§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending un the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad.
Mr. STORRY-DEANSThis Estimate is for a very much greater amount than the one which the Committee have just passed, and there is a very great scarcity of information in the Paper which has been issued as to what it is for. We can understand such items as "New Works, Alterations and Additions," or "Unemployment Relief Works," but there is an item upon which I require some information if the hon. Member in charge of the Estimate will be good enough to give it. I find there was an original Estimate for Furniture of £49,310, and that that has gone up by no less a sum than £17,500. That is an enormous increase, which indicates either very bad estimating, or that prices have gone up against the Government in this respect, or that they have had to meet some expenditure which they did not foresee. I think the Committee are entitled to know what it is that this £17,500 is in respect of. One reason why I am suspicious of this sum is that it is a round figure. When one talks of money it ought to be an exact sum in pounds, shillings and pence. One is rather suspicious of an increase of such a peculiarly round sum as £17,500 on £49,310. It is a curious kind of figure, and it is on furniture, that is to say, on such things as chairs and tables, I suppose, each of which in itself represents a small sum of money.
I am a comparatively new Member of this House, but my view of our functions, if I may respectfully say so is that we should all be watch-dogs for the taxpayer, policemen, or anything you like, which is synonymous with vigilance, and it is our bounden duty 914 to scrutinise most carefully such Supplementary Estimates as these. I do not want to nag or criticise the Government, because the Government have no more loyal supporter than myself, but I do think that when it comes to money, then, despite all loyalty, despite all friendship, despite all sentiment, we must approach the matter with hard heads, and however much we may respect the people who put forward these Estimates, we must ask them to justify those Estimates, and I am asking the hon. Member in charge of these Supplementary Estimates to justify to this Committee the increased sum of £17,500 on furniture. There are many of us on this side who are determined to back the Government in its economy campaign, and this is the first step towards it.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. and learned Member is beginning a discussion which, if I allowed it to continue, would spread, and there would be little progress.
§ Mr. DEANSI have no desire to do that in any way, but I think this is a matter not merely of detail, but of very vital principle, and I should be very glad to hear the hon. Member's explanation.
§ Mr. W. BAKERI have no doubt whatever that the procedure which is being followed on this Vote is the normal procedure, but I should like, if I may, to express my regret that no sort of explanation has been offered to the Committee with regard to this Vote.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThe reason I did not get up straight away was because I thought it would be much more convenient that hon. Members should state first what information they desired.
§ Mr. BAKERMy feeling is that an explanatory statement from the Minister at the commencement of the discussion would provide information which, if anything like reasonable, would shorten the proceedings very considerably. Now that I have risen, perhaps the hon. Member 915 will forgive me if I ask one or two questions on matters in which I am interested. I should be extremely glad if he would indicate to us the nature and situation of the new works, the names and situation of the relief telephone exchanges, and particularly the types, of work which have been untilised for the employment of unemployed persons. I hope he will endeavour to give us as much information as possible with regard to the third item, because my own feeling is that the Post Office and the Government have not done everything possible to use unemployed persons to accelerate this side of their activity.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThis sum of money for which we are asking to-day is owing to expenses of Post Office and Telegraph buildings. In the main Estimate, the House agreed to all the main items which we want, but there was a great pressure for gutting down expenditure, and the Office of Works deducted from the main Estimate a sum of no less than £90,000 with the desire to effect economy. As a matter of fact, that proved to be too drastic. It was really found that it did not allow a margin for contingencies in this matter of expenditure on Post Office and Telegraph buildings. Therefore £18,600 of this sum is merely a restoration of the old deduction. We have continually received complaints that Post Offices throughout the country were in a bad condition, were in need of repairs, and that as postal business continued to grow there was need to meet that growth. Maintenance and repairs account for £43,700. Last year when I represented in this matter the Home Office I was continually asked by hon. Members oppposite, and hon. Members behind me too, to meet the bad conditions of post office premises throughout the country. Some of the money for which we are now asking is to meet the complaints that were made that at Christmas time that there was not accommodation for the enormous amount of work that had to be done. I would repeat to hon. Members that certain of this money was for work arranged for by the Office of Works for 1924–25 but which was not finished in time to go into the accounts for that particular year.
As to the questions asked regarding the provision of work for the unemployed, 916 a Cabinet sub-Committee from time to time circularises the Departments asking them to undertake such works as are possible in the way of unemployment relief. We are always trying to do our best to give as much of this work as possible.
§ Mr. W. BAKERCould the hon. Gentleman not explain to the Committee upon what work exactly the unemployed persons are employed and what is the expenditure upon it?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONIt is a question of employing as many people as we can, in a proper way. We have to distribute them over all parts of the particular work in hand. I cannot exactly say on what particular Post Office they are employed, or who exactly are the people who are employed.
§ Mr. AMMONIs there any practice of making a survey over a fairly wide field to ascertain what Post Offices axe inadequate or out, of date, and also sitting down and planning forward the scale of work that, can be carried through?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONOh, yes, certainly. Much the same answer applies to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr, Storry-Deans). Most of the work is due to the large public demand for increased postal facilities; to meet that growing demand which is ever growing, and also new postal services. There are savings, hon. Members will see, of £20,900. I am glad to say that a large part of these savings are not temporary, but, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend on the last Estimate, they are permanent savings owing to the fact that we made much more favourable contracts than we anticipated. We made good contracts for coal and other fuel, and we were thus able to save about £78,000. I think that practically covers all that is necessary by way of reply. In respect, however, to the matter mentioned I by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), it is a small question of accounts.
Mr. T. THOMSONIf we turn to Unemployment Relief Works, we find that the original Estimate was £4,450 and the revised Estimate £9,750, leaving the additional sum required at £5,300. No valid 917 reasons have been given why the expenditure was not proceeded with. Experience has shown, quite rightly, that this year a sum larger than that of the prey ions year is needed. That you would naturally expect, because the demand for the employment in relief work is certainly greater this year than it was last year. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they had been revising the work and examining what work should be put in hand in order to relieve the unemployed, yet we are told that these works, carried out last year, really finished off the work that was estimated for in 1924–25. He did not tell us what other work was in hand last year. In view of the many complaints that we get of inadequate telephone service, accommodation at the Post Offices, and inefficient Post Office services, it is very useful to employ the unemployed in order to make the necessary additions to the services. Instead of apologising to the House for the amount of excess, the hon. Gentleman ought rather to have been congratulated on the excess, even if had been larger. It would have been infinitely better to employ these men in extending further the national services than giving them money in the way it has been given to them. I hope that in the Estimates for the coming year the Departments will have regard to this aspect of the question, and that there will be a larger employment of the unemployed than in the last year.
§ Mr. GILLETTThe Minister in his statement referred to the reductions in the Estimates. It is quite true that the original Estimates showed a reduction of £20,000 under the head of Post Office, but the Estimates altogether showed an increase of £169,000. While I am not anxious to scrutinise these items if the money has been usefully spent especially in relief work for the unemployed, there are one or two points on which I think one might put a few questions. If we take the headings: Total for New Works, the original Estimates show an increase of expenditure of £72,000 this year compared with last year. Now the Minister is asking for a further £18,600. I would like to ask in connection with this new further expenditure if it means that work in the Post Offices is being pressed forward. I understand that the work that has been in hand relates among other things to Post Offices in London, 918 and I would ask whether he can explain some of this expenditure under the third head: Maintenance and Repairs.
The original Estimate showed an increase of £80,000 on the year. I would draw the attention of the Committee, especially of hon. Members who are interested in economy, to these figures. The expenditure under this heading, for London, as compared with the previous year, is £149,000 against £111,000, and for the country £125,000 against £16,000; and £24,000 as against £16,000. The Maintenance and Repairs Estimates are £300,950, against £219,500. These are the increases in the original Estimates. Now we find that there is a further demand for £43,700, and yet no information is given under these headings as to what it means. While there are footnotes dealing with other items, there is no information as to what this means. We do not know whether these are works, or what kind of works they are. I should like the Minister to give us some further information justifying this large increase in the Supplementary Estimates.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI have answered these questions before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!" In regard to Mount Pleasant, I am glad to be able to state that unexpectedly good progress has been made there.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNTo reinforce what has been said by an hon. Member beside me regarding the unemployment relief, it is known that one of the Palliatives for unemployment is the acceleration or retardation of public works according to the state of the labour market. An enormous Vote of this kind obviously gives an opportunity for creating that margin. At the present time it is greatly needed owing to the large number of people out of work, but it appears it has only been created to the extent of £9,000 or £10,000 on an Estimate of nearly £1,500,000. I am not quite clear whether the Department is striving to create it now or striving to cut it down. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, with the courtesy which he always shows to inquirers, would make it clear whether, in the Supplementary Estimate, these arrears of maintenance work to be put in hand this winter—this £5,300 of additional work—are an addition, or whether it is that the bills have come in this year for work 919 undertaken last year? If I am right in supposing that the work as described was undertaken in the winter of 1924–25, it comes to this, that in that winter we provided about £14,000 in an attempt to absorb some of the men out of work, and that in the winter of 1925–26 that £14,000 was reduced to £4,000. I am quite sure the Department, conscious of the great need of finding work for the men, would have no desire so to narrow the margin which I have described.
