid for by the Imperial Exchequer. In the case of the little expedition of the Gold Coast in Togoland, which annexed Togoland within six weeks by the help of a purely Gold Coast native force.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And the Navy?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: And the Navy, I agree—but I was referring to operations on land. The Gold Coast Government, having been put to little expense and being well-to-do, generously agreed to pay the whole of it—and not to ask any contribution from the Imperial Exchequer. In the case of the much longer and more arduous campaign, carried on from Nigeria, with the help of the Nigerian Administration, and troops levied in Nigeria, in The Cameroone—while Nigeria has shouldered the burden of the full war establishment of the Nigerian Forces the additional expenditure has been paid for by the Imperial Government. So too, again, in the case of East Africa which took part in the same operations as Rhodesia, it is still under discussion with the Treasury to what extent East Africa should, if at all, contribute to those expenses which the Great War have submitted her to. After all, it is the merest accident which part of His Majesty's Dominions found itself a theatre of war. Exactly the same thing applied in the case of the administrations under the Chartered Company, and more particularly the Government of Northern Rhodesia, which is an entirely separate administration from that of the Chartered Company in Southern Rhodesia. This question as to how far any part of this expenditure incurred by the Imperial Government should or should not ultimately be chargeable to the local Government concerned; that is to
    1206
    say, the administration of Northern Rhodesia—and in respect of the occupation of a little strip of German South West Africa by Southern Rhodesia—has been under discussion for some time.
    The discussion will go on with the authorities concerned, and we hope before long to arrive at a reasonable settlement. But pending a settlement as to whether any of this money should be paid by the local Government concerned, and so emphasise the point and make it quite clear that the Imperial Government is still putting up some claim for repayment in this respect, it was from the outset decided to treat this money actually spent in the pay of troops and for transport and supplies as a suspense account in advance. For that reason, because it was reckoned as an advance, interest on that sum has also been reckoned and treated equally with the actual money spent at the time. That interest is interest in respect of money that has been paid to holders of War Loan and of other Government securities and will be repayable by the Chartered Company in proportion as it may be charged with responsibility for the actual main amounts which were expended by the Imperial Government in connection with Rhodesian operations. To sum up: the present Supplementary Estimate is in respect of expenditure paid by the Imperial Government for military operations, which has been treated as an advance pending a settlement of the question as to whether any of that money should or should not be chargeable to the revenue of the Rhodesian administrations. To make it quite clear to my right hon. Friend, I may say that this has nothing whatever to do with any of the claims advanced by the Chartered Company in respect of its administration of Southern Rhodesia. It has been expressly excluded in the making up of that claim, and no item of this amount or of the original total amount off one million nine hundred and fifteen thousand pounds, figures in any way or shape in the Chartered Company's claim in respect of the administration of Southern Rhodesia. I have refreshed my memory with regard to the pledge given by my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House. It is, of course, in reference to that claim The Leader of the House said:
    "The British South Africa Company has sent in a claim against His Majesty's Government amounting, provisionally, to seven

    1207
    millions odd. This claim clearly demands the closest scrutiny, and the Government will not commit itself to any payment in respect of that claim without the sanction of the House of Commons."
    That is common ground; we are agreed upon that. I hope I have made it quite clear that this particular item which figures in the Supplementary Estimate is in no sort of way connected with the claim of the Chartered Company in respect of the position created by the Privy Council Judgment; and, in fact, no single item in it has been included in that claim, It is entirely in respect of military operations conducted and carried out for much the greatest part at the direct request of the Imperial authorities; and it has been treated in a particular manner in order to keep alive the claim put forward by the Treasury and the Colonial Office that some portion at any rate of that money may be ultimately chargeable to the revenue of Northern Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia, as the ease may be.
    I will pass to the other items on this Vote. I may say m the first place that that as to East Africa is really more, or less in connection with this item L have been discussing It is really an agreed amount, to bring things into line as to the difference between the rates paid by the Chartered Company to the troops and the extra charge for East African rates which have been charged to Mast Africa. Though I have not looked into the point as to why it was not foreseen sufficiently early, I think it had not been finally settled as to whether they were legitimately entitled to get this pay when the actual Estimates for East Africa were drawn up last year. I should like to come to the more interesting points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) with regard to Somali-land. Here we have a Supplementary Estimate of £96,000 over an original Estimate of a grant-in-aid of £103,000. I entirely agree that that certainly requires careful scrutiny as it represents nearly double the original grant. The actual increased expenditure was £116,000, but there was a saving of £20,000 in respect to certain sums allocated to the investigation of possible oilfields in Somaliland which was not actually spent during the year. Of that £96,000, no less than £30,000 represents the increased cost
    1208
    inflicted upon Somaliland by the rise in the Indian rupee, a thing that has caused much trouble and anxiety to many of the administrations under the care of the Colonial Office, and, I am afraid, will continue to be an anxiety to us for some time to come. A further item is due to a cause common to the Somaliland administration and to every administration at home and abroad, and that is the necessity for granting increased war bonus in respect to the increased cost of living; and though it is quite true that the cost of the grant-in-aid has been doubled, I would remind the Committee that in Somaliland, as elsewhere, the cost of almost every article either of luxury or of necessity has increased enormously, and therefore hon. Members must not assume that we have been guilty of extravagance.
    There is, however, an item of £50,000 for the very successful operations which were conducted a few weeks ago, and which were certainly not foreseen or thought of when the Estimates were framed. This expenditure is probably the smallest expenditure for a similar result which has ever been carried out in the history of the British Army or of the British Air Service. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull spoke very strongly about the duty that ought to have lain on the Colonial Office and the Government—for the Government were, of course, consulted—of coming to the House of Commons and consulting them before we embarked upon this expedition, he called it, though I do not think it deserves the name of expedition, but this minor operation, because, however successful, it was a very minor operation. Except for a few aeroplanes temporarily borrowed from the adjacent garrison in Egypt and one battalion borrowed from the nearest East African Colony, no troops whatever were employed beyond the little handful of camel constabulary and the half battalion of Indian troops already in the country in normal times. It was an operation of the very smallest size, and could not have been extended into the beginning of a costly and disastrous war. There were not the troops there for it, and as for the rumours of operations in conjunction with the Italians in Abyssinia, these were pure rumours emanating from Nairobi, and what surprises me is that any newspaper in the United Kingdom ever put into its columns

