§
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £178,346, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Dr. MURRAYI wish to ask the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what is to be the policy of the Government with regard to the herring-curing industry. Members of the House interested in the matter are aware that the pickled herring industry is in a very precarious condition, and has been ever since the Armistice. The most important markets for pickled herrings are Russia and Germany, and those markets have been closed up. A great number of fishermen along the East Coast of England and Scotland and on the West Coast of Scotland, who have been engaged in this industry in the past, are unemployed. The great bulk of them during the War were either in the Army or were working on the trawler section of the Royal Naval Reserve. When they got back to their homes they found that their industry was practically gone. There was no market for cured herrings, and there was no other occupation for them in those parts of the country. The consequence is there has been a great deal of unemployment on the East and West Coasts of Scotland. That unemployment began long before other industries in the country were affected. When those other industries were booming, the pickled 234 herring industry, on which a thousand or two families depend for a livelihood, was becoming a failure. We are quite willing to acknowledge that the Government during the first year or two gave very considerable assistance to this industry, but I understand that this year it has actually refused to give any sort of financial help.
That, of course, is part of the policy of cutting down subsidies and expenditure in every direction. If the policy had been universally applied we would have had no reason to complain so far as this particular industry is concerned, but we notice that agriculture has been and is being helped in various ways. The millers get a subsidy for using home-grown wheat. Public money is thus used to help the farmers. I see placards posted all over the place intimating that the Government are offering £10,000,000 to the mining industry to help it, and in addition to that the country is paying a good deal in aid of the railway industry. There is a great deal of talk about key industries. If there is one key industry in this country it is the fishing industry. I am speaking of key industries in the technical sense in which they were spoken of during the War. If we are going to have another war—I hope we shall not—certainly these fishermen who were employed in the last war will be again required to man our ships and to work the trawlers and cruisers. If this country is to experience the calamity of war in the future I regard the fishing industry as a key industry, because the men engaged in it will be expected to serve the country again. The danger at present is that the great bulk of the men hitherto engaged in the herring industry may leave it and fend for themselves in other directions, mostly by emigration. I heard only yesterday that from only one small part of my own constituency 200 of these fishermen who have served us in time of need will be compelled, on account of the absolute failure of the herring industry, to emigrate when they get the chance.
The result of this failure of the industry is to cause wholesale emigration of these men to other parts of the Empire, and sometimes to America. That may be a good thing for Canada or Australia or wherever they may go, but it is a bad thing for the country, because it is really the best and most energetic men who will go away. The least active men are apt to 235 remain at home and try and pick up a crumb here and there, but the result of the Government's policy, present or contemplated, with regard to this very essential key industry, will be that in a few years no men will be left to carry on the industry, and most of them will have emigrated to other countries. I am not talking merely to make the flesh creep, but am stating actual facts which I know. I know that a great number of these men are wondering to what part of the Empire they will emigrate, because practically the industry is dead. One is glad to see that in connection with Russia the Government have adopted a new policy and have made a trade agreement with that country. One of the first effects of that has been that some of last year's pickled herrings have been shipped to Russia—£200,000 worth, I understand. I admit that that is a good beginning, but the conditions are still such that some Government assistance for the industry—and I fear it must be financial assistance—is absolutely necessary. I believe, however, that if the Government gave the industry a financial guarantee it would not lose money by it in the future. At present it is impossible for private enterprise to continue the trade as in past years. The Government have certainly now done well, but they have done it too late. They have been so long in coming to an agreement with Russia with regard to trade relations, that during the time they have been dawdling with this question the herring industry has been almost broken up.
Not only is the industry in itself an industry essential to the welfare of the country, but these men have very special claims on the Government, and, although it would cost a little money, I think that if any industry deserves to be kept from destruction it is this industry, in which these brave men who helped us so much in the War are engaged. It makes my blood boil when I think of the light-hearted—and I may almost say lightheaded—way in which the Government spend over £30,000,000 upon people in Mesopotamia, who gave us no aid in the War, and, since the War, have been murdering our men and refuse to accept the civilisation we offer them. While the Government are willing to spend money in every country except their own, they are content to leave trade undeveloped 236 here, and to allow an important industry of this kind to languish and die. It is a peculiar form of patriotism, and certainly one that I do not understand. If the Government say that they cannot give financial assistance in this case, I ask, why do they give it to those in other parts of the world who have no claim to it? I know that if the Minister had his own way he would be sympathetic to the cause which I am now advocating, and I do press him, in the interests not only of the Scottish, but of the English fishing industry—an honourable industry that has produced a class of men who are an asset to the country—to do what he possibly can to restore it to the position which it occupied in days gone by. As a by-product of the present conditions, while some of these men, and women also, have to pay in connection with unemployment insurance, they do not, because the trade is of a seasonal character, get the unemployment benefit. I get scores of letters every week complaining that these men, who cannot get employment anywhere, cannot get their insurance pay, nor can those who have been soldiers or sailors get the out-of-work donation. They are hit both ways; they can neither get work in their own industry nor the assistance which the Government intended that people honestly out of employment should be able to get. I hope that this question will receive, as it deserves, the sympathetic attention of the Government.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI have much sympathy with the point of view of my hon. Friend (Dr. Murray), but I really think he is not quite justified in asking for a further subsidy. What he should be doing is attacking the policy of the Government, which has so hampered the trade of this country with Germany and Russia that the herrings cannot find their natural outlet. I agree with my hon. Friend that, if a subsidy is to be found for any industry in the country, the fishermen are deserving of assistance, especially in view of their war record and of their great potential value for the Navy. The real solution of the herring problem, however, lies in a policy that will foster trade. If we prevent imports coming to this country from the Continent, they will not be able to buy our herrings from us. After the discussion we have had this afternoon, and in spite of the optimism—as I think, misplaced—of the Chancellor of the Ex- 237 chequer, I must make a protest against some of the items on this Vote which show an increase. At a time when workmen throughout the country are being invited to accept reductions in wages—miners, seamen, firemen, stewards, engineers, railwaymen—in the case of the last-named it is still to come, but in other cases the reductions have already been heavy—can we justify the very first item in this Vote, namely, Item A? There we find salaries, wages, and allowances increased by £82,000. Going a little further, we find that Item J1, for salaries, wages, and allowances of the Agricultural Wages Board, shows an increase in salaries of £9,713, the first item, of course, being the headquarters staff. In the case of the officials of the Department there is an increase of £20,215; and so I could go on. In all these subsidiary Departments of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries the salaries are being increased this year, when practically all other classes in the country—the people who support these officials—are being compelled by economic causes, and after many industrial disputes with their employers, to accept heavy reductions in wages. I do not think that can be justified, and I hope hon. Members will support me in reducing the Vote. I believe the number of officials has been decreased in this Department, and yet in addition to the salaries being raised there is not a penny of saving in the trawling and removal expenses. So much for their vaunted economies this year over last year.
We come to an item lower down which I wish seriously to question, and that is the voting of £135,000 to foster the cultivation of sugar beet. Last year we subscribed to a company for the production of home-grown beet sugar 250,000 shares of £1 each, and that amount was actually paid to the company. This year we are asked to vote £125,000 as a loan to this home-grown sugar company secured by second mortgage on the assets of the company. So having provided the company with capital we are now making a further loan of £125,000, and we take as security the assets we bought last year with the taxpayers' money, and we guarantee interest of 5 per cent. on the capital subscribed by the public to Home-grown Sugar Limited in respect of the year ending 31st March, 1921. So we are not only setting them up in business to the 238 tune of a quarter of a million, but we are paying the interest out of public money this year. In view of the condition of the finances of the country, I think that expenditure is not justified. If there are commercial possibilities in growing beet sugar let it be done on commercial lines and do not come to the Government for assistance. There is plenty of cheap sugar in Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, and Germany, and there is good cheap cane sugar in our own Colonies in the West Indies, and that is where we should look for our sugar supplies. It is part of the Protectionist policy of the Government of trying to make us a country living by taking in each other's washing. They do not realise that sugar can be grown cheaper abroad than probably it ever can be in this country. So they are going artificially to foster and help on this industry. The next thing will be a demand for a tariff on sugar on behalf of the company, and the excuse that will be made from that Bench if the Government, is still in power, which I sincerely trust will not be the case, is that we have public money invested and we must protect the industry, and the next thing will be that we shall have the price of sugar put up in every household in the country.