I have two questions to ask. Is it the policy of the Department which the hon. Gentleman represents to reduce that margin, which is intended to assist unemployment? Secondly, may we take it that the amount of such work put in hand in 1924–25 is, with the Supplementary Estimate, £14,000, and that this year it has actually been reduced to £400?
§ Mr. W. BAKERI am very much afraid that on this Vote, as on the previous one, the reference to savings was quite misleading. As I understand it, £90,000 was deducted from the proposed Estimate not because the works on which that money would have been expended were not urgently required, but because the Cabinet insisted that an economy of those dimensions should be made. Experience has proved that, despite the utmost desire for economy, £18,000 of that £90,000 must be spent, and the point I submit is that to refer to financial transactions of this type as savings is misleading. The whole expenditure of that £90,000, which was originally thought to be the value of the work which must be put in hand, will have to be incurred by the Government Departments concerned, and the postponement will' not only fail to be a, saving, but, as a result of the postponement, greatly increased expenditure will be incurred in many cases. I want to point out that these attempts at economy have been largely directed towards Post Office buildings and Post Office accommodation. I welcome the assurance given by the hon. Gentleman that everything possible will be done to expedite the erection of the second portion of the building at. Mount Pleasant. There has been a very great deal of avoidable delay with regard to the buildings on that site, and to my knowledge large numbers of men 920 have been forced to work in underground apartments with continuous artificial light, to the detriment of their eyes and the detriment of the work. I submit that many new offices are urgently necessary, and that constructive work of this type will be beneficial in the present state of unemployment and an undoubted advantage to the Government Departments concerned.
The Office of Works have been too much inclined to follow a hand-to-mouth policy in this matter. It has been the custom to ignore immediate future requirements, and to endeavour to stint as far as possible even the immediate necessities of the Department. Despite the necessity for economy, the Office of Works ought to have regard to the growth of the public Departments, and in the case of the Post Office should be aware that there is a real possibility of immediate further extensions of public business in the shape of the cash-on-delivery system and the postal cheque system. During recent year the growth of the Pensions Ministry, the growth of National Health Insurance, and similar activities, has greatly increased the demand upon space In post office premises, and I am quite certain that any attempt to postpone expenditure of the balance of £90,000 for many months longer will only result in disaster to the efficiency of the Department. During the discussion on the Post Office Estimates last year I referred to the condition of the post office premises in Bristol. The sorting-office at Preston is part of the railway station, and it is an extremely undesirable situation, seeing that it is open to the whole of the smoke and soot inseparable from a station of that size and character. The entrance to the office is altogether inadequate.
§ Sir GERALD HOHLERMay I ask, Captain FitzRoy, what this has got to do with this Supplementary Estimate? I cannot follow it in the least.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)I think the hon. Member is travelling a little wide of the mark, but the Estimate is certainly vague and difficult to understand.
§ Mr. BAKERI submit, with very great respect, that the Vote we are discussing refers to certain
New Works, Alterations and Additions,921 and as part of the explanation we are told that a deduction of £90,000 was made from the original Estimates, of which £18,000 is to be restored in this Supplementary Estimate, and my complaint is that that deduction of £90,000 was improperly made, and that as a result—
§ Sir G. HOHLEROn a point of Order. My point is now perfectly clear. We are not asked to vote this £90,000, and the contention of the hon. Member is that we ought to vote that £90,000.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is quite true that the £90,000 has already gone, and, therefore, we cannot go into that, but I am bound to say the Vote is a little vague the Under-Secretary will explain what the items are for, perhaps I can confine the Debate within narrower limits.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThe difficulty is that the expression "New works" is rather a misnomer. New works mean also works in progress—which have already been begun—and this additional sum which we ask for is a restoration of a portion of the sum originally deducted. We have found it has had to be used for certain works that are in progress all of which are in connection with the main Estimates but it would have been very difficult to give the whole of those works in this Supplementary Estimate. They are not absolutely new works ab initio, but they are, in their entirety, works already in progress. In regard to the post office at Preston, I have made a note of that, and I will look into it. In regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) said, the sum taken for unemployment relief is the remainder of the sum required to carry out the particular programme laid down for unemployment in the winter of 1924–25. In this present winter we have dealt with the matter in another way. There has been less unemployment so far as skilled labour in the building trade is concerned, and we have absorbed a good deal of unemployed labour under the heading:
O.—Maintenance and repairs.on which we have spent, and for which we are asking, a very large sum, so that as a matter of fact we have been able to absorb a great deal of unemployed labour.
§ Captain BENNSo one may take it there is an increase and not a reduction over last year's expenditure?
§ Mr. BAKERIn the absence of a ruling to the contrary, I can only assume that my endeavours to keep in order have been successful, and that on this Supplementary Estimate we are entitled to seek information and to make statements with regard to the items therein. I accepted the phrase "New Works" as being a statement of fact. This Vote, dealing as it does with new works, repairs and maintenance, gave us the opportunity, I thought, to ask for information regarding various aspects of that work. The Under-Secretary has been kind enough to say he will have inquiries made with regard to Preston, and, therefore, I will say no more about that, in the hope that I shall remove any hurt I have inflicted upon the hon. Gentleman opposite. I wish, however, to ask two or three further questions regarding buildings, in the hope that the Under-Secretary will be willing to make inquiries in those cases, also. On 2nd March, 1925, we were promised that a new sorting office should be built at Leicester, because of the inadequacy of the existing buildings. I should be very grateful if we could be told what has been done about that.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt would obviously not be in order for every Member to ask questions about particular post offices. That, obviously, would be out of order. The only matters before the Committee are the actual items that appear on this Paper.
§ Mr. AMMONMay I put it to you that as there is a sum of money down here for new works, maintenance, repairs, etc., with no details, that an hon. Member has a right to seek information as to how that money is to be expended, indicating places where he thinks there is room for new erections or repairs? Surely we shall be unable to get information or to pursue the Debate except on those lines?
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMANThe proper time to make those remarks is on the Post Office Vote.
§ Mr. AMMONI submit, Captain FitzRoy, that the Committee has a right to know how the money we are voting is to be expended. We have no information on this Vote to show us how the money is to be expended, and unless we 923 can elicit such information by question and answer the Committee will pass this Vote blindly.
§ Major CRAWFURDYou, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, have already suggested that this Estimate is obscure in the form in which it is presented, and that obscurity is not relieved by the absence of both the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General, who are concerned with this particular Department whose expenditure we are discussing. As even hon. Members opposite have failed to follow the course of the Debate because of this obscurity, may I ask that this Vote should be withdrawn and introduced in a more understandable form later when the Members of the Government concerned may be present in order to throw some light upon these questions.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThe reason this Supplementary Estimate seems rather vague is that the sum of money we asking for is spread over the whole area of maintenance. Hon. Members have evidently not got the main Estimates before them, but, if they will refer to those Estimates, they will find that the sum we asking for is spread over the whole field. In the main Estimates we tried to make cuts to carry out the demands of the Treasury, and in regard to some items we made too big a cut. We are now asking for this Estimate to make good that deficiency, and we are spreading it over the whole area.
§ Mr. W. BAKERI respectfully submit that there can be no doubt whatever that it is perfectly in order to question the Under-Secretary with regard to individual post offices, because this is a question which must have been submitted to him. The questions which I wish to put are as follows: On 2nd March, 1925, it was definitely promised that a new sorting office should be erected at Leicester, because the existing premises were, and are, quite inadequate. On the 24th of March, 1925, it was also announced that a new site had been purchased for a post office at Mitcham, and I should be very glad to know whether that site has been utilised, and, if not, what has been done in the meantime? 924 On 19th November, 1925, it was announced that a new sorting office would be erected at Withington, Manchester, to serve Didsbury and district.
My final question is with regard to Tottenham. It was decided that the existing post office accommodation at Tottenham was altogether inadequate, and the local authorities offered to the Office of Works part of their very fine central library in order that adequate postal facilities might be provided for that district without undue expense to the Government. Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether that offer has been accepted, and what steps the Department are prepared to take in order that the people of Tottenham may have the facilities to which they are properly entitled.
§ Mr. HARRISI am more concerned about the care of the public purse. These are very large commitments, and I want to be satisfied that the Post Office, in asking contracts, take care to see that they do not under estimate. It is clear from the statement of the Under-Secretary that there has been some underestimating, and, therefore, it is important to see that the greatest care is taken by the parties to get proper estimates on fixed figures, because once you allow the figures to be exceeded, contracts that seem reasonable, and developments that seem sound and on strict business lines turn out in the end to be extravagant. After all, a post office is run' to make a profit, and the Post Office is frequently given as an example of successful State enterprise. Therefore, we are anxious to see that such concerns should be run efficiently, and the best guarantee against waste and the best way to ensure success is that the Government should take care to get their estimates on business lines by taking comparative tenders, and they ought to see that the figures which are given to the Committee are adhered to and not exceeded.
I wish to allude to the Post Office tube which we discussed about two years ago. The question is still before the Committee, and the tube is by no means finished. This tube was to give great relief to London traffic, expedite the delivery of letters, and give a much more efficient service by the Post Office. Anybody who has had any experience of the 925 delivery of letters in recent years in London will agree with me when I say that that delivery is not nearly so good as it used to be. I want to know how far there has been progress with this tube? Is it working, or is it anywhere near completion?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot find anything in this Estimate about the tube.