    1209
    rumours from Nairobi as to operations taking place in Somaliland. As I say, these operations were of the smallest character in regard to their dimensions, though they were immensely successful "in their results, but the, success could only have been achieved on one condition— and that was absolute secrecy up to the very moment when the aeroplanes flew and discharged their bombs over the Mullah's armed camp at Jidali. Every precaution was taken for absolute secrecy throughout, and I do not suppose that more than a very small number of people knew anything about it. Not, a single package but was carefully camouflaged and labelled as something else, and I do not suppose that more than a handful of people actually on the spot even in Somaliland knew anything about it until the operations actually occurred. Of the expenditure on these operations, £36,000 was the extra cost to the little air detachment of operating in Somaliland, as compared with the ordinary peace expenditure already sanctioned while they were in Egypt.
    How splendidly successful these operations were has already been detailed in this House, and I need say nothing more about it. The remaining £14,000 was for the military part of the operations, and more particularly for a slight increase to the strength of the camel corps. I hope in connection with this I may be allowed in passing to pay a tribute to the magnificent work which has been done during the last five years by the camel constabulary of Somaliland organised just before the War. This little force was the main defence of the Protectorate against the Dervishes throughout all the long years of the War, a little force of 500 men, who had to face very heavy fighting indeed in the early months of the War, and who did so with astonishing success.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does that come into this Vote?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir, because the £14,000 is the increased cost; but I will pass from this point with the statement that they have done magnificent work. They have kept our Dervish aggression and enabled the western part of the Protectorate to be peacefully administered throughout the whole War. They were admirably handled, very mobile, and they asserted a moral supremacy over the Dervishes which stood them in remark-
    1210
    able stead when they had to exploit that moral supremacy during the last few weeks. About the recent operations I will only say that, led by Colonel Ismay, they captured Jidali as soon as the aeroplanes had done their work. They then pursued the flying Mullah, and I think it, will be an interesting example of the mobility of the force that in that pursuit they covered 140 miles in two and a half days. When a few days later Tale was taken, and the remnant of the Dervish force escaped, a section of the Camel Corps pursued them hotfoot on the 10th of February. On the 11th they caught up one important party of the Dervishes and accounted for the whole of them, either in killed or surrendered. On the next day they accounted for the rest, except four men, and they were the Mullah and three of his devoted companions. They had detached themselves from the main body of the Dervishes and made their way to a waterhole, called Dodhais, close to the Italian frontier. When they got there they found only enough water for one man and one pony. The Mullah watered there and his companions made their way back some 20 miles to Gerrowei. One of these companions surrendered to us a few days later and reported that, on going back the next day to Dodhais, all trace of the Mullah had been lost. Whether he had attempted to make his escape into Abyssinia or had perished in the desert, or what has become of him, of course, we do not know.
    9.0 P.M.
    To return to the more purely financial aspect of this question, we do expect that as a result of these operations, which cost £50,000 in one year, we shall make an appreciable annual saving on the military expenditure in the Protectorate. I think we shall still need the camel constabulary to patrol the country, but I believe it may be possible to do without an Indian detachment there; and although at this moment I cannot give an exact estimate, I hope we may be able to save something like £20,000 or £30,000 a year on this Vote, and, in so far as the rise in the rupee means an increased cost of troops paid at Indian rates and of anything bought in India. I hope the saving may be found more substantial. There will be this further item to set against this expenditure which I am now defending. As a consequence of the settled administration of the western half, the Customs have

    1211
    gone up steadily from £23,800 in 1914 to £'71,000 in the present year, and I see no reason why, with a settled condition of the whole country, the Customs and general revenue should not increase very considerably. In passing from this Vote I should like to say that I think very great credit is due to Mr. Archer, Commissioner of Somaliland. It is to his consistent advocacy that this particularly successful operation was due, added to his enthusiastic co-operation on the spot: and what pleases mo more than all is that now he has the opportunity, so long desired, of showing his activity and energy in the work of peaceful development, as the result of which I hope it may be possible, before many years are out, for Somaliland no longer to be a burden on the British Exchequer, but a self sustaining portion of the British Empire.
    With regard to the Estimate for Supplementary News Service, which is paid through Messrs. Reuter, during the War it was essential, not as a matter of propaganda, but as a matter of giving full information on matters of Imperial interest, that important events, which were not always of local, topical, or press interest, should be fully sent to foreign countries and His Majesty's Dominions, and, after the War, since April, 1919, this service has been sent to the Dominions and to the Colonies through the Colonial Office, and made chargeable to the Colonial Office Vote. It is called a supplementary service, because it is matter which is sent by Reuter's Agency as supplementary and additional to their ordinary service. There is no question of a subsidy to Messrs. Reuter's to send a service, but they simply charge the extra cost of this additional service. We do not direct the material to be sent. What we do is this. At the end of each month we scrutinise what they have sent, and if it is matter of really Imperial interest, over and above what they normally send to their newspapers which pay them for their service, we then sanction the expenditure in this connection.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if this news service is given priority over commercial cables? I daresay the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the reason for this question. There have been many complaints by commercial firms in the country that they cannot get
    1212
    their cables over to the East and elsewhere because of press messages having precedence, and it would be very useful if we could have information on that point.
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I do not think, so far as this service is concerned, that it is given any preference or precede ce over the ordinary Press service sent out. While we did consider it a matter of real Imperial importance that the doings of this House and of Parliaments in other parts of the Empire should be fully known in every part of the Empire, at the same time we felt that this was not a matter which, in time of peace, ought to be paid entirely by the Exchequer of this country, and negotiations have been set on foot with the various Governments in the Empire, as a result of which the service which is now run is one to which substantial contributions, amounting to considerably more than half the service, are paid by the Governments of the Dominions of New Zealand and South Africa, and by the various British Colonies in East and West Africa, in the Mediterranean and the East. The total expenditure now being incurred, and which has been incurred since the beginning of the year by the Imperial Government, amounts to £900 in respect of the Mediterranean and the Eastern service, £775 in respect of South, East and West Africa, and £1,500 in respect of New Zealand. The total annual expenditure, therefore, is just over £3,000, and of this present estimate of £13,000, something like £1,500 will be repaid in respect of the last three months by the Dominion Governments concerned, and the future expenditure under present arrangement will not be at the rate of £13,000 a year, but at the rate of something like £3,000 a year.
    The Australian Government has not so far contributed to this scheme, but negotiations are in progress, and, if it does contribute, then, though there will be no addition to the expenditure on the part of this House, that contribution will make it possible to add very considerably to the number of words sent to every part of the Empire. As regards Canada, negotiations have also gone on for some time, although the actual service to Canada ceased in October last. The Canadian Government have been discussing the matter with the Canadian Press, Ltd., which is their newspaper association, and I believe that, as a result of meetings of

