Commons Sitting of 20 February 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Birkenhead Corporation (Ferries) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill,
City of London (Various Powers) Bill,
Croydon Corporation Bill,
To be read a Second time. To-morrow.
Halifax Corporation Bill,
Harrogate Corporation Bill,
Kingston-up-Hull Corporation Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
London and North Eastern Railway Bill,
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
London United Tramways Bill,
Manchester Ship Canal Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Morecambe Corporation Bill,
Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill,
Rawtenstall Corporation Bill,
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
Southampton Harbour Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Southern Railway Bill.
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Stroud Water Bill
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Sunderland Corporation Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Thames Conservancy Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Tynemouth Corporation Bill,
To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.
Wandsworth Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
West Cheshire Water Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
STANDING ORDERS,
Mr. Betterton, Mr. Broad, Mr. Climie, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Hobhouse, Captain Donald Howard, Mr. William Hutchison, Sir George Croydon Marks, Mr. Seely, and Mr. Annesley Somerville nominated Members of the Select Committee on Standing Orders. — [Mr. Griffiths.]
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Tynemouth Water Charges) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ELLIS ISLAND (TREATMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  Mr. BECKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the number of deaths notified of British subjects whilst under detention on Ellis Island, United States of America, during the last 12 months; and what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to alleviate the distress of British subjects who from time to time are incarcerated there?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): The answer to the first part of the question is that- one such death

  1713
  has been reported. With regard to the second part, I would observe that Ellis Island is an American institution over which His Majesty's Government are not in a position to exercise any control, but I understand that the United States Government are considering legislation with a view to improvements in the establishment.
  Mr. BECKER: Since the British Ambassador to the United States of America made his report, have the conditions of British subjects at Ellis Island been alleviated in any way?
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it a fact that the United States Government is doing everything possible in this regard, and that there has been no congestion since last November because emigration has practically ceased?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I think that that is so.

  COLOGNE (POSTAL DELIVERY).
  Mr. BECKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to accelerate the delivery of postal packets between the unoccupied area of Germany and the Cologne zone?
  Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government are not responsible for postal deliveries between unoccupied and occupied territory. I understand that the delays which have occurred were due to insufficient staff on the boundary and the increase of traffic following the abandonment by Germany of passive resistance. I am informed that the staff has now been increased and that the position has, consequently, improved.

  RUSSIA.

    DEATH OF M. LENIN.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Mr. Hodgson, the British Chargé d'Affaires, took in Moscow on the death of Lenin to carry out the usual custom of expressing condolences on behalf of His Majesty's Government; and whether any message of condolence has been sent since the present Government assumed office?
    Mr. PONSONBY: Immediately on hearing of Lenin's death Mr. Hodgson telephoned to the Commissary of Foreign Affairs to inquire whether expressions of condolence would be received, and he was informed that there would be no opportunity for verbal expressions of condolence. Mr. Hodgson then left cards personally on Mr. Tchitcherin. The Corps Diplomatique sent a collective wreath, and followed the procedure suggested by the Commissary. Mr. Hodgson was present with the other foreign representatives at the lying in state before the transfer of the body to the grave, and the Mission flag was flown at half-mast till after the funeral. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Has His Majesty's Government sent. a similar message of condolence to the Government of the Palatinate on the death of Herr Schwab?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

    RECOGNITION BY ITALY.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government have been advised of the conditions upon which the Italian Government has agreed to grant recognition to the present Russian administration; and, if so, will he state what those conditions are, particularly as regards the payment of debts, the observance of pre-revolution treaties, and the suppression of Communist propaganda?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The Secretary of State has not received a copy of the Treaty recently concluded between Russia and Italy, and until he is in possession of it, he is not in a position to add to the statement he made in his speech on 14th February.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the Government take steps to obtain from the Italian Government the conditions on which the recognition has been agreed to, and any other points that should be known to the House and the country?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I think that that is being done.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: When shall we have the text of the Treaty?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I cannot say.

    PRE-WAR NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE.
    Mr. MORELasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the publication by the Russian Government of official documents from the Russian Imperial archives disclosing pre-War actions and negotiations between our Russian and French Allies presumably withheld from His Majesty's Government and concealed from this House, of the existence of numerous falsifications, likewise revealed by the Russian Government, in the Russian Imperial Orange Book, which was officially circulated together with the official publications of other. Allied Governments by His Majesty's Government at the outbreak of war, and of the recent reproduction of many of these documents in the Congressional Record of the United States, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of placing Members of this House in a position at least as advantageous as that of members of the United States Congress for the examination of these documents, by issuing them as a White Paper, and will further consider the public advantage which would be derived from the publication of such documents as may exist in the British official records calculated to throw light upon these disclosures?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The United States Congress places material on its Record of a less official kind than that laid before Parliament by His Majesty's Government, and it is impossible to publish as a White Paper records of negotiations with which His Majesty's Government were not at the time directly concerned, and of which they have now no knowledge other than that in the possession of the public at large. In any case action could not be taken in the manner suggested without the permission of the other Governments concerned. The same consideration applies to the suggestion in the. last part of the hon. Member's question. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, sees, however, the advantage of some further publication of the pre-War British records, and will consider what course might be profitably adopted.

    WORKERS' HOURS AND WAGES.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour if arrangements can be made for particulars to be obtained through the British representative in Russia of the
    1716
    wages paid and hours observed by work-people in the principal trades and industries in Russia; and whether such particulars when obtained and duly authenticated can be published for the information of the House?
    Mr SHAW: Conditions in Russia, especially currency conditions, are at present too much in a state of transition, and too diverse to afford any prospect of procuring information as to wages and hours which would have any considerable value for comparative purposes.
    Sir F. HALL: Does not the Government think, considering their entering into arrangements with Russia, that it is advisable that the people here should know the conditions under which labour is carried on? May I press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer? On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not entitled to ask a question of that nature and get a reply? [An HON. MEMBER "What about Turkey?"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be giving us his own view.

    MONTENEGRO.
    Mr. MORELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of recent events in Montenegro and of the fact. that a sum of 100,000 dinars has been placed by the Serbian Government upon the head of each of the Montenegrin leaders who continue to fight for the independence of their country, which has been repeatedly recognised and guaranteed to them by the Great Powers, His Majesty's Government will, in the interests of humanity and of peace in the Balkans, reconsider publishing the Report of Count de Salis, its late envoy to Montenegro, seeing that the author of it was intimately acquainted with Montenegro for many years before the War and was in a position to form an accurate judgment upon the sentiments of the inhabitants?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The hon. Member's suggestion is one to which His Majesty's Government would readily accede, did they feel assured that the publication of Count de Salis' report would conduce either to peace or to the enlightenment of this House regarding existing con-

    1717
    ditions in Montenegro. Apart, however, from the reasons originally advanced in another place against such publication there is the further consideration that the report is now four years out of date, and that since it was made elections have been held in the country, and a full report of these elections, together with an examination of the political conditions then obtaining has already been laid. I feel sure that the hon. Member will recognise that it would not help a difficult situation to publish, four years after the events, a report which deals not with the affairs and actions of this country, but with conditions in a foreign country with whom it is our earnest desire to maintain relations of mutual confidence and friendship.
    Mr. MOREL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Montenegro are being exterminated systematically at this moment, and are being hunted and slaughtered like sheep in their mountain fortresses, and if the publication of the de Salis report, would not clear up an error of judgment committed at the settlement, is there not some other means by which His Majesty's Government could act, so as to show what is being done?
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Has the hon. Gentleman been in communication with our representatives in that part of the world with regard to what has been going on quite recently, and has he seen photographs published in the Serbian papers, which are described as "pacification of Montenegro," in which the corpses of victims are displayed, and if it is obviously impossible to publish the do Salis report, will His Majesty's Government take some steps to prevent the indiscriminate extermination of Montenegrins?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The Foreign Office art acquainted with the facts as described and are keeping a close watch on the proceedings, but I do not think that the publication of the de Salis Report would in any way help the situation at the present time.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that we might easily 'send some of our pacifist propagandists there?
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Cannot we have a new report brought out regarding more recent conditions, to enable Members of this House to decide what steps we can take regarding a nation which was an ally of this nation during the War?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I will consider that.

    SOCIALIST MOVEMENTS ABROAD.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to appoint Labour Attaches to British Embassies abroad to watch Socialist movements in foreign countries?
    Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of appointing officials for the purpose indicated.

    JUBALAND.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with regard to the settlement of the Jubaland question with Italy; whether the Milner or the Scialoja line has been adopted; and whether this has been settled in conjunction with the question of the Dodecanese?
    Mr. PONSONBY: So far as territorial arrangements in Jubaland are concerned, agreement was reached between Lord Milner and Signor Scialoja in April, 1920. The Milner and Scialoja lines are therefore identical. The negotiations have not yet reached a conclusion because more extensive territorial claims in Juba-land have been advanced by the Italian Government, to which His Majesty's Government do not see their way to accede. Any settlement will, of course, have to include an equitable arrangement. respecting the connected question of the ultimate status of the Dodecanese.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is there any prospect of an immediate settlement of the question?
    Mr. PONSONBY: No. I do not think that there is any prospect of an immediate settlement.
    Mr. JOHN HARRIS: Before any agreement for the transfer of these territories is reached, will the peoples of these

    1719
    countries be consulted, or will a settlement be arrived at without any reference whatever to the inhabitants?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not advisable to come to a settlement as soon as possible, with a view to improving our relations with Italy?
    Mr. PONSON BY: I think that that is so. No time will be lost.
    Sir SYDNEY HENN: Will His Majesty's Government take care that any settlement arrived at will include compensation to any British subjects or British companies operating in the territory transferred from one country to another?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

    SPITZBERGEN (MINES).
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all objections to the Norwegian draft mining Bill on the part of the British companies working mines in Spitzbergen have been met, or whether any objections to the Bill still remain to be settled before the Bill is accepted by the British Government?
    Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government have accepted the Mining Regulations prescribed in the Spitzbergen Treaty. Before doing so, representatives of mining companies were consulted, and while every care was taken to safeguard British interests, His Majesty's Government did not, in every case, see their way to lend their support to all objections put forward.

    PASSPORTS.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to recommend that the life of a British passport be increased from two years to a period of five years or longer?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The answer is in the affirmative. The matter is being proceeded with on the lines indicated in the answer given to the hon. Member by my predecessor on the 21st ultimo.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I thank the hon. Gentleman, and say that, he has the gratitude of all British travellers? Would he say when this change is to be put into practice? Can he give an approximate date?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I cannot give a date, because it is rather a long and difficult process. Foreign and Dominion Governments have to be consulted.

    JAPANESE NAVY (EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether the imperial Japanese navy suffered any material loss as a result of the earthquake in Japan; if so, in what respect; and whether the standard of strength of the imperial Japanese navy may be considered to have been materially affected?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the Noble Lord's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Viscount CURZON: Can I have an answer to the last part of the question—whether the standard of strength of the imperial Japanese navy may be considered to have been materially affected?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the point of the earthquake situation the financial damage caused to Japan?
    Mr. AMMON: I am glad to say that there has been no very material damage done, but the Noble Lord will find full details in the answer which is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir PAGE CROFT: Was a single Japanese ship sunk or seriously damaged as a result of the earthquake?
    Mr. AMMON: That point is dealt with in the reply.
    Following is the reply promised:
    The material losses suffered by the Japanese navy due to the recent earthquake are:

    (1) The "Amagi," battle cruiser, at Yokosuka, suffered such severe structural

    1721
    damage that her conversion to an aircraft carrier has been abandoned, and she will be scrapped.

    The "Kaga," battleship, which was to have been scrapped under the terms of the Washington Treaty will now be converted into an aircraft carrier in place of the "Amagi." This, therefore, entails little or no material loss.

    (2) The "Naka," a light cruiser of 5,570 tons displacement, carrying 7 5'5 inch guns, was severely damaged on the stocks at Yokohama. She was nearly ready for launching, but will now probably be taken to pieces and rebuilt. This is the only serious loss as far as ships are concerned.

    (3) Two destroyers under construction were slightly damaged. Two submarines refitting were slightly damaged. Two coastal motor-boats were burnt.

    Oil Fuel.
    About 84,000 tons of oil fuel belonging to the navy was destroyed, and the storage tanks in which it was contained were damaged.
    Damage to Dockyards.
    The naval dockyard at Yokosuka and private building yards at Yokohama, Tokyo and Uraga were severely damaged by the earthquake and fire, and will probably have a limited capacity of output for about 12 months, after which time they should be in full working order again.
    Naval Establishments.
    Various training establishments, the naval arsenal at Tokyo, and the cordite factory at Hiratsuka were completely or partially destroyed.
    The damage to naval establishments, etc., is estimated at £10,000,000, which will be provided by Supplementary Estimates.
    It is understood that the completion of the Auxiliary Shipbuilding programme has been postponed for one year until 31st March, 1929, and the completion of "Alterations to Capital Ships" for one year until 31st March, 1932. The completion of the "Extensions of Dockyards" programme will probably also he postponed for four years until 31st March, 1932. Money has already been voted for these, and the postponements are with a view to effecting temporary economies.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    H.M.S. "RALEIGH" (G. M. THORNHILL).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the late 1st Class Stoker George M. Thornhill, of H.M.S. "Raleigh," who lost his life in endeavouring to save the lives of his shipmates at the wreck of the "Raleigh," was, at the time of his death, making a weekly allowance of 25s. to his invalid mother and whether, in these circumstances, a pension can be granted to the mother as some compensation to her for the loss of income she has suffered through the death of her son?
    Mr. AMMON: This case has been most carefully investigated, and the fact that Stoker Thornhill made an allowance of 25s. a week to his mother was fully appreciated at the time her application for a pension was under consideration. The Regulations governing pensions to parents of seamen (or soldiers or airmen) whose deaths are due to the Service do not pro vide for the award of assistance when the father is alive and earning normal wages, and I regret that it has consequently not been practicable to make any award to Mrs. Thornhill.
    Mr. THURTLE: Does my hon. Friend realise that the refusal of a pension in this case means that the mother of this very gallant seaman has been seriously penalised by the heroic action of her son?
    Mr. HARDIEIs it to be the policy of this Government, in any case like this, that people are to be forced into a pauperised position?
    Mr. AMMON: This Government and other Governments must and can operate only within the Regulations that are in force.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman state that this Government is going to make a promise now to change these things?

    WELFARE REQUESTS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the decisions given on the 1919 and 1922 welfare requests by the petty officers and men of the Royal Navy are to be enforced, especially with,

    1723
    regard to the reply given to general request No. 18 of the 1919 programme?
    Mr. AMMON: The answer is in the affirmative.

    SCAPA FLOW (BLOCKED CHANNEL).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if any decision has been arrived at to make further efforts to remove the block-ships in the Holm Sound and Water Sound, Scapa Flow?
    Mr. AMMON: I am glad to say that the operations for clearing the Channel in Holm Sound by the raising of the "Numidian" blockship have been successful, and the Admiralty propose to take steps at considerable public expense to prevent any repetition of the obstruction by the complete removal of the vessel from her present position. The Admiralty are not prepared to undertake any further work at the public expense in this connection when that operation has been completed.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the Admiralty prepared to take the unique opportunity of entering into negotiations with the firm that has a contract for raising the ex-German fleet, and see whether that firm could not remove some of these ships, which are causing much distress to the islanders?
    Mr. AMMON: We shall consider any practicable recommendations that are made.

    WRITER RATINGS (WARRANT RANK).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of writer rating's who have qualified for warrant rank; the number of writer ratings who have been promoted to warrant rank since 1st January, 1920; the number of paymaster cadets entered into His Majesty's service since 1st January, 1920; and whether he will consider the equity of reducing the number of future entries of paymaster cadets and of promoting to warrant rank a corresponding number of writer ratings in lieu, having regard to the fact that by Article 1,338 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions the duties of a warrant writer are defined as similar to those of a, junior accountant officer?
    Mr. AMMON: As the reply is somewhat long I will, with my hon. Friend's per-
    1724
    mission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I may say now that warrant writers' duties are not entirely similar, as they have no training or experience in supply duties, victualling and catering duties, naval law and international law, whereas junior accountant officers have.
    The reply is as follows:—
    Fifty-five chief petty officer writers are at present qualified for warrant rank. There have been five promotions to warrant rank since 1st January, 1920, and since that date 60 paymaster cadets have been entered. The position as regard promotion to warrant rank in the writer branch compares favourably with that in other branches. All have suffered from the congestion inseparable from reduction from war to peace requirements. The flow in the writer branch will be fairly regular during the next five years, and the average number of promotions per annum due to retirements will exceed four.
    The pay of a warrant writer rises from 14s. a day on promotion to 17s. A paymaster cadet on entry receives 4s. a day, on promotion to paymaster midshipman as. and on promotion to paymaster sublieutenant 10s. The number of paymaster cadets entered is based on the estimated wastage in the higher ranks. The employment of warrant writers in lieu of junior accountant officers, besides being more costly, would- not provide the requisite material for the higher ranks.

    SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of its importance to all shipbuilding centres, he can now state whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the policy of the last Ministry with regard to expediting the carrying out of what is known as the cruiser programme, with the object of relieving unemployment in those districts where no other form of work is of any use whatever to the skilled men concerned; whether be is aware that in Barrow 1,000 more men will within a very short time probably be discharged owing to the completion of the gun-mounting work on which they are engaged; and whether he is aware that the towns engaged in shipbuilding and steel manufacture are among those where the depression is greatest at the present moment?
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if it has been decided that the policy of expediting the programme of construction of light cruisers and other craft is to 'be continued; and, if so, whether the claims of the large number of unemployed in the shipbuilding industry in Hull for a share in this programme will be considered Then contracts are allotted?
    Mr. AMMON: I will answer these questions together. This matter is receiving the earnest and urgent consideration of the Government, and if the hon. Members will repeat their questions next week I shall be in a position to make a definite statement on the subject,.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: When considering this programme, will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the commercial yards can tender for national ships and that the national yards cannot tender for commercial ships? Will he see that the incidence of any reduction does not fall on the Royal Dockyards?
    Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: When the consideration of this question comes on, will due regard be given to the claims of Newcastle-on-Tyne?

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (GENERATING STAFF WAGES).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that employes without pension rights in His Majesty's dockyards, and particularly those of the generating staff, receive in many cases a wage-rate lower than that recognised by the trades unions for work involving similar skill in the open market; and if he will remove this discrepancy?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges): The various departments of the dockyards are deemed to be engaged in a common industry, and the wages of the various classes of employes are assessed on this basis. There are doubtless cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member in which the wages of some of the employes would be improved if the rates recognised in a variety of outside industries were adopted in the dockyards, but this would not be to the advantage of the employes in general, nor suitable to the special circumstances of the dockyards.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the generating staff work, 56 hours a week, and will he take steps to remedy this evil, at the same time seeing that no loss of pay ensues on the basis of a 47 hours week?
    Mr. HODGES: I am not aware of the facts officially, though I am well aware of them unofficially, and they will be inquired into. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that in the dockyards there exists adequate and proper machinery for bringing up cases of this description for treatment.
    Mr. SEXTON: Does the hon. Member think that his reply is consistent with the Resolution moved in this House by the Labour party'?

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider reducing the qualifying age for marriage allowance to all ratings in His Majesty's Navy to the age of 21 and whether he will consider granting marriage allowances to all officers in His Majesty's Navy?
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to marriage allowance for officers for the coming year?
    Mr. AMMON: The age-limit rule for marriage allowance for men, which applies also to the Army and Air Force, was laid down after very careful consideration at the time of the introduction of this allowance in 1920, and I am not prepared to recommend any departure there from. As regards officers' marriage allowance. I am unable to say more than that the matter is under consideration.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the absence of this allowance presses very hardly on what may be called ranker officers?
    Mr. AMMON: The whole of the facts are being taken into consideration. It is thought the age limit is placed most properly.
    Sir B. FALLE: It is not a question of the age limit, but of the marriage allowance itself.

    VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now report on the results achieved in

    1727
    vocational training of naval ratings by the expenditure of the sum of £2,500 voted in the 1923–24 Naval Estimates under the resettlement scheme; and whether the Admiralty will establish the principle that, providing the requirements of the Service admit, all men in the last two months of their first continuous service engagements and engagements to complete time for pension will be allowed to undergo courses of vocational training to fit them for return to civil life?
    Mr. AMMON: The scheme of vocational training has been in force for such a, short time that no report on the results achieved can yet be made. With regard to the second part of the question, I am afraid this principle cannot be admitted, as it

    Type.

    Full Commission.

    Reduced Commission.

    Reserve Commission.

    Paid off for refit, etc.

    Total.

    Battleships

    …

    9

    1

    1

    1

    12

    Battle Cruisers

    …

    2 (b)

    1

    —

    1

    4

    Cruisers

    …

    —

    —

    1(c)

    1(d)

    2

    Light Cruisers

    …

    14(b)

    2

    3

    3

    22

    Aircraft Carriers

    …

    2

    1

    2

    1

    6

    Flotilla Leaders

    …

    5

    1

    7

    —

    13

    Destroyers

    …

    40

    34

    80

    1

    155

    Sloops

    …

    4

    —

    —

    11

    15

    Submarines

    …

    35

    —

    11

    —

    46

    Minelayers

    …

    —

    1

    —

    —

    1

    Destroyers depot ships

    …

    2

    —

    3

    —

    5

    Submarine depot ships

    …

    5

    —

    —

    —

    5

    (a) Most of the Atlantic Fleet ships in full commission are at present cruising in Mediterranean.

    (b) Two battle cruisers and 5 light cruisers in full commission are at present on Empire cruise.

    (c) Will shortly be taken in hand for conversion to aircraft carrier.

    (d) Is being converted to aircraft carrier.

    On the 19th February, 1924, the strength of the Mediterranean Fleet was:—

    —

    Full Commission

    Reduced Commission

    Reserve Commission

    Paid off.

    Total

    Battleships

    …

    4

    2

    —

    —

    6

    Light Cruisers

    …

    6

    —

    —

    —

    6

    Flotilla Leaders

    …

    2

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Destroyers

    …

    10

    —

    2

    —

    18

    Sloops

    …

    4

    —

    —

    —

    4

    Destroyer depot ships

    …

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    On the 1st February, 1913, the strength of the Mediterranean Fleet was:—

    Battle Cruiser

    …

    …

    1

    All in full commission

    Armoured Cruisers

    …

    …

    3

    Cruisers, 2nd Class

    …

    …

    2

    Cruisers, 3rd Class

    …

    …

    2

    Destroyers

    …

    …

    10

    Submarines

    …

    …

    3

    would involve a considerable increase in. Vote "A."

    STRENGTH (NORTH SEA AND MEDITERRANEAN).
    Mr. AYLESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the figures as to the strength of the Navy in the North Sea, and the strength in the Mediterranean in 1913 and at the present time?
    Mr. AMMON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply
    On the 19th February, 1924, the strength of the Fleet normally in home waters was:—

    On the 1st February, 1913, the strength of the Fleet in home waters was:—

    —

    Full Commission.

    Reduced Commission.

    Reserve Commission.

    Total.

    Battleships

    …

    …

    29

    11

    15

    55

    Battle Cruisers

    …

    …

    6

    —

    —

    6

    Cruisers, 1st Class

    …

    …

    Nil.

    4

    9

    13

    Cruisers, 2nd Class

    …

    …

    8

    10

    10

    28

    Cruisers, 3rd Class

    …

    …

    Nil

    3

    —

    3

    Armoured Cruisers

    …

    …

    7

    5

    6

    18

    Unarmoured Cruisers

    …

    …

    1

    —

    —

    1

    Flotilla Cruisers

    …

    …

    7

    —

    —

    7

    Destroyer depot ships

    …

    …

    7

    —

    —

    7

    Destroyers

    …

    …

    141

    20

    —

    161

    Submarines

    …

    …

    48

    7

    —

    55·

    Submarine depot ships

    …

    …

    7

    —

    —

    7·

    REVIEW (RIVER THAMES
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the great number of colonial and other visitors who will be present in London during the summer months, and the popularity of previous displays before and after the War, he will arrange for a review of the Navy on the Thames on the same lines as the last displays during the summer or autumn of this year?
    Mr. AMMON: The movements of the Atlantic Fleet during the summer months have not yet been decided. I can assure the hon. Member that the fact of the presence in London of a large number of visitors from the Empire overseas will not be overlooked when making out the programme.

    RECRUITING FOR BOY
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether recruiting for boys for the Navy is still in force; whether any inducements axe offered to boys leaving elementary schools in London and Greater London; and can he state what steps his Department takes in order to recruit boys for the Navy?
    Mr. AMMON: Recruiting for boys for the Navy is still in force. No special steps are taken to enter London boys at the expense of boys in other parts of the country, and local educational authorities are not applied to in order to send in suitable candidates, except for special appointments such as artificer apprentices.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman, as an inducement to boys to enter the Navy, abolish the degrading punishment, called corporal punishment—birching and caning?

    PROPOSED MERSEY TUNNEL
    Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Labour whether any representations have been made to him by the municipal authorities of the Merseyside with regard to a proposed scheme for a Mersey tunnel; and, if so, can any statement be made with regard thereto?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to answer this question. A deputation was recently received, representing the local bodies. concerned. Financial and engineering details of a preliminary character were then submitted, and these are still under examination.

    EX-SERVICE TRAINEES (PRESTON HALL, AYLESFORD).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists among ex-service men at the training institution, Preston Hall, Aylesford, Kent, in respect of the Ministry's refusal to pay a training bonus to light leather workers as promised by the medical superintendent; and, if so, will he have the matter remedied?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Mr. J. W. Muir): I have been asked to reply. Preston Hall is not under the control of

    1731
    the Ministry, but I understand that a number of the men who have been sent there for treatment by the Ministry have been provided by the medical superintendent with occupation in light leather work. In view of the agreement arrived at between the Ministry of Labour and representatives of the leather goods trade, my right hon. Friend is not in t position to recognise any course of instruction that can be given in this trade at Preston Hall as sufficient to qaulify for the payment of bonus. I am, however, inquiring further into the position, and will communicate later with my hon. Friend.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is absolutely impossible to hear some of the replies to questions? When some of the Ministers stoop down towards their papers we cannot hear a word of their answers.
    An HON. MEMBER: That is not a new phenomenon.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRADE DISPUTES DISQUALIFICATION COMMITTEE.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received the Report of the Trade Disputes Disqualification Committee; and, if not, what action does he propose to take to secure an early settlement of the issue referred to the Committee?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Minister of Labour whether he will, in view of his contemplated statement of Departmental policy regarding unemployed benefit, be able to report definitely on the long-standing remit to the Trade Dispute Disqualification Committee?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): The Committee have not yet presented a Report, but they have resumed their sittings and I understand will endeavour to report at an early date. I think it advisable that I should await the report of the Committee before making any statement on the subject.
    Mr. SHORT: Is the Minister aware this Committee has been in being over two years and we are still awaiting their report; and can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to expedite matters?
    Mr. SHAW: I am aware of the fact I mentioned by the hon. Member. The next question will, I think, show the answer to the hon. Member.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the Minister go into this matter personally, because it is two years since the subject was remitted to the Committee, and as it is of great importance will he do everything possible to expedite the Report'?
    Mr. SHAW: I said in answer to a question previously, that the Committee were sitting. I have stated in answer to this question that I hope the Committee will present an early report. The matter is under consideration and it is my desire to have an early report. If I do not get an early report, it is my intention to press for it.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour the number of meetings held by the Trade Disputes Disqualification Committee since its inception and as from August, 1923?
    Mr. SHAW: The number of meetings held by the Committee since its inception is 15. Six of these meetings have been held since the end of August, 1923, one as recently as Wednesday last. There was a break in the sittings of the Committee from the middle of November to the middle of February.

    RELIEF WORKS (WAGES RATES).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour if he will remove the restrictions at present in force reducing the rate of wages for those engaged on unemployment works below the trade union rate of the district?
    Mr. H. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now give an undertaking to the House that the proviso shall be abolished in unemployment relief schemes under direct labour whereby only 75 per cent. of the trade union or district rate of wages may be paid to so-called unskilled labour on work which is normally regarded as unskilled?
    Mr. SHAW: As I stated last week, this matter has received careful consideration. It has been decided to modify the existing rule. The terms of the modification will be announced in the course of the next few days.

    MERCANTILE SERVICE.
    Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any proposals to secure employment for, or assist in any way, the large number of masters and officers of the mercantile service at present without berths; and, if so, what his proposals are?
    Mr. SHAW: A number of proposals for relieving unemployment among masters and officers of the mercantile marine were put before my predecessor by representative associations. While one or two of these proposals are still under consideration, I regret to say that the remainder were found to be quite impracticable. There is, I am afraid, great difficulty in discovering any way of giving special assistance to these men, outside the general arrangements for the relief of unemployment, pending the time when the increase of shipping activities which will accompany a revival of trade gives them employment in their ordinary work.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the fact that the great bulk of these officers and mates and men would be prepared to enter into a contributory unemployment insurance scheme, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider such a proposal?
    Viscount CURZON: Is the Minister aware that some of these officers have been compelled to take out barrel-organs on the streets, in order to keep themselves alive.?
    Mr. SHAW: I am not aware of those facts, nor are they indicated in the question. Any representations made on behalf of these men will receive the most careful, considerate and sympathetic attention.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (CHESHIRE).
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make, inquiries into the numbers of agricultural labourers and stockmen thrown out of work in the Cheshire district through the slaughter of cattle on farms where they usually work; and whether he will assure himself that proper means of support and maintenance are being given to these men, who are suffering from causes over which they have no control whatever?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I
    1734
    have taken special steps to ascertain the position, but it is not possible to, state the precise number of agricultural workers who have for the time being lost their regular employment by reason of the slaughter of cattle in Cheshire. I understand that, as the result of special efforts which have been made by the local authorities and the farmers themselves, the great majority of the men have been able to secure temporary employment. Fortunately, the epidemic shows signs of abating, some of the farms are already being re-stocked with cattle, and there appears good reason to hope that the difficulty will disappear before very long.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the hardship under which many unemployed citizens are suffering through the insufficient amount of benefit, particularly with reference to children; and what steps he will take to have the amount increased at once?
    41. Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that many boards of guardians are now preparing their estimates of expenditure for the next financial year, he can now state the policy of the Government with regard to the further provision of unemployment benefits on the termination of the 26 weeks provided for in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923?
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the hardship inflicted upon individuals and the financial burden imposed upon local authorities owing to the meagre amount of assistance granted to unemployment persons through the Employment Exchanges, which amount in the case of a man to 15s. per week and, if married, for his wife 5s. per week, and less than 2d. per day for each child, he will bring in legislation to amend these allowances so as to enable the man and his dependants to be maintained in reasonable comfort and efficiency apart from the Poor Law or private charitable funds?
    Mr. SHAW: A comprehensive Bill is being prepared in connection with which the points raised by the hon. Members and a number of others are being carefully considered. For the moment, I cannot make a more definite statement.
    Mr. GAVAN DUFFYasked the Minister of Labour if, having regard to the differences of description of premises occupied by Frederick Watson, Wath Brow, Cumberland, given by the investigation officer to the Umpire, which has resulted in the termination of Frederick Watson's unemployment benefit, he will appoint some competent authority to reexamine the report which the investigation officer has issued as to the accuracy of such report, and give power to call for witnesses and documents?
    Mr. SHAW: The Umpire is the final authority in deciding questions on claims to benefit, and when an appeal is taken to him it is for him to decide as to the value and sufficiency of the evidence submitted. I cannot interfere with his discretion in this matter, and if it is desired to challenge the accuracy of a report which has been placed before the Umpire, it is open to the parties interested to make representations to the Umpire and submit to him such other evidence as may be available.
    Mr. DUFFY: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will draw attention to this matter on the Adjourn rent to-morrow night.

    OPERATIVE PAINTERS.
    Mr. RAFFETYasked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that there is at the present time acute unemployment amongst operative painters, and that it is possible at once to undertake a good deal of indoor painting, ordinarily left to the spring and summer when there is often a rush of work, he will do his utmost to encourage public authorities and private employers to proceed with indoor painting during the present winter season so as to distribute the work more equally throughout the year?
    Mr. SHAW: The Unemployment Grants Committee have given grants to public authorities to enable them to undertake, during the winter, indoor painting and other decorative work which ordinarily would not be carried out until the spring or summer. No form of assistance in this connection is, however, available for private employers. I agree that if work of this character could be spread throughout the year, it would be to the advantage of a number of workmen at the moment unemployed, but, as
    1736
    regards private employers, I do not think I can do more than call attention to the point.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the schools, especially in the London district, sadly need painting; and is it possible for him to encourage this work to he undertaken through the London Education Committees?
    Mr. SHAW: I will willingly encourage all work of this character that I can encourage.