I wish to make a couple of constructive suggestions and one is in connection with the reclamation of land. I see this year there is a saving in the expenditure on land reclamation. There are certain parts in the country where I believe expenditure on this purpose would be exceedingly remunerative. There is a part of the country near my constituency, which interests me, where I am informed that very valuable reclamations could be made—I refer to the Wash. Have any schemes for reclaiming the Wash been examined?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYTo a very small extent. I am informed that if that part of England were in Holland the whole of the Wash would have been reclaimed years ago. I believe small reclamation schemes have been undertaken, but I am thinking of a very great reclamation scheme. I have no means of testing the accuracy of my statement. I am only asking for an explanation. If in the 239 Wash, or in Morecambe Bay or the Humber, or anywhere else, there are possibilities of land reclamation in these times of unemployment, I believe the employment of men on land reclamation schemes would be well worth doing and would repay the expenditure. That is a different matter from expenditure on useless things such as we have been discussing this afternoon.
My second suggestion, which I made last year and to which the right hon. Gentleman did not reply at the time, is, what is being done to consult foreign countries, bordering especially on the North Sea, with regard to co-operative action for the preservation of the North Sea fisheries? Before the War the position of the North Sea fisheries was not very bright, and the trawlers were being driven further and further a field, to Iceland and the Morocco coast, for their catches. But during the War, owing to the presence of minefields and the restrictions on fishing, large areas of the North Sea were untouched, and the fish were allowed to breed. Now, of course, fish are extremely plentiful. What is undoubtedly needed to-day is combined action of all the countries concerned—Scandinavia, Denmark, Holland, Germany, England, and France—in the way of research and the preserving of certain banks and the breeding of fish, and so on. It is a big subject, and extremely interesting. Alone this country could do little compared with what could be done by combining with the other countries concerned. I should be very happy if the right hon. Gentleman could inform us what steps have been taken to reopen negotiations with other countries with a view to combined action being taken. I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £200,000, which is the amount of the extra dole for the artificial beet sugar industry and the increase of wages for civil servants.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall)It is too late to move an Amendment of the nature suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ Major MACKENZIE WOODThis is a Vote for the Board of Agriculture for England, and I suppose it would not entitle us to go into detail into the question of the Scottish herring fishing.
§ Major WOODBut there are many questions which involve both countries, and I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions on this subject, because the situation which has produced itself in Scotland is almost certain, as far as we can see, to reproduce itself later on in England; and if Scotland has been too late in making preparations for dealing with it, England ought to take a lesson and get ready to deal with the same question when it faces it. My hon. Friend (Dr. Murray) has dealt with the question of the herring industry as a key industry. That idea is bound to come before the public, and in fact has come before the public in view of the fact that the Government has gone out of its way to protect certain industries, which it has thought fit to call key industries, although many people think that they are much less key industries than an industry like the herring fishing industry. No doubt it seems strange to suggest that an industry like the herring fishing industry is a key industry, but I am certain that it comes within the very narrowest definition of a key industry that has been made. Not only do you require the personnel of the men who man the fishing fleets in time of war, but the recent War has shown that we also want the boats. When the War broke out, hundreds of herring drifters and trawlers were taken by the Admiralty, and the War showed us that the Navy would have been a very much easier object of attack if it had not been able to draw upon these drifters and trawlers for mine sweeping and for acting as a screen when a battle was imminent. If you do not support the herring fishing industry you will not be able to call upon hundreds of these craft in war as you did on the last occasion. This industry is vital to the safety of our country in time of war, and it will be able to make out as good a case, indeed, I think a far better case than many of the industries which have been scheduled, or are going to be scheduled, as key industries in the Bill which the Government is going to introduce shortly. That is the case as regards the key-industry argument.
Apart from that, there is a very serious question facing Scotland at the present time, which is going to face England presently, and that is why it concerns the Minister of Agriculture. The whole of the Scottish herring fishing industry is prac- 241 tically at a standstill at the present time. Two years ago the herring fishing industry, both in Scotland and in England, was faced with a most difficult situation, which the Government recognised by giving them a guarantee and practically subsidising them. They subsidised them because the War had deprived the industry of its only market for its produce. I believe I am right in saying that something like 80 per cent. of the herrings which are caught in these islands were sent in the form of pickled herring to Germany and Russia. The War deprived the industry of its market, and it was right at the time that the Government should come forward and subsidise the industry in the way it did. The first year it paid the Government to do so, because they made no loss on the guarantee they gave. The Government, however, were wrong in giving a guarantee of that kind, if they did not at the same time start to assist the industry in other ways, so that when the guarantee was over the industry would be able to fight for itself. What happened? Instead of using the respite that was given by the guarantee to provide markets for the herring industry, the Government did practically nothing, so far as we have seen. Russia and Germany, the great markets for the herring industry, were left in exactly the same position. No successful effort was made to open up Russia as a market for our herrings, and nothing was done to help the fishing industry to get Germany as a market.
After a year had elapsed the industry found itself in exactly the same position as it was a year before, and assistance was again asked from the Government, and again assistance had to be given, because the herring industry had a complete case. They had suffered from the War, and they alleged, quite rightly, that the cost of assisting them ought to be put down as a War charge. The Government had had a lesson. They had had a whole year in which to provide for the situation, and they had done nothing. Then they had another year. What has happened? Exactly the same thing has happened this year as last year, and two years after the Armistice the industry finds itself in exactly the same position as it did immediately the Armistice was concluded. There is another aspect of the situation which makes the position worse than it was two years ago. Then 242 the industry had a good deal of money, but now it has none, and ruin is staring it in the face unless something is done. Not only has nothing been done, but the Government has gone out of its way to deal the industry another blow. Although Germany is the great market for our herrings, the Government has passed the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, which has had the effect, as it was bound to have, and as the Government was warned would be the case, of stopping all trade with Germany. Instead of giving the industry a guarantee for the third year the Government has gone out of its way to prevent it fending for itself.
What does the Minister of Agriculture suggest can be done by the herring industry this year? Where is it going to find a market for its herrings this year? If it cannot find a market for its herrings what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do? Is he going to do anything? Is he going to allow the fishing industry to go into bankruptcy or to stop altogether? It is obvious that if they cannot find markets for their pickled herring the industry cannot go on. The problem is not a problem with which the right hon. Gentleman is face to face at once, but it will be too late if he waits until there is unemployment along the coasts of England and then attempts to deal with it. I know he will not be able to deal with it adequately now. He should have started two years ago. If his predecessor or the Government had started two years ago to deal with the question, probably it would not have been a question at all to-day; it would have disappeared. You cannot deal with it at once, but the Government should take warning from the position of Scotland at the present time to start to deal with this question and before it becomes acute, as it is almost certain to become acute, a few months hence when the herring boats come down to ply their craft at Lowestoft and Yarmouth. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some satisfaction on this point.
