Commons Sitting of 27 March 1928

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following]Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Petitions for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for additional Provision in the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords].
London and South Western Railway Bill [Lords].
Macclesfield Corporation Bill[Lords].
Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

NEW WRIT
for the County of Salop (Ludlow Division), in the room of IVOR MILES WINDSOR-CLIVE (commonly called Viscount Windsor), now Earl of Plymouth, called up to the House of Peers.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

    EXPORT LICENCES (COLOGNE).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any pressure is being brought upon export merchants in Cologne to obtain French licences for export, although these licences arc not recognised by the German Government?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I am not aware of any pressure being exercised on merchants, but British firms desiring to obtain facilities for export. from the occupied territory are advised as to the method of obtaining licences, and the representatives of the British Government are always ready to give them any assistance possible to obtain such licences.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are they advised to apply for licences?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, certainly.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In spite of the fact that it is against the orders of the Germans?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Certainly.

    BRITISH GOODS(CUSTOMS DUTY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the disposal of the money collected by the French customs posts as duty on British goods entering the occupied area in the Ruhr has been decided upon; if so, what is the decision; and whether: His Majesty's Government has been consulted and has consented?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the remaining two parts do not, therefore, arise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Government made any representation on this matter?
    Mr. BALDWIN: This matter is being discussed at this present moment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When is it expected that there will be some information on this very important question?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Soon, I hope.
    Captain W. BENN: Do not the Government recognise that we have an interest in these sums which are being exacted from our own traders?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    DYESTUFFS.
    Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Laing and Company, of Wellclose Square, applied to the Dyestuffs Advisory Committee, on 17th January last, for a licence to import from Germany 2 cwt. of a- dye known as Blue De Lyon O; that permission was granted on 27th February to import 20 lbs. only; and that, on further representations from the firm, a licence was granted for an additional 36 lbs. of that dye on 7th March; whether there is any reason why the firm should be refused permission to import the balance of 1 cwt. which they still require; and whether he will take steps to prevent such unreasonable delay and consequent interference with trade in the future?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The original application was not made by the firm named, but by an importer of German dyestuffs. It subsequently appeared that the only consumer concerned were Messrs. Laing, who informed the Committee direct- that their present requirements were 56 lbs. They were allowed 20 lbs. whilst inquiries were being made as to possible British equivalents, and later the quantity was increased to the full amount required by them.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Were inquiries made from the firm as to the amount of their trade and why they required so much?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: What happened was this: The firm of importers said that 2 cwt. was required by the manufacturing firm, but the manufacturing firm said that they did not require 2 cwt. but 56 1bs.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Why should the Committee go behind the application and find out who the consumer was?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In order to carry out the Act as Parliament intended.
    Mr. HANNON: Are these dyestuffs not available for purchase in this country?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There are now some experiments being conducted and we shall probably know the result in a very short time.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Was there any British dye that was at all like De-Lyon O and would have stood the treatment with ammonia equally well?
    3. The hon. Member asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that benzoic acid, B.P., a chemical not manufactured in this country. is protected by the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act. and that that chemical is required to manufacture-sodium benzoate, a substance dutiable under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and whether, in view of the difficulty of import. which is caused by the Dyestuffs (Import. Regulation) Act in the case of benzoic acid and the consequent handicap on the manufacture of sodium benzoate, he can see his way to remove the former from the operation of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act and so to encourage the manufacture of sodium benzoate, which is regarded as a key industry?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Benzoic acid is an organic intermediate, and as such is within the scope of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act. I have no power to exempt any particular product from the operation of that Act, but licences are granted for the importation of such quantities of benzoic acid as are shown to be required for purposes other than dye-manufacture.
    Mr. SIMPSON: Was it a fact that it took so long to get the licence that the importer was forced to purchase sodium benzoate from Germany rather than wait?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Obviously, I cannot tell about a particular case without. notice, but I know that the great majority of cases are dealt with in a few days.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that where it is found that a commodity has been included by mistake and is never manufactured in this country, it is impossible to get the Act amended?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. and gallant Member knows, I think, that the Dyestuffs Regulation Act prohibits the import of any dye without licence. Where the article cannot be procured in this country the licence is always given.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But there is a long delay?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No.
    Mr. F. GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that last year Germany imported from this country 6·50 per cent. and Switzerland 12·21 per cent. of the total cotton greys exported from this country as compared with 1·53 per cent. and 3·23 per cent., respectively, of the total exported in 1013, and that the percentage of total goods exported as prints has fallen from 17·39 per cent. in 1913 to 12·98 per cent. in 1922; and whether, in view of these facts, he will take steps to secure the early repeal of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Major ATTLEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the manner in which the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee exercises its functions; whether he is aware that the Committee withholds its consent to the importation of foreign dyestuffs by demanding samples, and asking importers for the reasons why their clients cannot meet their requirements from certain British firms; and if he will state whether the Committee in making such demands are acting under the instructions of his Department?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am unable to accept the suggestion made in the first part of the question, and, on the contrary, I am satisfied that the Committee commands the confidence of consumers generally. As regards the remainder of
    226
    the question, the Committee have thought it desirable to call for certain information to enable them to give proper consideration to applications for licences.
    Major ATTLEE: How is an importer to supply a sample of a dye when he is not allowed to import it and has not it in his possession?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As this Committee is run by practical business men and contains a majority of colour users, I am perfectly satisfied that they conduct their business in a thoroughly practical way.
    Major ATTLEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the first part of my question, in which I refer to the thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which this Committee exercises its functions?
    Mr. GRAYfurther asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the sole representative in Spain of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, is offering for sale reparation dyestuffs; if so, can he state whether such reparation dyes are sold by the corporation to their Spanish agents at the same price as to British firms; whether they are sold on behalf of the corporation's reparation agency or whether they are sold on behalf of their business as makers of dyestuffs; whether he is prepared to order an inspection of the corporation's books to ascertain the facts; and, in the event of it being found that the corporation, who, under their agreement with the Government, are prohibited from selling these reparation dyes for their own account, are disregarding this condition of the agency, is he prepared to place the agency in other hands?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am informed by the British Dyestuffs Corporation that no reparation dyestuffs whatever have been supplied by them to their representative in Spain, whether for sale on their own account or on Government account, and that no reparation dyestuffs have been sold by them in any other way in that. country.

    CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA BILL.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the promised legislation relating to carriage of goods by sea, fol-

    227
    lowing upon the agreement which has been arrived at between trading and shippers' organisations?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A Bill to give effect to the rules recommended by the Brussels International Conference on the subject of the carriage of goods by sea was introduced in the House of Lords yesterday.
    Mr. HANNON: Would the right hon. Gentleman accelerate the Bill in every way possible, as he knows the anxiety among the trading and shipping community about it?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes; I gave an undertaking that the Bill would be introduced in another place as rapidly as possible, and that was done yesterday, as that is the most rapid way when business is congested here.

    STEEL PENS (UNITED STATES TARIFF).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that. the tariff on British-made steel pens imported into the United States of America has recently increased by 50 per cent., and the duty now amounts to 12 cents per box: and whether, seeing that this duty in effect closes to British pen-makers a large former market, he will consider the imposition of a reciprocal tariff on American pens which are at present imported into this country duty-free?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, a differential duty on American pens would be a breach of the Convention of Commerce of 1815 beween this country and the United States of America.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any way by which the pen-makers of this country can be protected against this unfair competition?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think that by question and answer I can discuss the whole tariff question.