    1213
    that Association in November last, they have put forward a definite proposal to the Canadian Government, and we are awaiting something about that proposal from the Canadian Government. I hope I have made clear that, as regards the greater part of this £13,000, it represents the winding-up since the War, and that the very small amount for which the Exchequer will be asked on behalf of this Government will be substantially contributed to by the Governments of every Dominion to which this service goes; that this service is not in any sense in the nature of a propagandist Government service, but is simply directed to enabling that sort of news which is of real political value to be sent to every portion of the Empire, and is purely information sent in a fuller form than the ordinary commercial Press agency would send it in if left entirely to its own devices, and if it did not receive some assistance from the various governments in order to give greater amplitude in this respect.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his reply to say that the item here of £115,000 had no connection with the claim of the Chartered Company to which I called his attention, I understood him also to say that, in his view, the claim of the Chartered Company was for administrative charges. I would just direct his attention to the fact that in the list of items of the total claim of the Chartered Company there is one item—charges connected with the War, £1,450,000. That is in a total claim of £18,000,000 odd pounds that the Chartered Company was supposed to be making against the Government, Before we pass the Vote I wanted to make sure if the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew that that item was in the claim of this Chartered Company when this statement, was made. All I want is to make sure, that no part of the sum of £115,000 that is now under discussion is going to liquidate the claim of the Chartered Company which is at present being inquired into by a Committee and of which the Leader of the House has informed us not a single penny will be paid until the House has had an opportunity of full discussion and inquiry.
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for asking him where and when this claim of £18,000,000 appeared, because I
    1214
    have never heard of it. I only know of a claim of £7,000,000 odd which does not include any of this expenditure on the War.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The claim of £7,000,000 odd is a provisional claim and is only part of the total claim that is to be made upon the Government. I am quoting from a list of items that are known to be in the total claimed.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move that Item B—[Somaliland, £96,000]—be reduced by £1,000.
    I beg to draw the attention of the Committee to the statement that we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman about Somaliland and to his reasons for undertaking this expenditure and embarking upon this highly successful little war without coming to this House Fifty thousand pounds have been spent, and as wars go, it is a remarkably small sum, and the outcome has been very successful. I have no doubt that it was highly necessary to undertake this expedition, and, before moving to reduce the Vote, I left it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain why the House was not consulted, or at any rate was not informed of the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us that it was absolutely necessary that there should be complete secrecy. I may not know very much about politics, but I know a little about strategy. The very soul of strategy, naval, military, or aerial—the root principles are all the same—is secrecy. The excuse of secrecy could be used for every military or naval operation. It is always necessary, if possible, to keep your plans secret, and, if we allow this excuse to go without some protest, it will be possible to embark upon warlike operations, and practically upon a war, in some corner of the Empire on the plea of secrecy without informing the House. I submit that is a very grave state of affairs. In this desert the Mullah has no cables and there is no wireless. Rumour travels very fast in savage countries, but it would have been perfectly safe, at any rate when the expedition had started, to have informed the House, or, if the House had not been sitting, to have issued an official communiqué. That is the very least that we could have expected. The expedition was small, it was successful and it was necessary, but, if we are to have any sort of control over the Executive, we must

    1215
    raise a protest against the defence put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend that he could not inform the House about this expedition until a question was put by an hon. Member, because it was necessary to keep the operations secret.
    I submit that this is a very grave constitutional question, and I ask the support of hon. Members irrespective of party. The whole cry in the country is that the House of Commons is losing its grip on the Executive and is losing control of finance and of policy. The Opposition are twitted in the country—I am glad to say that personally I am not twitted—with not raising our voices against what the people outside call the Government folly. We are told: "You are the Opposition, and you do not oppose this and that mad adventure." Here is a thing upon which we can seize, and I do beg the support of hon. Members. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman be allowed to have his point. it will be possible, on the plea of secrecy, to embark upon any expedition anywhere. It will be possible for some bellicose First Lord of the Admiralty to embark upon some Naval expedition, and the defence say that in the case of the Somaliland Expedition, 1920, the House accepted the excuse of secrecy. It will be said: "We could not possibly inform the House, or our plans would have been given away." Hon. Members can support me with complete safety, because there is no question of patriotism. The expedition is admitted to have been necessary, and it has been successful. We are, however, up against a grave constitutional issue, and I hope that I shall be supported in my Amendment.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I must say-that I think the hon. and gallant Member is making rather too much of the constitutional point. If he thinks for one moment, he will realise that a Debate in this House would have given away the whole show.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I particularly said that we should have been informed when the expedition had started.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I do not think that makes it very much better, because there would have been still a chance of the vital point of secrecy being ruined, and, instead of the expedition costing £50,000 and being wonderfully
    1216
    successfully, it might have been one of those Somaliland expeditions running into millions. To say that this expedition could be cited in support of sending the Navy out on a huge expedition is stretching a point too far, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not persist in his Amendment to reduce the Vote on such very flimsy ground.
    Major GLYN: I rise also to express the hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who is a great student of Naval strategy, will not stick to his Amendment, because I happen to know something of the proceedings in Somali-land, and if ever there was an example of good work done to save human life, it was that small operation. It seems to me that if every small expedition which is within the purview of the Executive to carry out is to be brought before this House and debated, it will put the lives of our British soldiers in positive danger. I cannot imagine anything that would be looked upon with greater horror by the men of our forces over sea than that any expedition upon which they are likely to embark should be debated in the House of Commons. It would mean that statements would be made, and there would be danger to the forces taking part. A statement in this House would give a certain amount of warning to those about to be attacked. If the hon. and gallant Member were to put that forward for the Services, I think he would find that their opinion was that it would be detrimental to the Service interests I think those engaged in the Services are the most competent judges, and the way in which this operation was carried out is an example of what should be don't in the future.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: If the hon. and gallant Member goes to a Division I shall go into the lobby with him. If this is the way that war can be carried out, I object to it. Those who are responsible should inform the people through the representatives in this House of what they are about to do and consult this House. I am against all wars, and therefore I am against this policy of secrecy.
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am sure that the hon. Member who has just spoken, as well as the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), are under a wrong impression as to the nature of this operation. I quite agree with the

    1217
    Constitutional position that we ought not to have complete secrecy when embarking upon any war, however small. But, as I stilted some weeks ago, and repeated tonight, these operations against the Dervishes have been going on continuously for four or five years. They threatened to become very serious this winter, and that is the reason why the Commissioner was anxious to meet the activity of the Dervishes, who had removed their head quarters towards the coast, and who threatened to exterminate one of the tribes. The War being ended, we happened to have a spare battalion and some of our aeroplanes in the neighbourhood, and, as he intended to give us a surprise, we thought it best to give him a surprise instead. We did not know in what part of the Protectorate an attack might come. It was not a question of embarking on a new war at all.
    Amendment negatived.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

    (Class 7.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health, including sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance (Health) Acts. 1911 to 1918, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."
    Mr. G. THORNE: My object in rising is to ask for further information and not to make criticisms. Speaking for myself, always provided that the money has been judiciously expended, money could not be spent in a more productive way than in providing for the health of the nation. There is one item of an increase in regard to child welfare, a direction in which money can well be spent. But I should like to know what were the circumstances under which the increase in the amount has taken place. I hope this is going to be a progressive extension, for the more we judiciously spend in promoting the health of the children, the less we will have to spend in promoting the health of the adults. I feel sure the Minister of Health will be able to justify the expenditure and to explain what has been done. I should also like him to give some more information with regard to medical bene-
    1218
    fits There is a sum of £050,000 which I assume is largely due to increased money to be paid to the. panel doctors for the health service. Can he tell us anything about whether provision is made for securing greater benefits for the panel patients. While we want the doctors to be well paid, we want to be absolutely certain that the patients are duly looked after. I trust that he will be able to give satisfactory assurance on that head. I am glad to sec that the savings are somewhat large. I notice a sub-head with regard to disablement and other medical benefits The amount saved is £700,000, and for the medical benefit special grant there is a saving of £115,090. These are so large as to suggest that a mistake was made in the Estimate. But I repeat that any money judiciously expended would receive the support of this Committee.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We are asked to vote here a sum of £130,000 for child welfare, and I am certain that there is no member of the Committee who will not vote that with great alacrity. But, while voting this money, I think the right hon. Gentleman should put his own house in order. I refer to the boards of guardians about the country. I should like to refer briefly to a ease in my own county of Yorkshire which I think he will remember, that of the employés of the board of guardians of a certain parish in Yorkshire, who were dismissed because they had children. They were told that the children were an "encumbrance." I think there were two cases, and that the board of guardians said they were not able to keep them on in their quarters if they had children, and that either they or the children must leave. That is a scandalous state of affairs, and I am certain that there is no hon. Member who will approve of that for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Health, declared, in reply to questions which were put to him in this House, that the matter was really outside his jurisdiction, that he could not bring pressure to bear on boards of guardians, but that, of course, he would represent the views of hon. Members. I submit that we want something a little better than that. If the right hon. Gentleman has not power to deal with a case of that sort, it is his duty to come to this House for such power. Is it the idea that we should expend £130,000 on child welfare,