There is another point which I should like to mention, and that is the loss of gear which is continually felt by fishermen on the Lowestoft and Yarmouth coast during the late autumn herring fishing. Again and again I have had complaints from Scottish fishermen who have come down to Lowestoft and Yar- 243 mouth and who have lost enormous quantities of gear. The nets before the War were dear enough in all conscience, but they are three or four times dearer now. For a herring boat the loss of a number of nets is a very serious thing. Experience has shown that the loss of fishing gear is far greater around Lowestoft and Yarmouth than anywhere else. That is due, I believe, not only to the fact that the herring boats there are concentrated in a narrower area than in other places where the herring fishery is prosecuted, but also, I am assured by these fishermen, to foreigners in many cases, Dutchmen and people of that kind, who come along and have no interest in respecting the property of Scottish and British fishermen. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can do anything to increase and make more efficient the policing of that area, so as to prevent the destruction of gear in future. It is a very serious question in which Scottish fishermen at any rate, and I fancy also English fishermen, are deeply interested, and any hope that the right hon. Gentleman will hold out as to the amelioration of this particular condition of things would be welcomed very much by the whole fishing community.
§ 9.0 P.M.
Sir A. BOSCAWENIn reference to the question of herring fisheries, we all admit the excellent work which was done by the fishermen, both herring fishers and trawlers during the War. Nothing could have been better. They showed the greatest courage and zeal, and most of them joined up. But the question of continuing a guarantee to the herring fishery is a very serious matter which is not to be undertaken lightly in present circumstances. At the end of the War—in 1919—it was realised that the herring fishery had been completely upset by the destruction of the ordinary markets. As one of the hon. Members said, this is a very remarkable trade in the fact that at least 80 per cent. of the catch is exported. The export, chiefly pickled herrings, used to go principally to Germany and Russia. The German market was not available, and the Russian market was not available. The Government, therefore, realising the difficulty, said to the fishermen and the others engaged in the trade, the curers, coopers and others, "We will for one year carry you through your difficulties and 244 give you grants." The grant came to this, that we bought practically the whole catch of the year 1919, both of the Scottish season and the English season, and we sold what we bought principally to Germany and other foreign countries not for cash but on long credits. It is true that as regards that particular year no loss was made, at any rate on paper, bat I am not at all certain that we shall ever realise the whole of the purchase price, and I fancy that in the long run there will be a loss even on the year 1919. In any case the nation had to find the cash and stand out of its money for a long time. This grant was given specifically for one year only. Then a year ago, just before the Scottish season was starting, the Scottish fishermen and others interested in the trade came to the Government and said, "We must have this grant for another year." That was contradictory to the undertaking that had been given that it was to be for one year only, but, I think perhaps weakly, the Government agreed to give way and they did again buy a large part of the catch. We spent last year £1,253,000, as well as I remember, on this transaction. This is going to be a very heavy loss. We have been unable to sell more than about one-third, if I remember aright. I was not given any notice that this particular question was going to be raised, so I may be excused if I mention the figures generally.
Sir A. BOSCAWENThe one-third we have sold, we have sold at a loss. The fact is, and I am afraid that this largely is the result of the Government grant, we produce these pickled herrings at a much higher price than our competitors have been doing. The Norwegians have been underselling us in our distant markets. It is not true to say that these markets are not open now. Both Russia and Poland and many of those countries on the Baltic and Germany have purchased large quantities. Unfortunately they have purchased largely from Norway, because, I am afraid, largely in consequence of the Government guarantee, the cost price here has been a great deal more than the cost price in Norway. In other words, we have lost our markets to our competitors. The Government were more or less driven at the last moment 245 to renew the guarantee for last year, and between 1919 and 1920 no steps have been taken by the trade to finance themselves, and it was decided that we must make it clear to the trade that we could not extend the grant for another year. Therefore we summoned a meeting, after the English autumn fishing was over, and we then pointed out to the representatives of the trade, fishermen, coopers, curers and everybody interested, that they must take steps to finance themselves in the future, that, though we did not regret the fact that for two years we had practically carried this trade on the back of the nation, that must come to an end, and we gave early warning that they must take steps to look after themselves in the future. I do not see what other steps we could take. I regret very much any unemployment, trouble, misery or impoverishment that may be caused to a very deserving class of people, but they cannot expect to be carried on the back of the nation for ever.
§ Major WOODThey do not.
§ Major WOODWhy, here you are closing up the German market.
Sir A. BOSCAWENWe have not. The German market is open. We have sold a number of herrings in the German market, but we have sold at a loss. My hon. Friend is completely in error. I think that he is thinking of some political question which has nothing whatever to do with this.
§ Major WOODIt has had the effect of closing the German market.
Sir A. BOSCAWENNo, because long before the Reparation Act was even thought of we could not dispose of the herrings in Germany, because we were being undersold by the Norwegians. The fact is that owing to the Government guarantee we have been producing them here at a higher price than our competitors. Hon. Members ask me again to continue the guarantee. They ask that once more State credit should be brought into play.
§ Major WOODI never asked that the guarantee should be continued.
§ Major WOODI asked how the right hon. Gentleman was going to deal with the question of unemployment.
Sir A. BOSCAWENAs to that the hon. Member will have to approach the Ministry of Labour. I understand that as this is a seasonal trade those who follow it are not qualified for unemployment insurance. It is really a matter for the Minister of Labour. What on earth can we do? We cannot find markets. It is no part of the business of my Department to find markets for trade. How could we do it? We have given these fishermen every chance for two years by assisting them, and we made a very heavy loss on last year's transaction. We gave them ample warning that they would have to take steps in the trade to finance themselves in future. Beyond that we cannot possibly go. It is remarkable that hon. Members are now suggesting that we should again give this guarantee.
§ Major WOODI did not suggest it.
Sir A. BOSCAWENThe hon. Member who spoke first (Dr. Murray) did so. On the other hand, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) desired to move a reduction of the Vote on the ground that we had been too extravagant. That is an exact example of what is frequently happening in this House. Every one of us is an economist in general and a spendthrift in particular. We all talk about the value of economy, but we have all in mind some particular thing on which we think more expenditure should be made. That is the greatest difficulty the Government always have in dealing with questions of economy. The hon. Member for Central Hull said there had been an increase of salaries. That was debated at considerable length in Committee. I then pointed out that there had been no increase in personnel, that there had been on the agricultural side of the Ministry a decrease, and a slight increase on the fisheries side. That increase is in the scientific branch where officials are engaged in research work of great importance. The increased expenditure is entirely due to automatic increases of salary and to the war bonus. The war bonus in my Department in no 247 way differs from that in any other Department. It is governed by the rules of the Civil Service. I have always been given to understand that its increase or decrease lagged a little behind the increase or decrease in the cost of living because those concerned got their increase about six months later than other people. Consequently they will retain it for a longer period; but I have no doubt that with the fall in the cost of living the bonus will be largely reduced during the present year.
I can assure the hon. Member for Central Hull that I am taking the most vigorous steps possible to curtail expenditure in every Department and to reduce the staff. The hon. Member spoke about sugar beet. In Committee I explained that fully. It is true that last year the nation voted £250,000 in order to take up shares in this home-grown sugar company. It is for the purpose of erecting a sugar mill on an estate bought for the purpose, and the only reason why we ask for more money this year is that owing to the greatly increased cost of building and material and everything else, it has been found impossible to erect the mill at the price originally-anticipated. We are asking for a second mortgage of £125,000 on the assets of the property. The security is very ample. There is a very large freehold estate, there is the sugar mill, and there is very valuable stock on the farm. The policy has been approved by this House on more than one occasion. It is in no sense protective; it is not in the least designed to interfere with the canons of Free Trade or anything of that kind. It is believed by those who have studied this question for years that we can grow sugar beet in this country as cheaply and as well as certain foreign countries.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI gave all the figures in Committee. I did not know the question would be asked to-night, or I would have had them available. There are a freehold estate of 4,000 acres, the whole of the stock on the farm, and the value of the mill when erected.