    MOTOR-CARS (IMPORTS).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the total value of motor-cars, and parts of motor-cars, that. have been
    228
    imported into this country during the current financial year; can he state the number of motor-cars that were imported: of these, how many were imported as chassis only; and how many as fully-equipped motor-cars?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    It will not be possible to give particulars regarding imports of motor-cars into the United Kingdom in the complete year ending 31st March, 1923, until about the middle of April. I am, accordingly, giving particulars for the 12 Months ended 28th February, 1023, as follows:

    Quantity and declared value of imports registered during the 12 Months ending 28th February, 1923.

    Motor-cars, etc:

    Number.

    £

    Motor touring cars (including cabs)

    15,713

    2,692,796

    Commercial vehicles (including motor omnibuses, motor fire engines, and motor ambulances)

    1,104

    206,340

    Chassis for motor cars

    9,460

    1,549,439

    Other parts of motor-cars (excluding rubber tyres and tubes not imported with complete motor-cars)

    Cannot be stated.

    1,843,775

    EN-ENEMY SHIPS (SALE).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to furnish information on the sale and price of ex-enemy and other vessels disposed of by the Ministry of Shipping, and the firms to whom such vessels were sold?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The information as to the ex-enemy reparation ships for which the hon. Member asked on 11th December is now ready and is being laid on the Table. The hon. Member now asks for corresponding information about all the other ships sold by the Ministry of Shipping, that is, the standard ships, the ships that. were partly completed at

    229
    the Armistice, and prizes, a total of over 700 ships, and the preparation of a detailed. return would involve a very considerable amount of labour and expense, which I do not think would he justified. All the accounts and papers relating to these transactions are examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman place the Papers on the Table immediately, that is, before the Recess: and, secondly, is the information asked for with regard to ships other than ex-enemy vessels being withheld because the Board of Trade., in the interests of the shipowners, do not think it desirable to give it?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir; certainly not. The return which I have said would lay on the Table will he laid—I think it is ready now--before the House rises. There is no possible suggestion that I am holding bark anything in the interests of any shipowners. I am taking this decision in the interests of the public.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it possible for Members of this House to obtain any information with regard to the transactions of the Liquidation Commission so far as vessels are concerned?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir. But I think it would be utterly unreasonable that. a very large expense should he involved in giving information about accounts which have been checked in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and have been before. the Public Accounts Committee.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (APPRENTICES).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the need for revision of the apprentice system in the mercantile marine. both from the view of the boy himself and of his parents; that the parent has in most instances to pay a premium of up to £50 in order that the boy may serve a term of engagement of three or four years for a total remuneration of about £40; that the apprentice is supposed to be taken in hand by one of the senior officers and thoroughly grounded in seamanship and navigation;
    230
    and that in many cases this is not done, and the apprentice is kept cleaning brass and shifting coals for excessive hours and given no chance of acquiring the knowledge which will allow him to pass his examination as second mate; and whether stricter supervision can be exercised by his Department to see that such practices are put an end to, and that the apprentice receives value for the premium his parents pay?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware that complaints have been made against the system of apprenticeship in the mercantile marine on the lines indicated in the question, but I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Consett Division, on 7th March, dealing with this matter.

    GAS PRICES, MITCITAM.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a request from the Mitcham Urban District Council that an inquiry shall be held into the standard price of gas in that area; the date such request was received; whether an answer has been sent, and, if so, when; and, if an answer has not been sent, when one will be sent?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir; the request, was received on the 25th January. It has been found necessary to frame rules governing the procedure in regard to applications of this nature under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. These rules will be ready almost immediately, and as soon as they are ready the council will be given the opportunity of proceeding with their application.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

    AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE.
    Mr. J. H. SIMPSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the chemical commercially known as ammonium phosphate is used exclusively for the purpose of fireproofing timber by the Timber Fireproofing Company; whether, in view of this fact, ammonium phosphate. was removed from the list of chemicals protected by the Safeguarding of Industries Act; whether it has recently been ascertained that this

    231
    chemical, though commercially known and dealt in as ammonium phosphate, is, in fact, ammonium hi-phosphate, which is liable to duty under the Act; and whether, in view of the fact that, owing to the consequent enhancement in the cost of this material, the Timber Fireproofing Company may have to cease manufacture, he can see his way to removing ammonium bi-phosphate from the list of chemicals to which the Schedule of the Safeguarding of Industries Act applies?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not accept the suggestion that the material largely used for fire-proofing purposes is generally known in commerce as ammonium phosphate. The ordinary grades of ammonium phosphate were removed from the dutiable list in consequence of certain expressions of opinion by the Referee in cases under Section 1 (5) of the Act, and not for the reason suggested by the hon. Member. No complaint as to the inclusion of ammonium hi-phosphate was received within the period prescribed by the Act, and I have no power to remove from the list articles properly covered by the Schedule heading. I may add that since the passing of the Act a large British production has become available, and. the price is now substantially less than it was when there was no British manufacture.

    LAMP CARBONS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pre-dent of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the vast majority of exhibitors in this country prefer to pay more for imported carbons: whether he can state what is the object in confining inquiries to the Home section of the carbon trade;
    (2) what investigations arc being made by his Department in respect to the importation of carbons; why in the Circular issued by the Industry and Trade Department a special point is made of carbons and on whose request the inquiries are being made, and why the Circular is confined to a limited number of companies; and whether any of the large societies representing the users of carbons have been approached?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Inquiries are being made as to the position and progress in this country of all the industries
    232
    covered by Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, including are lamp carbons; and as part of these inquiries the views of representative users of both British and foreign carbons are being sought.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he can state how much duty has been received on carbon importations for the year 1922 under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and what has been the cost of collection?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): The duty received in respect of imported are lamp carbons during the year 1922 under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act amounted to £5,170. The cost of collection cannot be stated.

  HOUSING.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, having regard to the danger of the prices of building materials being increased by trusts and combines in view of the Governments subsidy to houses, he will consider the possibility of counteracting such a move by means of a costings system and full publicity of all in ice movements and trade agreements:
    (2) whether he is aware that the original rules of the Light Castings Association definitely stated that one of its objects was to raise and keep up prices against the buyers by pooling arrangements which so controlled production as to keep it just below the demand; and what steps he proposes to take to circumvent, such a policy at the present time, which would inevitably raise the price of houses that the Government propose to subsidise?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I would rfeer the hon. Member to the answers given by the Minister of Health yesterday to the hon. Members for Derby and Batley and Morley.
    Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of the answer given yesterday by the Minister of Health, who stated that this Committee was making only a survey, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it

    233
    is time that. something more was done, and will he not give publicity to the findings of that survey?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is precisely in order that publicity and accurate information should be available to the public that this Committee was set up.