§ Mr. HARRISThis Estimate is to cover certain works, and the tube is one of those works. The Vote we are discussing covers alterations and additions to new works, and I have reason to believe that the tube is included; in fact, it is the biggest new work the Post Office has in hand.
§ Captain EDENSurely the hon. Member opposite is out of order in suggesting that we should spend more money.
§ Mr. HARRISNot at all. We have had great experience on the London County Council in making sewers, and anybody knows—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI should like an expression of opinion from the Under-Secretary as to whether this tube is included in this Vote.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONNo, it is not in the Vote. When I spoke about the cut of £90,000 in last year's Estimates, I explained that we made that cut in order to effect the economies desired by the Treasury. That cut was too much, and now we have to restore a certain amount of it. The sum we are asking for is spread over the entire year on all the works now in progress, and the total sum is made up by calculating throughout the area the savings and the extra expenditure. Taking the whole area, we are making certain savings in certain parts and extra, expenditure in others, and it is impossible to say how much has been allocated in any particular part of the area. To get a general view you have to look at the main Estimates and the various items, and I do not think you Can do it in any other way. I am sure that I should be pulled up by the Deputy-Chairman if I attempted to answer the questions which have been put to me.
§ Mr. HARRISI accept the Under-Secretary's statement, and if he assures me that no more money is being spent on this tube I am satisfied.
§ Mr. R. MORRISONCan the Under-Secretary say whether any of this money has been spent on a post office in his own constituency? I happen to have a close knowledge of the hon. Member's constituency, which is a very large and prosperous one, and very well represented in the House of Commons. For many years past I was a member of the urban district council in that arca, and we were concerned in an agitation last year in which we complained to the Post Office and the Postmaster-General that a large and prosperous locality like Wood Green had to be satisfied with its Central Post Office accommodation with a disused butcher's shop. I want to ask the Under-Secretary if he can say whether any of this money has yet been spent in order to convert this disused butcher's shoo into a sort of post office that the hon. Member ought to have for the constituency which he represents.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThat is the sort of question which other hon. Members have been putting to me and it is impossible for me to answer them. I am not able to say that we have allocated any particular sum to any particular building, but the hon. Member opposite may rest assured that I shall do my best to see that my own district is properly served in this respect.
§ Mr. FENBYI think we ought to have the Committee placed in possession of some of these details, because we must have them before we can understand what we are voting this money for. Therefore, I think this Vote ought to stand over until we can have some representatives of the particular Department concerned present to give us the information.
§ Mr. FENBYI know the Under-Secretary has given all the information he possesses on these questions, and he is in a very difficult position in which he ought not to be put, because the responsible officials ought to be here. I know the hon. Gentleman is doing his 927 best, but he ought to have the assistance of somebody else with expert knowledge on these questions.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI have been in very close contact with my advisers, and it is not that I have not the information, but I am assured that it is impossible so to split up this amount of money, which has been arrived at by savings here and expenditure there, as to be able to allocate any particular part of it to any item in the Estimate.
§ Colonel GRETTONI only want to make one or two general remarks on this Estimate. It is disappointing to find that the estimation has not been successful, but that there is a very considerable excess over the original sum, and that, as the Under-Secretary has explained, it is impossible, from the information which he is able to give us, or from that which is in our possession, to trace how the excess has arisen. I understand that this Vote is presented by the Office of Works, and not by the Post Office. The Office of Works, of course, is responsible to the Post Office for carrying out work required by the Post Office, and the Office of Works has to see that it is carried out efficiently and at the least possible cost. I should like to ask whether the responsibility for the excess which is now asked for is due to bad estimating by the Office of Works, or to an increase in the demands of the Post Office in respect of new requirements, which has swollen the Estimate. Otherwise, it is a purely technical matter. The Office of Works, as a contractor, has made a bad estimate of its cost. In the case of a contract, the contractor has to stand the racket, as the saying is. In this case, where the Office of Works is responsible for the Post Office, surely this is a very inconvenient way in which to present a Vote. The Post Office ought really to be responsible for the whole of the expenditure, and the Office of Works ought not to appear in the matter at all. The question that I want to put to my hon. Friend is this: Is the Office of Works presenting an adjustment of a bad estimate, or is it meeting increased requirements for work that is required to be done by the Post Office?
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI wanted also to raise the point which has been 928 alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). The original Estimate, I take it, was an Office of Works Estimate, and not a Post Office Estimate at all, and, if this money does not appear in the Post Office Estimate, it means that we cannot really discuss these expenditures at all, because, directly we ask for information or details, we are ruled out of order as discussing a matter of policy. As, however, it does not appear in the Post Office Estimates, therefore when the Post Office Estimates come forward, we have nothing before us to criticise. This is the general method by which the Departments work inter-Departmentally in order to get through these various sums of money without the reason for them being adequately discussed in the House of Commons. I do think the Committee might turn their attention to that point, which is really a point of policy in regard to the whole of these Estimates.
In this case we have the Minister, not through any fault of his own, saying, "I am very sorry, but I cannot tell you anything about it." If we are really going to get any economy at all, we must stop this method of Government Departments juggling with their figures and putting the House of Commons into this absurd position. What it really comes to is that the Executive are making fools of the House of Commons, and I think it is time that something was done. I may be wrong in my contention that these amounts were never originally in the Post Office Vote. If they were originally in the Post Office Vote, my argument goes by the board, but I understand that they were not. I have made various inquiries, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, they were never in the original Post Office Vote. If my contention is correct, then I say that this method of presenting Supplementary Estimates is simply making fools of the Members of the House of Commons.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONOf course, I must not try to defend the Post Office, because that would be completely out of order, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) talks as though these main items had never been before the House.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYNo; my contention is that these items, when they 929 were presented to the House, were presented in the Office of Works Estimate, and not in the Post Office Estimate. On the Office of Works Estimate we are not allowed to discuss Post Office policy, and when Post Office policy is discussed, these items are not in the Post Office Vote, so that they cannot be discussed.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONIt is quite open to hon. Members to do what I should myself naturally do, and what I am sure other Members would do, namely, to take the Estimates of the Office of Works and look at these items, and, when the Post Office Vote comes up, they can quite easily ask the Postmaster-General why he is 'not doing this, or why he is leaving out that. After all, the whole programme is in the main Estimates that were passed by the House only a very short time ago. The only reason for the increase for which we are now asking is that there has been rather more speeding-up of the programme passed by the House. From time to time building is slack, and you cannot get on the weather prevents you. At other times the weather is better, and other conditions are more favourable, and building can be speeded up, and in that case more money is spent. The whole of this programme, however, has been passed by the House item by item, and this need for additional money is due to the fact that the programme has been carried out rather more rapidly than we anticipated.
§ Mr. AMMONI was called to order by the Chairman for saying exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was turned down on the ground that on the Post Office Vote I had no right to discuss building. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that we should go through certain Votes and pick out certain items and bring them forward here, because we should not be in order in doing so, since they would not be in the Vote before the Committee. We have never had an opportunity of discussing these matters, and this is our only chance of doing so.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIt seems to me that the money we are now asked to vote consists, in the main, of two parts. First of all, there is a sum which puts 930 back part of the money that was deducted, and, secondly, there is new expenditure of the nature of maintenance and repairs. With regard to the first part, we are told that we have already voted in the House of Commons all the items seriatim, which cover several pages of the original Estimates; but we have not voted the full amount of £408,700. What was voted on the previous occasion was £408,700, less the £90,000. The Minister tells us that he cannot possibly say which items this new figure of £18,600 covers, and the position, therefore, is that this is a kind of glorified block vote. The House was first of all put in possession of the various items which might be incurred, and then it was told that to the extent of £90,000 they would not be incurred. Now the statement is made that £18,600 more is to be spent than was expected. I submit that we ought to have the particulars of the whole of these items, showing the additions, because otherwise we are unable to form any idea as to why this new amount of £18,600 is to be expended. With regard to the second part, namely, the sum of £43,700, I think the case is still stronger. It seems to me we were told that the maintenance and repairs were covered by the £300,450 passed in the original Estimate, and now there is to be added to that a sum of £43,700 for maintenance and repairs. I think we are entitled to know to what this additional £43,700 refers.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe explanation has not been satisfactory to us on this side. It was asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett)—
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONMay I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that in my original introduction I explained the whole of that, and gave the exact reasons why we wanted the money?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYThe Minister has had to confess that he does not know where this expenditure is going to be incurred. Could he tell us where he is going to save the £20,900?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI thought I had already explained that. There is a saving of £20,900, and of that we have 931 already saved about £18,000 by making contracts for fuel on more favourable terms, whereby we get our coal cheaper.
§ Mr. W. BAKERI am glad the hon. Gentleman has referred to fuel, because that is a subject on which I desire to ask him a simple question. I understand that, acting upon the very highest advice, his Department has been making very successful experiments in the use of oil fuel in place of coal.
Mr. ERSKINEOn a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the subject of oil fuel and coal on this Estimate?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYSurely, we are entitled to discuss the anticipated savings on which the Estimate is based?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt would be in order to discuss the savings made, but it would be quite out of order to discuss the policy of substituting oil for coal.