    PUBLIC UTILITY SCHEMES
    Mr. TURNER-SAMUELSasked the Minister of Labour if he will set up a National Employment Committee to investigate and to recommend to the Government employment schemes of public utility on a scale commensurate with the present problem of unemployment?
    Mr. SHAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton.

    COUNTY OF. LONDON (LIVE REGISTERS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Labour the present number of unemployed registered in the county of London, giving details of men, women and young persons: and how they compare with the figures of a year ago?
    Mr. SHAW: At lth February, 1924, there were on the live registers of Employment Exchanges in the county of London, 97,580 men, 27,194 women, 4,393 boys. and 4,084 girls, as compared with 116,859 men, 29,120 women, 6,656 boys and 5,354 girls at 12th February, 1923. My hon. Friend will observe that there is a considerable reduction in each category.

    VOCATIONAL TRAINING (ADULTS).
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the, Government's proposals for more adequate dealing with unemployment, vocational training will be provided for adults to meet the needs of those unemployed workers for whom there is no early prospect of work in their former trades?
    Mr. SHAW: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present. I may remind the hon. Member that, apart from the building trades, there are at present very few industries in which there is any effective demand for additional skilled labour.

    JUVENILE CENTRES.
    Mr. E HARVEYasked the Minister of Labour how many young persons are receiving educational training in connection with juvenile unemployment centres; how many such centres are now in existence; and whether he proposes to make provision for the continuance and extension of such educational training for unemployed workers in receipt of unemployment pay?
    Mr. SHAW: The number of young persons in average attendance at the juvenile unemployment centres during the week ended 13th February was 7,180, composed of 4,422 boys and 2,758 girls. The number of centres now open is 79 in the area of 37 local education authorities. The question of making provision for the continuance and extension of centres for unemployed juvenile workers is at present receiving my consideration.

    CASUAL WORKERS (HULL).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by the dockers and other casual workers at Hull and other ports at the methods of administering the Unemployment Insurance Act, whereby half-days employed are allowed to count nothing towards the drawing of benefit for which three days have to be spent without work before anything can be drawn; that this inflicts hardship on these insured workers; that when a man has not obtained work for two days, if he obtains work for half a day following he has to start afresh with idle days before drawing anything to carry him on until he can obtain another day's work: and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this state of affairs?
    Mr. SHAW: The conditions to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and which, I may say, are not quite accurately stated in the question, were the subject of consideration in Parliament last year and an amendment in the law was then made with the express object of meeting
    1738
    grievances alleged by dockers and other casual workers. The question whether or not any further amendment should now be proposed is among those I am considering in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Bill I propose to introduce later in the Session.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men are still very much dissatisfied with the way the Act is administered?
    Mr. SHAW: I am quite aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists, and I have very little hope of taking it all away. I can only do my best.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Can the Minister tell us, having regard to the means of avoiding any further difficulties with the dockers, whether the Government are prepared to give their support to a Bill for the decasualisation of labour which will be brought before the House?
    Mr. G. SPENCER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter also applies to miners, and that in some of the mines of which I know the men are having five half-days a week, and have worked in this way 15 or 16 weeks in the summer, and have not been entitled to a single penny of out-of-work pay?
    Mr. SHAW: I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of many facts of this character in more than one industry.
    Mr. SPENCER: Are you going to remedy them? That is the point.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT.

    SHOP ASSISTANTS.
    Mr. HOFFMANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the continued representations of shop assistants that the Trades Boards Act should be applied to their occupation, and that their action in this regard has received the repeated endorsement of the Trades Union Congress and the National Labour party; and if he has any statement to make on the matter?
    Mr. SHAW: I have this matter under consideration, but I regret that I am unable to make a statement at the moment.

    ALUMINIUM HOLLOW-WARE TRADE.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Labour whether representations have been made to him to apply the Trade Boards Acts to the aluminium hollowware trade; and, if so, will he state if he is in a position to announce his decision on the matter?
    Mr. SHAW: I have received such representations, and am having inquiry made in the matter.

    COST OF LIVING.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to make any inquiry into the method by which the index figure for the cost of living is arrived at and as to whether it correctly represents the advance in the cost of living as compared with August, 1914?
    Mr. HOFFMANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the general dissatisfaction with the cost-of-living index figure as calculated by the Labour Ministry and published monthly in the Labour Gazette; and if he will set up a committee of inquiry with the object of obtaining an index more reflective of the actual increase in the cost of living to the average working-class family?
    Mr. SHAW: I am aware that the official cost-of-living index figure has often been criticised from different points of view. Criticism may most properly be directed, I think, to the fact that the latest budgets of working-class expenditure, which form part of the basis of the calculations, were collected as long ago as 1904. So long as the object of the index number is as at present to show the changes in the cost of maintaining a pre-War standard, this does not materially affect the accuracy of the calculations; but I think it is essential that a new inquiry into working-class expenditure should be undertaken at the earliest opportunity. Suitable information could not, however, be obtained during the present abnormal conditions of employment, but I propose to institute an inquiry as soon as conditions become sufficiently normal.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government intend to put forward any
    1740
    legislation, or take any measures whatsoever, to prevent the steady increase in the cost of living; and, if so, when this action will be forthcoming?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): This is a type of question that can be answered only in Debate. Increases in the cost of living are due to many causes, not all of which are within the control of Governments. His Majesty's Government will lose no opportunity to check transactions known as profiteering.

  HOUSING.

    CRAFTSMEN APPRENTICES.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that hitherto there has been a limitation of apprentices bound to craftsmen of one in seven, with a maximum of eight to any craft in any firm, and such regulations hamper the rapid construction of houses, he is using his influence to induce the unions concerned to modify, in the public interest, these restrictions?
    Mr. SHAW: I cannot accept the statements in the question, but as the hon. Member is probably referring to the building trades, I may explain that the number of apprentices is much below the number permitted by the agreements between the employers' and operatives' organisations. These organisations baye assured me of their co-operation in the formulation of proposals by which the number of apprentices may be increased in accordance with the requirements of the industry, and I hope to receive these proposals in the near future.

    BUILDING TRADES (DILUTION).
    Sir L. LYLEasked the Minister of Labour if he can state the position regarding the negotiations at present proceeding with the Building Trades Union on the question of dilution?
    Mr. SHAW: The National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives have formed a Committee for the purpose of making proposals on the supply of building labour, and I understand that they hope to be in a position to formulate definite plans in the near future.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (ROYAL COMMISSION)
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to advise the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate the medical service under the National Insurance Act and kindred matters?
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that a court of inquiry has recently estimated the value of the medical service under the National Health Insurance system, he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission, as promised' by his predecessor, to investigate the administration of National Health Insurance?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): The Government propose to advise the setting up of a Royal Commission as soon as arrangements can conveniently be made, to inquire into and make recommendations as to the whole system of National Health Insurance
    Sir K. WOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman at the same time to consider the advisability of making the reference to this Commission as wide as possible, and also the desirability of putting people on the Commission who have already some knowledge of the subject?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: That will be done.

    MINISTERS' SALARIES.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, considering the heavy responsibility imposed on Ministers and the inadequacy of their salaries, he will consider the question of appointing a committee to review the whole question of Ministerial salaries with a view of increasing the amount to a sum more in accordance with present circumstances as soon as the financial conditions of the country permit of it; and further, considering that the Lord Chancellor has double the salary of the Prime Minister, so to arrange that the Prime Minister is given the higher salary of the two?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to my reply of 12th instant to a supplementary question on this subject by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Mr. Hogge).
    Sir C. YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that he gave me no reply on that occasion? Does he not remember that Mr. Speaker stopped the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I refer my hon. and gallant Friend, not to the. reply I gave to his question, but to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East.
    Sir C. YATE: But may I now ask for a reply to my question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: May I refer the hon. and gallant Member to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 12th February?

    CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS, ETC., BILL.
    Sir LEONARD LYLEasked the Prime Minister what. action the Government, proposes to take with respect to the Children, Young Persons, etc., Bill?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply. This Bill is under consideration, but I regret I can hold out no hope that the Government will be able to find time during the present Session to give facilities for its progress.

    PALESTINE.
    Sir L. LYLEasked the Prime Minister if he will state the policy of the present Government with regard. to Palestine; and how much the administration in that country has cost during the last four years and is estimated to cost us this year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government has to take over Palestinian responsibility as a going concern. It is in consultation with the High Commissioner.
    As regards expenditure, the cost of Palestine to the British Exchequer during the past years has been as follows:

    £

    1920–21

    (approximately)

    8,000,000

    1921–22

    3,155,000

    1922–23

    1,874,000

    1923–24

    (approximately)

    1,400,000

    The cost for 1924–25 is estimated at not more than £1,000,000.

    IRAQ
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the recent Treaty with King Feisal will be submitted to this House for ratification; and whether His Majesty's Government will advise the non-ratification of this Treaty and the early evacuation of Iraq?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Treaty with King Feisal, with the protocol of April, 1923, and subsidiary agreements, will he submitted to the House before ratification. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 19th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). As I then stated, His Majesty's Government are giving careful consideration to the question of the policy to be pursued in Iraq. I can add nothing further at this stage.
    Captain BERKELEY: May we take it that the Government will remember—I am sure we may—that this territory is held under mandate from the League of Nations, and that the League of Nations must be consulted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is all included in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend.
    Earl WINTERTON: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of ratification, does he mean that it will be put forward with the full support of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. This is one of our inheritances, which we shall carry out.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Iraq has applied for entry to the League of Nations, in which case would not the Treaty cease to be operative?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend would give me notice of that question. That is under consideration.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Mandate is already abrogated by the Treaty in question?

    AGRICULTURAL WAGES.
    Mr. S. ROBINSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give any information as to the date when he will be able to introduce legislation to give effect to his promise with regard to the setting up of a wages board and legal minimum wage for agricultural workers?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have been asked to reply. I am not yet in a position to state when it will be possible to introduce legislation to deal with the question of agricultural wages, but every effort is being made to press forward with this question, and I hope that I shall be able to submit my proposals to the House at an early date.
    Mr. ROBINSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that, according to a report I have received from the secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers for the Chelmsford Division, there are many—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not give information just yet.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether the claim for the cost of pensions and allowances forms part of the British Government's demand for reparations from the German Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The British claim for reparations is not now the sum of separate items but a percentage of the total reparation payments to be made by Germany, calculated, we hope, on a survey of her capacity to pay, and there the matter must remain till the negotiations which will follow the report of the Reparation Committee which we now await.

    LONDON STREET TRAFFIC.
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELLTHOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that portions of Oxford Street and other main thoroughfares in London are again being taken up within a few months after being relaid; and whether the proposed London Traffic Bill will contain provisions to co-ordinate

    1745
    and regulate the powers at present exercised by numerous different authorities in this respect.?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have been asked to answer this question. I am aware of the difficulties referred to by the hon. Member, and if the Government decide to introduce any Bill dealing with London traffic, this is one of the points which will be taken into consideration.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask when the decision will be arrived at, whether or not the Government is going to introduce a Bill?
    Mr. GOSLING: I hope very shortly.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether the Government recognises the enormous amount of loss there is owing to the congested state of the London streets, and will the Government take steps to accelerate the bringing in of a Bill to deal with this question?
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether it is not absolutely certain that the Government will not be able to bring in this Bill, but could they not do something, at any rate, on the lines suggested in the question?

    FIGHTING SERVICES (PAY).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by him to a correspondent during the General Election, to the effect that, should any attempt be made to lower the pay of the fighting services, it would be met with the uncompromising opposition of the Labour party, correctly represents the policy of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall forget no pledge I made during the Election.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman admits that the report is correct?
    Sir G. DOYLE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to carry out all the pledges he made during the time of the Election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a mere repetition of the question.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: May I have an answer to my question as to whether
    1746
    the right hon. Gentleman admits that the report is correct?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must take the answer as it given.

    TREATY OF LAUSANNE (STRAITS CONVENTION).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir E. GRIGGasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information upon the attitude of the Dominion Governments towards the obligations to he undertaken under the Straits Convention annexed to the Treaty of Lausanne; whether the Treaty of Lausanne, with the Straits Convention, is to be submitted for ratification in the Dominion Parliaments; and whether, in view of the grave questions of policy raised by the Straits Convention, which are distinct in many ways from those raised by the Treaty itself, he will undertake to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Straits Convention separately before it is ratified?
    Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government are still in communication with the Dominion Governments regarding the ratification of the various instruments signed at Lausanne which together form the peace settlement with Turkey, and which include both the Treaty of Peace and the Straits Convention. As was explained in the published summary of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference of 1923, it is for each Government to decide whether Parliamentary approval or legislation is required. The various instruments of the peace, settlement are mutually interdependent, and it would not be practicable, even if Parliamentary time were available, to give a separate day for the discussion of any single one of them.
    Sir E. GRIGG: Were the obligations under the Straits Convention discussed at the recent Imperial Conference?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I shall require notice of that question.

    HUNGARY.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the

    1747
    present Hungarian regime, which was formally recognised in the name of the Supreme Council on 20th November, 1919, was recognised on certain conditions, one of which was that the Hungarian Government shall secure to the Hungarian citizen full civil rights, including freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, the free expression of political opinion, and universal suffrage resting on an impartial, secret, and democratic basis; and whether he will use his influence in the League of Nations to make the adherence to such condition one of the requirements before the granting of the suggested loan?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The Prime Minister is aware that certain stipulations, including the establishment of universal suffrage, were made by the Supreme Council in October, 1919, as a Condition of the recognition of the Hungarian Government. The Supreme Council were satisfied on this point, and, in fact, a general election was thereupon held on the basis of universal suffrage. Subsequent legislation by the Parliament so elected modified the franchise. The negotiations regarding the League of Nations scheme for Hungarian reconstruction have now been practically completed, and the hon. Member will realise that the introduction of political conditions at this stage would inevitably jeopardise the whole scheme.
    Mr. J. HOPE: Is the recognition of the Russian Government contingent on the conditions specified in this question?
    Mr. PONSONBY: No, Sir; the recognition of the Russian Government was unconditional.
    Mr. AYLES: Do the Government really attach any vital importance to the conditions that are laid down in agreements such as those mentioned in the question, and will they see that in any future arrangements that are made with Hungary these stipulations are really carried out?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The Government do attach importance to the observance of the original understanding, but, obviously, they cannot interfere in the internal government of an independent State.

    PUBLIC MEETINGS (ORGANISED OPPOSITION).
    Mr. HOGBINasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to intro-
    1748
    duce further legislation during this present Session to deal with the protection of public meetings from such organised opposition as prevents such meetings from being held?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has considered this subject, but he does not see his way to make any proposals for legislation in regard to it.
    Mr. HOGBIN: Is the hon. Member aware that Members of this House had their meetings broken up by organised gangs during the last Election?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he is aware that, at the preceding Election, meetings of Labour and other organisations were broken up by organised mobs, paid for by hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. C. WILSON: Is it not a fact that, under the Public Meetings Act, 1908, any disturbance which takes place between the issue of the Writ in any Parliamentary Election and the date of polling comes under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, by which the perpetrators may be liable to a fine of £100 and disfranchisement for five years, and whether any action has been taken on those lines in any case?
    Viscount CURZON: is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the people responsible for the occurrences to which my hon. Friend alludes came from Poplar?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Where all good things come from. On a point of Order. I understand the Noble Lord to say I organised them. I will give the Noble Lord the opportunity of withdrawing that statement; otherwise I shall characterise him in the language he deserves. [HoN. MEMBERS "Withdraw!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not understand the Noble Lord to say that.
    Viscount CURZON: I did say it in the course of an interruption. I withdraw that portion, but they came from Poplar.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will you, Sir, kindly inform me if I am in order this time in asking whether the Noble Lord has the right to get up in this House and speak as an expert on law?
    Earl WINTERTON: I should like to raise a point of Order, which seems to me of some importance, namely, whether, when you are on your feet, an hon. Gentleman should not immediately give way, and whether your attention has been called to the fact that it is constantly the habit of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to remain on his feet and refuse to sit down when you are on your feet, and whether he should not be called upon to conform to the ordinary rules of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must say I thought the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley was improving in that respect.

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BRITISH DEBT).
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will consider approaching the United States with a view to an arrangement whereby the payment of the British debt to America is made in sterling instead of in dollars?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): No such step is in contemplation.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that some steps might be taken in that direction, because of the effects on exchange, and therefore on trade, and to some extent on the cost of living?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; the short reply to the hon. Member is that the United States would not entertain a request of that kind, because, even if we could agree to the suggestion, it would be quite unnecessary to put it forward.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION.
    Captain BERKELEYasked the Minister of Labour what is the policy of His Majesty's Government relative to the ratification of those recommendations and conventions of the International Labour Organisation that have not already been ratified by this country?
    Mr. SHAW: The policy of the Government generally is to endeavour in every
    1750
    possible way to raise the prestige of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations. With that end in view, they have under consideration each of the conventions and recommendations referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and announcements as to their intentions with regard to them will be made in due course.

    EIGHT HOURS' DAY (WASHINGTON CONVENTION).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government propose to ratify the Washington eight-hours' day convention; and, if so, when legislation to this effect will be introduced?
    Mr. SHAW: I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Turner) on 14th February, of which I am sending him a copy. A Bill is now being prepared for the consideration of the Government.

    WHITE LEAD (GENEVA CONVENTION).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour whether the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office have now arrived at a decision in regard to the convention adopted at Geneva, 1921, concerning the prohibition of the use of white lead in interior painting; whether the Government proposes to ratify this i convention; and, if so, when proposals to this end will be submitted?
    Mr. SHAW: Perhaps the Noble Lord will be so good as to put his question on the Paper a week hence, when I hope to be in a position to announce the Government's policy in the matter.

    MUNITION FACTORY EXPLOSION (SLADES GREEN).
    Mr. MILLS(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the terrible explosion at the works of Messrs. Gilberts, ammunition factors, Slades Green; whether he will institute an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances and use the legal powers at his disposal?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The factory at which the explosion occurred is under the control of the Disposals Commission, which does not come within the jurisdiction of the Explosives Act, but I have been informed by the Commission of the circumstances. I m in communication with the coroner and the Disposals Commission with a view to a full investigation being made at the inquest, and the officers of my Department will give any assistance that may be required. I hope the House will permit me to express the great sympathy of His Majesty's Government with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this deplorable accident.
    Mr. MILLS: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether shops outside the jurisdiction of the Government come within the scope of that order?
    Mr. DAVIES: I am not certain on that point, but will inquire.
    Mr. SHORT: Are we to understand that no inquiry is to be made other than that of the inquest?
    Mr. DAVIES: I did not say that.
    Mr. HARDIE: Will inquiry be made particularly to know whether the workers employed knew the different explosives from the colour or any other means?
    Mr. SHORT: On a point of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary in reply to me said that he did not say what I suggested in my supplementary question. I think if he looks at his reply he will see that he gave no indication that there will he any other inquiry apart from that which takes place at the inquest.
    Mr. DAVIES: I will see that a public inquiry is held, if necessary, following the inquest.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: Is it not desirable in occurrences of this kind that there should be an inquiry altogether apart from the coroner's inquest?

  DOCK STRIKE.

    FOODSTUFFS (TRANSPORT).
    Commander BELLAIRS: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking in the present dock dispute to secure the transport of foodstuffs?
    Viscount CURZON(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the interference by picket of strikers on the 19th February with the removal of imported meat in cold storage in Smithfield Market by means of violence; whether this fact is not likely to seriously affect the food supplies of the people; whether in view of his statement on Monday last the Prime Minister can indicate what steps the Government have taken to secure the safe transport of the necessary food supplies, and what steps they have taken to form the necessary organisation required; and whether the Government are prepared to take steps to ensure protection of such men as may be willing to work in order to ensure adequate food supplies for the mass of the population who are unable to face a rise in prices.
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the proposals under consideration by the Government for preventing rises in the price of food are ready for presentation to this House, and when they will be presented?
    Mr. J. JONES: Before the Prime Minister replies to this question, may I ask if the Government are making any provision to protect the people of this country against mad motorists?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that a separate question regarding the mails is to be addressed to the Postmaster-General. With reference to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the proposals will be placed before the House without delay, if the need continues to exist. With reference to the question put by the Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon), the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part also in the affirmative. Regarding the other part of the question, the Government is pushing ahead with all the arrangements necessary, and is now in negotiations which it hopes to finish to-day, and which will make these arrangements effective.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Are we to understand that the need exists to-day, and if it continues to exist for another two or three days that these proposals will be at once introduced; and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any notice will be

    1753
    given, and whether it is proposed to push such proposals through this House in all their stages in one day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If, say, in the course of to-morrow matters are arranged, obviously it would be unnecessary. But if the need continues, I hope the House will enable us to get what we require as emergency legislation.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will these proposals come under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter which is being explored, and no time is being lost to consider the best way to proceed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the Prime Minister tell us the nature of the post to which the Chancellor of the Duchy has been appointed, and under what Statute his powers are to be exercised?
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask what negotiations are necessary with regard to the men willing to work to secure our food supplies? What negotiations are necessary in order to afford them protection?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are at least two ways that can be taken to handle the very difficult and delicate situation. There is one way which will mean more trouble and more bad blood. There is another way which means that an agreement may be come to that essential foodstuffs will be moved, and that is what we are negotiating upon at the present moment. I hope we shall succeed, but if we do not, then the statement I made last Monday will be carried out.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say with whom these negotiations are proceeding? He mentioned negotiations, but he did not state with whom?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Prime Minister aware that he colleague the Home Secretary has stated to the electors that he expected an agreement to be reached last night, and will he state now when the agreement is likely to be reached, because he has afforded me no answer to my question about protection?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The position is perfectly clear. If hon. Members opposite are determined that no agreement
    1754
    is to be reached, then they may press such questions as these. I say that the matter is in hand, and that negotiations are being conducted—[HoN. MEMBERS: "With whom?"]—with everybody concerned. The negotiations are not in a position at the moment to be carried on with Parliament, but they are in hand, and they will be finished to-day, and after that the Government will be in a position to take the steps that it is determined to take in order to fulfil the pledges we have given.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to the nature of the position to which the Chancellor of the Duchy has been appointed, and the powers attached to that appointment?

    AMERICAN MAILS.
    Major KINDERSLEY: (by Private-Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the great detriment to industry and employment caused by the holding up of the American mails, and what steps he is taking to ensure the delivery of those mails?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): I am fully alive to the importance of this matter, and I very much regret the delay which has occurred in regard to the removal of the mails from Plymouth. The distribution of incoming mails throughout the country is essentially a national service, and the Government have taken the necessary steps to secure the smooth working of this service. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the steps which are being taken will ensure the removal of the mails referred to without any further delay.
    Major KINDERSLEY: May I ask the Postmaster-General whose duty is it to move the mails from the quays to the trains?
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask whether the 5,000 bags of mails held up in Plymouth since Saturday and Sunday last are not in the possession of the Government and its agents; whether the Government are under contract for the delivery of those mails; and whether in times gone by it has not always been considered that mails go ahead of all strikes and are a national service?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Arrangements have been entered into with the shipping and railway companies for the bringing into this country of foreign mails, but in consequence of this dispute we have to deal with the arrangement as between the quay and the railway station, and such steps as are being taken are for the purpose of linking up between those two points. That is the matter with which we are dealing, and to which my answer refers.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to state whether the mails which were left by the liner at Plymouth on.Saturday last are still there, or whether they have yet left Plymouth?
    Major KINDERSLEY: I put a supplementary question to the Postmaster-General which I do not think has received any answer. I asked him who was responsible for removing the mails from the quay to the train.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Contracts exist between the shipping companies and the railway companies and the Post Office. It is the business of the shipping and railway companies to carry out those contracts. They have found some difficulty in doing so, and we are helping them in the matter.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have allowed the hon. Member to put two or three questions.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: But I have never had an answer.

TOBACCO SALES.
Mr. BECKER: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the hours during which tobacco may be sold, and to regulate shop assistants' hours of work."
I take this opportunity of submitting
this Motion, so that I may explain away some of the misrepresentations which
were made with regard to this Bill last year, and which are still being made.
One of the two principal Clauses of the Bill reads as follows:
"Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary it shall be lawful for any person
1756
licensed to sell tobacco to sell the same at any time on all days of the week provided that no tobacco selling assistant is employed in or about the shop or premises for a longer period than nine and a half hours per day, excluding meal times in any one day."
The object of the Bill is to allow tobacco to be sold 24 hours and not 20 hours per day, as now. At present tobacco can be bought at one minute past midnight until 8 p.m., but it may not be sold, except under certain conditions, between 8 p.m. and midnight. There are certain ways in which tobacco may be bought. You can buy a cooked meal on licensed premises and thus get tobacco. These Regulations were made under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the object of that Act was to limit the hours of selling so as to keep the streets in darkness during the air raids, to keep the people off the streets, and to release as many men as possible for the Army and Navy. It has, however, been carried on, year after year, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Tobacconists and confectioners sell 50 per cent. of all the tobacco sold retail in the United Kingdom. They are mostly small traders, and they want to be able to sell tobacco during the same hours that they can sell chocolates, sweets, and mineral waters. They can sell those until 9.30, but they cannot sell tobacco after eight o'clock. A man with his own shop stands at one end of his counter selling chocolates up till 9.30, but he must not sell tobacco at the other end of his counter. He has to put automatic machines on his counter and supply his customers with sixpences, so that after eight o'clock they may put them in the slot and get packets of cigarettes. This is extraordinarily unfair to the young man. A man can go into the confectionery and tobacco business with a small amount of capital, and can work what hours he likes. In a large number of cases he is a young man, and this Bill, no doubt, would be an enormous advantage to the young man, who to-day is not getting a very great chance.
The second part of the first Clause restricts the working hours of shop assistants to nine and a half. Shop assistants are the most sweated type of worker in the country. There is no law which regulates their hours except a law to give them one half day's holiday per week, and certain times for meals. They can be worked from eight till eight, and some girls and men do work 12 hours a

1757
day. If I can get this Bill through, it will enable their hours of work to be regulated, though I am not wedded to nine and a half hours, if that be considered too long. I appeal to the House to give this Bill a little notice. It is a young man's Bill in that it has the support of young shop assistants who wish to try to set up in business on their own. To-day the young man is not getting a fair chance. This kind of Regulation under which tobacco may be sold to-day is designed to protect the established man in business, and to stop another man getting a little advantage over him by working a little longer time. Young men are being unfairly 'treated by the competition of women and this sort of Regulation which gives the established man such an advantage. Even in this House of Commons you can see how the women are competing with the men. They are taking the seats which I consider rightly belong to tho young men of the nation.
There is an Association called the Early Closing Association, of which a gentleman called Captain Larkin is the secretary. He opposes this Bill, because he says that he represents the tobacco trade and the trade is against the Bill. Last year he sent to the Home Secretary figures showing that something like 3,000 members of the tobacco trade are against the Bill and 300 in favour of it. He brought forward those figures as showing the opinion of the trade. Is the House aware that every year there are over 460,000 licences issued for the sale of tobacco? Three thousand is a small number of the total number of licences issued. We, representing the small traders, have not the funds to send round counter propaganda to show that there are a vast number of small traders who wish this Bill to be passed into law. The big man says that he cannot afford to put on two shifts of assistants, because the tobacco combine only allows him 15 per cent. profit on some lines and 20 per cent. on other lines. That is not a thing which concerns us. Surely, they can arrange it among themselves. It is no reason, because a man cannot afford to keep two sets of shop assistants, that he should be able to sweat them any hours he wishes. The tobacco combine makes sufficient money to give enough to the retailers so that
1758
they can pay their assistants decent wages and give them a certain time to enjoy the pleasures which other sections of the community enjoy.
I do ask the House with all the little power that I have to let this Bill have its First Reading, and, if possible, its Second Reading. The law at present is, undoubtedly, very unfair, and if the Bill could be got into Committee, it could be thrashed out there, and I am sure that all sides could be brought to agree. The little man has to stop selling tobacco at eight, but a licensed house or a restaurant can sell tobacco till closing time, 10 o'clock, and then the night people, the cafes, the railway buffets, and the little coffee stalls are allowed to sell at one minute past midnight. This is the land of the free, but it is going to be a very hard thing if, in the future, legislation of this kind is going to be passed whereby Orders-in-Council can be incorporated year after year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is an absolute restriction on the liberty, not so much of the people who buy, but of the young and small men who are trying to build up businesses, and I do ask the House to pass the Bill at this stage and also to give it a Second Reading.
Mr. HOFFMAN: I crave the indulgence which this House is always so kind as to extend to those who address it for the first time. I am sorry that the very first occasion of my rising to speak is to ask the House to reject a Motion which a young Member has brought to its notice I do so because, for nearly 50 years, the tendency of legislation has been towards the curtailment of the number of hours during which shops should be kept open for business. The late Sir Charles Nike and the late Lord Avebury introduced Measures into this House for that purpose, Committee after Committee of this House has sat, Royal Commissions have sat, and all have agreed both in regard to the restriction of the number of hours during which shops should be open and in regard,to the curtailment of the number of hours during which shop assistants should be employed. I have no doubt that the hon. Member's intentions are very good in this respect. A friend of mine stated the other day that no one got into this House on good intentions, or, at least, that only one person had ever got into this House with good

1759
intentions, and that was Guy Fawkes. He did not succeed, and I sincerely hope that, however good-intentioned the hon. Member is in his Measure, this House will not agree to it. In the last Parliament this House did—again with good intentions, no doubt—introduce legislation to keep confectioners' shops open until half-past nine o'clock at night. I am sure the House did not want to be unkind, but they were not only unkind but cruel in agreeing to that piece of. legislation, for they increased the hours of the young people who work in those shops by something like nine or ten hours a week. Lt is perfectly true that in this Measure the hon. Member suggests that shop assistants shall be called upon to work in these shops not more than nine and a half hours per day. That means for seven days a week, excepting the day when by Statute they must receive a, half-holiday after half-past one. That means that this House is called upon to agree to a working week for shop assistants of 71i hours, inclusive of meal times. Why should shop assistants be selected for treatment of that sort?
Mr. BECKER: I am sorry to interrupt, but, in regard to the 9.½ hours, I am quite prepared to make it eight.
Mr. HOFFMAN: The 9½ hours is for six days a week, and for one day in the week the assistants work up to half-past one. That works out at 71 hours a week inclusive of meal times. We have just heard from the Minister of Labour that it is proposed by the Government to ratify the Washington Convention. The Washington Convention will fix a 48-hour week for all employed persons. The Industrial Conference which was held in 1919 afterwards drew up proposals which would fix a 48-hour week for all employed persons. Even in 1912, when Mr. Winston Churchill introduced the Shops Bill of that year, the proposal in regard to restrictions of hours of work for assistants was 60 hours per week. I suggest to this House that we ought not to support a Measure which is going to mean, for those who work behind the counter, 71 hours a week. Nor should the House be misled with the idea that even the shopkeepers are asking to be allowed to keep their shops open until this hour. I am in touch with a very large number of organised tobacconists in this country, and they are all anxious
1760
that they shall have their evenings free, and regard the 8 o'clock compulsory closing with satisfaction. I hope sincerely that the House will reject this Measure.
Question,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the hours during which tobacco may be sold and to regulate shop assistants' hours of work,"
put, and negatived.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the over-capitalisation of industry, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. spence.]
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to Parliamentary control of foreign affairs, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Viant.]
  RAILWAY RATES.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the effect of present railway rates on the prices of British agricultural produce, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir Arthaur Churchman]
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to our export trade, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir A. Shirley Benn.]
BILLS PRESENTED.
  EDUCATION (EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS) BILL,
  "to amend the Education Act, 1921," presented by Lord HENRY CAVENDISHBENTINCK; supported by Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Briant, Mr. Snell, Sir Robert Newman, and Mr. Turner; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

  MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to the marriage of persons with their nephew or niece by marriage, "presented by Mr. RENDALL; supported by Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Mr. Ernest Brown, Captain Bowyer, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Entwistle, Mr. Hayday, Mr. Maxton, Mr.