    GAS SUPPLY, THORNLIEBANK.
    Mr. NICHOLasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that the tenants of the houses erected by the Renfrewshire County Council at Jenny Lind. Thornlie-bank, are stilt without a supply of gas although they have been in occupation for more than nine months of houses designed for the exclusive use of gas for lighting, cooking, and washing; and what steps he is prepared to take to secure a proper supply of gas?
    Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under Secretary for Health, Scotland): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, my hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties which have been encountered in this case and of the steps which have been taken to overcome them. I have reason to anticipate that the matter will he satisfactorily adjusted at an early date.
    Mr. NICHOL: As I got precisely the same answer four months ago, can my hon. and gallant Friend give the House any guarantee that this very minor dispute between his Department and the local authorities will be settled within the next five years?
    Captain ELLIOT: Four months ago I did not give the answer, But I can tell the bon. Member that I am perfectly prepared to guarantee that it will not be five, years before this question is settled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will it be four? "]

    RENFREW.
    Mr. NICHOLasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware of the fact that, owing to the large decreases in wages during the past two years, many of the tenants in the housing schemes in the burgh of Renfrew, the majority of whom are ex-service men, will be forced to vacate their houses on account of the high rentals
    234
    insisted upon by the Scottish Board A Health; and if he is prepared to fix the rentals for the coming year on the scale suggested by the Renfrew Town Council Housing Committee?
    Captain ELLIOT: Representations on the lines stated have been made by the town council to the Scottish Board of Health. Having regard to the rules laid down in the Financial Assistance to Local Authorities Regulations for the determination of rents, the Board are not prepared to agree to any reduction on the rents fixed by the Rents Tribunal or on the, other rents approved by the Board on the basis of the rents fixed by the tribunal. If the town council are dissatisfied with the Board's dicision it is open to them to appeal against it to the tribunal.

    STORNOWAY.
    Mr. MACNEILL WEIRasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that. a number of men who are unable to obtain accommodation in Stornoway for themselves and their families, and who were not put in possession of small holdings, have, since the summer of 1921, been occupying, with their families, huts erected by them on the barren moorlands a few miles from the town; that the said moorland is now claimed to be part of the common grazings, and that the corner of it taken up by the huts is of little or no value, and had not been used by the adjacent. crofters: that legal proceedings have been taken in the local Sheriff Court for the removal, or ejection, or eviction of these men and their families from the said huts, although no other shelter is available for them; whether the company that claims to own the Lews, and of which Lord Leverhulme is chief director, is a party to these proceedings: whether the Board of Agriculture has power to acquire part of this moorland as sites for houses: whether the Board has been approached on the subject: and whether it intends to use its powers in time to provide for the occupants of the huts above referred to?
    Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend is informed that land at Marybank on the Coulregein Common grazings was occupied in 1921 in the manner stated in the first part of the question. He understands that legal proceedings in the

    235
    Sheriff Court have been taken by the proprietors. The Board of Agriculture have certain powers under Section 14 of the Land Settlement Act, 1919, to apply to the Land Court for the apportionment of common grazing land as sites for houses. The Board have been approached on the subject, and have found that the land on which the huts stand is unsuitable for housing sites owing to insufficient drainage. The Board are making inquiry as to the possibility of suitable alternative ground being available.

    FARM WORKERS, SCOTTAND.
    Mr. FALCONERasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health how many houses have been provided for farm workers in Scotland, either by local authorities under The Housing and Town Planning (Scotland) Act. 1919, or under the private builders' subsidy scheme?
    Captain ELLIOT: I regret that I am unable to give the information asked for by the hon. Member. Under The Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, a number of houses have been built in rural areas with State assistance under schemes prepared by Scottish local authorities, but these schemes have reference to the housing of the working classes generally and do not distinguish between the different occupations of workers for whom the houses were erected. As I stated in reply to the question addressed to me by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife on 20th March, houses have been provided for farm workers under the private builders' subsidy scheme, but information as to the number is not available.
    Mr. FALCONER: Will my hon. and gallant Friend inform me whether any buildings have been provided for farm-workers in Scotland under any other Acts?
    Captain ELLIOT: Oh, yes; buildings have certainly been provided for farm workers, as I know from my own knowledge.

    SEA-WALL DEFENCE (HOLME CULTRAM).
    Mr. COL.LISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is
    236
    aware of the fact that the Holme Cultram Urban Council of Cumberland are compelled to impose a rate of 1s. 1·d annually for sea-wall defence, and whether, having regard to the fact that this is a national service, he will consider the question of making it a national charge?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I had not previously heard of the rate referred to in the question. The general question was fully considered by a Royal Coin-mission which reported in 1911 very definitely against placing the burden on the Exchequer, pointing out that such a course might easily lead to an enormous expenditure. from public funds, and I ant not prepared to reopen the question.

  IRAQ.

    IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President, of the Board of Trade what was the value of the imports and exports of Mesopotamia for the years 1920 and 1921, exclusive of military and railway goods; and what was the proportion of that trade handled by British subjects, British banking, shipping. and insurance companies?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer contains a number of figures, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The aggregate values of the imports into and exports front Iraq, exclusive of stores imported by the military authorities or the Government., were as follows:

    1920.

    1921.

    Rupees.

    Rupees.

    Imports

    232,750,215

    205,639,235

    Exports

    95,347,768

    98,347,912

    In addition, bullion and specie to the value of 8,459,389 rupees in 1920 and 74,334,555 rupees in 1921 were exported.
    I am unable to furnish information regarding the classes or nationalities of the agents engaged in conducting this trade.

    WOOL (GOVERNMENT STOCKS).
    Captain THORPEasked the President of the Board of Trade what quan-

    237
    tity of wool, if any, is being held under the control of the Government; and is it proposed to realise such stocks at once or to hold indefinitely?
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the, quantity of wool belonging to His Majesty's (government still in the hands of the British-Australian Wool Realisation Association or its successor, and what is the estimated value of such wool; is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to realise at market prices; or do they intend to hold it with a view of realising at higher prices?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The total quantity of wool now belonging to His Majesty's Government amounts to approximately 520,000 bales, the present market value of which is estimated at £10,500,000. It is proposed to continue the present policy of realising the wool systematically in regular monthly instalments, finishing in February, 1924.

    WA R CHARGES (VALIDITY) BILL.
    Mr. FALCONERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange to have a memorandum published setting forth particulars regarding the claims against the Government to which the War Charges (Validity) Bill is intended to apply?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir, I shall be glad to have a memorandum prepared and published.

    ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS (FISHINGI INDUSTRY).
    Colonel Sir C. BURNasked the President of the Board of Trade when there is any likelihood of compensation being received by those fishermen whose boats where sunk by enemy action during the great War; and is he aware that great distress prevails at Brixham, which is dependent on the fishing industry, and that claims have been sent in to the Reparation Department without even an acknowledgment being received by the senders?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer is rather long, and, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Until recently, the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action have been engaged in consideration of claims iii respect of loss of life, injury to health, maltreatment during internment, and loss of personal effects at sea, in respect of which their first Report has recently been published. The Commission are now proceeding with the consideration of claims in respect of loss of, or damage to, property. including claims in respect of fishing boats. The property claims are very numerous and complex, and their investigation must take some further time. It will not be possible to make any payments of compensation in respect of property until the Commission have presented their report upon them. I understand that some distress exists at Brixham. Since the publication of the first Report of the Commission, the Reparation Claims Department. has been receiving as many as 1,000 letters a day from claimants, and the staff of that Department have found it impossible to deal promptly with all of them.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LONG-SERVICE PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
    Sir THOMAS HENDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that great hardship is caused to widows of long-service Army pensioners whose husbands elected to receive their pensions on discharge in periodic payments rather than in a lump sum, and died within a short period leaving their families without. means of support; and whether, in view of these circumstances, in order to tide them over a difficult period, he will agree to pay to the widows of men who die within 12 months of their discharge a reasonable percentage of the amount which the men would have received bad they elected to take a lump sum?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that a soldier who is entitled on discharge to a long service pension can elect to receive a lump sum in lieu thereof. In certain circumstances permission may be granted to a pensioner to commute a certain portion of his pension, subject to his passing a satisfactory medical examination, but