§ Mr. BAKERI understood the Under-Secretary to say that certain savings had been secured, and others were anticipated, as a result of obtaining coal at a cheaper rate. My information is that he has done a much more wonderful thing than that, and I desire to give him praise for having done it. That is that, acting on the best possible advice, he has substituted oil for coal as fuel, and thereby has effected great economy. I am asking him to confirm that.
§ Mr. GILLETTThe hon. Gentleman said he had explained the extra amount that is asked for for maintenance and repairs, but, although I have been here all day, I must say that, although the hon. Gentleman answered my question as to Item N, I have no recollection of his giving any details as to how the £2,300 was spent.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI specially said, and I must apologise to the Committee for repeating it, that it was owing to the fact that many complaints had been made as to the condition of Post Offices all over the country, regarding which I have had to answer numerous questions in the House. A large part of 932 this expenditure is in order to meet the complaints that were made in the House. We are doing our best to make the accommodation better for the Post Office staff. A part of the expenditure is also due to the fact that at Christmas time the pressure necessitated adaptations of various premises. For instamce, pigeon holes have been provided in certain offices throughout the country, and the Committee, which reported since the main Estimate was passed, recommended certain sorting office fittings. We are carrying out that suggestion, and part of the expenditure is due to it.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSIn the district in which I reside the Post Office premises are wretched compared with the amount of work that has to be transacted. I find that while the postmaster for the area is charged with the duty of providing suitable premises, there is little or no connection between the people who can provide the land at a reasonable price which would make the expenditure more economical and possibly secure a greater number of improvements in Post Office premises. That is what actually happens. The postmaster for a large area can only pay infrequent visits to a district. He goes there when he can and negotiates with those who are there for the purpose of making the maximum amount of profit out of this particular Government Department. Instead of doing that, they should negotiate with the local councils, who invariably have suitable land and property which could be used for these purposes. As it is, they secure land or premises which costs probably twice as much as it ought to do if the land were purchased in a proper sense by negotiations through the local council. I cannot help but think that not only do we not get suitable Post Office premises which would enable the postmasters to transact their business efficiently, but we double the price for some of the buildings in which the postal business is actually transacted. I should like to know that they are going to consider a different method of purchasing land.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am afraid this is not in the Vote at all.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSMight I submit that obviously this money is spent for improvements in Post Office premises?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member was clearly suggesting a matter of policy, which cannot be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSMany districts are suffering from faulty premises as the result of some of this expenditure, which ought to have been dealt with in an altogether different direction. While I am unable to make suggestions as to what ought to be done, I think the hon. Gentleman might very well look into the question and see that we are getting the best value for the money in all the districts where postal services are transacted.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAI am in the same difficulty—and it is a very serious one—as every hon. Member who has addressed the Committee to-day. You, Sir, have ruled that it is in order to discuss the savings of £20,000 which are here shown, and the hon. Gentleman in charge is unable, except in the very toughest detail, to give us any indication as to what those savings are. He has told us that certain re-arrangements are being made in certain post offices, and that the savings are largely dependant upon the weather. He has told us certain committees are sitting to inquire into transport and other arrangements, but he cannot further specify the heads under which the savings are to be secured.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI said there are £20,900 of savings, and that was due, to the extent of £18,000, to more favourable coal contracts.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAThen it is the increased expenditure that is due to the weather, because the hon. Gentleman certainly made some considerable point of the weather. I am not very clear as to the relation the weather bears to this Estimate, but the whole Estimate is surrounded in fog. I, like almost every one who has addressed the Committee, wish to ask the hon. Gentleman certain questions about the post offices in my constituency, but I realise that it is absolutely futile to put them. We have been discussing this question of post offices for two hours. One hon. Member is interested in Leicester and another in Wood Green, which the hon. Gentleman himself represents, but he is not in a 934 position to give any information whatever on this subject. There are only two persons who are in a, position to give this information. One is the Postmaster-General and the other is his assistant; and, seeing that those two Ministers are absent, and that without their presence the Committee cannot do its duty by the taxpayers or by its constituents, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot accept that Motion because most of the questions the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask would have been out of order.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHADid you yourself, Sir, not rule that it would be in order to discuss these savings, and the expenditure mentioned in this Estimate? I want to know, for instance, about a particular sorting office that is mentioned in the main Estimate. I want to know how far the expenditure is covered by the Supplementary Estimate. I want to know why other post offices in my constituency are being closed, to the great inconvenience of the inhabitants. I understand you have ruled that it would be in order if those post offices were in any way represented in this Estimate. You yourself ruled that it would have been in order to discuss the tube if the tube were covered in the main Estimate. We cannot get any information as to what exactly is covered in this Estimate, and, in the absence of the Postmaster-General or his assistant, we are put in a very considerable difficulty. For these reasons, I suggest that my Motion is in order.
§ Major CRAWFURDI would support a Motion to report progress simply for this reason. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the £18,000 in the Supplementary Estimate is a figure made up of a number of losses here and, gains there, additions here and subtractions there, and that it has been found impossible to present that Estimate in such a form that you can see where the losses and where the gains have been.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have refused the Motion to Report Progress. Therefore, it is not in order to discuss it.
§ Mr. MAXTONSince that Motion is out of order, I press on the hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Vote and proceed with some of the others. When an 935 apology was made about the illness of the hon. Gentleman whose natural duty it was to put it through, I accepted the excuse as adequate, but, personally, I had a feeling in my mind that the hon. Gentleman had been put in charge of this Vote because of his well-known tact and his very great popularity. But on that Vote—the Vote affecting the Foreign Office—the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs did the Committee the service of sitting alongside the hon. Gentleman, and I think on one or two matters giving him the benefit of his advice. Now there is not a single representative of the Post Office here. The Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General are both Members of this House, and neither of them does the Committee the courtesy of even sitting on the Bench. One of them is engaged in very interesting activities outside, very remotely connected with the Post Office. On this matter, I think they ought to have been here. The hon. Gentleman's explanations are not satisfactory. He gave an explanation of the great increase of £43,700 under Heading O. That accounts for about half the total increase in the Estimate.
§ Mr. MAXTONIt is that twice-repeated explanation that I am now going to criticise. The hon. Gentleman has told us that part of that £43,700 was due to the fitting up of pigeon-holes in various Post Offices. I should have said, without any intimate knowledge of Post Office affairs but with the ordinary general intelligence of the man in the street, that the fitting up of pigeon-holes would more naturally have come under Heading P—Furniture—and not under Maintenance and Repairs. I certainly never yet heard of pigeon holes being regarded as part of the maintenance of a building or even the repair of a building. If it be true that this £43,700 increase is due to the provision of pigeon holes, what caused the increase of £17,000 in the item for Furniture? He told us this is scattered over a great number of Votes. Is it desks or chairs? [An HON. MEMBER: "Carrier pigeons!"] You cannot include carrier pigeons under the item of Furniture. I want to be told very definitely one thing about this 936 furniture, because I have had suggestions made to me to the contrary. In view of the statement of the Government that their great social programme is to get the people to buy British goods, I want to know if that furniture is British furniture.
7.0 P.M.
It is a point. We know quite well from past experience that it is quite possible for the Government to raise a slogan for the private citizen which it is not prepared to operate in its own governmental business. I have had it alleged that chairs are supplied to the Post Office which are known as Austrian Kentwood chairs, and are made by sweated labour in foreign countries. I want to know whether in this item Furniture, £17,000 extra spent, the most scrupulous care has been taken to get, first of all, a British article, and, secondly, a British article that has been made under decent labour conditions that decent people could defend and justify. That is a thing I think we are entitled to know when we are asked by the representative of the economy Government to vote a total additional expenditure of £66,500. That is a terrific big increase on the original Estimate; £43,000 and more on an original Vote of £300,000 is pretty big over-spending.
There is nobody here on these benches who grudges one single penny of additional expenditure that is real economy, spent on something that we are actually needing, or something that is improving the lot of some body of public servants, or rendering some better service to the community. We are going to have no grumble about any additional expenditure of that description, just as we are going to have no grumble at any economy which is a real economy and which is a withdrawal of some expenditure bringing no value at all. We passed the previous Vote, which involved £7,500, with very inadequate explanation, and to me the explanations given on this second Vote are just as inadequate. Before we know where we are we will have gone through several millions. We are always told that the Government are going to economise. But it is not on this particular Vote we are dealing with at the moment. It is on some other Vote at some other time. I want to know that these increases are legitimate and 937 genuine increases. Particularly, I want an answer to these questions on definite points that I have put to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI think before proceeding to take the vote, if we are to have a vote, that it is only right and proper that we should express our dissatisfaction with the business methods of the Government. We are told that they are out here in their first attempt at economy, and the immediate results of their campaign for economy is an extravagant waste of time of this House. If the Government had framed its Estimates properly, then the general discussion to which we have had to devote a considerable time this afternoon would have taken place on the original Estimate. The hon. Member who is in charge of the Estimates told us that when they got out this sum of £90,000 they had already agreed to spend a sums of money for which they were not taking credit. Then the Financial Secretary comes along and tells us that this Government, having adopted this course, glories in going about without a penny in its pocket with which to pay its way. Then this impecunious Government comes forward to this House and, at a time when we should be discussing very important questions, takes up the time going over again the details of the administration that ought to have been discussed upon the original Estimate had it been properly prepared. I think we are entitled to protest against that. Economy should not begin with a waste of time, and a Government which confesses that it does not know how to frame its own Estimates but sends a Minister down here who does not even understand what is being done with the money, is not one in which we can repose much confidence in seeking proper economy in the affairs of the country.