    1219
    while the very board of guardians themselves can discourage the bringing up of healthy children by persecuting people in this way?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This may be Child Welfare in one sense, but it is not Child Welfare as set out in this Supplementary Vote. I do not think that Child Welfare has anything to do with boards of guardians, or at all events, with the administrative work of boards of guardians. That would not be a proper subject for discussion now.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect I would submit that the guardians have responsibilities with regard to the administration of Child Welfare. We are asked here to vote £130,000 which these people will have the spending of, and I think that this matter embraces the question of the fitness of those guardians to expend the money.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I did not understand that the boards of guardians had the spending of this money. The other point to which I drew the attention of the hon. and gallant Member was that the administration generally of boards of guardians certainly does not come under this Vote.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I only wish finally to ask whether this £100 on L. 8 is a total sum, or if we can have some idea, before we vote, what is to be the extent of the medical examination of aliens under the Aliens Order of 1919. I imagine that that is one of the Clauses by which we are empowered to keep out diseased foreigners from this country, and, therefore, this Act that we have passed seems to have put an extra charge on the Exchequer. I think we might have an assurance that this £100 is not the beginning of a very large expenditure on medical examination.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): With regard to the case which the hon. and gallant Member mentions in Yorkshire, it is a case to which I have given some personal attention, and, with the best will in the world to use any powers that I have, the statement I made was that I had no legal authority in the matter. That statement is correct, and the board of guardians in question are, I am sorry to say, within their legal right in acting as they did. If
    1220
    I had any authority in the matter, I am sure I should have acted upon the view which I share with the hon. and gallant Member in regard to cases of that kind. This is not the time nor the occasion to enter into the question of the future of the Poor Law, but I sincerely hope we shall be able to realise our projects so that this kind of discussion at all events will not arise in the near future.
    With regard to the question of the £100 for the Port Sanitary Authorities, that is an item which appears on the Vote for the first time. It will be larger, and not smaller, another year. I found, when I took up the question of what I may call our sanitary protective system, that many of our Port Sanitary Authorities were sadly handicapped by lack of funds, and were not able to provide the necessary apparatus for cleansing garments and for employing the necessary staff with a view to preventing the introduction into this country of various diseases. During demobilisation, and after, as the hon. and gallant Member will know very well, every country has been running additional risks lest various diseases, which are rampant in some districts of Europe and elsewhere, should be introduced, and it has been urgently necessary that we should keep ourselves as clear as we can of those diseases. I could, if the House wished it, give some striking illustrations of the promptitude and efficiency with which this kind of thing is handled. There are in Europe and various other parts of the world whole territories which are being ravaged by typhus and other highly infectious diseases, and it is urgently necessary for me to watch the returns as they come in weekly, and to see how we are keeping ourselves guarded against such diseases, including various tropical diseases, and also what precautions shall be taken against such diseases as influenza. I think the additional expenditure which I have urged should be incurred in this matter is most necessary expenditure, and I am already quite sure that, in keeping this screen around this country against highly infectious diseases which are prevalent in many parts of the world, we have only done what was necessary. I found that the Port Sanitary Authorities had been very much crippled for lack of funds, and I suggested a scheme by which we could contribute 50 per cent. of their expenditure. This is only a beginning. This small sum will come into this year's

    1221
    Vote, but it may be several thousands next year. It is not that we want to examine aliens in any way other than we are entitled to at present. It is solely to improve our protective machinery.
    The other item, relating to child welfare, is, as my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said, one which I feel no one will criticise, and I am anxious to loll the House what we have done. Just as in the case of the "sanitary cordon" which I have deliberately obtained money for, this measure, is really a protective service. I suggest that this is a proper way in which to spend public money, and we are already reaping some of its benefits. It is clear that the employment of health visitors, and so on, is, so far as many useful services are concerned, only in its infancy. The lack of trained personnel for maternity nurses, health visitors, and so on, is our great drawback at the present time. We have been urging the employment of nurses and health visitors in child welfare centres with a view to preventing infant mortality. We have opened this year 400 additional centres, and I hope to open a great many more next year. Then there is the midwifery service, which is also a factor in the avoidance of infant mortality, and which requires great development. There are still many districts in the country where women have to bear their children with very inadequate assistance, and therefore we have developed an extension of the midwifery service for that purpose. We have not gone anything like far enough yet, and in this respect I look forward to a greater increase in another year. We have provided maternity services for a population of 200,000 people during the past year.
    Another direction in which I have developed our services has been the provision of what are called maternity homes, places where women can go in child-birth and be properly attended to on payment of quite a moderate fee, or, if necessary, no fee at all. I obtained Treasury sanction to the making of grants for the provision of these homes, which are very badly needed all over the country. Women have to bear their children in rooms where the other children are, often amid very insanitary and other Unpleasant surroundings, and the wonder is that under the circumstances so many children grow up to be as well as they are. We are only making a start in this
    1222
    matter, but for all that we have established 50 homes within the past year. I propose to go on establishing more. This is a service which, as a matter of fact, it will be seen, has nearly doubled in the last eighteen months. It is, I am quite sure, a thoroughly justifiable way of spending public money. We are making grants towards approved expenditure, and the House may be assured that we do not approve if the work is not well done. In order to make sure that the money shall be properly spent I have had a special inspection of welfare centres during the year, and I was very much dissatisfied with the working of a good many of them. It was in consequence of this inspection that we obtained the grant for the provision of training, and so on, because we found a good deal of the work quite unsatisfactory. I am glad to say certain good results have been obtained. At all events the infantile mortality registered last year is considerably the lowest on record, being 89 per cent., which is eight points lower than the previous two years. It ought to have been down to 50. What that means everyone interested in these questions will realise, and the £130,000 has not been ill-spent in bringing about that result.
    The other big item at the bottom of the page, about which my hon. Friend asked for information, relates to the proposals which will come before the House, at any time now in the National Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill. It was a promise to the medical profession during the War that as soon as possible after the War revised terms would be offered to them in regard to the medical service. It was also felt that we must take the opportunity to revise the conditions of service. During the autumn of last year, over a long period, this matter received our close attention. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend opposite when he says that it is very important that we should get good value for our money. I met a deputation from the medical profession. I told them quite plainly, with no pretence, that, in my opinion, in a large number of cases we were not getting a good enough service. I do not think we are. They recognised that, and the deputation promised to use their endeavours to bring about hearty co-operation in the way of trying to improve it. They entirely agreed with me that we ought to get, for every insured