  1761
  Remer, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Colonel Weston, and Mrs. Wintringham; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Hon. Members will recollect that two days ago we had a very full Debate upon the circumstances which have led up to the introduction of this Bill, and a full Debate also on the financial measures which we desire to carry out, and which can only be carried out if this Bill passes into law. I hope that, in view of the excellent Debate that we had on Monday, consideration will be given to the urgency of utilising the public time to the best advantage, and to the importance of further business which, in the interests of needy people, we ought to get through later in the day, and that the House will allow this Bill to be read a Second time
  without delay. I, at all events, will set an example of brevity. The subject of this very melancholy and disastrous disease is apt sometimes to give rise to an outburst of loquacity in this House, but I shall hope to show that I am not suffering from mouth disease myself.
  There are only two things which I feel should be said at this moment. One is in regard to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb), on which I had not the opportunity of replying at the time, and to which I should like now to refer. Under the Act of 1894, the Ministry are only able to pay compensation on the basis of the commercial value of animals slaughtered by its orders. The sum so received by the farmer should go a very long way towards re-stocking, and I hope that in nearly all cases it does; but, if further help is required, I want to make a suggestion. We passed last year a very valuable Act, the Agricultural Credits Act, and I think that that Act provides a way by which farmers can get out of the financial difficulty. Groups of farmers are now in a position to form co-operative credit societies under Part II of that Act, and thereby obtain loans for restocking; and I would remind the House that, by a decision which has just been
  1820
  made public, it is now possible for those societies to raise money on very advantageous terms, such as have not been possible hitherto. The Government has sanctioned a plan by which these societies can borrow money at bank rate, that is to say, 4 per cent. at the present time. Full particulars as to the method of forming such societies can be had on application to the Ministry, and I hope we shall find that the work of the Ministry will be fully utilised in pushing their formation.
  There is only one other point which, if the House will allow me, I should like to make. I can add something to the information which I gave on Monday in regard to the Committee which I stated would be set up for research. As I announced, I propose to appoint 1, scientific committee, quite apart from Mr. Pretyman's committee, to frame a scheme of investigation, after which the appropriate men will be set to work in each department. I am glad to be able to announce that the President of the Royal Society, Sir Charles Sherrington. has consented to act as chairman of that committee, and I feel that the public is very much indebted to him. I am in consultation with him as to the further personnel of the committee. We all must think that the Ministry is extremely fortunate to have secured his services, because he is the most eminent man that could be found for the purp6se. He has been President of the Royal Society since 1920: he is Professor of Physiology at Oxford, and he is recognised the world over as the most eminent physiologist in Great Britain. He is a man who possesses honours and degrees, not only of British Universities, but of numberless universities and scientific societies on the Continent and elsewhere. I thought I might be excused if I took just this much time to make an announcement of great public interest. Otherwise I fool that this Bill is merely part of a machinery leading to the Vote which we must propose to the House in a few clays.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, after the full Debate that we were able to have on the Financial Resolution a night or two ago, there will be no disposition, as far as I know, in any quarter of the House, to occupy any great amount of time on the Second Reading of this Bill. Indeed, I only rise for the purpose of saying that,

  1821
  as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we have heard with great interest the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the two points to which he referred. With regard to the first—the use that may possibly be made in the direction indicated of credit societies and so on—I entirely share his view that that does offer a field for providing great. assistance to those who have been adversely affected by this deplorable outbreak. In regard to the second point, the House will, I am sure, have heard with lively gratification the right hon. Gentleman's announcement of his, success in securing so distinguished and well-known a public man to act as chairman of the scientific committee. The name of Sir Charles Sherrington is, of course, a household word in the world of physiology, and I can imagine that no name would give greater confidence to all the interests concerned, which, 1 have no doubt, since the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement a few days ago, have been looking to the work of this scientific committee with the most eager anticipation. I would also assure him that, if and when he finds it necessary to come to this House for the Vote of money to enable, as 1 understood him to say, the work of this committee to be carried on, we, for our part, shall welcome his representations in that regard, and I think we shall be able to give them sympathetic support.
  Mr. LAMBERT: It is not my intention to go over the Debate of the other day. I welcome the statement the Minister has made that farmers may form themselves into credit societies and borrow money at 4 per cent. I hope red tape will not add 1 or 2 per cent. more, because, generally speaking, when one has to borrow money from the Government the circumlocution office comes into being and it is difficult to get things through. If the Minister of Agriculture wishes this to be a, success he must make this loan easy and facilitate the societies and farmers being able to get the money at a reasonable rate of interest. With regard to the scientific inquiry he has just announced, that is a matter on which we congratulate the Government. I hope it may be a very fruitful one, but, the inquiry cannot fructify for, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said, some years to come. That being so, I wish to offer him a word
  1822
  of advice with regard to the inquiry he is setting on foot presided over by Mr. Pretyman. He stated the other day that this Committee is to examine into three questions. The first is the slaughter policy of the Board of Agriculture. I do not. think there is much difference of opinion in regard to that. Therefore I do not think it really requires inquiry. There is, to my mind, far and away the more important part of the inquiry, whether farther precautions should be taken to guard against the introduction and spread of the disease, and I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should direct Mr. Pretyman's Committee's attention to one
  particular point. The Minister's own words are ambiguous—"to guard against the introduction and spread of the disease." The first. point you have to determine if you are to guard against the introduction of the disease is to find out where it comes from, and no one has told us that yet, and 1 suggest that the Minister and his officials should concentrate on that one point. This is an island and it has been fairly free from foot-and-mouth disease. The disease has been introduced from somewhere, and that is what. we want to find out. That, to my mind, is the most vital part of the inquiry, to find out where the. disease comes from.
  There is another subject on which T propose to invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention and to endeavour to support him. I am one of those who refused to be led away by the outcry about the admission of Canadian cattle. I have always believed that the flocks and herds of this country were far too precious to admit live cattle for distribution over the country. from any source, but be that as it may, Parliament decided against it. I observe in the "Times" this morning, from their Montreal correspondent, that because the Minister of Agriculture has laid an embargo upon the admission of Canadian cattle the exporters there allege that the new regulations are deliberately intended to injure the Canadian cattle interest. I am sure that. is not the intention of the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman's first care must be the maintenance of our own flocks and herds free from disease. There is no question of ill will against Canadian cattle or of interfering

  1823
  with their import. The real question for him is to prevent our flocks and herds from being infected with this horrible disease, and I will give him every support in this matter. I hope he will persevere with this policy. It is not a question of wishing to be unfriendly to our Canadian colleagues abroad, but the first essential for farmers and for the Minister of Agriculture is to protect the flocks and herds here which have been so badly decimated by the disease. I do not wish to go over the other points which were mentioned in last week's Debate. I merely direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to these two points, first to ascertain where the disease comes from, and secondly to offer him my support in any measure he takes to keep disease out of the country.
  Mr. REID: I wish to call attention to a point which is more or less concerned with the question of cattle coming from overseas. In the Act which was passed last year there is a Section providing that cattle infected at a landing place shall not be the subject of compensation for slaughter. I think it was in the mind of all of us, certainly it was in mine when I read that Clause in the Bill, that it was a perfectly reasonable thing that diseased cattle which came from overseas should be slaughtered and should not be the subject of compensation. But another set of circumstances has arisen. Cattle have arrived in this country from Ireland in a state of perfect health, and have been put in a detention place, and when there they are under the control of the authorities of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Under these circumstances cattle have been infected by people coming into the detention place who have been in contact with cattle suffering from foot-and-mouth
  disease. The cattle are slaughtered and use is made of the Section to which I have referred to avoid payment of compensation. I think the Minister must agree that that is a very great hardship. The cattle are taken out of the control of their owners, and while under the control of the Ministry are exposed to infection. I think it is only reasonable and fair that if they are slaughtered they should be the subject of compensation, and if there is any real difficulty in the matter I think the Minister might
  1824
  well consider, now that there is a Bill before the House, taking power to enable him to do justice in cases of that kind.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a, Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr N. Buxton.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLASS VII.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the '31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, Public Utility Companies, &c., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1922, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I propose formally to submit this Estimate and to deal with any questions that hon. Members may wish to raise after I have heard their observations.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Surely this is a most unusual procedure. Will not the Minister first explain the Estimates that he is bringing forward and the reasons for them?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: If that be the desire of hon. Members, I shall have great pleasure in doing so. There is, first of all, money required to make good a loss which is sustained through public utility societies selling their properties and repaying to the Department money earlier than was anticipated. The loss occurs in this way. The Department advanced money to housing societies when the rate of interest was, say, 6 per cent. The houses are sold by the societies and the

  1825
  grants repaid at a time when the rate of interest is, say, 4 per cent. There is no real loss except in expectation, but it is necessary to provide for it, and under this Estimate we propose to do so. Money is required to meet the expenses arising under the Housing Act, 1923. The obligation on the Department does not become due at the time the houses are built but usually about a year afterwards, or, at any rate, some time afterwards, and a sum of £20,000 will be sufficient to meet the obligation for this financial year. Part of the money is required for the erection of additional cottages at the Pap worth and Preston Hall settlements. At these settlements we provide for ex-service men who are suffering from tuberculosis, and the total amount proposed to be spent is £20,000, but the amount required this year is only £2,500. These are the main purposes for which the Supplementary Estimate is submitted.
  Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with miscellaneous grants, G.8 also?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit the total. I hope the hon. Member does not want me to occupy the time of the Committee in going into the highways and byways of these questions unless hon. Members are interested in them?
  Sir K. WOOD: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, but this is a very serious question dealing with grants for unemployment schemes. and I see he has only down an additional £10. I do not know if he has any other explanation to give?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I was proposing to deal with the relief of unemployment separately.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask, in order to save the right hon. Gentleman's time and patience, questions on these four grants separately. May I ask first about F.2? He talked about loss of interest which will have to be made good by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. How is that loss of interest arrived at? Do I understand that money has been borrowed by public utility authorities at per cent. and has been paid back at a less rate of interest?, Does it not seem that the Government ought not to make any loss on those loans, because it could redeem debt at a higher price than the
  1826
  two or three per cent. which causes this loss? It seems to me that we ought to have some explanation why that loss is incurred and by what means it is incurred.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Member may understand that the Loans Commissioners advanced money, as they did in these cases, when the rate of interest was comparatively high. The societies are not entitled to repay the money earlier than the date anticipated when the loan was made. But they find it convenient to sell the property, and having sold the property to return to the Loans Commissioners the money borrowed. The Loans Commissioners have then to find another investment for the money that has been repaid. As the rate of interest has fallen, they cannot find an investment at the rate at which they loaned the money to the public utility societies, and the difference represented in this Supplementary Estimate is the difference between the money that they would have received in interest had the property not been sold and the interest had continued to be paid at the higher rate, and the revenue they would get from the investment at a lower rate.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, but when the Loans Commissioners borrowed the money to lend to these public utility societies they must have created some securities. Why have not steps been taken so that the Loans Commissioners could redeem those securities at a certain rate, so that they need not go into the market to buy securities yielding a less rate of interest, thereby putting the country to this loss? There seems to be some ineptitude in regard to this matter.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Member is now raising a very large question of policy as to the administration of the Department, which is far beyond the particular question raised by the Supplementary Estimate.
  Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order. Is that so? May I call attention to the Supplementary Estimate? The revised Estimate is for £100,000, whereas the original Estimate was for £40,000. This represents an additional sum of £00,000, or about two and a half times the original Estimate. Therefore, I put it to you, Mr. Young, that, having regard to the very

  1827
  large additional sum now required, it is open to the Committee to discuss the larger question.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has called my attention to the very large sum in excess of the original Estimate. Under these circumstances, I am bound to allow a pretty wide discussion.
  Mr. SAMUEL: It is almost a new service. If the original Estimate of £40,000 had only been exceeded by a small sum, it would have been a different matter. I do not want to badger the Minister of Health, but here we have a Supplementary Estimate of two and a half times the original Estimate. Therefore a question of policy does arise, and I think we ought to press upon the Minister of Health that he should take steps to revise the method by which these repayments are carried out, so that the country will not lose these large sums of money, such as are shown by this revised Estimate. T would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us a considered reply as to his intentions in the future, in view of the £60,000 extra service now called for.
  Mr. LINFIELD: May I call attention to the administration of this Act which is preventing utility societies from building houses. I should like to assure the Minister that I do not think his Department is at fault. I think the blame rests with the Treasury. If he will allow me, I will give a concrete case, without actually mentioning names, which will show up the matter very clearly. A certain public utility society made terms with the Ministry of Health for an advance of money for the purpose of erecting a number of houses. The terms were completed and agreed to by the Minister of Health, and the society erected their houses, a considerable number, and received the moneys from the Treasury. Then they proceeded to sell the houses, but when they had sold the houses and wanted to repay the money they had borrowed the Treasury demanded something like £100 per house in excess of the original loan advanced. It appeared that the Treasury had borrowed the money for a long term of years at a high rate of interest—I am not sure whether the term was 40, 50 or 60 years for which the Treasury had borrowed the money—and they pointed out that as the interest which they could
  1828
  get on the repaid money would be lower, there would be a loss. The public utility society was face to face with bankruptcy, in view of the demand for £100 in excess on each house. They would have lost all their money. There were one or two if not three actions at law, because the company had signed contracts to convey the property, and the Treasury would not release. It is only fair to say that all along the Ministry of Health were quite anxious to forward this movement and to get a move on. If the custom to which I have referred were persisted in, building societies and public utility societies all over the country would be prevented from going on with building because of the difficulties in which they might be placed. I understand that it came as bombshell to the Ministry of Health when the Treasury declined to receive back the money which it had previously advanced, except on the payment of £100 per house more than the original advance.
  I should like also to call attention to the question of a subsidy for small property. This may seem a small matter, but it affects building all over the country. There are large, well-built properties all over the country that. could be converted into cottages. [HON. MEMBERS "Stables!"] Some stables were turned into flats for well-to-do people in London. It is quite possible to get better houses than we get now under certain building schemes by converting property. I hope the Minister will render assistance in cases of that kind. If poor people could buy houses and turn them into cottages, and own them, it would be a good thing. I want to assist them to do so, and I hops the Minister will consider whether it is possible to so revise his conditions that grants can he afforded in cases of this kind.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I want to take this opportunity of tendering to the Minister of Health my good wishes on the first occasion on which he has addressed the House other than in answering questions. I sympathise with him that his first appearance should be connected with a thing so superficially dark as this Supplementary Estimate. The way in which he presented it seemed to indicate that he found it almost too much for his

  1829
  patience to bear. Nevertheless, the Supplementary Estimate is rather an important one, because this is the first time that Parliament has actually voted any money for subsidies under the 1923 Act. Therefore it does give this Committee an opportunity of putting some questions to the Minister as to the working of that Act. As regards Subhead F. 2, I think the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down answers very largely the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel).
  Mr. SAMUEL: No.
  Lord E. PERCY: I gather that it does not answer my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps it would be more fruitful if I allow the Minister to deal with that matter. The difficulty of public utility societies, which has been mentioned, was a difficulty which led to the provision being made in the Housing Act, and I was under the impression that public utility societies were being met in that way by the Treasury, and that that was the reason for this very largely-increased Estimate. If we have this very largely-increased Estimate, and yet public utility societies are not being given by the Treasury the facilities which they ought to have—
  Mr. LINFIELD: I believe it is being done now, but it, is not fully known by the public utility societies.
  Lord E. PERCY: I entirely absolve the Treasury or any other Department from the charge of wilfully withholding from public utility societies facilities which this House gave them, and if there is a lack of information on the subject, I think the Minister of Health might, with advantage, conduct a little propaganda, with the assistance of the Garden Cities' and Town Planning Association, which has taken a very great interest in starting these public utility societies. Certainly this £100,000 is very much in excess of what I anticipated would be the case, and very much in excess of what I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) anticipated. Perhaps we may have an explanation from the Minister as to the reason why this very large excess has been incurred. There are not so many public utility societies in the country. It was assumed when the Estimate was originally made that these societies would be selling the
  1830
  great majority of their houses. 1 am, therefore, rather puzzled as to why this large additional sum is required.
  5.0 P.M.
  The chief thing that I want to say relates to F.1, on the subject of the working of the Housing Act, 1923. I am not going to ask the Minister to justify the working
  of that Act, because he has not been, except for a very short lime, responsible for its working, but there is one particular point to which I should like to call attention. At this moment it causes me a good deal of anxiety, and I should like to ask the Minister for some assurance on
  the subject. As is known to the Committee, up to 1st January last the Ministry of Health had approved just over
  85,000 houses for subsidy, partly to be built by the local authorities and partly by private enterprise. That 85,000 was an estimate. It was an estimate first of all by the local authorities as to the number of houses which they
  expected they would he able to get built by the end of the 1924 building scheme. That, I think, was
  the date to which the Ministry asked the local authorities to work. In the second elate, it was estimated by the
  Ministry of Health, because the Ministry cut down these estimates of the local authorities to a considerable degree in
  order to be well within the probability, and that. we might not have a mere paper window-dressing scheme. While, of
  course, these estimates are all matters of opinion, yet I think the figures show that up to the end of last year the number of houses authorised did bear a very definite
  relationship to the capacity of the building industry. By the end of the year, roughly just over 44,000 houses had
  been included actually in contracts or direct labour schemes, or in undertakings actually given by the local authorities to particular builders. Up to that time, taking the country as a whole and the aggregate of the local authorities, you could say that the houses authorised by the Ministry, on the estimate of local authorities, did actually become the
  subject of contract in about two months after the estimate was approved, that therefore the local authorities were finding that they were able to get the houses taken up by the private builders in two to three months' time, and the difference
  as between the estimate and the definite undertaking or contract was reasonably small. Does that continue to be the case'

  1831
  I think since the last figures were published nearly two months have elapsed. Are local authorities still finding builders who are prepared to take on the building of houses against the undertakings by the local authorities? I ask that question for this reason. The Prime Minister in his statement at the beginning of this Parliament on the housing question assured us that no delay was taking place, that, pending the formulation of the Government's own housing proposals, the proceedings under the Act of 1922 were being rapidly pressed on, and I have no doubt that that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that he desires to press on the building of houses under the 1923 scheme. But he is entering into new negotiations with various parties, which it would be out of order to discuss on this Supplementary Estimate, and there are in the air many rumours as to the Government being prepared to increase the amount of the subsidy and to lengthen the subsidy. Where an atmosphere of new proposals is created, I am afraid that builders will wait before undertaking the building of more houses to see what the Government's new scheme is, and these negotiations must necessarily take some time. We should be unreasonable if we expected the Government to bring forward the results of their negotiations immediately.
  Have we already experienced during the last few months the effects of private enterprise and the local authorities waiting for the Government's new proposals before coming forward with offers to build and take the subsidy, or has the number of houses and undertakings of new contracts been kept up during those two months to the rate of progress which was the case in the last two or three months of last year? I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the adumbration of new proposals is not holding up the progress of building under the 1923 Act. Then I think it is due to the Committee that the Minister should give some estimate of Sub-Head G. (8) in regard to the unemployment, grant. I confess I do not quite understand the reason for the increased Estimate, or the reason why, the Estimate having to be increased, it is merely a token. I hope the Minister will be able to explain.
  Sir K. WOOD: I should like to put a few questions to the Minister of Health, but before doing so I should like to make this general observation. As I understand it, these Supplementary Estimates are presented to-day on the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman, Therefore I take it that he has carefully examined the amounts and necessities of the requirements mentioned under these subheadings, and is satisfied that all that ought to be done can be done with the amount of money for which he is asking. I regard that as a matter of some importance, because some of my criticism of these Estimates is directed by way of a question as to whether he is meeting the necessities of the various services mentioned in these Estimates. I want to say a. word in connection with F (2), and the important question of public utility societies. As you have ruled, Mr. Chairman, that it is now open to the Committee to go a little wider than is ordinarily the case, owing to the fact that the revised Estimates so much exceed the original Estimates, I want to put it to the Minister whether, in connection with housing generally, he is prepared to go on encouraging the activities of these societies? I hope he is in favour of encouraging every activity and organisar tion which can help in connection with housing.
  A few days ago I asked him—and I hope he did not think it was an impertinent question—whether, having regard to certain speeches he had made up and down the, country in days gone by, he was prepared to encourage private enterprise in connection with building, and I was glad that he gave, perhaps a reluctant assent, but nevertheless, an assent to that. I asked whether, in connection with public utility societies, he is to do all he can to assist them in their work. I think, for one reason or another, they have some ground for a good many of the grievances which they have communicated to many Members of this House. I believe that up to about March, 1922, the actual number of houses completed by the public utility societies of the country amounted to nearly 4,000, and a year later the number was 4,517. Therefore their efforts ought. not to be discouraged. I think their path ought to be made easy, especially in the direction of the Treasury, to enable them to carry on what I believe is an excellent work. I understand the amount

  1833
  of subsidy actually paid to these societies is about £107,000. Secondly, is the Minister satisfied that the figures now appearing before the Committee are accurate, because I have some regard to the important speech which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) has made. I am not quite clear whether the Minister of Health has given a proper explanation. No doubt he will consider that and again direct his attention to it.
  F (5) is a very important Vote indeed, because it is a revised Estimate of £20,000 for additional grants for the housing schemes under the Act of 1923. Again I put to him the question, because I want to have an opportunity of questioning him later, whether that sum of £20,000 is a fair, reasonable estimate and whether he thinks he will be able to secure sufficient progress in housing under the Act of 1923 with this additional sum? I do not want him to come to the House later and say he has not asked a sufficient sum of money. I should like to put a few further questions to the Minister. He may remember that a few days ago the Prime Minister made what I think was a most extraordinary statement. He said that those houses under the 1923 Act were only occupied—I believe that was the effect of his words—by about 10 per cent. of the class who ought to live in them. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite then as to-day assented to that statement. I do not know whether they have any special knowledge of the position or what particular class of individual they think ought to
  occupy those houses. I, for instance, have heard—there is no need to mention names—of Members of Parliament occupying those houses.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why not?
  Sir K. WOOD: Does he think, because I do not think so, that a Member of Parliament does not come within the definition of working classes under the Act of 1923? I have heard, at any rate, of one Minister in the new Government applying to occupy one of these Council Houses. Does he think that, because a Minister has a certain salary, he is not entitled to come within the description of working class?
  Mr. F. MONTAGUE: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the point was the difference between houses built for sale. and houses built to be let?
  Sir K. WOOD: if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Prime Minister's speech, he will observe no such distinction was made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made the point that under the old scheme the right people were not occupying the houses. If the hon. Member will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT I think he will see that what I have said is correct. What I want to put to the Minister of Health, having regard to the operations of the Housing Act, 1923, is, whether his experience of the working of the Act confirms the statement made by the Prime Minister? The Act itself is very wide so far as she definition is concerned. No attempt is made at a definition of working classes. Therefore I would like to know: Does the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his experience of the administration of the scheme, confirm that statement of the Prime Minister? Is any distinction going to be made in the utilisation of this money such as has been indicated by the Prime Minister the other day?
  I remember when this matter was discussed in the House before, Mr. Speaker Lower said that he was just as much entitled to be regarded as one of the working classes as any other person, and he thought a bit more so. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] My own view is that the needs of housing to-day are just as grievous among what, for want of a better title, you may call the lower middle classes of this country, as among any other class, It is impossible to differentiate between the needs of different classes in the country to-day. Therefore I hope the Minister of Health has got some justification for that extraordinary statement, because it created a great deal of anxiety among a great many people who are paying taxes for these houses. The total cost of housing schemes to-day is £190,000,000. Therefore a large number of people who have contributed towards these schemes want to know whether they are going to he treated fairly in the matter.
  The next point to which I would refer is F. 6, "Grants towards the erecture of cottages for tuberculous ex-service men at village settlements." The Minister of

  1835
  Health, no doubt after considerable investigation and reflection, has put down a revised Estimate of £2,500 for these men. I know no class of men who deserve greater consideration at this time. Has the Minister satisfied himself that this is a sufficient sum? I remember sitting on a Departmental Committee which had referred to it, what was to be done for tuberculous ex-service men of the country. Under the chairmanship of Sir Montague Barlow we spent many weeks investigating this matter, and we came to the conclusion that, at any rate, it was not sufficient simply to place a number of these men, I believe in Preston Hall, as my right hon. Friend indicates to-day, but that a much wider scheme was necessary. I can feel quite consistent on this matter, because I have been raising it constantly in this House, irrespective of what Government was in power, and I would ask the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied, now that we are going to have a new ideal administration in the government of this country, that the sum of £2,500 is going to meet the needs of this very large body of deserving men? I doubt very much if it will. Is the right hon. Gentleman, having investigated the facts, prepared to say on his own responsibility that he is making adequate provision for these men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did not you do it? "] That is no reply to any criticism made, especially by one who has made it consistently, irrespective of what Government was in power. That is no answer to the tuberculous ex-service men.
  Does the Minister of Health think that this is an adequate sum, because there is not the slightest reason, if he does not think this sum sufficient, why he should not go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, "I cannot meet my proper responsibilities to the ex-service men of the country, especially after all I have told them, unless you give me permission to spend a proper sum." In this matter he has personal responsibility as a Minister, and in this matter there is not any question of differentiation of parties. He may be satisfied that 22,500 is sufficient for the erection of cottages for tuberculous ex-service men in this country. If so, I hope that he is right, but I am very doubtful whether he is. When I sat on this Committee I remember
  1836
  that the sum mentioned was higher. On page 21 there is this note:
  "Amount required for the year ending 31st March, 1924, for grants to meet the cast of erection of 50 cottages for tuberculous ex-service men at village settlements. The grants will be subject to conditions approved by the Treasury and will not exceed £20,000."
  I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has accepted this Office of Minister of Health and is responsible to this House and the country in respect of these men. Does he think that this provision and the other provision made for tuberculous ex-service men is sufficient? He ought to say to this Committee exactly where he stands, and whether he thinks that this is a sufficient sum or not. For many years I have made claims in respect of the unfortunate condition of these men, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if he has to deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he does not do something in respect of making a reasonable grant of money on behalf of these tuberculous men, they will go back probably to miserable homes, and will endeavour, perhaps, to do a little work. My experience is, that in the majority of cases after a few weeks they break down and go again to get some kind of sanatorium treatment.
  The present system in relation to these men and others is most wasteful and extravagant. I doubt whether we are not throwing a great deal of money away on various forms of treatment which are now adopted. Therefore,
  J would urge the right hon. Gentleman to point out to anybody who resists him—because I understand that resistance is being made to various demands which are now being made on the Exchequer—that we are wasting a great sum through not giving adequate treatment to ex-service men and other people who are suffering from this very dreadful disease, tuberculosis. Therefore I ask- him whether he is satisfied that sufficient provision is being made. I understand that we shall have an opportunity of discussing 0.8 when the right hon. Gentleman makes a further statement in that. connection, because I do not understand, in view of all the schemes which the, Labour party have proposed, how a sum of £10 could be put down in this respect. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has a. satisfactory explanation, but it will be

  1837
  more convenient to discuss that when the matter comes before the Committee. Meanwhile I appeal to all members of the Committee to support me in the questions which I have put to the Minister of Health, and to place on him responsibility in all these important matters.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I desire to call attention to an important matter in reference to this housing question. 1 hold in my hand a letter which is addressed to the local authority of a northern town, in which the Minister sanctions the granting of a subsidy on houses erected on 23 acres with a density of thirty, thirty-five and forty to the acre. I cannot think that this letter has been sent out with his personal knowledge and consent. It is dated Ministry of Health, Whitehall, 13th February, 1924, and it is addressed to the Town Clerk at the Municipal Buildings, West Hartlepool. It says:
  " I am directed by the Minister of Health to refer to your letter of the 6th instant, and to state that he approves of the proposals of your Council to differentiate as regards the amount of the subsidy payable in individual cases. As already pointed out, the Minister proposes to leave the question of density to the discretion of the council. He considers, however, that a density as high as thirty-five or forty houses to the acre is one which should only be allowed in very exceptional circumstances. It is understood that the Council's houses are limited to small vacant sites in streets already constructed, where the lay out does not readily lend itself to a reduction in density."
  This is signed by a permanent official, but I do not think I should be in order in going into the question of who signed it. I submit that there can be no circumstances, however exceptional, which can justify the crowding together of 35 or 40 houses on an acre, and I am certain that my hon. Friends above the Gangway will agree with me. I am not raising this matter in any spirit of partisanship, because I am anxious only that the Act should be administered in the spirit in which it is passed by the House, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself would desire. Therefore, I am only doing my duty in asking the Minister at the first available opportunity whether this is the considered policy of the Government, and of himself? I may refer now to the minutes which were submitted by the West Hartlepool Committee. They propose a scale of grant, and it is that scale
  1838
  which has been approved by the Ministry. I am reading now from the minutes of 5th February. They recommend that subsidies be offered in accordance with the following scale:
  "Density not exceeding—

  £

  20 to the acre

  100 per house

  35 to the acre

  70 per house

  40 to the acre

  60 per house

  Density exceeding—

  40 to the acre

  50 per house

  This is the scale which was submitted to the Minister and which is referred to in the letter I have read. For any house to be built under such conditions is most undesirable, but for such houses to be built with State subsidies is an act which, I am sure, will not commend itself to the House. I would remind the right hon Gentleman that when this question was discussed in Committee, at the time the 1923 Act was being considered, a number of us were very anxious that any Regulations governing the issue of this subsidy should not be left entirely to the Minister, but should be approved by the House. If that had been done it would have been impossible for anything of this sort to have happened. When the matter came down to the Floor of the House on Third Reading, it was my privilege to move an Amendment to the Bill, that no State subsidy should be authorised unless there were not more than 12 houses to the acre. I have turned up the Division list, and I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman voted for that Amendment. Therefore, I am sure that he is in absolute sympathy with a much lower scale of density than has been sanctioned by his Department.
  I want to press the matter further, because I find that in an answer which he gave to me on 14th February, he admitted that under the last Government instructions were sent out to local authorities that it was unnecessary for them to submit the question of density to the Minister; the question of density was a matter which was to be left entirely to the local authority, and the Ministry was taking no action in the matter. I pressed my right hon. Friend further as to whether that was his policy. At the end of his answer he said, "It is not my intention to modify this policy." I hope that the Minister can see his way to modify a

  1839
  policy which leaves the local authority entirely untrammelled to put as many houses as it likes on a site. I know that we shall be told that this question of administration is one in which the local authority should have free play. If a local authority desires to erect further slums—that is what the houses will be in a few years' time with from 30 to 40 to the acre—at any rate, let them do it at their own expense. I hope that, although the circumstances may be exceptional, the Minister will see his way in future to refuse to make this grant even in the most exceptional circumstances.
  When we pressed the matter in Committee upstairs, his predecessor in office said that, according to the Circular which he had issued, 12, or at the most 20, houses to the acre were all that it was desirable should be erected. His predecessor said that it was not to be taken as understood that 20 should be erected, but that the total should not exceed 20. Yet we are now having the question raised of 35 and 40 to the acre. If it is not possible to cancel the letter which has already gone out, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that where State money is used there will he a decency of surroundings and of amenities by allowing for a lesser number of houses to the acre, or that he will cancel his predecessor's Order, which leaves entirely to the local authority discretion as to the number of houses to the acre. We are entitled to press for that, because the Housing Act stipulates in Sub-section 2 (1), that local authorities may, in accordance with the proposals submitted by them to the Minister and approved by him, promote certain building schemes. I ask the Minister to take back the power which his predecessor had of saying whether he will grant subsidies under conditions as to density. The ease I have quoted shows that a local authority is not to be trusted in a matter of this sort. I am all for giving freedom to local authorities, within certain bounds, but where State money is spent it is right that the State should say "within certain limitations and provisions you may exercise your discretion." Local authorities have exceeded their discretion when they attempt overcrowding of the sort I have described.
  Mr. EGAN: I suggest to the Minister that probably the best way out of the difficulty would be to discourage altogether the building of houses for sale. An hon. Member opposite asked, who are the people occupying the houses? It is not the people who need them. Need I remind him that the late Government insisted on the erection of municipal houses to be let at 10s. or 12s. a week apart from rates, which meant that the gross rent asked was 18s. to 22s. a week.
  Sir K. WOOD: There was a special arbitration tribunal set up to deal with any case where there was any difference concerning rent, irrespective of the Government, and they came to their own decision absolutely free and unfettered.
  Mr. EGAN: I agree with that to some extent, because I happen to have been before a tribunal, and I was fortunate enough to get a lower rent than that which had been demanded. But that is not the general case, for municipalities almost everywhere are more inclined to take the Ministry suggestion than to deal with the position of the people who are wanting the houses. Let me put this case to the hon. Gentleman opposite who interrupted, and he will perhaps see who get the houses. On Monday of this week I was present at a town council meeting at which the housing committee secured a majority in favour of taking land that was bought for the housing of the working classes under the original housing scheme of Dr. Addison, and it was laid down that the houses must be sold and not let unless it was impossible to get purchasers. The figures for six-roomed houses were as follow:—
  "180 houses at a cost of £610 to the purchaser;
  220 houses at a cost of £620 to the purchaser;
  and it was further proposed to build on the land 50 houses to cost £920, which would he outside the subsidy."
  There is a big strike going on outside the House because men are trying to get a wage of 12s. a day. I ask hon. Member:, how are such men, who really need houses the most, to get into dwellings such as I have described? The rentals proposed for the three sets of houses mentioned were as follows:

  s. d.