    239
    this could not be held to entitle the widow of a pensioner to claim a lump sum after the death of her husband for a pension which, had he lived, might have been commuted.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (ACCIDENT COMPENSATION).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Mr. George Stevens, who was working at the Woolwich Arsenal, met with a serious accident on 25th July, 1921; that he was receiving £3 14s. per week until 28th November, 1921; and that his compensation was reduced down to 8s. 5d. per week; and, seeing that this is a violation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as the man should receive at least £1 15s. in accordance with the Act, will he take action in the matter?
    Mr. GWYNNE: I am inquiring into this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING (HALDANE COMMITTEE).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give the names of the members of Lord Haldane's Committee considering the question of the entry and early training of officers for the Army; what the terms of reference to this Committee are and will the Government, before giving effect to any of its recommendations, afford the House of Commons an opportunity of considering the Report of the Haldane Committee as a whole?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the list of members in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The terms of references are:
    " To inquire into the system of entering officers for the combatant branches of the Army and their early training, and to consider how greater economy or efficiency might be obtained."
    With regard to the last part of the question, my Noble Friend will be prepared, when he has received the Committee's Report, to consider the question of its publication.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the Report will be published?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I have no information.
    Following is the list of tilt: Committee:
    Chairman.
    Right Hon. the Viscount Haldane., K.T., O.M.
    Members,
    Major-General Sir W. Hastings-Anderson.*
    Major A. Boyd-Carpenter, M.P.*
    Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Campion, D.S.O., J. P., M.P.
    Lieut.-General Sir J. P. du Cane. K.C.B. (Master-General of the Ordnance). Major-General C. F. Romer, C.B., C.M.G. (Director of Staff Duties).
    Mr Will Spens, C.B.E., M.A.
    Secretary.
    M. A. R. McBain, O.B.E.
    *Sir W. Hastings-Anderson ceased to be a member on appointment as Major-General on the Staff at Constantinople, and Major Boyd-Carpenter also relinquished his membership on appointment as Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    FIELD PUNISHMENT No. 1 (ABOLITION).
    Lieut.- Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to take any steps to amend the rules of field punishment so as to render it no longer permissible to inflict what is known as Field Punishment No. 1?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Yes, Sir; the Army Council after careful consideration have decided to abolish Field Punishment No. 1, and steps will be taken to lay the necessary amended rules on the Table of the House. in due. course.

    MEAT SUPPLY.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, with a view to supplying the British Army with home-produced meat., he will consider the practicability of instituting a system of slaughter under Army directions, seeing that this would save the expenses of the middleman and thus reduce the cost of British meat to that now paid?
    Mr. GWYNNE: The comparative cost of purchasing dead meat, and of purchasing cattle for slaughter in Army abattoirs, was investigated some years ago, and it

    241
    was found that the latter plan, which, in any case, would only be administratively practicable at a few large stations, was the more costly.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY.

    CLOTHING.
    Major HAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, in view of the facts that on the reforming of the Territorial Army men were allowed to enlist for periods of less than four years, that, clothing issued to the Territorial Army can only be replaced in four-year cycles, and that recruits who enlist in the place of men time-expired under four years from enlistment have had to take over part-worn clothing from their predecessors, and of the effect on recruiting of requiring a keen young recruit to use some other mans part-worn pantaloons or trousers and boots, if he will authorise additional issues of the above-named articles, in a new condition, in order that they may be issued to recruits?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Clothing is provided free initially by the War Office at the rate of two suits for each man added to the strength, up to the limit of the establishment in each county; and its upkeep and replacement is provided for in the shape of cash grants for each man. calculated on a four years' life of the garments, out of which grant the Association purchases from Army Store as and when required. There is no replacement at fixed intervals. Apart from the special enlistments mentioned in the question, numbers of men have always left the Force with more or less than four years' service, and the practice of reissuing clothing which after being worn has been properly cleaned and reconditioned has been general. It is not proposed to interfere with the discretion of associations in this matter, or to authorise additional issues.

  IRELAND.

    BRITISH TROOPS.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any British troops are at present stationed in Ireland; and, if so, in what numbers and for what purpose?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: There are about 5,500 troops in Ireland at present. The purpose for which they are retained is, as in Great Britain, to make use of the military accommodation available and to discharge appropriate military functions.
    Mr. McENTEE: Can the hon. and gallant. Gentleman inform us when it is proposed to withdraw all troops from Ireland?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It was never proposed to withdraw all troops from Ireland.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Are there any troops there other than those in Northern Ireland?
    Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: We have also garrisons at Berehaven, Lough Swilly and Queenstown.
    Major ATTLEE: What arc the "appropriate functions "of British troops in Ireland?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it the custom of the Government to maintain British troops in British Dominions?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Ulster is not a British Dominion.

    WINES AND SPIRITS DUTIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to allow dutiable goods such as old wines and spirits, on which duty has already been paid before the Customs' barrier was set up, to be admitted to this country or to Northern Ireland without a further duty if a certificate was obtained from a magistrate that such goods had already paid duty once?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) on the 20th March. There is no power in law to exempt these goods from import duty if they arrive in Great Britain or Northern Ireland from the Irish Free State after midnight on the 31st March.

    LAND STOCK.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the amount of money

    243
    to be found this year by the British taxpayer to meet the interest on the various classes of Irish land stock which was formerly met by the annuities paid by those who had purchased their farms under various Land Acts, but which annuities, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, were handed over as a free gift to the Governments of Northern and Southern Ireland; and does this estimate include the interest on the moneys advanced to Irish local authorities for the erection of labourers' cottages?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Under Section 26 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, an amount estimated at £658,000 in 1923–24 is payable from the British Exchequer to the Irish Land Purchase Fund in respect of the land purchase annuities payable in respect of land situate in Northern Ireland which are now retained by the Government of Northern Ireland under that section. This amount includes the amount of the annuities pay-al- le under the Labourers Act. As regards the Free State, these arrangements were repealed by Section 1 of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922, and the amount of the annuities payable in respect of land situate in the Free State will still be applicable to meet the interest charges on Irish Land Stock.

    DEPORTEES.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make inquiries from the authorities of the Irish Free State as to whether Mr. Gilbert Francis Barrington, a British subject whose home is in 90, Mowbray Road, South Shields, who was arrested on 26th February in Ireland and has been lying since in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, without trial, can be allowed to see a solicitor and his brother, who have so far been refused access to him?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I regret that I am not yet in a position to reply to this question. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member will put it down again for Thursday.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received from the deportees in Mountjoy Prison a statement of their case and a request that
    244
    they be put on trial on a definite charge; and whether he will read their statement to the House and indicate what reply he has made?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): I would refer to the reply which I gave yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Battersea North (Mr. Saklatvala).
    Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the widespread dissatisfaction on this matter in the country, will the right hon. Gentleman give hon. Members an opportunity to visit these internees whenever they desire?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already answered that question. I am not aware of widespread dissatisfaction in the country.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If the right hon. Gentleman will take the assurance that I give him that there is dissatisfaction, will he give permission of the kind I have indicated?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I cannot do that.
    Mr. J. JONES: When are we going to get answers to the letters we have sent to the right hon. Gentleman regarding the case of British deportees who have been sent to Ireland without trial Are they going to be kept in internment camps until after Easter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not now arise.

    NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will take steps to secure the reappointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the finances and management of the Navy and Army Canteen Board which was set up in the last Parliament?
    Mr. HUGH MORRISONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Government will reappoint a Select Committee to inquire into the management and finance of the Navy and Army Canteen Board which was set up by the last Parliament?
    Mr. GWYNNE: My Noble Friend agrees to the re-appointment of a Select Committee with the same terms of reference as were given to the Committee set up by the late Parliament, and I will take steps accordingly.

  SCOTLAND.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION (RIDDRIE).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that the nearest school to the district of Riddrie is Haghill,1·milles distant from the furthest point of the new houses: that nearly 500 children arc at present attending various schools; that application by the parents to the local authority has been turned down; and will he take steps to have a school built immediately to meet the needs of a growing district?
    Captain ELLIOT: The Department understand that the question of accommodation in this district is receiving careful attention from the Glasgow Education Authority.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that it is not the local authority which inspects the schools but that the Department here sends out the inspectors?
    Captain ELLIOT: There is another question on the Paper relating to this point.

    WHALING LICENCES.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether the Secretary for Scotland consulted the Fishery Board for Scotland before deciding not to exercise his powers of cancellation of whaling licences under The Whale Fisheries (Scotland) (Amendment) Act, 1922?
    Captain ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. Before reaching his decision my Noble Friend communicated with the Fishery Board and considered all the information which the Board were able to furnish.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Are we to understand from that answer that the Secretary for Scotland follows the advice of the Board?
    Captain ELLIOT: The Secretary for Scotland considers the information which
    246
    is given to him by the Board, and subsequently comes to his own decision on it, as he must do.

    SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
    M. Mr. NICHOLasked the-Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health the number of new schools provided since January, 1919, in Scotland, and the total amount expended thereon; if any reports have been made to the Scottish Education Department regarding the present condition of school buildings by the local authorities or by His Majesty's inspectors of schools; and if he is prepared to institute a comprehensive survey of the needs of Scotland as regards the provision of modern school buildings and their equipment?
    Captain ELLIOT: The number of new schools provided since January, 1919, in Scotland is 23, and the total amount expended thereon was £288,407. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. I would refer the hon. Member to the general Reports of His Majesty's chief inspectors, which are published annually. In reply to the last part of the question, I am asked by my Noble Friend to point out that the duty of taking stock of the needs of each education area falls upon its education authority. The Department are in close touch with the education authorities in this matter, and the present time is not thought to be opportune for a more comprehensive survey.
    Mr. NICHOL: Would it not be possible for the Department to collate the returns and the Reports by the local authorities, so that some general view could be had by Members of this House?
    Captain ELLIOT: It would require an amount of investigation that we do not feel justified in pressing for at the moment.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not the fact that one or the education authorities in Scotland has had a building scheme to the value of half a million turned down by Government Departments, despite the fact that the buildings are required at the present time?

    HERRING FISHERY.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he can state the area in

    247
    which the 35,000 crans of herring, said to have been caught last season on the west side of Shetland, were caught?
    Captain ELLIOT: Practically the whole of the herrings referred to were caught in waters from 10 to 30 miles north and north-west of the Rama Stacks.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that a large quantity of these herrings were caught north-east of the Muckle Flugga?
    Captain ELLIOT: No, Sir, not according to the chart which I have here, and which I shall be pleased to discuss afterwards with my hon. Friend. They were caught in the locality to which I have referred, namely, north-east of the Rama Stacks.

    CROFTS, SKYE.
    Mr. WEIRasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that a number of landless men living in or near the township of Torrin, in Skye, for cultivating without sanction patches of ground on the farm of Kilbride, are being threatened with imprisonment by John Anderson and his son, Roderick Anderson, the tenants of the farms of Kilbride and Kilchrist, in the island of Skye; what legal proceedings have so far been taken by these pursuers to obtain their purpose; will the Government consent to imprisonment in the same way as has been done in the Strathlaird case; whether he is aware that both these farms extend to several hundreds of acres, a considerable part of which is fit for cultivation and is now used for sheep and game-rearing purposes; whether the present tenants hold two considerable crofts in the said township of Torrin in addition to the said two farms; whether the Secretary for Scotland will take steps to make such lands available for small holdings, having regard to the fact that the Board of Agriculture has been often appealed to within the last ten years to provide for the landless people of the district, and to take the whole or part of the farms above-mentioned for small holdings?
    Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend understands that Messrs. John and Roderick Anderson, tenants of the farms of Kilbride and Kilchrist, have applied for
    248
    and obtained final interdict against three men who took possession of part of the farm of Kilbride. The question whether imprisonment will be ordered in the event of breach of the interdict is a matter for the court to decide. The farms comprise about 1,800 acres of which 30 acres are arable. They are stocked with cattle and sheep, and some game is obtained from the ground. The present tenants also occupy one and a half crofts at Torrin. Negotiations for the formation of small holdings on Kilbride were in progress when the illegal occupation took place, but my Noble Friend is not prepared to instruct the Board of Agriculture to proceed with the negotiations while the raiders remain in occupation. There has been no improper or avoidable delay in dealing with the question of land settlement.

    LAND SETTLEMENT, WESTERN ISLES.
    Mr. WEIRasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he will submit to the House the correspondence that has passed between the Secretary for Scotland, the Board of Agriculture, and the representatives of the landless men regarding the various cases throughout the Western Isles in which the landless men are now being threatened with imprisonment for cultivating bits of land for which they are willing to pay fair rents?
    Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend is not prepared to take the course suggested.
    Mr. WEIR: Why?
    Captain ELLIOT: It is open to anyone to publish this correspondence, but my Noble Friend does not feel that it ought to be published at the public expense.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. FALCONERasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he will state how many new small holdings have been created in Scotland since the passing of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919; in how many of these cases have the tenants been settled on land which has been purchased by the Board of Agriculture; what has been the total cost of creating these holdings; and how much of it is due to the purchase of the land?
    Captain ELLIOT: Under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, the Board have settled applicants in 1,219 new holdings and 674 enlargements, of which 762 and 140 respectively were on properties acquired by the Board under Part I of the Act. I am not yet in a position to give the actual total cost of the holdings already formed, but the total estimated gross cost of the schemes in question, which on completion will have provided for the settlement of an additional 1,037 holders, is £2,309,161, including £433,420 in respect of the purchase prices of properties acquired by the Board. In addition to the latter figure, the acquisition of certain properties involves the payment of £25,137 annually over varying periods of years.
    Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health in how many cases the tenants on holdings created by the Board of Agriculture have not had their rents finally fixed?
    Captain ELLIOT: In all but 15 cases the rents of holdings created by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have been intimated to the holders. The hon. and gallant Member is, however, aware that in certain cases the rents already fixed are to be revised by the Land Court at the request of the holders concerned, and to that extent they cannot be said to be final.

    SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
    Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health the conditions upon which a pupil can claim as of right entrance to an intermediate or secondary school without payment of fees, in terms of Section 6 (1) (a) of The Education (Scotland) Act, 1918?
    Captain ELLIOT: The answer can only be in the negative. The Sub-section mentioned does not define the right of the pupil. What it does is to impose an obligation upon the Education Authority. I have already had an opportunity of informing the hon. Member that, whilst my Noble Friend has no reason to believe that the obligation is not being properly discharged, he will gladly consider any evidence to the contrary with which the hon. Member is good enough to supply him.
    Major WOOD: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the question I put to him before, namely, whether he considers that the education authorities in Scotland are carrying out the law as laid down in this Section?
    Captain ELLIOT: I think the previous answer was to the effect that our attention had not been drawn to the case of any authority that was not carrying out the law according to this Section.
    Major WOOD: Is it not the duty of Board's inspectors to draw the attention of the Department to any breaches of the law, have they done so, and have they been asked to do so?
    Captain ELLIOT: It is the duty of anyone who observes a breach of the law to draw the attention of the responsible authorities to it, and I can only say we have repeatedly invited the hon. and gallant Member himself to draw our attention to any cases of breaches of the law.
    Major WOOD: I have a dozen cases.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MALT AND HOPS.
    Mr. DIXONasked the Prime Minister if, considering the inability of the Government to relieve agricultural depression, he will initiate legislation to repeal the Act of 1880, which established the free mash tub, and so encourage the larger use of malt and hops which we do produce in this country instead of rice and maize and other substitutes that we do not produce?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think my hon Friend's suggestion is practicable.
    Mr. DIXON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers are unable to sell their barley except at a dead loss?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think there is any desire for such legislation as my hon. Friend suggests.

    WAGES.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the injury to the national interest threatened by the imminent bankruptcy of arable farmers and by the inadequate

    251
    wages paid to their workers, the Government will give fresh and favourable consideration to the recommendation of the Selborne Report that, by fixing a minimum wage for the agricultural worker and guaranteeing a fixed price to the farmer, the condition of agriculture should be made so stable that, out of its profits, the agricultural labourer would be assured a fair wage and the cultivator of the soil a fair return for his capital. energy and brains?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The recommendation to which the hon. Member refers appears to involve the payment of a subsidy to the agricultural industry. The Prime Minister has recently stated on behalf of the Government that any such proposal must be regarded as impracticable under existing financial conditions.

    DOMINIONS (TREATIES).
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement relative to the power of the Dominions to sign treaties without the counter-signature of the representative of the British Government?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I can add nothing to the replies which have already been given in reply to questions on this subject.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    POLAND AND EASTERN GALICIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the recent decision of the Ambassadors' Conference to permit the incorporation of Eastern Galicia in the Polish State, places the responsibility for guaranteeing this arrangement upon this country; and when the reasons for this decision will be explained to Parliament?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): No guarantee accompanies the arrangement. By Article 91 of the Treaty of Saint Germain the sovereignty over Eastern Galicia was renounced by Austria in favour of the principal Allied and Associated Powers whose responsibility it was to determine the future
    252
    status of the territory. This responsibility has now been liquidated by the Allied Powers in the only practical manner consistent with the difficulties which surround the problem.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we know whether any papers will be laid on the Table, or any explanation given of this extraordinary decision?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot answer that question at the present moment. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would put a question to the Prime Minister or to myself later on.

    LAUSANNE CONFERENCE (REPORT).
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the official Report on the Lausanne Conference (Turkey, No. 1, 1923, Cmd. 1814) costs £1 10s., which places the Report beyond the reach of most of the persons desirous of reading it, he will endeavour to bring about a substantial reduction of the price?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The Report consists of 869 pages of letterpress and a map and was priced according to the usual scale for Parliamentary papers, which is calculated to represent the cost price of printing and publishing on the average. I doubt whether any reduction in price, such as I could contemplate, would have the effect. of materially increasing the number of conies sold, and the result would therefore be to increase the loss falling to be made good by the taxpayer.
    Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. and gallant. Gentleman reconsider his decision. in view of the fact that the voluminous Blue Book on the Versailles Conference cost. only £1?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that this sum includes the cost of all the free distributed copies to Government Departments and Members of this House, and is it quite fair to the public?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: It may or may not be quite fair to the public, but I can tell the hon. and gallant Member that only 310 copies have been sold, and there are more available for those who are interested in the matter. It is the general

    253
    principle of the cost that is involved, and I could not consider modifying the cost and throwing an extra burden on the taxpayers.
    Mr. SHORT: When was the scale to which the hon. and gallant Member refers last, revised?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I could not say without notice.
    Mr. RILEY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman see his way to reduce the price to hon. Members, and will he see. that an additional supply of copies is placed in the Library?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Hon. Members get them free.

  BUDGET.

    SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the desirability of reducing the unfunded debt and raising funds to pay the American indebtedness, he will remove the limitations of amount of investment in war savings certificates and permit unlimited investment, arranging the rate of interest to meet the popularity of the security?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on this subject on the 5th December last to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, of which I am sending him a copy. I would only add that savings certificates are themselves unfunded debt.

    INTEREST.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of interest included in the various Estimates of this year's expenditure, and also a comparison of the actual amounts paid, showing the actual expenditure on interest as against Estimate for the year?
    Mr. BALDWIN: must ask my hon. Friend to await the Budget statement.

    MINERAL WATERS DUTIES.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, owing to the heavy taxes on the mineral water trade, 500 firms and over have been closed, throwing some thousands of
    254
    workpeople out of work, and ruining the manufacturers in this industry; and if he will take off part of the duty?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As stated in my reply of the 19th February, to the hon. Member for the Kingswinford Division (Mr. Sitch). representations on the matter have already been received, and arc now being given careful consideration.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on income Tax, 1019, that all income derived by co-operative societies from invested funds should be subject to taxation, irrespective of the particular mode of investment; and if he can state the estimated loss to the revenue during the present financial year resulting from the exemption indicated?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend will not expect me, in a matter of this kind, to anticipate my Budget statement.
    Mr. HANNON: I hope my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to this question.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member who put this question down is probably a to-operative organiser?

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. McLARENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the valuations of land made under the 1909£10 Finance Act are completed have these valuations been so revised as to bring them up to date; and, if so, what are the main purposes for which they are used?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to Section 57 (1) of the Finance Act, 1920, and to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) when introducing the Budget of that year. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that statement.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will

