Commons Sitting of 5 May 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Huddersfield Corporation (General Powers) Bill,
Port of Portsmouth Floating Bridge Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Wallasey Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Middlesex County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Harwich, Llanelly, Newlyn, Padstow, and Penryn," presented by Mr. NEAL; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
ULTIMUS HÆRES, SCOTLAND (ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES).
Return Ordered, of Abstract Account of the Receipts and Payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1919, in the administration of Estates and Treasure Trove on behalf of the Crown; and of alphabetical Lists of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, in the same year.—[Mr. Baldwin.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA

    DEFENCE FORCE ACT.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India when the Indian Defence Force Act comes to an end; and what steps are being taken to replace it?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Indian Defence Force Act, 1917, as amended by the Indian Defence Force Amendment Act of 1919, expires one year after the statutory termination of the War. I am in correspondence with the Government of India regarding the force which is to replace the present Indian Defence force.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any truth in the statement in the Press that the right hon. Gentleman is delaying the presentation of this Bill in the India Council?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have delayed it to this extent, that, as at present advised, I am opposed to the institution of compulsory military service in peace time.
    Colonel YATE: Considering the present state of India, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it right that every European in India should be trained to defend his own wife and family?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

    PENSIONS (ARMY OFFICERS).
    Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for India when he will issue the warrant for the increased pensions to retired officers of the Indian Army?
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India to state the date when the revised rates of pensions for the Indian Army will be published?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I regret that I am not yet able to state when the revised scale of pensions for officers of the Indian Army will be published. I fully recognise the urgency of the matter, and I am doing all I can to expedite the date.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that during his illness the Minister who replied for him said he hoped to

    2043
    give an answer before the end of February, and can he say when we are likely to have a decision?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot say the date. Telegrams are passing between the Government of India and the India Office. I hope that the details, which are very complicated, will be published very shortly.

    TRAVANCORE DURBAR (LABOUR ADVANCES).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Travancore Durbar has decided to introduce into the State the system of labour advances which has hitherto obtained in India and Ceylon; and, if so, whether this was done at the instance of the British Resident or the Madras Government?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have no information.

    MR. E. G. HORNIMAN.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of his assertion at the time of Mr. E. G. Horniman's deportation from India a year ago that this measure was necessitated by the emergency of the moment which required swift and prompt action to be taken, he will state the reasons why the Government of India, after this lapse of time, consider that Mr. Horniman's return to India is still incompatible with the public safety?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have stated that they do not consider that Mr. Horniman's return to India is compatible with the public safety. As I stated in the House on 21st April, I do not propose to interfere with their discretion. I presume they have taken into account Mr. Horniman's journalistic work, and I am content to leave to the Government of India and the Government of Bombay the decision as to the date on which Mr. Horniman can be allowed to return.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:Will Mr. Horniman be allowed to return after peace is finally ratified?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The decision as to when he will be allowed to return will be left to the Government of Bombay. If they decide that he shall return when peace is signed I shall accept their deci-
    2044
    sion. If they do not so decide I shall again accept their decision.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether peace after the Great War has anything whatever to do with Mr. Horniman and his conduct?
    Sir J. D. REES: Would not Mr. Horniman's return distinctly tend to destroy peace in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The point on which I prefer to rely is that by statute discretion is left with the Governor of Bombay. In the exercise of my responsibility to this House I propose to leave the matter to his discretion. If hon. Members do not like that, the best thing to do is to put down a Motion.
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that Mr. G. Horniman was deported from India 12 months ago without trial, that he has been refused inquiry into the charges made against him, and that he denies the truth of these charges or any other justification for such deportation, if he will say what is the earliest occasion upon which the matter can be debated in the House?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend must address the Leader of the House as to opportunities for debate.

    REFORMS (LORD MESTON'S AWARD).
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Secretary of State for India whether he contemplates the re-appointment of the Joint Committee on Indian Reforms to reconsider the rules and regulations governing the working of the Indian reforms; whether in that case the protest of the non-Brahmins of Madras against the award of Lord Meston will also be considered; and how he proposes to ensure that Parliament is properly advised on the matter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative; to the last part I will do all in my power to see that the Joint Committee receives all the information it requires.
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Secretary of State for India whether he sent any instructions to Lord Meston or to the Government of India regarding the inter-

    2045
    pretation of the Joint Committee's recommendation for the separate representation of non-Brahmins.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the negative.

    POST OFFICE SUPERINTENDENTS (PAY).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the pay of superintendents of post offices has come under revision since the recommendation made by the Public Services Commission; and, if so, with what effect?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes. An improved scale will shortly be announced in India.

    LEAVE PAY (ARMY OFFICERS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India when the revised rates of leave pay for Indian Army officers will be announced?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have asked the Government of India to deal with this question urgently, and I hope a decision will be reached shortly.

    MEDICAL SERVICE (EUROPEAN DOCTORS).
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the shortage of European doctors in the Indian Medical Service; and whether he is prepared to give an assurance to the Europeans in India that the utmost effort is being made to provide a European doctor within reasonable access of military and civilian officials and their families?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The shortage of European doctors in the Indian Medical Service has engaged my anxious attention for the last two years, and every effort is being made to overcome it. I am alive to the great importance of a sufficient supply of European doctors.

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he received a series of petitions, sent through the Madras Government in May, 1919, from a large percentage of the Indian Civil Service in that province; and when he proposes to make an answer to such petitions?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, although a day or two ago my hon. Friend was good enough to forward me
    2046
    copies. The second part therefore does not arise.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will my right hon. Friend inquire of the Government of Madras as to what has become of this very large block of petitions? I personally know that they were addressed to him.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will will inquire if my hon. Friend wishes. Of course, a memorial from the Civil Service must be transmitted through the local Government, which has a discretion as to what it will forward.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can see his way to giving an option to the members of the Indian Civil Service to retire during the next five years if they feel unable to serve under the new altered conditions on the basis of a pension proportionate to service and loss of prospects?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would ask leave to refer my hon. Friend to my explanation in this House on 4th December last on Clause 36 of the Government of India Bill, of which I will send him a copy.

    PLUMAGE TRADE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the alleged cruelties practised in India in connection with the obtaining of the plumage of certain birds; whether the Government of India has ever considered or promoted legislation on the subject; and, if not, will he undertake to bring the matter before them in order that they may decide if any restrictions are required on the trades concerned?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The export of the skins and feathers of wild birds from India has been prohibited since 1902, under the Sea Customs Act. As the internal trade in birds' feathers in India is insignificant and as the export prohibition, though sometimes evaded is, I believe, fairly effective, it seems doubtful whether the cruelties to which my hon. Friend refers are practised to any considerable extent. My information, however, is incomplete, and I will forward a copy of this question and of my reply to the Government of India for their consideration.

    RE-EMPLOYED RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether retired Indian Army officers re-employed in India during the War have been allowed to reckon such period of re-employment for higher pension under the Indian Army pension time scale, the pension during that period to which they had previously been admitted being suspended; whether officers on the active list of the Indian Army lent during the war by the India Office to the War Office received their full Indian Army pay both in England and France; whether the re-employed retired Indian Army officers who served under the War Office were invited in August and September, 1914, by circular letter from the India Office, to serve under the War Office; whether many of them applied to be allowed to count their re-employed service towards higher pension under the Indian Army time scale; whether they have been differentiated from those who served under the India Office by not being allowed to reckon their re-employed service towards higher pension on the grounds that this has been disallowed in the British service; and would he consider the question of treating all retired Indian Army officers re-employed in the War on the same equal footing and allow those who served under the War Office to refund the pension they drew during their re-employment, and count their re-employed service towards higher pension under the Indian Army pension time scale as was done by those who served in India?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): I cannot say whether all the facts are as stated in the question, as the conditions of service of Indian Army officers under the Indian Government are not within the knowledge of the War Office; nor can I say whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India would regard re-employment under the War Office as in any event reckoning as service for higher Indian pension. Officers re-employed under the War Office, whether formerly of the British or Indian Armies, are treated alike in this matter and it is not proposed to make any alteration.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his atten-
    2048
    tion has been directed to Paragraph 3, Clause B, of the Admiralty Weekly Order, No. 1,230a, of the 21st April, 1920, which states that examination and boom-defence service and service in transports, hospital ships, and auxiliary and other vessels armed for defence only does not qualify for participation in the Naval Prize Fund; was the original Order to the effect that all prize money should be pooled and distributed amongst the whole of the Navy, no mention being made of qualifying periods at sea or specified vessels; is he aware that by excluding certain ratings who were doing their duties in the vessels mentioned above as well as those who, through no fault of their own, were serving in certain shore establishments, viz., home and foreign hospitals, etc., great discontent is prevailing; and will he cause the qualifying period at sea to be cancelled to enable all officers and men of the Navy to participate, the shares to be estimated on a similar basis to the gratuity?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): The Order in Council issued at the beginning of the War (28th August, 1914) announced an intention of substituting for the former practice, by which the actual captors alone had any interest in prizes, a scheme for the more general distribution of proceeds, to be made under regulations and conditions to be announced later. In the discussion on the Naval Prize Bill on 23rd July, 1918, it was stated that Prize Money was earned in the old wars by service at sea, and it had been considered desirable to adopt the same principle in making the more general distribution, and further that this condition of sea service was the fundamental principle to qualify for the award. The draft scheme of distribution, indicating quite clearly that only service in sea-going ships of war armed for offensive purposes would qualify, was at the same time laid before the House. It was promulgated on the 10th February, 1919 (Prize Proclamation), and circulated in Fleet Orders the following month.
    The effect of the scheme is to extend the area of distribution to all those serving in circumstances which, under former practice, might have yielded prize captures, while those serving on shore, or on harbour duties, or in vessels armed defensively or not at all, remain excluded.

    2049
    There is no ground for the suggestion that the scheme does not correspond with the original Order on the subject.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the case of the "Robella," lost during the early part of the War, most of the sick-berth staff on board were drowned; and whether, notwithstanding anything contained in Admiralty Order No. 1230a of 21st April, 1920, he will consider the possibility of members of the sick-berth staff who served in hospital ships, and were subject at all times to the menace of mines and submarines, participating in the Naval Prize Fund?
    Colonel BURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the claim of the sick-berth stewards in the Royal Navy to participate in the division of the prize money?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I presume that the ship mentioned by my hon. Friend in Question 26 refers to the hospital ship "Rohilla." The qualification for participation in prize money is service in a seagoing offensively armed ship of war. In these circumstances only sick-berth staff serving in such ships are entitled to share, and it is not, therefore, possible to admit claims based on Hospital Ship Service.
    Colonel BURN: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that these men had as hard a time as men on other ships, and had to serve in all sorts of climates and were exposed to the same dangers as ether men taking part in the War?
    Sir J. CRAIG: No, Sir; not quite. I think if the hon. Gentleman cares to study the whole question, he will see that a differentiation must be made somewhere and that the widest possible latitude has been given.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the fact that men on hospital ships got a special War gratuity for service which is not granted to ordinary naval ratings?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I cannot say off-hand.

    DISCHARGE BY PURCHASE.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether discharge by purchase from the Navy will be reopened from 1st July; whether the purchase price will be £48 for men with
    2050
    less than four years' service, after four years £36, and after six years £24; whether after three months £75 will be the price of discharge for boy artificers and similar classes, including men with less than four years' service from the date of advancement to men's rating, and £40 for boys and marines under 18, including, boys specially advanced to men's ratings; and will he state when these payments were agreed to by the House?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The facts are as stated. As regards the last part of the question, discharge by purchase is only allowed as a matter of grace, and the Board of Admiralty are fully empowered to grant or to refuse applications according to circumstances and the exigencies of the Service.
    Mr. EDWARDS: Will he reply to the last part of the question, as to when these payments were agreed to by the House?
    Sir J. CRAIG: That will require considerable research, but I shall be glad to make it if the hon. Member wishes me to do so.

    OUT-PORT ESTABLISHMENTS (STAFF).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the numbers employed by the Admiralty in out-port establishments before August, 1914, and the latest available date for 1920.
    Sir J. CRAIG: The numbers of staff (including workpeople) employed in the Admiralty out-port establishments at home on 1st July, 1914, arid 1st March, 1920, the latter being the latest date for which complete figures are available, were 56,845 and 84,499 respectively.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (MERCHANT TONNAGE).
    Sir C. KINL0CH-C00KEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, since his recent visit to Devonport, he has received any deputations from representatives of labour; if so, will he say what labour sections were represented on those deputations; and whether the interviews enabled him to make any further pronouncement regarding the carrying out of the recommendations contained in Section 14 of the Colwyn Report that the Admiralty should utilise their surplus facilities of the Royal Dockyards in the construction of mercantile vessels?
    Sir J. CRAIG: A deputation of the Amalgamated Union of Shipbuilding, Engineering and Constructional Workers, comprising the Shipconstructors' and Shipwrights' Association, Boilermakers' and Iron Steel Shipbuilders' Society, Blacksmiths' and Ironworkers' Society, was received by the First Lord on 28th April to arrange for the waiving of demarcation rules to enable an adjustment of labour to be made as necessary, for Mercantile Shipbuilding to be carried out in the Royal Dockyards. A provisional agreement has been arrived at which, when finally approved, will enable the following ships to be constructed in the dockyards:

    At Devonport.—500-ton collier. 5,000–8,000 tons ship.

    At Portsmouth.—10,000-ton oiler.

    At Chatham.—Certain machinery for the above vessels.

    This is in addition to the two 10,000-ton oilers previously decided upon.
    Mr. MILLS: Is it the fact that the Cunard Company offered two large boats to be repaired which would have given labour?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I think there is a subsequent question on that point.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in accordance with the suggestions made in Section 18 of the Colwyn Report, he has invited offers from shipowners requiring accommodation at Devonport as a terminal port; if so, will he say what replies, if any, have been received; in the event of no such action having been taken, as suggested in the Colwyn Report, will he say what steps, if any, he proposes to take to carry out the spirit, if not the letter, of the recommendations; and, if any steps on these lines have been taken, will he say what they were and what results have accrued therefrom?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The P. & O. and Orient Steamship Companies were approached by the Admiralty in January last on the lines suggested in Section 18 of the Colwyn Report, and both these companies wrote replying that, after full consideration, they were unable to make any use of Devonport Dockyard as suggested.
    At a recent conference presided over by the First Lord at Devonport, the local deputation, headed by the mayor, were
    2052
    informed that the Admiralty would undertake to reserve the western arm of the Prince of Wales basin for loading and unloading merchant shipping if there was a demand for such facilities, and it was mutually agreed that the Corporation of Plymouth should be given a free hand to conduct the negotiations with the shipping companies, details being arranged as necessary with the Admiral Superintendent locally.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the request has been granted?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Only to the limited extent I have indicated in my answer.
    Mr. MILLS: Is it true that in Portsmouth, where you are discharging both skilled men and labourers, there is a cruiser that has been on the stocks there for considerably over four years and that the reason for the dismissal of these men is because you have no available stocks?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I have not any further details.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the claim to compensation made by Robert E. Read, ex-hired skilled labourer, Portsmouth Dockyard; that this man has been ordered to come to London to be reported on by a medical referee; that Read's state of health is such that he cannot travel without an attendant, which has been granted by the Admiralty, and must be conveyed in cabs to and from the station and the doctor; if there are no competent and honourable surgeons in Portsmouth who could be asked to report and save this invalid the trouble and pain of a long journey and the State an extravagance; and if he will see to the matter and future and similar cases?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Arrangements were made for Read's examination by the Government Medical Referee under the instructions of the Treasury and in accordance with the terms of the Government Scheme of Compensation. In cases in which it is considered sufficient to have the man examined locally this is invariably done, but where the Admiralty and private doctors disagree, it is generally considered advisable to refer such cases for the decision of the Referee. On the available facts in this case, arrangements were

    2053
    made accordingly, but in view of the suggestion that Read is unfit to travel, the Treasury is in communication with the Medical Referee with a view to considering whether arrangements can be made for his examination by a local practitioner.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend be good enough to see that some expedition is used in this case?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I understand from inquiry I made before I came down to the House that expedition is being used.

    H.M.S. "VICTORY."
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say when His Majesty's ship "Victory" will be out of the dockyard; and if this will be before the Whitsun holiday?
    Sir J. CRAIG: According to present arrangements the "Victory" will be taken to her moorings to-day.

    ADMIRALTY (MOTOR VEHICLES).
    Lieut.-ColonelGUINNESS asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has availed itself of the pool of motor vehicles organised by the Ministry of Transport; and whether any service cars are still kept under Admiralty control?
    Sir JAMES CRAIG: The Admiralty has not availed itself of the pool of motor vehicles organised by the Ministry of Transport. Nine cars are still maintained under Admiralty control in London.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it considered economical to keep this small special fleet of cars, instead of using the Ministry of Transport?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I am not quite aware of the conditions under which this arrangement was made, but I presume it was made with a view to efficiency as well as economy. I cannot give my hon. Friend all the details as I had nothing to do with making the arrangement, but it was sanctioned by the Cabinet.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire a little more particularly to ascertain whether these cars were kept before the War?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I did make certain inquiries before I came down, and I find
    2054
    one car is used by the garage staff in connection with the repair of vehicles and motor lorries in the London district and for visiting contractors. I find that two cars are kept in reserve and of the remaining three closed and three open cars, those are used by the Board of Admiralty, the heads of Departments and other officers whose services justify them in using them, as certified by the head of the Department.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, and I can speak from experience, that before the War members of the Board of Admiralty had no private cars at Government expense?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I am quite sure that what the right hon. Gentleman says is quite true. I have no doubt that the Admiralty, like every other Department, is anxious to return to pre-War conditions as quickly as possible. I will have further inquiries made.

    ROYAL MARINE ESTABLISHMENTS (COOKING).
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the cooking arrangements in the Royal Marine establishments at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Chatham are being reconstructed so as to carry out an up-to-date system of general messing; and whether it is the intention of their Lordships to appoint to those places properly-trained naval cook ratings, thereby utilising their experience for effective service and economy as well as to alleviate the stagnation of promotion which exists amongst the Royal naval cooks?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The cook-houses at the Royal Marine Barracks at Chatham, Deal, and Eastney are to be reconstructed, but it is not proposed at present to carry out similar work at Forton and Plymouth. Cooking at the Royal Marine Barracks is performed by Royal Marines, who undergo the necessary courses of instruction, and are under the superintendence of fully-qualified cook sergeants. It is not proposed to employ naval cook ratings in the Royal Marine Barracks.

  RUSSIA.

    CRIMEA REFUGEES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty

    2055
    what steps are being taken to evacuate the refugees and the remnants of General Denikin's army from the Crimea; and to what place these refugees and soldiers are being taken?
    Sir J. CRAIG: As the Russian Volunteer Army is successfully defending the Crimea against the Soviet Forces attack, no steps are being taken at present.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the presence of our ships and their action against the Reds were not justified, on the ground of humanity, in order to rescue these people, and, that being the case, why do we not keep the bargain and evacuate, and so prevent further bloodshed?
    Mr. PALMER: Is it not an act of humanity to try to defeat the Bolsheviks?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to my question? Is it intended to support further offensive operations by General Wrangel's army, or are we still actuated by motives of humanity?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

  GERMANY.

    WARSHIPS (ALLOCATION).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the German war-ships allocated to various Powers will be broken up, or whether they will be retained as an incentive to provoke further warship building and so begin afresh another race in naval war armaments?
    Sir J. CRAIG: All the ships will be broken up with the exception of five light cruisers and ten destroyers, which will be incorporated in the French Fleet, a similar number in the Italian Fleet, and six torpedo boats allocated to Poland and six to Brazil for police purposes.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask if the Powers to whom some of these ships have been allocated will break up those ships; will the British Admiralty also break up their share and thus prevent these ships becoming a focus for future naval armament?
    Sir J. CRAIG: That is a matter of policy which I will submit to the First Lord on his return.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the ships allocated to Poland will be made available to help in their operations against Russia?
    Commander Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether the expression "broken up" will be taken to include using these ships as targets, if necessary?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The noble Lord will appreciate the fact that I have given all the information asked for in the question.

    REPARATION COMMISSION.
    Sir W. BARTONasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in connection with the question of compensation to British subjects for War damages in France; whether this matter is still in the hands of the Reparation Commission in Paris; and can he indicate when British sufferers may expect to receive compensation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): On the general question of British Government claims against Germany in respect of damage or loss suffered by individuals, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave yesterday to the Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. N. Chamberlain). As regards damages suffered by British subjects in the occupied districts of France, I would refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) on the 18th February.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    CRICKET BALL MAKING.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister for Labour whether the trade union concerned with the making of cricket balls still refuse to allow the employment of disabled ex-Service men; if so, on what grounds; and if the Ministry of Labour are taking any action in the matter?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I understand that there is

    2057
    objection on the part of the Amalgamated Society of Cricket Ball Makers to the admission of further trainees and apprentices into their trade on the ground that there is already sufficient labour in the trade to cope with the demand for goods, and that it would accordingly not be in the interests of either the trade or of the ex-service men themselves if the latter were admitted to it.
    Further, at a conference between representatives of employers and workpeople engaged in the manufacture of sports equipment and officials of the Ministry of Labour, held in October last, it was unanimously agreed by both employers and workpeople that the processes involved in the manufacture of cricket balls were generally unsuitable for the employment of disabled men, owing to the high standard of physical fitness required for the work. If this be so, it does not appear that the Ministry can usefully take any action in the matter.
    Viscount CURZON: Is this really the last word on behalf of the ex-service men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will go into it myself personally, but I am advised that the heavy leather stitching necessitated does involve a physical strain on the disabled men, and that is the proposition which interests me.
    Mr. PALMER: Is there any industry in which the trade unions will allow these ex-service men to participate?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, and I hope that by goodwill and good temper arrangements may be made by which that will be universally true.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman find a single instance in the mining industry where an ex-service man has not been able to return to his employment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already answered my hon. Friend.
    Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask whether the best judges as to their ability to undertake arduous work are not the disabled men themselves rather than the trade unions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: These men are very anxious to earn their living, and it may very well be that without good advice—and I am taking it on that ground solely—they might take up training work which, because of the ultimate
    2058
    supply in the particular trade, and also because of their condition, might not be so profitable to them in the long run as something else which we might suggest. We will do our best for them.

  HOUSING.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if he will include in the Rent Restrictions Acts amending Bill a Clause empowering local authorities to require property owners to let for immediate occupation all unoccupied dwelling-houses in their area, seeing that the powers which local authorities possess to purchase such property take considerable time to put into operation and there is immediate need for more housing accommodation;
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in some industrial areas, owners of houses are deliberately keeping houses unoccupied and thereby aggravating the shortage of housing accommodation; whether he is aware that the remedy of compulsory purchase by the local authorities, as provided by the Housing, Town Planning Act, 1919, is wholly inadequate to meet these evils; and whether he will take care that the new Rent Restriction Amendment Bill is drawn up in such a form as to provide for these cases or to permit of amendments being moved to meet these cases, or whether he will bring in special legislation on the subject?
    The MINISTER OF HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I will consider the hon. Member's suggestions.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this matter is receiving his immediate consideration, as it is very urgent?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Rent Restriction Bill will, I hope, be available very shortly.
    Mr. CAPEasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Prestatyn (North Wales) Council has recently issued a certificate entitling a builder to the building subsidy under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of a house which is to be used only as a week-end or holiday residence:

    2059
    whether it is the settled policy of the Government to grant subsidies in respect of houses without any consideration of the use that will be made of them; and whether an amending Bill will be introduced to restrict the payment of subsidies to houses in respect of which a guarantee of continuous occupation can be given?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Housing (Additional Powers) Act does not place restrictions on the use to be made of houses in respect of which subsidies may be paid. I am, however, considering what measures can be taken to prevent the owners of dwelling houses from keeping them unoccupied.