  £

  "15 0

  a week for the 610 house

  15 3

  a week for the 620 house"

  27 0

  a week for the 920 house.

  1841
  The rates were to come on top of those figures. Are the people who really need houses likely to get them at such rentals The municipality will advance 90 per cent. of the purchase money, but that presupposes that the purchaser will pay £60 or £70 before he can enter into negotiations. He then has to pay the loan back in 2O years and has to pay interest on it at a point above the bank rate from the moment of purchase. That means that it is a sheer impossibility for any man to consider any one of these houses unless he is assured of a permanent and well paid position and knows that he will receive his salary even in the event of a breakdown in health. When the Minister is bringing before the House his plan for the building of houses he should discourage altogether the building of houses for sale. In providing these houses for people who apparently have money to purchase them, it has been further suggested that they might be paid a bonus of £75, the capitalised figure of the £120 subsidy, to come in and purchase. That is preferential treatment as against the man who has lived in a house for 20 years, whose landlord has given him notice to leave, and has threatened that he will sell the house over his tenant's head. I have in my pocket letters from my constituency begging that the Minister will intervene to stop the notices that have been issued by the County Courts for possession of houses. So far the prices that have been demanded under the housing schemes of the late Minister have been prohibitive for the majority of the people who needed the houses most.
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member has been referring, by way of illustration, to houses which are to be erected in the future. The Prime Minister's statement, to which I alluded, referred to houses already occupied. Of all the houses erected by the Government under past schemes probably 95 or 96 per cent. have been erected for letting only and not for sale.
  Mr. EGAN: That is right. It is only under the last Ministry that this pernicious system sprang up. When the new housing scheme of the late Minister of Health was adopted, what they said to the municipalities was: "You have land; if you can get a purchaser, get rid of it, and if you do build houses, build them for sale." In my opinion, and I hope,
  1842
  in the opinion of this House, that is altogether contrary to what has been said in every constituency from every platform and by Members both on this side and the other side of the Committee ever since housing schemes were first contemplated. I hope a free hand will not be left to the municipalities in the housing of the people, because, if that is done, they will put up the old-fashioned terraces of houses for the working classes. The houses of which I have been speaking are to be semi-detached and to have land around them, but apparently they are not going to become the homes of the men who need them. If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish me to do so, I can tell them something about the people who need these houses. I could tell them stories that would make their hearts bleed, because, as chairman of the housing committee, it was my duty for three years to go through the applications, and I know that the people who are in real need could not possibly think of going into these houses on account of the heavy liabilities which they would incur.
  I may make a confession to this House. The first houses that were built under my chairmanship were given to men who had been at the War. They were unskilled men—because those were mainly the men who went out to fight—and they were all men with families of not less than four children. When these men came back into the industrial market a slump in employment set in. Most of them were forced out of work and they found it impossible to keep up the payment, even of the cheap rents which we charged, because we got leave from the tribunal to let the houses at 7s., 8s. and 9s., because of the peculiar circumstances and the special claims of these men. The fortunes of war have decreed that these men should now be in such poverty that there are sums of £20 and £30 due on many of the houses. Yet these are men who fought, and we have to be generous to them, so we have allowed them to remain in the houses in consideration of the trials through which they have passed. Men of that type are to be found in every town in this country, wanting houses, and the municipalities dare not let them into the houses because, owing to their situation in life, they cannot pay the rentals of 12s, 14s. and 16s. a week which are demanded. I appeal to the Minister when he brings

  1843
  in his housing scheme to end this tendency towards building houses for sale. Otherwise, all hope will be killed of making the scheme a benefit to those who require it most. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assist in seeing that the men who went out to fight, who have wives and children and who are now living in one or two rooms, should be enabled to get houses, as the Prime Minister indicated, on terms as reasonable as can possibly be arranged and for the lowest rents that can be fixed, having regard to the present condition of employment.
  Captain BOWYER: I desire to put some questions to the Minister on the same lines as those indicated by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). There is always this satisfaction when one raises a question dealing with ex-service men in this House, that one can feel certain of being above party politics. If I may offer an apology to the Minister, I wish to say, with shame, that I was not present when he made his statement, and I am, therefore, in the difficulty that I do not know whether the sum contained in the Estimate, in respect of village settlements, only refers to the colony at Preston Hall or whether it also refers to the colony at Papworth and the East Lancashire Tuberculosis Colony, Barrowmore Hall.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Barrow more and Preston.
  Captain BOWYER: My hon. Friend submitted to the Minister that the provision of 50 cottages is not sufficient, and if only £2,500 is included in the Estimate, it means that this year no greater sum than £50 per cottage is going to be spent. There is no need to dwell upon the necessity for attention to the needs of tuberculous ex-service men. There are scores of hundreds of them who have not got that isolation, without which they form a danger to their neighbours and the country and without which they do not receive adequate treatment. There was no original Estimate at all this year, nor any grant towards providing cottages for these tuberculous ex-service men, and my first question is, When did the grant towards this very deserving purpose cease, because I understand that in the years up to
  1844
  1922 there was a grant? So important is this question that I should like to show the Minister the urgency of the need to have a larger grant to provide more cottages at Pap-worth, Preston Hall and the East Lancashire Tuberculosis Colony, Barrow-more Hall, near Chester. There are hon. Members in the Committee who were with me on the Select Committee which sat in the months of June, July and August, 1922, and heard, for weeks and weeks, evidence on the whole question of the training and treatment of disabled ex-service men. Mr. Maclachlan, of the Ministry of Health, gave very valuable evidence on the question of tuberculous ex-service men, and not only did he tell the Committee of the needs of Papworth and Preston Hall, but also the needs of the East Lancashire Colony. The Pap-worth institution was provided largely out of voluntary funds and grants amounting to £38,880, including a special grant of £4,560 towards the provision of special facilities for training, were made by the Government. Mr. Maclachian pointed out to the Committee that at Papworth in August, 1922, more than 200 patients were in the institution, and in the year 1921, out of a total of 273 patients admitted no less than 222 were ex-service men. The evidence goes on:
  "A scheme for a village settlement has been inaugurated and is being developed in connection with the colony. Twenty-eight cottages have recently been erected by the Cambridgeshire County Council under the assisted housing scheme of the Government, and including these there are now 50 cottages in the settlement for the accommodation of ex-patients and their families, there ex-patients earning wages in industries in connection with the colony."
  There are fifty cottages at Papworth. As Mr. Maclachlan showed later on in his evidence, there is need for many more there, and when we come to Preston Hall the evidence is stronger still along the line of persuading the Ministry of the absolute need of better provision for these men. At. Preston Hall, it is true, grants amounting to over £43,000 have been made by the Government, but no less than 500 acres of land have been acquired and are available for the development of the colony. What sort of addition to the 500 acres will the provision of 50 cottages be, more especially as I infer from the Estimate that in this financial year, until this Supplementary Esti-

  1845
  mate was presented, no provision had been made for additional cottages at Preston Hall? The report of the evidence goes on:
  "With the aid of the building subsidy 33 cottages have recently been erected on the estate"—
  and I draw the Minister's attention specially to these words—
  "to form the nucleus of a settlement for patients after the completion of their course of treatment and training."
  The same evidence, only stronger still, could be quoted in regard to the colony at Barrowmore Hall near Chester. In regard to it Mr. Maclachlan says:
  "The scheme contemplates the provision at a later date of a village settlement to he run in connection with the institution."
  I ask the Minister whether Mr. Maclachlan's hope, expressed in 1922, has been borne out and what steps the Ministry have taken to provide for these three colonies. Mr. Maclachlan pointed out to us on that Committee that the question of the steps to be taken for the reintroduction to employment of tuberculous ex-service men, especially on the land, was considered by the inter-Departmental Committee on Tuberculosis and Sanatoria for Soldiers in 1919, and that in their Report that Committee recommended an extension of the facilities available for the training of ex-service men. As a result of the recommendation of the Committee which I have just quoted, a special training scheme was initiated by the Ministry of Health at the request of the Ministry of Pensions, and in consultation with them, for the provision of not less than one thousand additional places in existing sanatoria where ex-service men would receive a definite course of vocational training combined with treatment. I ask the Minister how far have the plans, arrangements and actions of his Ministry developed upon the lines which were outlined at that date. It was agreed then with the Treasury that the Government should find the whole capital cost of providing the necessary accommodation. At a later date, apparently, the Ministry of Pensions, together with the Ministry of Health, decided to reduce the scope of the scheme to 410 places instead of 1,000. I am sorry; nay, I am ashamed, because, of course, hon. Members opposite may say
  1846
  to me what they said to my lion. Friend the Member for West Wool wich, namely, that the party which I support was in power then, but that really is no answer, because, this being above party politics, let us, whatever mistakes have been made in the past, at least see that justice le done now. I would like to ask the Minister' not to go back upon the original scheme of providing 1,000 extra places at these colonies for tuberculous ex-service men, and not to cut down that number to 410.
  6.0 P.M.
  There are two other questions which I would like to address to the Minister May I ask whether, in this matter, in view of the fact that it is the Ministry of Labour, I think, which deals chiefly with the treatment and training of ex-service men and of ex-service tuberculous men, the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Labour are working in the closest possible co-operation in the matter, because I am certain that unless that happens there must be overlapping, and there cannot be the same benefit derived from the point of view of the ex-service men who are there. There is another point. In so many eases an ex-service man, unless he can prove that his disability was caused by his war service, cannot to-day avail himself of any of the institutions or colonies which are set up to deal with disabled ex-service men. Can any man who to-day is an ex-service man, because he served in the late War, and who to-day is suffering from tuberculosis, apply to be taken into one of these colonies? I attach great importance to that question, because it seems to me that, whatever may be the opinion of the medical authorities as to that man's position to-day, and as to questions about his disability being caused or not being caused by his war service, it is of great importance, not only from the point of view of the man himself, but from the point of view of the neighbours who live round him, that such a man should be entitled to claim admission to one of these tuberculosis colonies. I am sure the Minister will agree that that is right and just, and I submit that all I have said does go very strongly to prove that the provision by the Minister in this Supplementary Estimate of £2,500 as part cost for the erection of only 50 cottages is utterly inadequate, in view of the great need there is throughout the country that

  1847
  these tuberculous ex-service men should have far better and far more pressing treatment provided for them.
  Mr. E. D. SIMON: I want to support the matter brought forward by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who raised the question of the Circular under which the Ministry of Health has given permission for certain houses to be erected on the basis of 40 houses to the acre. The one thing that has been done by the housing schemes since the War, by both the Addison and the Chamberlain schemes—which have been successful, of course, to the extent of building 200,000 houses—has been to set a new standard of working class houses, and that has been done, as I think, with the consent of every party in this House. The most important thing in that standard has been building those houses at, about 10 or 12 to the acre, instead of anything from 15 to 30, or even 40 or more to the acre. It seems to me that if we are going to let down that standard now it would be a most disastrous thing, because, after all, it is not worth while, even from the financial point of view, to do so. The only argument for it is that financially you can build houses a bit more cheaply if you crowd them together.
  I have had to make the calculations rather hurriedly, but I think they are correct, and they show that if you take land at £400 to the acre, which is the most expensive land ever used—we have had to pay it in Manchester—and if you build houses 20 to the acre, that is equivalent to 5d. a week in rent; if you build them at 40 to the acre, it is 2½d. a week in rent, so that even with the most expensive land, the saving on building 40 to the acre instead of 20 to the acre is only 2½d. a week on the rent, and if you take land at £200 the saving comes down to 1¼d. a week on the rent. It is not worth while doing anything of that sort, and I hope that nothing of that sort will he done. These are the days of town-planning. One of the few big movements in the last 15 years which are really improving the country is the movement towards town-planning. Most of our great cities have town plans now, and they have generally taken 12 or 16 houses to the acre as the absolute maximum. The maximum we allow anywhere in Manchester is 16 houses to the acre. I
  1848
  am all in favour of the minimum being left to the discretion of the local authorities, but I think it is the duty of the Government to lay down a maximum standard, and to allow the local authorities to adopt it or to go on and do better if they can, but I think that 16 houses to the acre should be taken under all normal conditions as the maximum number of houses that can be built I trust the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Circular and substitute the maximum of 16 houses to the acre.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I am not going to indulge in any captious criticism of the Government, especially as it is a young Government, but I feel bound to say a few words to support the protest made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) against this last Circular of the Ministry of Health. I hope I may be allowed to have the right to protest, because when the last Housing Bill was upstairs in Committee in the last Parliament, I supported hon. Members opposite in their effort to maintain and uphold the standard of housing, and I must say that I am surprised that when those hon. Members change places, the atmosphere of that side of the House has a very reactionary effect on the Ministry of Health. An hon. Member on the Labour Benches said the best way out of it would be to prevent the building of houses by private enterprise, but I really cannot see that we need go such a round about way as that. I submit that the best way in which to solve this difficulty is for the Minister of Health to withdraw his Circular. It is indeed disappointing to find that the Labour Government went in with such vast professions, and that one of their first acts is to authorise a Circular which will bring back the old, vicious system of overcrowding the people in houses. The Prime Minister said he wished to bring the land and the towns together, but you cannot bring the land and the towns together, as far as the people are concerned, if you entirely obliterate the land by crowding the houses on top of it. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I will certainly support him.
  I would like to say a few words as to the necessity for further provision for tuberculous ex-soldiers. I do not wish to make the point that provision is now being asked for only 50, but I would like

  1849
  the Minister to consider the need for further provision. It is really a waste of money to give an expensive cure in a sanatorium to an ex-soldier, to teach him a trade, and then to send him back to overcrowded, unhealthy home conditions. We cannot honestly say that we are doing our duty by the tuberculous ex-soldiers unless we help societies which are trying to build houses, so that these tuberculous ex-soldiers, instead of drifting back to ill-health, may carry on their employment in healthy surroundings. I would wish also to ask the Minister of Health why there should be any distinction between tuberculous ex-soldiers and ex-soldiers of a high disability. There are thousands and thousands of ex-soldiers in our towns at, the present moment who are ekeing out. miserable, idle, and unhappy existences, but who, if they were brought out into the country in healthy surroundings, would be able to do very good work for the community. I am connected with a society which is trying to solve this problem. We are housing men who cannot live in towns out in the country. We have great difficulty in finding houses, and I would like to know why the Government should not help a society like this, which is doing what it can for the ex-soldiers, and not drawing any distinction as to whether they are tuberculous men or whether their disability is due to wounds, shell-shock, or anything else.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I labour under a difficulty here in the fact that I am defending the policy of my predecessor, [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I can assure the Committee that had there been a tenth part of the sympathy for ex-service men and others among the party opposite 12 months ago—[HON, MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—that we evidently have to-day, my task would be much easier in the months that lie before me. If I may take the points that have been raised in the order in which they have been raised, let me return to the question of the sum wanted for dealing with the position created by the public utility societies.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with that question, will he excuse me for interrupting, and give us what was the capital sum involved which required a loss of £100,000 to be made up?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry I have not that information by me, but if the hon. Member will communicate his request to me I will find it later. The position was this. The late Government wanted to encourage the sale of these houses, and gave special terms to public utility societies under the Act of 1923. This resulted in a larger sale of the houses than was anticipated, and consequently the need for the sum I am asking from the Committee to-day. I have already explained the principle that operates. If it were an ordinary trading transaction, and the money were advanced at a certain rate of interest and were repaid before the time that both parties anticipated, then a premium would be expected from the party to whom the loan was granted in order to make good the loss that had been incurred by the lender through being deprived of an investment made when the rate of interest was high; but in this case, in order to encourage the public utility societies, of which my hon. Friends were such eloquent defenders when the Bill was before the House, the Government wiped out the request. for a premium and allowed them to repay at their convenience the loans at par. Consequently, the Government is involved in the loss, or the possible loss, of the sum that is mentioned here. T might state that the amount wanted here does not at all represent the assistance to be given to the public utility societies. It is a sum merely to cover the estimated loss on the return of the money prematurely on the houses that have been sold, and it does not at all make provision for the assistance to be given to them in the future.
  May I turn to the present position under the 1923 Act as raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy)? Perhaps he will permit me, at the outset, to thank him for the kind personal remarks that he made when offering his observations. The Noble Lord was desirous of obtaining information regarding the exact position of housing under the 1923 Act, and I have no doubt the object is to show that if the present Government would just keep quiet, and allow that Act to operate, it would do probably more to solve the housing problem than will be done by interference on the part of the Government. Prior to the departure from

  1851
  power of the party opposite, a speech was made from this bench which seemed to indicate to the public that things were going gloriously in the. matter of housing. Indeed, figures were given which seemed to prove that all the house shortage in this country would be removed immediately. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The figures certainly seemed to indicate that, and that we would be in a position in the very near future to turn our attention to that class of people who have housing accommodation of an insanitary character. I want to put the case for the 1923 Act even higher than it has been put by the promoters of that Act. I want to give figures quite up to date, and to give full credit. At the present moment, approvals have been given by the Ministry of Health for 98,349 houses. Would not that figure taken by itself indicate that we were doing well in the provision of houses for the people? Let me give a brief analysis of these figures, to show exactly what is being done. Of these approvals, 63,870 have been given to private enterprise, and 34,479 to local authorities. But what does the giving of approvals to private enterprise mean? Merely that a local authority comes to the Ministry of Health and says, "We believe that we could place certificates with private builders for the erection of 10.000 houses." As the House knows, 10,000 houses are wanted in a locality. They say, "Very good"—
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Surely that is not the case. Surely the Ministry of Health call for estimates from the local authority of what they think can be built by the end of the 1924 building season, and confine their approval to that number.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not going to accuse the Noble Lord or his associates with having got up a figure for window-dressing, but I am merely stating facts. It may be they were able to satisfy the Ministry of Health. It may be that they honestly believed they were going to erect 10,000 houses by private enterprise, but I am stating a fact. The fact is they give 10.000 approvals, and that 10,000 appears as part of the 98,349. If I might give another illustration from something which frequently happens, it is like giving out tickets for a charity concert, say, to
  1852
  the number of 100, and counting as sold the number given to a member of the Committee in the hope that he will dispose of them. The number of certificates issued to private builders differs very, very substantially from the number of approvals received by the local authorities. Let me remind the Committee again that the number taken out was 63,870, but the number actually issued to this date is only 33,044. So that, roughly speaking, out of the number of approvals received by the local authorities, only about one-half have been issued. [An HON. MEMBER: "In what period?"] From the passing of the Act to the period in which I am speaking. The number of approvals received by local authorities is 34,479, for erection by themselves, but the number of plans approved is just about half that number, namely, 18,687.
  Let me return to the question of the number of houses being built by private enterprise in the light of it being a substantial contribution to the problem with which we are faced. A great deal has been said from the other side as to who are the members of the working-class, and who should be assisted with houses. It does not lie with me to lay down an exact definition of the phrase "the working-class," but I am laying down this as a fairly safe and wise policy to pursue: that a nation faced with the difficulty which confronts us to-day, with a limited amount of money to spend in the provision of houses, should spend that money in assisting those who are most in need of help. I think that is a perfectly sound policy. Certain men come along and say, "I want to spend £800 or £900 in purchasing a house, and I want you to give State assistance to the extent of £100." I reply, "I would like very much to do so, and assist all the middle-class, and, indeed, the upper class of this country, to get the necessaries of life, but, in the meantime, I am handicapped by the amount of my resources, and if I have to choose between helping a man who is earning less than £3 per week to get healthy accommodation, and helping another man who can afford to invest £800 or £900 in a house, then I want to help the poorer man." I have to tell the more fortunate person, "As a patriotic citizen, you must get along with the

  1853
  resources you have until the country is in a more prosperous condition to come to your help."
  When I examined the figures of the houses being built by private enterprise for the purpose of letting, I got something which was somewhat alarming, and I want to remind the Committee that the housing problem to-day is not in the provision of houses for sale. When I began to discuss this question publicly, I remember how I used to be attacked for having encroached on the field of legitimate private enterprise. What are we being asked to do now? To extend public enterprise far beyond the needs of the working-classes into the region of the middle-class. I am going to stand up for private enterprise now, and say that the provision of houses for the middle-class is something which, in the meantime, the nation may quite well leave to private enterprise unsubsidised. Private enterprise is something which should be ashamed to ask for a subsidy, because private enterprise subsidised is a confession of the failure of private enterprise. When we get down to the number of houses which private enterprise has built, we find, as far as we can ascertain the facts—and, as the Noble Lord knows, we cannot get accurate information, and I am not pretending to give it—but, as far we can ascertain the facts, apart from a comparatively small number of houses that are being erected for colliery companies and other employers, practically all the houses being erected by private enterprise, are being helped by the State and getting the subsidy, and probably only about 20,000 houses for which contracts have been fixed up at this moment are to be let after they have been completed. I submit that that is not something to boast about, but I think it is well that the country should have the facts of the problem with which I have to deal. I have summarised the details here, and they work out like this. The total number of houses on which work has been actually started, including the whole of them, is only 22,607. The number actually completed is only 4,608. The hon. Member for 'West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) was not quite sure that the £20,000 would serve my purpose for the present financial year. I am very sorry it will.
  Mr. E. BROWN: The late Minister of Health stated, in the course of the discus-
  1854
  sion of the figures from that bench, that one house in five under the last Government scheme was being erected in rural England. Can he say whether that was so or not; and, if so, whether the "rural England" meant is that contiguous to towns, or purely rural England?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am very sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information in the detailed manner in which he desires it. If I may turn from that, I think that the position in regard to housing. when we remember the terrible shortage of houses in this country, the fearfully low standard of housing, the expansion that is occurring in our population, and the depreciation of existing property, for a nation to rest satisfied with that is to do something which certainly is not right.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The right hon. Member has given the number of 4,000 odd houses built with the subsidy in the last 12 months. Will he now give the number built without any subsidy?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I view the housing problem from the point of view of the class who, in the competitive system of fixing wages, do not receive wages that would enable them to build an economic house. From that point of view, I am quite satisfied the houses erected without subsidy were not built for the working-class, because they were houses running into four figures.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not the number. In regard to the grants for cottages for tuberculous ex-service men, I would now like to make a few remarks. Here, again, I am being pressed to show what I have done, and I have been only three weeks in office. During the three weeks which I have been in office my time has been so occupied by housing and other problems, to which no doubt reference will be made on a future occasion, that I have not even had time to visit the colonies in whose support I am asking a grant from the Committee this evening.
  My position is briefly this: that these two colonies have been run, as has already been pointed out, for ex-service men who are capable of doing light work. Fifty cottages have been erected at Papworth, provided by a committee of the

  1855
  County Council under this scheme. and at Preston Hall 41 cottages have been put up by private enterprise with the help of subsidies given to the builders. The sum I am asking for now is the amount required between now and 31st March out of a. total of £20,000 to erect 50 additional cottages distributed equally between these two centres. The question as to what I intend to do in the future is one which I think the Committee will not expect me seriously to go into at the moment. One can hardly be expected to take up grave controversial questions, especially of this kind, at a moment's notice. If I can induce this House to adopt a policy which will give a standard of housing accommodation that will strike at the root of tuberculosis, I will do well. If I may turn now to other questions which have been raised, I will deal with that portion of the grant which is marked for the relief of unemployrnent.—[G. 8.]
  Captain BENN: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves these two items, F. 5 and F. 6, is he going to make any reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am very sorry that I have overlooked it for the moment. It is a very important question. The Committee will remember it raised a question of a proposal made by the West Hartlepool Town Council to erect houses according to a scale, in some cases running into a density of 30 or 40 to the acre. There is a good deal of misunderstanding about this matter. What happened? The question here is in regard to single vacant sites. Say there was a corner site that would hold a house within the Regulations. The question we had to face was: Would we compel the local authority to keep that site vacant or allow it to exercise its discretion and put down an additional house? That is the position. On the general question the Committee may take my assurance—that where in my position as Minister of Health schemes have to receive my approval—that in the case of housing schemes I imagine that no local authority will ever insult me by asking me to approve of a scheme in which the density is 40 to the acre, or even 30 to the acre. I find in the
  1856
  correspondence—and I say this in justification of my predecessor—that in July of last year the West Hartlepool Town Council submitted a scheme in which it was proposed to erect 34 houses to the acre. The scheme was rejected by the Ministry of Health, which reduced the density to 21. A further communication has gone out, I understand, from my Department to the West Hartlepool Authority making our position quite plain. Generally speaking, I have been appealed to to say that the number of houses to the acre shall not exceed 16. I will not pledge myself, but I will assure the hon. Member who asked me that, he will find me most sympathetic to the limitation of the density in housing schemes that I approve during the time I am at the Ministry of Health.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the scheme submitted by the West Hartlepool Town Council—the minutes of which I have—there is no question as to an isolated site? It is a scheme of houses for subsidy and for houses erected to a certain density. According to the scale, as the density goes up the subsidy goes down. There is no reference whatever to isolated houses. Might I also ask the Minister a further point, as to whether he would take upon himself the right to refuse a subsidy if he thought the density was greater than ought to be allowed in the interests of public health?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: With the greatest pleasure and readiness I give the hon. Member the assurance that such a scheme would never receive my approval.
  Captain BENN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not quite met, the point. Is it a fact that this was not a scheme for isolated blocks? Was it, in fact, a general scheme? Is it a fact that the density was as described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough, and that it met with the approval of the Minister?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: It was quite up to the West Hartlepool authority to submit a proposal to the Ministry of Health in which they suggested that for a certain density of housing they would give a reduced subsidy. I believe that the record which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has in his possession and which he was good enough to submit to

  1857
  me indicated that they had no objection to lay down a scale, and that when that particular proposal came before the Ministry of Health they expected they would receive approval. As a matter of fact, my information is that they have not received approval, except in the isolated cases to which I have referred. I do not know that I can give the House any more information.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: I am extremely sorry, but this is a most important point. The letter quite distinctly said that there was approval.
  "I am directed by the Minister of Health to refer to your letter of the 6th instant and to state that he approved of the proposals of your council to differentiate as regards the amount of subsidy payable in individual cases—."
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Bead on, please.
  Mr. THOMSON:
  "As already pointed out, the Minister proposes to leave the question of density to the discretion of the council."
  No question of withholding the power to reduce the latter. The Town Clerk of West Hartlepool advised his committee that there was no need to submit the proposals to the Ministry—
  "He considers, however, that a density as high as:35 or 40 houses to the acre is one which should only be allowed in very exceptional circumstances. It is understood that the council proposals are limited to the small vacant sites on streets already constructed, where the lay-out does not lend itself to a reduction in density."
  I read the full letter out at the beginning. I ask the Minister whether under any circumstances whatever State money should be used for the erection of houses at 35 to 40 to the acre?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I think the reading of the letter has minimised the importance of the error—if it was an error. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Unless in an exceptional case such as I have suggested, where you have a vacant site or a single house, and where it would be absurd to refuse permission to put up additional houses—except, I say, in a case like that, I would not consider giving permission for the erection of houses of the density suggested in that letter. You can take it from me that that will be the policy prevailing at the Minis-
  1858
  try of Health during the time that the hon. Member is good enough to keep me in office.
  I turn to that part of the Estimate which deals with the relief of unemployrnent. Here again I have the initial difficulty as in the first section when I was dealing with a legacy which I have inherited. In this case, I am appearing here as an agent for other Departments. I leave the other Departments, with one exception, to defend their own policy. My vote is for £10. The older Parliamentary hands know well enough that that amount is merely put in to enable the House to criticise and condemn if they so desire the changes in the policy between the time that the matter was originally before the House and the submission of this Supplementary Estimate. Changes have taken place. The total amount wanted here is £730,000 and, as I have said, it is for the purposes of other Departments to the extent of about one-half. I want £335,400 for the purposes of the Ministry of Health, which sum is to be used in the giving of loans to boards of guardians and distressed local authorities.
  Lord E. PERCY: I think the right hon. Gentleman is making a slight, mistake. He is now talking about No. 2 (page 24) when he should restrict himself to item G.8.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. I for one have sat through practically the whole course of the Debate and I did not know that we were discussing these unclassified services. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are not."]
  Mr. WHEATLEY: If that was the understanding of the House then I will conclude my remarks.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: I do not think hon. Members on this side of the House can leave this question of housing exactly where it has been left by the Minister of Health. If my memory serves me rightly, that Act was passed in June last. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will challenge me if I say anything with which he seriously disagrees, but if he takes the month of June. 1924, which was the institution of a new policy fur the precision of houses in this country, he will agree with me that the first month or two was necessarily absorbed in the submission to the Department of plans and proposals,

  1859
  and therefore it would take us up to August last before any Government could make any provision under the Act of 1923.
  If we take the delay which must occu before the final approval is given, and the arrangement of the financial scheme, and if we consider the number of houses provided and in course of construction and the schemes approved, then I think the statement made by the late Minister of Health was amply justified when he asserted that houses were being provided at a. greater rate than we have known since 1909. What the Minister of Health has said is simply deceiving the country, and drawing a red herring across the path, because the late Government have fulfilled the fullest expectations which were held out when the 1923 Act was passed. The Minister of Health knows that he has fallen heir to a very active building programme, the credit for which he is going to claim for the present Government, whereas it really belongs to my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Health, who introduced the Bill of 1923. The whole tenor of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly are producing a false impression upon this House and throughout the country.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: This is a Supplementary Estimate for public utility works, put in hand by municipalities, statutory bodies, and public utility companies for non-revenue earning relief works, for which they get 50 per cent. of the interest not exceeding 50 years. I want to know where is the Supplementary Estimate for the revenue earning works. Perhaps some hon. Member on the Front Bench will tell me, or shall I find it in the next Vote but one. In the King's Speech there was a very timely undertaking to give these people who put up relief works rather more assistance than in the past. We are now told that:
  "Your assent will he invited to an extension of the contribution towards the cost of public utility work, whether promoted by local authorities, or by statutory corporations."
  Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this token Vote of £10 means that the undertaking in the King's Speech of the late Government will be carried out, namely, that a more generous scale of help will be given to
  1860
  municipalities who have lent their aid with great patriotism. Year by year the difficulty of providing relief work becomes more onerous, but the municipalities are now saying that if you do similar work in the Overseas Dominions, for that part of the work which is done here they can get 75 per cent. of the interest and, surely, they are entitled, considering the pressure put upon them, and the onerous character of the burden they are bearing, to more than they have been getting in the past. I again put my two questions. (1) Where can I find the Supplementary Estimate for revenue--producing work in the 65 per cent. wages scale, and (2) is there any intention of carrying out the suggestion of the late Government on a scale rather more generous than in the past.
  Lord E. PERCY: The Minister of Health said that, presumably, my previous question was designed to prove something; but it was not so designed and it does not prove anything. My object was to get information, and the Minister did not give me that information. I asked the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that during the last seven or eight weeks the work of local authorities in placing contracts and undertakings by private builders did not show any signs of slackening off, owing to the possibility of a new scheme. That assurance is not given, and I gather from his figures that there has been during January, and up to the first few days of this month, a very distinct slackening in private building and contracts placed by local authorities.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have already pointed out that local authorities have been given more work than they are able to place.
  Lord E. PERCY: I am not talking about the increase in the number of certificates from 85,000 to 90,000, but I am speaking about the number of houses in actual contracts, or in undertakings given by local authorities, and they were 44,000 at the end of last year. I gather now from the figures that they are rather more than 50,000 to-day. It is not the Minister's fault, but I want to know what the local authorities are doing with these certificates, because I gather that they have been able to build very much fewer houses than the total he has approved last year.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think that the facts will bear out the suggestion of the Noble Lord.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: The Minister of Health, at the commencement of his last speech, seemed rather to resent the fact that a certain amount of enquiry and mild criticism had come from this side of the House. I would point out to him that although, possibly, he may be bearing the responsibility for Estimates not prepared by himself, but by the right hon. Gentleman sitting below me (Mr. N. Chamberlain), yet there are other hon. Members in this House, and the rights of private Members must not be interfered with by a change over of the Government. When we remember that there are only 20 days in which the private Member has an opportunity of discussing the details of these Estimates, and we only discuss questions of principle at the request of the Front Opposition Bench, I would point out that the Supplementary Estimates give us our only chance of enquiring about those matters in which we are so deeply interested. It must not be thought that private Members are in any way debarred from criticising Supplementary Estimates to any reasonable extent.
  The right hon. Gentleman said he did not know the total capital amount which had been repaid, but I think it would be interesting to know the number of houses that have been sold. Personally, I think that this gradual sale of a, large number of houses to people who are going to live in them is one of the best signs in a very unsatisfactory phase of housing in this country, because the more people who become owners of their own houses, the more stability we shall get. I know that stability is not what many hon. Members opposite desire, but if a man is able to purchase and live in his own house, he very often becomes a much better citizen than he otherwise would. It is not the well-to-do man, or the man whom hon. Members opposite would call the middle class, who the chiefly the purchasers of these houses.
  It is not necessary for the purchaser of these houses to possess £500 or £600, because in the majority of these cases they have only been able to find a small proportion of the purchase money which they have saved. There are many schemes whereby a man, by the help of this
  1862
  subsidy, can purchase his house, and pay the amount off by instalments over a considerable period of years. It does not need a man with a large income to pay the instalments which are frequently only a few shilling per week more than the ordinary rent, but all the time he is paying the instalments he is gradually acquiring the house, and at the end of the period he will own the whole of the house and live in it, and leave it to those who come after him. The Minister of Health seemed to think that these houses of which I am speaking were of a better type, and were going to people who could well afford to provide for themselves. I do not think that is true, but even if it is true to a certain extent, those people who are purchasing houses are leaving behind the houses which they previously occupied for someone else to live in.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: They are secondhand houses.
  Mr. ROBERTS: My experience is that I should prefer a second, third or even a fourth-hand house to some of the new houses I have gone into. As a rule the second-hand house has stood the test of time, and is very often an infinitely better house than many of the new ones. Every one of these new houses eases the pressure in regard to other houses, and so we gradually get along towards some equilibrium in the law of supply and demand, and in this way we do something to meet the shortage of houses. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about slum clearances!"] I do not want to be drawn off my argument on to the question of slums, although I may say that that is a matter which I have put into my election address. I might also say that I was chairman of an important health committee for six years, and I took the very deepest possible interest in that subject. Therefore I am not speaking about things of which I have no knowledge, because I have had a great deal of knowledge and experience of the working of a large local authority.
  I think the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave with reference to certificates which have been issued under the late housing schemes are, on the whole, very satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman says the plans which have been passed only amount to about half the certificates which have been issued, but is not that rather a natural consequence,