    1223
    person, as good treatment as the medical man gives to his ordinary private patient. That is the standard. The new medical Medical Benefit Regulations aim at improving the conditions of service. The House may rely upon it I will do my best to see that we obtain this better service. As part of this scheme we are appointing a number of referees and consultants to whom may be sent, by the societies, cases of those who have been too long on the books, or where a second opinion is desirable, and I have no doubt at all that that will also greatly improve the standard of service.
    The increased cost of living, the increase in the cost of practical working of a medical service, and other cognate considerations were closely examined by my officers. Having in view the high prices, the increased cost of drugs, the increased cost of locomotion in country districts—it is better to deal with these latter two things quite separately, so we have taken them out of the ordinary medical fund and they are dealt with in separate arrangements and in accordance with pledges given during the War, the figure which I finally sanctioned for medical attendance per head was 11s., which I think is a fair figure. It represents roughly about 50 per cent. increase. According with the arrangements made with the medical service, we take the 15th of January in any year as our starting date, so that in this case the first quarter is to be borne on the Supplementary Vote and before the new Act can come into operation. The medical profession found themselves unable to accept my offer of 11s., and it was agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. I am glad to say that for once the offer which I made was the figure the arbitrators have arrived at as a fair and adequate offer, and as a proper sum to be offered. Part of the understanding on both sides was that each mould do their best to work the revised arrangement with goodwill and as successfully as possible. I have no doubt but that that will be done. It is on account of the fact that the amending Act is not yet on the Statute Book that this special figure has to be shown in the Exchequer Vote here, although later on, of course, its quota will be derived from the Common Fund provided under the Act. I hope that will be considered a satisfactory answer to the
    1224
    question which my hon. Friend addressed to me. With regard to the savings, I had better say that that is a very encouraging item. It is due to the fact that on the whole there has been better health. I attribute it largely to better housing, and also to the fact that a number of the men have been specially dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions, which may have removed to some extent a. certain number from these figures. But in the main it reflects an improvement of national health, and if we can improve the service, as I am sure we shall be able with the aid of the Referees, I sincerely hope we shall have still better figures for next year, especially a reduction in the amount paid out for sickness. In the meantime I may tell the House, with regard to the state of the finances of the different societies in this matter, that it is much more encouraging than I had even dared to anticipate.
    Dr. MURRAY: It would be a pity if this Vote were passed without a word from some member of the medical profession. I do not rise to offer any criticisms, but I want to tender my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the splendid administration of his Office.
    We, of the medical profession know what has been going on. We have sometimes had to criticise the right hon. Gentleman in regard to housing, but that is a new development in regard to which we know he is doing his best, many of the defects in respect of housing being due to causes hardly under his control. But with respect to the items mentioned this evening, we have every reason to congratulate ourselves and the Ministry upon the efficient manner in which the officials of the. right hon. Gentleman have performed their work. Of this system of protecting the health of the country against the ravages of disease, the public see and hear very little. They do not realise the work done by medical officers of health, sanitary inspectors, health visitors and other officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, who are working day and night in order to keep the health of the country in as satisfactory a condition as possible, and especially to prevent the incursion on to our shores of some of those diseases that ravage other countries in a much more serious fashion than they do this country. Not only the officials of the right hon. Gentle-

    1225
    man but those of the various health authorities all over the country deserve the thanks of the House for what they have been able to do in guarding our shores from the plagues which have attacked other parts of the world.
    I am very glad to see that infantile mortality is reduced. After all, that is perhaps the acid test of health administration. No doubt better social conditions, better housing, and possibly better looking after by mothers have contributed to this improvement. But it is a proof that this new aspect of health administration which has developed so much under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman is beginning already to have its effect, and that is certainly a matter for congratulation. Infantile mortality has gone down. In this respect the contrast between country and town is very marked. One great item in connection with the prevention of infantile mortality may be found in the fact that in rural districts breast-feeding is general while in the towns it is exceptional. Unless mothers feed their own children, unless they take the responsibility of breast-feeding with all that it entails, you cannot expect to have a healthy population in this country. In those areas where breast-feeding is the rule we have a very low infantile mortality, and that fact should not be forgotten, but should be pressed in every possible way on the women of this country. In the constituency which I represent housing conditions are not at all good, and yet infantile mortality is comparatively low because the mothers nurse their own children, and do not leave it to other people. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his own efforts in various Departments to promote the health of the people. After all, this is the most human and most humane Ministry we have. It is something worth paying for, and I trust that whatever money the right hon. Gentleman asks for will not be grudged by this House in promoting the health of the population. Question put, and agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £181,061, 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, 1920, for the Salaries and
  1226
  Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including sundry Charges in connection with Transportation Schemes under The Ministry of Transport Act, 1919."
  10.0 P.M.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I very much regret that the Minister of Transport is unable himself to introduce these Estimates as he desired to do. In form they are Supplementary Estimates, but in essence they are the original Estimates of the Ministry of Transport, and I think the Committee, therefore, will expect me to give some explanations in producing them. The Ministry of Transport came into existence by virtue of an Act which received the Royal Assent on 15th August last, only just a little over six months ago, and that Act was the first Act passed in redemption of the promise made on behalf of the Government at the General Election to endeavour to do something to improve the transport facilities of the country. It was a recognition of the elementary fact that without efficient transport we cannot have successful commerce. The two are inseparably bound together. Before the War the main transport undertaking of the country, the railways, were the subject of enquiry by a Royal Commission. There were then signs of necessity for substantial alterations. Immediately on the outbreak of the War the Government, exercising the extraordinary powers given in the Regulations of the Forces Act of 1871, assumed control of the railways and the attached undertakings, such as railway canals and railway docks and harbours, and they were carried on under the provisions of that Act and by virtue of a Royal Warrant issued by the Secretary of State for War until the passing of the Ministry of Transport Act. During that period the railway facilities of the land were tested to the highest possible extent because of the depletion of their staffs, and the falling into disrepair and out of use of their rolling stock. Those difficulties are not less to-day than they were during the War.
  The Transport Act divided itself into two perfectly separate Departments. First, there was power given to transfer to the Minister of Transport all the administrative duties which were spread over other Departments, and commencing with the Order made on 22nd September, 1919, and finishing with the Order made quite recently, there have been many