    DIRECT LABOUR, NEWBURY.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Health whether the cost of the houses erected by direct labour at Newbury was £200 per house less than the lowest tenders from building firms?
    Dr. ADDISON: I understand that tenders were received by the Newbury Town Council of £850 per house. The Council are building 20 houses by direct labour. The estimated cost was £650 per house, but definite figures cannot be given until the houses are completed.
    Mr. MILLS: Is the result sufficient to justify the Minister of Health extending this principle, or allowing it to be extended wherever local authorities are willing to enter into it?
    Dr. ADDISON: There are quite a considerable number of cases where this principle is being adopted, but I can give no estimate how near these figures will prove to be correct.
    Mr. SHORT: Does the right hon. Gentleman put any obstacle in the way of local authorities desiring to adopt this plan?
    Dr. ADDISON: No. I am not putting any obstacle in the way of anybody who wants to build houses.

    TRADE UNION RESTRICTIONS.
    Viscount CURZ0Nasked whether the construction of houses and buildings for the Government, or in which the Government are interested, are being directly impeded by the action of trade unions or by labour disputes; if so, to
    2060
    what extent; what is the average wage of a bricklayer to-day and what was the similar figure for 1914; what is the average number of bricks laid per bricklayer to-day and what was the figure for 1914; whether the building trades unions are permitting the employment of ex-service men; if so, to what extent; and how many of the unemployed ex-service men now in receipt of unemployment donation could be employed if the trades unions were to relax their restrictions?
    Dr. ADDISON: A number of disputes have arisen which have led to a stoppage of work in the housing schemes, but I am hopeful that the arrangements now being made with the unions and other organisations concerned will minimise, if not altogether remove, this difficulty in the future. The construction of houses is being gravely delayed by a shortage of labour. The shortages of skilled building labour notified to us in houses now under construction during the last week in March was 8,378. I understand that the trade unions concerned are not prepared to assent at present to the employment of ex-service men in their trades who were not formerly apprentices, except in the case of a certain percentage of disabled men. I have no information as to the number of ex-service men now unemployed, and in receipt of unemployment donation who could be employed upon housing schemes if the objections were removed, but there can be no doubt that there would be a substantial number. The rates of wages vary in different districts from about 1s. 3d. per hour up to 2s. 4d. per hour, the corresponding range in 1914 being from 7d. to 11½d. per hour.
    Captain TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question dealing with the number of bricks laid per bricklayer to-day, and the number they used to lay in 1914?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry to say I have no precise figures as to the number which were laid in 1914.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Nobody has.
    Dr. ADDISON: We have a large number of records of the number being laid now. Substantially, I may say, they vary from about 300 to 700.
    Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number of silly questions an hon. Member may ask?
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is not the main cause of delay in the construction of these houses the high cost of materials?
    Dr. ADDISON: The fact that there were 8,300 men short the last week in March shows that there must be delay.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are several schemes now held up owing to the high cost of building materials?
    Mr. PALMER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make one more appeal to the humanity and patriotism of trade unions on behalf of ex-service men?
    Mr. J. JONES: What about the patriotism of journalists who stopped at home talking while other men were fighting, and made money out of it?
    Mr. H0PKINS0N: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is perfectly easy to employ discharged soldiers, as I have been doing for months, working on the same jobs as trade unionists at the same trades, if the employers have got the pluck to do it?
    Dr. ADDISON: I certainly think the idea that it takes years to train a man to lay a few bricks is all nonsense.
    Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members had better renew the Debate some other day.

    BUSINESS PREMISES, LONDON (RESTRICTION).
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Viscount CURZON:
    60. To ask the Minister of Health whether the London County Council has made an Order prohibiting the reconstruction of certain large premises, among them Messrs. Harrods and Selfridges, and premises at the corner of Arlington Street and Piccadilly; whether such an Order will greatly restrict industry and opportunity of employment; whether any men will be thrown out of employment thereby; if so, whether they can be employed on the construction of houses for the working classes; whether the demolition and rebuilding of any of the premises affected by the Order would result in street widening and improvements; and, if so, whether, under the circumstances, the Ministry of Health will propose an Amendment to the Act
    2062
    which enables such Orders to be made, and do all in their power to bring pressure to bear upon the trade unions concerned to relax their restrictions and permit the employment of more men in the industry?
    Viscount CURZON: May I have an answer to this question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already asked the number of questions to which he is entitled.
    Viscount CURZON: I postponed a question, and it was put down to-day by accident.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is an avoidable accident.

    PAYMASTER-GENERAL (DUTIES).
    Sir EVAN JONESasked whether the Paymaster-General has any duties or responsibilities in connection with the housing schemes of the Government, and, if so, what is their nature and extent?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will send the hon. Member a copy of an answer given by the Prime Minister to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that when questions are put to the Minister of Health in regard to the ever-increasing prices of building materials that the reply invariably received is that he is waiting for the Report of the Profiteering Committee; and whether he will inform the House of the approximate date when this Report will be issued?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I am unable to name the approximate date when the various Sectional Committees appointed by the Central Committee to investigate building materials will be in a position to make their reports. The Committee are still taking evidence, and while everything that is possible is being done to expedite the investigations, my hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate the necessity for the investigation being careful and complete.
    Sir R. THOMAS: How long has that Committee been sitting?
    Mr. BR1DGEMAN: I cannot answer that; it is not in the question. I will ascertain, but I think not very long. At any rate, I am quite sure, as it is an important Committee, the work ought not to be hastily done, especially when any important decision has to be taken.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Does not the hon. Gentleman think this ought to be hastily done having regard to the seething unrest in the country owing to the non-building of these workmen's dwellings?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know whether my hon. Friend attaches the same meaning to "hasty" as I do.
    Sir R. THOMAS: I mean speedily.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: "Hasty," in my opinion, is too quick.
    Sir R. THOMAS: I mean as I said, "speedily" done

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DEBT).
    Sir R. NEWMANasked the Minister of Health whether he can state the amount of rates raised by local authorities during the last financial year, the amount of the local debt, and the amount contributed by the Treasury towards the same?
    Dr. ADDISON: Owing to delays caused by the War the latest financial year for which returns have been received from all the local authorities in England and Wales is 1916–17. In that year the total amount of rates raised was £72,900,000, the total amount of Government grants (including sums received out of the Local Taxation Account and the local taxation licence duties collected locally) was £22,800,000, and the total amount of the outstanding loan debt (deducting sums standing to the credit of sinking funds for the repayment of loans) was £513,300,000.

    EGYPT.
    Lieut.-Commarder KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether over 60 pledges have been given by past and present British Governments confirming the independence of Egypt, and stating that Egypt would be evacuated on the conclusion of hostilities?
    Mr. B0NAR LAW (Leader of the House): The various declarations made by successive British Governments are on record and speak for themselves. I do not think that they can be correctly summarised as "pledges confirming the independence of Egypt." His Majesty's Government have never stated that Egypt would be evacuated on the conclusion of hostilities.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:May I ask whether one of the declarations of His Majesty at the beginning of the War will be followed in the letter and the spirit, namely, that we will safeguard the autonomous rights of Egypt?
    Mr. B0NAR LAW: I should like to have the actual words to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether responsible representatives of the Egyptian people are prepared to discuss and grant all reasonable guarantees for safeguarding British interests both in regard to the Suez Canal and in regard to commercial and financial interests in the event of the British pledges regarding the independence of Egypt being honoured; and whether, in view of the fact that the Egyptian delegation under Zagloul Pasha has received the unanimous support and confidence of the Egyptian people, discussion of the future of Egypt can take place between representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian delegation?
    Mr. B0NAR LAW: If representative Egyptians are prepared to discuss the matters referred to, it is regrettable that they did not avail themselves of the offer of unrestricted discussion made by Lord Milner's Mission. As regards the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I would refer him to the reply to the hon. Member for Wigan on 27th April.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:May I ask whether, in the case of Lord Milner not having received any satisfaction from his visit, the matter will be reopened and these Egyptian gentlemen consulted with a view to a mutual arrangement between the two countries?
    Mr. B0NAR LAW: I am quite sure that any discussion that may be useful

    2065
    will be readily entered into, but the question of usefulness must be judged by the Government.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it not the case that the Milner Mission went to Egypt with instructions that were tantamount to discussing how best the Protectorate could be maintained there, and is it not obvious that under those conditions no Nationalist representatives would wish to interview Lord Milner?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Milner Mission went out to consider the best method for the Government of Egypt.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if it can be said of the Egyptian delegation or of any other delegation that it receives the unanimous support and confidence of the Egyptians or of any other people, and does my right hon. Friend let that pass as accepted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not think it necessary to answer that, but I have never seen in this country anybody that gave absolute satisfaction to all the people.

  MUNITIONS.

    SALES TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government since the Armistice has sold any ships, guns, or munitions of war to any foreign Government, and, if so, if he will give the details of the transactions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Negotiations are proceeding, but it is not yet possible to announce the particulars asked for by my hon. Friend.
    Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman Assure the House that particulars will be published immediately the negotiations are complete?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give an assurance that they will be published the moment any particular sale is made. I do not think that would be desirable.
    Captain BENN:Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what day I might ask a further question on the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon and gallant Friend can ask it any time he likes.

    BRITISH MANDATES (TRADING FACILITIES).
    Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether equal facilities are, and have been, accorded to all nationals who desire to investigate the resources, including oil, and establish trade in the territories for which a British mandate has been accepted.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The territories which will eventually come under a British mandate, in accordance with the decision of the Peace Conference, are at the present moment in military occupation, and consequently no facilities such as are described have been accorded to anyone. Moreover, the terms of the mandates allocated under the proposed Treaty of Peace with Turkey have not yet been decided upon so that the question does not arise.
    Captain BENN: Can my right hon. Friend say, in reference to oil, that no facilities have been given to British commercial representatives in preference to those of other countries to investigate resources?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say off-hand that no investigations have taken place.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:May we take it that the principle of the open door with regard to the development of natural resources will be followed by us in any mandatory terms we are invited to accept?
    Mr. PALMER: May we take it that preference will be given to British subjects in reference to these matters?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The mandate, as the hon. Members know, has to be submitted to the League of Nations. As regards the general question, I can say nothing more than I have said.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CONDENSED MILK.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Health if he can state what progress has been made by the committee set up to inquire into the determination of a standard for condensed milk; and if he will take early steps to prevent the importation or manufacture of condensed milk with low standards of fat to the great detriment of the consumer.
    Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the Committee has held a number of meetings and has nearly completed the taking of evidence. The matter will have my careful attention when the report of the Committee is received.

    DENTISTRY (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present Session of Parliament for the purpose of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878?
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Dentistry of last year; and, if so, when it will be introduced?
    Dr. ADDISON: A Bill is now in course of preparation, and it is hoped to introduce it before the end of this month.

    BOARDED-OUT CHILDREN.
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to circularise boards of guardians with regard to the removal of restrictions on the amount which they may pay for the boarding-out of children; and, if so, why consent to pay 10s. per week per child has recently been refused to the Forden, Barnet, and other boards of guardians?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir. Since the cases referred to in the last part of the question were dealt with, I have decided to remove the restrictions on the amount payable for the maintenance of boarded-out children, and a circular letter to this effect was issued yesterday.

    BIRTHS (NOTIFICATION).
    Sir HENRY HARRISasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the difficulty of obtaining convictions for failure to notify births under the Notification of Births Act, 1907, such difficulty being due to the wording of paragraph (3) of Section 1 of that Act; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to make effective the obligation to notify births?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am aware that the wording of the statute in question has caused difficulties, and the matter will receive consideration.

    BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (CIVIL SERVICE AWARD).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if the Rochford board of guardians has refused to apply the Civil Service Award to their officers and has refused to allow the case to go to arbitration; and if he will intervene to secure the bonus for the officers and thus prevent the possibility of a strike with its calamitous consequences to the poor in the charge of the board?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir; I have written to the guardians pressing them to reconsider their decision.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health how many boards of guardians have refused to grant the war bonus sanctioned by his Department to their officers?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid I have not this information.

    NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
    Mr. PALMERasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that two London boroughs, Shoreditch and Hammersmith, have refused to administer the National Relief Fund because of the denial of discretionary powers in the assistance of distress, immediate steps will be taken to bring the fund more into line with the humane needs of the time, with a view to the speedy relief of necessitous cases?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Government have no responsibility for the administration of the National Relief Fund, which is vested in the Executive Committee.

    PERSIA (NEW ARMY).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is contemplated upon the Report of the Anglo-Persian Military Commission; and whether Persia will refund the whole or part of the Indian Government's expenditure on the South Persian

    2069
    Rifles and will bear the cost of the British officers lent for the purpose of training the new army?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The full Report of the Commission has not yet been received. No statement can, therefore, be made at present regarding future action. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part, I would invite my hon. Friend to refer to Clause 3 of the agreement of 9th August last, where the point raised is specifically mentioned.

    SUDAN (IRRIGATION WORKS).
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a sum of £500,000 from the Egyptian Treasury has been expended on certain irrigation works in the Sudan without the consent of the Egyptian people?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Any expenditure of this nature has been approved by the Egyptian Council of Ministers, and is destined to provide more water for irrigation in Egypt.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May we assume it has not been approved by the Egyptian people's representatives in the Legislative Assembly?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall require notice of that question.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether irrigation works have been started in the Sudan which will have complete control over the supply of water to the Nile in Egypt; if so, whether these works are being constructed at the exclusive expense of the Egyptian people; and whether the Egyptian people have ever been consulted?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Complete control of the waters of the Nile will require more extensive works than those included in the present programme, which will not be carried out at the exclusive expense of the Egyptian people, as Egypt will only pay for works of benefit to herself, and the Sudan for those destined to provide irrigation for that country. As regards the third part of the question, the
    2070
    hon. and gallant Member is perhaps unaware that all expenditure chargeable to the Egyptian Budget is approved by the Egyptian Council of Ministers.

    TRAVELLERS' MONEY (FRENCH GOVERNMENT ORDER).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the French Government has issued an order forbidding travellers carrying away from France more than 1,000 francs, either in British or French money, and if they are in possession of larger amounts it is taken away from them; whether he is aware that the notice of this order is only issued on the railway trains, and acts most unfairly to Indian and Colonial passengers travelling overland from Marseilles; and can he make representations to the French Government to allow special facilities to these passengers, and also to give better notice to passengers from and to this country?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Notice of the French law was given at the time in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 2nd May, 1918, and certain modifications in favour of foreign commercial travellers visiting France were published in the issue of the same journal dated 11th March, 1920. I do not consider that representations to the French Government in favour of travellers passing through Franco could at present be made with any prospect of success.

    PASSPORTS (CHARGES).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British representative in any part of the world is empowered to make any charge for the visé or endorsement upon the passport of any British subject returning to Great Britain; and, if so, in what particular cities payment for this service may be demanded?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: British representatives are not empowered to make any charge for the visa or endorsement on the passport of any British subject returning to Great Britain, as, according to British regulations, no such visa or endorsement is necessary. Where the British visa or endorsement is required in order to comply with the regulations

    2071
    of a foreign Government, it should be given free of charge. As it appears that in some places a charge for the visa has been made to British subjects returning to the United Kingdom, steps have been taken to bring the regulation again to the notice of all who grant visas.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the British subjects who have been wrongfully charged, and made to pay on their vises after the first regulation was sent out, be enabled to get their money back?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will advise me how that is best to be done?
    Colonel A. MURRAY: Have representations yet been made to the French Government with a view to the abolition of the vise system?

  AGRICULTURE.

    HOP CONTROL.
    Major STEELasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether the Government have now definitely decided to continue the hop control; and, if so, for what length of time?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Government are agreed that the control of hops is beneficial, and are considering what legislative action can most usefully be taken to secure its continuance for a limited period.
    Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: When does the right hon. Gentleman think it will be possible to make a definite statement on the matter?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope very shortly.

    ARABLE LAND (SPECULATION).
    Captain R. TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that a large area of good arable land is to-day in the hands of land speculators and un tenanted, with the result that little or no effort is being made to cultivate it or sow it with spring corn; whether he will state whether the Ministry, through the county
    2072
    agricultural committees, is taking any steps to see that such land is properly dealt with; whether he is aware that speculation in agricultural land is causing a reduction in the production of foodstuffs, especially where the speculators are leaving the land without tenants; and whether it is intended to insert a Clause in the forthcoming Agricultural Bill which will have for its object the prevention of such speculation?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Ministry is aware that a good deal of land speculation is now going on and that, as a result, some land is temporarily without tenants. The Agricultural Executive Committees, however, are fully alive to the situation, and in many cases are serving Cultivation Orders on the owners where there is sufficient evidence that they can be regarded as the occupiers for the purpose of D.O.R.A. 2M. The assumption contained in the third part of the hon. Member's question is no doubt correct in isolated cases, but there are no statistics available on the subject. With regard to the last part of the question, it is hoped that the provisions of the Agricultural Bill will discourage the evil to which the hon. Member alludes.
    Captain TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many acres are affected by this land speculation?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I have already said that there are no statistics available.

    SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
    Major STEELasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction is expressed amongst secondary teachers because letters written by them to the Board on questions relating to teachers' superannuation have not been dealt with or even acknowledged; and, if not, will he cause inquiries to be made as to why these letters have not been answered?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I am not aware of dissatisfaction on the ground that letters written by teachers have not been dealt with. The practice of acknowledging the receipt of letters was abandoned during the War for

    2073
    reasons of economy; and the Board have not yet found it possible to resume the practice generally. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will make inquiries.
    Major STEEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a large number of secondary teachers, especially those who are approaching pensionable age, who have written to the Board on previous occasions and asked what evidence as regards their period of service the Board will take? To all these various letters no reply has been made.
    Mr. FISHER: I will look into the matter; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will understand that at the Board we are very short-handed at present; we have not found it possible to resume our pre-War number; meanwhile, our work has very largely increased, especially in the Pensions Department.
    Major STEEL: May I have the assurance that this matter of the superannuation of secondary teachers will receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and that either a statement will be made, or else the letters will be answered?
    Mr. FISHER: The conditions under which the pensions are granted are perfectly well-known. The Superannuation Act is an Act of Parliament, and there is no difficulty whatever in ascertaining the facts.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    REGIONAL DIRECTORS (SALARIES).
    Mr. WALSHasked the Pensions Minister if he can state the salaries of the regional directors and deputy directors in each of the 13 regions of the Ministry; on what principle are the salaries scaled; and whether, in assessing the salaries to be paid, full consideration has been given to the local circumstances and the character of each area?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): With the hon. Member's permission, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the salaries paid to the director and deputy director in each of the 11 (not 13) regions of the Ministry. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative.
    The following is the statement referred to: —
    The salary paid to each Regional Director and Deputy-Regional Director of the Ministry is as follows:—

    Region.

    Salary

    Regional Director.

    Deputy.

    £

    £

    London

    1,000

    800

    North-Western

    900

    775

    Northern

    900

    775

    East Midlands

    900

    1,200*

    West Midlands

    900

    775

    Yorkshire

    900

    1,200*

    South-Western

    900

    775

    Wales

    900

    1,200*

    Scotland

    900

    775

    Ulster

    800

    1,000*

    Ireland,South

    800

    Vacant.

    * This officer is also the Principal Medical Officer of the Region.

    CHINA MAIL SERVICE.
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the irregular running of the mails to China; and whether, in view of the inconvenience this causes to business circles, he will endeavour to ensure that there is at least one outward mail to China every week?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that there is now a regular weekly mail service to China.

    COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMPS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Post master-General whether his attention has been called to the very considerable sums of money realised by the Governments of other countries by means of the issue of commemorative postage stamps upon fitting occasions; and whether, as a means of assisting the finances of the Post Office Department in this country, he is pre pared to accept suggestions for such issues from time to time in Great Britain?
    Mr. PEASE: My right hon. Friend answered a question on the subject on the

    2075
    7th April, 1919, and is still of opinion that the British Post Office should not introduce the practice of issuing commemorative postage stamps.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman refuse good money if it can be shown to be available?
    Mr. PEASE: There are several reasons against the suggestion. One of the chief is that commemorative stamps of temporary validity cannot under the Postal Union Convention be used in the international service.

    BRITISH ARMY.

      DEMOBILISED OFFICERS AND MEN (FUNERAL EXPENSES).
      Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for War and Air if the War Office is empowered to pay the medical and funeral expenses of those officers and men who lost their lives within a few days of their arrival home, after having been demobilised, in February, 1919, where it can be shown that the cause of death was the result of illness contracted on the journey through France owing to the authorities having failed to provide suitable accommodation during the journey, the officers and men having been required to travel in cattle trucks and having been held up at the French ports, and required to sleep in tents for several nights when the thermometer was at zero; and, if the War Office is not empowered to pay such expenses, if he will obtain the necessary powers to do so?
      Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The powers of the War Office in these matters are not automatically terminated by demobilisation of the person concerned. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any specific, cases I will have them investigated.
      Mr. DOYLE: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the records of the War Office he will find that I have furnished him with some specific cases.
      Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I shall be very pleased to make inquiry.

      ACTING RANKS (GRATUITIES).
      Captain BOWYERasked the Secretary of State for War and Air if his attention has been called to the fact that Army Order 117 of 1919 state that gratuity will
      2076
      be paid for any acting rank held for six months, with pay of that rank; whether he is aware that an officer who was a temporary captain and paid as captain from May, 1916, till August, 1917, has been refused his claim for payment of a captain's gratuity and has been paid as a lieutenant only because he did not hold acting rank; is he aware that from May, 1916, till August, 1917, this officer could not have held acting rank, as there was no such rank then; and will he reconsider such a claim if it is resubmitted?
      Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars of the case he has in mind I will have inquiry made.

      SOCIETY OF MINIATURE RIFLE CLUBS.
      Captain BOWYERasked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether he is aware that a special licence has been granted to the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs which allows them to supply rifles and ammunition without obtaining authority under Defence of the Realm Regulation 30a, whereas all firms are forced to obtain a special licence on each occasion under the Defence of the Realm Act; and will he either grant to all traders the same privileges that are now extended to the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs or, in the alternative, withdraw from the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs the privilege they are now enjoying at the expense of their trading competitors?
      Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative. The Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs exists solely for the purpose of encouraging rifle shooting, and the special licence which was issued after due consideration only enables the Society to supply the rifles and ammunition to affiliated clubs.
      Captain BOWYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intolerable persecution suffered by traders under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, and how much longer are they going to continue?
      Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not aware of any persecution. I am sure it is not intentional.

      EXPORT LICENCES.
      Captain W. BENNasked on what principles the Board of Trade proceeds

      2077
      in granting or withdrawing licences for export?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Applications for export licences are considered on their individual merits in consultation with any other Department interested, and account is taken both of the state of supplies and requirements in this country and of the importance of maintaining and extending export trade so far as practicable. As regards food commodities, the Board act on the advice of the Ministry of Food; and in the cases of arms and ammunition and narcotics they are guided by the principles laid down in the Convention for the control of the trade in arms and ammunition and the International Opium Convention.
      Captain BENN: Is this licensing for export done under any statute, or has this House any control of the licensing?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think an answer has already been given that it is done under the authority of the Privy Council, and was done under that authority at the time of the Government of 1915.