  1863
  because the certificates must be issued before the plans are drawn, and there are many things that have to be done before the houses are actually built? The right hon. Gentleman will find, when he begins to work cut his own housing scheme, that it goes a very great deal slower than he expects, and that the difficulties others have had to face will be the same difficulties, and that the new heaven and earth that he and his party have promised to produce in this country will be as long coming as the millennium for which we have all looked for so many generations. I think it is very important that we should have the number of houses that have been sold, the capital repaid to the Ministry of Health, and the amount of money.
  7.0 P.M.
  Captain BENN: In reference to G. 8 I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. G. 8, page 22, is the Vote which promised grants to be made for unemployment work especially put in hand by various local authorities and statutory bodies. The point is this. What is the definition which is given by the authorities of those words "revenue - producing undertakings"? I am myself interested in a dock undertaking in the sense that my constituency has a large dock undertaking. This dock undertaking must be considered as a revenue-producing undertaking, or not. They wish to put in hand a big breakwater. The breakwater can produce no revenue whatever, yet the sum which they are willing to spend on the breakwater can only be assisted by a subvention from the Government on the basis of the authority being a revenue-producing authority. I think in work of that kind a definition of what is a revenue-producing undertaking might be given. I submit that a statutory dock authority is not properly regarded as a revenue-producing undertaking. Much more is it like a local authority. It is true it levies rates, but it does not levy rates for profit, it only levies rates for the purpose of paying interest on the loans it raises, and if the aggregate of the rates is in excess of those needs, then the aggregate has to be used in the reduction of those rates. Therefore I think there is strong ground for alleging that such an undertaking must not be regarded as a revenue-producing undertaking but put in the same class as the local authority of a. non-revenue-producing
  1864
  authority. One might argue, I think, well, that a dock is more like a highway. If you go outside the dock to the highways of the sea there is no question of revenue producing there, and I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to revise the decision of the late Cabinet, submit it again to discussion with a view to giving a larger measure of assistance which will enable this particular case, and others perhaps, to put in hand work which will create employment.
  Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: There is not the least doubt that the falling off in applications for subsidy, to which the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) referred, has actually occurred. That falling off is due in the main to very practical considerations indeed. At the present time the building trade unions have put in for a rise of 2d. per hour in their wages. Necessarily, anyone engaged in building houses must take that situation into account. In my own district, for example, a property owner is in possession of some very bad slum property, and for many years has been anxious to get rid of that property, and put the tenants in proper houses. That property owner last year submitted to my council a plan for 26 houses of good working-class type which were to be occupied by inhabitants of the slum which he was going to pull down. Naturally, our council passed those houses with the greatest goodwill in the world. They were excellent houses. The property owner himself was prepared to start building as soon as the frosty season is over this year, say the middle of next month. But he is confronted with the fact that, owing very largely to announcements made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, the cost of building during the coming summer is likely to be anything from 20 to 30 per cent. above what it was last year. That is the situation, and that is very largely the reason why private enterprise is not applying for subsidies at the present time. There is another reason, although not, perhaps, so cogent a one. A number of persons who wish to build houses applied to my own council to help them to get the subsidy. Circulars issued by the Ministry of Health limit the grants of subsidy to certain circumstances. For instance, the local authority has to assure the Ministry of Health that the houses in question would not he built

  1865
  without the subsidy. I venture to say that of all the thousands of houses for which local authorities have claimed subsidies on behalf of private builders, the vast majority would be built if there were no subsidy. My own experience as chairman of a local authority is that we cannot honestly, in the vast proportion of cases that come before us, say that these houses would not be built without the subsidy. That is merely a subsidiary reason for the state of affairs to which the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings has called attention.
  The real trouble now is the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman that this Government are going vigorously into the housing question. Whenever I have any money to spare, which is not often in these days, I always start building houses. I have been headed off in all my plans this year. I have been obliged to abandon any hope of getting anything done this year because I cannot afford to pay the exaggerated rate of wages and the exaggerated prices which building trade merchants will demand if the Government is going to have a really progressive scheme such as that adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Last year the number of houses built by private enterprise was probably greater than the number of houses which has been built in any year since 1909. All over the country houses have, been going up. I opposed the 1923 Act, although I could not get a seconder for rejection on the Third Reading, because I knew what would happen and what actually has happened, that the mere giving of that subsidy has undoubtedly led to a decrease in the number of houses built. We had a building boom last year, and that boom would have reached its acme this year. But now it has been stopped. For, so long as certain trades are subsidised at the expense of others, so long will the products of those trades be excessively dear. In my own district, owing entirely to Government action, a skilled engineer is receiving shillings a week less than the building trade unskilled labourer. What is worse than that we poor engineers (such as yourself and myself, Mr. Young) are the people who are being rated and taxed to pay those excessive wages to the least deserving trade in the country at the present time.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Like the Hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) I have had practical experience of the difficulty of finding houses, not in rural areas but in the County of London, where every expedient has been used to encourage building in every form. I have no objection to the doctrine of the hon. Member for Hereford that it is very nice to own your own house. We have found in London that there are plenty of houses to be bought if you have the money. The difficulty is to find houses to lease, and that is what is happening at the present time under the subsidies to private enterprise. Owing to the long period of trade depression and unemployment there are very few working men meantime in the County of London who are able to put any considerable sum of money down. You are not going to solve, at any rate in London, nor, I think, in other great industrial centres, by private enterprise at the present time, because builders will not build houses to lease. I quite appreciate the difficulty of the Minister of Health. Only being a few weeks in office, it is difficult for him to get control of the whole policy of the Department. I remember when I was on the Grand Committee with him in the last Parliament how we voted together to put in the Bill of the then Minister for Health the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) a definite figure as to the maximum number of houses to he allowed by private enterprise to he put on the acre. No one was more eloquent in appeal or more consistent in conduct, and he supported the Amendment to secure that purpose. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that these houses, more than 30 of which are built to the acre, are going to be sold at a profit, and the point is, whether public money should be used to subsidise the building of this number of houses to the acre.
  The local authorities are watching the Minister's action very closely. There are good local authorities—there are some very good, progressive authorities—but, unfortunately, they do not all reach the same standard, and there are some very reactionery ones. I am a, member of a great local authority in London, and I have noticed a tendency within the last few months to attempt experiments in building down to a very bad standard. If they see any

  1867
  laxity in the right hon. Gentleman's administration, every pressure will be brought to bear upon him to allow the building, with the assistance of public money, of houses of an unsatisfactory standard. I happened to be at a committee this morning where the question was seriously considered of putting up tenements with only one lavatory to three or four tenancies I hone that if that proposal ever reaches the Minister he will turn it down. His first action is going to set the standard throughout the country. Is he going to encourage the ideals he put forward with enthusiasm before he was in a position of responsibility, or is he going, in the panic that there is at the present time, to allow the building of houses which ultimately will be regarded as slums That, really, is the issue he has to face. I think the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) was wise to press the Minister on this point. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concluding words, these particular houses which have been sanctioned were quite exceptional, and I hope he will make that clear. I hope that in any Circular he may issue he will emphasise the fact that the policy of the Ministry of Health is not to allow more than 16 houses to the acre.
  In conclusion, I want to refer to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). Grants are going to be made in respect of unemployment schemes of a revenue-producing character. There are many estates belonging to local authorities which are now ripe for development, and I want to know from the Minister whether he is going to give any grants towards the development, in advance of the houses, of roads and sewers. There are many estates on which, if a subsidy could be obtained, such work would be put in hand at once, effecting an enormous saving of time, and also a large absorption of unemployed labour of an unskilled character—just the kind of labour for which we want to find employment. I hope the Minister will give a lead to the country in that direction. It is far better to construct roads and develop housing estates than to go on building miles and miles of roads for fast motor traffic. I put that forward as a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, because, if he could say that under this heading he is pre-
  1868
  pared to sanction grants of that character, much useful work would be immediately put in hand.
  Mr. JAMES STEWART (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): With reference to what was said by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Percy Harris), as to the Minister of Health and his ideals with regard to housing, I can assure the hon. Member that the Minister and those who are behind him still retain those ideals to the fullest extent; but circumstances occasionally arise, as in the present case, where we have inherited schemes that have been developed and permitted to be built by the late Ministry of Health, and in such circumstances we cannot, without doing injury, prevent those schemes from being proceeded with. Where plans have been submitted and tenders accepted, and the approval of the Ministry of Health has been signified, we feel that we must of necessity allow these schemes to go on, but on the understanding that we will not, when we are absolutely in control and entirely responsible for these schemes, permit anything in the nature of 30 or 40 or even a much less number of houses to be built to the acre. I can assure the hon. Member, therefore, that we are still standing by our, ideals, and will see that, so far as we are responsible, effect is given to them. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith raised a question that is particularly applicable to Scotland, with regard to docks. These docks are a revenue-producing—
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is there not a separate Vote for Scotland?
  Captain BENN: No.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, there is; there is a separate grant.
  Captain BENN: On that point of Order. Is it not a fact that the meagre sum that Scotland gets is obtained under Sub-head G.8 of this Vote?
  Sir K. WOOD: Is not the matter in relation to Scotland dealt with in the Vote for the Scottish Board of Health, and is not the particular matter in question included under Sub-head F.6 of that Vote?
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Under-Secretary is replying to the

  1869
  hon. and gallant Member for Leith on Sub-head G.8 in relation to unemployment relief, and not in relation to housing.
  Mr. PRINGLE: May I point out that the Vote for the office of the Secretary for Scotland—Class II, Vote 34—includes:
  "Grants in respect of Unemployment Schemes: Original Estimate £120,000, Revised Estimate £120,010; Additional sum required £10,"
  and that there is a footnote stating that
  "The additional provision is required for grants to local authorities, statutory bodies, and public utility companies, in respect of approved loan schemes, equivalent to 50 per cent. of interest at an approved rate for a period not exceeding 15 years…"
  Is not that the identical Vote in relation to Scotland, so that, consequently, any question regarding docks in Scotland can only be raised on that Vote?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to that Vote.
  Captain BENN: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again later.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not raise any question relating to Scotland, and perhaps I may have a reply on the matter that I did raise?
  Mr. STEWART:I thought it would save time to reply in that way. I am not yet quite fully acquainted with the Orders of the House, With regard to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), namely, the question of the period during which the local authorities can pay their half of the interest on the loan, last year a change was made by the Government, and in consequence of that change the period has now been extended from five years to 15 years, so far as these local authorities and public schemes are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the schemes that are included in this Vote. I have to reply that the 60 per cent. wages schemes are not included in this Vote, because there was enough money in the original Vote, and, therefore, a Supplementary Estimate was not required. With regard to the Dominions, it is true that the Dominions are getting a 75 per cent. grant, as against the 50 per cent, or 60 per cent. given to this country; but, while the Dominions are
  1870
  getting that 75 per cent., they are getting it for a shorter period. They are getting it for five years only, while here it is given for 15 years, so that as a matter of fact, even with 75 per cent. as against 50 per cent. or 60 per cent., they are getting here rather better terms than in the Dominions. I hope that this reply will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will take it that everything is being done that can be done in this direction.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope the Government will reconsider that. It does not give any additional assistance to the municipalities who put this work in hand. They have been very patriotic, and have gone out of their way to try to find emergency work year after year for these four successive winters, and I think we ought to encourage them not to be weary in well-doing. A great part of this work is work that they would not have put in hand otherwise, and I think they are entitled to ask—and in the King's Speech of the late Government they were promilsed—rather more generous assistance. It would be good policy, too, because, if these schemes dry up, what becomes of the work-finding policy of the Government of the Labour party? The Labour party say that work should be the main objective rather than money relief. I ask them to help those who put work in hand under great difficulties, and with the result of increasing their own rate charges, by giving them rather more generous assistance in regard to the payment of interest. I hope that the Minister of Health, who has charge of this particular matter—that is to say, the revenue-earning works which are put in hand—will not have said his last word as to 50 per cent. of interest for 15 years being the only assistance which he can give to these authorities.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am very interested in this Sub-head G.8, because it seems to me to denote a new departure on the part of the present Government, and a departure which comes very strangely from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. The note says that this is for grants to local authorities, statutory bodies, and public utility companies. This is the hated thing, private enterprise. The Minister of Health, in the first Estimate he brings before

  1871
  Parliament, shows the cloven hoof. I must confess that, having had him as a constituent in the past, I am greatly surprised at this fall from grace on his part; and let me remark also, in regard to the Under-Secretary, with whom I have had pleasant associations in the past, that I am delighted to hear that his migration to the Government Bench has not destroyed any of his ideals. If, however, it had been any other Ministry, I can well imagine the scorn and contempt and derision that he would have heaped upon any such profession of ideals from them, or on any suggestion that they were in any way bound by circumstances. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman, whom I congratulate on the fact, recognises the circumstances. I always believed that he would, but here we have—
  Mr. STEPHEN: He has inherited them.
  Mr. PRINGLE: This is not an inheritance; it is a new departure. If my hon. Friend, instead of making interruptions based on ignorance, would pay some attention to the Vote, and endeavour to square it with the principles which he enunciates on the platform, he would be making the protest that I am making.
  Mr. STEPHEN: It is purely an inheritance, and you know it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: This is no inheritance. This is the first time there has been a grant to public utility companies. I have looked up the Estimates for last year, and in the principal Estimate the reference is only to local authorities and statutory bodies. Here, for the first time, in a Socialist Government, we find the public utility company included. It. is, therefore, a Socialist Government that has brought in the public utility company, and the hon. Member, who is a vigilant guardian of the temple of the faith, leaves it to an individualist—to one altogether outside the temple, outside the pale—to show this disastrous derogation from Socialist principles on the part of those whom he supports. I think it is most regrettable. Not all the red flag of Poplar will wipe this away. [Interruption.] It is the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary for Scotland on the Front Bench with whom I am concerned. I have no doubt
  1872
  of the fidelity of the uncorrupted Gentlemen on the back benches. I am willing to allow that they are incorruptible, but the Front Bench has fallen from grace. [Interruption.] I regret that my facetious remarks should have aroused this indignation.
  But I desire to deal with the other question on which we have had extenuating circumstances put forward by the Under-Secretary. In dealing with this question of density to the acre he said it was purely a matter of inheritance from their predecessors. It is nothing of the kind. The letter to which attention was called by my hon. Friend. the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) is a letter of 15th February. It relates not to schemes that were taken in hand before the present Government come into power but to schemes submitted for the first time for their approval on 6th February, so that there are no inherited circumstances to justify this decision. Furthermore, my hon Friend gave the Minister of Health an opportunity of making a new departure. On 14th February he put a question in these terms.
  "To ask the Minister of Health whether his Ministry has intimated to any local authority that there is no need for it to secure the Minister's sanction as to the maximum density of houses qualified to receive State assistance under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923; and, if so, whether the policy is to be Continued in the future in view of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923."
  This is the reply of the Minister of Health:
  "Local authorities, generally, have been notified that they will not be required to submit for approval details of their housing schemes under the Act of 1923. In a Circular issued in August"—
  this, of course, is the work of their predecessors—
  "they were informed that it was not proposed to prescribe a maximum density, and that it was considered that a discretion might properly be exercised by them in this matter in view of the particular circumstances of their district."
  That was their predecessors, the people whom you used to attack only a. few months ago. They are the villains of the piece, supporting private enterprise and setting up a low standard of housing. That was the thing against which speeches were made when the Housing Bill was going through, as the Noble Lord will

  1873
  very well remember. The provision in the Bill which was most keenly attacked was that relating to the density of houses. My hon. Friend attacked it, and he was strenuously supported by the Minister of Health, so he has an opportunity now to modify it. It, goes on:
  "The opinion was expressed, however, that a density of approximately 12 houses to the acre represented a desirable standard"—
  that is a pious opinion, like the Mond Order—
  "and that, as a general rule, a local authority should not approve the building of more than 20 houses on any one acre. It is not my intention to modify this policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1924; col. 1043, Vol. 169.]
  He has the opportunity to modify it if he likes. He is not bound by the inheritance in any way. He has an absolutely free hand. He might carry out by administrative action now the policy he advocated as a private Member, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and he declines to do it. He declined to do it in answer to that question of 14th February, and he declines to do it now. He says in individual cases it may be done. I am surprised even that he should allow that, because this is a question of giving public money for the building of houses. It may be desirable or undesirable to have the sites filled up, but I hold that it should be left to the people who have the land to build on it, and whose interest it is to build on it, and a subsidy should not be given which in effect is of benefit to a particular land-lord. But in a case oof that kind, when exceptional circumstances are to be pleaded, the Minister himself should insist on these exceptional circumstances being brought before the Ministry.
  There is nothing in the scale which was presented by the hon. Member for West Hartlepool to indicate that there were exceptional circumstances at all. It simply gave the basis on which a subsidy was to be paid. It said where the density exceeded 20 but did not exceed 25 it was £90. If it was under 20 it was £100. Where the density was 25 and did not exceed 30, £80; where it was 30 but not 35, £70; 35 but not 40, £60; and then we have a provision that a subsidy of public money is even to be given where the density may be over 40, and to any extent over 40, and in that case it might be £50.
  1874
  Where you get a density as large as that the Ministry should insist upon the exceptional circumstances being disclosed to the Ministry itself. I make this suggestion to the Minister of Health, that when any less scale is placed before the Ministry a demand should be made for the exceptional circumstances which are to justify such a great relaxation of the standard of housing. I largely agree with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) about the Bill of the late Government. There were great claims made in connection with it that it was going to do a world of good and that a large number of houses were to be built. I believe an infinitesimal addition has been made to the number of houses which have actually been built. I believe a large number of people had made up their minds to build houses before the Chamberlain scheme was announced and they simply held their hand until the scheme was in operation so that they might get £100 of public money and so make a larger profit. on the building of their houses. That was the case largely all over the country. I have known cases of the kind myself, and I believe every other Member of the, House knows of similar instances. Consequently, the quotation of numbers of houses built does not prove that the Act has been a success. You cannot show how many of these houses would have been built altogether without any expenditure of public money. I believe there is a good deal in the hon. Member's view that had the Act not been brought into operation at all we should probably have had building, and I think there is a good deal of force in his suggestion that the announcement of the proposals now made by the Government is going to have a similar effect to those which resulted from the announcement of the Addison scheme, and we are going to have higher prices and no real contribution to the solution of the housing problem.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: May I appeal to the Committee, now that we have discussed this question at such length, and we have so much business to get through, to allow me to get this Vote, which, I submit, has been adequately discussed.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the suggestion I have made that when there is a scheme where the density is exceptional he should

  1875
  make a special inquiry and have the circumstances disclosed by the authorities?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have already given that assurance.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: I want to have it quite clear because, in answer to a question since the matter was before the House, the Minister says the thing can be left to the discretion of local authorities to act reasonably in the matter. The question I put in the earlier discussion was, that where a local authority was so unreasonable as to grant a subsidy on houses of 35 to 40 to the acre, what steps was the Ministry going to take to restrain it? The written answer he gave me, circulated to-day, makes no reference to using the power at all, but simply relies on the discretion of the local authority. Before we leave this matter I should like him to say definitely how he is going to exercise this power, seeing that he has told local authorities that there is no obligation on their part to submit the density per acre for houses which are to qualify for subsidy. That is left entirely to their discretion. How is he going to control them?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I can only repeat what I have said, that where a subsidy is to be given, and my approval is required, I will see that no subsidy is given for a density such as that to which the hon. Member refers.
  Viscount WOLMER: I do not propose to pursue the matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), who, having taken part in putting the Socialist party in power, and knowing full well that he has to maintain them there, at any rate for the time being, delights himself in saying the nastiest things he can about them—
  Mr. PRINGLE: Oh, no. Not half as nasty as I have said about you.
  Viscount WOLMER: —every night, and with a great deal of display of knowledge of Parliamentary lore and procedure to show his independence. I do not propose to follow him in that line at all.
  Mr. PRINGLE: You could not.
  Viscount WOLMER: In regard to his concluding remarks about the Unionist
  1876
  housing policy, I could not help being somewhat amused at his claim that the number of houses built or building must be regarded as no criterion of the success of the scheme of the late Government. I suppose by a parity of reckoning the People's Budget of 1909, which reduced the number of houses built by about 50 per cent., can be claimed as a serious and great contribution towards the housing problem. I have risen for a more practical purpose, to ask the Minister for an expression of policy in regard to a matter which affects my constituency, and I am sure those of many other hon. Members. In my constituency the shortage of houses is as acute as in any. There are a great number of men who have been willing to build houses for themselves under the terms provided in the Housing Act, 1923. A great many of these are very small men indeed. Many of them are working men who are not at all accustomed to dealing with Government Departments or of dealing with local authorities. They had a few pounds which they had saved, and by means of the subsidy which they hoped to get under the terms of the Act they saw their way to put up buildings which would be their own. I have had several cases brought to my notice of working men who, having read in the newspapers last year the terms of the Act, as passed by Parliament, took what they thought to be the correct step which would put them right for getting the housing subsidy. A number of these men have been refused the subsidy by the Ministry of Health, and I have been engaged recently in correspondence with the Ministry of Health on the point, taking a test case, because I knew that if I could gain my point in one case I should be able to gain my point in a number of other cases. I have received from the Ministry of Health the most courteous letters and evidently a great deal of trouble had been taken in the matter. There are several cases in which, there is no shadow of doubt, the men perfectly genuinely thought that they were fulfilling the conditions laid down by the Housing Act, and that they had obtained the sanction of the local authority before they commenced to build their houses. The Ministry of Health has stated that where the local authority approved the building of a house before building was commenced, although the local housing schemes had not been approved by the Ministry of Health but

  1877
  where the schemes were subsequently approved, the houses would be eligible for the subsidy.
  In the cases I am mentioning, these men went to their local authority. They saw the town clerk or the clerk of the district council and got the plans approved. They were under the impression that they had the sanction of their local authority which would make them eligible for the subsidy under the housing scheme. They did not fill up the right form, and did not get the formal sanction which the Ministry of Health now requires. Technically, these men are on the wrong side of the law, but I want to ask the Minister to deal with men in the position I have described in a humane manner and not in a manner which is frequently associated with Government Departments. I know that it is very difficult for a Government Department to be humane. It is very difficult for a Government Department to make an exception to a rule. A Government Department has to stick to a principle or formula, and it is very difficult for the Department to deviate from it. That is one of the reasons why I am not a Socialist. The right hon. Gentleman is a Socialist, and glories in the name of Socialist, and it is up to him to show that a Government Department controlled by a Socialist is capable of dealing with human beings as though they were human beings themselves. In cases where he is satisfied, if I bring them to his notice, that the circumstances are genuine and that the man in question was genuinely trying to build a house for himself under the terms of the 1923 Act, and that he was that type of man to whom the 1923 Act was intended to apply, I ask that he should not stand strictly on formula, when the applicants really are entitled to the subsidy.
  I am not making this request on behalf of professional builders who, of course, must be expected to know exactly the steps they ought to have taken, and I am not making a request on behalf of people who are building houses as a speculation and trying to sell them at a profit. That is a perfectly legitimate occupation, but the man who follows it must be expected to carry out the rules strictly. I am appealing for those working men who have put their savings into the building of houses and who believed that they were complying with the conditions of
  1878
  the 1923 Act, but now find that owing to a technical error on their part, due solely to the fact that they had no experience of dealing with Government Departments or local authorities, they are not eligible for the subsidy. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at such cases in a kindly manner and meet them in a sympathetic spirit, as I am sure he would do if he had to deal with them in a private capacity. If he would give me that assurance it would be of great assistance and encouragement to me and to the men I represent, and I believe it would also assist other hon. Members who have had similar cases brought to their notice. I could show the right hon. Gentleman cases where the men went to the town clerk or to the clerk of the district council and got approval in writing, and sometimes they got approval verbally. That approval is not denied, but as the correct forms were not filled in the men are not eligible for the subsidy. If the right hon. Gentleman will deal with these cases in what I may call a humane spirit, he will have vindicated in these circumstances the Socialist party as capable of dealing with these matters in a humane fashion.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I was going to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman exactly the same matter that has been brought forward by the noble Lord who has just spoken. It is a matter of the administration, and I think the right hon. Gentleman's Department has acted somewhat harshly, if not wrongly. In April or May of last year his Department issued a very strong appeal to the local authorities to get on with the work of building, explaining that if they undertook to guarantee certain schemes it probably would be made right for them if the Bill passed at a later date. In a district of Cambridge of which I am about to speak considerable dissatisfaction has been caused. In the Chesterton rural district certain people started building in villages, with the full knowledge of the rural sanitary authority and with the full approval of the authority, but the authority did not give any undertaking as to the cost. Consequently, the buildings were begun during the summer. In due course, after the August circular, the list was sent in for approval by the Ministry of Health, but the Ministry of Health rejected all those buildings that had been

  1879
  started before August. The Chesterton rural authority are exceedingly upset about this because, owing to their not having given an undertaking, the people were losing the subsidy to which they would naturally be entitled.
  The rural district authority assure me in writing that not one of these buildings would have been begun or thought of if it had not been for the subsidy, and that the men began the work with the approval of the rural district authority and with their full knowledge. I cannot admit the statement of the Noble Lord that there is no law on our side in regard to this matter. I do not expect an answer from the Minister of Health now, because I do not suppose he has the facts in his mind. I hope that he will look into the matter and that he will see his way to meet it in a fair way. Justice would be done if he acceded to the request of the Chesterton rural authority. The present situation has caused much dissatisfaction, and it does not give encouragement to local authorities or private individuals to make as much use as they possibly can of their opportunities for building. I hope my right hon.. Friend will give me an assurance that he will look into the matter.
  Mr. WHEATLEY indicated assent.
  Question put., and agreed to.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

  RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £730,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for Relief arising out of Unemployment, including Grants-in-Aid."
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The sum mentioned in this Estimate covers work done by a number of Departments. The amount for land improvement and drainage relates to work under the Board of Agriculture, and that for light railways comes under the Ministry of Transport. The sum for women's training comes under the Ministry of Labour, as does the sum for Juvenile Unemployment Centres. If there should be any points arising on these matters the Ministers in charge of the work will give the Com-
  1880
  mittee any information that is desired. After the discussion we have had on the previous Estimate I hope that we shall get this Vote through. Of the total Estimate, a sum of £335,400 comes directly under the Ministry of Health and is wanted in connection with loans to boards of guardians and distressed local authorities.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should have thought that we were entitled to a much more detailed explanation of this Vote. The grant in aid of land improvement and drainage comes under the Board of Agriculture; that for light railways under the Ministry of Transport; that for the training of women in domestic work and for the maintenance of Juvenile Unemployment Centres under the Ministry of Labour, while for loans to local authorities there is a very big item which comes under the Ministry of Health. These matters we have not dealt with under the previous Vote. We have here non-revenue producing relief work on which we pay 60 per cent. of the wages. The loans to distressed local authorities for general purposes and the loans to Poor Law authorities in necessitous areas cover a very large sum. Yet my right hon. Friend says that he hopes he will get the Vote now, and that if anybody has any questions to put, the Ministers responsible will answer them. I am not dealing with these matters in any critical spirit.
  Mr. STEPHEN: You are wasting time.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that is a very unwarranted remark. I am here trying to see that money for the unemployed is sufficient, and that, if you please, is wasting time. I plead guilty to no other motive. In 1922–23 there was provided for all the purpose I have described a sum of £2,500,000. This year, 1923–24, the sum provided is £2,360,000. Is it a waste of time to point out that; £140,000 less is being provided for these important purposes than was provided last year? I quite understand that these are not my right hon. Friend's own Estimates, but one would have thought that in the provision made for these unhappy men something better could have been done than an Estimate of less than last year. I propose to go on gingering up the Labour party

  1881
  to something approaching their professions of regard for the unemployed. I am quite prepared to hear that I am wasting time.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, of course; we ken ye.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think in this varied field of opportunity for finding work, which is far more important than giving money relief, that my right hon. Friend, even in the short time at his disposal since he took office, could have touched up these Estimates so as to provide at least as much as last year. The next thing I have to say is in reference to the form of the Estimates. This is not new at all; it is the common form in every Department, but it is rather bad form in this particular case, and my right hon. Friend here is not to blame for it. If you look at the bottom of page 24 you will see that many things are lumped together under the heading of "Sundry services." They are all put together in footnote (a). Would it not be a very great advantage, instead of lumping all these sundry services together, if we had them all together—land, drainage, afforestation, relief works by public utility companies, work for women, and so on--and if we had a detailed statement under each head, showing what was the original estimate, and what the revised estimate is going to be?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do ye no' mind when you were in office yoursel'.
  The CHAIRMAN: May I point out that these unnecessary interruptions are wasting time?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not asking my right lion. Friend to tell me these facts to-night; I know he does not know them, but, now that we are dealing with such a large body of classified services, I hope that in next year's Estimates we will have the amounts put down in detail. For instance, no one can tell what the original amount proposed was in regard to land drainage. No one can tell what additional work for land drainage is to be provided out of the total of £680,000. Surely to make this point is not precisely wasting time.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why he did not do this, or get this done when he was in the Government himself?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is never too late to mend, and I did not suggest that it was done before. With experience comes wisdom, and that is what the Front Bench is going to find out.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry to interrupt, but as I am extremely anxious to get this Vote through before 8.15, I would be very grateful to the Committee if I could get it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: And I will be very glad to oblige. Let me say that I do know some of the details under each of these items. I want to go through these Supplementary Estimates, because I think not enough has been added for the purpose which, I think, we all of us have in view. I take the case of the training of women for domestic service. This year nothing was voted, but the Estimate does not show that. In the year before last, when I was responsible, £50,000 was voted for this purpose. Of that sum, £15,000 was spent last year, and the rest was revoted. There is no original vote this time. There is only £35,000 of a re-vote, but for all we know there might be an enormous sum in addition lumped in this £680,000. I am the last man to wish to delay the right hon. Gentleman in getting his Vote, because I know too much of the anxiety of getting a vote for services like this put through. I would like, however, to refer to some points.
  In 1921–22 we voted £336,000 for land drainage and improvement. In 1922–23 we voted £343,000 for this purpose, but it is not in this document. The original grant for this year was brought down to £250,000, I am sorry to say. How much, I would ask, of this £680,000 is in respect to that? The President the Board of Agriculture will tell me, I have no doubt, when the opportunity offers. I heard him tell us of the hardships of the agricultural labourer, particularly in Cheshire. He knows that these men are not covered by the Insurance Act, and the case of these men is harder than a year ago, yet less money is being voted than in the original Estimate. The money which is to he voted for land drainage and improvement must be particularly useful to the agricultural labourer. Then there is the question of afforestation. It is a separate item in this Vote, on page 25, the amount given being £50,000. The total expenditure in