  1227
  such transfers. The whole of these administrative duties, important in character, were vested in the Minister of Transport. But there are also given some exceptional powers under Section 3 of the Act. That Section is the motive power of the Ministry of Transport to-day:
  "With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings to which this Section applies the following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect for a period of two years after the passing of this Act or where, as respects my particular provision, a longer period is expressly provided, for such longer period."
  There is set out power to retain possession of the undertakings which have already been taken possession of under the Regulations of the Forces Act, and a further power to take possession of certain other undertakings, and large powers were given to the Minister to enable him to carry out that duty. That duty, as we conceive, is the most important duty which is vested in the Minister of Transport his powers be enabled to advise Parliament that you should have the reason for a particular clause stated in the clause itself. The reason here is that the Minister may consider and by the exercise of his powers be enabled to advice Parliament and the country what should be the permanent position of the great transport undertakings of this country. There is a period of two years given in which that power is to be exercised, and in which he is to consider what is the advice which he shall ultimately give. Upon the decision which the Minister of Transport ultimately adopts, if it receives the sanction of Parliament, will depend in very large measure the success or the failure of the industry and commerce of this country, and, incidentally, also the prosperity and happiness of the people in the more remote quarters.
  Something loss than seven months have gone, and there is a considerable amount of misconception already as to what the Minister of Transport is doing with reference to the different undertakings. There are people who think that the Minister of Transport is attempting to regulate and control the internal management and working of the railways in this country. There is a common idea that if traffic is delayed, if there is a congested port, if there is a shortage of wagons, or if there
  1228
  are difficulties in other ways in connection with the working of the railways, that that is the result of some act or some omission on the part of the Minister of Transport.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I am quite sure that my hon. Friend who leads the cheers does not think so for a single moment. See what that would involve. Suppose the Minister of Transport were to attempt the detailed management of the railways of England, Scotland, and Ireland, not forgetting Wales, he would have to have a staff approximately equal to the administrative staffs of the railways. He would have to attempt what would meet with the condemnation of every hon. Member of this House, namely, the impossible task of running the railways by direction from Whitehall. That is not the work in which the Minister of Transport is engaged. The railway companies of this country, with their very efficient staffs, are managing their own business, and I think the country would wish it to be so. They are carrying out with very great care and, it is due to say so here, with very substantial success, under great difficulties, an endeavour to re-establish the railway transport of this country as it was before the War, and leading up to improvement beyond that. The Minister of Transport is acting in co-ordination with them, and in the happiest and most friendly cooperation with them. He is conferring with them from time to time, and in no sense is he endeavouring to exercise dictorial powers, or in any way telling them how they ought to carry on their business.
  Mr. HOGGE: What docs he do?
  Mr. NEAL: I will deal with that before I sit down, I hope to the satisfaction of the hon. Member. What I want to make clear, not only to the Committee, but to people outside this House is, that for anyone to attempt bureaucratic control from London of the great railway systems of this country, would be to lead to hopeless confusion, and to cause the greatest dissatisfaction. When the Transport Act was passing through Committee it had its critics, and they wished to have certain forms of transport undertakings reserved from the control of the Ministry. It is a rather strange change that those very undertakings which sought to be excluded from the operation of the Ministry of Transport are now themselves asking to go under its aegis. Knowing the assistance which the

  1229
  Ministry is able to afford—[Laughter]—I do not know why there is a laugh The canals are asking to be controlled.
  Mr. REMER: That is the shareholders.
  Mr. NEAL: No.
  Mr. REMER: The traders are not.
  Mr. NEAL: The undertakings are asking in the interests of the shareholders.
  Mr. REMER: The people who objected at the time the Ministry of Transport Bill was before the Committee were the users of the canals.
  Mr. NEAL: My hon. Friend's memory is not quite accurate. Everybody objected at that time. What is happening now in the case of docks and harbours in some cases, and in the case of canals, I think I may say in all cases, is that they are asking to go under the Ministry of Transport. I think that this is attributable to this—that it is realised that there is no despot presiding over the Ministry of Transport, and that nothing which the Ministry of Transport of the Government has done has tended to the financial disadvantage of this undertaking. But that is a topic that requires a great deal more time than I can give at the moment. I pass on to say that the Minister himself is earnestly and diligently pursuing the major task given to him—I think it is a responsibility in which he is entitled to ask that he should have sympathetic consideration—in reference to the advice which he should ultimately give as to what shall be the future policy with reference to these great undertakings. Meantime, there are many difficulties to be dealt with. From nearly all my hon. and right hon. Friends in this House we receive requests to deal with traffic difficulties. They complain of the shortage of traffic facilities for this and that form of industry and public utility service. We endeavour to the best of our ability to inquire into them and to render such assistance as we can give, but I would point out that these are primarily, still questions for the railway companies themselves which are concerned, and hon. Members and their constituents who write to us would save time and trouble if they would pursue the ordinary normal course of asking the railway companies concerned what the difficulties are, and why they cannot have the service which is desired.
  1230
  Those being the duties, may I call attention to the way in which the Minister has organised this Department for the purpose of enabling him to carry out those duties. On page 73 and the following pages of the Estimates there is set out in detail the staff of the Ministry. The staff is authorised under the Statute itself, the Ministry is authorised to secure such a staff as, with the consent of the Treasury, should be thought necessary. The total number which has been approved as the establishment is 774. The appointments to date are G01. The division is shown in the Estimates. There is a Secretarial and Legal Department, which is responsible for the ordinary work of the Secretary and of the legal adviser combined. Then there is a Development Department. The Director-General of that Department is Admiral Sir Charles M. do Bartolomé, who is devoting himself to many large problems. He deals with light railway development. There are nearly 100 cases relating to light railways alone before the Department. In addition to that they are concerned with large numbers of cases relating to new and improved facilities for canals and inland navigation, docks, harbours, and other means of transport.
  Dr. MURRAY: Has the Admiral mentioned anything to do with the coastal transport service?
  Mr. NEAL: He has to consult with other departments of the Ministry, with the Ministry of Agriculture to see what is required for agricultural development, with the Board of Trade in connection with trade development, and with the Ministry of Health, and a Committee has been set up representative of all those departments to secure complete co-ordination. Among the matters entrusted to that branch is the investigation of the transportation aspect of the proposed Channel Tunnel, the future possibility of train services for cross-channel work, and proposals in connection with transport which should guide the selection of sites for housing. Under that department, also, the London Traffic Advisory Committee and its technical and sub-committees are operating. The next department is Finance and Statistics. I think the Committee will realise that if we are to get a satisfactory system in future it must be based upon a complete and accurate ascertainment of statistical facts and true

  1231
  finance. In connection with that, the Director-General is Sir George Beharrell. His Department has to examine critically expenditure in connection with railways in which the State is interested. Over 128 schemes involving an expenditure of £2,613,000 have been approved up to the middle of February, and 154 schemes, involving capital expenditure by the rail ways of £3,620,000, are under consideration. Of the total of 282 schemes, 130 involved detailed examination and criticism by the civil engineering department, and 120 by the mechanical engineering department, and 110 by the traffic department. That brings me to the traffic department, which has been organised under the very experienced directorship of Sir Philip Nash, who, with his staff, is trying hour by hour and day by day to overcome the difficulties which exist in dealing with transport and traffic considerations in this country. That department is divided into four branches; administration branch, railway and light railway operations, rolling stock and storage branch, and road transport and tramways branch, with a fifth department, the docks and canals branch, which will shortly be organised and at work. Those departments are responsible for dealing with the varied proposals for securing an improvement in traffic working and for dealing with any traffic emergencies of a general character. This department in its short life of a few months has already investigated some two thousand complaints, and in many of which it has been able by securing co-ordination between the different departments of transit and the different railway companies to assist in the solution of the difficulties. This Department has also been concerned in the question of rolling stock, and I am told that since the Ministry came into existence there has been an allocation to the railway companies from the Government pool of 490 locomotives and 1,356 wagons, and by the stimulation of the returns of wagons from France up to the middle of last month some 15,000 have been brought back. Steps have been taken to secure the acceleration of construction and the placing of new orders. The railway companies place orders after consultation with the Ministry. Some 17,000 wagons are being or have been built in the last few months with the railway workshops, and orders for 16,000 have
  1232
  been placed by the railway companies with outside firms.
  Mr. REMER: Can the hon. Gentleman mention the date?
  Mr. NEAL: I cannot give the date. They are constantly being placed; the difficulty is to get delivery. I am glad to say we have taken what I believe to be effective steps to stimulate the placing of orders by private individuals with private firms for the manufacture of railway wagons. This Department has dealt with the allocation of rolling stock, and is following the problem as to the best use of that stock. Very recently a very heavy burden was put on this particular Department. The House was told some three weeks ago by the Lord Privy Seal of the difficulty which had arisen with reference to the coal shortage, and there was put upon this particular Department the finding of extra traffic facilities in consultation with the railway companies. A Committee was set up, and I am glad to think the position is somewhat easier than it was. It was this Department that was responsible for 1,276 Government motor lorries being supplied to the railway companies to increase their cartage strength, and there was also a temporary allocation of Government lorries to five principal ports for use supplementary to the railway cartage service.
  The next Department I want to mention is the one on roads. By the Act of Parliament, the Minister is called upon to set up a separate Roads Department, and incidentally he took over the whole of the duties of the Road Board. This is under the director-generalship of Sir Henry Maybury, who was at one time a county surveyor, afterwards gave distinguished service to the nation in France, and is now doing, I think, very valuable service indeed at home in this Roads Department. They have the administration, under the Road Board, of the fund of £8,000,000, which was supplemented by £2,000,000, to deal with road development. In addition, there is the question of the making of grants: there is the classification of the roads of this country, which has never been attempted before and which is well in hand; there is the consideration of the regulation of road vehicles and the revision of the method of taxing and securing revenue for road purposes, also the question of the lighting of vehicles and the taking