Sir A. BOSCAWENThere is a charge of £75,000 in front of this. This is a charge of £125,000, but there is an ample margin over and over again. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question on the subject I will give him the figures. The House has agreed that this is a policy which could be tried; it has been agreed that the experiment should be made with Government help. We have every reason to believe it will be successful. If successful, the Government help will proceed no further. I hope it will prove that sugar beet can be grown in this country and sugar made from it successfully on commercial lines. If that is so, the experiment made by the Government will no doubt be copied by other people, and we shall then be able to produce a valuable article of food at home, whereas hitherto we have had to import all of it. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull also spoke about reclamation. Nobody could be more anxious than I to see land reclaimed if it could be done on any kind of economic basis. I have had examined schemes for the reclamation of parts of the sea like The Wash. I have also examined questions of the drainage of bogs in various places. I have also gone fully into the question of the reclamation of sandy wastes. The difficulty is that at the very lowest estimate the value of the land when reclaimed is generally not half, and very often a great deal less than half, of the cost of reclamation. The hon. Member spoke especially about The Wash. We were asked by the Ministry of Labour to undertake a reclamation scheme there. It was not a small scheme. It involved the reclaiming of nearly 400 acres, the building of a sea wall, and the enclosing of land.
It was done for the purpose of employing unemployed labour. I cannot carry the exact figures in my head, but I believe the cost was rather less than £200 per acre, and the present value of the land is less than £20 an acre. You may do this if you like for the purpose of employing unemployed labour, and, of course, you will get an asset in the 249 end, because that land will greatly improve in value, but except for the purpose of employing unemployed labour, we cannot embark at this moment in schemes of this sort, excellent though they may be in their ultimate result. The cost of them is absolutely prohibitive, and it would be a most spendthrift policy to adopt generally all through the country. I have been going into the matter very carefully, with the special object of seeing whether we could not utilise some of these schemes to deal with unemployment.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWas the Humber scheme examined?
Sir A. BOSCAWENI cannot say whether the Humber case was gone into or not, but there are some cases that I have gone into. I should like to do it because if unemployed are to be employed and if we can obtain an asset in the end by doing so, so much the better, but the cost is enormous. I will just put one point on that matter. Unemployed are generally to be found in the great towns. When you take men and set them to reclaim lands like those along The Wash, or put them on to drainage schemes on rivers such as the Ouse and other Fen rivers it means taking them out of the towns, away from where they live, placing them in huts and rendering the cost infinitely greater. That is a consideration which has always to be borne in mind. These schemes will not absorb many unemployed men in the particular localities because there are not sufficient of such men there, and therefore you have to move men into these districts with the result that the cost becomes prohibitive. If the hon. Member has any particular scheme which he would like to have examined by our experts, I shall be only too pleased to see that this is done. In regard to the question of the exploration of the North Sea by some future National Council for the purpose of discovering where the best fisheries are, I may state there is an international body in existence for the exploration of the North Sea, of which Mr. Maurice, of the Fisheries Department, is chairman and various experts in fisheries are engaged in different kinds of research. We have a research vessel which is specially investigating the question of the plaice fishery. There is a rather remarkable feature in connection with the North Sea 250 Fisheries. Parts of the North Sea were greatly over-fished before the War. The War caused a sort of "close season" during which great parts of it could not be fished. Before the War plaice had been growing smaller and smaller in numbers and size and they are now greatly improved owing to the "holiday" which has been given to the plaice fishing and the size of the fish has also increased. These investigations are being carried out constantly by international agreement, and I can assure my hon. Friend the matter is not being neglected. I think I have now replied to all the points which have been raised, and inasmuch as we have had a very long discussion in Committee I hope the House will be willing without much more conversation to agree with the Committee and to grant this Vote.
§ Mr. ROYCEI am sorry to delay the right hon. Gentleman in receiving his Vote, but the subject of land reclamation has been introduced and it is one in which I am particularly interested. I am quite prepared to accept this statement as to the cost of the scheme which his Department undertook at the request of the Ministry of Labour, but as he will be the first to admit, he had no adequate staff, he had no experience of land reclamation and the method in which his Department went to work was probably one of the most costly that could be employed. To those who had any knowledge of reclamation work their efforts were simply ridiculous. The experience he has received so far should not be quoted under the circumstances when a real scheme of reclamation is brought to the notice of his Department. It is quite true that some provision would be necessary for a large number of men in the shape of huts, but I have here estimates from a highly competent man, which satisfy me that for less than £40 an acre land along the shore of the Wash could be reclaimed. There may be some little Parliamentary expense in addition to that, but there is no necessity for increasing the cost to double the amount, or for extraordinary expenses in connection therewith. I do not wish to delay the House with figures, but I am quite satisfied there are several schemes of land reclamation on the Wash that will not only employ a good deal of labour which is now unemployed but will enable that labour to be economically employed, if 251 they are properly directed. I hope this is not the last word we shall hear in regard to the resolution of the Ministry on land reclamation experiments. We had it from the Prime Minister at the last General Election that one of the principal works the Government proposed to undertake, in view of anticipated unemployment at the conclusion of the War would be land reclamation, and we have several very favourable areas, such as Lynn flats and Boston flats all along the Wash, and in some instances there are places where at least 2,000 acres can be taken in, at a cost not exceeding £40 an acre under proper direction. I have a highly skilled engineer's estimate, and when I hear the Government's reply that with the cost of hutting and other expenses it will cost just double the amount for the reclamation of the land, I can only say that is simply ridiculous. If the prime cost of the work is to be increased twice over, for overhead expenses then it must be an inefficient Government that would possibly contemplate the undertaking of such work. I am perfectly convinced we have an opportunity for economic reclamation of land along the Wash.
There is just another matter which I wish to mention. I have already had an opportunity of bringing it to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman and have received a good deal of sympathy from him, but I do not think his Department takes a sufficiently strong line in regard to it. There are fishing industries along our coasts in addition to the herring fisheries which have been destroyed by high railway rates. We have a market for their products; the market is here, and the high railway rates are killing this shell fishing industry. I have received a promise that the matter is being considered. A great Bill is coming before this House which will concern the interests of the minor industries. I hope that a good deal of consideration will be given to this subject during the passage of that Bill, so that it will not be left to a body of men to ignore these small industries and, by putting on high railway rates, to ruin an industry which not only supports a large number of deserving men but is of very great value to the country.
Just one word with regard to the Wash fisheries. I have brought this matter to 252 the right hon. Gentleman's notice before, but I feel it my duty to do so again. An important fishing area has been ruined by seals in the Wash. A very little effort on the part of his Ministry would destroy those pests. They get into the channels when the tides are coming up, and no fish can get past them; they destroy the whole lot. It has been reported by the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors, time after time, that this condition of affairs exists. They did, at one period, offer a bonus per head for the destruction of these pests, and it would involve a very small expenditure and would repay itself one hundredfold if the right hon. Gentleman would consider again the possibility of making some effort to destroy these seals. There are not a large number of men interested in this, but as the head of a great Ministry dealing with something which probably costs less to this country to produce and is of greater value as food than anything else, I hope it will be worth while for the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt is at a very fortunate moment that I have come into the House, because when I was last here we were having an extremely interesting discussion on the extravagance of the Government and the necessity for reducing expenditure. Now I come in and find the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Royce) endeavouring to persuade the Government to spend more money. I do not know which way the hon. Gentleman voted or whether he voted at all in the Division at 8 o'clock, but if he voted with the minority I would point out that he is by no means consistent in asking now for an increase in expenditure probably to benefit some of his constituents.