  1883
  1921–22 was, I think, £162,000. In 1922–23 the total expenditure was cut down to £83,000, and I am sorry for that falling off. This year, as I have said, the original Estimate is £50,000, and it is with great satisfaction I see that this Estimate does show that they are going to double the amount. Why cannot we have the details of all those other things involving far larger sums and which are now unclassified? I make that appeal in no party sense, and I hope we may have, from the Ministers concerned, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture, some further details of this Vote.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): I am glad of the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that we can look to him for support. We shall shortly, from every Department, put before the House complete schemes, and I am glad to know in advance that we are assured of his kindly help. His speech to-night has been a revelation; his action. when he sees our schemes will, I hope, be equally pleasing. On one point he is quite wrong. The Supplementary Estimates do not contain any money to be devoted to the payment of 60 per cent. wages.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Quite right. I beg your pardon.
  Mr. SHAW: The small sums that are dalt with, so far as the training of women and employment of children are concerned, are Supplementary Estimates that are merely carrying us on for the time being, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman my personal assurance that in the near future he is likely to see definite schemes for the employment of young people and for the training of women.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: What are to he the sums this year?
  Mr. SHAW: The sums are, for the women £14,000, and for juveniles £50,000, but these are merely in anticipation of schemes which are to be put before the House.
  It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  Mr. DUKES: I beg to move:
  "That, in the opinion of this House, pensions adequate for the proper upbringing and maintenance of children should be paid to all widows with children, or mothers whose family breadwinner has become incapacitated, such pensions to be provided by the State and administered by a committee of the municipal or county council wholly unconnected with the Poor Law."
  It is with much pleasure that I rise to move this Motion. In doing so I feel happily circumstanced inasmuch as all parties represented by hon. Members in this House are, so far as their election programmes and pledges are concerned, committed to the principle of this motion. I wish at the outset to call attention to the policy of the Unionist. Party. At their conference held on 27th October, 1923, at Plymouth, the following resolution was passed:
  "That it is desirable to grant pensions to widows left with young children."
  In the Liberal Party manifesto at the recent election the following words appear:
  "Liberal policy concentrates upon lifting from the homes of the people those burdens and anxieties of the old, the sick and the widow with young children which the community has the power and the duty to relieve."
  I repeat that I feel happily circumstanced inasmuch as I do not anticipate, in so far as those pledges have committed hon. Members of both parties, any opposition to the principle of this Motion. Therefore I desire to make reference to the limitation of the Motion, and I do so specifically for the reason that when this Motion was before the House on a previous occasion Members from the other side of the House who opposed it, extended its scope, deliberately, in my opinion, to magnify the cost and defeat the spirit and substance of the Motion. So to-night, at the outset of my remarks, I intend to limit its scope, and to rely on hon. Members not to widen the intent of the Motion for the purpose of increasing its cost. The intention is as stated in the Motion itself. The words show that it is not intended to cover the unmarried mother, the undeserted wife or the divorced woman. Consequently I hope that we are not going to hear any argument with regard to the cost of maintenance of those three categories as being involved in the Motion, and, therefore, I ask that no

  1885
  reference should be made to them in the discussion, and that hon. Members should confine themselves to the terms of the Motion itself.
  The Motion has been before the House on two previous occasions, and it is interesting, particularly to me who has the pleasure of moving this Motion tonight, to read of the opposition which it then received. May I for a moment or two call the attention of hon. Members to the underlying principle of this Motion? In the case of the widow and the dependants of the man who happens to fall fighting for his country, or who died as a result of injuries received, the State has recognised its obligation to his dependants. [HON. MEMBERS "Not all!"] I admit not all. I am dealing with the principle, and not. with isolated cases of neglect, which are irrelevant to the spirit of this Motion. I desire, therefore, to remind the House that the State has accepted that responsibility, and I fail to understand the mind which can differentiate between the man who dies as the result of war services and the man who dies either in mine, field, factory or workshop equally in the service of the community. I suggest that it is not the accident and means whereby a man meets fatality that must be considered. It is that by death the economic foundation of the family is removed and dependency becomes obvious.
  Pensions are designed, I take it, not as a reward for services rendered but because there is dependency for which no other body save the State can make adequate provision. Therefore I suggest, purely from the economic aspect of this problem, that there is no difference between the dependants of the man who loses his life in the service of the community, either in mine or workshop, and the man who by the accident of circumstances may have to sacrifice his life as a result of war services. I would call the attention of hon. Members to the consequences of not having made such a provision. It must never be assumed that, because such liability as occurs in consequence of the passing of this Motion will fall on the shoulders which ought to bear it, the State, that amount of money is lost by it. It should be regarded in the sense of all other services, as an investment. It is an investment. We have recognised the right of the aged and the
  1886
  right of innumerable sections of the community to come upon public funds, and while I have no desire to differentiate, I think it but justice to point out the obvious fact that while, at one end of the scale, the pension to the aged is regarded as a reward conceded for services rendered to the community, at the end of the scale which this Motion is intended to affect there are the young of the State who will suffer injury if they are neglected. It is not a waste of money; it is a very wise investment for the State to prevent the inevitable effects of negligence.
  Neglect to make reasonable provision has resulted in creating our weedy youths, our emaciated girls, to whom no one will give employment, who ultimately become a drug on the labour market and fall on Poor Law funds or unemployment funds or some form of charitable assistance. If we realise, what I hope everyone here would realise, namely, the responsibility for the widow left with dependent children, and if we realise also that such a woman should not be forced by economic circumstances into a labour market where the sheer pressure of the necessity of the child life in her home drives her very often to accept intolerable wages and conditions of work, then we shall make progress. This woman is the kind that is exploited by the sweater. She is the kind upon whom the industries of this country are often maintained and fostered. Those of us who have had trade union experience know only too well the impossibility of dealing with the woman who has been driven to accept any conditions that may be offered to her. There is the question whether any form of provision can be made. To that I would refer, because it is very easy, on paper, to talk about insurance. I want to bring the attention of hon. Members to the limited earning capacity of the menfolk of these widows and children. Before anyone talks of insurance against the calamity which creates this dependency, I want him to think of the wages that these men are receiving to-day.
  I shall quote one or two typical instances taken at random. The facts I can personally vouch for, because I have been connected with some of the negotiations. We have the ironworks labourer at 34s. 10d. a week, if he is lucky enough to work a full week. But thousands of these men to-day are working only three

  1887
  days a week, and are taking home less than £1. Will anyone pretend that such a man can make provision for insurance out of that limited earning capacity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or buy houses!"]—or buy houses, or even bread? The fact is that our industries are largely becoming subsidised organisations, subsidised through the Poor Law, or some form of charity. Another wage common to-day is for an engineering labourer 37s. a week, for a chemical works labourer 47s. a week, for a leather worker 50s. a week. If he happens to be a skilled engineer a man will get 54s. a week, but, inasmuch as the skilled men represented by these wages are a minority of the manhood of the country, no one can argue that the majority are in any way fitted to pay insurance premiums to meet such a liability as I am discussing.
  There is a further factor. I am told that the number of widows who have become chargeable to the Poor Law during the last two years has increased by 30 per cent. During the Christmas holidays I had the opportunity of visiting a Poor Law institution. Some of the people I saw there ought to have been at home with their children, creating for them and giving to them that home life which we know is essential to the building up of virile manhood and healthy womanhood. The place was wonderfully decorated, as these institutions are about that time of the year. Nothing that I am about to say will in any way cast a reflection either upon the boards of guardians or upon the officials responsible. The truth is that the circumstances are not of their making. On entering the female ward, in which were the mothers of many children—the children were separated from them—I found the women whiling away their time. Over the door was a motto which read. "Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home." I ask hon. Members to think of the irony of it. It is no laughing matter to me. We have built up institutions in which the management and directorate can be so immune from ordinary impulse that the very people who are ground under their tyranny can be insulted by a mockery of that kind.
  I shall not argue the finance of this question. The more you go into finance the more confounded you become, because
  1888
  every authority has an estimate of his own. If you read previous Debates you will find that the people who opposed this proposal quoted a maximum figure in the hope of killing the scheme. That is the reason why, at the outset, I deliberately limited the scope of the Motion to the two particular sections represented by widows with dependant children and mothers whose breadwinner has become incapacitated. Putting these widows and their dependants upon the same scale of allowances as the widows and dependants of men who fell in the war or died as the result of injuries received, as nearly as it is possible to estimate it, the obligation would amount to £20,000,000 a year. That may sound a big figure, but I ask hon. Members to offset against it what is a liability we have to meet to-day in the case of those who have not benefited by such a proposal as this. If, in the past, we had adopted wise Measures of this sort, these people would have received the upbringing and the sustenance which would have given them virility to take their places as men and women of independent standing. I conclude by asking that this Motion shall not be voted out from any narrow consideration as to the financial obligation involved. One million pounds this way or that way in no wise interferes with the principle of the Motion, and inasmuch as each and every one of us, by our election speeches, built up the hopes of these widows and their dependants, I trust we shall have the courage of our convictions and march into the "Aye" Lobby and vote for the Motion.
  Mr. BAKER: I beg to second the Motion.
  I am glad to have the privilege of seconding this Motion, not because I feel I can add to the information in the possession of the House, but because I wish to associate myself with the proposal under discussion. The Mover of the Motion expressed the hope, almost the certainty, that it would be carried. I believe he is correct in his anticipation. At the same time, I should like to remind the House that this subject has been de bated on four previous occasions, and on three of those occasions it was impossible to proceed because of the opposition directed against the proposal and on the last occasion it was defeated in the Division Lobbies. If it be true that to-night we are to secure a unanimous decision in

  1889
  favour of the Motion, I regard it as a remarkable tribute to the work of the Labour party in educating the people on this particular proposal. When this matter was last under discussion some of the opponents of the proposal were good enough to say that the Labour Members were vote-catchers in their advocacy of this reform. If I may speak for my party, I would say that this reform is advocated because we believe it to be essential for the well-being of the people and, so urgent is the need for the reform, that the people are willing to accord us their votes. I strongly favour pensions for widows because it is a further step towards the recognition of the collective responsibility of the nation for the wellbeing of every citizen. I suggest that the opposition which has been directed in the past against this and similar proposals, is not due to any unwillingness to expend money but is due to a reluctance to take any step upon the inevitable path towards Socialism. This is an instalment of Socialism. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] I am flattered that I should be interrupted on this, the first occasion I have addressed the House. I say again deliberately that this is the first instalment of Socialism. [HON MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I thought an hon. Member was never interrupted in making his maiden speech.
  Mr. BAKER: I get the point of the interruption. It is true this is not 'the first instalment of Socialism, but it is another definite step towards Socialism, and I hope the hon. Members who have interrupted me will be converted to the idea of the nation as a family, in regard to other Measures, just as they have been converted to it in regard to this proposal. The people are demanding instalments of reform such as this, and I am glad to know there is the possibility of a unanimous vote in favour of it on the present occasion.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): It may suit the general convenience, as well as my own, if I intervene at this early stage of the Debate to make a few observations and to state the attitude of the Government on the Motion before the House. Before doing so I should like, quite sincerely, to congratulate the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion upon the
  1890
  earnestness, the ability and the sympathy with which they have submitted the question to the House. They have been happy in the selection of a congenial topic for their maiden speeches, a topic which, if it does not command the unanimous support of the House, will certainly command unanimous sympathy. As my hon. Friend who submitted the Resolution stated, thin is the third occasion upon which this Resolution, or a Resolution in similar terms, has been proposed from the Labour. Benches. I may say that whatever may be the length of the indictment as to, broken pledges which an hon. Member opposite is to submit to the House when a Resolution upon another subject conies to be discussed, he will not be able to include this matter among the broken pledges of the Labour Government. We supported this proposal in Opposition and we support it as a Government, and, if the Resolution be carried to a Division, which I can hardly believe, the Government will go into the Lobby in support of it. I doubt if there be one observation made by either the Mover or the Seconder of the Resolution with which I disagree, but I will be pardoned, and the House will understand me, if I make this comment about one remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes). He said he was not concerned in the least about the financial aspects of the question. Well, in more comfortable and less responsible circumstances, I might have given expression to the same sentiment of indifference. But, unfortunately, to-night I must pay some regard to the financial aspects of this question. If I do so, I am sure. the House will not misunderstand me. We are, to-night, as has been stated, dealing not with a concrete proposal embodied in a Parliamentary Bill, but with a Resolution which enunciates a principle and expresses a demand. With that Resolution I may say we are in entire agreement.
  I doubt if ever there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a position more unfortunate than that in which I find myself. I am expected to do all kinds of impossible things. The miracle of the loaves and fishes was a comparatively trivial thing compared with what I am expected to do. Unlike a very eminent statesman who has often stood at this Box, I do sometimes read the newspapers, and I read in the newspapers, before I had occupied this position a

  1891
  week, very well-informed accounts of what I was going to do when I opened this year's Budget to the House. These newspaper writers must be possessed of very extraordinary psychic power, for they were able to read a mind which, at that time, was quite vacant upon these matters. I find, for instance, that I am expected to abolish the Tea Duty. My mind is quite made up upon that matter, and also on that of the Sugar Duty. The Entertainments Duty—that has already practically disappeared; the Income Tax is certain to be reduced; and I hear that the long suffering and the groaning Super-taxpayers are now happy that there is at the Exchequer at last a Chancellor who is in full sympathy with them! If I gratify all these expectations, I shall have to sacrifice at least a hundred millions a year of revenue.
  But that is by no means my only difficulty. I am beset, on the other hand, by clamant demands of all kinds for an increased expenditure at the same time. We, as a Government, are committed—and we are glad to be committed—to an increase of expenditure upon certain schemes of social reform and amelioration. We are going to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, and that will take a considerable sum of money. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is quite certain that I am going to lend a sympathetic ear to all the not quite moderate demands that I expect he is going to make upon me, and the same thing applies to the Minister of Health. We are committed to a Housing Bill, and a not inexpensive housing programme. I am quite willing—I am glad—to do all that I can to find financial provision to carry out these schemes, and if I had the money now, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to include, in the financial provision of next year, even the very considerable sum stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, which the adoption of this proposal would involve. I do not want to be regarded as unsympathetic, and I am simply pointing out to the House my difficulties, but I hope to be able to overcome those difficulties. Give us time. Give us a little time. Give the Government time. Give us time to get through, to pass into law, the
  1892
  Measures of social amelioration to which I have referred, and, above all—I have only been in this Office a month—give me time to overhaul the national finances, and get them into a sound condition. Then this will be one of the first Measures to which I shall apply the resources which will then become available.
  My hon. Friend who moved this Resolution deprecated going into details. I do not know that I need quarrel with the figures that he gave with regard to the cost, for any estimate of the cost of this proposal at the moment must be only approximate, but he admits that it would cost, even on the limited scale he proposes, something like £20,000,000 a year. If I might digress for a moment, I will deal with one point which the hon. Member put before the House. He made a brief reference to the question of insurance, and he claimed that the average wages of the great mass of working people of the country were so low that they could not possibly afford additional insurance premiums to make provision for this contingency. With everything that he said about the low wages I wholeheartedly agree. But I would like to put this to the House: In spite of low wages, in spite of the difficulty of saving, the efforts that the working classes make, through fraternal organisation and by thrift, to provide against these possible contingencies, are simply colossal.
  Let me give the House a few figures, and I shall be very much surprised if the House is not staggered, as I was staggered, by the magnitude of the contributions which are made by the working people of this country to-day, in one form or another, to provide for what we colloquially call a rainy day. First of all, let me take the sums which are being contributed by the State towards these purposes. Old age pensions cost the State—I give only round flgures-23,000,000 a year, and war pensions £72,000,000 a year; the Service pensions, for the Army, the Navy, the Air Service, the Civil Service, and the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is an Exchequer charge, amount to £20,000,000. That is to say, these State pensions require from the Exchequer an annual contribution of £114,000,000. Now I come to the contributions which are, more or less, of a voluntary character. Take unem-

  1893
  ployment insurance and health insurance. The total contributions, including the contribution of the State, to these services is £80,000,000 a year. Non-State-aided contributions, friendly societies, collecting societies, the benefit section of the trade unions, raise £57,000,000 a year. In workmen's compensation there is paid about £6,000,000 a Year, and the insurance premiums, of course, are very considerably higher. Let me give another example of a means of saving in the main adopted for the purpose of making provision in case of need. That is the aggregate investments in savings banks, Post Office, co-operative societies and building societies. Those contributions amount to £131,000,000 a year. Other examples can 'be given, and if we add all the figures together we get the colossal total of £430,000,000 a year, which is now being devoted to this purpose, and it reflects the utmost credit upon the working people of this country that they should endure such heavy charges for the sake of feeling that they may be able to maintain the spirit of independence when the time comes. My hon. Friend is anxious that we should not go into details of this question, and therefore I will not trouble the House with them.
  There is only one further point I want to make. There is all the difference between enunciating principles and making a demand, and a legislative Measure. Now the Government accept the principle. We accept the demand, and, having done that, there is an obligation upon us to translate that principle into a practical legislative Measure. That, I may say, we have already begun to do. We have called in to help us some of the chief experts in our various Departments, and they are now going into this matter. The question will be considered in all its aspects, and I hope—indeed, I am confident—that, as a result of their inquiries, the Government will be able, in due time and with no unnecessary or undue delay, to have before them the outlines of a practical scheme, and I shall he much disappointed, indeed, even if the tenure in office of this Government is not very long, if we are not able to add to the record of our legislative achievements a Measure which will do justice to these very deserving people, whose claims ought to have been long ago met.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I am sure that a large number of Members will wish to take the opportunity of saying something in this Debate, and, therefore, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a very few minutes. I should like at the outset to associate myself most warmly with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the pleasure with which all Members in the House listened to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Motion. I think that the House owes them a debt of gratitude for having brought this subject forward, and that in no quarter of the House will there be any disposition to complain of the manner in which they presented their appeal. Indeed, I think it was advanced in such fashion as to command an almost general degree of sympathy in all quarters. Before I comment upon some of the statements that have been made, I should like to preface those observations by one other of a more general character. I think it is broadly true to say that we have been witnessing in the last half century, and certainly in the last 25 years, a gradual translation into the field of legislative and statutory achievements, of a movement of national conscience with regard to State liability towards the victims of what I may call unmerited poverty. In other words, following an idea that the hon. Member has suggested, it has been increasingly the function of the State to recognise, and try to make provision for, the casualties of modern industrial and economic life. While saying that, and without any desire to be controversial, I would, however, like, in passing, to point out to him—I do not want to develop the point—that I am afraid I am one of the people who are able to see a difference between the recognition of the State's obligation to the dependants of those killed on military or naval service, and its obligation to the dependants of those who die in the course of industrial national service. I will not develop that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I only refrain from developing it in order to give large numbers of hon. Member opposite who wish to speak an opportunity of doing so. I could develop it, and I have no doubt I could carry conviction to the majority of their minds.

  1895
  I return to the main point. We have in the last few years been recognising the general obligation of the nation in the field of unmerited poverty. We have recognised it, of course, in the field of unemployment, in the field of sickness, and in the field of old age, and to each and all of those propositions, as and when they were made, I think I am right in saying that in every case there was a general assent on the merits of the proposal. Where there was a difference of opinion, if there was a difference, it arose on point of time, as to the date at which the reform should be made. Perhaps in that regard it is not improper to suggest that it is often easier to profess sympathy in a position of no responsibility than it is in a position of responsibility. But of the ground hitherto uncovered of what I may term unmerited poverty, the Mover and the Seconder were quite right in saying that this ground still remains uncovered, and that there is no case where the hardship is more real than in this part of the field with which the Motion deals. I think, indeed, that the case appeals to us all, for a reason that is one of the fundamental instincts of the British people—and that is a real spirit of comradeship not less warmly felt on this side of the House than on the other—
  Mr. J. JONES: Why did you vote against it last year?
  Mr. WOOD:—and which prompts those to whom life has been comparatively kind to stand in, if they may, with those who have seen life's harder side. I am bound, however, to take exception to the observation of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion, in which he appeared to try to intimidate us by suggesting that this was a first instalment of Socialism. The only reflection I make is that if this is all that was intended by Socialism, I should be much less afraid of Socialism and much less opposed to it than hitherto I have been. Indeed, I can assure the hon. Member that if he and his friends limit themselves to action of this kind in the way which has been suggested, that they will cause an entire revision of the views entertained on these benches. I have often thought that it is rather an astounding thing that the State should have made a move in other directions,
  1896
  such as old age sickness, and so on, before attending to this matter. I will tell the House why. I think the case for this reform is in some ways logically stronger than for the others. Old age, however regrettable and however unpleasant, as the enemy of us all, comes to us if with relentless at least with regular tread. We know that old age is coming. Unemployment and sickness may give us little or no warning of their approach, but they are not generally permanent visitors to our homes. The evil with which this Resolution deals, that is death or permanent incapacity—certainly in the case of death—is apt to come to our doors unannounced, to be his own messenger, and from his summons there is no appeal. There is due warning of old age, and the possibility of recovery in the case of unemployment and sickness, but these are both lacking in the case of death, with which the Resolution is concerned.
  The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House is bound by his office to recognise that such reform as this eventually must depend for translation into practical form—as the form in which it is translated must depend—upon the sinews of finance. I confess I was somewhat astonished at the hon. Member who moved the Resolution when he said he was not going to argue finance. I think he expressed the view that those who did argue finance were apt to get more and more confounded. In view of that warning the hon. Gentleman who followed was perhaps wise not to argue finance too deeply. But wherever we sit we must acknowledge its importance. A reform of this kind, or any kind, involving the expenditure of large sums of money must, inevitably depend upon finance and upon the reaction of the necessary financial provision involved on the general recovery and the prosperity of the country as a whole. That is a financial fact to which I should imagine no one can take objection. It was because of that, for that reason, in view of the peculiar stringency of the time, that the then Government felt unable this time last year to pledge the then House of Commons to this reform, then moved in similar terms, I think, to those in which it has been moved to-night.
  The Government, and the Government only, can speak with authority to the House, and give the House authoritative

  1897
  advice upon high finance. We have listened with great interest and attention to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in that field. He emphasised, as indeed he was bound to do, the need for caution. He let us somewhat into the secrets and difficulties of Chancellors in such times as this, but he perhaps gave us wholly misleading hints of the way in which his mind was working. I had hoped that the life of the present Government would not be so short that he would have contracted large numbers of obligations and honourable debts in various good causes that he would leave his successors to pay! Of course he said that we were not dealing to-night with a Parliamentary Bill, but we were dealing with a Motion such as we are accustomed to debate in general terms in this House, but which does in fact little more than assent to a general principle, for translation of which into actual Parliamentary form of a Bill much more determination and review are necessary by those responsible for its introduction.
  Moreover, the Motion we have had to-night, however the hon. Member who moved it defined it in some directions, is a Motion which is couched in, and is indeed unavoidably couched in, very general terms. I could, of course, if it were profitable, elaborate the directions in which, obviously, any scheme of the kind would require very full and very detailed examination before we could form an approximate idea, or, at any rate, an accurate idea, of what the cost is likely to be. I notice that on a recent occasion we had so wide a divergence of judgment as to what the cost of a reform of this kind was likely to be that it was estimated variously between £8,000,000 and £45,000,000. The Mover to-night and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have both apparently fortuitously hit upon a common figure somewhere near £20,000,000. That may be so, and I have no means of judging, but I should have thought myself that the ultimate figure must largely depend exactly upon the provisions of administration, and the actual detailed provisions of the scale when worked out. For instance, are you having any restriction upon means? At what rate are these pensions to be granted? Questions of that sort must suggest them selves to every Member. It is obviously quite impossible for any private Member
  1898
  of Parliament to pronounce with authority on the cost of any scheme such as this.
  I find myself, and I think those with whom I am associated find themselves, in very much the same position as that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained to be his own position. This is not, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, a Parliamentary Bill. The Government accept the principle of the reform to which this Motion is directed, and we accept it not less than they do. We, no less than they, recognise that its success in practice depends on finance and a satisfactory form being given to it by those responsible. Speaking for those on this side of the House, I say that if the Government, speaking with knowledge, see their way to accept this Motion, it would obviously be necessary to give very full consideration to the most appropriate method of giving effect. to such a general expression of feeling in the House of Commons. In that I include the desirability of a close examination of the question whether or not this is the best way of doing it. Subject to that, I can most certainly say we do not offer any opposition to a proposal that makes its appeal to our hearts no less than to the hearts of hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: On this my first opportunity of addressing this House, I am glad that I am able to rise and support a, Motion in favour of pensions for widowed mothers. I think hon. Members opposite, no less than hon. Members above the Gangway, agree that the provision of widows' pensions is an act of justice to those who are performing the service of motherhood, which is the highest service they could perform, and we feel that they should not be called upon to work as wage-earners and bread-winners at the same time. As the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes), who moved this Motion, has pointed out, the principle that is under discussion at the present moment is no new one. I might remind hon. Members that this principle was embodied in the Poor Law Reform Report of 1909 and was there warmly commended. Therefore I think it may be said to date back long before it was included in the programme of the Labour party.
  It is noticeable that, although this principle has been debated on more than one occasion in this House, it has usually

  1899
  been rejected on the score of the cost implied in its application. I want to make this suggestion with regard to the question of the finance of the provision of mothers' pensions. I speak with all diffidence as a new Member of this House, but I should like to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it might be taken into account that unemployment insurance, which at the present moment has an annual revenue of something like £50,000,000, will, in normal times, require only half that amount to finance the unemployment charges under that Act. Therefore there will be a considerable surplus, amounting to something like £25,000,000, which could be applied to the provision of mothers' pensions, on the principle that the fund is built up as the contribution of the workers, and might well be applied to the provision for the dependants of those workers who die before their allotted span.
  There is one other question which I should like to make clear from the position of a Liberal Member of this House, and it is that I feel—and I think I am speaking for other hon. Members on these benches—that the provision of widows' pensions is part of the general principle of giving to the workers of this country greater security of life. It is in no sense the first step towards socialism. We have already had the national health insurance, unemployment insurance, and old age pensions, and this is the final step to make more secure the position of the great body of wage-earners. For these reasons and on these grounds I have much pleasure in supporting this Motion, which I hope will bring about the provision of widows' pensions in the near future.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I claim the indulgence of this House in rising for the first time to address it. I do so because this question of widows' pensions has been one to which for a very long time I have given great attention, and I was largely instrumental in bringing to this country Judge Neil who, as many hon. Members no doubt know, was the pioneer in the United States of the proposal to give widowed mothers pensions, and who has succeeded in carrying it out through State after State until the vast majority of the United States has now accepted this reform. He has from the first maintained this
  1900
  position, that not merely were mothers' pensions desirable in themselves, but they were actually the cheapest way of meeting a liability which must in any case fall on someone. It is universally admitted in this House and throughout the country that the case of the widowed mother must have our sympathy if for no other reason than this, that she has been called upon to fulfil an absolutely impossible task, because she is, in effect, required to be both mother and father to her children at the same time. If there can be anything to increase our sympathy on this question it lies in the fact that under our present system of taxation she is taxed exceedingly heavily to meet the food taxes at the present time. Assuming a widowed mother to have abandoned completely any hope of those enjoyments which cost money in the shape of, I will not say smoking, but of drinking, she is nevertheless taxed, certainly to the amount of le. in the £, and probably 2s. in the £, on the amount she has to pay, to meet the food taxes of the country. So, as far as sympathy is concerned. I think she has almost the unanimous sympathy of this House.
  The question which has been raised, and which undoubtedly will be raised afterwards when this matter comes forward, is that the nation cannot afford: the charge. I should like to put another question. Can we afford not to give widowed mothers pensions? If we do not give pensions to widowed mothers, one of three 'things must happen. Either the widow herself will be seriously overworked and there will be cases, as there have been in the past, where the widow is worked to death; or the children will be under-nourished and under-clothed, or the family has to accept the stigma of Poor relief with all that that implies. Whichever of those alternatives comes about—and probably all three come-about in most cases to some extent in any case—the injury to this nation is very serious indeed, and I consider that whatever may be the argument as to-whether we cannot afford to give pensions, I say there is a very strong argument that we cannot afford not to give pensions. Now we come to the other side, as to the cost. Various estimates, as the right hon. Gentleman speaking from the Front Opposition Bench stated, have been given

  1901
  as to the cost. Necessarily in a Motion of this kind it does not go into specific detail and variation will be very considerable. We have not decided in this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that even though it be confined to widows and certain other classes, nevertheless we have not decided whether it should be given to all or only a limited number in certain circumstances. We have not specifically stated the scale on which that pension should be given, so there is a very large latitude as to the amount of money to which those pensions will come. Large as is the latitude there is a still larger latitude as to the saving which this reform will affect. Of course it is commonly taken that there will be a saving in Poor relief and that is a saving which is obvious to everybody. I suggest there are other savings quite as important, though not so palpable. There are the savings of the cost in hospital both for the widows who go under under the present system and also for those children who, when they grow up, have not got the full stature that they would have had had they been properly cared for in childhood. There is a saving on the side of insurance for ill-health, again affecting both mother and children. There is a saving in the mental attitude of all the persons concerned which is bound to affect ultimately the revenue as it comes along
  I would remind the House that whether these monies which the widow needs to support the children are paid for by the State or not, someone must foot the bill. Wherever it falls, there is a loss of revenue. If this money be found by the State, people sometimes seem to talk as though that money was gone. I venture to suggest that the money comes back very largely, not only through the kind of impalpable line of which I have spoken, but it also comes back into the trade and industry of the country, because the expenditure which will be undertaken by these widows will help the staple industries of this country and help to get a steady keel to some extent on unemployment. I would say another word to the Chancellor of thy, Exchequer and those who have to deal with finances. It has been pointed out that in some ways this is a difficult time to make this experiment. I would remind them that this is a particularly favourable opportunity for this reason.
  1902
  We have at the present time a very large number of widowed mothers already in receipt of pensions because they are Army widows, therefore the number of widows who would come under this civil scheme is a comparatively small number. If we make a start to-day with this reform, then, as the expenses on civil widows' pensions increase, the expenses on the military widows' pensions will decrease, and we shall not feel a sudden burden which we shall feel if we wait till the military pensions have gone down. The Chancellor of the Exchequer naturally gave no definite pledge with regard to what he was going to do in his Budget. He left us in suspense as to whether there was any prospect of introducing this scheme into his present Budget or not. I quite understand he may not see his way to introduce so large a scheme as is put forward to-night. I appeal to him to make a beginning, however small, in this reform. It is quite possible he could make a beginning by giving pensions, say, to widowed mothers of two children and upwards, or three children and upwards. You may say there is no essential difference in principle between a widow with one, two or three children. Of course, that is true. On the other hand, it is also true that it is very much easier for a widow with one child to make arrangements for taking care of that child or even of two children, and as the family increases so the difficulty becomes greater and greater. It would, to some extent, meet the case if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to make a beginning along those partial lines if it could be possible to do so in the present Budget.
  If he does take that step, I appeal to the Members of this House on every side and in every party to give him their support, whatever effect it may have upon taxation. I am certainly not going to minimise the difficulty of making the Budget meet, and of meeting the demands for social reform and for the reduction of current taxation, so long as our enormous War Debt remains. Probably many Members of the House are aware of the attitude that I have long taken towards that question. I recognise the very great difficulty of doing what it is necessary to do unless we have a Capital Levy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am delighted to hear hon. Members on the other