      DRESSED LEATHER (IMPORTS).
      Mr. DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that foreign imports of dressed leather are being offered to merchants at 15 per cent. below ruling prices in this country; and that, coupled with the stagnation in the boot and shoe industry, the unrestricted importation of dressed leather is compelling leather manufacturers to greatly curtail output with its consequent effect upon the labour market at a time when labour exchanges are receiving so many applications for employment?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that dressed leather is being imported in appreciable quantities, but I have at present no information which enables me to make accurate comparisons between the prices of such leather and British leather. I am not aware that leather manufacturers are greatly curtailing output as the result of this importation. The imports of dressed leather during the first three months of this year were only about 75 per cent. in quantity of those in the corresponding period of 1913 and only about 60 per cent.
      2078
      of those in 1919. The leather industry will be carefully watched by my Department.
      Captain COOTE: If it is a fact that there is stagnation in the boot and shoe trade, how is it that the prices of boots and shoes do not come down?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not admit that there is stagnation: my information is not to that effect.

    IRELAND.

      IRISH VOLUNTEERS (ARRESTS IN LIVERPOOL).
      Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can ex-lain the reason for the arrest of Stephen Creigh, Christopher Conlan, and Michael Harrington on Easter Sunday morning at Liverpool; whether these men were arrested on account of any unlawful acts committed in Liverpool; where they are now imprisoned; and whether it is proposed to bring them to trial?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The persons referred to were arrested by the Liverpool police on informtion received from the Royal Irish Constabulary, and on them were found a number of documents which showed their connection with the Irish Volunteers. They were detained by order of the General Officer Commanding West Lancashire Division. Stephen Creigh and Christopher Conlan have been released, and the release of Michael Harrington, if it has not taken place, is under consideration.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what documents were found on these men?
      Mr. HENRY: I think they were charged with membership of the City of Limerick Division of the Irish Republican Army.
      Captain W. BENN: If these men had committed the offence which the right hon. Gentleman describes in this country, would they not be brought to trial?
      Mr. HENRY: No, Sir. If we err at all, we err on the side of leniency. We had not sufficient information.
      Captain BENN: Why not release these men if you have no information upon which to convict them?
      Mr. HENRY: I have already said that two of them have been released and the release of the third is under consideration.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it a criminal offence to have in your possession cards of membership of a body of that kind?

      METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-INSPECTOR BESSENT).
      Mr. J. JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that ex-Inspector Nathan Bessent, who had served for 20 years in the police force with a clean sheet and an excellent character, was, on 9th August, 1919, certified at Hackney Union infirmary as of unsound mind and committed to Claybury Asylum, where he was detained till 29th January, 1920; that the fact of his mental illness was confirmed by the certificate now in possession of the lunacy board of control; that, his family being unprovided for, application for his pension was made within a fortnight of his committal on the ground that he had been ailing for a considerable time, a fact substantiated by the view of the doctor at Claybury in regard to his low state of health on arrival; is he aware that this man was pensionable if he had chosen to resign on account of illness at the end of his 20 years' service, but that his pension was refused on the ground that it was forfeited through his having participated in the strike occurring on 31st July, 1919; and will he take steps to have his right to a pension restored?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt):I am fully aware of the facts of this case. Ex-Inspector Dessent was the only officer above the rank of sergeant who took part in the strike, and his example influenced a considerable number of men. I am advised that his mental breakdown was the result of excitement incidental to his decision to take part in the strike, and to the effects of that decision upon himself and his family.
      Both the late and the present Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis considered this case very carefully, and decided that the subsequent attack of insanity afforded no grounds for the cancellation of dismissal. I agree with their
      2080
      conclusion and I have, therefore, no power under the Police Acts to grant a pension. The ex-Inspector was not pensionable in the sense that he had any right to resign without a certificate of unfitness on medical grounds by the Chief Surgeon of the Metropolitan Police.
      Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this case into his special consideration, and give some kind of grant to this man in lieu of his pension?
      Mr. SHORTT: This case has been very carefully considered.
      Dr. MURRAY: Is it not possible that the state of this man's mind might account for his conduct?
      Mr. SHORTT: I will consider it again.

      SIBERIAN BANK.
      Mr. MacCULLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has purchased 50,000 shares in the Siberian Bank; whether the price paid or to be paid for them was 75,000,000 roubles; and what was the sterling value of the consideration paid or to be paid for these shares?
      Mr. BALDWIN: His Majesty's Government purchased 45,263 shares. An option to purchase these shares has been given to Mr. Hessen. Until the sale is completed, or the option expires, it would not, I think, be in the public interest that further particulars should be given.
      Mr. SCOTT: Having broken the ice, does my hon. Friend intend to refuse to inform this House, which is supposed to be the guardian over this money, as to how much money the Government has invested in this banking enterprise?
      Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot go beyond the answer which I have already given to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. SCOTT: I shall put down a further question.

      CHAMPAGNE (CLEARANCES FROM BOND).
      Mr. BOTTOM LEYasked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the amount of clearances from bond of champagne in the financial years 1918–19 and 1919–20 respectively?
      Mr. BALDWIN: The quantity of clearances from bond of champagne for home consumption in the financial years 1918–19 and 1919–20 respectively, were:

      Gallons.

      1918–19

      580,000

      1919–20

      1,281,000

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the proposed Corporation Tax will fall very heavily upon the ordinary shareholders in British railways situated in the Argentine and other similar undertakings, who during the period of the War have received practically no dividends or interest on their investments; and whether he can see his way to exempt dividends of 5 per cent. and under from the operation of this proposed tax?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would remind my hon. Friend that the Corporation Profits Tax is not a tax upon dividends, but upon the profits of concerns with limited liability prior to the distribution thereof. I cannot undertake to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Does my hon. Friend not realise that this tax falls with peculiar severity upon a class which has suffered very severely during the War?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is not the effect of this tax to impose an additional Income Tax of from 1s. to 2s. in the £ upon many persons who really ought to be exempt from the Income Tax altogether?
    The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HOUSTON:
    "104. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the heavy discount at which Government securities are now standing, notably War Loan, Funding Loan, and Victory Bonds, whether he is aware that when these loans and bonds were issued the public were assured that they were the finest securities in the world, and strong appeals were made that everyone should invest the whole of their available moneys, even to the extent of borrowing to invest in these
    2082
    securities; whether he is aware that many companies, firms and individuals have invested large amounts of their available cash, including capital and reserves, and in some instances actually borrowed money for the purpose of investing in these securities, and that these reserves and capital are in many instances now required for business purposes; that war loan and bonds have consequently in many cases been sold at a great discount, inflicting heavy losses; whether the Treasury refuses to accept payment of taxes other than Excess Profit Duty in war loan and bonds and insists upon payment in cash, which necessitates the sale of these securities at a heavy loss; whether he is aware of the widespread discontent amongst all classes who have invested in these securities and who have had to realise them at a loss; and whether he proposes to take any action to improve the price of these Government securities?"
    Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask Question No. 104?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is now 3.45 p.m. The hon. Member occupied the time he might have devoted to this question in asking supplementary questions.

    ST. JAMES'S PARK (TEMPORARY BUILDINGS).
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, as guardian of the amenities of the royal parks, it is his view that the temporary buildings in St. James's Park should be vacated at the earliest possible moment and the buildings removed; and whether he can hold out hopes that the buildings will disappear at an early date?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 25th February last to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Southwark Central, of which I am sending him a copy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Will the Leader of the House tell us what business he proposes to take to-morrow?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Owing to the slight indisposition of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Long), who would have taken charge of the Government of Ireland Bill to-morrow, we propose to take Supply to-morrow, and the business will be the Ministry of Food Vote.

BILL PRESENTED.
  HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL,
  "to make provision for the temporary modification of the charges which may be made in respect of ports, harbour, dock, and pier undertakings," presented by Mr. NEAL; supported by Sir Eric Geddes, Sir Robert Horne, and Dr. Macnamara; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

  BILLS REPORTED.
  Risca Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
  Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. John William Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Profiteering (Amendment) Bill; Mr. Rendall to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill); and Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Duplicands of Feu Duties (Scotland) Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Bill, with an Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling the Tees Conservancy Commissioners further to improve the river and to
  2084
  reclaim further land therefrom; to create and issue new debenture stock and to raise furthey moneys; and for other purposes." [Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer to the St. Annes-on-the-Sea Urban District Council of the undertaking of the Black pool, St. Annes, and Lytham Tramways Company, Limited, and to empower the Council to run tramways; and for other purposes." [St. Annes-on-the-Sea Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the completion of street improvements at Spitalfields; and to confer further powers upon the Corporation of London with respect to certain of their markets and in regard to the City of London police; and for other purposes. [City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal the exemption from rating of certain lands reclaimed from the River Thames." [Corporation of London (Rating of Reclaimed Lands) Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of George Alfred White with Blanche White, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes." [White's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Jose Baroness Carbery, of 5, Chester Place, London, in the county of London, with John Baron Carbery, of Castle Freke, in the county of Cork, Ireland, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes." [Carbery's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
  Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords],
  St. Anne's-on-the-Sea Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
  City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
  Corporation of London (Rating of Reclaimed Lands) Bill [Lords],
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  White's Divorce Bill [Lords],
  Carbery's Divorce Bill [Lords],
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time.

  STANDING ORDERS
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

  1. "That, in the case of the Derwent Valley Water Board Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  2. "That, in the case of the Lowestoft Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  3. "That, in the case of the Exmouth Urban District Council [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  4. "That, in the case of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  5. "That, in the case of the Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Finance), Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

  Resolutions agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT.

    DRAFT RULES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of Seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to revise the Draft Rules made under the Government of India Act."—[Mr. Montagu.]
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: The Committee which is going to re-draft these rules is considering one of the most important measures concerning the Government of India. Those draft rules are, in my opinion, as important, if not more so, as the Government of India Bill, which we are to discuss next week, and I consider that seven members on this Committee is totally inadequate. We presume that one of the seven will be a Liberal and one a Labour member, and in case these two members are absent there will only be five members left representing the supporters of the Government to consider these very important questions. If the number of members of the Committee cannot be increased, what opportunity, if any, will be given to this House to consider the draft regulations when they have finally been re-drafted? Will they be placed upon the Table of the House, and will an opportunity be given to hon. Members to discuss these Orders, and will they be given full opportunities to examine all the evidence and all the particulars which have been put before this Committee when it discussed these Orders? I shall be much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us some information on those points before we pass this Motion.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I quite agree that the duty of this Committee is very important. This is being done in conformity with the Act passed last year, and it seems to be advisable that the same men should deal with the rules. Most of the rules will have to be laid on the Table of the House, and some of them will have to receive the consent of both Houses of Parliament. I can promise my hon. and gallant Friend that there will be ample
    2114
    opportunity for consideration by this House, and all the evidence taken by the Joint Committee will be laid before them in the Report of that Committee.
    Colonel YATE: Do I understand that the intention of the Government is to appoint the same Committee as was appointed last year? If so, the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be departing from the Regulations which have been laid down in Clause 295 of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. In that Report it is distinctly stated that a Select Committee on Indian Affairs shall be appointed at the beginning of each Session. Last year the right hon. Gentleman appointed a Committee and put himself on it with six other members who had all signified, on the Second Reading, their approval of his scheme. I do not want, however, to enter into that question now. I spoke on it last year. The Bill then under discussion has now become an Act of Parliament and I shall, as I am sure all men serving in India will, loyally do my best to make it a success. But the right hon. Gentleman has not followed the proposal laid down in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, which distinctly says that a new Committee shall be appointed at the commencement of each Session. I know the joint Committee last year suggested that they should be continued in office, but I do not think a Select Committee should have power to make any such suggestion, and, at any rate, it should not be carried into effect. It is further laid down that the Secretary of State shall appear before the Committee to answer questions about Acts of Administration over which he and, therefore, Parliament, exercises control. There is nothing said in the Report about the Secretary of State being himself a member of the Committee, and I think it is entirely wrong he should be so. I therefore ask him to consider the propriety of his present action, and whether it is not right that a fresh Committee should be appointed to deal with this question in accordance with the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Committee to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred will only come into existence when the Act is working. This is not that Committee at all. When the Act comes into operation another Committee will be appointed by the House. The Committee, the appointment of which I am

    2115
    now moving, will complete the work of bringing the Act into force, and it was for that purpose that it was considered by the Joint Committee desirable to make the recommendations referred to. The names of this Committee will be submitted to the House for approval in a subsequent Motion, and my hon. and gallant Friend can then use his discretion as to whether he will ask the House to take other names than those recommended by the Government. The Committee was appointed last year by the vote of the House, and I was not upon it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to revise the Draft Rules made under the Government of India Act."
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That the Order [31st March] for the committal of the Government of Ireland Bill to a Standing Committee be read and discharged, and the Bill be committed to a Committee of. the Whole House."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not propose to oppose this Motion in view of the events that have taken place, but, I should have liked to have heard a statement by the Government as to their policy with reference to a proposal of this kind. I remember when we were discussing the procedure of the House last year, it was laid down as a fundamental principle that all Bills should go to a Committee upstairs, although it was admitted there might be disadvantages attaching to that course. If such a plan is to be a success, we must get rid of the idea that the Standing Committee is an unusual and exceptional method of considering Bills. It ought, in fact, to be the ordinary method of dealing with them. It was argued on that occasion by some of us that if you were to have really detailed consideration—real business consideration of a Bill, and not merely a fight over principles—then the discussion could better be carried on in a Standing Committee upstairs than in Committee of the
    2116
    whole House. The procedure is quite familiar to every Member of this House. In discussions in Committee of the whole House you have them carried on in the presence of a very small number of Members, probably not more than thirty or forty listening to the arguments, and the decisions are not come to in accordance with the weight of argument adduced in the Debate, but are based purely on party considerations, and Members take part in the Division who have not heard any of the arguments advanced. In a discussion in a Standing Committee, however, you do generally get decisions on the merits of the Debate, not perhaps exclusively, for human beings after all are human. My experience of Standing Committee work is that you do really get a decision much more in accordance with the reason of the thing.
    I think that this particular Bill, which it is now proposed to refer to a Committee of the whole House, is a bad Bill in principle and in essence. I think so for reasons which I have had an opportunity of explaining previously and which it would not be in order to go into on this occasion. It does not very much matter therefore, from my point of view, how the details of the Bill are to be considered, but I do suggest that hon. Members who really believe that this measure is likely to provide a solution of the Irish question, would be quite mad to agree to the discussion of its details in Committee of the whole House. They will not have any real discussion of the Bill under such conditions. It will produce no adequate result. It will be governed by the decisions of the Government, whatever they may be, on each Clause. On this matter I have no confidence whatever in the Government decisions. I quite recognise at the same time from what has taken place here, that the majority of the House has a wholly different view. I shall not therefore divide against this Motion, but I do not think it right to allow it to pass without entering my protest against it. I may say that until the House is prepared drastically to reform its method of dealing with legislation in detail, and to carry even further the experiment introduced last year, it will never gain a business reputation in the country. That is my personal view, and that is why I regret that this Resolution is put forward.
    4.0. P.M.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Without attempting in any way to raise a general Debate on the topic which my Noble Friend has introduced, I feel that I should not be justified in allowing this Motion to pass without some comment—a very brief comment—on my part. It is quite easy to make a theoretical case as the Noble Lord has done, for sending all these Bills upstairs. In the matter of non-controversial Bills, no doubt better work is done in smaller Committees upstairs than in Committee of the whole House. But, after all, we have that invaluable thing called experience—the experience of last Session—and I should be very much surprised to learn that the majority of the House thought the practice of sending Bills upstairs was an unmitigated success. Many of us, at any rate, have come to the conclusion that the principle has largely broken down and has very seriously affected the efficiency and moral authority of this House. I am very glad indeed that the Government have come to the conclusion at which they have arrived, because I believe, with the authority which is now vested in the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Committee—the power of selection of Amendments—and with a user of the old instrument of the Closure, that very efficient work can be done on the Floor of this House, not only with regard to such a measure as the Home Rule Bill, which, obviously, is wholly unfitted to go to a Committee upstairs, seeing that it deals with great constitutional questions, because I am hoping that our experience of dealing with this Bill on the Floor of the House will induce the Government, who, of course, have almost autocratic powers in this matter, to allow the House to deal with other Bills and to give us a real opportunity of seeing how the new powers vested in the Chairman of Committee will work, and whether, with the good will of the House, we can get a fair discussion and, after a business discussion, come to a decision and get on with the business.
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am obliged to my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) for his statement that he did not mean to take time over this discussion. I think I am safe in saying that the two speeches to which we have just listened neutralise each other, and that, therefore, it is hardly necessary for me
    2118
    to say anything. On the whole, I sympathise more with the view of my Noble Friend as to the Grand Committee, than with those just uttered by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean). There is no doubt, in view of the necessary pressure of legislation caused by the arrears of the War, that we could not have got on under the old arrangement and that some such system as we adopted was absolutely necessary. I would point out that giving time on the Floor of the House for this Bill naturally upsets to a very considerable extent the Government programme. Therefore, we should have much preferred, from the point of view of convenience and getting through the work, sending this Bill upstairs. I would like to say that I do not entirely agree with either of two of the remarks of my Noble Friend. He said that this Bill could not be improved. I know that the Cabinet have given a great deal of care and thought to it, but I had not so high an opinion of it as to form the conclusion just expressed by my Noble Friend. He also made the statement that in any discussion downstairs hon. Members did not vote according to the facts, but only according to the biddings of the Whips. To a certain extent that used to be true in the old days. Party Governments then, except on occasional occasions, of which my Noble Friend has some experience, could trust that method of getting a decision. One of the difficulties—I do not think it is anything that we have very much to deprecate—of the present system is that Members are not quite content to act in that way, and that they need to be satisfied that the Government's case is a good one before voting. I have no doubt myself, if this Bill had gone upstairs and the necessary adjustments had been made, that there would have been a good discussion, but the moment it was put to the Government I recognised that it was quite an exceptional Bill and that, if ever there was a Bill which ought to receive the best consideration of the House of Commons as a whole, this was one. From the outset, there was a very strong feeling in every section of the House that it should be taken downstairs. The Government has met that desire, and I hope, with this brief discussion, that we may now come to a decision.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: As far as I am concerned and those with whom I act, I am very glad that the Government

    2119
    have taken this course, and I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), that it would be really altogether abrogating the functions of this House if a Bill of this kind where not considered in Committee of the whole House. It is a great pity that there is not some method of procedure by which any particular part of a Bill that requires expert investigation can be examined closely by an expert committee. The Financial Clauses of this Bill are the most complicated of any Bill that I have ever seen. They try to divide up between Great Britain and Ireland the taxation raised by this House, and then to divide it up again between the Northern part and the Southern part of Ireland. I venture to think that there will be very few Members of the House who will be able to apply themselves to see what it all means and how it works out, unless we have very much greater information than we have had hitherto given us by the Government. I wuold suggest in all seriousness, as there is no method of examining these clauses with expert evidence, that the Government themselves should appoint an expert committee before whom the cases for England, Scotland, Great Britain and Ireland, north and south, could be put—I do not mind if you like to call it a departmental committee— and before whom you could go and really unravel matters.
    The other day I saw a deputation, who I know say my right hon. Friend, the Minister without Portfolio (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), who has charge of the finances of this Bill. These men are business experts from Belfast who have taken a great deal of trouble going into the finances of the Bill, and, when one heard men who thoroughly understood what they were talking about in relation to these matters, it raised in one's mind the idea that we might be really, as regards setting up these Governments in Ireland, taking a leap in the dark which might be of the greatest possible disadvantage to both Parliaments in Ireland. At this moment you want to apply all your energies to make things run as smoothly as possible between those Parliaments and this country, because if you once get into loggerheads, above all things over finance, as between them and this Government, it will lead to more
    2120
    friction, more annoyance, and more breakdown of the whole system of Government than anything else. I look upon the question of finance in this Bill as being so important that I do press this matter upon my right hon. Friend. I suggest a committee be set up. Of course, it would not have anything to do except to supply to the Committee of the House information which would enable those of us who are interested, and who want to see the Bill run well, to understand its financial provisions. As far as we are concerned, we want the North of Ireland Parliament to be a great success, if possible, a model success, because I think that is the way that it would be really conferring an advantage upon Ireland. We cannot unravel the mysterious figures which are put before us unless we have access to everything to which the Government have access, and it is only by a Committee sitting round a table that you can carry on effectively a discussion of that kind. I hope that my right hon. friend will bear that suggestion in mind. I have read very carefully, and have gone through the White Paper with the experts, and, to my mind, it is absolutely useless in giving anything upon which you could form the faintest idea as to what will be the financial position of these Parliaments if the Bill becomes an Act and gets into operation. When the Financial Clauses do come up, I give my right hon. Friend notice that we shall not be prepared to take as the finance or as any part of the finance anything that we are not allowed thoroughly to understand, with the data upon which it is built up. It is the most complicated matter to unravel, and I doubt very much whether it can be unravelled simply by debate on the Floor of the House without previous investigation, in which all parties interested have access to the same methods of calculation as have been used by the Government. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, I entirely approve of this Motion.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In view of the withdrawal of the guillotine Motion, I do not move my Amendment—to leave out the words " Committee of the Whole House," and to insert instead thereof the words, " Joint Committee of both Houses."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, "That the Order [31st March] for the committal of the Government of

    2121
    Ireland Bill to a Standing Committee be read, and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
    Bill accordingly committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday, 10th May.

    HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

    Clause 4.—(Interpretation.)
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words:
    "This Act shall also apply in the case of a house of an assessable rental exceeding twenty-one pounds where in virtue of the duration of the let the owner is responsible for any portion of the occupiers' rates."
    There is so much agreement on this Bill that it is quite unnecessary to occupy more than a minute or two in explaining this Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) and myself. The Bill provides for the recovery of the excess of assessment paid by the owners of small houses in Scotland from the assessing authority where, by reason of any change in the occupancy of the dwelling, the house owners are unable to recover such assessment from the tenant. On that and the other Clauses of the Bill, there is no disagreement at all among Scottish Members, and personally I am more than grateful to my right hon. Friend opposite for having met us in substance on the two other points which were presented by way of Amendment in Committee. Attention was then directed to a class of house proprietors in Scotland whose interests appeared to us to be not quite fully protected by this Bill. A difficulty arose from the joint operation of the House Letting Act of 1911 and the much more recent Rents Restriction Acts. Clearly, as the text of the Bill indicates, its provisions apply only to houses which are within the limits of the House Letting Act of 1911. It may be argued that in Scotland very few houses of a rental of £21 or upwards have been let for periods of less than one year, and hence no proprietors would be in the position of being liable for the occupiers' rates. Representations, however, have been made to us, not
    2122
    merely by small householders in Scotland, but also by a number of representative organisations and bodies, to the effect that, partly because of War conditions, and partly because of conditions preceding the War, an increasing number of houses in Scotland of a rental of £21 and upwards, have been let for periods of less than one year, and that, under the terms of Section 345 of the Borough Police (Scotland) Act of 1892, the owners become liable for the occupiers' assessment. I am obliged to confess that there are obvious lines of reply, which I may venture to anticipate, on the part of the Government. They may suggest, first of all, that these proprietors of houses of a rental of £21 per annum and upwards are well able to take care of themselves, and that, if they fail to make a stipulation which, clearly protects their interests, they have only themselves to blame. It may be argued also, that probably, in the light of decisions in the Courts, Section 345 of the Act of 1892 has not the force which some of us would attribute to it. Within the past day or two I hare read the Section again. It consists of only about three lines, but there is not the slightest doubt that there is no optional element within it; it is a compulsory Section, saying that the owners of premises and houses let for periods of less than one year are liable for the occupiers' assessment.
    This Amendment is designed to meet a real grievance, and to give to the owners of such houses, who are, many of them, quite small people belonging to the industrial classes in Scotland, exactly the rights which are accorded to proprietors of houses up to the £21 limit. It has been strongly urged that, in a matter of this kind, where the recovery of an excess assessment is concerned, there can be no real reason for drawing any distinction between proprietors up to £21 and proprietors above that sum, who, for the reasons which I have just quoted, happen to have let their property for a period of less than one year. I venture to suggest, also, that this Amendment is one which is quite democratic in character, and which may worthily come from these Benches. My fear is that many small proprietors, unaware of this Clause in the 1892 Act, may come silently under its burden, and it is particularly that class of small proprietor which I have in mind in proposing this Amendment.
    Captain W. BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr.Munro): I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for the reasonable way in which up till now he has met the Government with regard to this Bill. It is quite true, as he has stated, that, on two of the points which he raised in Committee, we were able to meet him, and to do so, I think, to his complete satisfaction. He then raised this third point, and when he did so, I undertook to look into it before the Report stage, and to see whether it was possible to meet him upon this point also. I am afraid that I cannot do so, and I hope my hon. Friend, on reflection, will see his way not to press this Amendment further. He has said that it is a democratic Amendment. I do not think that observation was addressed, perhaps, so much to the Government as to some of his own friends in the House and, perhaps, outside. It may be quite democratic, and I am not going to assail it on the ground that it is not; there are certain other objections to it, and I hope that on reflection my hon. Friend—who has dealt with an obscure legal topic with remarkable skill—will agree that they do not permit of its acceptance in its present or in any similar form. In the first place, as the House knows, or at any rate as the Scottish Members in the House know, this is to a large extent an agreed measure. It has been agreed upon between the assessing authorities in Scotland and the owners of small houses in Scotland, represented by their association. It would, therefore, be difficult, at this late stage of the Bill, after complete agreement has been reached—not without, as I can assure my hon. Friend, a good deal of conference and difficulty—it would be difficult at this stage to bring within the scope of the Bill, houses of quite a different class from those which have been considered and discussed between the interested parties so far. That, I think, is a considerable difficulty at the outset, but it does not exhaust the matter. My hon. Friend anticipated one of the arguments which I propose to lay before the House, but I do not think he met it. The houses with which his Amendment deals, and which would be brought within the scope of this Bill, were his Amendment to receive effect, are those which are covered by Section 345 of the Burgh
    2124
    Police Act. That Section, which has my hon. Friend said, is quite short, is as. follows:
    "Owners who shall let for rent or for hire lands or premises for less than a year shall themselves be responsible for the said assessments"—
    that is to say, the burgh general assessments—
    "and the sum may be recovered from such owners."
    In the case of the houses to which the Bill already refers, there can be no doubt that the owner, and the owner alone, is responsible to the assessing authority for the occupier's assessment. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the House Letting Act of 1911 so provides. That, however, cannot be said to be the effect of Section 345 of the Act of 1892. It has been held— not in the Supreme Court, but in the Sheriff Court—that that Section confers an option upon the assessing authority to recover from either owner or occupier as they may think fit. That is the interpretation deliberately put upon that Section by a Judge in the Sheriff Court. It would seem to follow from that, that the owner, if he pays, has a right of relief against the occupier, and I see no reason myself, and I am advised that there is no reason, to doubt the soundness of that view. If that be so, then I think it is wholly unnecessary to bring these houses within the scope of the present measure. More than that, if my hon. Friend's Amendment were passed in the form in which it stands, I am advised that the effect would be to enable the owner to recover, in addition to the rent which he has imposed, any increase in the occupier's assessment, whether he himself had paid it, or whether the assessing authority had recovered it from the occupier already. Obviously, if that is the true interpretation of my hon. Friend's Amendment, it would be impossible to accept it in its present form, or, indeed, in any form resembling it. It is a purely legal question, but I am advised that that, if not the intention, is at any rate the effect of the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved. For these reasons, namely, because, in the first place, it would be exceedingly difficult to bring within the scope of this agreed Bill, at this late stage, a new set of houses which have not been discussed with the parties interested, and seeing that it is a Bill which ought to go through at the earliest possible

    2125
    moment, in order to administer the relief which my hon. Friend will agree is urgently required; secondly, because these houses with which Section 345 of the 1892 Act deals are of an entirely different character from those now within the scope of the measure, and really do not require its protection; and, in the third place, because this Amendment, in its present form, would lead to the inequitable consequence which I have stated—it would be quite impossible to accept the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that, as we have done our best to meet my hon. Friend upon the two important questions which were discussed upstairs, he will not press the Government to meet him upon this third matter, especially as I think the protection which he seeks to afford is both unnecessary and impossible.
    Amendment negatived.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    TRAMWAYS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s. 1 of 8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 34, in its application to tramways.)
    "(1) The limitations contained in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) shall not apply in the case of orders made after the passing of this Act by the Minister of Transport in relation to tramway undertakings, but in lieu thereof the following limitations shall apply:—

    (a)Where the undertakers are a local authority, no modification in the statutory provisions regulating the charges to be made by the undertakers shall be authorised which is more than sufficient, so far as can be estimated, to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss; and

    (b)In any other case, no such modification shall be authorised which is more than sufficient to provide, with due care and management, for interest on loan capital and for a reasonable return on share capital, regard being had to the pre-War financial condition of the company, and its prospective development."

    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the words
    2126
    "is more than sufficient, so far as can be estimated, to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss"—
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "would not be authorised if the undertakers were not a local authority."
    The House will remember that the object of this Bill is to allow an increase in tramway charges, and the purpose of this particular Clause is to limit the amount of that increase. The Clause is divided into two portions, which differentiate the increase which may take place as between tramway undertakings owned by a local authority, and those owned by a private or public company. The first objection we have to the Clause as it stands is that it makes this differentiation between two classes of public utility undertakings. The House will remember that, on the Electricity Bill, particularly in Committee upstairs, and again on the floor of the House, great stress was laid on the desirability of treating these public utility services, whether they be tramway, electricity, gas, or any other services, on the same basis, whether they are owned by a local authority or by a company. One of the objects of this Amendment is to maintain that principle of equality of treatment. A second object is to delete the provision which is made that the undertaking, if it is owned by a local authority, shall not under any circumstances be worked for profit. The question whether these public utility services should be run merely in the interests of the people as a whole, or whether they should be allowed to make a profit, is one about which there may be a difference of opinion, but I think that probably the House will agree that, in the main, it is undesirable that these services should be run for profit. I submit, however, that that is a matter which should be left to the self-determination, shall I say, of each local authority, dealing with the peculiar circumstances of its own local conditions. However desirable it may be, as a general principle, that public utility services owned by local authorities should not make a profit, I think I am right in suggesting that that principle has not been established, so far, in any Act, and that, therefore, in this case, by a side-wind, a new and fundamental change is being established in the conditions which govern our local authorities. It may be a good principle or it may be a bad one, but I submit that a small measure like

    2127
    this, dealing with another question, should not be the means of introducing a new and fundamental principle of local government.
    I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill to one or two cases of hardship which would result if the Bill stands in its present form. In many cases tramway undertakings owned by local authorities have had an up-hill task, and have been worked at a loss to the ratepayers in their initial stages. Then comes a period when the spade-work has been done, and the system has increased and shows signs of making a profit. It is possible under that Clause, as it now stands, that you will prevent those undertakings from recouping the losses which the ratepayers have borne in the past, now that their schemes have come to fruition, and they are able to make a slight profit. Further, you have local authorities whose undertakings go outside their own particular areas, and it is a perfectly sound principle to allow those local authorities who are bearing the burden of capital charges, and taking a risk themselves to make a profit on the outside areas which have not contributed to those capital charges, and which have not in any way undertaken the risks of contributing to the scheme, and if you allow this Clause in its present form you will prohibit them, by too narrow an interpretation of it, from obtaining from those outside sources a return for that which they have not contributed to in any way. To establish a new principle of this kind in such a measure as this is not right, and we ought not to differentiate between profits or income which may be earned by public utility services run by a local authority and those run by a company.
    Dr. D. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment, and I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that this Bill seeks to establish a new principle. I think he has probably overlooked the fact that it is to be read as one with the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1919, and it is really a temporary extension and slight modi-
    2128
    fication of the terms of that Act so far as it relates to tramway undertakings. By Section 1 of the Principal Act, there is a difference drawn between undertakings which are the property of local authorities and those which are the property of private venture companies. That difference is stated in this way:
    "Where the undertakers are a 'local' authority no modification shall be authorised which would increase the statutory maximum charge by more than 50 per cent., or which is more than sufficient, so far as can be estimated, to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss."
    So that in the year 1918 Parliament decided that for the purpose of the temporary increases which were authorised to meet the abnormal conditions of things to-day, there should be a limitation on the private earning power of municipal undertakings. That is to say, they might not use the extended charging powers given them by the Act for the purpose of making a profit. That is reproduced in the present Bill with this distinction and exception in favour of municipal undertakings, that whereas in the Principal Act no increase could be charged larger than 50 per cent., in the present Bill we propose to omit that limitation and leave the only limitation that, so far as can reasonably be estimated, the increased charging powers granted by Parliament to deal with an abnormal set of circumstances shall not be used for profit earning. In the case of companies in the Principal Act, the provision was that there should be no modification more than sufficient to enable the company, with due care and management, to pay a dividend at a greater rate than three-quarters of the standard or maximum rate of dividend of the undertaking. The very matter to which my hon. Friend called attention is in the principal Act, and it would create hopeless confusion to have something in the Amending Bill absolutely at variance with the Principal Act without repealing the Principal Act, and, really, there is no ground in principle for saying that the abnormal circumstances to-day, which justify increased charges to pay increased wages, should allow them to be made to earn profits for municipal undertakings. Under these circumstances I trust my hon. Friend will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.
    Major BARNES: The Amendment is opposed, first of all, on the ground that

    2129
    the principle introduced in the Bill is not new. My hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson) suggested that it was. In that respect he was perhaps wrong and the Minister was right, if the Minister regards a principle introduced so late as 1918 as having acquired age enough to enable it to be said that it is not new. But the Parliamentary Secretary went on to oppose the Amendment on the ground that we should not in this Amending Bill alter a principle which is set forth in the Act. Our objection to the Bill as it stands is that it introduces a difference of treatment between undertakings which are public enterprises and undertakings which are private enterprises. He points out that there was a difference in the original Act, that there were limitations imposed in it which are continued in the present Bill. But while the limitation which was imposed upon public enterprises is being continued, the limitation imposed upon private enterprise is being modified, and on that ground alone, without taking the wider ground, we have some reason to claim that if any limitations imposed upon private enterprises can be modified in this Amending Bill, he has no ground for refusing modifications to limitations imposed upon public enterprises.
    Some of us feel that the Government are committing themselves to a difference of treatment between those undertakings which are carried on by local authorities and those carried on by private undertakings, which we think they should not do. There seems no reason at all why public enterprise should be cramped in the way it will be cramped by the limitations imposed in this Bill. After all, the local authorities are the children of Parliament. We brought them into being. We are continually imposing upon them responsibilities and duties and asking them to carry out undertakings, and it seems an extraordinary thing that when we come to deal with a measure in which they are very largely concerned we should impose limitations upon their enterprise which we do not impose upon the enterprise of private individuals. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the limitation which is established under this Clause was in the original Act. It is that the charges are not to be reduced to an amount more than sufficient to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss. The Act was dealing with
    2130
    the situation created by the war, which necessitated some increase in charges. At that time the war was still being carried on, and the House was working under great emergencies and was not able to give the consideration to matters that they can give now. Therefore they did no doubt impose a rough and ready limitation upon both classes of enterprise. It said, to private enterprise, "you shall not increase your charges to an extent more than will enable you to carry on without loss.' It said to private enterprise, "you shall not increase your charges to an extent which will enable you to pay more than three-quarters of your maximum rate of dividend." That limitation is entirely removed in this Bill.
    Mr. NEAL: It continues part of the limitation upon public enterprise, but abrogates the limitation relating to the increase of charges by not more than 50 per cent. That is to say, it benefits the municipal undertaking to that extent.
    Major BARNES: That is my whole point, that there is a modification of the limitations imposed upon private enterprises. There is no similar modification of the limitation imposed upon public enterprises. My hon. Friend's objection to our Amendment is that we are interfering with the original Bill. My answer is that it is he who is interfering with the original Bill. If this Bill had simply carried forward the provision of the original Bill and continued the limitation upon private enterprise, as it does upon public enterprise, we should not have put down our Amendment, but when you are revising your terms, revise them all round, and do not establish this vicious differentiation between those enterprises which are carried on by the public spirit of localities and those which are carried on for the purpose of private gain. Those grounds on which we support the Amendment have not been met We consider that the Government is establishing and perpetuating a very vicious principle in dealing with public undertakings on an entirely different basis from that on which you deal with private undertakings. We are continually being told that public enterprises cannot be carried on at a profit. Comparisons are drawn between public and private undertakings, and we are told, "Look at the public

    2131
    undertakings. They are never successful. There is never any profit made," and here we find the Government actually putting in a limitation and preventing them. We are told this is only a temporary measure, but things which are temporary have a very great habit of becoming permanent, and when we come to deal with the permanent increase of charges we have no assurance at all, rather to the contrary, that this same principle will not continue to be applied there, and comparisons will be made between private and public undertakings, always to the disadvantage of the public, and this is due to limitations imposed upon it by a measure passed by this House. We feel that our contention has not been met, and that the grounds on which it is opposed are grounds that do not apply, and we shall have no option but to divide against it unless we get some explanation or some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have only read the Bill since I came into the House, but it seems to me that the hon. Member does not fully understand the effect of the Clause to which he objects. The Clause says in paragraph (a) that where the undertakers are a local authority, they shall not be authorised to make a charge which is more than sufficient to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss. The other paragraph to which he objects says that a private undertaking shall not be allowed to make any charge which is more than sufficient to provide, with due care and management, for interest on loan capital and for a reasonable return on share capital. I fail to see any difference between the two. In the first place, the local authority has to spend a certain sum out of capital on its undertaking. It borrows that amount of money and pays interest on it, and, as I read the Clause, the local authority would be able to receive interest on its capital and the interest which it had agreed to pay. There is no difference between a local authority receiving interest on its capital and a private company being allowed to receive interest on its capital so far as is reasonable. It is true that the local authority practically has all debentures, while a private company has debentures and share capital, but it is capital all the same. In one case the local authority
    2132
    is allowed the interest which it has agreed to pay, and it gets a return on its capital, and in the case of a private company it is allowed to pay interest on its debentures and preference shares and a reasonable return on the remainder of its capital.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: There is this difference to be taken into account. The interest paid by a municipality is paid to the investors who advanced the money to the municipality to commence a municipal tramway undertaking, and who are receiving for that money a set dividend such as they would obtain were they undertaking a public company. So far as this Clause goes, it does not permit a municipality making anything in the way of profit whereby they can assist in promoting other municipal undertakings. It must keep entirely within the tramway undertaking, whereas in the case of a public company the profits that can be made by the company can be used in starting auxiliary companies to compete with the municipal tramways undertakings.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No. The Clause says, "Interest on loan capital and a reasonable return on share capital." Reasonable return on share capital does not mean such return as will give a reasonable dividend to the shareholders and a balance over to do something else.
    Mr. MACLEAN: That is just what it does mean.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I say it does not.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman and I differ on that point. He knows perfectly well that quite a number of companies do work in that way, by not merely paying a dividend to their shareholders, but by setting aside a fund for the development of their business and for starting auxiliary businesses as well.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As a rule, private tramway companies have resulted in a loss. I have never heard of any profit beyond what they pay to their shareholders.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Municipal undertakings are usually quoted in rather a bad manner in comparison with undertakings run by public companies. This particular Clause, if it were carried, would place a municipal undertaking in such a position that public companies would still be

    2133
    quoted against them to the disparagement of municipal undertakings. Take the municipal tramway undertaking of Glasgow. That undertaking, after clearing off its debts, has been making many thousands a year and paying that to the public good. According to this Clause, that is to stop. This Clause would prevent the municipal authorities of Glasgow from charging such fares as would enable them to pay any money into the municipality. If there is a loss that loss comes out of the rates, but if a municipal undertaking is worked at a magnificent profit, as in the case of the Glasgow tramways, which has been quoted all over the world as being one of the finest and most profitable systems to be found anywhere, this Clause, if carried, would prohibit the Glasgow municipality from charging such fares as would enable it to pay £50,000 or £60,000 a year profits, which were made during the War, into the common fund of Glasgow. The common fund of Glasgow has been used, not in the interests of the tramcars, not in the interests of any other municipal undertaking, but in the interests of the welfare of the whole municipality of Glasgow, and in many cases people who never use the cars, benefit from the profits made by the Glasgow municipal tramways. This Clause is a continuance of a Clause already contained in the original Act and may be really temporary, but there is no reason why, if there is a bad Clause in the original Act, we should perpetuate that evil in this Bill. If it is bad in the first Act, let us wipe it out of the second Bill, and then amend the principal Act. To come forward and say that because such and such a Clause exists in the principal Act it is to be put into this Bill and we ought to do nothing with regard to the removal of it, is taking up a peculiar position. We want municipalities to be placed upon a fair footing and in a sound financial position, as has been the case in Glasgow for many years past. We want this Clause eliminated so that municipal tramways may be allowed to run in as good a condition, and under as good laws, and with as much right to charge fares as you are giving to the public companies throughout the country.
    Captain W. BENN: My hon. Friends have rendered a useful public service by drawing attention to this matter. I do not mean any disrespect to the Par-
    2134
    liamentary Secretary, whose ability has been so rapidly proved in this House, but it is a growing practice that Ministers do not come down to this House when Bills which they are promoting are being discussed. I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will not misunderstand me when I say that it is lacking in respect to this House that the Minister of Transport, who is one of the worst attenders, and who does not even attend to answer questions during the day, does not do the House the courtesy to attend even when a Bill which he is promoting is being discussed on Report. I hope these remarks will be noted for what they are worth, and will receive some attention from the right hon. Gentleman.
    The point we are discussing is a dispute between people who believe in municipal enterprise and people who do not. That is what it amounts to. I was in some doubt on the matter until I heard the explanation, but I was in no doubt after hearing the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). He is an enemy of municipal transport. He always has been; and, of course, he opposes this Amendment because he sees in this Bill another nail in the coffin of the municipal tramways. I have taken a great interest in, and have had, not a direct, but a filial connection with the tramway system in London. Recently we had a discussion as to whether the local authorities should be allowed to put obstacles in the way of the completion of the tramway system of London. I see the Minister of Transport is now in his place, and I apologise for what I have said. The right hon. Baronet succeeded in destroying the proposal of the London County Council to lay down a proper network of connected tramways. One of the things that was said was that the County Council tramways were charged with a great part, if not all, the cost of street improvements. Is that going to be allowed for? Is that one of the charges which they will be allowed to set off against any increased fares which they may charge? The Government has taken the line of giving a preference to private promoters of transport as against municipal tramways. The private promoter of transport performs a very useful public service, but primarily he has to consider the interests of his shareholders. A public authority takes a very much wider

    2135
    view and a view far more in the public interests than a private promoter. The case of the London County Council is a case in point. Had they been permitted many years ago to extend their tramway system into all the outlying parts of London, there is no doubt that the housing question would not have reached the acute stage of disorder and discomfort which it has reached to-day. My hon. Friends in bringing forward this matter on behalf of municipalities have performed a very useful service, and I hope they will see their way to press the matter to a Division unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make some concession to what appears to be the general desire of the House.
    Mr. NEAL: I am afraid that I did not sufficiently elucidate the point in what I said earlier. There is nothing contained in the Act of 1918 or the present Bill which has the slightest intention or has the effect of doing anything detrimental to municipal undertakings. If so, I should stand here with very great reluctance, having spent a good deal of my public life in the service of a municipality. Look at the position prior to the Act of 1918. Municipal tramway undertakings as well as private adventure undertakings had limited charging powers. Neither of them could, within those powers, keep themselves in a solvent position. They, therefore, came to the House in 1918 to ask for the right to charge the public, whom we ought not to forget in our discussion, higher fares than the statutory
    5.0 P.M.
    fares. Parliament, in its wisdom, said that for a temporary period they might have the right to charge increased fares above their statutory maximum, but that there ought to be some protection to the public, and in granting the powers they imposed the obligation (1) that fares should not be increased by more than 50 per cent.—by this Bill we are asking the House to remove that handicap upon municipal undertakings—and (2) that the public ought not to be charged extra fares above the statutory limit for the purpose of making a profit for some other purpose. That is a principle which is maintained in the present Bill. Both Bills are intended to help municipal undertakings to carry on their businesses in this abnormal time of difficulty. To say that there is anything in either the Act or this Bill which seeks to differentiate adversely against the municipal undertakings and in favour of the private companies is not quite correct. What we are inviting the House to do by this Bill is further to relieve municipal undertakings from their difficulties and to enable them to have something out of which they may meet these charges that are put upon them by the very necessary demands made for increased wages by their staff. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not divide on this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 57.

    Division No. 102.]

    AYES

    [5.2 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Brown, Captain D. C.

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

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Bruton, Sir James

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

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

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

    Baird, John Lawrence

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

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Campbell, J. D. C.

    Edge, Captain William

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Barrie, Hugh Thorn. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Casey, T. W.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Benn, Com. lan H. (Greenwich)

    Cayzer. Major Herbert Robin

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Clough, Robert

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Foreman, Henry

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Forrest, Walter

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mld)

    Gange, E. Stanley

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)

    Britton, G. B.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Gould, James C.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Grant, James A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Seager, Sir William

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Simm, M. T.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Martin, Captain A. E.

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Matthews, David

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

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

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

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Morison, Thomas Brash

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Morris, Richard

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Morrison, Hugh

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Murray, Lt.-Col. C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

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

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Turton, E. R.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Neal, Arthur

    Waddington, R.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

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

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Houston, Robert p.

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Hudson, R. M.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Oman, Charles William C.

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Whitla, Sir William

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

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

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Perring, William George

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    King, Commander Henry Douglas

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Preston, W. R.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

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

    Purchase, H. G.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

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

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Remer, J. R.

    Younger, Sir George

    Lorden, John William

    Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Renwick, George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lynn, R. J.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley ward.

    NOES.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hogge,-James Myles

    Spoor, B. C.

    Briant, Frank

    Irving, Dan

    Swan, J. E.

    Bromfield, William

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Tootill, Robert

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

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

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Dawes, James Arthur

    MacVeagh, Jeremias

    Wignall, James

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Finney, Samuel

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Myers, Thomas

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

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

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Rae, H. Norman

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hallas, Eldred

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Major Barnes and Mr. T. Thomson.

    Major BARNES: I beg to move in Subsection (1) (b) to leave out the words "regard being had to the pre-War financial condition of the company and its prospective development," and to insert, instead thereof, the words
    "always providing that—

    (a) No return shall be provided on capital expended on works brought into use before the fifth
    2138
    day of August, nineteen hundred and thirteen, which shall exceed the return earned on such capital during the twelve months ending the fifth day of August, nineteen judiced nor advantaged by any amount greater than that which could reasonably be expected to have been earned on the natural growth of traffic;

    (b) That in the event of statutory powers being applied for to per-

    2139
    manently increase charges, such application shall be neither prejudiced nor advantaged by any Order made under this Act."