  1233
  over from the Ministry of Health of the duties in respect to the considering of applications by local authorities for grants or powers to borrow money for highway purposes, the examination of all private Bills dealing with highways, and, to mention one comparatively small matter and yet an important, it is under this particular Department that the Ministry secured a boat to run between the Channel Islands and Southampton for the bringing across of road-repairing materials, there being, as we have often heard by question in this House, a shortage of road-repairing materials and great difficulty of trans port, and that boat has already dealt with 12,000 tons.
  Then there is another Department, known as the Public Safety and General Purposes Department. This was taken over almost in its entirety from the Board of Trade. It is presided over, as Director-General, by one of our old and distinguished Civil Servants, Sir William Marwood. It is concerned with the safety and working of railways. Since the Department came under the Ministry, 217 inquiries into railway accidents and five into tramway accidents have been held, 41 inspections of new railway works have taken place, and they have given sanction to byelaws and regulations, but the work of the Department stands out first, I think, in this, that it was through the services of Sir William Marwood and others that we were able to arrive at a settlement of what threatened to be a very dangerous question, the question of railwaymen's wages and conditions of labour. Due credit should be given to the Minister himself, if I may be permitted to say so, for the extreme care and friendly spirit which he manifested in bringing about the standardisation of wages upon a basis which, I believe, will become increasingly popular as it is understood—a standardisation of wages which, if prices ever fell to pre-War levels, would secure for the railwaymen an increase of over 100 per cent. on the wages they were then getting. More than that, there have been set up two Boards, with local boards underneath, to secure, if it is humanly possible to secure it, that never again shall we arrive at an acute controversy which threatens the safety of this realm by a great railway strike. There have been set up bodies, apart from the Minister, apart the Ministry, apart from Government control—because it is
  1234
  not desirable, I think, that the Government should interfere too much in these questions between employers and employed—but by conciliation and consultative boards which have been established, it is hoped that we have been relieved from anxiety and danger in that matter.
  I pass to another Department of the Ministry, the Civil Engineering Department. This has been established, and the Minister has been fortunate to obtain the services of one of the most distinguished civil engineers for the Director-Generalship of the Department, Sir Alexander Gibb, whose name, I think, will be known to most Members of the House. Sir Alexander Gibb's Department, by examination of plans which have been submitted for constructional work, has been able to recommend reductions in cost amounting to £170,000, or 5.4 per cent. on the plans submitted. Then there is another Department, the Mechanical Engineering Department, presided over by General Simpson, who has had large railway experience. He has the advice, temporarily, of one of the most distinguished of railway managers, Sir John Aspinall, general manager of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, and in connection with their work they have very largely stimulated production of railway material. Under them there comes, as a small matter, the pool of Government motor cars, and I will say a word or two at this stage, so that I hope my hon. Friend will not find it necessary to move his Amendment. The Ministry of Munitions were in possession of some 76 motor cars for passenger service, and there was a great discussion in this House and elsewhere as to how many Government Departments held motor cars, what sort of restriction was put upon their use, and whether there was any joy riding and so forth which was alleged to take place. The Government requested the Ministry of Transport to take over the investigation of the matter, and as a result there was allotted to him the motor cars owned by the Ministry of Munitions. I think I am right in saying that, apart from the motor cars attached to the fighting service, of which I have no particulars, there are no Government Departments to-day owning or using motor cars except through this pool of cars, which is established under the Ministry of Transport. There were 76. We took over 41, directed the

  1235
  disposal of 35, and the number is now reduced to something under 30—I have not the precise figure—and instructions have been given to reduce them still further by 8 or 9 more. The system is that any Government Department requiring a motor car has to requisition the car and show the purpose for which it is required, and the Department is debited with a fair cost in respect of it. Already very great economies have been effected. The average mileage run by each of these cars is close on 50. The Ministry have established a repairing staff which is able to do all necessary repairs, and it is thought that very great economies will be brought about in that way. Then there is another branch in Ireland under the Director-generalship of Mr. Burgess. The branch carries on in Ireland duties analogous to those which are carried on here. Hon. Members will remember that the Electricity Commissioners have been placed under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. They are only just in process of formation, but a very substantial work attaches to the Ministry in respect of that most important matter. I have indicated some of the answers to the questions addressed to me earlier in the Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) as to what the Ministry of Transport are doing.
  Colonel NEWMAN: What about No. 10?
  Mr. NEAL: I certainly ought to say a word about that. When the Minister took office, he took over the obligations of the Government with reference to the railway companies. When control was taken in August, 1914, immediately on the outbreak of War, the Government of the day was faced with the position that it would have to pay compensation to the railway companies for any loss incurred by them by the dislocation of their business. It was impossible, or it was deemed impossible at the time, to keep accounts of all Government traffic and of the loss to which the companies had been, or might hereafter be, subjected by reason of the interference with their business which was absolutely essential for the safety of the Realm. The Government of the day entered into a series of arrangements which developed from time to time as
  1236
  the questions arose. They are nowhere in any one document, and we have had to try and collate them as best we can from many documents in order to see what exactly was the relationship between the Government and the railway companies. Broadly, the railway companies were guaranteed their net working revenue on the basis of 1913, which was taken as the standard year. But there were other matters. It was realised that they would be unable to do the necessary ordinary repairs and replacements which in the normal course would be done year by year. It was realised that if these were done in a time of rising prices there must be a Government charge to be ascertained in respect to them. These were some of the financial obligations, and there ware others. I will not discuss them in detail, and they are not germane to this Vote. The Minister of Transport was faced with this capital liability, which took the form of a subsidy to cover the annual loss to the State. We were advised that it was in the region of £45,000,000 a year. There was this recurrent loss of approximately £50,000,000 a year, and the Minister therefore exercised his power under the Statute, and appointed a Railway Bates Advisory Committee.
  Colonel NEWMAN: What about the Chairman?
  Mr. NEAL: I am coming to that. By the terms of the Act the Lord Chancellor had to appoint the chairman, and he appointed Mr. Gore Browne, one of the greatest living authorities on railway matters, who, at the great personal sacrifice, accepted the office. It meant a break in his personal position and status that is always dangerous to a man in his position. Ho will be available for a time at a salary of £5,000 per annum, and is the only paid member of the Committee. The Committee was asked to report what increase of the railway rates would produce a financial balance of £50,000,000. There had been an additional £5,000,000 owing to concessions to the railway servants.
  Mr. BILLING: Has the Committee been successful?
  Mr. NEAL: I will come to that. The railway rates presented a problem which, if taken in detail, would have occupied years. The initial problem was to stop