    255
    inform the House how many persons receiving old age pensions during the three years ending 28th February, 1923, have been prosecuted for obtaining pensions under false pretences; in how many cases have such persons escaped prosecution on condition that they made restitution; and how many have had their pensions reduced as a means of ensuring repayment of the sums wrongfully obtained?
    Mr. BALDWIN: During the three calendar years, 1920, 1921 and 1922, 477 persons were prosecuted in Great Britain, under Section 9 (1) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, for having knowingly made false statements or false representations for the purpose of obtaining or continuing, either for themselves or for other persons, old age pensions, to which they were not entitled. The liability to prosecution under this Sub-section is distinct from the liability, under other provisions of the law, to repay the amount overpaid; and a person does not escape prosecution on condition of making repayment. Particulars are not available of the number of cases in which payment of old age pension has been withheld in order to effect recovery of a previous overpayment.
    Mr. McENTEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of those prosecutions resulted in conviction?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid not, without notice.
    Mr. BRIANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a reduction of old age pensions simply means that the pensioners have to be provided with outdoor relief to provide for decreased income?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost to provide all men over the age of 60 years with a pension of 20s. per week, and the estimated cost of providing a pension of 20s. per week for all men and women over 60 years of age.
    Mr. BALDWIN: Subject to the more exact estimates that will be possible when the full Census particulars are available, the answer to the first part of the question may be put at approximately £90,000,000, and to the second part at approximately £200,000,000.
    Mr. STURROCKasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that much uncertainty exists among old age pensioners in Scotland as to the nature of their private means which they are called upon to declare as disqualifying them from full pension; that in some cases local officers press applicants to declare such sums as they receive in private charity; and whether the House will have an opportunity, on the Scottish Estimates or otherwise, of discussing the methods adopted by officials to extract information on these points from old people who have reached pensionable age?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: In calculating means for old age pension purposes, the law requires all items of means, of whatever nature and from whatever source received, to be taken into account. If the hon. Member has in mind any case or cases in which it is considered that the old age pension officer has exceeded his duty, and will send me particulars, I will have inquiry made.
    Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many cases of what appears to be a form of inquisition exercised at the expense of the old people, and will he carefully consider the Regulations under which these officers work, since some of them attempt to make old age pensioners acknowledge purely charitable gifts as an addition to. their means of subsistence?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is part. of the hon. Member's original question.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY FARES).
    Mr. COLLISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost of providing Members of Parliament with free railway passes to their constituencies?
    Mr. BALDWIN: On the basis of the week-end fares at present in operation, which are available from Friday (by trains leaving London at and after 5 p.m.) until Monday, it is estimated that the cost of free travel for Members of Parliament by railway or steamship between London and their constituencies would be approximately £60,000 if the House sat 40 weeks in the year.

  EX-CABINET MINISTERS' PENSIONS.

    Loan GEORGE HAMILTON.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he received the communication from Lord George Hamilton resigning his claim to a pension as from April next; and will he inform the House whether the Noble Lord on any previous occasion informed either him or his predecessors as to his means?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The communication w as received on 10th March. Since the necessary declaration made upon the original grant of his pension Lord George Hamilton has not, so far as I am aware, furnished any information as to his means, nor has he been asked to do so. As the hon. Member is aware from previous answers, it has not been the practice to require subsequent declarations of means after the award of a pension.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing in a short Bill in order to compel persons who receive pensions on the plea that they are in a condition of poverty periodically to make statements as to their means, in exactly the same manner as in the case of old age pensioners with 10s. a week, and, if found guilty, to be treated in the same manner as a poor person?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think the whole practice deserves consideration.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the fact that this gentleman received a pension on account of distress, or alleged distress, will the right hon. Gentleman now institute proceedings for recovery of the amounts received?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the amount of money the Noble Lord has received during the time he has been a pensioner?
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: £44,000.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (WOMEN).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that "Live Wire," a journal which persistently
    258
    attacks the trade union women temporary civil servants, is advertised on the notice boards of Government Departments, such advertisement being given one the official notice boards of the Pensions Issue Office even for the February issue, which included an attack on a trade union woman divisional superintendent, the length and character of her public service, which, under threat of a libel action, both printer and editor had to withdraw subsequently; that recent appeals for funds to support the turning out of the women were circulated round all Departments, including the women staff concerned; and that this circular included a false statement to the effect that there were still over 3,000 pin-money women employed in the Pensions Ministry, whereas every woman still employed there has had her circumstances gone into and, if appealing against dismissal, verified by a justice of the peace or other responsible citizen; and whether he will undertake that in future no official notice boards shall be used to advertise journals including libellous attacks on women employés, and that circulars attacking the latter shall not be distributed in the offices during office hours?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My attention would not normally be drawn to questions of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, which would appear to raise disciplinary issues which would more properly be dealt with by the heads of the Departments concerned. I am satisfied that, should circumstances demand it, action would be taken to prevent any abuse of the facilities ordinarily allowed to staff associations for displaying, subject to Departmental approval, notices regarding association activities, and I am not prepared to suggest that existing Departmental practice in this matter should be modified.

    SUPER-TAX CLAIM (MRS. G. M. GARDNER).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, having regard to the fact that the Inland Revenue authorities have refused to refund Mrs. G. M. Gardner the sum of £764 8s which was paid by her in error, although the said sum was

    259
    not legally payable, the Special Commissioners of Income Tax are now demanding that Mrs. Gardner should pay Super-tax in respect of the income on which the above payment was made by mistake, notwithstanding the fact that she has already paid Super-tax on the full amount for which she was legally liable had the above-mentioned mistake as to her legal liability not been made; and whether, under the above circumstances, he will direct the Special Commissioners not to press their claim for Super-tax, as they themselves had in the first instance agreed to do, realising that Mrs. Gardner's payment of Income Tax had been made by reason of a bonâ-fide mistake and that, apart from this mistake, the said tax could not have been legally claimed by the Inland Revenue?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the facts of this case, and would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to his question of the 22nd and 27th February. My hon. Friend is, I think, under a misapprehension in suggesting that the Special Commissioners of Income Tax had agreed to waive the claim to Super-tax. The matter is, I understand, the subject of appeal to those Commissioners, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is, therefore, one in which any intervention on my part would be improper.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Do I understand that this lady can appeal against being assessed for Super-tax as well as Income Tax for which 6he will not be legally liable?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I am not certain on that point, without notice.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Major BARNETTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether ex-service men who joined up after compulsory service had been introduced, and served either at home or overseas but not in the firing line, are being retained in the Civil Service in preference to women who lost their bread winners in the war before Conscription came into force, and to other women who are striving to supplement the pensions of disabled relatives?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: In accordance with the recommendations of the Lytton Committee, and in pursuance of the pledges given by the Government, preference for temporary employment in Government Departments is given to all ex-service personnel over non-service personnel. The retention of the latter on grounds of hardship alone is in present circumstances incompatible with this policy. As between ex-service men, preference is given to those who have served overseas or are disabled.
    Major BARNETT: Does that mean that a conscript who has had no service at the front is preferred to a woman clerk, even if she comes within the category of "hardship cases "?

    COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the numerous allegations that the Government have failed adequately to carry out the recommendations of the Lytton Committee on the subject of the extended employment of ex-service men in the Civil Service, he will be willing to appoint a special Committee of Inquiry to look into the matter?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Government, after careful consideration. have decided to set up a Committee to inquire into the action taken throughout the Civil Service in consequence of the Report of the Committee set up in July. 1920, under the Chairmanship of the Earl of Lytton, to consider the arrangements for the appointment of ex-service men to posts in the Civil Service, whether permanent or temporary, and to report to what extent practical effect has been given to the Committee's recommendations in the various Government Departments. The composition of the Committee has not yet been settled, but I propose that it should consist of seven or eight members drawn mainly from this House, and that it should include one or more women.

    KENYA COLONY (VOI-TAV ETA RAILWAY).
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Voi-Taveta

    261
    railway line in Kenya is to be pulled up or sold at a break-up price; that this line affords a valuable outlet for the produce of the Kilimanjaro region through the port of Kilindini; that the Mombasa Chamber of Commerce is averse to its removal; and whether there is any intention to relay the line elsewhere?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The line referred to is a portion of a short railway, part of which is in Tanganyika Territory, laid down for purely military purposes during the War. It is now in a derelict condition, and if retained would require extensive realignment The Kilimanjaro district in Tanganyika Territory is served by the existing railway to the port of Tanga, about the same distance as Mombasa. The military line is, therefore, not a necessity from a commercial point of view, and the cost of its reconstruction and maintenance would be very considerable. It has been decided to utilise the rails for necessary improvements on the railway to Tanga. The views of the Mombasa Chamber of Commerce have not been communicated to the Colonial Office, but I may say that the Tanga Chamber is strongly in favour of the decision which has been taken in the matter after long and careful consideration.