  1903
  side say, "No, no!" because it will help me in the argument that I wish to develop. But I would point out to the House that, after all, we are a rich country. Taking the countries of the world, there is only one which is really richer than this, and it does seem to be a very serious neglect of the facts of the case if we come to this problem, which all of us regard as one meriting sympathy, and say, "This is too poor a country. We are too poor to afford this simple matter of justice." That is why I appeal to the hon. Members who said, "No, no!" when I said it was difficult to meet the facts without a Capital Levy. I appeal to all those who take that view, whether they said "No, no!" just now, or whether they belong to the other party which rejects this proposal for a Capital Levy, not to leave it to us to say that we could not have these widows' pensions because they reject that proposal. If that proposal be rejected, what about the other forms of taxation?
  An HON. MEMBER: Widowers' pensions.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is an altogether different matter. I say that it is up to all those Members who reject the means which some of us believe to be essential for putting straight the finances of this country, to show, not only by their vote to-night, but by their vote when this reform takes concrete shape, and requires taxation in order to carry it through—it is up to them to show that, even without a Capital Levy, they are prepared to do justice to such a scheme as that which is at present before the House.
  Major BIRCHALL: I desire to support the Resolution which has been proposed from the opposite side of the House, but first I should like, if I may, to congratulate the last speaker on the speech he has just delivered. Without doubt, he will very shortly attain within the walls of this House the reputation which he already holds outside those walls. While congratulating him, I do not for a moment propose to endorse all his remarks. At the conclusion of his speech he endeavoured to suggest that the Capital Levy was necessary in order to provide what we all desire—the money for this reform. I would remind him that the Capital Levy would—at least, we hope it
  1904
  would—be made once and for all, while this reform will entail an annual charge, whatever the sum may be, and that, therefore, the Capital Levy in itself would not find the money which is necessary to make this reform practicable.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It would sweep away part of the National Debt.
  Major BIRCHALL: The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Resolution endeavoured to frighten us into opposing it by saying that, if we accepted it, we should be Socialists. Well, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) has already said that we are not afraid to be Socialists on those terms. The first advocates of municipal tramways were described as Socialists, and if, by advocating widows' pensions, we join the ranks of the Socialists, then we shall join them, and with pleasure. This is only a first instalment of Socialism. If the other instalments are no worse than the first, we shall continue to be Socialists. I support this reform, in a word, because it protects the remains of a home that would otherwise go to pieces. If a home has already lost its breadwinner, its defender and protector, surely the very least the State can do is to come to the side of the widow and her children who are left, and do the best that it can—it can never replace the man who has gone—to keep the remains of that home intact, and to preserve the few amenities which are necessary for that purpose. In alluding to the main objection to the scheme, namely its cost, I should like to ask whether, in arriving at a figure of £20,000,000—which, personally, I think is probably excessive—any account has been taken of the present cost to the Poor Law in connection with out-relief for the widows and their children? Clearly, a very large sum would have to be allowed in respect of that as a set-off against the cost of these pensions. Again, I suppose it is impossible, but were it possible, has any account been taken of the enormously increased health of the children if properly provided for by means of a pension? Has any account been taken of the present cost of juvenile delinquency—one hardly likes to call it crime—which now occurs owing to mothers being forced out to work when they ought to be looking after their homes, and the consequent running wild of many of the children? Has any account been taken of the cost

  1905
  of that, and all that it means, as a set-off against the cost of these pensions? I venture to think that, when all things are taken into account, we shall find that the cost to the State is very small indeed, and that this is, indeed, one of the cheapest reforms that we can possibly imagine.
  The other objection to this reform is that it will be so easily abused. Such abuse might arise from collusion or from fraud, but, whatever its source, I think the best way of avoiding it is to set up, in conjunction, possibly, with the health committees of the county councils and borough councils, voluntary committees, especially of women, who will undertake to take a personal interest in, and befriend in the best sense of the word, all the widows and children who are receiving pensions from the State. We do not want anything patronising, or anything of that kind, but we do want the real friendship that one woman can give to another who is in trouble, and I believe that that a lone would mean a very considerable improvement in the condition of our towns, if we can induce it by means of voluntary committees, something on the lines of the after-care committees, in conjunction with official bodies like the health committees, whose sole duty it will be to give sympathy and advice to the widows and their children when they most need it, and who will do that in an ungrudging way, simply because they will love the work they are doing, sad will put their whole heart into it. Therefore, I would suggest that, when this scheme becomes practicable, those responsible should seriously think, whether some organisation of that sort will not meet any opportunities of abuse or collusion that might otherwise arise if the matter were dealt with entirely as an official matter, as the granting of old age pensions and so on is to-day. I only desire to say one word more, and that is in reference to the wording of the Resolution. I am rather sorry that the deserted wife has not been included. To my mind there are few more deserving cases than that of the wife who has been deserted. Of course, I know that the probable objection is the danger of collusion, and one is bound to admit that danger. One is bound to admit that but, in spite of the danger, the deserted wife, I think, really deserves as much sympathy and assistance from the State as the wife who has
  1906
  absolutely lost her husband, and therefore I hope, when the time comes to translate this Motion into an Act of Parliament, the deserted wife will be included. I congratulate those who have had the good fortune to bring forward this Resolution, and I hope it will not be long before an Act finds its place on the Statute Book.
  Mr. RATHBONE: It may seem rather unnecessary for a new Member to get up and say a word about this Resolution considering the unanimity in its favour on all sides of the House. But I should like to accept the challenge thrown down by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Lawrence) when he said to those who denounce the Capital Levy that they must show their readiness to support this Resolution I do not support the Resolution because am against a capital levy. I support it on three grounds. I support it on the grounds of humanity and of economy, because, taking a long view, I believe it is an economical Measure. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little too pessimistic in putting the figure at £20,000,000. Various gentleman who have gone into the matter and who are accustomed to statistics are inclined to put it a great deal nearer £15,000,000. I support it also on the ground of thrift, because I believe, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown that I am right, that these measures of social reform have induced thrift and not stopped it. There is probably nothing that makes the father and the husband more inclined to save than the thought of possible early widowhood and possibly a young family of children left behind with out a breadwinner. All of us who are able to make provision either by insurance or by marriage settlements must feel how terrible it must be for the man who cannot do either to feel that their widows and children are at the mercy of friends. If this Measure or some Measure of the sort is passed, it is much more likely to induce thrift, amongst the wage earners than to check it. I support it on one other ground—the ground of anti-Socialism. That may sound rather absurd. I should like rather to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Hobhouse) that he did allude to other Measures which surely are Socialistic if this Measure is Socialistic, and I should

  1907
  like to emphasise the fact that previous Measures were introduced and carried, not without a great deal of difficulty, by the party that now sits below the Gangway on this side of the House. We have all got so accustomed to these Measures that I suppose it is natural for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon to speak of "us" as though it was "we" on the other side of the House. But I read the newspapers sometimes and I have read that there was a great deal of opposition to various Measures which were introduced in the earlier part of the century by the Liberal Government. To return to the anti-Socialist question, I support this Measure finally because I believe that, more than anything else, it will tend to preserve the family. I think it will be an ill day for England when we must give up the family as the unit of the State, and in our legislation make the individual the unit, which I take to be one form of Socialism. Therefore as a Socialist, from the point of view of the hon. Member for Leicester, I support the Resolution, and as an anti-Socialist I also support it.
  Mr, S. HASTINGS: I am very grateful to you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity of making my maiden speech on a subject which is so near to my heart and which I regard as of such paramount importance in connection with the future welfare of this country. I look upon the children of the land as the most important capital we can possess. I therefore regard any economy which may result in injury to or loss of this valuable capital as contrary to every principle of sound finance. I therefore support this Motion, if for no other reason, because I believe it will result in a great saving of the child-life of this country. I believe the training and the loving care which the child receives in its home are of very great importance in fitting it for life. Nothing can take the place of a mother's care. Therefore I believe that a mother, if she is at home to look after her child, will have, other things being equal, a healthier, stronger and better equipped child than in the case of a. child brought up in a créche or a school. That is so for many reasons: in the first place, because a mother who is not forced by economic causes to leave her child and can look after it at home can feed it in the way nature intended. In 1909 the
  1908
  medical officer of health for Salford worked out the death rate of babies who were breast fed and those fed by hand, and he found that the death rate of hand fed babies was more than double that of breast fed babies. Again, the mother who has to go out to work and look after her family as well, or try to look after it, has a very impossible task before her. She cannot give the time necessary. She has to hurry up in the morning—
  Mr. HARNEY: What about the RI All who has to go out to work?
  Mr. HASTINGS: He has not to look after the family. I take it it is the duty of the mother to look after the children. My great contention is that, in the case particularly of the young children, babies suffer very much if the mother cannot remain at home and look after them. The mother has to leave them and go out to work in the early morning and return late at night, and then, she has to attend to 'the family and do all the work of the house, and the result is that it has been found that the children she ought to have looked after suffer in many ways. This is not merely my own observation. It has been confirmed by some very important figures which were worked out by the medical officer of health for Dewsbury in 1914, and which I should like to give to the House. The medical officer of health for Dewsbury found that in the case of young children of one year, when the mother had to go out to work and leave them at home, the death rate was 4½ times the general death rate of the infants in that town. These figures seem very extraordinary, but one has to realise that you are pitting the mother who has to go out to work against the other mothers in the better-to-do and more healthy districts of that town who are fortunate in living in larger houses. "Very well," said the medical officer of health, "let us see what happens in some of the mean streets." So he took some typical mean streets of back to back houses in that town and found that where the mother had to go out to work and leave the children the death rate of the babies under one year was nearly four times as great as when she could stay at home and look after them. These figures seem to me very striking, and if such a proposal as we are debating to-night can

  1909
  result in improved health and in the saving of child life, we ought to support it. The question of the death rate is not the only consideration, because many of these children suffer owing to the conditions of their life and the lack of maternal care. Although they are not killed, they are maimed or their usefulness is impaired for the rest of their lives.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I wish to support the principle of the Resolution, but before doing so I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Hastings) on his very expert speech, the details of which he knows so well. This is a very unexpected Debate. I quite expected a great deal of opposition, and I can only think that the lack of opposition is due to the absence of the late Member for the City of London. I welcome the pronouncement which has been made from all sides of the House, and I particularly welcome the pronouncement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government, and also the pronouncement made from the Front Bench opposite. The arguments in favour of this Motion are the same as those that were used at the time of the introduction of the Old Age Pensions Act in 1908. The principle then submitted was that people should be kept off the Poor Law whenever possible, and that it was not possible for everyone to save enough for old age. The principle was also recognised, that it is an obligation on the national exchequer to look after old age. All those arguments can be applied to the principle of widows' pensions with even greater force. As one hon. Member said, old age is a thing that comes upon us not exactly unforeseen, but widowhood, especially early widowhood, is very often an unforeseen circumstance. In supporting the principle of widows' pensions, we are asking that the State should adopt the principle of looking after those who, through no fault of their own, are left in difficult circumstances.
  The history of this Resolution has been gone> into in detail. It was in 1909 that the first interest was taken in the subject, after the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, which revealed the condition of the
  1910
  widows who at that time were receiving out relief. It described the physical condition of the children, and pointed out that very often a child of 14, whose widowed mother was receiving Poor Law relief, was only developed mentally and physically about as much as a child of 11 years of age in normal circumstances. Since that times the Labour party have moved Resolutions on the subject. They have twice introduced Resolutions into this House, and have twice attempted to bring in Bills. The Liberal party has had it on its election programme, and the Unionist party passed a Resolution at Plymouth in support of such a Measure. Surely, therefore, with such unanimity, we shall have no difficulty in getting a Measure through this House.
  Some hon. Members think that it is necessary to consider the question of cost. I am glad that the question of cost has been mentioned, because we shall have to consider that. One hopes that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds that he cannot provide for a very wide measure to cover all the people mentioned in the Resolution he will not throw over the Resolution, but that he will include pensions for widows alone. Some people may ask why we should tackle this question at the present time. Why not leave it to be dealt with when the whole Poor Law is revised, which may come fairly soon. The revision of the Poor Law will not be done in a day, but this case of the widows must not be allowed to drag on, as it is very urgent. Other countries have adopted schemes for widows' pensions, and I know from personal knowledge of the tremendous benefit that has been derived by widows who have been left in difficult circumstances. In 1911, two States of America adopted it, and at the present time 40 out of 48 States have adopted such a scheme as part of their legislation. In Canada six out of nine States have adopted this principle, and in Australia four out of six. It is also the law in New Zealand and Denmark. If we contrast these countries with our own, we are very much behind.
  10.0 P.M.
  The present position of the widow is that she is generally a deserving woman who would rather starve than rely on charity. She probably works very hard to maintain her home and her children, and loses her health and spirit rather than

  1911
  accept charity. Take a quotation from Sir Arthur Newsholme in his work on "Vital Statistics." He says:
  "Widows in the aggregate have a much higher death-rate at all ages than single or married women,"
  and he attributes this, in a later passage, to "their social misery." Probably they have married rather young, and they have four or five children; no savings, because of the expense of a young family; the furniture obtained on the hire system; and then the breadwinner is suddenly taken, and the mother has to perform the duties of both mother and father. Not only that, but she has to take up the work of being the daily breadwinner. The alternative for her is to accept poor relief, and every woman feels that this is rather a stigma. If she does not do that, she has to accept charity from an organisation or from relatives, and rather than separate from her children she accepts these various forms of relief. At the present time there are only about 7,000 children who are separated from their mothers and living in institutions. This shows that the majority of mothers rather than lose their children will undergo any hardship. Children belonging to these mothers, unfortunately, cannot be so well nourished or so well fed, or so well disciplined if the mother has to turn out into the labour market. She cannot discipline the children as well as earn her daily bread. From the industrial point of view one feels that the woman's condition is desperate. On account of her desperate condition she takes work almost at any wage and that means that she undercuts in the labour market.
  I want this principle of pensions for widows established on the principle of an honourable allowance. We do not want it to be regarded in the light of a dole. We want national effort to preserve the home rather than the institution and we want the home to be a decent home. At present, very often before she can get relief she has to prove that she is destitute. One cannot help feeling that relief given grudgingly is a very difficult thing to bear. I know of one case where a woman belongs to a woman's institute in the village where she lives, for which she paid 2s. a year, Because she belonged to that institute the relieving officer of
  1912
  the district said she could afford to have less relief. Relief is given so grudgingly that the women have no pleasure in receiving it. The strongest reason for giving a pension to a mother is the right of the mother to bring up her children Motherhood is the greatest service that can be rendered to the State, and mothers should be allowed to bring up their children. I have found, in speaking on this subject, that there are none so keen on this matter as the men who are working on wages of 25s. to 30s. a week. It is a dreadful thing to see how these men feel that they are living from moment to moment without any provision for their future or for their children. It is a great joy and pleasure to me to feel that there is such unanimity to-night and that this Resolution is to be adopted. I hope when the Bill comes before Parliament that it will receive the same unanimous support.
  Mr. A. YOUNG: I have observed since I have come to this House that there is hardly any necessity to ask for its forebearance for a new speaker. I feel rather diffident in talking on this question, but I also feel rather earnestly upon it, and if I introduce a personal note into what I say I hope the House will forgive me. The reason I feel so strongly on this question is that for over 40 years I was the headmaster in a school, the records of investigation of which has made history in this country. I was headmaster of North Canongate School in Edinburgh, and under the investigations made by the Government in 1901 on the physical training of children, the facts that were found there were so appalling that there was later a Committee or Commission set up to inquire into the degeneracy of the people of England, and out of these two Commissions there sprang that wonderful child's charter, the Act of 1908. All I rise to do is to try to show to this House the absolute necessity of something being done for these poor women who become widows with children. Investigation brought forth this fact, that the children in my school, between six and nine years of age, were 10 pounds lighter than children in a neighbouring school of the best type, that the girls between 12 and 15 were 12 pounds lighter than the girls in that other school. The conditions found there were so saddening that Sir Leslie Mackenzie, now

  1913
  medical officer of the Board of Health in Scotland, said it was simply pathetic to go into that school and see the children. One of the reasons was bad housing and poverty, but I think the chief reason was that 278 of the mothers of the children in the school had to go out to work, and it was that very largely which was the cause of the misery of the children.
  I will only tell one incident, although I might tell many, that occurred to me during that long period of 41 years. One cold morning a little girl was brought to my room more or less in a state of collapse owing to the chill and the cold of the day. I put her before the fire, but as she grew no better I took her in my arms and carried her to her home. There I knocked at the door, but there was no answer. Later her brother, who was sent after me, came up and told me that he had the key of the house. I opened the door and entered, and there I saw a little child about three years of age sitting on the bed, and another little child about five years of age sitting in front of the fire. No one else was there. The mother, who was a widow, was out working. I took the child and laid her on the bed and sent for the officer of health. The officer of health came and prescribed for the child. There was no mother to look after it, and some of the neighbours took charge. Before the mother came home that night the child was, dead. That was merely an example of the many, many cases which one could give. I have always thought it most appalling that our poor unfortunate mothers with children should he left to the tender mercies of a rather ungrateful world. I am glad to see by the attitude of this House that there has been, at least in this matter, a revolution. I remember fighting for the feeding of the child many years ago, and to-day I notice a complete revolution in the attitude of the people of this country. If last century was the century of the man and the woman, I am certain that this century is to be the century of the child. The child is to us our most precious possession, and for that reason we who care for that child should act in such a way as to bring it up to be a healthy and capable citizen.
  We are told that there is a well of good in things evil if men will find it out. Out of the evil of the Great War sprang this, that the State at last recog-
  1914
  nises that the widows and children of the men who gave their lives for the country should be looked after. That great principle has been established, and in this country nothing ever ceases, but goes on inevitably on its course of righteousness and goodness. I am perfectly certain that this House to-night will give this Resolution their unanimous support. The spirit here is to me remarkable. I came up here expecting another tone, and I find it very much different, and I am delighted to make my acquaintance with this House on this important occasion, when the cry of the children at last has been heard. We are a long way from the time when Mrs. Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote:
  "Do you hear the children crying?"
  and asked us to note how these poor unfortunate children were suffering. From 1842 to 1924 is a long way, but it is a long way in advance and in progress, and I feel that in the air there is a new attitude and a new spirit that are going to uplift us. It does not matter one jot to me what has been the name of the party so long as they are in the line of progress along which the spirit of man is driving them.
  Mr. BIRKETT: The claims for the indulgence of this House have been so frequent during the past few days, and particularly to-night, and they have been responded to with such marked generosity on the part of the House, that I feel that in intervening in this Debate for the first time, particularly at this late hour, my natural nervousness in attempting this or any other subject is somewhat abated. I recognise, as everybody must recognise after the instructive, illuminating, and, indeed, exhaustive speeches which have been delivered already, that it is vanity to suppose that anybody could contribute anything original or fresh, but I feel that I have a certain special obligation with regard to this particular matter, and it is an obligation which, by the courtesy of the House, I shall be glad to discharge by speaking a very few words on the Floor of the House for this Motion, as well as recording my vote in its favour, if necessary. In my own constituency of East Nottingham at the recent election, a persistent effort, of which I do not complain, was made to confine the issue of that election to the state of the lace trade, and to the alleged benefits which would come from certain proposals. We

  1915
  felt at the time that it was necessary to put before the electorate a constructive social programme, and one which would have to be adopted by whatever administration came into power to carry on the Government of the country, and in the forefront of that programme we placed this proposal.
  Because of the public discussion which took place in this matter, obviously, certain matters were brought out into prominent relief and there were two which I will mention shortly. The first was—because we discussed this proposal as a practical proposal—that one heard as one went about day by day at first hand the obvious benefits that would come to the recipients of such pensions as are mentioned in the Resolution to-night. They were benefits which, obviously, could be measured and seen, and they have been referred to by previous speakers and particularly by the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham). The preservation of the home, the better physique, the better moral, the better care for the children, could be measured, but there was one thing which transcended even that which could not, in my opinion, be measured at all, that just as in the lives of all of us there is a certain haunting insecurity which, if we are possessed of the slightest imagination, invades all our life and takes away elements of joy, so in the particular cases of the recipients of the benefits, which would come from a Measure passed under this Motion, they had in excelsis that sense of insecurity which destroyed for them the whole value of life. One observed this at first hand, because this matter had been discussed publicly and there were two considerations. There can be no possible question that the beneficiaries under the suggested proposals would have brought into their lives something which could not come in any other way. There was another thing. Wherever this proposal was discussed there was evidence, among a. multitude of people who could not by any conceivable set of circumstances benefit by this Measure, of an overwhelming desire that at once this matter should be brought within the realm of legislation.
  The Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary have said in this House that
  1916
  the one note they wanted to strike throughout the country, so far as the Government were concerned, was the note of confidence. From my own personal knowledge and observation in a limited sphere, I would say that there, is no Measure which would better serve the end of that confidence than a wise far-reaching and beneficent Measure such as this. There are two points on which I would lay stress. I support this Motion with all my heart, because not merely will it remove the haunting sense of insecurity with which so many widows are faced to-day, but it is a very definite and practical charter for the children. If there was one note that received wide commendation, so far as I was able to judge, in my election, it was that which laid stress on better opportunities for the rising generation. There were many men who were prepared to stand up and say, "I never had much of a chance myself; I was always handicapped from the beginning; but if anything can be done to give a better chance to the children who are now coming on, I shall die satisfied." One hon. Member to-night emphasised the fact that the widow had to he both father and mother to her children. There is the aspect of the matter from the point of view of the children. A widow is left, and she has to shift and fend for herself, to go out to work, or, to use a. common phrase, "to manage somehow." In such a case the children have no father or mother at all. That is the point to be remembered.
  Think of the effect upon the children, upon their physique. What chance has a child got if from the earliest days it is stunted. Moreover, on the question of moral, how easy it is for the child, without the control of father or mother, to get into certain habits and modes of life that all subsequent years can never take away. An hon. Member opposite spoke about juvenile delinquents. One sees something of that. How much of it is due to the fact that the children are handicapped by being without father or mother in such circumstances as I have outlined? I support this Motion on many grounds, but principally on the ground that a Measure of the kind suggested, wisely designed, would mean for great numbers of children the one chance in life which otherwise they would never get. I was glad to notice that in the framing of this Motion

  1917
  the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes) made it perfectly clear that any benefit which was to come from a Measure of this kind was to be quite free from the taint of the Poor Law. I do not forget the remedial measures at present in operation, by which women, in these circumstances, con obtain assistance, but the natural reluctance of people of this kind to take any assistance from the Poor Law is, to my mind, commendable. I am sure the hon. Member for Warrington will not accuse me of trying to impede this proposal, of I say I am not quite certain that he was wise in limiting his Resolution to the two classes mentioned. I think there is a great deal to be said for the unmarried mother.
  Mr. DUKES: There is the man in that case.
  Mr. BIRKETT: I quite agree, and when we come to discuss the matter later on, we shall discuss it fully to decide what we can do in relation to that particular question. As a supporter of this proposal, if I thought it would be defeated because of the inclusion of certain things, I would not advocate those things, but., here and now, when we have the opportunity of speaking at large, I express the hope that consideration will be given to the unmarried mother, the deserted wife, and, in some cases, the divorced wife. At any rate, these are points for further discussion. When it is said that this will cost money, I must, with all respect, reply that when we have a. proposal of this character which commends itself to the sympathy, to the hearts and to the heads of people, we always find those who say, "Yes, we agree, but remember the cost." The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not quite free from that reproach, though I do not for one moment believe that he was otherwise. than in the fullest agreement with the proposal. As that financial caveat is always entered, may I suggest that the last thing. to be said on the matter of finance is that if these things are desirable—and they are—if these things are necessary—and they are—if new methods of legislation are to be adopted by the new Government, then new methods are required for raising money, and when the time comes to discuss that matter, we, too, will have our proposals. In the meantime, having
  1918
  thanked the House for listening to me so patiently, I desire to say again that I support this Motion as a wisely conceived and, in my judgment, a humane and beneficent proposal.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: It is customary to congratulate hon. Members on maiden speeches, and I desire to do so to-night in the most cordial way. The maiden speeches which we heard to-night need not have been prefaced by any apologies or by any calls for the sympathy of the House because they were most eloquent. I congratulate also the bon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) upon making one of her usual cogent, well-reasoned and particularly convincing speeches—though convincing was scarcely necessary upon this subject. She, like another speaker, expressed surprise that there was not more opposition. Of one thing I can assure her. I am quite certain that neither she, nor anybody else, expected opposition from an Irishman to a proposal of this kind. There are possibly some things of which an Irishman is afraid, but he is never behind the door when a golden shower is going on all round. This is one of the benefits in which we can participate, because the pensions service is a reserved service, so I am glad of the opportunity of taking part in this Debate and of welcoming this proposal on behalf of those in Northern Ireland, whom it concerns.
  I dare say many of us have been in a court of law, for one reason or another, but I think one of the most pitiable things that ever one sees in a court of law is when the school attendance officer brings forward a mother and prosecutes her for not sending her child to school, and the mother says, "Well, Sir, I had to go out to work, and I could not look after the children." I take it that that is one of the things that after this Bill passes we will never hear in a court of law again. Some weeks ago, when one took up a paper, one read of the possibility of the receipts by the Chancellor of the Exchequer not coming up to the Estimates, but just this evening I happened to lift an evening paper, and I saw that already the receipts exceed the Estimate by £10,000,000, and that the money is pouring into the coffers of the country. At all events, there is the half of your money already, and I think the Chancellor of the

  1919
  Exchequer should be congratulated on that prospect, more particularly when such a Bill as this is about to be brought forward.
  Just one word more. I have a shrewd suspicion that the actuaries who are responsible for looking into this question are not confining themselves to these particular pensions. I have an idea that they are considering a very much broader subject, and the possibility not only of doing this, but of increasing the old age pensions and the pensions for everybody —an all-embracing scheme. It would not surprise me to find that the actuaries are looking into the entire question, and that when the Bill comes before the House it will not simply be a question of these mothers, no matter how necessary it may be for them, but that it will embrace a very wide scheme. In the meantime, on behalf of those whom I represent here—and I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say a word for them—on behalf of the mothers who must go to work in order to feed their children, often, as has been said, underfed, under clothed, necessarily under-educated, and the very children who to-day are perhaps going to school, perhaps not, many of whom will form the men and women of the future who are to look after the nation's welfare —I say that we shall not be doing our duty by them unless something like this is done. On behalf of these people whom I represent in Northern Ireland, and on behalf of my colleagues, I support this proposal and wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer all joy in bringing it in.
  Mr. HAYDAY: The Members of all parties in this House must feel gratified to-night in the knowledge that their persistent efforts in the direction of securing an acceptance of the principle of pensions for mothers has at last reached a point where there is some hope that the mothers of this country may look in the near future for some easement of the terrible task that confronts them at the moment under certain circumstances. I do want to express a wish that the Government will not accept the principle alone, but that within some reasonable limit of time they will bring in a Measure that will embody the principle, for were that not so, instead of being a message of hope to the mothers of England, it would be a grave disappointment, if afterwards
  1920
  it were found that, by reason of the question of costs, the Government could not bring in an adequate Measure to deal with this point. Far from this principle having been accepted early. I am rather of the opinion that we are somewhat late in the day, because when one remembers that this great struggle of the widowed mothers has become intensified two-fold since 1920, I think every Member will join in urging an early realisation by an Act of Parliament of the principle accepted this evening, for the long period of unemployment has meant a greater degree of sweating, harassment and depression in the lot of the mother, who has to perform the double task of rearing her children, attending to her own duties and responsibilities, and having to go to employment when that employment was available to-her. Children up at 6 in the morning, two hours before it is necessary, scantily fed, turned on to the streets while mother goes to work; mother back again for the mid-day meal, hurrying the children off to school again, back once more to her work. At night, the children having had the run of the streets, she is expected to make up the, arrears of her household duties, attend to her children, and be mentally and physically equipped for her daily task the day following. It is asking too much; it is expecting too much, and it is acting in a brutish sense, if you allow such a condition of things to continue while you have the power to prevent its continuance.
  I, therefore, ask the Government at an early date to take into consideration the promotion of their Bill. I was one who thought that when the health Ministry was brought into being this would be one of its first duties or responsibilities, for what greater task could a Health Ministry be engaged in than that of seeking to retain and improve the general health status of the nation as a whole? Instead of allowing these little black patches of distress, that bring in their train the undermining of the physique and the weakening of the mental outlook of children reared up in the circumstances, if it did its duty in that direction, it would long since have pointed out to this House the dangers of further neglect. The argument as to the interference with parental authority has

  1921
  only been touched upon by one speaker, who, to some extent, hinted in that direction. It was said at one time that if you intervened in this matter you would interfere with the rights, obligations, duties, and responsibilities of the mother. I repeat again to-night that the nation did not intervene with its compulsory Education Acts solely for the benefit of the individual. These were introduced in the interest of the State; in the interest of having an educated people who should generally apply a developed mind to its service, and would repay for any State outlay in the direction of compulsory education.
  The State did not hesitate to enter the homes of the people during the War, and to say to the mother: "You have reared this boy to the age of 18, but he no longer belongs to you; he is the property of the State, he is ours, and we are going to take him." I say you have no right, therefore, to cause premature old age, premature death, desolation, and anxiety to the mother and expect her to rear satisfactorily her children to the age of 18, and then to step in and say, "The boy no longer is yours; he belongs to the State." In the interests generally of a good national asset we desire to wipe out the evil of the past so that a generation of our best shall be reared. If you are going to have these weak spots in our social life, you will rear a generation that will not be fit to take the place of the generation that has been wiped out by the War. That is an added reason. It is also as well to remind the House that in April, 1919, when this matter was discussed here, the present Lord Astor, then representing the Ministry of Health, gave some very interesting figures to the House. He took the census of 1911. I want to mention this because an hon. Member said he thought there was a possibility that the number of widows and their dependent children under the age of 16 might be much less in consequence of the State responsibility to the widows of the men who were killed or died in the War.
  The 1911 census showed to us the magnitude of the problem we have been discussing. It showed us there was then a million and a quarter widows under the age of 70. Of these 900,000 belonged to the industrial classes. Of these 300,000 were returned as in employment, but there
  1922
  was no evidence to show what was happening to the other 600,000, whether they were getting out-relief, or had to depend upon charitable relations, or what was the source or avenue of their income. Four hundred thousand of these widows had children under the age of 16 dependent upon them, the total numbered 800,000. These 800,000 children were dependent upon the widows drawn from the industrial classes of this country for their general maintenance. I would just like to use one or two figures which were given by the Minister of Health in January, 1922, when a deputation of the British Trades Union Congress waited upon him asking that the Government of the day should institute some such Measure as has been promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He mentioned that there were 135,000 children of widows who were in receipt of out relief out of a number approaching round about 800,000. What was happening in the case of the other 670,000? Think of the great unknown quantity of suffering that must have been entailed in consequence of that. When one speaks of the cost in these matters, it is well to remember that it would cost anything from 15s. to£1 per week to maintain any one of those children in an institution.
  The hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) mentioned the fact that there were only 3,000 children coming within the ambit of this Resolution in institutions, but they were institutions under Poor Law authorities or under some Government control. There are a large number of others in charitable institutions, here, there and everywhere. I agree with the hon. Member for Louth that there is no person on this earth better fitted to take over the proper responsibility of the tuition, rearing and giving advice to the children than the mother. She knows all their little failings, but if she is called upon to carry the double load that crushes her down by working in the morning, and if she is used as a piece of sweating machinery with an inadequate wage and only able-to provide inadequate food, we know the result.
  We know that in many families where the earnings are too small to provide proper nourishing food the mother will very often keep a smiling face, although her heart is wrung on account of the children having to go short of food. It

  1923
  is there that you see the twinges of pain and the look that carries the conviction of suffering owing to the well-nigh collapsed state of the mother, who tries to keep herself up to high tension and remain pleasant in front of her children. We observe her weakened physical condition and her mentally distracted mind. If we wait much longer and pile up on the debit side this loss of life by reason of our inactivity, I think we shall deserve to go down to posterity as a people who paid more attention to interest on £s. d. than we do to this very deserving section of the community.
  Dr. SPERO: It is customary when an hon. Member takes the plunge to ask for the indulgence of the House, and I do not want to be any exception to that rule. Just at this moment I realise why such a privilege is extended to a new Member. I do not think it is you, Mr. Speaker, who makes a new Member nervous, because although I have only been in this House a short time, I have already looked upon you as almost a father to protect me. Neither do I think it is the genial faces of gentlemen opposite, nor my friends on this side of the House. Maybe it is that at one end of this House there is the cold river, and at the other end the graveyard, and from here, though I cannot see either, I have the uncomfortable feeling that both exist. I have great pleasure in supporting this Motion, and I support it very keenly on medical grounds. I have had experience in working-class districts, and I have seen case after case where young children have developed consumption through want of adequate food and care and attention. The mothers have been left destitute. How could she be expected to support the future of England; not only the future of England, but our future Empire, unless she can produce a race healthy in both body and mind. Therefore it is with the greatest pleasure that I support this Resolution. I would also respectfully point out to the House that our truest civilisation, although it encourages the strong, never forgets its duty towards the weak.
  Mr. GILCHRIST THOMPSON: I feel very happy to be given this opportunity, even at so late an hour, of speaking for the first time in this House on this Motion. It has been said that the plea for this
  1924
  Motion is a sentimental plea; that our hearts would lead us in one direction and our brains in another. I would like to suggest that it is very much more. It is a very practical thing for which we are asking this evening. It is a very extraordinary thing how very long it takes to get legislation on the Statute Book, and how very far that legislation lags behind public opinion. We have recognised as individuals for many centuries the principle that the fatherless and widows have a claim on our common humanity, but we have not, until quite recently, perhaps, realised that that first practical side of Christianity which we recognise as individuals has also an equally strong claim on the State. It is very encouraging to find this evening that the State realises this duty which is laid upon it, and that we realise the ins portance of developing a corporate conscience. In that I heartily agree with the sentiments expressed this evening by hon. Members on the benches above to Gangway.
  What is the position of a widow now? She has various alternatives. The children, when the husband dies, may go into an institution—one of those very admirable places where they are doing very fine work; but we know very well how different the institutional atmosphere is from the atmosphere of the home. Or they may be compelled to apply to the Poor Law. I do not wish to cast any reflection upon the way in which the Poor Law is carried out by the officials responsible. It is carried out in a very much finer and more humane spirit than it was some 50 or more years ago. But the fact remains that the underlying principle of the Poor Law is a deterrent principle, and for that reason resort to the Poor Law is loathed and dreaded by those who may have to avail themselves of it. A third alternative is for the widow to go out to work. Those who have had, perhaps, better opportunities of judging than I have, have already pointed out the appalling pressure that may be brought to hear on women, under these conditions, to go out to work, when, from the point of view of the good of the people of the country, the good of the State, they should be looking after their children. A fourth alternative is that which has been proposed to-night, namely, that the care of the children should he handed over to those who are

  1925
  intended by nature to exercise that care, and are best fitted to exercise it—the mothers of the children.
  Mr. DUKES rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. THOMPSON: We are told that the institution of pensions for widows with children may discourage thrift, but we know perfectly well that the classes of the community who will be helped by these pensions are absolutely unable, under present conditions, to lay aside a sufficient sum to help them in an un foreseen emergency such as this.
  Mr. DUKES rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then, to put that Question.
  Mr. THOMPSON: For these reasons wish to support the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, pensions adequate for the proper upbringing and maintenance of children should be paid to all widows with children, or mothers whose family breadwinner has become incapacitated, such pensions to be provided by the State and administered by a committee of the municipal or county council wholly unconnected with the Poor Law."