    The Amendment on which we have just divided rested on a fairly broad basis of principle. That cannot be said for this Amendment, but this Amendment is of a great deal more importance than probably is indicated on its face. It deals with increase of charges to be made in prospective tramway undertakings, but it is really linked up closely with a very much larger question—the increase of charges upon railway undertakings. The real importance of this Bill is that in many important particulars it will establish a precedent for dealing with railway undertakings and the charges on such when those matters come before the House. We know that by references to some of the things said by the Minister of Transport on the Second Reading and by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. The Minister of Transport was asked a question as to the interpretation of the phrase "a reasonable return on capital," and he said:
    "As to what reasonable return was … I should very much regret if I had at this stage to interpret that. We took the wording which for better or worse—I think it was inevitable—the House adopted in dealing with the Bill put forward by the London Combine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1920, Vol. 127, Col. 1458.]
    That was a railway Bill. So in dealing with this Bill for tramway undertakings the principle of return on capital was one which was lifted out of a railway Bill, and that shows the connection which this measure has with railway undertakings. Then this is a temporary measure dealing with a certain period of time, and when the Minister was dealing with the question of time and dealing with the date at which this Bill will expire he gave as his reason for selecting that date:
    "We take the same date that the similar provision lapses for railway charges. That was fixed at a time in order to enable the railways to promote, if they wished, private Bills to increase their charging powers, and then is the time for this House in dealing with these private Bills to exercise the control which it ought to exercise."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1920, Vol. 127, Col. 1457.]
    So this is a Bill which deals with tramway undertakings and embodies a principle taken from a railway Bill and covering the period at the end of which
    2140
    both railway and tramway undertakings emergency charges will come to an end and the whole matter will come before this House for revision. I think these quotations establish a very close connection between this measure and the very much greater measures dealing with railway matters that we shall have to consider. It is extremely important that the House should scrutinise very closely the terms with respect to charges and returns on capital which are in this Bill. As far as my knowledge goes, the Amendment is not antagonistic to the intentions of the Government. It makes clear what seems to me to be in their mind. Subsection (1, b) provides that there shall be a reasonable return on share capital,
    "regard being had to the pre-War financial condition of the company and its prospective development."
    Those are words introduced by the Minister of Transport, who said:
    "We have added to the Clause something which I thought was a safeguard, that regard should be had to the pre-War return upon the capital."
    My Amendment is to carry out what the Minister desires. I should be quite sure that I was interpreting the intentions of the Government if it were not that in this matter the Government is speaking with two voices. There is the voice of the Minster of Transport and there is the voice of his Parliamentary Secretary. In reading what the Minister said on the Second Reading, and what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee, it appears to me that they express entirely opposite views. We are very fortunate in having both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary here, for it will clear up the doubt. In one of Dickens' books there was a famous firm called Spenlow and Jorkins, and the difficulty in dealing with that firm was that you never could get the partners together. Mr. Spenlow said one thing and Mr. Jorkins said another, and each of them referred you to the other. This afternoon we are fortunate in having the entire firm here.
    Members who were present at the Second Reading Debate will remember that the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) set out very boldly, and, as it seemed to some Members, very brutally, what he conceived to be the position of the railway undertakings in this country. He said they were statutory undertakings under

    2141
    statutory limitations, that the country had brought them into this condition, that if the House did not sanction an increase in their charges all the undertakings would become insolvent, that they would then be in the market and could be brought up by the State at a break-up price, and that the only way out for the undertakings was for the House to help them by allowing them to increase their charges. The hon. and gallant Member thought that that was a thing the House would not do. The Minister of Transport, in his reply, met that point in a way which gave general satisfaction to the House. It had been suggested that the object of the Bill was to increase the value of the property, so that the promoters might benefit thereby, and the Minister of Transport said significantly, "There is no foundation whatever for that." Later on, he used the words I have already quoted, namely, that he had introduced a safeguard into the Bill, bearing in mind that there was a bargain between the companies and the State, and he did not mean to allow the companies to improve that bargain—
    "I have put that (safeguard) in because I do not wish to let it go from this House that the reasonable return should be taken on general lines, regardless of the pre-War return on capital and regardless of the pre-War financial position of the company."
    So that, so far as the Minister is concerned, his position is this—he does not wish this Bill to benefit transport undertakings so as to put them in a better position than that they were in before the War, and any increase in charges must take into account their pre-War condition. That, I think, is on the lines of the policy of the Government during the War. It limited undertakings to their pre-War profits. The year 1913 was taken as the basis and their returns were not allowed to exceed the figures of that year. But when this Bill came into Committee and this Clause was being discussed, the Parliamentary Secretary took quite a different line. The attention of the Committee was drawn then, as this afternoon, to the provision with regard to private undertakings that was in the Bill which this present Bill is amending. That Bill limited the increase of charges to such a rate as would not give them more than three-quarters of their pre-War dividend. The Parliamentary Secretary drew attention to that provision and went on to say that to limit the amount to three-quarters of their standard rate
    2142
    of dividend or their pre-War rate of dividend was not doing justice to the shareholders in the company.
    Mr. NEAL: I was quoting the exact words in the Statue of 1918—
    "Three-quarters of the standard or maximum rate of dividend."
    The "three-quarters" applies to both.
    Major BARNES: This is a measure amending the 1918 Statute. The 1918 Statute put a limit of three-quarters. This Bill removes that limitation, and I do not think anyone will object to that. But the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say, "or their pre-War rate."
    Mr. NEAL: Three-quarters of their pre-War rate.
    Major BARNES: I gather now that the words "three-quarters" should have been in there. If one goes on to read the context it does not convey that view:
    "Money is worth less to them, as it is to everyone else, and therefore it is thought right that there should be careful consideration given as to what return there should be on the capital."
    I submit that on the face of that the interpretation is that, as the sovereign is worth 8s. 4d. to-day, the shareholder getting 20s. to-day is really getting only what would have been 8s. 4d. before the War, and, further, that it would be a fair thing to increase the return on capital to-day so that the real value might approximate to pre-War conditions. That was the impression conveyed to my mind after reading those words of the Parliamentary Secretary. If he says that that was not so, and that there is no intention of increasing the rate of dividend upon capital so as to allow for the fall in value of the money, I see no reason why he should not accept my Amendment, which precisely provides for that. Some of us are a little suspicious of the words, "regard being had." We remember the Debate on the Acquisition of Land Bill, when we were contending that valuation should be on the basis of assessment and the words, "on the basis of" were contested by the Government and the words, "regard being had," were put in their place. I would like the Minister to let us know clearly whether it is the intention under this Bill to improve the pre-War financial condition, in other words, to allow a

    2143
    greater return to be provided on share capital than was actually paid before the War. The Amendment provides that capital expended on works brought into use before 1913 would receive the same return that it was getting before the War. That would still leave a reasonable return on capital to be provided for by expenditure since the War, and it would also allow to be taken into account natural growth and development. There are undertakings which may have been commenced just before the War, and on which there was no return being made on account of their having been only just brought into use. On the grounds I have stated I commend the Amendment to the House. The last portion of the Amendment provides that when these undertakings come to the House for sanction to make permanent charges, whatever is done under this Bill is not either to advantage or to prejudice them, which is, I think, fair.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. NEAL: I have listened with great attention to the ingenious speech of my hon. and gallant Friend. Let me say at once that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and myself, notwithstanding the very careful dissection of our respective speeches, are unable to discover where we differ except in the language used. We certainly are not conscious of differing in the slightest degree in the meaning which we attach to this Bill. I think it would be very difficult for my hon. Friend when he reads his own speech to-morrow to find out exactly what it was that he desired the House to do at this moment. What is the position? Certain tramway undertakings, both municipal and company-owned, were approached for the purpose of giving larger wages to their employees. A Whitley Council composed of representatives of employers of both classes and of the men made representations to the Ministry of Transport that without increased charging powers they were quite unable to meet what was a reasonable demand by the workmen, and the Ministry of Transport undertook therefore to bring in this Bill to amend the Act of 1918 in certain particulars. So far as the company undertakings are concerned, the Act of 1918 has said that their
    2144
    increased charging powers might not be used for the purpose of producing more than three-fourths of their standard or pre-War dividend. One of the questions which the Minister had to consider was whether it was reasonable and fair in the year 1920, when there had been a substantial decrease in the purchasing value of money, that there should be that limitation of three-fourths of their pre-War or standard dividend applied to the companies. He came to the conclusion that it was not right. He could, if he wished, have inserted a provision that it should not be larger than the pre-War dividend, and if he had wished that I have not the slightest doubt that the Parliamentary draughtsman would have been able to find words to that effect, but they are not these words.
    May I say at once in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman that it is not intended that there shall be an arbitrary rule that in no case and under no circumstances shall the companies be able to earn a somewhat larger dividend than the pre-War of standard dividends. I hope I answer the question with sufficient directness. If the hon. Gentleman will look again at the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on Second Reading and at the speech which I made in Committee, I think he will see that that point was made clear in both. What my right hon. Friend said and what the Bill says is: " Regard being had to the pre-War financial condition of the company, and its prospective development." That is to say this Bill is not intended to produce a general uplifting in the capital value of these companies, but it is intended to help these companies to meet the increased charges in the cost of labour, materials and working, and it is intended that an impartial tribunal shall consider whether at the same time there ought not to be some improvement, and if so what, in the dividend-earning capacity of the company. How is that to be worked out? I have never mentioned the scheme of this Bill for dealing with this matter. In this we have been guided by the House itself in the Instruction given on the Underground Electric Bill to the Private Bill Committee that was to consider that Bill, namely, that they were to have regard to " a reasonable return on share capital." By no interpretation can that mean that the reasonable return on share capital

    2145
    was necessarily the pre-War return on share capital. It might be less, that is to say, in certain conceivable circumstances it might be less. The chances are very great that it would be more rather than less, but when you say, regard being had to a reasonable return by no interpretation can it be held that that is an inelastic fixing of the pre-War dividend as the amount to be paid.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Instruction to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred was moved by a private Member and was not moved by the Government.
    Mr. NEAL: I think the memory of the right hon. Baronet is quite correct. It was an Instruction given by the unanimous assent of the House to the Private Bill Committee. What is it the Minister suggests here? There are two checks upon charging power. The final check upon charging power is the economic result of war charges. If you get your charge too high you ultimately produce a less return than you would with a lower charge.
    Captain W. BENN: In the case of a monopoly?
    Mr. NEAL: Even with a monopoly, but it does not work so effectively with a monopoly. But there is a limit beyond which you do not produce a beneficial financial result by the charge. As well as that, the Minister has requested that there shall be an Advisory Committee. Clause 2 provides that there is to be an Advisory Committee set up consisting of the Light Railway Commissioners and members selected from the panel appointed by the Minister under the Transport Act. They are to consider and advise the Minister upon all these matters, leading up to what shall be the maximum to which an undertaking is to be allowed to charge, and that advice is to receive official responsibility for acceptance or rejection. It may be said that the words "reasonable return on capital" are indefinite. They are indefinite words, but the word "reasonable" is an extremely useful one. It is the word which we have to apply to nearly all problems. We have to try and be reasonable in solving these matters. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: When this matter was discussed on 10th March we tried to
    2146
    get a definite statement from the Minister. In the case of local authorities who own their own tramways, if you put on an extra charge any surplus would go into the hands of the Corporation, and, therefore, as I pointed out, what you lost on the swings you would gain on the roundabouts. When you are dealing with private enterprises what we want to do is to protect the people who use them. You have not told us what the position of those people will be under this Bill as compared with their position in pre-War days. Assume that a private company paid 5 per cent. in pre-War days. Will that be the limit to which they can go now under this Bill, or will they be able to pay 7½ per cent. or 10 per cent.? should like an answer to that question so that we may know where we stand. If you allow them to increase their dividend to 7½ per cent. or 10 per cent. from 5 per cent. we shall go into the division Lobby in support of the Amendment. If you do not say that the profits of private enterprises are to be the same as in pre-War days, then I submit you ought to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and if these people cannot carry on their business let them become insolvent so that the local authorities will be able to run the cars on behalf of the community as they do now in other districts. We do not want any camouflage about this. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if by this Bill you are going to permit companies which paid say 5 per cent. to pay 7½ per cent. or 10 per cent.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to make a very emphatic statement, which was an answer to the question just put by the hon. Gentleman. He said that they were not prepared to say that a reasonable return on capital, regard being had to pre-war returns, would tie the companies down to their pre-war standard. I thought he made it very clear, and that it was an interpretation of the Bill which justified everything that was said by the mover of the Amendment. You could read the Bill with the interpretation that there was a desire to limit the returns so that they should not exceed the pre-war standard. I think the Amendment was put down partly with a view of eliciting what was really behind the mind of the Government in this matter. Unless I

    2147
    misunderstood the Parliamentary Secretary, he made it clear that the Government did not wish by this Bill and by their particular phrasing of this Clause to tie their hands in the future, and they did wish, if necessary, that the companies should receive a dividend which would be in excess of their pre-war rate, and because of that very emphatic statement, which I think has cleared the air considerably, it is necessary, unless some modification should be made, that the matter should be pressed further. It is not merely a question as to what the present Ministry or the House may mean. It depends entirely on the enterpretation which the courts hereafter may put into the reading of this Clause, and we know that the rulings of the courts in many cases have been entirely different from the intention and desire of the Parliament that has passed any particular Act. Therefore, I think it is of importance that we should have defined very clearly in this Bill what the House really means and not throw the consumer to the mercy of the courts, who may have regard to matters which this House would not wish to be considered. I would like to emphasise the point that we must have regard, not merely to the small effect which this Bill will have, but to the precedent which it is setting for the larger question of railways. To-day we are settling a vital principle as to the basis upon which these charges may be made, and upon which the capital values of company undertakings have to be based. Therefore, I hope the Minister can give the House some assurance that passing the Measure in its present form will not leave it open to a company which was getting 5 per cent. before the War to claim under this Clause that a reasonable return on capital is 10 per cent. now.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): I should like to reiterate what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said. In inserting this provision, we thought we were giving effect to what the House unanimously decided to do in the case of the London Electric Railways Bill, but we did more than that. We felt that while that Bill was going to a Committee of the House, with an instruction from this House that a reasonable return on capital should be provided, it was impossible for a Committee of this House to deal with the
    2148
    hundreds of cases which would arise under the Tramways Bill, and therefore we have to provide another tribunal, and in adopting the wording of the House, "a reasonable return," we added a safeguard that regard should be had, not, as has been erroneously quoted by certain hon. Members, to the pre-War dividend, but to the pre-War financial condition of the company. Obviously, if you are to stereotype this return as the pre-War return, you may be placing a limitation upon the deliberations of the Committee, and we have endeavoured to provide a tribunal which will command respect and confidence, and we have also provided that the result of the deliberations of that tribunal can only be exercised after the Minister has satisfied himself that they are reasonable, and I would point out that the Minister is amenable to criticism in this House and has to answer for his deeds. If there were any more impartial or surer way of securing that these large dividends which some of my hon. Friends fear will not be granted, I should be glad to put it in.
    You have now got housing schemes going on in all parts of the country, and very largely these will be served by company undertakings. If you are going to limit during this short period—because, after all, it is not for all time, but is merely a temporary provision—if you are going to limit by statute the return on capital to the pre-war return of a particular undertaking, you may entirely prevent development. You cannot consider the capital of a concern and say it is very prosperous now and it was very poor before. You have to treat the financial condition of the undertaking as a whole, and we put in a safeguard which we thought was reasonable at the time, that is to say, that if you are going to limit a concern to what it earned before the War, and you have a concern which was not earning anything, at the rate of money to-day, it would stultify the whole housing programme, and that was why we thought, and why the House thought in the case of the London Electric Railway Bill, that you had to leave a certain discretion so that the whole position could be considered. My hon. Friend (Mr. T. Griffiths), who said he wanted to know definitely whether it would be 7 per cent. or 10 per cent., is asking me to say what no one in this House could possibly say to-day. Because we could not refer

    2149
    this Bill to a Committee upstairs, we have proposed, as a safeguard, that the tribunal must have regard to the pre-War financial condition. That is the safeguard I mentioned in my speech on the Second Reading, and we think that that ought to be adequate. We think that there the House has the safeguard that here is a committee which will consider these matters after the best investigations of the accounts possible, and that the Minister must be responsible to this House for giving effect or not giving effect to those recommendations. If he were to pass charges which would bear heavily on the consumer and give an exorbitant rate of dividend on a stock which was not paying anything before, it is at this box that the answer must be given.
    Major HAYWARD: The immediate effect of the point under consideration may not be very important, but the principle involved is so important that I think the matter ought not to pass from the House without the House having a a very clear appreciation of what might possibly happen. The purport of the Bill is to enable these companies and undertakings to increase their charges in order to cover the increased cost of running them. It is contemplated that there may be a balance of the increased charges above the increased cost, but the balance might be on the one side or the other. If it is on the profits side, it is said that that might be used in increasing the dividend. That might or might not be a proper thing to do under all the circumstances of the case, but this is quite clear, that if the dividends are increased, the capital value of your undertaking is increased, and in view of the possibility of the Government taking over these concerns in the future, it may mean a very important thing to the taxpayers of the country. If my reading of the position is correct, I think the House ought either to insist upon some such Amendment as has been moved, or that we should have some safeguard of some kind or other to prevent what I have suggested from happening.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think it is possible for it to happen, because these are temporary powers, and one of the objections which would be raised is an objection which I do not think we ought to look over. You are only giving temporary powers, and at the end of the period specified, which I think is
    2150
    February, 1923, these emergency powers lapse, and you could not expect the capital value of an undertaking to rise enormously simply because they had got temporary powers, which lapse automatically in 1923, and which can be refused at any time on the advice of the Advisory Committee. I do not think, therefore, that the fear of the hon. Gentleman is really well founded.
    6.0 P.M.
    Captain W. BENN: The Amendment is evidently one of the very greatest importance, and does not only cover the case of the trams, but it might be regarded as a precedent for the case of railway charges, and it is obviously, therefore, of first-rate public importance. When the Indemnity Bill was before the House two days ago, the Government prefaced it by a memorandum showing the sum of money which they thought would be saved to the country if the Bill were adopted. I wonder why they did not put in front of this Bill a memorandum showing the sum of money that would accrue to these private enterprises if this Bill were passed. It would have been very interesting. It is said by those who know that millions of pounds are at stake, according to whether or not we adopt the principle embodied in this Amendment, and it is obvious, therefore, that this is of very great public interest. The Minister of Transport said, "If you do not allow these people latitude in their financial arrangements, they will not set up tramways, and so your housing schemes will come to an end." I think that is a very strong argument, but that is not the argument which the right hon. Gentleman used about the municipalities, which are in a much better position to survey the whole field. The municipalities have either to be in the same position or in a worse position than they were before the War. That is what has been decided by the rejection of the Amendment just now. They are to be carried on without loss. If by any chance they made a profit which might have been devoted to some of these housing schemes, it is taken away. It comes to this: that there is one yard measure for the public authority and another yard measure for the private interests, and that is really at the root of the whole Debate to-day. We are concerned with the interests of the consumer in this matter. I do not find that the panel to which the Minister referred has on the face of it the appear-

    2151
    ance of being directly representative of the consumers. The panel, he says, is to have regard to the pre-war financial conditions of the company, but those are very vague words, and it might be that they would say the company was in such a poor way before the War that they must be allowed to make a big dividend in order to pull themselves round now. Surely that is a possible interpretation of the words. We feel, therefore—at least I hope my hon. Friends feel—that we should divide on this Amendment. Really, travel is almost in the nature of a direct tax on the working classes. Nearly everybody has to travel, and it is a direct poll-tax on all working people, and that is the interest we represent here to-day. The Minister says that if we do not like what
    has been done by the Ministry, we can move a reduction of his salary in the House of Commons. If we were to attempt to move a reduction of the Minister's salary on the ground that he had improperly allowed a certain rate of dividend to some private company, our efforts would prove absolutely futile. I agree we are here to protect the interests of the community, and the way to do it is to formulate in the Bill adequate protection. This Amendment is the only way to do it, and I hope it will be pressed to a Division. If so, I shall certainly support it in the Lobby.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 59.

    Division No. 103.]

    AYES

    [6.5 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Jesson, C.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Edge, Captain William

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Edwards, Major J.(Aberavon)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Barrand, A. R.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    King, Commander Henry Douglas

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Barrie, Hugh Thom. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Lloyd-Greame, Major P.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Benn, Com. lan H. (Greenwich)

    Ford, Patrick Johnstonv

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Foreman,Henry

    Lorden, John William

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Forrest, Walter

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lynn, R. J.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Gardiner, James

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern}

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Brown, Captain D. C

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Maddocks, Henry

    Bruton, Sir James

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Gould, James C.

    Martin, Captain A. E.

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Grant, James A.

    Matthews, David

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Casey, T. W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Morris, Richard

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Morrison, Hugh

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Murray, Lt.-Col. C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Clough, Robert

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Neal, Arthur

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

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

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Courthope, Major George L.

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

    Oman, Charles William C.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekln>

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Rodger, A. K.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Turton, E. R.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Perring, William George

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Seager, Sir William

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Preston, W. R.

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

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

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

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

    Willoughby,Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Purchase, H. G.

    Simm, M. T.,

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

    Rae, H. Norman

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Remer, J. R.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Renwick, George

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross. Perth)

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Hallas, Eldred

    Roberts, Frederick 0. (W. Bromwich)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Spoor, B. C.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Swan, J. E.