§ Sir F. BANBURYEverything is reproductive when an hon. Member desires it. It remains to be seen, after the money has been spent, whether or not it is reproductive. I have had considerable experience in land reclamation, which is one of the objects upon which the hon. Gentleman desires the Government to spend money. For a good many years I lived near Peterborough, and over £100,000 was spent in reclaiming land at Whittle sea Mere. The whole of the money was wasted. The land was very good land when it was reclaimed, and it 253 let in those days at something like 25s. an acre, but they had to keep two engines pumping. The result was that when the owner of the property died his successor was forced to sell, owing to the fact that all this money had been spent upon reclamation and it turned out to be practically a loss, because the land was only fetching 25s. an acre and in addition to that the landowner had to pay a heavy burden for pumping expenses. The hon. Gentleman says that this is only going to cost £40 an acre. How much land is there in this country worth at the present time £40 an acre? Very little. Good agricultural land at the present moment is not worth more than £30 an acre, and a good deal of it not more than £20.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not know where South Holland is, but there are no doubt exceptions, such as the Vale of Evesham and one or two other places. The vast majority of land, however, is not worth more than £30 an acre, even if it is worth as much as that. It is very doubtful if this land can be reclaimed for £40. I have never yet met an engineer who has given an estimate for such work who, when the work has been completed, has not had to admit that that estimate was much under the mark. In all probability, if the land is reclaimed, when we have spent the £40 an acre the cost will be considerably more. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether this is not an opportunity of doing, what practically the whole House earlier in the evening desired the Government to do, namely, to stop spending money?
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen I am only supporting my right hon. Friend, and I am very glad to do so, against the hon. Gentleman who was urging him to spend this money. I was rather afraid that the hon. Gentleman's eloquence, supported by the Labour party, who are always anxious to spend money, might have had its effect on my right hon. Friend. However, as this is the case, I will not pursue the subject any further.
I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one or two items in the Vote. There is the Agricultural Wages Board, with salaries, wages, and allowances. 254 Travelling expenses are £16,750—for ruining agriculture, because that is all the Agricultural Wages Board has done—and special services, legal and incidental expenses, come to £11,250. The total for the Agricultural Wages Board is £69,389, an increase of £10,963. The sooner the Agricultural Wages Board is done away with the better. It is doing no good to anybody and is costing the country very large sums of money. I do not know whether this has been brought up before, but if it has I am very glad, and I take the opportunity of emphasising the fact that here is a chance of doing away with an institution which is doing no good to anybody, and is costing very large sums of money. In the circular issued by the Treasury to-day it is pointed out that the Agriculture Act of 1920 will next year cost the country large sums of money. Here is an opportunity for economising. Repeal the Agriculture Act of 1920. It was an extremedy bad Act, and with it will go the Agricultural Wages Board, and a considerable sum of money will be saved.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYFor subsidies.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIf the House really means to save money and to stop expenditure, it has got to take drastic steps. It is no use saying this is going to be remunerative, or will bring in some money, or will do something to enable certain people to get wages beyond what the economic situation will allow them to receive. That cannot go on. There is a large quantity of work which could be done in agriculture to-day, but which is not being done because people cannot afford to pay the wages. Men would be very glad to work for less wages, but are unable to do so on account of the Agricultural Wages Board. The Government must recognise that all these socialistic so called social reform measures, even if they are good, which I do not believe they have been proved to be, are extremely expensive, and at the present moment, when we have not got any money, they are too great a luxury to be continued. I was obliged to get up, because this is a lesson for the country and the House, that here, earlier in the evening, the vast majority of Members were in favour of retrenchment, even if they did not vote against the Government, and when in Supply we have an opportunity of showing how earnest we are in our desire for 255 retrenchment, so far as I have heard the only Member who has spoken has advocated more expenditure.
§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTHI agree with the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down in his remarks about the Debate this afternoon and the Debate this evening.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYHe was not even in the House to support us.
§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTHI was going to say that it is more on these Estimates, when we have some definite stuff before us, that we get a chance of urging the Government to economise than it is on general debates such as that which took place before dinner. The real question which I rise to ask the Minister for Agriculture concerns the wheat subsidy. I understand that the wheat subsidy will continue for four years after the declaration by the Minister that it is to stop, he has to give notice, that is to say, four years before it stops. I should be pleased to be interrupted if I am wrong, and as I am not interrupted I understand that notice has not been given to date, and that we have to look forward for four years—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI was just looking, but the right hon. Gentleman has saved me the trouble. It would be out of order, therefore, to discuss the wheat subsidy on this Vote.
§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTHI will leave that matter. I would like to echo the point made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) concerning the Agricultural Wages Board. Considering the amount that is being spent on it, I cannot see that we are getting out of it what we should get. As far as agriculture is concerned, I cannot see that the expenditure on the Wages Board, which is pretty large in staff, is justified. I am rather astonished, also, that we have to give such very heavy grants-in-aid to county agricultural committees. These committees may do a certain amount of good work, but it seems to me that it is going to be very expensive, and I should like to warn the right hon. Gentleman to keep a very careful eye on the expenditure of 256 these committees and to keep control over them that they do not start getting large staffs and buildings, and so on, of their own, which they are very apt to do. I should like the Minister also to keep his eye on the special services, for which there is a very large item here. We are having so many special services suggested at the present day in various Estimates, new special services which we did very well without, but which we cannot do without to-day for some reason or another, and I should like to ask the Minister to keep his eye very carefully glued to that item. Again, the item for travelling expenses is very large indeed, and although it is a criticism one has to make every time these Estimates come up, I do not think the criticism is wasted.
§ Captain W. BENNIn reading through these Estimates, one observes that there is a very large reduction on the total, which at first sight would lead one to suppose that useful economies were being made in the Department, but when we look at the items in the Estimate we find that a good many of the reductions, especially the largest, are in respect of transitory war services. I could mention the herring fishing grant, for example, which is reduced by about £1,000,000, and there is the grant-in-aid for the training of ex-service men, which has been reduced by about £500,000, and there are sundry reductions, most of which appear to be in respect of services of research or in some way of a remunerative kind. I apologise to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) for saying a word in favour of remunerative expenditure, but it is noticeable that the reductions which the Minister has succeeded in making are all of this character. The right hon. Baronet presided over a Committee last year which, if I may say so, did extremely useful work in examining the details of the Estimates of these Departments, and one of the Departments concerned was the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. They were not able to complete the work of examination of these accounts, because the Session ended, and they specially suggested that, if re-appointed this year, they might continue their work in examining the Estimates of this Ministry. The Committee has not been re-appointed, but another Committee is to take its place, 257 which, I presume, will continue these labours. If hon. Gentlemen are in earnest when they speak about reducing expenditure, here and now are the place and time to make their protest. It is useless to make general pledges in the country unless they are prepared to back those pledges by their votes on Supply. This Committee, with the greatest care and in great detail, went into the Votes of this Department and I think in the seventh of their Reports, the concluding Report of last year's labours, paragraphs 87 onwards, will be found a number of perfectly definite recommendations for the reduction of expenditure. They did not recommend that the herring fishery grant should be discontinued or that the training of ex-service men should be largely reduced. They went in a business-like way into the consideration of the details of expenditure, and I very much regret that I was not able to hear the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I wonder whether he dealt with the recommendations of this Committee.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI did on the Committee stage at great length, and I pointed out that practically all these recommendations were being carried out, but in view of the fact that they were only made very shortly before the commencement of this Session, they could not all be carried out in the present Estimates.
§ Captain W. BENNI will refresh the memory of the House as to what these recommendations were, and perhaps the Minister in his reply will tell us how many of these things have actually been done. It is only by the most careful attention to details that effective economies can be made. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to travelling and subsistence allowances of inspectors? It was pointed out in the Committee that all officials with salaries between £400 and £600 a year were allowed to travel first-class, and a definite recommendation was made that this privilege should be restricted to officials with a salary of £1,200 a year or more. There are the makings of a small saving, but it is only by a number of small savings that a large aggregate can be produced. Then they spoke about the extravagant use of motor-cars by inspectors on their 258 journeys in the country, and they also spoke about the monthly "Journal" of the Ministry, which they pointed out was not self-supporting. This is the place to ask the Minister whether any of the recommendations have been carried out. Has the price of the "Journal" been increased? Has the number of free copies been limited, or have increased receipts from advertisements been secured in order to make this "Journal" self-supporting? Then they made a recommendation with reference to a fee in connection with application for the redemption of tithe rentcharge, and a recommendation with reference to a fertilisers' propaganda, suggesting that economies might be effected in that respect, too. They made a further recommendation in reference to the post of Woman Adviser. I very much regret if I have overlooked the explanation given by the Minister in respect of these things, but the only utility in having a Committee to examine Estimates is that their recommendations should be attended to by the Departments, and we do look to the Minister to see that these recommendations of the Expenditure Committee have, in fact, been attended to.