  1237
  the leakage and then see what could be done. They have advised, and we believe the advice is perfectly sound, that railway rates, raised according to the standards which they have laid down, will produce the £50,000,000 per annum, and we hope, and I think the Ministry of Transport is entitled to claim, that we have saved the country that sum by stopping the leakage. The Committee have gone on with their work. I do not know if it is realised how-complex this matter is. There are large schedules of railway rates, but those rates are only applicable to about one-fourth of the traffic. Approximately three-fourths of the traffic of this country is carried on special rates. The result is that one of the railway companies, the North-Western, has on its books no less than 27 million different items. That is accounted for by the fact that they have to have a station-to-station rate from each of their own stations to all others on their own lines and on foreign railways. The Committee is at present investigating, at the request of the Minister, whether the science of rating may not be amended so as to reduce this confusion which exists to-day in railway rates, and to get on to something like a definite system.
  Dr. MURRAY: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly say whether the Development Branch of the Ministry has taken any interest in those who are dependent wholly upon coastal traffic?
  Mr. NEAL: I am not quite sure how far that comes within the scope of this Vote, but I am very glad to tell my hon. Friend of the difficulties that arose with reference to coastal traffic. Railway rates were about the one thing that did not go up during the War, The result was that there was cheap transit by rail, and higher rates by canal and by coastwise traffic. The effect of that was congestion on the railways. We attracted to them, by cheap rates, traffic that was never intended to go upon them. To avoid that difficulty, the Minister of Transport has set up, with the assent of the House, a scheme of coastwise subsidies, and also committees sitting at the ports to try and divert the traffic from the railways on to tie coastwise service. This has been done. Wherever there was a coastwise service in existence—that was the only place where it could operate—the Minister, by means of committees at the ports, tried
  1238
  to divert traffic back into the ships and away from the railways, and to some extent also on to the canals. That has not been wholly successful, because, in trying to remedy one evil, another has been created. That is the trouble in dealing with a complex matter of this kind; but I respectfully submit to the Committee that it is too soon to enter into a detailed consideration of that matter.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask what part of this salary item deals with the canals?
  Mr. NEAL: There is a separate Vote for the canals. I was saying that I think it is a little too soon to attempt to judge of the Ministry of Transport. The Minister has, no doubt, a great task. The organisation will have to be staffed by experienced heads. It would be hopeless to attempt to solve the problems of to-day unless it had at its disposal the very best brains that could be obtained. It has not got a large lower grade staff, because it works partly through the existing staffs of the railway companies and other transport organisations. But as one who has just gone there, and has had time only to look round, I think without impropriety I may say that Parliament never did a wiser thing than in appointing a Minister of Transport to endeavour to co-ordinate and bring to a state of efficiency all the forms of transport in our land.
  Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend is one of the youngest Members of this House. He is one of the youngest recruits in the Government In the absence of his Chief, whom we regret is unfortunately not able to be present owing to illness, he has done extraordinarily well in guiding the House through the very difficult new Estimate, which he has submitted to us for the first time to-night. He deserves the compliments of the House, not only for the way in which he has guided us through the various Departments of the Ministry of Transport, but also for the almost uncanny manner in which he has been able to reply to the various questions sprung upon him in connection with the Department, the Chief of which is regarded as one of the supermen of the Ministry. It is rather difficult at this late hour to enter into what is after all one of the most capital Supplementary Votes, because besides being a Supplementary Vote it is really the initial Vote of the Ministry of Transport. For the first time in the House it gives us some idea of what this colossal

  1239
  Department is to represent. I noticed in the Press the other day that in Russia those who are responsible for the Revolution at the present moment are looking forward to the resuscitation of that country by a large scheme of electrification, to build up the new Russia mainly on the foundation of transport. Whatever our sympathies may be for those engaged in the struggle there, at any rate we may agree in the view that a great deal of national prosperity in the future does depend upon the soundness with which the foundations of transport are laid. This is our attempt to lay those foundations of transport.
  I do not propose to address myself to this Estimate in any hostile spirit, but rather I desire to find out exactly to what the State is being committed. It is important, after all, to remember that. We have been committed to a very great deal in the Supplementary Estimate, and we are entitled at this time, more than at any other, to consider whether or not this is based on sound foundations. My hon. Friend said that, although it was a Supplementary Estimate, it amounted to the real Estimate for the year. That is so, if you look at the various Departments, which are divided into eleven separate branches, now set up for the first time to deal with this headquarters establishment of the new Ministry. The first thing that strikes one in looking at the Supplementary Estimate is that inside of six months—I am not sure it is not seven months—even the figure which is given in the Estimate is not accurate. My hon. Friend said that the total number of staff was 774 and not 714, as set out in this White Paper. We have in this Supplementary Estimate the creation of a new State Department with something approaching a staff of 800, and we do not know—and I think every Member should examine every one of these eleven Departments—we do not know how elastic the Department may prove when it becomes a Department, and when you have at the head of it an official whose main ambition in life is to make his Department the most important of all Departments in the State, not only with regard to accommodation, but with regard to staff. It
  1240
  would be too optimistic, therefore, to think that 774 is only the beginning of an enormous staff in the Ministry of Transport. That is a very serious consideration, unless, indeed, this expenditure is going to be remunerative. I think that the whole and the only test of new expenditure on behalf of the State, and the excuse for it, is that it is going to become remunerative. If you are simply going to enlarge a Department, or if you are rather going to establish a new Department, and going to create new bodies of officials whose work is going to consist, as described in a phrase used by my hon. Friend, in the co-ordination of railways—whatever that may mean—it seems to be a work of supererogation. For the present I shall adhere to financial criticism, and I want to point out the extraordinary disparity between the salaries which are to be paid to the heads of each of these eleven Departments. I will take one Department only: the Chairman of the Roads Advisory Committee, a legal gentleman, who is to receive £5,000, the same salary as the Minister of Transport. Incidentally may I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Minister of Transport and his Parliamentary Secretary have an asterisk over their names, which indicates that these of all Ministers are the only ones entitled to a War bonus?
  Mr. NEAL: I am sorry. It is exactly the opposite.
  Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend says he is sorry it is exactly the opposite—
  It being Eleven of the Clock the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  ADJOURNMENT:—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir R. Sanders.]
  Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'clock.