    Bromfield, William

    Irving, Dan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

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

    Tootill, Robert

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Wignall, James

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lunn, William

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

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

    Finney, Samuel

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mills, John Edmund

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Myers, Thomas

    Major Barnes and Mr. T. Thomson.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Neal.]
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    WAR PENSIONS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    As the House will remember, before the Great War the pensions of each Service Department were granted and administered by that Service Department. That was appropriate, because the Ser vice Departments knew the conditions of service, and the circumstances for which the pension was granted. With the Great War the conditions changed. The Service Department, though sufficient for the administration of their appropriate pensions before the Great
    2154
    War, became, through no fault of their own, insufficient for the gigantic task with which they were confronted. The nation became the Army, and the Army became the nation. Recruitment took place under abnormal conditions. Men who never thought, when they began their civil life, that they would ever don khaki, or ever become soldiers, first of all voluntarily left, through patriotic motives, their civil employment, with their cares and their children, to take up military service. At a later stage men were taken ruthlessly from their civil employment, in the same way as men had gone in the earlier stages of war voluntarily, leaving their cares behind them. The country felt then that something had to be done adequate to the Great War. Pensions more than any thing else touched the life of the community, and it was necessary that some institution should be found in order to deal expeditiously, and in a spirit of sympathy, with the innumerable number of pensioners and dependants which

    2155
    resulted from the Great War. A great many Acts were passed, beginning in 1915, up to last year dealing with pensions, and it is most significant that all these Acts from the first to the last made clear that they dealt with a certain definite period, and that they dealt with certain definite men, the period being the period of the Great War and the men—I use the word "men" in the generic sense—being those who suffered and who were incapacitated in the Great War. These Acts handed over the duties and powers, except in two cases, of the War Office and the Admiralty to the Ministry of Pensions. These two exceptions were the Service Pensions and the Wounds Pensions of Officers.
    Rightly or wrongly, the people of the country thought at that time that the handing over of these powers would have two great advantages. First of all, they thought that an isolated Department, having no particular connection with any of the great Service Departments, would bring a new spirit of sympathy to deal with the various problems which so affected the life of the people, and that they would also bring a spirit of sympathy and a breadth of understanding in dealing with the interpretations of warrants; and would carry into effect that spirit and understanding expeditiously and efficiently. The Department was greatly assisted by the various Local War Pensions Committees, County and District, and the Sub-Committees. This process of decentralisation has gone on to such an extent, and has really brought such a proportionately greater efficiency, that we have now established all over the country a system of administration which involves at least thirteen different regions, and thirteen regional Directors, all of whom have got, decentralised and devolving upon them, a great amount of the administrative work which would otherwise have been centralised in London, and very likely have resulted not only in confusion but in inefficiency. This has cost a great amount of money. I believe the administration of the Pensions Department costs as much as £5,000,000 a year.
    The great War, fortunately for us, is over. The situation has, therefore, to be reviewed. The call for economy is in the air. Every Government Department has had to turn and discover where, without
    2156
    lessening in a single iota its efficiency, it could economise. So far as the Ministry of Pensions is concerned, several important factors had to be considered. First of all, the administration of post-War pensions under local War pensions committees would require new legislation; and, secondly, new post-War warrants would have to be issued. If this legislation were introduced and passed, the existing costly machinery of administration, to which I have just referred, would at all events, in its nucleus, become permanent, though under normal peace conditions, disability casualties, instead of being millions, such as we now have arising from the great War, would only be a small trickle, 4,000 or 5,000 a year. If, on the other hand, post-War disability pensions and claims were transferred to the Service Departments, as I am proposing in this Bill, nothing will be added to the cost of administration by these Departments, as they have in any case to reckon, at the present moment, as regards discharged soldiers and sailors of the professional forces, the pension or gratuity to be paid in respect of length-of service, of rank, and good conduct. It is quite clear that at the present time the trouble necessary to assess the gratuity could be utilised to assess the amount of the disability compensation. If, however, the transfer does not take place, each man's case will have to be considered by two different Departments, that is by the Ministry of Pensions as regards disability and by the Service Department as regards Service recognition, an unnecessary duplication of staff which would be avoided under this Bill, and an excellent opportunity afforded, and sometimes this is taken advantage of, of playing off one Department against another.
    In the interests of economy and efficiency, we have come to the conclusion that post-War pensions should revert again to the appropriate Service Departments. There is one other consideration which I think it appropriate that I should mention. The House will remember that the Ministry of Pensions became a gigantic organisation with very great powers. Since then a process of pruning has taken place. First of all, the training of disabled men was taken away from the Ministry of Pensions and handed over to the Ministry of Labour. Secondly, and not so very long ago, not by the wish of the Government,

    2157
    nor by the wish of the Ministry, nor, I believe, by the wish of the Ministry of Health, the medical and surgical treatment of discharged and disabled soldiers will be, in two years' time, given to the Ministry of Health. The significance of this will appear more clearly when I say to the House that this proposal to prune the medical and surgical treatment away from the Ministry of Pensions came not from the Government, but from the House. I believe my right hon. Friend opposite moved to that effect.
    Mr. H0GGE: I was dead against it!
    Mr. MACPHERSON: And the proposal was carried out. When I have said what I have, it is important still to remember that nothing in this Bill at the present moment interferes with the powers of the Ministry of Pensions or the Pensions Committee, or with the scope of the operations of the War Pensions Department, except that it confines their operations to the circumstances and happenings of the period from 4th August, 1914, to 31st July of this year. We define in the Bill the end of the great War as 31st July of this year. We are keeping alive Section 3 of the War Pensions Act, 1919, providing for advances to pensioners to be issued for periods not exceeding six months. While the various powers of the Ministry and the Minister remain, the Minister is given under the Bill new powers and duties. Many regarded it as being very peculiar, and, indeed, a great number of people never quite understood it, that the wounds pensions of officers should be administered by the Service Department. It is now proposed to transfer to the Minister of Pensions this the last Section of the awards for disability in the great War. An officer retired from the Service, as the House knows, for disability, which entitles him to a wounds pension is also entitled to retired pay, or half-pay, since he has rights under the Pensions Warrant as much as under the old Pay Warrant. This meant in the past that he had to deal with two Departments, the War Office and the Ministry of Pensions; that his wounds pension had to be assessed by the War Office or the Admiralty before the Ministry of Pensions could give him that to which he was entitled. The wounds pension had to be fixed before the retired pay could be awarded. The House will remember that in this connection my Noble Friend the late Com-
    2158
    mander-in-Chief in France, Lord Haig, in giving evidence before the Select Committee on Pensions, made a very remarkable statement. He pointed out that the fact that there were the two assessments to be made, one dependant upon the other, in almost every case caused great hardship and delay. I hope then by the transfer of the wounds pensions to the Ministry, which, in my judgment, is to the good, we shall get rid of these hardships and distribute these pensions expeditiously.
    I come to another side of the matter. Nothing could have been finer than the patriotic manner in which the County Committees and all Local Committees have discharged their voluntary functions. They performed a great war work with ability and zeal, and with no thought but for the welfare of the State, the discharged men and those dependent on them. The work has now largely become standardised and stereotyped—that work in which they showed so large a spirit of understanding and sympathy, and to which they gave their time so freely—and some County Committees have themselves thought that the time had come for a change in the administration. The men and women concerned in this great work take a deep and abiding interest in County matters. A great many of them, I have no doubt, will be glad to be relieved of what was War Work. I am taking power in this Bill to allow me to reorganise the various divisions in the County and to re-group them, and to secure, if I can, the very best possible administration in the country, while at the same time reducing as far as I can the amount of expenditure which is necessarily entailed at the present moment. I propose to substitute local committees acting independently over wide areas within the County for the present County Committees.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Is this proposal in place of the local committees and district committees, and will the new committees be co-equal and independent?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: They will be quite independent, but I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by coequal.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Equal in independence.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am proposing to take powers to reorganise and have

    2159
    autonomous smaller committees within the county. I am taking further powers under Clause 3, coupled with the powers already given by Section 2 of the War Pensions Act, for the amalgamation of local committees and sub-committee areas, and this will enable me to secure a more businesslike and economic administration in a large number of areas. It is clear that as the War becomes more and more remote, the number of pensioners and claimants for pensions will become proportionately fewer, and when this happens it will be necessary on the ground of economy to effect a combination or amalgamation of the committees in those areas.
    Let me now say a word or two about Clause 5. It will probably be a surprise to the House to hear that at the present moment these local committees have got control over the expenditure of £24,000,000. This large amount was made subject, as the House will remember, to audit by the Minister under the Pensions Act of 1918, but however careful a committee may be, and however anxious they may be to secure efficient, cheap and economical administration, maladministration of funds is bound to take place. We have had one case, and the only thing that we can do administratively is to hold a local inquiry. It is quite obvious that a local inquiry under these circumstances is very unsatisfactory, and some other powers must be taken. I propose under this Clause to take powers to appoint a finance officer who, if need be, will take charge of the finances at any time when I think it is necessary that he should do so.
    Clause 6 is one which I feel sure the House will be glad to see inserted in this Bill. It is perhaps a small point that is dealt with, but it gives the inspectors and officers of the Ministry power to hold a local inquiry, to summon and examine witnesses, and to secure the infliction of suitable penalties in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. So far, that is a power which has not been given to the Ministry of Pensions.
    I remember when I was at the War Office, I used to be grieved by the fact that when a soldier or a sailor was convicted of any offence, and a punishment of over twenty-eight days' imprisonment was inflicted, he im-
    2160
    mediately forfeited his pension, with the result that very often his wife and children were in distress. If a soldier to-day is convicted of treason or felony, his pension is forfeited absolutely under those circumstances. I propose by Clause 7 to enable myself to restore pensions forfeited under the Forfeiture Act, 1870, after a man has been discharged from prison, and to enable him to be entitled to his full pension. I am also taking power to advance to his wife and dependants such amounts as I think may be reasonable to enable them to tide over the difficult time they are bound to have while the man is in prison.
    The next Clause is a very short one, but it is rather important. It deals with the case of the widow or motherless child of a deceased officer or man, and it gives the same statutory right under the warrant as was given to disabled officers and men under Section 7 of the Pensions Act, 1918.
    Clause 9 gives the Minister of Pensions power to control the children of officers or men who had died in service, or are still on active service, during the present War. This power of control was handed over to the Minister himself in the previous Act, but I propose in this Clause to ask the House to give me power to appoint a duly accredited representative of the Ministry instead of the Minister himself, to whom the children under control may be handed over. I am also extending the range of cases in which this power can be exercised. I am proposing also to include all those cases mentioned in Section 58 of the Children Act, such as children found begging or wandering, or without visible means of subsistence, and cases where parents are unfit to have the care of a child. I think that is an excellent Clause. The work we have been able to do in looking after those children has been very successful so far, and I am convinced that it is one of the best things in the Bill that we should have this additional power of including all those cases where children are enduring real hardships, and where, in their own interests and in the interests of the parent, we should have them properly and sufficiently under control.
    The last Clause removes certain existing anomalies. For some curious reason, the real reason being that cases

    2161
    were administered by different Departments, some amounts over £2 which were paid require to have a stamp, while other amounts paid by another Department over £2 did not require a stamp. This distinction was purely arbitrary, and I propose under this Clause to get rid of it.
    I think I have now dealt with the main points of this Bill. I shall, of course, be very glad to answer any points of difficulty which may occur to hon. Members, but before I sit down I should like to remind the House of the main points of the Bill. They are these: the Ministry will remain with all its powers to deal effectively, and I trust efficiently, with the great work which it was called upon to do by all those various Acts dealing with pensions which have arisen out of the great War. Post-War pensions will revert to the control of the appropriate services in which those men served. If it is an Army man, the case will go to the War Office; if the man is in the Navy, it will go to the Admiralty; and if he has been serving in the Air Force, it will go to the Air Ministry. In the interests of economy and efficiency I hope the House will give me willingly the power to re-organise and re-group the various districts and counties, so that we shall be able to effect expeditiously and efficiently the work which remains for us to do.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now", and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
    I am sure the House will desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Pensions Minister. Those of us who were in the last Parliament will remember that for many months at the beginning of the War my right hon. Friend was occupied at the War Office, and there he gained experience of the largest force that comes under the administration of the Pensions Office, and I hope he will succeed in his work at the Ministry of Pensions. At the same time, I shall require, and I think the House will require, very much more convincing arguments as to why we should pass this Bill than those which have been submitted by my right hon. Friend. I venture to suggest that if my right hon. Friend had been himself long at the Ministry of Pensions, he would not have
    2162
    been willing to be sponsor for the Bill which he is to-day asking us to pass. My right hon. Friend will remember that the history of the Pensions legislation is almost the exact reverse of what he indicated in his speech, and it was only the combined efforts of many men in this House, belonging to different parties combining on that one object, that compelled the Government to bring for the first time under one roof the whole question of the awarding and administration of pensions. Here we have now in the hands of the fifth Pension Minister since that Ministry was set up, an attempt, before enough experience has accumulated, to begin to disperse some of those duties, and to set up that which we hoped we had destroyed, that is, separate Pensions Departments for the separate treatment of different parts of the Force.
    With some parts of the Bill I find myself in total agreement, and if my right hon. Friend is willing to withdraw Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 he can have the rest of the Bill without any opposition. That will leave him some very valuable administrative powers that he seeks; it will not interfere with the functions of the Ministry of Pensions, and will not lead to the break-up of a Department which we would all deplore. Clause 1 of this Act transfers to four separate Departments powers which now rest in the Ministry of Pensions. It transfers to the Admiralty, to the Army Council, to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and to the Air Council, the newest body to be formed, responsibility for the award and administration of disability pensions to men disabled in former and in future wars, and it leaves only to the Ministry of Pensions disability cases arising out of the Great War. My hon. Friend has indicated incidentally that the date of the termination of the War is not the date that he puts in the Bill, but an extension of three months. I would remind him, as a Member of the Government, that this is the first time that any date has been put to the termination of the War by any Department, and that there has been no date put to the existence of D.O.R.A. as well as a great many other powers that are still exercised in this country arising out of the War. But as far as these men are concerned it is determined that 31st July shall be the date of the termination of the War.

    2163
    What is going to happen to the pre-War pensioner—the man who was pensioned for service in previous wars? His case has been fought almost whole-heartedly by every section of the House, and, after a great deal of effort, after many long Debates, some advance has been made, and the pre-War pensioner has been raised to the same disability or specific injury pension as a man disabled in this War. But that is all. His wife and children do not share any of the benefits enjoyed by the pensioner of the present War. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the programme, if one may talk of it in that way, of the discharged officer and man, in whatever position he is represented, is that all men who have served shall be equal in this regard. If my right hon. Friend transfers the treatment of pre-War pensioners to the War Office, to the Admiralty, to the Chelsea Commissioners, or to the new Air Force, these men will not be entitled to any rights unless each of those Departments secures a separate Pensions Warrant. My right hon. Friend is in this position. He is entitled, by his existing Pension Warrant, which is given to him specifically as the Minister of Pensions by the King, to administer certain rights which I will refer to presently, but the Minister for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for the Air Force will not be entitled and cannot award those advantages unless a similar Warrant is granted by the King in the same way as it is granted to the Minister of Pensions. Therefore, you are going to put pre-War pensioners in an inferior position to the man who has served in what is known as the Great War, and you are going to deprive him of the advantages which have so far been secured for him by an agitation which has been quite unanimously supported by Members of this House.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I should have stated that there is to be an inter-Departmental Committee formed of the three fighting services to co-ordinate all disability pension proposals.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is a new piece of information. Now we are told there is to be a Committee representing the Army the Navy and the Air Force to co-ordinate all the forces for disability pension purposes. Surely then my right hon. Friend should not come down to the House and
    2164
    ask for powers to re-transfer to other Departments men who now have superior advantages unless—
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not ask that.
    Mr. HOGGE: But that is just what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for. He is asking that pre-war pensioners should be retransferred to these three Departments. He tells me my fears may be groundless, because a Committee is to be created to co-ordinate the disability pensions of the three Departments. But obviously my right hon. Friend cannot know what will be the conclusion of that Committee, or whether the Committee propose to extend to the retransferred men all the advantages of the existing Warrant and of the Act of 1915. He cannot know that. I respectfully submit to him there is no immediate hurry for this Bill. I hope he will believe me when I say I am not moving its rejection in any carping spirit. He will agree that we have tried always to offer constructive criticism on the question of pensions, as our desire is to see the best possible arrangements made. I repeat there is no immediate hurry for retransferring these men before my right hon. Friend and the House is in possession of the facts which will determine whether it is wise or not, altogether apart from other considerations, on the ground of economy. Take a case of this kind, which will illustrate what I have in my mind. My right hon. Friend determines the date of the Great War at the 31st July. But there will be men serving in the Air Force, or in the Army or Navy, on the 31st July, who have taken part in the Great War, and if they are disabled and discharged on account of disability after the 31st July, they will not be eligible under this Bill for the advantages given to disabled men who fought in the Great War, because my right. hon. Friend draws a line of demarcation and says that, after that date, on the one side of the line is to be the Great War pensioner and on the other side of the line there is to be the future war pensioner. Look at the difficulties which will arise as to which Department a man, under these circumstances, should go.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If the man was serving in the Great War and was discharged after the 31st July because of

    2165
    disability due to the Great War, of course he will still remain under the Ministry of Pensions.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is what I hope, but the Bill does not enable him to do so.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Oh, yes, it does.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am afraid not. I can quite imagine that my right hon. Friend will wish to arrange that he shall, but this is one of the points I am making, that this Bill if it became an Act of Parliament would have the result, by determining the date at which the Great War terminated, of re-transferring these particular men. I understand my right hon. Friend does not admit that. Let us take his speech further. Suppose a man had served during the Great War and was discharged after the 31st July from malaria, which was not, according to the medical evidence, directly due to service in the Great War and which may have been the result of service in India. Where is that man to go? Suppose he has been in two units; suppose he has been in the Army and has been transferred thence to the Air Force. To which will he belong? Does he belong to the new pensions department, re-transferred to the War Office, or to the new pensions department, re-transferred to the Air Force, if his malaria was acquired after the 31st July? Those interested in the welfare of the men serving in the Army realise what tremendous difficulties may thus arise, and that is why I suggest that there is no immediate hurry for, at any rate, this re-transferring portion of this Bill. My right hon. Friend, of course, may want these other questions dealt with, the questions of forfeiture of statutory right of the widow and motherless child, of the treatment of children, and of the right to interfere with local committees which are not doing their work properly, but he can get these powers at any time he cares, because they constitute a question of more efficient administration. But we do not want to jeopardise the rights which men possess at the present moment. I repeat that these men would not be entitled and could not be entitled to the same benefits as the men who fought in the Great War without the granting to each of these departments of new warrants. Let me ask another question. Suppose that a man was discharged after 31st July.
    2166
    Where would he get his medical treatment? Would it be in the Ministry of Pension's hospital or in a military hospital?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I wish to make it quite clear that if it is proved that any man got his disability in the Great War then his case will remain with the Ministry of Pensions, and he will receive the treatment which the Ministry of Pensions now gives to any man who has got his disability in the War.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am quite prepared to receive that assurance from my right hon. Friend. Indeed, it is the only assurance he could give. But I am pointing out that there would be enormous difficulties.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: How?
    Mr. HOGGE: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. If you limit by a hard and fast date the period when the Great War stopped, nearly every man who is discharged from the Army or Navy after that date falls outside that date, and goes into one of the re-transferred Departments. That is my point. It is bound to be so, and if it is not obvious it is not to be so, then make it clear in the Bill. Make it plain. Remember you are dealing with soldiers and sailors who at the present moment have enormous difficulties under existing machinery to know where they stand, and if you put them in the position in which I suggest this Bill will put them, they will be worse off than ever.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will put any Clause in the Bill that will make that clear.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, because I think that a limitation of that date would cut off a great number of men. Then there is the point as to whether or not the Bill does continue Section 3 of the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915. That raises another question of policy. My right hon. Friend knows the functions of the Statutory Committee. Eleven of them are set out in Section 3. Some of these functions deal with separation allowances, and some with pensions. My right hon. Friend also knows that at the present moment no policy has been determined with regard to the new Army so far as separation allowances are concerned, and that no policy can be deter-

    2167
    mined in those re-transferred Departments with regard to the supplementation of pensions. Suppose that a soldier is serving, say, in Mesopotamia, after the 31st July, and that for some reason or other, not connected with the Great War, he dies. Are his widow and children to have the same treatment as the widow and children of a man who was killed or who died as the result of the Great War? My right hon. Friend will see at once that, if they do not, a great difference will be created between service during the Great War and service in the future. I thought we had made up our minds, as a House of Commons and as a nation, that our service men from the time of the Great War were to receive new treatment, and adequate treatment. If my right hon Friend takes them out of the Warrants that apply to the Great War, he ought to be prepared, before he asks for this power, to state explicitly what those men and their dependants are going to get, should the men become the victims of any future war. If a man were killed, say, in an Indian frontier war, or in a scrap on the Rhine— even an accidental scrap, in which a British soldier was killed—after the 31st July, would that man, or would his wife and children, not be entitled to the same allowances which obtain now under the existing Warrant?
    My right hon. Friend will see at once that he is too soon on the margin of the great War to ask for this power, and tht he would be well advised to take the administrative portions of this Bill, and drop the question of the wider policy. Even taking the ground which my right hon. Friend put forward, namely, that of economy, does the House of Commons believe for one moment that, if you re-transfer men who are at the present moment governed by the Ministry of Pensions, to the War Office, the Admiralty or the Air Force, you are not going to create a new set of officials? My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but we know that, even in the Ministry of Pensions itself to-day, he finds it enormously difficult to keep down the number of the staff. As a matter of fact a special official—a Mr. Cope, if I remember rightly—was appointed some months ago to help in the reorganisation of the Ministry of Pensions and to get rid of staff that was unnecessary. In spite of his appointment, and in spite of the dis-
    2168
    content that he has created in the Ministry by his appointment, the staff has gone up enormously.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no discontent with him; he is a most efficient officer.
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not doubt his efficiency for a moment, but if my right hon. Friend has not heard of the discontent, he has evaded successfully, so far, one of the tragedies of his Office. He will hear a great deal about it before he is many weeks older. If he has not heard of it a great many others of us have, and he has only to consult some of the ladies who have been looking for him unsuccessfully for a long time. If he will meet some of them, they will tell him something about the discontent that exists in his Department. The staff of the Ministry has gone up in spite of all the attempts to keep it down, and if new Departments are established in the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Force, as surely as we are discussing this Bill to-day those responsible for those Departments will begin to create the kind of thing to which we have been accustomed. It will duplicate matters and it will create dissatisfaction. My right hon. Friend, before he asks for that power, is entitled to tell the House what saving would be effected. I think the number he referred to was something like 4,000, or at the most 5,000 a year. With 5,000 men divided between three Departments, when you have a Ministry dealing with millions of cases, to come to the House of Commons and ask for power to do that at this time of day is really ludicrous.
    I do not want to press my right hon. Friend too hard, because I think he will agree that not only myself, but a great many others who may speak in this Debate are only inspired by a desire for effective and efficient administration. I would make this reasonable suggestion to him, namely, that it is too soon, too premature, to ask for these retransfer powers, and that he should content himself in this Bill with taking only those administrative changes which will increase the efficiency of the present Ministry of Pensions. He can then come back to the House six months or twelve months hence, when he has had another year's experience of the Ministry. After all, he is perfectly untried at the moment in the

    2169
    Ministry of Pensions; he cannot know his subject yet, and he cannot have had any opportunity of making up his own mind as to whether there is a policy which is wise or unwise. He has inherited the policy from his predecessor, and he is doing his best for the baby that he has found on the doorstep of the Ministry of Pensions. I would counsel him to "go easy" in this matter, and content himself with the administrative portions, leaving this attack on the centralised Ministry of Pensions alone until he has at least convinced himself that it is the right policy.
    Mr.PENNEFATHER: I do not agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken in the necessity for rejecting this Bill to-night, which I understand is practically the effect of his proposal. I do, however, agree with him that, before many of us actually vote in support of the Bill, we shall require more assurance and more information upon it. I think there might be a middle course. Instead of the Bill being rejected, which would have great disadvantages, the Government might consider the advisability of postponing it and bringing it forward later, after some, let me say, agreed—upon Amendments have been arrived at. I should also be disposed to agree with my hon. Friend that, at first blush, it does seem to many of us to be a reactionary step. About four years ago a number of us, including my hon. Friend, put up a most strenuous fight to prevent the Admiralty dealing with sailors in one compartment and the War Office dealing with soldiers in another compartment. As a result of our opposition this very Ministry of Pensions was born. To us it does seem to require stronger arguments than we have yet heard, and a fuller explanation than has yet been offered, as to why this apparently retrograde step should be taken. Having said that, may I now say that it is refreshing, from another point of view, to find that there is one Department of the Government which is seeking to couple economy with efficiency? If it can be proved, and we hope it will be possible for them to prove, that this means greater efficiency and. greater economy, we should, I believe, all welcome it, with one proviso, and that is that the economy must not be at the expense of our disabled ex-service men, whether they are pre-War soldiers or
    2170
    Great War soldiers. I do not think this House or the country would tolerate that sort of economy.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he comes to reply, will really give us some arguments and statements in detail. If he can give us some examples in hard facts and figures to show us where the efficiency would be improved, and where the economy would come in, that would go a long way. So far, we have had nothing beyond mere assertions; we have had really no proof and no calculations. There are certain points upon which I must confess that I can at present find no information in this Bill, and they are points which I think ought to be most clearly explained to the House. One is as to how these proposals will affect the right of appeal of the man who is discharged from the Army. At present, if a man who is discharged from the Army is not satisfied with the decision which has been given, he has rights of appeal. It might be said, in the first instance, that his disease or his disability is not attributable to war service. He has a right of appeal, and on appeal it is sometimes found that his disability is attributable to his war service. How does that stand under the Bill? Again, there is the question of the degree of disablement. Suppose that a man, under these new provisions, is discharged and comes under the Admiralty or the War Office, what right of appeal has he if his disability has been assessed at, say, 20 per cent., and if he claims that it should be assessed at a higher percentage? I find nothing whatever in the Bill throwing light on that. There is also the question of whether a disablement is temporary or is permanent, and, if temporary, for how long it should continue. On all these points and many others under the present arrangement a man has the right of appeal. I want to be assured that these rights of appeal are in no way affected by the passing of the Bill.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like to see that provided for.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: That, I presume, means that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Tryon) will give an undertaking that those points are provided for. If so, that will certainly go to disarm some of my objections and to allay my fears. The obvious intention of Clause 2 is to reduce the number of the