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity(Supply)Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the parish of Gowerton, in the rural district of Swansea, in the county of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 16th day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Cranbrook, in the county of Kent, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Axbridge and Long Ashton, in the county of Somerset, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Sherborne and part of the parish of Castleton, in the rural district of Sherborne, in the county of Dorset, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Chadderton, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Malmesbury and parts of the parishes of Brokenborough, Charlton, Lea and Cleverton, and Saint Paul Malmesbury Without, in the rural district of Malmesbury, all in the county of Wilts, which was presented on the 21st day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, constituting the Mid Lancashire Electricity District and establishing the Mid Lancashire Electricity Advisory Board, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the urban district of Wantage and of the parishes of Ardington, Charlton, East Challow, East Lockinge Grove, Letcombe Regis, West Challow, and West Lockinge, in the rural district of Wantage, all in the county of Berks, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Tiverton, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 16th day of January, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Egremont and Cleator Moor, in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 12th day of February, 1924, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Redcar, in the North Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 13th day of February, 1924, be approved."
  —[Mr. Gosling]

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.
  Ordered,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Official Report of Debates, and to inquire into the expenditure on Stationery and Printing for this House and the public service generally."—[Mr. Griffiths.]
  Sir Rowland Blades, Mr. Bonwick, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Burman, Mr. Gates, Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Loverseed, Mr. Murrell, Mr. Naylor, Colonel Perkins, and Mr. Toole nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; and
  Ordered, that Three be the quorum"— [Mr. Griffiths.]

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.
  UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

    RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £730,100, be granted to His Majesty,
    1928
    to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for Relief arising out of Unemployment, including Grants-in-Aid."
    Question again proposed.
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    TRADE FACILITIES [MONEY].
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient—

    (a) to amend the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 and 1922,—

    (i) by increasing from fifty million pounds to sixty-five million pounds the limit on the aggregate capital amount of the loans the principal or interest of which may be guaranteed thereunder; and

    (ii) by extending to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the period within which guarantees may be given under the Trade Facilities Act. 1921:

    (b) to authorise the Treasury, with a view to the promotion of employment in the United Kingdom, to pay, in respect of a period not exceeding five years, an amount not exceeding three-quarters of any interest payable in respect of such portion as is to be expended in the United Kingdom of any loan the proceeds whereof are to be applied on or in connection with a public utility undertaking in some part of His Majesty's Dominions or in a British Protectorate, so, however, that the amount so payable by the Treasury shall not exceed one million pounds in any one year or five million ',winds in all;

    (c) to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1922, by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, the period within which new guarantees under those Acts may be given, and by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty, the period during which guarantees under these Acts may remain in force;

    (d) to amend section three of The Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Act, 1922 (Session 2). by increasing to seven million pounds the aggregate capital amount of the loan to be raised by the Government of the Sudan, the principal and interest of which may he guaranteed under the said section."

    Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. MOND: I should like to call the attention of the House to an Amendment standing in my name and in the names of other hon. Members, when placed on the Order Paper to-day, at the end of paragraph (a) to add the words
    "(iii) with a view to improving the present condition of agriculture to allocate ten million pounds of the aforesaid guarantees to capital undertakings for agricultural districts, such as light railways, reclamation of land, drainage, co-operative storage facilities, depots, co-operative factories, and the like."
    In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to move the Amendment to-night. I shall bring it forward at a later stage on the Bill.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and in the name of two other hon. Members, to leave out paragraph (d).
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry; I had already put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." Therefore, an Amendment cannot be moved. The hon. Member can speak on it, and can move his Amendment in Committee on the Bill.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that you put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," but you did not collect the voices, because an hon. Member below the Gangway rose to move an Amendment. May I put it that as the voices were not collected, an Amendment is now perfectly in order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: No. It is true that I did not collect the voices, and the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the mid Resolution," is still open. I had passed the point at which an Amendment could be moved.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I understand that I may offer some observations upon paragraph (d), in regard to which I had intended to move my Amendment. It refers entirely to the proposed guarantee of a further £3,500,000 to the Sudan Government for the purpose of extending irrigation schemes. This subject was raised
    1930
    in considerable detail last night, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, at the close of his speech, that there would be further opportunities for discussing this matter, and that he would defer giving an explanation on behalf of the Government as to why this addition to the Trades Facilities Act should be proceeded with. I do not propose to go in detail over what was said last night, but I want to ask specifically for guarantees from the Government that they will, at least, undertake that there shall be a limitation of profits by this Sudan Plantation Syndicate, Limited, who really get the money, a limitation of profits which will ensure that the British consumer of cotton will get cotton at a reasonable price. Secondly, I think that we should have a guarantee that this cotton, which has been grown by moneys and credits subscribed by the British taxpayer, shall be at least supplied to the British Empire. Why do we put forward this second question? What is there suspicious about this company They were formed of 18 shareholders. This is a new chartered company formed by 18 shareholders, seven of whom were directly connected with the firm of Wernher, Beit & Co. Among the directors I find the names of Lionel Philips, Julius Wernher, Albert Beit, Ludwig Wagner, 5rederick Eckstein, Ludwig Breitmayer and Charles Rube. The shares in this concern were standing last time at £5 2s. 6d. A year ago they paid 35 per cent., and I do not know that I could say anything worse about them than was said a year ago by the greatest authority in this House, the present Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. Writing a year ago, after having analysed the balance sheets and studying the agreement, he wrote:
    "The British Treasury, in other words the British taxpayer, has been asked to guarantee both principal and interest of a loan up to £3,500,000, to be floated by the Sudan Government for building a barrage on the Nile so as to irrigate the Gezireh Valley for cotton growing. The Sudan Plantation Syndicate has an agreement with the Sudan Government under which it is to benefit enormously, to such an extent that no sane business man would ever have granted such an agreement. By this irrigation it has already exploited the Sudan, and, with the concurrence of the Government, so successfully, that it has given a bonus of 10 per cent. on the new shares, while the dividends have stood at 10, 25, 25, 15 and 35 per cent. through a series of years. The corruption

    1931
    that surrounds all business dealings with the Sudan Government is notorious, and has been exposed by Lieut.-Colonel Kelly, formerly a member of the Council of the Governor-General of the Sudan. This syndicate, the nature of its business, and the amounts of its profits are a type of the group of exploiters who get together to scrape wealth into their own pockets, not by service, but by opportunity and putting their hands into other people's pockets. It is a bad example of capital using political influence for its financial ends. The people connected with this syndicate may he as white as angels, but they have hit upon an affair whose financial history, political connection, and shareholders' lists must inevitably create suspicion."
    I will pass over a part of what the present Foreign Secretary wrote, because I do not want to raise personal issues in this House but he goes on to talk about notorious promoters of great exploiting schemes, South African millionaires, and meat trust magnates, and he says:
    "Everything about this transaction smells, and it is the duty of Parliament to probe the whole thing to the bottom. Astonishing facts have come to light and an early opportunity must he found next Session for a discussion on the subject."
    This is the concern for which the present Government a year afterwards asks for £3,500,000. Who are the shareholders? The Earl of Derby, 1,200 shares; Godfrey Isaacs, 3,400 shares; Lord Vesty, of the Meat Combine, 500 shares; Sir Otto Beit, 9,000 shares: and William Mosenthal, 2,500 shares. If they get this £3,500,000 they will have had guaranteed a sum of £15,000.000. The ex-President of the Board of Trade, speaking at that box last night. indicated his opinion—I hope that I am quoting him correctly—that this £3,500,000 would not suffice, and that they would be coming back for more.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I did not say anything of the kind.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I am not alone in having had the misfortune to misinterpret what the right hon. Gentleman said at that box last night. £13,000,000 they have had. It is true that a big portion of that money has disappeared—"gone; no trace." £6,000,000 of it was operated upon by a foreign contractor. I believe he was a Greek. It was on this basis: he was to get 10 per cent. upon everything he spent-10 per cent. upon the £6,000,000. Some of you lightning calculators can say what he got. Then someone discovered that the Makwar dam was
    1932
    not going up quickly enough. An official or officials from the Sudan Government came back here to urge upon the British Government the necessity of supplying further credits. £3,500,000 was supplied a year ago, and now a British Government, with all this knowledge, a Socialist Government, is prepared to supply another £3,500,000.
    I understand that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is to reply. I hope he will remember what he wrote about this subject. I have just had handed to me a copy of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT containing the speech of the ex-President of the Board of Trade (Sir P. LloydGreame), to which I referred a moment ago. He said this:
    "I should like to be assured that he is taking full powers now for whatever guarantee is necessary for public issues for the completion of the irrigation of the present Sudan cotton-growing scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1924; col. 1009, Vol. 169.]
    That, at least, was an indication that in his mind there was a doubt. The present Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, writing little over a year ago, commended what the present Foreign Secretary said about this Sudan plantation syndicate with its hands in the public purse, and added:
    "As Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said, such episodes may happen again and again, while the Government is subsidising, either directly or indirectly, private exploiting companies."
    The House is entitled to have this business cleared up. Before another penny of public credit. is voted we ought, for our own credit, to have this thing thoroughly analysed. We ought to have a firm guarantee that this Sudan plantation syndicate, which is a new chartered company in the Sudan—it has floated up from South Africa, and it will cost as much to get it out of the Sudan as it cost to get the other company out of South Africa—shall be allowed to operate only on the basis that it is a public utility company, that dividends will be limited, that the 35 per cent. business will be stopped, and that the British cotton consumer will get his cotton at a reasonable price. Further, we ought to get most frigid assurances that the poor natives in the Sudan—6,000,000 of them—are being decently, honourably and equitably treated by the Ecksteins and the Beits.

    1933
    Is it the case that their common lands have been broken up and taken away from them. The Tinder-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to tell us that, at any rate. Has their salt and sugar taxation been increased? Is it the case that the natives are worse off now than they were before the syndicate. arrived? What steps have the Government taken to guarantee freedom, personal liberty, and decent economic conditions to the natives of the Sudan? I ask the House to remember that the Sudan is not a Crown Colony, it is not a Protectorate, it is not a Dominion—it is that curious indescribable thing known as a Condominium. Nobody is responsible for it. No official could be got by the Public Accounts Committee to answer for it; we could not trace out how it is being administered. All we know is it is being administered by a nominated Governor-General, with a nominated council, and it is high time this House, more particularly hon. Members opposite, who pride themselves on being guardians of the Empire and the peoples who inhabit the Empire—hon. Members who take a pride on their attitude towards the Empire—should see to it. It is the business of hon. Members to find out what kind of treatment is being given to these poor people, who have no self-government, no voice in public affairs, whose grievances are never heard, much less redressed. it is the duty of the House to see that some channels are opened up immediately by which the assurance can be obtained that these people are not being exploited by a soulless capitalist ring such as we know this gang to be.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I remember, last year, cheering my hon. Friend when he made that speech, because at the time he was doing his best to help the Labour Opposition. I own, to-night, when he is, apparently, trying to help the Labour Government, I do not feel the same enthusiasm for his speech. I must confess I thought he, as an internationalist, rather overdid his sneers at various other nationalities. There are, however, substantial points in what he brought forward which require answering. This is a legacy which we have taken over from the last Government. We are not responsible for this Scheme and we should not have hesi-
    1934
    tated to drop it, had we, on examination, found that it was not worthy of support and-that it was not going to give any advantage, in any direction. But, on examination, we find there are three distinct advantages to be derived from this scheme. Firstly, it would bring in a supply of raw cotton which will benefit Lancashire. Those interested in the cotton industry recognise that the supply is no longer equal to the needs of the world. Secondly, the expenditure of considerable sums in Great Britain on plant, machinery and iron works material will help in some degree to alleviate unemployment; and, thirdly, there 'is a benefit and an advantage that will arise from it to the natives of the Sudan; and I think my hon. Friend very rightly inquires into the conditions of the natives and exactly how they will suffer under this Scheme. I will take the points in the order in which he raised them last night in his speech, that he repeated to-night.
    A large number of natives are coming in to profit by the advantages of the Scheme. They are coming from all parts of Africa, even from the West Coast. The taxation in the district does not differ from the taxation levied elsewhere in the Sudan. Last night my hon. Friend mentioned petitions that were sent in by the natives and not forwarded by the Sudan Government to His Majesty's Government. I can well believe that is so, but in Oriental countries petitions are forwarded by natives very much in the same way as our constituents forward printed postcards to us. With regard to the expropriation of the natives, that is a very important point, and I would like to give my hon. Friend full details about it.
    Practically all the land within the area to be irrigated is the registered freehold property of the natives of that area. Their titles were acquired by centuries of occupation for the purposes of rain cultivation, and were finally settled and granted to them by a Land Commission in 1908. The Government have rented the whole of the area from its owners for a period of 40 years, and the land will be re-allotted to the owners as tenants in plots of regular size bounded by canals, but lying as near as possible to the position of the original holding. Throughout the period of renting, the native retains the freehold of his land, and is at liberty to sell, bequeath, or otherwise dispose of

    1935
    it, and, of course, to inherit in accordance with the provisions of Mahommedan law, and when the period of the lease is over the full use of the land, with all the benefits of development, will revert to the freeholders.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What is the period of the lease?
    Mr. PONSONBY: Forty years. To protect the native from the foreign speculator, an Ordinance is in force prohibiting non-natives of the Sudan from acquiring land. The provision is in force to protect the ignorant cultivator from the native usurer. I think, therefore, there is ample protection for the natives.
    Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: How long has that been in force?
    Mr. PONSONBY: For some time past. I did not know this last year. My predecessor did not give this useful information to the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why did you cheer the hon. Member last year?
    Mr. PONSONBY: He also did not know. I have now imparted to the House information which will bring the whole House round to the view that I take in the matter. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the Government of the Sudan is a little bit difficult to understand, and I may explain that there is control kept by Hips Majesty's Government over this district. The Governor-General of the Sudan is under the British High Commissioner at Cairo, and the Sudan Bedget is submitted to the Egyptian Council of Ministers. Besides that, there is a Financial Secretary to the Sudan. who is an official selected after consultation with our Treasury, and His Majesty's Government exercises through this official a general control over the policy of the Sudan, so that there is supervision lent over all that takes place in this area. This information was given by my predecessor last year, but perhaps I may repeat it. The agreement shows that the tenant cultivators and the Syndicate were, in effect, co-partners in the undertaking. The proceeds of the sales, after the payment of working expenses, were divided between them in the following proportions. The cultivator has 40 per cent., the Government 35 per cent., and
    1936
    the Syndicate 25 per cent., and there are certain obligations imposed upon each. Though it is a private undertaking, it is necessary to have some management in order that the cultivators may be taught how this cotton trade, with irrigation on a large scale, can be conducted. The native cultivators have experience of ordinary cotton growing in natural ways, but not on this large scale by means of irrigation. The private undertaking will come to an end in 10 years, but it can be extended for a further period of four years, provided that the Syndicate carry out their obligations fairly and to the satisfaction of the Government.
    I do not think I need enter into further details of the scheme except to say that this £3,500,000 we are asking Parliament to sanction is the last instalment of the total of £13,000,000 which has been guaranteed and submitted to the House. In 1913 £3,000,000 was guaranteed. In 1919 the amount Was raised to £6,000,000. In 1923 there was a further £3,500,000, and now this is the final amount of £3,500,000, making a total of £13,000,000. I would like to emphasise the fact that we are not committed to any further guarantee. This is the last instalment, and the Government are doing this to fulfil an undertaking which was made in order to set this great enterprise on a sound basis, and to promote What, we think, will be an advantage both to this country and to Sudan. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then the last Government was right "] I think in regard to the original scheme we might certainly level a good deal of criticism as to what was done. There is no doubt about it, but I think it would ill become us to start on these criticisms when we have pressed on us an obligation to see that this scheme is sanctioned by the House. I agree with my hon. Friend's indignation to a certain extent, and I regret very much that my first appearance at this box should be in support of something which does not have the full backing and the initiation of a Labour Administration, but day by clay, for the next few months, we have to carry out obligations undertaken by our predecessors. We have to clear a great deal of the ground before we can ourselves initiate, and in doing that I hope we shall not only have the support of hon. Members opposite who initiated these schemes, but of our own supporters, who,

    1937
    I am sure, want us to make great endeavours on our own account in the future.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point I put to him about maintaining the proposals! Are the Government going to allow this 35 per cent. to go on?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I do not quite understand where the hon. Gentleman gets the 35 per cent.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Out of the Stock Exchange Year Book.
    Mr. PONSONBY: The lease of the land is for 40 years, and during that period the Government have control over the prices.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We have witnessed a most pathetic spectacle. The hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary, left the Liberal party because he was too good for it. He was so used to Liberal Ministers deserting their ideals because of the stress of circumstances when they were on the Front Bench that he got tired of it, and would in no wise follow them further. He found a more excellent way. He joined a party whose purity was unchanged, whose record was unstained, and which have never in its devotion to its high idealism given way to that paltry timeserving which hail influenced the other parties. He has followed the gleam 1 He has followed it up to the Treasury Bench—with the usual result ! The light has failed! This is the second exhibition of the same kind to-day. But in the other case the hon. Member never was a Member of the Liberal party and we cannot, therefore, quarrel with him on that point. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Scotland was perfectly frank. He said we must bend to circumstances, but we still retain our ideals. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has given up his ideals, and pays a tribute to circumstances. I was, of course, quite prepared to see the hon. Member for Western Stirling (Mr. Johnston) take up this matter to-night. He by no means earned the sneers which were levelled at him by the Under-Secretary. At any rate, his disinterestedness is above reproach. My association with the hon. Gentleman has been of a varied nature—that of opposition. We have fought on many occasions both here and in the West of Scotland. But there is no
    1938
    man that has ever been associated with him who will doubt his fearlessness, or who will assert that whatever the circumstances he will adhere to his views. I only wish the Government had taken the same line.
    What is the case made by the Under-Secretary? It is precisely the case that was made from the Bench last year by the right hon. Gentleman now on the opposite side. We were told then that a supply of raw cotton was needed; that Lancashire demanded it., and the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was invoked, and that of the other Lancashire Members, whose support was pleaded as an excuse for this scheme. These things were all known last year to the Under-Secretary. He knew the need for raw cotton; that this was a scheme for providing it; so that this is not a new revelation. They are old facts. They did not convince him last year. They do this. What a difference it makes to convictions when you cross the Floor of the House!
    The force of argument is extraordinary according to geography. This expenditure was to relieve unemployment here, and that was the argument last year. It was said that this proposaal would help the unemployed and also help the natives. Then it. was a scheme with Imperialistic and capitalistic aims. What about the 35 per cent. which the Prime Minister quoted only a year ago? Then we were given statistics for something like ten years of the dividends which it was asserted would require no guarantee from the Imperial Government at all. It is true that the Minister has now added a few not very important or significant details to what was said last year, and he said something about the terms of tenancy of the freeholder which seemed to me to be rather a contradiction in terms. The tenancy of the freeholder seems to be about as anomalous as a condominium. Even the details which he has given are very vague and misleading in their character and leave a great deal to be desired as to what the conditions are to be in relation to the natives of the Sudan. He made an extraordinary statement that there was a kind of migration from West Africa, a sort of new movement of the tribes to take advantage of the Elysian conditions provided by Messrs. Beit and Eckstein which

    1939
    have proved so attractive to the natives of other parts of. Africa. I think we should have some further particulars about this migration. I have been told by an hon. Member who has had some acquaintance with Africa that there is nothing of the kind going on there. Where does the Minister get this information? Does it come from the Sudan, the Foreign Office, or the Colonial Office? What part of West Africa are these people coming from? It seems strange that this hurry-skurry should have come along all at once to justify the Labour party in supporting capitalistic exploitation. Are these people coming with their families, because that is very important? Are the agents of Messrs. Beit and Eckstein going about offering admirable terms of service in West Africa and are the natives being recruited? We want to know, is it a voluntary migration? Who has carried the good news? Has it been done by those natives making known their views by a postcard as an hon. Member hears from his constituents, or has Lord Vestey something to do with it? He is one of the gentlemen who permeates the whole globe, and we know that he showed his devotion to the British Empire during the War by removing his principal company from this country in order to escape taxation, and for that he received a peerage from the late Government. It does not seem to me that this is a gentleman who is a particularly deserving object for subsidy on the part of the Labour Government. Yet undoubtedly this is one of the big men in addition to Messrs. Beit and Eckstein who are interested in this imperialistic and capitalistic exploitation.
    I think the House will agree that the explanation of the Under-Secretary is totally inadequate. If the explanation he has given to-night is good it was good last year. But when it was given last year to him it only covered a sinister design for the exploitation of the natives of the Sudan. What has occurred since? I would ask if in connection with the new guarantee the Labour Government have made an independent investigation in relation to this matter. Have they looked into the conditions of the contract? Have they introduced any condition in addition to what appeared before, for the purpose,
    1940
    first of all, of safeguarding their interests and, secondly, of safeguarding the natives of the Sudan? There is not the slightest indication that any independent survey or any independent action has been taken by the Government, and in view of that I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has once more raised this question, and I think when the Bill comes on in Committee it will be necessary to challenge the vote of the House.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has treated this subject in a somewhat humorous way. He has chaffed the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs about his change of front on this matter through added knowledge, but, if my recollection serves me right, when the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. T. Johnston) was raising this matter in the House last year, the voice of Penistone was absolutely still. I know there were certain reasons on that occasion why the hon. Member did not want to associate himself with the case, because on that occasion the matter took a personal turn which is fortunately absent now. But conversions are welcome, seemingly, both ways. On this I want to bring clearly before the House that it is most unfair for a Labour Government that they must carry this on as an honourable agreement handed on to them by their predecessors without allowing also credit to the other side that they were merely carrying it on as an honourable duty to those who went before them. This was not, as I gather, instituted by the hon. Gentleman on the Government bench, but under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carrarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), with the able support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). But the fact that there have been two rogues in this field does not make it right that either the hon. Member for Stirlingshire or myself should allow the first Labour Government to lay down the principle that, however dishonourable the contracts may be that have been entered into by their predecessors, they must, in honour and in duty to the persons concerned, carry out a dishonourable agreement. I, for one, as a member of this party and as a Socialist, deny absolutely that I should ever give a vote—and

    1941
    I will not give one on this business—for the carrying on of a dishonourable agreement.
    My hon. Friend asked that there should be some guarantee that the cotton grown in this area should come to England when it was produced. The Under-Secretary, while he said that that was one of the objects desired to be attained by the scheme, absolutely ignores the suggestion that there should be any arrangement by which Great Britain or the British Empire will get the products of that area, and he objects to the sneers at certain internationals, although he himself sneered at the natives; but I do not think there is any guarantee, from the names of the directors read out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, that they will have a greater desire to sell the products of that area in the British market than in any other. If I judge them not unfairly, I assume that they will sell the cotton produced in that area in the place where they can get the biggest price for it, and I think that, when public money is being spent in guaranteeing this enterprise, at least we should have some guarantee that the British nation has a chance of reaping some direct benefit from that expenditure. We have not even any indication that the machinery and plant which are being sent out there are of British origin, and the most outstanding point of all is that we are told that British capital will only operate on a patriotic errand if the interest to be obtained is something in the region of 35 per cent.
    Incidentally, I may say that the Under-Secretary laid down this curious doctrine for a Socialist, if I understood him correctly, that you must have private enterprise in this field if you want to have skilled management. I think that perhaps on reconsideration he will not really insist on that point. We have skilled management in many public enterprises that are directly run by the nation for the benefit of the nation, without the 35 per cent., and I think similar steps might have been taken in the Sudan in this business. Quite frankly, I do not like this job the least bit. My natural inclinations are all in the direction of criticising the people on the other side of the House or below the Gangway—quite indiscriminately—and I do not like this at all. But, having regard to the Debate of last year, and to the changed situation—and, after all, I
    1942
    was one of those simple people who believed that the advent of a Labour Government meant big, fundamental differences; I did believe that, and I am still wanting very much to believe it—and having regard to the fact that this view is the view of most of the hon. Members who sit here, I think this should be taken back and reconsidered with a view to seeing if the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member far Stirlingshire can be given effect to in some way.
    12 M.
    Mr. ACLAND: I only intervene for three minutes, not in any way to stir round the pin in the unfortunate winkle who now adorns the position which at one time I occupied at the Foreign Office, but merely to make two points. I was the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in 1911 when this scheme was brought. forward for the first time, and I only intervene now because my hon. Friend who is now Under-Secretary suggested—and I do not think it was one of the best of his arguments—that, whereas there might have been grave objections to supporting the scheme, for which, in my official capacity, I was then responsible, there were not objections to going on and pouring these further millions into the scheme now that it has been started for 13 years. With regard to that, I should like to say, first of all, that, at the time when we started the scheme, this Sudan Development Syndicate, or whatever its proper title may be, had not been born or thought of, and therefore, there was no question of our being drawn at the tail of international financiers. The company did not then exist; no one knew of it.
    Mr. J. JONES: Tell that to the Marines.
    Mr. ACLAND: That is a fact; it is a matter of dates. I was in the Government when the scheme was started. It was being planned by Lord Kitchener for the Sudan, and he had nothing before him, as we have now, to show that when syndicates undertake cotton growing in the Sudan, they can, apparently, make it very successful financially. We had at that time to put the backing of our credit behind a scheme of the Sudan Government alone, without, any of the knowledge that has since come of its success. The fact that it is becoming year by year more apparent that cotton growing in the Sudan can be made a really considerable

    1943
    commercial success—we had not that knowledge 13 years ago—ought to incline us, I think, to be less willing to regard it as a thing which must be helped by Parliament, but, on the contrary, as a thing which ought to be allowed to run more and more on its own basis. It seems to me that, if there is a company which has now been established for several years, which has such good credit, and whose shares stand so high, it should be capable of raising the further money that is needed for this business, without coming to this House for recurring guarantees. It seems to me, therefore, that, whereas, when the matter was in the experimental stage, and was being pursued by the Sudan Government alone, it was not unnatural to ask for a guarantee of interest from the Imperial Parliament, as time goes on it ought to be less and less necessary to ask for further drafts, particularly as, apparently, cotton growing can now be proved to be capable of being done there with very considerable commercial profit.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. Graham): When the Resolution was framed, it was the duty of those of us at the Treasury to consider this particular proposal. We looked very closely at the papers that were submitted. I agree entirely with my hon. Friends on this side of the House that there is a great deal in the history of this Sudan irrigation scheme to which, quite properly, exception can be taken; but they have exonerated us from any blame in that connection. It is far from my purpose in this debate to apportion blame in other quarters. The practical point for the House of Commons is to consider the facts of the situation from two points of view, namely, the effect of the abandonment of the guarantee upon employment in this country and the supply of cotton for the world's use and, secondly, the effect which abandonment at this stage would have upon the guarantees which the Government has already given and by which this House and the country are bound.
    Not very long ago the system of building up this irrigation scheme was on a very unsatisfactory basis. It was on the basis of cost percentage which, I think, is always an undesirable way of running any contract, if it can be avoided. There
    1944
    cannot be very much difference of opinion about that. Not long ago, the basis of the contract was altered and put on what is commonly called an economic foundation. It was let to a British firm and they are now in the process of overtaking the work. In the terms of the contract the work must be completed in 1925. If the contract is carried out as arranged it will be possible to plant a cotton crop in July, 1925, and sometime after that date, when the crops become available, there is ample evidence to show that about 70,000 bales of cotton annually will be available for Lancashire. That is one point which I respectfully ask the House to bear in mind to-night.
    On that issue, hon. Members ask what guarantee can we give that the supply is going to come to this country. Quite obviously, I should be misleading the House if I told any hon. Member that I could give a guarantee on that point. We have not the power to control the Sudan Government or the other parties, the syndicate, but I want to remind hon. Members that in the four years' extension of the powers of this syndicate, which was granted, there is provision at the end of that time for a review of the circumstances and to a certain extent the position of the Imperial Government is safeguarded. We shall have a locus in considering the political and economic conditions in the area involved, so that, quite clearly, we are not without protection. I would ask the House to look at this question from the point of view of the supply of world cotton. That is the consideration which we must keep in mind from the standpoint of Lancashire and from the standpoint of the whole problem of cotton supply and the employment of very large numbers of our own people. If this cotton crop is forthcoming from the Sudan the tendency, of course, must be to reduce the world price of cotton, and to that extent a larger supply at our disposal and at the disposal of other countries would be forthcoming. I put these facts as regards the general position because they seem to me important at this stage of the Resolution. As regards employment, this contract, as I have mentioned, has been let to a British firm, and there is not the slightest doubt that the work will involve the provision of a great deal of plant and material and

    1945
    other commodities which must engage the labour of a comparatively large number of British workers for some time to come. That, I think, is another argument which can be usefully employed, although I do not suggest it is a final argument. There however, to my mind, one conclusive argument after reading all or most of the Papers in the hands of the Government and the Treasury.
    Mr. PRINGLE: May I ask if the Gov-element will lay Papers on this matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that I am not in a position to give a definite promise on a matter of that kind to-night. All I can say is that that question will be considered, and that a reply will be given by a leading Member of the Government without delay. I wish to speak now of what would be the inevitable effect if we were to repudiate or withdraw the remaining £3,500,000 of this guarantee. There is not the slightest doubt that without this guarantee—and I would emphasise that it is not an advance of money, it is a guarantee—this money cannot be raised by the Government of the Sudan. There is a distinct possibility, without the guarantee, of the scheme either collapsing altogether, or, not to exaggerate the difficulties, being landed in a very serious position. Supposing we in the House of Commons took that risk by withholding this guarantee, there is the greatest danger that the scheme would be placed in a serious position, and we would then become liable to the £10,000,000 we are committed to, whatever view or argument we chose to express regarding it. When, after all the difficulties, this scheme has been built up, when it is just at the stage of approaching success, is it desirable for the House of Commons to run the risk of killing it and landing us with possibly the loss of the £10,000,000 to which we are already committed, to say nothing at all of the effect of a collapse of that kind on the
    1946
    employment immediately available and of the supply of cotton being reduced? There will be a further opportunity of discussing this matter, if hon. Members so desire, on the Second Reading and during the Committee stage of the Bill, but I hope I have said enough on the purely economic side to justify the House in giving us the Report stage of this Financial Resolution.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Webb, Mr. Lunn, and Mr. Ponsonby.

    TRADE FACILITIES BILL,
    "to amend the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 and 1922; to authorise the Treasury to contribute towards the interest payable on certain loans, the application of which is calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom; to extend the periods during which guarantees may respectively be given and remain in force under the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1922; and to amend Section three of the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Act, 1922 (Session 2)," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.