§ Mr. HARDIESeeing that we are having requests for an additional £66,500, I wonder if the hon. Member in charge could give any information as to its application. For instance, when he mentions pigeon holes, could he tell me if any of them are going to the Springburn Post Office? When we are spending such a heap of money on pigeon holes, it would be interesting to know where they are being placed, because we in Springburn are not only 938 suffering from a lack of pigeon holes but a lack of an efficient post office, which I am not allowed to mention here. On this question of the money that is required under buildings and repairs, could the hon. Member in charge tell us what has happened to the work carried out last year and discussed in this House in relation to certain wood block floors? Can he tell us whether there is any of this new flooring included in the money now asked for? It is necessary, after all, to get down to business details. Laying some claim to know how business is conducted, I should like to know exactly how this money is going to be applied. It would save the time of this Committee if, when an Estimate like this is asked for, we had a specification of all that is included or forecast in the requirements which make up the sum. If we had that forecast, we could save the time of the Committee by not having to ask questions. Then we would only ask questions on the points we thought were not clear, and try to help the Government through on a business basis. You can be helped, you know, if you only take advice. The Home Secretary is the one man in the House who requires the help of all the other Members to get him through. [An HON. MEMBER "He is beyond it!"] No, he is not beyond it. There is always hope where there is life. He is good looking and living.
Are we to understand that, while we are not allowed to discuss certain local requirements, the hon. Member in charge is also prohibited from saying whether or not any of this money is to be spent in any particular locality and where? That really is a question for the Deputy-Chairman, who is ruling the Committee at the moment, rather than for the hon. Member in charge. When it comes to a question of Post Office local arrangements, and relating these to expenditure, you find, for instance, that in Glasgow we have a very fine General Post Office, but a penny train ride from there you come to what is called a branch post office, dilapidated, an awful looking wreck of a place, a place that you would think to look at it had been there since the Post Office began. That place is Springburn. I want to know if there is going to be a new post office out of this money for Springburn?
§ Mr. MAXTONI really must press the hon. Gentleman who has charge of this 939 Vote—if he is persisting in putting it through to-day, although I think it would be much more courteous to the Committee if he withdrew it and arranged for the presence of a representative of the Post Office to be here—for an answer to the question I put about the furniture.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThere cannot be any complaint that I have not been on my feet. Really, this has nothing to do with the Post Office. We had a certain programme which we have been asked to carry out, and our whole business is to carry out that programme as quickly, efficiently, and economically as possible. That is really the whole business of the Office of Works in this matter. It would be impossible on Supplementary Estimates to dive into every single item comprised in the whole programme. I have never seen it done. I am quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) who has taken a great part in this House, has never seen it done.
§ Mr. MAXTONIf the hon. Member will allow me, these remarks that- he is making may apply to other questions that were raised, but I did not raise any petty-fogging details.
§ Mr. MAXTONI thought you were answering me.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONYou said there should be a representative of the Post Office here. In reply to one of the questions put by the hon. Member, I can assure him that only British furniture is bought.
§ Mr. MAXTONFurniture manufactured in Britain? Not merely furniture bought from a British merchant or contractor—because, mark you, I have a very strong suggestion to the contrary put to me—but furniture that is actually manufactured inside Great Britain.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI can assure the hon. Member that the chairs were made in this country. It is so easy for hon. Members who take an interest in these particular cases. They have only to ask a question it write to the Office of Works, and they can find it out in a moment. It is impossible in 940 Estimates of this kind, especially when the hon. Gentleman asks for a withdrawal, to deal with all these small questions in the time. I have answered as many questions as I have ever heard answered before. I hope hon. Members will now allow us to have the Vote.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman in getting the Vote, but his last speech has rather confused me. He tells us that the Post. Office Estimate has nothing to do with the Post Office. We want someone here to tell us why these things are needed. I can understand that the business of the Commissioner for Work is to carry out the work that the Post Office warts done and supply the goods that the Post Office wants. The Post Office might get a fit of extra vagance and ask for a whole lot of things it does not require.
I understood from the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other experts on the Treasury Bench that this was a year when it was hoped the House of Commons would not only search pockets but search and examine every Estimate. The Minister who has charge of this Vote is the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and this evening, apparently, he is speaking for the Office of Works. He is one of those hon. Members on the other side whom we are always glad to find in any Department. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is sitting next to him and has listened to the hon. Member rebuking us for looking into these Estimates very minutely. I should have thought that we were doing exactly what is desired by a Government which wishes to effect economies, namely, sending time in trying to find out whether certain expenditure was necessary or unnecessary.
I should like to know a great deal more about this Estimate. On page 3 we are told that this sum of £18,600 is part of something which we were told last year would be saved. It was very bad estimating on the part of somebody, when the Department comes back a few months later and asks for a portion of the money again. We have not been told how this has happened. On the question of raising pettifogging, niggling points, I would 941 point out that hon. Members on the other side, at question time, have raised points about pens and lead pencils. We want to know whether all the furniture which is concerned in this Estimate is made in this country, and we are now told that that is the sort of thing we ought not to trouble about. I protest that the Postmaster-General or his Assistant is not here. When I came back to the House three Parliaments ago the Assistant Postmaster-General had beer improved out of existence; but this Government has restored him. I think it is an insult to the Committee that on of the representatives of the Post Office is not here to explain this Supplementary Estimate.
When hon. Members opposite were on this side, and my friends were on the other side, we were taken to task very severely in regard to Supplementary Estimates, even when those Supplementary Estimates had been forced upon the Labour Government by the bad estimating of those they had displaced. Now, apparently, we are not expected to criticise. When it is a question of giving some poor, unhappy person 6d. a week outdoor relief, the Minister of Health or his Parliamentary Secretary gets up and talks about extravagance. They search round to see how they can
§ save 3d. or 6d. out of the poor. We are entitled to search round to see that these Government Departments are not extravagant. I have not much faith in any of them when it comes to spending money, because I read the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which seem to show that they have made a pretty fine mess of things very often.
§ The Minister who is in charge of this Vote ought not to be put into the position of having to answer for the Post Office. The Committee ought not to go on without a representative of the Post Office being present. I think my hon. Friends have done right in asking whether these articles are home-made goods, especially when we are told in the newspapers and in the speeches of Ministers that we ought to buy Empire goods. It is expecting too much to ask the Minister to answer for the Office of Works and the Post Office at one and the same time. The people who are paid to do the job ought to be here to do it. If it be in order, I therefore move to report Progress in order that we may have the Postmaster-General here.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 263.
945| Division No. 5.] | AYES. | [7.22 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gillett, George M. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Gosling, Harry | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | March, S. |
| Baker, Walter | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Maxton, James |
| Baker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) |
| Barr, J. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Montague, Frederick |
| Batey, Joseph | Groves, T. | Morris, R. H. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Grundy, T. W. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Briant, Frank | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Paling, W. |
| Broad, F. A. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Bromfield, William | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Bromley, J. | Hardie, George D. | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Harris, Percy A. | Potts, John S. |
| Buchanan, G. | Hastings, Sir Patrick | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Hayday, Arthur | Riley, Ben |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hayes, John Henry | Ritson, J. |
| Clowes, S. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hirst, G. H. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Scurr, John |
| Connolly, M. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Kelly, W. T. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kennedy, T. | Smillie, Robert |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Kirkwood, D. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Lansbury, George | Snell, Harry |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lawson, John James | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Duncan, C. | Livingstone, A. M. | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Dunnico, H. | Lowth, T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lunn, William | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Fenby, T. D. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Mackinder, W. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Varley, Frank B. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) | Wallhead, Richard C. | Williams, T. (York. Don Valley) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Throne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Windsor, Walter |
| Thurtle, E. | Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda) | Wright, W. |
| Tinker, John Joseph | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. | |
| Townend, A. E. | Whiteley, W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. | Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Looker, Herbert William |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | England, Colonel A. | Lougher, L. |
| Albery, Irving James | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | MacAndrew, Charles Glen |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Atkinson, C. | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | MacIntyre, I. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Fielden, E. B. | McLean, Major A. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Balniel Lord | Forrest, W. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Frece, Sir Walter de | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Ganzoni, Sir John | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Gates, Percy | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Berry, Sir George | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Gee, Captain R. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Merriman, F. B. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Goff, Sir Park | Moles, Thomas |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Gower, Sir Robert | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Gretton, Colonel John | Moreing, Captain A. H. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Grotrian, H. Brent | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Murchison, C. K. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Burman, J. B. | Harland, A. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Oakley, T. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Haslam, Henry C. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Cassels, J. D. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Owen, Major G. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Fercy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A (Birm., W.) | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Pitcher, G. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hills, Major John Walter | Preston, William |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Christie, J. A. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Radford, E. A. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Raine, W. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Holland, Sir Arthur | Ramsden, E. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Homan, C. W. J. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Remer, J. R. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.) | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Richardson, Sir F. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cope, Major William | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.) | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) | Huntingfield, Lord | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Hurd, Percy A. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Hurst, Gerald B. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Rye, F. G. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert | Jephcott, A. R. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sandon, Lord |
| Dalziel, Sir Davison | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Savery, S. S. |
| Davidson, J. (Hertf'd Hemel Hempst'd) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset Yeovil) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Skelton, A. N. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lamb, J. Q. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Sprot, Sir Alexander | Waddington, R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) | Wallace, Captain D. E. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Warrender, Sir Victor | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Storry-Deans, R. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Watts, Dr. T. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Tasker, Major R. Inigo | Wells, S. R. | Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Templeton, W. P. | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | |
| Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Tinne, J. A. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain |
| Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) | Bowyer. |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I do so as a protest against the absence of the Assistant Postmaster-General, who, I understand, is in the precincts of the House, and as a protest against the way in which the Votes have been presented.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI wish to support the reduction. Just now an hon. Member asked a specific question as to the origin of certain furniture covered by this Vote. I ask for specific information regarding the quantity of Post Office mail bags made in His Majesty's prisons. I understand that the proportion of mail bags so made is very large indeed. I happen to represent a Division which is vitally interested in the question.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think there is anything about mail bags in this Vote.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI understand that under Item "P" there is a charge for a specific quantity of mail bags.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis is a Vote of the Office of Works, and I do not think that mail bags come under the Office of Works.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONWith great respect I submit that if mail bags are included in subhead "P," we are entitled to ask as to the labour conditions under which the bags are made.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI could not allow discussion or a reply on that subject.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote, or someone, said that the item dealing with furnishings included a charge for mail bags.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODIs it not a fact that the mail bags used by the Post Office are made in the prisons? That cannot be denied.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI would like to know where the Home Secretary is. He could tell us.