    2171
    local committees. That may be some gain in economy, but it means a loss of local knowledge of facts by existing committees. It may mean a loss of local sympathy with the pensioner, and it may also mean a decrease of the amenities which the pensioner at present enjoys. Those are all matters which must be carefully considered before we can give wholehearted assent to the Bill. At first sight I do not see how economy is really going to be effected. I can quite understand that if you take away a certain number of cases from the Ministry of Pensions and pass them on to the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Force, you will be able to reduce the staff at the Ministry of Pensions and to cut down salaries and expenses. But if you transfer that number of men to the Admiralty, will you not be increasing the staff there to deal with it, or would it not at least mean keeping at the Admiralty a staff which would otherwise be dispensed with? I do not think there can be any argument on the point. If there is a whole mass of work to be done and you take it away from one central administration and split it up among three other administrative bodies, you may thereby be able to reduce the staff of the central body, but it involves either an increase of the staff of the other two bodies, or at all events prevents a reduction of staff in them which might otherwise take place. I admit that there may be a reduction of staff under the Bill in connection with local pension committees, but, if so, again there may be an increase in some other direction. On balance I am very uncertain as to what extent I and a good many others can support the Bill. We realise that there are in it Clauses which we should like to see carried into effect. Therefore it is difficult to say we would vote against the Bill. But I think it is also very difficult to say I could vote for it in order to secure Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 unless I was fully satisfied about Clauses 1, 2 and 3. That is the dilemma in which we are placed, and that is the reason why I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman that he could best meet the situation by postponing the Bill in order that we may at a future and an early date be able to support an amended Bill, or one containing the assurance we want, con amore, and so be certain that the Bill as amended is one which is in
    2172
    the interests of the country at large and does not in any way prejudice the position of the service man whether he has served in this War or in other wars or whether he serves in some future war which we trust may never happen.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It does not affect any existing rights of any ex-service man either in the Great War or pre-War. All his rights are preserved.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, but I cannot at the moment see that that is provided for in the Bill. I am quite sure his word is as good as his bond. I am sure anything he intends will be carried out. But the Bill as it stands does not provide for that, and before we give it a Second Reading we ought to receive some kind of assurance as to the nature of the Amendments which will be proposed by the Government in Committee or which will be regarded by them as agreed Amendments.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman as a Scottish Member on his appearance at that box. I regret that it is our duty somewhat vigorously to oppose the first Bill he has presented. But we do so entirely from the point of view of offering constructive Amendments and suggestions which have been born of our experience in this work, not only in Scotland, but in other parts of the country as well. What was the principle for which we fought very strenuously, not only during but after the War, in war pensions administration? We always emphasised most strongly the fact that the dependants of serving men and discharged and demobilised men would gain by having one Department to deal with in this important matter. We knew that when the War broke out a variety of Departments were dealing with pensions and kindred problems. We knew the chaos and very often the hopelessness of getting any allowance at all in the first months, and indeed year or two, of war experience, and we knew that a state of affairs like that could be neither healthy nor efficient for any country passing through a great crisis such as we have experienced since 1914. By and by, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) and many others associated with him, we got a Pensions Ministry and we got a very large

    2173
    measure of centralisation in the administration of pensions, and there is not a single person engaged in the administration of pensions who is not profoundly grateful for that change and who did not appreciate the immediate practical benefits which it brought.
    I greatly regret that the very first Clause almost of the Bill proposes to revert to a state of affairs, as regards post-war pensions, which we almost universally deplore. It means that as regards these people we are to renew our conflicts and our wars with individual Departments. I appreciate entirely what the right hon. Gentleman has said regarding the appointment of a Joint Committee, whose duty it will be to coordinate matters of this kind, and, I take it, to arrive at some uniform policy. But that is not really our objection. Our objection is, broadly, that we shall be compelled to deal with these different Departments. Co-ordination may lead us to a certain uniformity, but inevitable dislocation will result, and what it could do under one roof for many years to come will be spread over these other Departments. Those who have large committees at work will not be impressed by the argument of economy. The Pensions Ministry has at least a generation of work in front of it. Our experience in disablement work teaches us that for at least that time we shall be directly and indirectly treating and providing for people who have been in one way or another victims of the European War. If that is so, and if we have got that centralised Department now working, perhaps with far greater efficiency than it ever worked before, and with a great deal of elimination of waste of time, why should we not continue in its hands for the time being these duties which are really on all fours with the work which is now overtaking us and which will give us the undoubted advantage of dealing with one centralised institution and not with a variety of offices scattered up and down London, and, it may be, the country as well? That is the dominating consideration in this Bill, and I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to abrogate that part of it and give us those parts of the Bill which are really valuable upon which we could unitedly agree.
    In the second place, the Bill contains a proposal for the division of the County Committees, and it proposes to give the
    2174
    Minister of Pensions power to re-group the administrative units for war pensions purposes in the various localities. I am at a great loss to understand exactly how that is going to fit in with the very important work some of us are trying to undertake in decentralising war pensions administration in Great Britain. I will give an illustration from our own country, which is usually very progressive, and not least progressive in this matter of pensions administration. We have set up in Scotland one of the eleven or twelve Regional Councils which have been established in this country, and it is responsible for the treatment and care of the discharged and the disabled as regards medical provision, and also for the granting of pensions and allowances through the Local Committees to the various classes of dependants. Under that one body for the whole of Scotland, our Scottish Regional Headquarters, with an Advisory Commission including four Members of this House and other representative men to serve on it, we have established four Disablement Committees similar to what are found south of the Tweed, but which cater more particularly for the four districts of Scotland—North, Central, South-East, and West. That structure has been built up as the result of a good deal of practical experience and as the result of a careful investigation by a Decentralisation Committee which was appointed at the Ministry of Pensions very soon after the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor took office there. We are all agreed that, while the structure has been completed from the bottom, while we have made more and more perfect all the machinery for dealing with the discharged, the disabled, and various classes of dependants, in actual practice in the localities many Committees have tended to break down. This has been largely due to the fact that during the crisis of war, when we were all conscious of immediate sorrow and loss, and when we were all sincerely desirous of making an immediate contribution to the solution of the country's difficulties, large numbers of voluntary workers were readily forthcoming. With the conclusion of the War and the resumption of normal occupations the voluntary workers passed away, and we had to depend more and more on paid efforts, upon skilled assistance—where we could obtain skilled assistance—and upon

    2175
    a clerical staff which we were called upon to remunerate for the first time. While all that has been accomplished, I say, as one who has every reason to pay a high tribute to voluntary workers, that their departure has meant in many a country district a partial break-down of the local touch and the local connection between the Ministry and its work at headquarters and the immediate needs of, it may be, a rural locality. That is a state of affairs which demands a remedy. I am a little nervous with regard to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman for decentralisation and the breaking up of these Committees, or it may be for creating administration in certain districts. I should like to be sure that under this Bill—I mention it for the purpose of illustration—in any steps which we take under the Bill, we are going to use the structure which so far has been evolved, and we are going to cater much more efficiently in particular for the rural districts and their acute needs, and try to bridge the gulf which very often separates the dependants and the discharged men where they are distant many miles from the larger centres of enterprise and population.
    The provision in regard to forfeiture of pension is at once humane and certainly just. I hope the Minister will be able to provide for the class of people who had no right to be penalised, as they have been penalised during recent years. We wish also to get an inquiry such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests into maladministration, but on that point may I respectfully say that I have known committees which have made every effort in the world to do their work efficiently, and have tried to abide by the Regulations, but the Regulations have been so voluminous and, in my practical experience sometimes so contradictory that no committee could put them into actual practice without inflicting serious injustice upon the disabled or certain classes of dependants. In one case, which I need not mention, there was a definite defiance of the Ministry, and there may have been that in other cases; but such maladministration as has occurred in War Pensions work throughout the country has been in the main due to certain quite honest failure to work Regulations which are sometimes beyond the power of members of the committees to understand, and which
    2176
    it was beyond their power to apply in the strict letter or even in the spirit. Much more might be done to codify the Regulations of the Ministry and to tend in the direction of simplicity. This would make for efficiency in the local committees, who would probably retain in their services a much larger proportion of men and women of public experience than they now enjoy. These are points which we shall all cordially welcome. Finally, I think every hon. Member will join in welcoming the provision with regard to the care of children. That has been one of the greatest grievances, not only of the discharged and demobilised men, but also of large sections of people who have taken an interest in the work of these local committees. If we meet that grievance we shall meet a real source of distrust, and we shall be able all the better to say that the Ministry both in its structure and the application of its rules and in the discharge of its duty to this country has brought to bear a humane, a considerate and a compassionate disposition and point of view.
    Captain LOSEBY: I have great sympathy with the Minister of Pensions in having, as the first step in his new office, to bring in a Bill which will prove to be the first step in the dissolution of his own Ministry. In spite of the right hon. Gentleman, I am unable to understand the reason for Clause 1. I could have understood bringing every pension, most certainly every form of disability pension, under the Ministry of Pensions, but, to complicate the task still further, when we have the Ministry of Pensions taking away certain of its disability pensions and handing them back again to the Admiralty, the Air Force, and the War Office, it is perfectly incomprehensible. Why have we a Ministry of Pensions at all if it is not the object of the Ministry of Pensions to administer pensions? The principle is quite wrong. In regard to these pensions, as in other matters, we want some responsible person who will take charge of these unfortunate disabled men so that that person can be decapitated, if occasion arises. We want someone whom we can hold responsible. It has been too much a practice of this particular Ministry to wait until the grievances of disabled soldiers were forced upon them by this House. My conception of the office of the right hon.

    2177
    Gentleman is that he should seek always and incessantly for the grievances and anomalies which undoubtedly exist at the present time and bring them before the attention of this House instead of waiting the other way. Unless the Ministry of Pensions will accept that position it is quite impossible to get the grievances of the pensioners before this House.
    I will give an illustration. The Second Report of the Select Committee on Pensions was published a short time ago. Some of us thought that it was a rather unsatisfactory report in certain respects. We did not agree with it in its entirety. We did not think it was as good a report as the first report. The Government accepted portions of that report, but did not accept other portions, and we have been quite unable to bring before the attention of the House certain very glaring grievances, and we cannot bring those grievances before the House under the present system of doing business. We have to rely on the Minister of Pensions and his machinery to seek them out and to introduce his own legislation. With this responsibility divided amongst Department after Department, I cannot imagine how this problem is going to be satisfactorily solved. In handing back to the War Office the administration of disability pensions of men wounded prior to 1914, the right hon. Gentleman is escaping from having to face a ridiculous anomaly. I know the right hon. Gentleman is sympathetic. I am only fighting for greater power for his elbow. If we could go to the right hon. Gentleman and say, "Here is a ludicrous anomaly, which is contrary to the pledge given by your Ministry," we could have won a concession for the men wounded before 1914; but the right hon. Gentleman will escape and will be able to say, "You must put the question to the Secretary of State for War." He will be able to say that he is not responsible for the idiosyncracies of the Secretary for War. We are fighting for the ordinary, commonsense principle that, unless there is some strong reason to the contrary, these pensions should be concentrated upon the Ministry of Pensions, and we ask the right hon. Gentleman to make himself responsible for them. Very reluctantly I shall be compelled to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill unless the right hon. Gentleman can make some concession in
    2178
    regard to this Clause. I shall very much regret to do so, because I realise that in other parts of the Bill there are some excellent provisions.
    Mr. BETTERTON: My hon. Friend who has just sat down and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Pennefather) have expressed many points of difficulty in regard to this Bill. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 embody principles which Members would like to see passed into law, and on that account I should be very loth to vote against the Bill. On the other hand I am not satisfied that the principle contained in Clause 1 is a sound principle. It would be a great pity in a matter of this kind that there should be a Division taken or that the Bill should be passed by a majority or rejected or subject to any Division at all. During the whole of last year the Select Committee on Pensions was sitting. I was a Member of that Committee and we made two Reports, the first of which was accepted practically in toto; but the second Report was dealt with in the way described by my hon. Friend (Captain Loseby). I am told that this Select Committee is to be re-appointed. While we were in existence we never heard one word about Clause 1, or of the proposals contained in it. I think it a pity if the Minister had these proposals in his mind that he did not at least ask the Select Committee on Pensions what they thought of it. In many of these matters there is the question whether it is cheaper or not or more economical or not. Economy in this matter is not the most important, because we are all determined that the pre-War and post-War pensioner shall not be deprived of any right which he now possesses. I would suggest to the Minister that if this Select Committee is re-appointed, I do not say this Bill as a Bill, but the suggestions contained in it, should be referred to the Select Committee, and they should be asked to report on them, in order that they may give some guidance to the House as to whether these principles are good or bad. We are told that this is good or that this is bad, That is a matter on which if we heard evidence we might form our own opinion, and it might be a matter of great assistance to the House in forming an opinion as to whether the Bill was a good one or not if this suggestion were adopted.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I find a difficulty in accepting Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Before the House accepts them they ought to be justified, both as regards the rights of the post-war pensioner and also as a sound administrative measure. If this Bill is read a Second time, I would desire to reserve my rights to vote against Clauses 1 and 2 when the matter is considered in Committee. At the same time I do want to point out that there is urgency for all the other Clauses of the Bill. As an example, I may refer to Clause 3. Some such provision certainly is required so far as London is concerned. The London war pensions committee were agreed with the late Minister that it is desirable that the London county committee should be dissolved and that local committees should be set up in each of the metropolitan boroughs. The reason is the setting up by the Ministry of a regional organisation, which was recommended by the Committee of which my hon. Friend opposite and I were members. The functions which the London war pensions committee perform at the present time are confined mainly to co-ordinating the work of the local sub-committees and assisting in various ways. The new regional organisation is set up to do very much the same thing. Therefore, unless you are to have overlapping and waste of time and money, it is necessary either that the London county committee should cease to exist or that the regional organisation should not perform a good many of the functions for which it is being set up.
    The Minister expressed the view that the regional organisation ought to per form those functions of co-ordinating the work in London. Therefore the London committee acquiesced in their dissolution, it being understood that an advisory committee should be set up to assist the regional organisation. That decision having been arrived at and the agreement with the Ministry, it is extremely desirable in the interests of London that they should be carried out as quickly as possible. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be given the necessary powers. I do think that some decentralisation of powers is wanted in other counties. I have reason to believe that in one county quite an efficient county committee asks that it should be dissolved, because it says you have a regional organisation on one side of the street of
    2180
    the county town, and they are on the other, and nobody knows to which to go to. It is quite clear that there is a great deal of waste of energy and money at present which could be met by some such provision as that contained in Clause 3. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading; at the same time I sympathise with the criticisms that have been offered on Clauses 1 and 2.
    Captain COOTE: I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered this Bill from the point of view of the psychology of the man himself? I have the honour to be president of a branch of a federation, which numbers some 200,000, and I know that among the members of that branch, after something like three years of suspicion and distrust of the Ministry, there is at last growing up a good feeling towards it. The soldier is beginning to believe in the Ministry, but you cannot say the same about the War Office. The soldier, as everybody knows, loathes the War Office. I cannot speak about the Admiralty or the Air Ministry, but about the War Office I know, and if you say to any particular class of soldiers, " You have got to go to the War Office, or the Admiralty or Air Ministry for your pension," he will not like it. It will break into the great principle of equality of treatment, which is the principle upon which the whole body of ex-service men insist more than upon any other principle. They are not concerned so much with the amount of the pension, or, indeed, with the administrative details in this matter. They are concerned with this, that when the award does come through, it shall be equal and shall be fair. The right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute to the work of the local committee, and in particular to the work of the county committee. This Bill is not very flattering to them. May I point out what happened on the occasion when the Ministry of Pensions was, as he says, pruned, and the subject of training was transferred to the Ministry of Labour? Has he any idea of the complexity and confusion which that caused in the work of the local committees and the dissatisfaction which the transfer occasioned to ex-service men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I did not do it.
    Mr. COOTE: I know that the right hon. Gentleman did not do it, but he should make inquiries, before becoming sponsor

    2181
    to a Bill of this sort, as to the effects of pruning on similar lines. The result of that pruning has not been increased efficiency in the provision of training for disabled men. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the difficulties under which the local committees will labour if this Bill is passed in its present form. It is bad enough when they have to deal with one Department God help them if they have to deal with three. If it goes to a Division, I shall vote against the Bill in spite of agreeing with my hon. Friend that the majority of the provisions are essential. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the suggestion to refer the proposals contained in Clause 1 to the Select Committee if and when it is reconstituted, and that he should bring in at once another Bill embodying the principles contained in the latter Clauses of the present Bill. This would meet the universal opposition which this Bill, taken as a whole, has encountered to-day, and would certainly be appreciated and welcomed outside this House.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I wish to call attention to the great change involved in Clause 8. Constitutionally, I suppose it is the greatest change in the Bill, as it gives a statutory right to certain people to their pensions, but I would like to know why it is limited to the widow and the motherless child. Clearly it does not cover all those who are entitled to pensions. I do not see why the others are excluded from the statutory right. The phrase in Clause 7 is "whatever children or other dependants." I do not know why the same or a similar phrase should not be used in Clause 8. There is a great feeling of hardship and wrong on the part of many people who claim a pension when they are simply told that the Ministry decides the facts against them, or rules out their claim. This Clause will now give a statutory right in some of those cases, but if it is going to give a statutory right to the dependant who happens to be a motherless child, why is it not going to give the same statutory right, say, to the mother or father of the soldier who is in a destitute or helpless condition, or to any other dependant of the late soldier? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say why the statutory right is limited to such a very narrow class of people, a class which is very important,
    2182
    but does not comprise anything like the whole of the dependants, or the whole of the most necessitous and suffering of the dependants. How is this statutory right going to work? How is it to be enforced? I take it that a claimant will have the right to go to some tribunal or some court of law and plead in all these cases as against the Ministry of Pensions, and that it will be decided as a matter of law on the interpretation of the Warrant and the Regulations, and on proof of the facts. How is that to be done? What will the tribunal be and what provision will be made for bringing it quite close to the homes of the people and making it of a very cheap character so that their right shall be real and not illusory?
    Mr. BARNES: I only read this Bill since I sat on this Bench listening to the speeches. I agree with a great deal of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and succeeding speakers as to the latter Clauses. I take it that the time has come when the War Pensions Committees are probably too large and too numerous for the work which was thrust upon them in 1915, 1916, and afterwards, and therefore I endorse thoroughly the provisions of Clause 3 as to re-organising and even dissolving some of these Committees. But I would like also to associate myself very fully with what has been said by the Pensions Minister as to the work done by those committees. I know of no better or more disinterested service by any of the committees or War bodies than that which was done by the Pensions Committees, work which was done, not in the glare of public life or on public platforms, but in quiet, little, and sometimes dirty, halls in the back streets of manufacturing towns, and in those halls and in the streets round about inquiries were made by them day after day, without any hope of fee or reward, while they performed the very finest service to the community. But the time has come when it is no longer necessary that committees should exist in such large numbers.
    8.0 P.M.
    I should like to be assured as to whether or not the constitution of these committees will be the same as hitherto. I remember that we had a stiff fight to get the representation of Labour upon them. I take it that that will be continued? The subsequent Clauses of the Bill are, I think, all

    2183
    right. I specially welcome the provision made in Clause 7 as to the humane treatment of a person after he has completed a term in prison, and also the statutory right given to the widow and the children. The suggestion has been made that the question as to the application of Clauses 1 and 2 should be referred to a Select Committee. I cannot endorse that suggestion. The question as to whether or not there is to be one Pensions Department dealing with all pensions in future, or whether we should revert to the old system of each Department dealing with its own and a Pensions Department still existing, is a matter of general principle not to be decided by a Select Committee, but on the Floor of this House. I have not yet been convinced of the need of reverting to the old system. Whether that be done or not, I heartily agree with the statement of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that we have not as yet arrived at the time when it should be done, nor are we sufficiently seized of the need for safeguarding all the rights of the men who would be transferred. The Bill provides that the Minister is to be the sole judge in any question arising in future if a man's pension is assessable in the Pensions Department or the War Office. That is to say, the whole power rests with the Pensions Minister. I take it that any Pensions Minister would be rather inclined to shunt awkward questions back to the War Office or to the Admiralty. But if that were not so, is it quite clear that this Bill gives to a man a right to have his rights transferred? The Pensions Minister says his rights are so transferred, but that is not in this Bill. After all, a man's position will be determined, not by what the right hon. Gentleman says in Debate, but by what may happen to be in an Act of Parliament.
    I think the Special Grants Committee is a very important body. Some authority should exist to decide in cases that could not be decided by the rigid Rules and Regulations of any Department, and this body has been found increasingly useful during the last two or three years. I can see nothing in this Bill which will give the man the rights he now has, nothing which transfers those rights. There is the further question of principle. I am inclined to think that we are making a wrong departure. In introducing this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman pointed
    2184
    out that there would be a certain amount of overlapping if the conditions remained as they are, that the Departments gathered up the information and transferred it to the Pensions Department, and that there was additional expense engendered thereby. It is a matter for consideration which is the larger additional expense—transferring information from the various Departments and letting the Pensions Department deal with it, or continuing four separate Departments dealing with the matter. It seems to me that the simpler way would be to have all the information transferred to the Pensions Department and to let that Department deal with every case. I feel sure that the man outside would regard that as much the better plan. From the time the War began it has always been a difficulty with a man or his wife or his widow to know to whom to write. At the War Office, perhaps, they were told they should write to the Pensions Office, and then they were told they should write to the Admiralty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will follow the advice given him to take all the powers conferred on him by the Clauses following Clause 2, and to leave Clauses 1 and 2 to be decided not by a Select Committee but on the floor of the House after more complete information has been obtained, and further time for consideration has been given in this House.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (Major Tryon): In view of the many helpful speeches that have been made, I think i ought at once to make it clear that there has been some misunderstanding on one point. The Pensions Ministry retains the administration of everything concerned with the great War. All those who served in the War retain the whole of their present rights both to pension and to appeal, now and in the future. No man who served in the great War will lose any rights he has now. When we speak of economy we speak of economies which we hope to obtain in administration; we do not speak of any economy in the rights of the pensioners themselves. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) spoke of our having three Warrants in future. As a matter of fact there are three Warrants now. With reference to the personal attack which he made on Mr. Cope, may I say that I understood it has always been the custom of this

    2185
    House to attack the Ministers responsible and not the Civil Servants who are ably discharging their duty? Another hon. Member raised a very important point as to the sympathetic treatment of pensions locally by people who know individual cases. All that is retained under the Bill. What we propose to do is to eliminate the county committees. That is not because they have not done their work well; they have done most valuable work for the country, and I should like to pay my tribute to them and to the local committees. What has happened is that they have instituted in their counties smaller committees which deal personally with the pensioner, and regions have been set up. It would make too many divisions if you had a central administration in London, eleven regions also being administered, county districts being administered by county committees, and then the small committees. It would call for four sets of administration, and it is obviously better for the pensioner to substitute a smaller number. We have retained all touch with the localities, but we remove some of the machinery which has done excellent work, but which has become unnecessary.
    The main point is that all the pensioners of the Great War retain now, and in the future, all the rights conferred on them and the warrants stand. One hon. Member said it was a bad thing for men to have to go to three different Departments. That is a bad thing, and that is the difficulty which in two important cases is being removed by the Bill. Under Clause 1 (2) the war pensions for officers wounds are transferred to the Pensions Ministry. Those officers have to go at present to the War Office for wound pensions, and if they draw an additional pension for disability they have to go to the Pensions Ministry. Under the Bill those officers instead of going to two Departments will go to one, and that will complete the arrangement under which everything connected with the Great War is wholly, fully and permanently under the Ministry of Pensions. On the other hand, there are men of the three services, who, unless a war occurs, will be earning pensions, I trust not for wounds or disability but for length of service. It seems to be the more natural thing in that case that the men should draw their pensions from the employing Department which asked them to join the service and which
    2186
    knows and has the whole record of their service. I trust they will not be disability or wound pensions, because we hope there will be no war. But if they have a disability, it would be a disadvantage to send those men to another Department. As to disability pensions, only yesterday I was able to announce to the House a scheme which places regular soldiers disabled in the present war, I am very glad to say, in a better position. Under that scheme they draw disability pensions to the full amount, and also, if they are thrown out of their service by disability, they get a pension or gratuity as well in proportion to their length of service. We believe that it is essential in both cases to have one Department paying those men instead of having to go to two. I hope now that I have dealt with most of the points that the House will help us by granting the Second Reading in order that any further points may be raised in Committee.
    Several HON. MEMBERS having risen—
    Mr. MACPHERSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