§ Sir F. BLAKEI want to ask a question of the Minister under the heading of "Agricultural Wages Board." It is with reference to the local wages boards. My information and my experience are that these boards at a very large number of their meetings serve no object at all. They are overruled constantly, and they find that the rulings made by the principal wages board in London render it quite unnecessary and, indeed, useless for them to put in an appearance. Yet every member who does attend is entitled to his expenses, and those members who, of course, need their expenses most, the representatives of labour, are always there. Of course they claim their expenses quite rightly, but it all goes to add to the cost of the country, and, as everybody seems to be agreed that we should make every effort now to save expense in every possible way, when it is brought to your notice that these meetings are unnecessary, because the subjects to be dealt with have already been dealt with by a superior authority, one may well ask whether the Minister might not consider the advisability of abolishing these local boards altogether and have a wages board run entirely in London. I am told 259 that in my own county they have so little to do, or so much has been done for them, that, instead of holding their monthly meeting, they unanimously agreed to hold their meeting once a quarter, and even then there was not sufficient to summon them together. It may be a trivial matter, but it all goes to swell the expenditure, and I do think the Minister might make inquiry as to the opinion of local wages boards with regard to the necessity for their existence, and if he finds there is a strong feeling, as there is in the part of the country I come from, perhaps he will consider whether it is not desirable to abolish them altogether.
There is one other question I would like to mention. I promised someone the other day, when I was at the Botanic Gardens at Kew, that I would raise this question when I had an opportunity. There is a large part of these Gardens to which the public has no access, and one sees a notice put up that one part, the Bluebell Dale, is specially reserved, and the public are kept out of it, and kept on the walks, by a wish expressed by Her late Majesty Queen Victoria. It does seem to anyone going to look at it—and I took the trouble to look the other day, because my attention was called to it—that a very much larger portion of the Gardens is reserved in that way than is necessary to give effect to the wishes of Her late Majesty. I do not know whether it is a question for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with at once, but I did undertake to call attention to it, and perhaps he will make some inquiry as to why such a large portion of the Gardens is cut off.
Sir J. D. REESI should like to ask the Minister a question with reference to the item "Sugar Beet." I should infer that the total subscription originally intended was £250,000, and that the whole of that was duly subscribed—
Sir A. BOSCAWENI do not wish to detain the House, but I think I must say a word in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). I can assure him that the recommendations of the Committee pre- 260 sided over by my right hon. Friend, and also the recommendations made by another Committee, presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow (Sir B. Stanier), have been most carefully taken into account by the Ministry, and we have carried out most of their recommendations in the present year. Some of them, as I have said, we did not get in time, but we have endeavoured to carry them out as far as can be, and I spoke about them at considerable length on the Committee stage. For instance, I think my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the "Journal." Well, we have largely reduced the free list, I think, from 3,000 to 1,000. That was one of the recommendations. Then he mentioned the question of abolishing the post of Woman Adviser. It has been abolished, and I am sorry to say the only result that has come to me has been that a great many Members of Parliament, who, no doubt, in general vote for economy, have written to me asking why we have abolished the post.
§ Captain BENNThe right hon. Gentleman says that they have dealt with the question of the "Journal," but I observe there is an increase in the cost of publication, so that there does not seem to have been very effective action on the part of the Ministry.
§ Captain BENNPrinting is cheaper than it was last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
Sir A. BOSCAWENThat, at all events, is not my experience. The cost has gone up, but we have reduced expenditure as far as we can, and we have carried out the recommendations of the Committee. As I have said, the difficulty of economising is, the moment you carry out an economy you are pressed by somebody to reverse your decision. Notwithstanding that, I have been trying by every means in my power to carry out both the recommendations of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) and the recommendations of the other Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Sir B. Stanier).
§ Captain W. BENNAnd travelling allowances?
§ Captain BENNThe figures are the same.
Sir A. BOSCAWENThe Estimates had already been prepared before we received the recommendations, but we shall undoubtedly show a saving.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWill you accept a reduction?
Sir A. BOSCAWENNo, I cannot accept a reduction without going into the figures, but I can assure the House that I am doing my utmost to effect these economies, and I shall be disappointed if I do not do so before the end of the year. With regard to the point raised by my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir F. Blake), he mentioned the expenses of the District Wages Board, and pointed out that the expenses of members were paid. Parliament decided they should be paid, and I think that was a perfectly proper decision, because I fail to see how you can have adequate representation of labour unless their expenses are paid, and so long as that is the case I can do nothing.
§ Sir F. BLAKEI did not suggest they should not be paid. I was only calling
§ attention to the fact they did not need to be called so often.
Sir A. BOSCAWENMy hon. Friend will realise I have not the power to regulate the number of their sittings. Meetings of the Central Wages Board and the District Wages Boards are called whenever the officials think they are necessary, and having set up Wages Boards I have no power whatever to regulate their proceedings. No doubt if I thought a Wages Board was meeting too often I might call their attention to it, but when you remember you have got Subcommittees of these Wages Boards who consider questions as to whether a man should be allowed to work for less than the minimum wage in consequence of some physical disability, I think my hon. Friend will realise frequent meetings, at all events of Sub-committees, are necessary. In regard to the point he raised as to Kew Gardens, that particular matter had not been brought to my notice, but I will undertake to consider the matter very carefully and give him an answer.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 19.
263| Division No. 119.] | AYES. | [10.0 p.m. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Greenwood, William (Stockport) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Gretton, Colonel John |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) |
| Armitage, Robert | Coats, Sir Stuart | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Hayday, Arthur |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Entwistle, Major C. F. | Hirst, G. H. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Evans, Ernest | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John |
| Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Fell, Sir Arthur | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Fildes, Henry | Holmes, J. Stanley |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Forrest, Walter | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | France, Gerald Ashburner | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Frece, Sir Walter de | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Gee, Captain Robert | Irving, Dan |
| Bromfield, William | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Gillis, William | Johnson, Sir Stanley |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George |
| Cairns, John | Green, Albert (Derby) | Kenyon, Barnet |
| Cape, Thomas | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Kidd, James |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Swan, J. E. |
| Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Perring, William George | Taylor, J. |
| Lloyd, George Butler | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Ramsden, G. T. | Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Rankin, Captain James Stuart | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Lorden, John William | Raper, A. Baldwin | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Lunn, William | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Tootill, Robert |
| McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Waddington, R. |
| Macleod, J. Mackintosh | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | Wallace, J. |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Maddocks, Henry | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Mallalieu, Frederick William | Robertson, John | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Mason, Robert | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | Waterson, A. E. |
| Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. | Rodger, A. K. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | Royce, William Stapleton | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Morgan, Major D. Watts | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Morris, Richard | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Morrison, Hugh | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Seager, Sir William | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Sexton, James | Winterton, Earl |
| Murchison, C. K. | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) | Wise, Frederick |
| Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Myers, Thomas | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Neal, Arthur | Smith, W. R. (Welling borough) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) | |
| Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Steel, Major S. Strang | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Parker, James | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. | Mr. Dudley Ward and Lieut.- |
| Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) | Sturrock, J. Leng | Colonel Sir J. Gilmour. |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Sugden, W. H. | |
| NOES | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Hogge, James Myles | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | |
| Brown, Major D. C. | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and |
| Glanville, Harold James | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | Colonel Penry Williams. |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
Second Resolution read a Second time.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move to leave out "£178,346" and to insert instead thereof "£78,346."