§ Mr. KELLYAt any rate, we are able to discuss matters relating to new buildings that are being erected for the Post Office.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe cannot discuss new buildings in general, but only the amount of extra money necessary for their construction.
§ Mr. KELLYThe point I wish to raise is covered somewhere in this Vote. In view of the expenditure, I have wondered why we take so long to complete these buildings. Take the Rochdale Post Office as an example. At present the people of Rochdale have to suffer discomfort by reason of the inadequate accommodation of the existing post office building. Yet there is something quite leisurely about the way the Government erects the new building. I hope we shall have some indication as to the date when we may expect to have the use of the new office. We have not stinted the money to be expended, nor has there been any shortage of labour.
§ Mr. MARCHI wish to know how it was that the Post Office took such a long time in tearing up the Commercial Road from Aldgate to the. Blackwall Tunnel?
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSIs that covered by this Estimate?
§ Mr. MARCHI see an item here "OO., Unemployment Relief Work, 1924–25." It 947 appears to me that that would cover the subject I am raising. The works committee of the borough council concerned, on many occasions asked the surveyor to get into communication with the General Post Office with a view of having the work hurried. Many times there were trenches opened—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANHaving had time to look into the matter, I find that the Vote has no relation to that particular work.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe whole of the unemployed relief work does not come under this Estimate
§ Mr. MARCHI understand that the item under the heading "O.O." is unemployed relief work for which £5,300 is required. The item is on page 5.
Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSONUnder various sub-heads of the different Votes of the Office of Works will be found certain sums allocated to unemployment relief work. This particular unemployment relief work relates merely to revenue buildings, which is the Vote we are discussing.
§ Mr. MARCHIf the Minister and the Department do not state the particulars in the Supplementary Estimates it is not surprising that Members get confused. The usual way is to be wrong and then to be put right. If this money is for buildings, what buildings are they and where are they being erected? I sometimes see buildings put up for the convenience of Government Departments, and within a few months they are pulled down. Is this one of those cases?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThe work on the road to which the hon. Gentleman refers is expenditure that very likely comes under another Vote, which we shall reach shortly in connection with housing. I will find out definitely. It is quite clear that the matter does not come under this Vote.
§ Mr. WALLHEADIs any of this work that has been undertaken since the hon. Gentleman left his late job and took the Under-Secretaryship for Foreign Affairs?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThis expenditure on unemployed relief is the fag-end of the programme which was settled in 1924–25. We had a request from the Cabinet Committee to undertake a certain amount of absorption of the unemployed. That is spread over the whole of the work of the Office of Works. There might be six men employed here and six men there, or a hundred here and a hundred elsewhere. The Office of Works does its best to make out a general programme for the absorption of a certain number of unemployed.
§ Mr. MARCHThe work about which I was speaking is the work of laying new telephone wires for the Post Office from Aldgate to Blackwall Tunnel. If that work is included under this Vote I want to say that there was a disgraceful waste of time and energy on the part of everyone who had to use the Commercial Road.
§ Mr. BATEYI submit to the Committee that this Supplementary Estimate would not have been necessary if the General Post Office or the Office of Works, or the responsible Department, whatever it may be, had not wasted a sum of money in buying an old building in Durham for conversion into a new post office. This building occupies an unsuitable site, and by the side of the building there is a very narrow street along which the Post Office vans will have to pass. This street is only wide enough to allow one vehicle to pass at a time, and no arrangement has been made to set the building back. That narrow street leads to a place where the county council have built, and where there are a good many dwelling houses, and in addition the county council have built a large secondary school in the neighbourhood, and this arrangement will interfere with the children going to that school.
§ Sir G. HOHLERThe hon. Member seems to be dealing with the case of a secondary school under the Durham County Council, and the approach to it. What that has to do with the present Vote, I cannot understand.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIf we are able to show that the Department have wasted money, that is a reason for voting against a proposal to entrust them with more money. The hon. Member for Spenny—moor (Mr. Batey) is only showing the gross incompetency of the Department.
§ Sir G. HOHLERI submit that is not an answer to my point. I have no doubt they have wasted money, but that is not the question. I cannot find any reference to this matter in the present Estimate, and the original Estimate has already been authorised by Parliament. I cannot understand how this particular matter arises here; and I suggest that the Opposition, if they are endeavouring to obstruct, must at least confine themselves within the Rules of the House.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI submit that a discussion is not necessarily out of order because the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) does not understand it.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not know whether the hon. Member rises to the point of Order or whether he wishes to continue his speech.
§ Mr. BATEYI rise to the point of Order first. I was endeavouring to show that the Supplementary Estimate was larger than it need have been, because the Post Office have bought this old building which no sensible man would purchase for this purpose. I submit I am entitled to show that they were wrong.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe whole question which arises is whether the original Estimate passed by the House included the purchase of these premises, and whether the additional sum asked for in the present Estimate is in any way due to that purchase.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThis increase is due to the speeding up of the programme previously agreed upon by the House.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWe want to know if it includes the cost of this old building at Durham, and apparently nobody can tell us.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONOn a point of order. On page 52 of the main Estimate there is an item, "Durham new Post Office and Telephone Exchange."
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg the hon. Member's pardon for having overlooked the item. It does not, however, 950 alter my original statement that the whole of this increase is due to the speeding up of a programme agreed upon by Parliament.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is entitled to raise the point which he has mentioned, if he can chow that some of the additional money for which the Estimate is presented is needed for the purchase of this building. The original sum required for the purchase was voted on the original Estimate which has been passed by the House already. If there is an additional sum which necessitates this Supplementary Estimate then the hon. Member will be in order.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI see that in the main Estimate the amount required for this particular purpose for 1925–26 was £1,000 [HON. MEMBERS £14,000."] I do not know whether this particular work has anything to do with the general increase, because that increase has been spread over the whole area. If it has anything to do with the increase, that merely means that this work has gone on rather more quickly than was anticipated.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYBefore passing the Estimate, the Committee is entitled to know whether any of the money is to be spent on this building.
§ Mr. BATEYIf the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote is not able to give us the information we require, I ask leave to move to report Progress in order that we may obtain the information.
§ Mr. WALLHEADI protest against the way in which this Estimate has been prepared. Hon. Members on the Government side seem to be impatient of the care with which these matters are being studied—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot accept the Motion to report Progress.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. In the main Estimate last year a certain programme was agreed upon, and it was 951 the command of the House to the Office of Works that the programme should be carried out. We are doing so, and the increase for which we ask is caused by the fact that we are carrying out the wishes of the House more quickly than was anticipated.
§ Mr. FENBYThe Committee is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the many and courteous answers he has made on these points. Over and over again he has assured us that speeding-up is responsible for the increase, and that the increase covers the whole area. I observed in the Estimates the words "Post Office and telegraph buildings in Great Britain and certain poet offices abroad," which indicate that it is a very wide area, and apparently includes work done abroad. I recognise the difficulty under which the hon. Member is working, because he has no one beside him who is directly concerned with these matters, and whose duty it would be to inform the Committee upon them. In the town where I live there is a population of over 20,000, and a wooden structure, which has been in existence for about 20 years on railway property, is now being used by the Post Office for a purpose different to that for which it was intended, with the result that the delivery of letters is about an hour later than it should be.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is a question of policy concerning the Post Office, and does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate, which deals with the Office of Works.