    POOR RATES, LONDON(EQUALISATION).
    Mr. KILEY: I beg to move:
    "That this House considers that the further equalisation of rates in the county of London is a matter which should receive the early attention of His Majesty's Government."
    This is not a new proposition. In the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, issued in the year 1909, it was recommended that Poor Law expenditure in London should be a uniform charge over London according to its rateable value. Although Presidents of the Local Government Board have appeared and disappeared, no effective action has been taken to bring this very desirable reform into force. If it was necessary

    2187
    in the year 1909 that some share of the burden of the poor should be equally distributed, it will be apparent from some figures I am about to give that such a change is much more necessary to-day. In the last set of figures I have been able to obtain, those for the year 1912–13, London spent on its poor the sum of £3,815,000, and that would represent a rate on the rateable value of London on an equal charge of 1s. 9d. in the £. In the present year I find that the expenditure in the borough of Stepney alone on Poor Law will amount to £432,000, and in 1912 the amount spent for that purpose in that borough was £156,000. That means the increase of a poor rate from 1s. 9d. in 1912 to something like 5s. 9d. in the present year. The reason why the rate has varied to that extent cannot be traced, in my judgment, to an increase in the number of paupers, because the number of paupers in London has decreased in the periods which I have mentioned by something like one-third. In 1913 the total number of paupers who received relief from the rates in London was 99,000, and in the year 1919 that figure had decreased to something like 54,000. In order to effectively look after the interests of those 54,000 there are something like 44 Poor Law authorities, and the result is that there is a considerable amount of overlapping and diversity in the methods of the different Boards.
    In one board of guardians they set their face very determinedly against what is known as outdoor relief, whilst the adjoining district do quite the opposite and endeavour to keep people out of poor law institutions by giving them generous assistance. That works out in this way, that you may get in one street one authority working on one principle, and on the other side of the street you get the reverse. Although efforts have been continuously made—I think even the county council themselves have repeatedly passed resolutions in favour of some definite action being taken so as to equalise the burden of the poor—those efforts up to the present have not resulted in any satisfactory action being taken. To show how very unjustly the present system operates, one has only to look at what is the effect of a penny rate in different districts. If you take a district like Bethnal Green, you will find
    2188
    that a penny rate represents a sum of £2,216, in Marylebone a penny rate represents £9,269, and in Westminster a penny rate produces something like £29,216; yet, owing to the system which has too long prevailed in London of having these forty different bodies each levying its rates in its own area, the poorer the place is the greater are their obligations, and that shows the very urgent need there is for the Ministry to permit of no further delay in dealing with the problem.
    The Minister of Health might, I think, throw some light upon the reasons for this terrific increase in the cost of the poor law. We are quite prepared to expect, in consequence of the increased cost of commodities, that there should be an increase, and yet, with a steady decline in the number of people who need assistance from 99,000 in 1913 to 64,000 now, the cost has mounted up to a colossal figure. In addition, there are all the other bodies who are now butting in for contributions. For instance, in my own borough, the Minister of Health has thought it advisable to provide a large sum of money for seeing that expectant mothers and very poor children should have the necessary nourishment, and as a result in the borough of Stepney we are preparing now to spend something like £50,000 during the coming year on supplying milk to expectant mothers and very poor children. The Minister has undertaken to provide half the sum, but I mention it as an evidence of the additional sums that are required from the different boroughs. There are a number of other organisations now at work. The county council are feeding necessitous children; they are also having medical inspection for the purpose of providing treatment; there are local consumptive dispensaries, in which the local councils and the county council are interested; there is the Metropolitan Asylums Board, who are also doing some part of this work; and I think, if the real truth of the matter could be located, it would be found that this vast and ever-increasing expenditure is not due so much to the benefits which the poor people in need receive, as it is to waste and over-lapping and the setting up of so many different bodies. In view of the great amount of assistance which is now forthcoming in the way of old age pensions, health insurance, and so forth, One would expect our charges not to

    2189
    remain stationary, but to decrease, yet when we look at our rates we find year by year that there is a constant and colossal increase. I think the House will be well justified in asking the Ministry not to allow any further delay in this very urgent matter.
    Mr. GILBERT: I beg to second the Motion. I notice that my hon. Friend has specially moved it to make it apply only to the poor-rates of London. The question of rates in London is one which is always a puzzle to the person who does not live in London, and it is also a very great puzzle to the person who pays the rates, because there are so many rating authorities in London that the ordinary ratepayer in London really does not know what he is paying the rates for. I think country Members who have been connected with municipal authorities in the country, where they practically have one area for local purposes and one rating authority for that area rating for all purposes, would, if they studied the question of rating in London, be very much surprised by the number of rates and rating authorities we have in this great county of London. We have dealings with central rates. We have a County Council which is responsible for the rates for all common purposes, including education, and in addition there are other central rates, like the police rate, which the London ratepayer has to pay and over which he has no control except through Members in this House, who can criticise the matter on the Home Office Vote. In addition, the London ratepayer has to pay a deficiency at the present time on the working of the Metropolitan Water Board, and the only control he has over that kind of charge is the indirect representation which he has on the Board, which is elected by the local authorities, not only in London, but also outside the county of London. Then we have the local borough councils, who rate for purposes in their own particular areas, and in addition to that we have the Guardians' rate, which is the poor-rate. The poor-rate in London in a way has a kind of common fund. There is the common poor-law fund, which for certain purposes is common to the whole of the Boards of Guardians of London, and the expenses of certain duties which are thrown upon the Guardians are pooled in that fund. The expenses for such things as lunatics, insane poor, persons
    2190
    suffering from fever or smallpox, medicine, medical and surgical appliances, salaries of poor-law officers, rations of poor-law officers, registration of births and deaths, vaccination fees and expenses, maintenance of pauper children, expenses under the Housing and Poor Law Acts, a grant which is given to Boards of Guardians for indoor paupers of 5d. per day per head, ambulances and ambulance stations and some other small items dealing with administration. The whole of these charges are an equal charge on the common Poor Fund, but the expenditure which is made by the guardians above those charges which they have the right to make on the common Poor Fund are met by a rate which varies in different parts of London.
    If I may quote a few figures of the varying rates in London, I think hon. Members will see how difficult this question is in the administration of Local Government in London. For instance, the last Poor Rate figures I have been able to obtain are the figures for 1918–19. The Poor Rate for Bermondsey was 1s. 11·07d., Bethnal Green 1s. 1·94d., Camberwell 1s. 7·20d. When you come to some of the Central Boroughs like Finsbury, it is only 5·16d. Fulham is 9·21d. Coming to some of the richer Boroughs, the rate for Hampstead is l·54d. In Holborn, the charge for Poor Law administration is charged on the parishes, and it varies from 4·83d. in the Parish of Furnival's Inn to 1s. 4·54d. in the Parish of Lincoln's Inn. Taking some other large districts, Islington is 10·78d., Lambeth 11·50d., Poplar 3s. 3·39d., Marylebone 4·31d., St. Pancras 1s. 0·54d. Stepney has also a number of parishes varying from 10·77d. in Aldgate to 2s. 11·60d. in St. George's-in-the-East. In Westminster, another rich parish, which also consists of a number of other parishes, it varies from 2·76d. in St. Anne's to 3·25d. in St. Paul, Covent Garden. If you average all those varying rates for the whole of London it is 8·85d.
    Those of us who have been connected with London's government for some years, and who have followed the various questions with which London is faced, think that, not only should there be more equalisation of rates from a Poor Law point of view, but also from other points of view. I do respectfully suggest that, in dealing with the poor of the great County of London, the poor should be

    2191
    regarded as belonging to the whole of the County, and that the charge for aining them should be an equal charge all over the County, that there should not be one small charge for the rich parishes, where they have practically few poor and where, under the present system, they are mainly responsible for their own poor, while the poor parishes, in the East End particularly, where people have been driven, largely because of improvements in the central part of London, and the rebuilding of houses into business premises, warehouses and factories, are made to bear the whole of the cost of the poor who live in these districts. There is another very great grievance in regard to this Common Poor Fund at the present moment. Under the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, it has been fixed that the amount granted shall be based on the amount which was granted in the year 1914, the year when the War broke out. Bearing in mind the great increase of cost, anybody will see that fixing the amount according to practically pre-War times is very unfair, and acts very disadvantageously to the Poor Law districts of London.
    When the present Minister of Health was Minister of Reconstruction he appointed a Committee to consider this question of the functions of Poor Law Authorities, and there is a very long Report from that Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), was Chairman. I think it is known as the Maclean Report. They brought forward a very strong representation that there should be an alteration in the system of Poor Law government in London as it exists now. That Report was made, I believe, in 1918, and those of us who have been connected with the government of London are very anxious to know what decision the Government are going to take upon the Report of that Committee. We think it would be a very great reform if the proposals of the Committee were carried out, and it would make a very great difference with regard to Poor Law Administration in London. I hope the House will adopt the Resolution. This has been a crying grievance in London for a great many years. I think we have practically an unanswerable case when we have these varying rates in London for the same purpose, and anything the
    2192
    Government can do which will help to equalise the Poor Rate for London will, I am sure, be greatly appreciated by the ratepayers of London.
    Major GRAY: I listened with some interest to the speech made by the Mover of the Resolution. I know that he expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the inequality and a desire for equalisation, but I did not find any indication as to how it was to be done. Those of us who have had opportunities in the past of going into this question have quite realised the inequality and the desire for some equalisation, but the crux of the whole question is the method by which it shall be accomplished, and on that we have had no enlightenment whatever. I venture to submit that it means one of two things—either central administration, the abolition of the whole of the local boards of guardians, which is a big question, or what, in my judgment, is much preferable, namely, the complete reform of the Poor Law on the lines of the Maclean Report. I did not hear any suggestion that the House should at once take that report into consideration, and that the Government should be induced to put the recommendations into force. If it simply means that you shall take from certain areas of London a larger amount of money than the 6d. paid now, and transfer that to another area, I say that that is a wrong principle altogether. It is a direct encouragement to extravagant administration, because this inequality does not depend entirely upon the number of poor found in the district; it does depend in a very large measure upon the method of administration adopted in the district. I gather my hon. Friend assents to that. It is perfectly obvious that if one board of guardians, say, is disposed to deal liberally with the demands made upon its funds, if it realises that a large part of the money will not be found in its own district, but from another, a direct incentive to extravagance will be given, or there will be a want of the necessary care.
    We are therefore driven to one of two alternatives. You must either centralise the administration and place the whole power in the hands of a single authority —and if I were to advocate that this evening, I should be told it was an evidence of county council megalomania; it is not because I dare not suggest it, though I am perfectly certain the county

    2193
    council does not in the least want to take over this business—if you have one central authority, then I am bound to say whenever you bring that reform into existence the whole question of organisation, and of Poor Law reform will have to be taken into consideration. This will include the establishment and methods of Care Committees, dealing with children, the treatment of those who are now treated as indoor paupers, the methods of outdoor relief—the whole of this will have to come under review. If the hon. Member who moved this Resolution had put his Resolution in the form that it was urgently necessary that the whole question of the reform of the Poor Law should be taken into the consideration of this House, I for one would have joined him most cordially. But when this Resolution simply means the transfer of funds from one district to another, and the maintenance of existing organisations, it will be a ruinous procedure and an encouragement to extravagance. As one interested in local administration, the Resolution is one which I cannot for a moment support. Therefore, though I realise and appreciate the difficulties which arise through these inequalities, I for one cannot vote for the Resolution.
    Mr. LORDEN: I am very much in sympathy with the last speaker. I feel that the whole question of Poor Law administration wants overhauling from top to bottom. We have had a Royal Commission, which issued an important Report. My feeling is that we ought certainly to have some of its recommendations put into force, and not deal with the matter in this tinkering sort of manner. The suggestion put forward that you should equalise the rates, as shown by the last speaker in a very able way, is simply moving the burden from one part of London to another. Not only that, but it is an encouragement to the utmost extravagance, because there will be no incentive to economy and no real check upon the various boards of guardians. I hope sincerely that when we hear the Minister of Health he will give us some hope that there is to be some alteration in Poor Law administration, because there is a necessity for something to be done. No one at present, or very few, takes any interest in the work of the boards of guardians. That work is very necessary and should have an
    2194
    interest taken in it. I trust we shall have some inkling of what is going to happen, because it is extremely important that this all-important question should be dealt with, not in the way suggested by the hon. Member opposite, but by dealing with the whole matter from top to bottom.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): It cannot be controverted that the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) has well represented the case of a well-worn grievance. I myself have no disposition to complain of the very moderate and fair way in which he stated his case. It is quite the proper thing that those of us who represent London constituencies should not fail to have brought to our attention once more, especially in view of the rapid increase of rates which is now taking place, the importance of this question. My hon. Friend has pointed out how Poor Law expenditure has gone up. As the House knows very well, the poor-rate includes a great many things—far too many. Therefore we must not readily conclude that because expenditure, which normally includes various things under the heading of the poor-rate, has increased, it is all due to maintenance of the poor. It is not. It is due to many other services of which we are well aware. One of the chief items in every district at present is the increase in salaries and similar outgoings. Then there are in some places other items included in varying quantities of which my hon. Friend gave illustrations, and as to which I may say a word. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras, who spoke last, and the hon. Member for Accrington, who preceded him, drew attention to the fact that an incentive to local economy was found in the local rate being placed upon those in the locality. To a certain extent that is clearly so. At the same time I think the chief failing of London local government has been that we have had no spirit of citizenship. The inhabitants, say, of Paddington have no interest in the well-being of the inhabitants of Wandsworth. London is not looked upon as one great city, but merely a congeries of places. It is a great loss to London development and administration that the solidarity of the place has been so ill developed from time to time. To digress for a moment, I have found this spirit, the lack of the proper spirit, one of the biggest handicaps in raising the money for housing in the county area, and because

    2195
    there is not that local patriotism for London as a whole which you find in provincial cities.
    While I recognise the validity of the objection of my hon. Friends, I say it should not carry us too far, because it is merely the expression of that unnatural sub-division of interest which is one of the greatest drawbacks to London life. I was speaking to a gentleman the other day, and I was putting to him the necessity of launching this campaign with reference to local housing bonds, and he put the very question which is in my mind. He said, " Why should I who live in Paddington help to find money for houses in Southwark?" I will not tell hon. Members the answer which I gave him, but it is that kind of thing which is largely responsible for the difficulties of London Government. We have never had solidarity. If we had, we should never have had the decisions of guardians elections and borough council elections determined by a mere handful of voters. I may upon another occasion have something to say as to the expenditure upon the items which the hon. Gentleman opposite has mentioned. With regard to the expenditure upon milk at Stepney, that is a matter of inquiry by my Department. It has been pointed out that there is a difference of 6s. in the £ between different boroughs in regard to expenditure on practically the same services. In my view, it is utterly inequitable that the poorer districts should have to bear the whole burden of their poor, and that is the main complaint which my hon. Friend rightly brings to our notice once more. I could make various suggestions as to modifications which might, to some extent, meet the case in regard to the equalisation of rates, and I might make certain comments upon the contributions and arrangements made in connection with the Metropolitan common Poor Fund, but, in my opinion, these are mere trivialities.
    The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Gilbert) referred to the Maclean Report, and he wants to know what we are going to do about it. It will be remembered that some time ago there was an explicit and deliberate expression of opinion with regard to the principal recom mendations of that Committee, and we proposed to give effect to them as soon as we could. But this distinguished Com-
    2196
    mittee, like many others, formulated very general propositions, and when it came to solving the administrative difficulties which stood in the way of their application, we did not find their Report so clear and constructive as it was with regard to their general propositions. Of course, this was entirely excusable, because they were confronted with the biggest problem of local government that stands before this country. We have a number of people dealing with various sections of this matter, and it was our intention and our hope that a Bill founded upon their findings would have been available very soon, because we fully mean business on this matter. Wherever you begin to deal with our poor law system, you find yourselves confronted not with one set but with many difficulties, and it is rather like a jig-saw puzzle, if you take out one thing everything else falls to pieces.
    You might think that the recommendations of the Maclean Report were fairly simple to carry out, but it really involves the whole fabric of the poor law system. For example, the health services are manifold. There is the domiciliary work and the maintenance of the hospitals. Now, it is clear that any authority responsible for domiciliary work is not the proper authority to deal with the hospitals, which affect a much bigger area When you come to deal with the hospital side of the question, you find yourselves confronted with a lot of minor questions affecting the services which should be attached to a hospital, and they affect the interests, not only of a county, but sometimes of a group of counties.
    9.0 P.M.
    In regard to the poor law, certain rates are levied to meet the cost. Directly you begin to consider the taking out of any service administered at present by the poor law, you are confronted by the question: What are you to do with respect to the rates that go to pay for that service? You have assessment authorities, assessing rates on all sorts of bases, and you cannot take out any of these services without dealing with the manner in which those funds are raised. Therefore, as an essential part of the poor law question, however simple it may seem in regard to certain services, you will find immediately that you are arrayed against all sorts of other questions. I confess that the administrative difficulties which have to be overcome and disentangled in this matter go far beyond the general recom-

    2197
    mendations made by the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). What applies to the assessment authorities applies equally to the very complex question of grants. There are all manner of grants-in-aid. There are grants of varying percentages. There is whisky money here and money from something else there. You have a complex hotchpotch system of grants-in-aid. Directly you take out any service for which grants are made, you have to deal with the whole complex question of grants. We are not in a position to make any proposals at present. There are at least four divisions of the subject which go together. There are the health services of various kinds. There are the services relating to able-bodied paupers, including the children. There are questions relating to assessment and assessment authorities. It is no use tinkering with questions of this kind. The demand has been made that there should be a common service for all. We have had all manner of areas, we have had services overlapping, areas overlapping, and costs overlapping. But we cannot get rid of these inequalities without dealing with the system altogether. We have to carry out in the main the general principles of the recommendations of this Committee with which the Government has expressed its concurrence. I am offering no objection to the Resolution. It has given some of us an opportunity of going into the subject, of the importance of which there can be no question. It is particularly important from the point of view of the present rise in rates all over the country. London represents, perhaps, the most difficult side of the problem, but similar problems have arisen elsewhere than in London. One of the problems which will have to be dealt with at an early date relates to the basis of assessment, which is very serious and very difficult all over the country. Its inequalities and the misunderstandings that have arisen on the subject are provocative of much hardship. I hope my hon. Friend will not ask me to say more than that I sympathise with the object of his Resolution. For a long time past we have had a number of officers outside specially working on the problems he has raised, with a view to making good our pledge to the country that we would, as soon as
    2198
    we could, give effect to the general recommendations of the Report to which reference has been made. I hope my hon. Friend will be content with that assurance.
    Mr. KILEY: I cannot but express profound disappointment with the statement we have just had from the Minister, in view of the fact that a Royal Commission in the year 1909 made a recommendation that action should be taken on the lines indicated in my Resolution. To find ourselves now, after waiting ten years getting such a disappointing reply—a reply which leaves us where we were in the year 1909—is I must frankly say most discouraging. I would like to refer to a statement made by an hon. Friend on the question of control. For years I had the privilege of serving on a local council, and nothing was more irritating than when the board of guardians put in a demand for £50,000 or £100,000, and we had no option but to pay it. It is true that the expenditure was confined to the locality, but there was no control over it because the people who spent the money were not those who raised it. I would like to call attention again to the difference which prevails in the rating. In St. George's-in-the-East at the present moment the rates amount to 19s. 4d. in the pound, while in St. George's-in-the-West the rate is only 10s. 2d. With these facts before us, I think the Minister will realise that the position which Members like myself, especially interested in the East of London, are in when we get figures of that nature justify us in entertaining the feeling of very great disappointment with his reply. I hope even now the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration to the subject, and that he may be able to assure us that, on one matter at all events, the levying of the poor rate in London, the obtaining of uniformity will not be delayed very much more than the present year.
    Resolved,
    "That this House considers that the further equalisation of rates in the county of London is a matter which should receive the early attention of His Majesty's Government."

    LAND VALUES, RATING.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move:
    "That, in the opinion of this House, local rates should be levied upon the unimproved

    2199
    value of land and buildings, and improvements should be exempted from assessment."
    The resolution which I have the honour to move might be described in olden times as a hardy annual. From 1900 up to the time of the War it was introduced year after year, and it had behind it backers of some importance. It is true that most of them are gone. Sir Alfred Bilson, who used always to introduce this Resolution, is unfortunately dead, and Sir Charles Trevelyan is no longer with us. The Bills dealing with this question introduced in the 1900 and 1906 Parliaments were not only backed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), who himself introduced one of the Bills, but also by the present Prime Minister. We have practically every Liberal statesman of the past pledged to the reform advocated in the Resolution. It has not been introduced since the War, and consequently it has become so strange to modern politicians that they put the comma in the wrong place. The Resolution should read as follows:
    "That, in the opinion of this House, local rates should be levied upon the unimproved value of land, and buildings and improvements should be exempted from assessment."
    That is the Resolution which has the support of over 50 town and urban district councils. It has been passed even by the conservative municipality of Manchester, and many other great cities have taken upon themselves to urge upon the Government the initiation of this essential reform. We may say that it is one of the few reforms that have been asked for by municipalities who very rarely go out of their way to urge upon the Government special Resolutions. They ask for the right to impose upon land value some of those rates which at present fall upon land and buildings together.
    Mr. DOYLE: I beg to call attention to the fact that 40 members are not present.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): Colonel Wedgwood.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Being an old Member of the House, I know that we cannot move a count before a quarter
    2200
    past nine. This question is of enormous importance to the whole of the community. Rates are levied upon the annual value of every hereditament in their present condition, let as they are and for the purpose for which they are suited at the present time; in the words of the Statute, Rebus sic stantibus. Ordinarily, the property is rated at the sum for which it will let. If it be occupied by the owner himself, they estimate the sum for which it would let. That is the basis of the assessment in every case. The Assessment Committee have to consider the use to which the property is put or could be put in its present condition. That has the grave disadvantage of penalising any property owner who improves his property. The more he improves his property the more rates he has to pay. If an owner of a house who employs labour puts in a bay window and improves the condition and appearance of the street thinks he is going to get any benefit, he is greatly mistaken. He will not receive visits from his neighbours congratulating him upon his improvement. The only person who will visit him will be the rate collector, demanding an increased subsidy for the town. That directly discourages the good property owner. You have two owners of property on two different sides of the road. One man employs labour in putting up private houses and his rates are increased immediately, not merely ten-fold, but 20 and even 30fold. On the other side of the road is a landlord who does not improve his property. He leaves it the receptacle of dead cats and empty tins, and as a result his property is only let and rated at £2, of which half is remitted under the Agricultural Rates Act. The good landlord who creates houses and employs labour is penalised, and the bad landlord who starves his property of labour and capital and keeps the land idle receives a bonus from the State. Everybody who thinks this matter of rating out must realise that the present system is bad.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    The House was adjourned at nineteen minutes after Nine of the Clock till To-morrow.