I wish to know what would be the position if we stopped these surveys for the next two or three years? I see that there are on the staff two lieut.-colonels, four majors, five captains, one lieutenant, one quartermaster, and two staff officers. At the present time we have a great shortage of troops which is proved by the fact that we have had to call out the Reserves for the Defence Force, and I am sure that many of these officers would be much better employed relieving shopkeepers who have had to leave their businesses. Many of these tradesmen could be released if some of the officers on this Vote were put in their places. I will not divide the House if it can be proved that this expenditure is vitally necessary. We are told in the Treasury circular which has just been issued that:
A reduction of expenditure upon the requisite scale can only be effected by a 264 common effort entailing heavy and general sacrifices of services which are in themselves desirable.I daresay that the surveys of the United Kingdom are very desirable, but I want to know if they are essential. They are costing £335,346, and. I understand that there has been a decrease of £24,000, but I wish to point out that the expenditure on surveys before the War was substantially less. Unless the Government can assure us that it is vitally essential to carry on these surveys at this great cost I shall press my Amendment to a division, and I hope all economists in the House will support me.
§ Colonel PENRY WILLIAMSI beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House)I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will permit me on this occasion to play the part of an Under-Secretary, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is not present because I have persuaded him that he had better go and have some dinner. Under these 265 circumstances perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to reply. If you brought these surveys to an end, of course no more ordnance maps would be produced in this country, and you would disband a highly trained technical staff, many of them pension able servants, whom you could not dismiss without putting them upon the pension list. But you would do more than that. This work is carried out in the main by the Royal Engineers, and I believe anybody who is acquainted with the work of the Royal Engineers in the late War would be ready to give the highest credit to their skill, accuracy, and competence. May I point out that that skill and competence had been attained in this civilian work. Therefore it would not be a real economy to follow the course suggested by this Amendment, that is, to disband this staff and stop the training of our Royal Engineers in this important branch of their work and thus incur superannuation allowances. The amount of the work has been reduced and the Vote is less, although the expenses of each unit are higher because the wages of civilians are higher. In spite of that, the Vote shows a reduction. The work has been limited in view of the present situation, and without saying that it might not be reduced a little more—as to which I am not competent to speak without further examination—I do say that it would not be in the public interest to interrupt this service in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
§ Sir D. MACLEANThe explanation which has just been given by the Leader of the House shows no glimpse of the spirit which actuates the Treasury Circular which has been submitted to the House. I thought we should have heard from him some sort of promise that these surveys which have been going on steadily year after year would be curtailed. Here we have no real reduction; merely a reduction representing, I presume, the amount of the bonus—£24,000. The whole organisation is being kept at the same pace and of the same scope as in the most flourishing times of our national finance in the last 20 years. I expected to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that this was one of those normal, although very useful but still not vitally necessary services at the moment in regard to which he proposed to seize the opportunity of ascertaining whether 266 some substantial reduction could be made, not two years hence, but this year. It would have shown how far the Government are in earnest in this matter. May I quote the conclusion of the Memorandum of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the same spirit as that in which my right hon. Friend has just spoken:
It need scarcely be added that it is highly desirable that any economies which examination shows to be possible shall be brought into operation, if practicable, at the earliest possible date within the current year.That is a pious expression of a hope which might fructify in 1922 or 1923. But these things ought to be done this year, and I am quite certain of this: that this service, admirable though it be, extremely useful though it is, could have a real reduction made in it in the present year. My hon. and gallant Friend, in moving a reduction of £100,000, I think, is asking rather too much, and I hope he will lessen the amount so as to bring it more within the compass of what is actually possible. Certainly I shall vote for it as a protest against the attitude of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONThe Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that this survey is carried on by the Royal Engineers, and he paid tribute to the excellence of the work thus done. It was my privilege to serve in a minor capacity in the Royal Engineers, and if there was one thing that struck me more than anything else, it was their wonderful adaptability. I venture to suggest that if this service were suspended for a short time, the country would not suffer, because the wonderful adaptability of the staff is such that they could usefully transfer their activities in other directions in order to achieve this economy. If we are to be economical, this is one of the services where economy could be practised without injury either to trade, or to health, or to the real work of the country. We can better economise on a service of this kind than in the Departments of the Minister of Health or of the Minister of Education. We can much better afford to economise on a service such as this, because, if it is held up for a year or two, trade or health would not suffer, and we should be putting into practice those virtues of 267 economy to which we pay so much lip service, although, when there is a real opportunity for putting them into practice, we are apt to get some wonderful excuse from the Government Bench as to why the particular economy in question should not materialise. I hope that the House, by supporting this Amendment, will express its protest and show its desire for genuine economy where the National Services will not suffer any real set-back.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not think that the hon. Member who has just sat down has done much to advance the cause he has at heart, because he has selected something about which he does not care, and is prepared to save money on that, while at the same time he dissociates himself from saving upon something about which he happens to entertain certain illusions. Having said that, may I, firstly, say that I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman was here to give his explanation, and, secondly, point out that while some of us felt that probably there was some reason for not opposing the Government on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, this is a case in which we could show that money ought to be saved. It is not much use trying to do that after the money has been already voted, but now we are actually voting the money, and I think it is possible that some saving might be effected on this Estimate. My right hon. Friend says, and probably very truly, that there are a certain number of skilled people whom it is necessary to keep employed in this way, because other wise they would have to be superannuated or found work elsewhere; but may I point out that it might be possible, while keep-
§ ing these particular gentlemen, to limit the amount of work which they have to do, and so to dispense with some of their subordinates, and also to save travelling expenses, which, I see, amount to a considerable sum. If one looks at the Estimate, one finds that the only real reduction, as compared with last year, is a sum of £10,000. The decrease is put in the Estimate at £24,000, but that arises from the fact that the Appropriation-in-Aid is reduced by £14,000, the net decrease being really only £10,000.
§ I should have thought that we might have gone on for a year or two without these surveys being kept up to date. I presume that only a portion of the survey of the United Kingdom is made every year, and that it is thought advisable, as, no doubt, it was in the past, to keep these maps up to date; but I really think we might go a little gently at the present moment, and I would suggest that, as it is rather late to take a Division, if my right hon. Friend would consent to accept some small reduction of the Vote, some advance might be made in the direction in which we are all supposed to desire to move, namely, that of a diminution in the expenditure of the country.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI should like to substitute a reduction of £25,000 for the one which I have already moved, and accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, to leave out "£178,346," and to insert instead thereof "£153,346."
§ Question put, "That '£178,346' stand part of the Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 73.
269| Division No. 120.] | AYES. | [10.25 p.m. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Broad, Thomas Tucker | Forestier-Walker, L. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Brown, Major D. C. | Forrest, Walter |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Bruton, Sir James | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Frece, Sir Walter de |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Cautley, Henry Strother | Gee, Captain Robert |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry |
| Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Green, Albert (Derby) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Coats, Sir Stuart | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Greenwood, William (Stockport) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Evans, Ernest | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Fildes, Henry | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Morrison, Hugh | Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) |
| Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Neal, Arthur | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Jodrell, Neville Paul | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Sugden, W. H. |
| Johnson, Sir Stanley | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Parker, James | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) | Taylor, J. |
| Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Kidd, James | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Perring, William George | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Wallace, J. |
| Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Purchase, H. G. | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Lloyd, George Butler | Ramsden, G. T. | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Rankin, Captain James Stuart | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Raper, A. Baldwin | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Lorden, John William | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Macleod, J. Mackintosh | Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East) | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Maddocks, Henry | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Mason, Robert | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. | Rodger, A. K. | Wise, Frederick |
| Molson, Major John Elsdale | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Seager, Sir William | Mr. Dudley Ward and Lieut.- |
| Colonel Sir J. Gilmour. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Atkey, A. R. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Robertson, John |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayday, Arthur | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Sexton, James |
| Bottomley, Horatio W. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles, W. | Hirst, G. H. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Bromfield, William | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Cairns, John | Holmes, J. Stanley | Swan, J. E. |
| Cape, Thomas | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Irving, Dan | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Tootill, Robert |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Kenyon, Barnet | Waterson, A. E. |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Lunn, William | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Gillis, William | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Winterton, Earl |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Murchison, C. K. | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | O'Grady, James | |
| Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Hogge. |
First Resolution read a Second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Major MACKENZIE WOODI should like to ask the Government a question before this Vote is passed. During the War aerial photography was developed to a very large extent, and largely used at the Front, with the most beneficial results, for the purpose of map-making. It was said very freely on all hands that its development during the War, or in future, might have a most marked effect on map-making, and particularly that it would diminish the cost of map-making. I should like to ask whether anything is 270 being done to employ aerial photography in map-making by the Royal Engineers, who are responsible for the survey of the United Kingdom. So far as my information goes, if it is so used, a great economy could be effected in map-making in this country.