§ Mr. FENBYWith all respect, Sir, I submit that it can be raised under the item "Maintenance and repairs." I want to know why the Office of Works is accepting a responsibility for retaining this building—originally erected for the sorting and distribution of letters—for another purpose, when the result is that the people are handicapped by the late delivery of letters. Only the Postmaster-General or his assistant could tell us why that building is being maintained at the expense of the country through the Office of Works, while the population are being penalised in the way I describe. I hope the hon. Gentleman will do his best to secure the attendance here of those who can give the Committee the information 952 required. I am a comparatively new Member of the House, but I am accustomed to administrative work on public bodies, and if I may say so with all respect, I do not think a parish council would allow an exhibition of the kind we have seen to-day, in connection with the discussion of public expenditure. The persons who are really responsible deliberately stay away, and to say the least of it, that is not courteous to hon. Members, let alone to the people whom they represent.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. WALLHEADI was pointing out that hon. Members opposite are impatient at the questions which are being directed to the Government on this matter. Like the last speaker, I am a comparatively new Member of this House, but I have learned something of the care that should be taken to elicit information. When I was sitting on the benches opposite behind the Labour Government I learned that hon. Members who support the present Government were wonderfully curious. I remember on one occasion a Member of the Conservative party holding up the House because he wanted to know how many buttons there were to be on a soldier's tunic. I think some further information is required about this Vote. We are told that the increases are due to speeding up, but I cannot see how that is possible. The original Estimate provided for the spending of a certain amount of money, and I cannot see why the speeding up of the work has therefore increased the cost.
§ Mr. WALLHEADWhat are we voting the money for in that case?
§ Mr. WALLHEADI find that in the estimate for office furniture there is an increase of about £17,000, or 33 per cent. increase on the original estimate. It is very, bad estimating, and it shows that something is radically wrong. I think we should have been told something about this furniture; the size and the nature of it. Is it to be chairs, beds or sofas. We ought to know something about all these points, and we are well justified in asking that someone should be here who is able to give us the information. 953 The Under-Secretary has been exceedingly courteous during a rather trying half-hour, and everybody recognises that he has done his best, but where is the Minister who is in charge of this particular Department? I agree with hon. Members that it is treating the House with great disrespect for none of the representatives of the Post Office to be in the House at the moment. It is not fair to the Under-Secretary, who does not now occupy the position he did some time ago. There is great room for inquiry; and we should be given the details of all these increases which, after all, amount to a large sum. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of proclaiming their desire for meticulous economy, but at the same time they vote away large sums of money; in fact, they vote an increase of 33 per cent. on one item, a small item, alone.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI apologise to the Under-Secretary because I was unable to hear the whole of his reply to the discussion. I only want to ask him one or two questions about the new works alterations and additions "contained in this Vote. Is any part of this for automatic telephones, which I understand have been installed in some places? Is any part of it for unemployment relief work, or certain portions of the underground telephone lines. This its an important matter. Every time we have a heavy gale or snow in the North of England our telephone communications with London and other large centres are always interfered with, to the great inconvenience of business people. Very slowly the excellent work of increasing the efficiency of the telephone service goes on, and I think the work to obviate these disastrous breakdowns may be done largely by unskilled labour. It would benefit those men who are at present unemployed. I hope some of this expenditure is to be used for this purpose. I wish more details were given, and there has been plenty of time to print more additional details of "New works, alterations and additions."
I am sorry the Committee has to do without the presence of the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General. I have always thought it somewhat of an anomaly that two Ministers should represent the Post 954 Office in this House, but, as that is the case, I should have thought one of them at least would have been present this evening. It is not fair to expect the Under-Secretary, who has bravely held the bridge for the Post Office this afternoon, to undertake to reply to all the points raised. He has done it very well, but it is not fair to him. Is any of this very considerable additional sum—it an increase of £65,500; a very grave error in estimating in what is supposed to be a businesslike department—due to the provision of land lines for broadcasting purposes? There are two sides to this question. The Post Office side is that the present telephone lines are good enough for relaying broadcast concerts and programmes. On the other hand the listeners and the Broadcasting Company demand very much finer telephone lines for relaying music. I do not want to go into the details of this subject, but telephone lines that are good enough for long distance telephoning have not the vibrations necessary—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not a matter for the Office of Works, and it is not in Order.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYI will in that case content myself in asking whether any part of the "new works, alterations and additions" are for better land lines for this particular purpose. If so, I think it should be stated in the Estimate. Why I refer to this matter is because there have been demands for this expenditure from people who are interested in wireless, and that may be another good reason why we should be told. The three points I have raised might be answered very briefly. They are: the question as to automatic exchanges, the question of preventing those ridiculous breakdowns whenever we have a heavy gale or fall of snow, and the provision of better land lines for carrying broadcast programmes to the millions of listeners we have in this country.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYMay I put one question to the Under-Secretary? The more one examines this Vote the more the discussion is justified. I have just discovered that this sum of money is to 955 be spent on certain Post Offices abroad. I want to know what jurisdiction the Department have over Post Offices abroad, and how he justifies the expenditure of public money in other countries at a time when that money is very urgently required at home?
§ Mr. McNEILLOn that point of Order, surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot be in Order in raising a question of policy, whatever the policy may be, with regard to these Post Offices abroad. That is covered by the Vote already passed by the House.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI submit that if we are voting British money for foreign services—
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThere is nothing in this Estimate that covers them at all. They are not included in this Estimate.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI submit in that case that this Estimate should be withdrawn on the ground that it is misleading.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is merely the title, and it has always come to the House in that form.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONMay I say that the furniture is office furniture, chairs and tables. The question of automatic telephones does not come under this Vote at all. I hope the Committee will now be able to give us the Vote.
§ Mr. SCURRI should be only too pleased to agree to the desire of the Under-Secretary if it had not been for the fact that we have been treated throughout the whole of the afternoon with the greatest discourtesy by the Department concerned. We have not had the presence of the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General. We have been confronted by many members of the Government. It has been a pleasure to notice the great interest taken in Post Office matters by the Minister of Education, by the Secretary of State for War, and by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have also seen the Minister for Pensions on the Front Bench also interested in Post Office work.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 116.
959| Division No. 6.] | AYES. | [8.13 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Elliot, Captain Walter E. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | England, Colonel A. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith |
| Albery, Irving James | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Apsley, Lord | Chapman, Sir S. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Christie, J. A. | Fielden, E. B. |
| Atkinson, C. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Finburgh, S. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Clarry, Reginald George | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Clayton, G. C. | Forrest, W. |
| Balniel, Lord | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Foster, Sir Harry S. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Frece, Sir Walter de |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony |
| Berry, Sir George | Cooper, A. Duff | Gates, Percy |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cope, Major William | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Gee, Captain R. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Goff, Sir Park |
| Brass, Captain W. | Crooke, I. Smedley (Deritend) | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Gretton, Colonel John |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Dalziel, Sir Davison | Grotrian, H. Brent |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hammersley, S. S. |
| Burman, J. B. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Harland, A. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Dawson, Sir Philip | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Cassels, J. D. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Merriman, F. B. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Moles, Thomas | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Homan, C. W. J. | Murchison, C. K. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Neville, R. J. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Nicholson, Col. R. J. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Oakley, T. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Huntingfield, Lord | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. | Pilcher, G. | Waddington, R. |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Preston, William | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Price, Major C. W. M. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Kindersley, Major G. M. | Radford, E. A. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| King, Capt. Henry Douglas | Raine, W. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Ramsden, E. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper | Wells, S. R. |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | While Lieut.-Colonel G. Calrymple |
| Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip | Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Remer, J. R. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Remnant, Sir James | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Loder, J. de V. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Looker, Herbert William | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Lougher, L. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Ropner, Major L. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| MacAndrew, Charles Glen | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Rye, F. G. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| MacIntyre, Ian | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| McLean, Major A. | Sandon, Lord | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Savery, S. S. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R. Sowerby) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Shepperson, E. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast) | Major Sir H. Barnston and Major |
| Margesson, Captain D. | Skelton, A. N. | Hennessy. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gillett, George M. | Lunn, William |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gosling, Harry | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) |
| Baker, Walter | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Mackinder, W. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Barr, J. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
| Batey, Joseph | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | March, S. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Groves, T. | Maxton, James |
| Briant, Frank | Grundy, T. W. | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) |
| Broad, F. A. | Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Montague, Frederick |
| Bromfield, William | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Morris, R. H. |
| Bromley, J. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Owen, Major G. |
| Buchanan, G. | Hardie, George D. | Paling, W. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Hastings, Sir Patrick | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Heyday, Arthur | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Clowes, S. | Hayes, John Henry | Potts, John S. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Ritson, J. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hirst, G. H. | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) |
| Connolly, M. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Scurr, John |
| Crawford, H. E. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sexton, James |
| Dalton, Hugh | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Kelly, W. T. | Smillie, Robert |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kennedy, T. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Duncan, C. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Snell, Harry |
| Dunnico, H. | Kirkwood, D. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lansbury, George | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Lawson, John James | Stamford, T. W. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Livingstone, A. M. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Lowth, T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Taylor, R. A. | Wallhead, Richard C. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Windsor, Walter |
| Thurtle, E. | Westwood, J. | Wright, W. |
| Tinker, John Joseph | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. | |
| Townend, A. E. | Whiteley, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Varley, Frank B. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. | Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A. Barnes. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £66,400, be granted for the said Service."