§ Earl WINTERTONI should like to raise a somewhat analogous question, which I endeavoured to raise before the War on the Colonial Office Vote, but I was told that it should be more properly addressed to the Minister in charge of this Vote. At all times, and especially at the present time, in practically all the dependencies and the smaller colonies 271 overseas it is impossible to get the land survey that is required for publication among the settlers and others, and one is constantly met by the answer from the Colonial Secretary that the Colonial Office has no Survey Department available. I suggest that at a period when there is no great necessity to keep up a high standard of survey in this country, it might be a very proper time for lending the services of the officers of the Survey Department of the Royal Engineers to the colonies and dependencies overseas. The development of those colonies, especially in South America and Africa, is held back because it is impossible to get the land surveyor. Many of those colonies are in a prosperous position at present and would be glad to spend the money required to pay the Survey Department for the services of competent surveyors. You might possibly save on this Vote in future by an arrangement between the Survey Department and the Colonial Office by which the services of competent surveyors could be lent to the dominions and colonies overseas. It is absurd to use the argument that was used recently by the Leader of the House that the services of these men must be utilised in some way when there is a crying need for every colony and dependency overseas to have the services of skilled surveyors. It is an instance of that lack of co-ordination between Government Departments which is rapidly becoming a scandal that no endeavour has been made to utilise the services of these men overseas. I hope that the Minister in charge will indicate that he will get into communication with the Colonial Office to see whether the services of skilled surveyors cannot be lent for overseas work.
§ Captain W. BENNMy hon. and gallant Friend has made an interesting suggestion as to which great economy is possible, I do not know whether immediately, but certainly in the long run, by the substitution in some respects of aerial survey for land survey. I do not know anything about land survey, but I have had a little experience, and my hon. and gallant Friend has had more, of aerial survey, and if the Minister looks at this matter in a progressive spirit he may find it possible to save public money by adopting the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I believe that aerial 272 survey is even used for surveying water. In the Red Sea—the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton), I believe, is familiar with the facts—aerial survey was used for charting reefs. Where the water is clear a survey of that kind is much quicker and cheaper than an ordinary survey. I do not know the number of men or the amount of apparatus or the experience required for surveying a piece of land in the ordinary way, but I do know that at a moderate height, or at a great height with the necessary telescopic camera, a piece of land can be most accurately surveyed and the survey can be carried on from place to place, so as to produce a complete chart of the land which is accurate within very narrow limits. I know, for example, that during the War the Sinai peninsula was surveyed for the first time by aerial photography. Everybody knows that in the War, when the greatest accuracy was necessary for battery work, aerial photographs were used and guns were trained on positions which were only known by means of aerial surveys.
§ Earl WINTERTONAnd for trench raids.
§ Captain BENNAnd if you can chart with accuracy to within a few feet by means of aerial photography, which can be carried out in a few moments it should be tried. The suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is a most valuable one and I hope that the Minister in his reply, which I do not expect to be a long one, will at least hold out some hope that the idea will receive consideration.
Sir A. BOSCAWENAs to aerial survey, I need hardly say that all means whereby the survey of a country can be carried out as economically and efficiently as they are now carried out, will be considered. Our ordnance maps are really the most accurate things of the kind in the world. There is the question of elevation. I do not know enough of aerial surveying to be able to say whether it can deal with the contour and configuration of the land. The minute descriptions of buildings and enclosures I doubt whether you could get as accurately from the air as they are given in our ordnance survey. It has been suggested that we might economise by stopping this work altogether. We have a magnificent establishment in existence. The land has been surveyed 273 from year to year. Owing to building operations, the erection of new works, the sinking of new pits, and so on, changes have constantly been made and maps rapidly get out of date. It would be a grave disaster if we disbanded this extraordinarily highly trained staff which, probably, we could not gather together again and get into its present state of efficiency except after the lapse of many years. My Noble Friend (Earl Winterton) has suggested that we might economise by employing surveyors in the Colonies. I did not gather whether he meant the civilian part of the staff or the Royal Engineers. I agree that, having regard to the nature of many of our Colonies, new and unexplored countries, much could be done, but, after all, who is going to pay for it?
§ Earl WINTERTONAt this moment land settlement for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors is being held up in Rhodesia, and I believe in Kenya Colony, because it is impossible to obtain the services of skilled surveyors. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should send some of his Department overseas. He could thus save money to this country and he could eventually get the money back from the Colonies.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN"Eventually get the money back," but before we can do anything of that kind we must come to some agreement with the Dominion or Colonial Government.
§ Earl WINTERTONHave you taken any steps in that direction?
Sir A. BOSCAWENI am quite prepared to put myself into communication with the Colonial Office, but I should regard it as a grave national misfortune if for what is really quite a small sum we abandoned a service which has done such excellent work in the past, a service which we could not restart except probably at great expense. You will have to get rid of numbers of officials, and probably most of them will be pensionable. I think it has already been pointed out that one of the principal duties of an officer of the Ordnance Survey is to train the staff of the Royal Engineers in surveying. We saw the fruits of that in the War. No sooner did the War break out than the Ordnance Survey staff at home was reduced to a minimum, and nearly every one of the 274 trained men sent abroad, with the result that the maps made by the Royal Enginners who had been trained in the Ordnance Survey Department were magnificently done, and were of the greatest service to the army both in France and in other countries. To disperse and disband a service of that sort which is both civilian and military is a very serious matter. I hope the House will not suggest that any such course should be adopted. We have here splendid work being done at an economical rate. I am using all possible means to economise further, as much as possible in this and in the Agricultural Department, but I cannot see it would be in the national interest to disband this staff.
§ Mr. ACLANDIn following hon. Members who have previously raised questions on this Vote, I am bound to say I look at this from a special point of view as one who is interested in forestry. That is a department of Government activities which costs between £300,000 and £400,000, and in regard to it the part usually played by my hon. Friends behind me has been taken up by the Treasury, who are proposing to cut it down by £200,000. The speeches which have been made to-day by some right hon. Gentlemen opposite will be of the greatest value to us in resisting that proposed slaughter of the forestry services threatened by the Treasury at the present time. They are using all the arguments which we have been using up to the present in vain, and it will be splendid to have all those arguments reinforced out of their own mouths. When the Leader of the House talked about the bad effect of trying to pull up services by the roots, the necessity of paying heavy superannuation allowances to civil servants who would be displaced, and the importance of the steady continuity of the services as being of the real essence of economy, he was bringing forward arguments which will be used again to prevent this service being entirely destroyed. Next year we might take £50,000 off forestry; even this year we might take £25,000, but the refusal of the Government to accept even the most moderate reduction formerly, will now strengthen our hands in resisting any reduction this year. What folly this proposal is! It is quite obvious if the Government really means economy they 275 could have agreed to that moderate reduction of £25,000 in a service of £350,000, and in this and several other Votes we would have been delighted to meet them. Now we shall be reinforced to prevent the reduction which is proposed. It is not a good half-hour's work for the Treasury which has been done while this Vote was under discussion. As one interested in forestry, I am thoroughly glad those speeches have been made from those Benches to-night.