960§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 248.
961| Division No.7.] | AYES. | [8.24 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Ritson, J. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Baker, Walter | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hardie, George D. | Scurr, John |
| Barr, J. | Hastings, Sir Patrick | Sexton, James |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayday, Arthur | Shilels, Dr. Dummond |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hayes, John Henry | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Briant, Frank | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Smillie, Robert |
| Broad, F. A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Bromfield, William | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromley, J. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Snell, Harry |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Buchanan, G. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Clowes, S. | Kelly, W. T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.) |
| Collins, Sir. Godfrey (Greenock) | Kirkwood, D. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Connolly, M. | Lansbury, George | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lawson, John James | Thurtle, E. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Livingstone, A. M. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Lunn, William | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Duncan, C. | Mackinder, W. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Dunnico, H. | Maclean, Neil (Glsagow, Govan) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelty) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.- Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | March, S. | Westwood, J. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Maxton, James | Wheatly, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) | Whiteley, W. |
| Gillett, George M. | Montague, Frederick | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gosling, Harry | Morris, R. H. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Owen, Major G. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Paling, W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wright, W. |
| Groves, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A. |
| Barnes. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Chapman, Sir S. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Brass, Captain W. | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Briggs, J. Harold | Christie, J. A. |
| Albery, Irving James | Briscoe, Richard George | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Clarry, Reginald George |
| Apsley, Lord | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Clayton, G. C. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Atkinson, C. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Burman, J. B. | Conway, Sir W. Martin |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Cooper, A. Duff |
| Balniel, Lord | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Cope, Major William |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Cowan, Sir Wm, Henry (Islingtn. N.) |
| Barnett, Major Sir R. | Campbell, E. T. | Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Cassels, J. D. | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Berry, Sir George | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Dalziel, Sir Davison | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Jephcott, A. R. | Rye, F. G. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sandon, Lord |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Savery, S. S. |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Lamb, J. Q. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) |
| England, Colonel A. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Loder, J. de V. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Looker, Herbert William | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lougher, L. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Smithers, Waldron |
| Finburgh, S. | MacAndrew, Charles Glen | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Forrest, W. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | MacIntyre, Ian | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | McLean, Major A. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Macmillan, Captain H. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Gates, Percy | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Macquisten, F. A. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Gee, Captain R. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Margesson, Captain D. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Goff, Sir Park | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Merriman, F. B. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Moles, Thomas | Waddington, R. |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Murchison, C. K. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Harland, A. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Neville, R. J. | Wells, S. R. |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Oakley, T. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Pilcher, G. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Preston, William | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Price, Major C. W. M. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Holt, Capt. H. P. | Radford, E. A. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Homan, C. W. J. | Raine, W. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Ramsden, E. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Remer, J. R. | |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n) | Remnant, Sir James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Huntingfield, Lord | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Major Hennessy and Captain |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Bowyer. |
§ Original Question put accordingly.
§ The Committee proceeded to a Divition—
§ Mr. LANSBURY (seated and covered); I wish to raise a point of Order. I was on my feet at least three times, and 962 addressed you in order to ask you a question. In the noise and confusion, no one knows what Question has been put.
§ The CHAIRMANI would refer the hon. Member to Standing Order No. 26, where the procedure is set forth.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 114.
965| Division No. 8.] | AYES. | [8.33 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Frece, Sir Walter de | Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Neville, R. J. |
| Albery, Irving James | Gates, Percy | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Apsley, Lord | Gee, Captain R. | Oakley, T. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W. | Gibbs, Col, Rt. Hon. George Abraham | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Atkinson, C. | Goff, Sir Park | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gower, Sir Robert | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gratan-Doyle, Sir N. | Pilcher, G. |
| Balniel, Lord | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gretton, Colonel John | Preston, William |
| Barnett, Major Sir R. | Gortrian, H. Brent | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Radford, E. A. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Raine, W. |
| Berry, Sir George | Hammersley, S. S. | Ramsden, E. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R. Skipton) | Harland, A. | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Harvey, G. (Lambeth Kennington) | Remer, J. R. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Haslam, Henry C. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar.& Wh'by) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Rye, F. G. |
| Burman, J. B. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Hohler, Sir General Fitzroy | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Holland, Sir Arthur | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Holt, Captain H. P. | Sandon, Lord |
| Campbell, E. T. | Homan, C. W. J. | Savery, S. S. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R. Sowerby) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackeny, N.) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Huntingfield, Lord | Simith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hurd, Percy A. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Christie, J. A. | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Churchamn, Sir Arthur C. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Clarry, Regianld George | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Clayton, G. C. | Jephcott, A. R. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Cochrane, Commamder Hon. A. D. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Stott, Lieut-Colonel W. H. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Kinlock-Cooke, Sir Clement | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Knox, Sir Alfred | Templeton, W. P. |
| Cope, Major William | Lamb, J. Q. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.) | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Croft, Brigadier-Genaral Sir H. | Loder, J. de. V. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Looker, Herbert William | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de. W. (Berwick) | Lougher, L. | Waddington, R. |
| Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Dalziel, Sir Davison | MacAndrew, Charles Glen | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Waston, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | MacIntyre, Ian | Wells, S. R. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | McLean, Major A. | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Macmillan, Captain H. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Macquisten, F. A. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| England, Colonel A. | Margesson, Captain D. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Marrlott, Sir J. A. R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Merriman, F. B. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Meyer, Sir Frank. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Moles, Thomas | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Finburgh, S. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Forrest, W. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Murchison, C. K. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardie, George D. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hastings, Sir Patrick | Scurr, John |
| Baker, Walter | Hayday, Arthur | Sexton, James |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayes, John Henry | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smillie, Robert |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromfield, William | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Snell, Harry |
| Bromley, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, T. I. Mandy (Pontypridd) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kelly, W. T. | Stewart, J. (St. Roliox) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Clowes, S. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kirkwood, D. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Lansbury, George | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Connolly, M. | Lawson, John James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Livingstone, A. M. | Thurtle, E. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lowth, T. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Lunn, William | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Duncan, C. | Mackinder, W. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Dunnico, H. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Fenby, T. D. | March, S. | Westwood, J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Maxton, James | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gillett, George M. | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) | Whiteley, W. |
| Gosling, Harry | Montague, Frederick | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Morris, R. H. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Owen, Major G. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Paling, W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Groves, T. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Windsor, Walter |
| Grundy, T. W. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wright, W. |
| Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Potts, John S. | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith. |
§ It being after a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)resumed the Chair.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMr. Deputy-Speaker, I wish to ask you whether an hon. Member of this House is not entitled to be treated with courtesy by the Chairman of Committees. I am a Member of this House, and I am entitled to ask you that question. I am entitled to be treated with courtesy by the Chairman or the Speaker. I rise now to ask you what it was that the hon. Member in charge of the Vote moved. In the most discourteous manner you treated me with perfect contempt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I do not intend to submit to it from you or anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Every Member of this House has a right to be treated with courtesy and decency both by you or by anybody else in the Chair. I protest against your contemptuous treatment of Members.
§ Mr. N. MACLEANOn a further point of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to ask you under what Standing Order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order!"]—you accepted the Motion to put the Resolution to the House while at the same time ignoring the hon. Member who rose? I rose and wished to carry on the discussion and to suggest carrying over the Debate. What Standing Order was it under which you acted?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe House has now resumed, and any exception taken to the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or any other occupant of the Chair for the time being, may be raised at the proper place and time.
§ Mr. WALLHEADWhen is that?
§ Mr. MACLEANOn a further point of Order. While this House has again resumed as a House, out of Committee of Ways and Means, it still remains that it is the same personality who is occupying the Speaker's Chair who acted as Chairman during the previous discussion. You gave the ruling that was given. I 967 am surely in order in asking you to inform the House under what Standing Order you gave, your ruling?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERNo, the hon. Member is not so in Order. He can raise the point by formal Motion, but it is not in order, now that the House has resumed, to raise the question of the validity of the ruling of the Chairman of Committee.
§ Mr. WALLHEADWhat we want to know is whether the Deputy-Chairman is going to offer courtesy to Members of this House.
§ Mr. MACLEANOn a point Order. I want to know under what Standing Order you give the ruling that you now give. I am asking for that Standing Order to be quoted to the House.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe practice of the House is, and Mr. Speaker's ruling is that it is not his duty to give any ruling as to what has passed in Committee.
§ Mr. MACLEANI want to know under what Standing Order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is now long past the time at which the Motion, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the University of London (Dr. Little), should have been taken—
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat is your fault. There would have been no Division but for you.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt will be perfectly in order for the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to put down a Motion on the subject, but it is not in order for him to resume the subject now—
§ Mr. MACLEANI am resuming it now, as soon as you sit down.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER—and the matter can then be argued on its merits. But he is not now in order in raising any point of Order on what happened in Committee.
§ Mr. MACLEANI am asking you to quote the Standing Order. [HON. MEM- 968 BERS "Order!"] I am asking you to quote the Standing Order under which you gave that ruling.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is not in Order for the hon. Member to do so now.
§ Mr. MACLEANI am resuming again when you resume your seat.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERDr. Little.
§ Mr. MACLEANI am arguing on a point of Order.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member must resume his scat. Dr. Little.