    EXECUTIONS, BRITISH CALABAR.
    Mr. WEBBasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at Oron, in British Calabar, on one occasion, 24 men and two women were publicly hanged in the market place on a single morning, one after another, the proceedings lasting five hours; at what date these executions took place, and were they carried out after judicial trial and sentence, and after confirmation and specific sanction by the highest authority; and whether, in view of the fact that the practice of public executions by the former King of Benin was suppressed by British authority, he can state on what grounds has this expedient for deterrence been revived in a British territory?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no information regarding the executions to which the hon. Member refers. They do not appear to have taken place in recent years, so far as the records of the Colonial Office show; but, if the hon. Member will
    262
    furnish me with such information as is in his possession, I will have further inquiries made.
    Mr. WEBB: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are at least two British eye-witnesses who testify to these facts, one of whom was engaged to design and erect the scaffold, that photographs were taken, some of which are in this country, and that the event took place during the term of office of the hon. Gentleman's predecessor?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Member will communicate those facts and photographs to me, I shall be much obliged. It is the first we have heard of it.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. MUIRasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of migrants in the following categories who left England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, for Canada during the years 1920, 1921 and 1922, families, married men without their families, single men, single women, youths of both sexes between 18 and 21 years of age, and juveniles, if any?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the information for which the hon. Member asks me is not available in this country, the Canadian Government were asked by cable if they could supply it. I have to-day received a telegram in reply, in which, I regret to say, it is stated that the particulars required are not obtainable.

  PALESTINE.

    LOAN.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give any information as to when the Palestine Government loan will be floated; when he expects to receive back the £1,365,000 which has been loaned to the Palestine Government by the Crown Agents; and, as Palestine is not a colony but a mandatory country, why was such a payment ever made?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Palestine loan will be floated when the Secretary of State is advised that a favourable opportunity has arisen, and repayment will be made to the Crown Agents of the

    263
    sums advanced by them as soon as loan funds are available. These advances were made because the financial circumstances of Palestine appeared to require and to justify them. I do not see how the mandatory status of Palestine affects the question.
    Mr. BECKER: When this loan is floated some little time hence, will the British Government have to guarantee the principal and interest?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir; it will be treated like most Colonial loans, in the case of which the British Government does not guarantee the principal and interest.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Has the Palestine Government power to issue a loan simply on the request of the League of Nations?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir, certainly not. The League of Nations does not come in. The Secretary of State authorises the issue of loans for territories for which we are responsible and which we govern.
    Major BURNIE: Will the Jewish issuing houses be given the first chance in regard to this loan?

    MANDATE (RATIFICATION).
    Mr. BECKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Palestine Mandate will not be ratified by the British Parliament; and whether, seeing that the League of Nations' action of July last in approving the Mandate should not be sufficient to bind this country to indefinite expense, this House will in future be informed of any action that the League of Nations is taking that will lead to more expenditure for this country, so that a strong protest may be sent from the British Parliament?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The first part of the question raises a constitutional issue of some importance. A Mandate is not in the nature of a Treaty between Governments which requires ratification by the respective heads of the States concerned. No question arises of ratification in a technical sense. I would remind the hon. Member that the House was given definite opportunity in the Debate of the 4th July last, of discussing the question in its widest aspects. The
    264
    result was a clear pronouncement in favour of the policy of the Government. With regard to the last part of the question, the hon. Member may rest assured that the British representative on the Council of the League of Nations will receive no instructions which the Government are not prepared to defend in this House.
    Mr. PETO: As we now have a new House of Commons, can a fresh opportunity be given of discussing this question?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: An opportunity will arise when the Middle Eastern Estimates for the new year come on, and the House can decide whether there is to be a change of policy on that or on the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: On what authority is the hon. Gentleman speaking when he says that it is not necessary that the Mandate should be ratified by the House of Commons?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have consulted the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the authorities of the Foreign Office, and they framed the answer to this part of the question.

    CONSTITUTION.
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the opposition of the majority of the electors of Palestine to the undemocratic character of the present constitution of that country, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of bringing the said constitution more into conformity with the wishes of the people?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Darwen (Sir F. Sanderson) on the 15th March. I have nothing to add to the statement that I then made.
    Captain FOXCROFT: Is an Assembly of 11 members nominated by His Majesty's Government and 12 elected members in accordance with the self-government that was promised to Palestine in 1915 and 1918?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware of the promises to which the hon. and gallant Member alludes.

    JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether delegations from the Palestinian Arabs have been in official communication with the Colonial Office during the last 18 months; if so, whether they have expressed strong dissatisfaction as existing among the Arab population of Palestine with the policy of establishing in their country a Jewish national home; and what steps the Government proposes to take in consequence?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With regard to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper published in June, 1922, as Command Paper No. 1700. The third part of the question raises matters of policy that cannot conveniently be dealt with by question and answer.
    Mr. PETO: Seeing that it is only since June of last year that the wishes and desires of the vast majority of the people of Palestine—the Arab population—have become known to Members of this House, how can a White Paper published in June last have any bearing on this question?

    NATIVE PRISONERS, SIERRA LEONE.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the practice in the Sierra Leone Protectorate regulating the prosecution and defence of native prisoners tried before the Circuit Court on capital charges; is the practice uniformly adhered to; whether there are any rules of court or written regulations on the subject; and, if so, what are their terms?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The practice followed in the Circuit Court in the connection mentioned is, so far as the circumstances of the Protectorate allow, identical with the practice of the Supreme Court of the Colony, and is adhered to as uniformly as the varying circumstances of different cases permit. Rules of Court on the subject were made by the Judge of the Circuit Court in 1915, the terms of which are to be found in the Sierra Leone Royal Gazette of 20th February, 1915.

    SLAVE TRADING, ABYSSINIA.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Foreign Office have received reports upon widespread and growing slave-trading in Abyssinia; whether the Colonial Office has also received from Colonial officials reports of a similar nature; and whether these have been, or will be, passed to the Foreign Office for transmission to the Council of the League of Nations?
    Mr. McNEILL: Various kinds of domestic and agricultural serfdom exist in a legalised form through Abyssinia, but no reports have been received at the Foreign Office as to growing slave-trading. The internal affairs of Abyssinia cannot normally form the subject of reports from British Colonial officials, but the hon. Member possibly has in mind the slave raising in British territory which formerly occurred near the Abyssinian frontier. The Secretary of State for the Colonies asked for a report on this practice last year, and was informed in reply that Abyssinian raids into British territory were undertaken primarily for the capture of stock and game. In a few instances women and children had been carried off. A garrison having, however, been established on the part of the frontier affected, such raids must by now have ceased. According to reports from His Majesty's Representative at Adis Ababa, the delimitation of the frontiers has necessarily led for many years past to a decline in the slave trade. It is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by the communication of these reports to the Council of the League of Nations.
    Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: Is there any slave trading going on between Abyssinia and the Arabian coast?
    Mr. McNEILL: There was a capture by one of His Majesty's ships in the Red Sea not very long ago. Of course any trade of that sort is subject to the very closest supervision we can give to it. That is a different matter from the one that appears in the question.

    IMPERIAL PRESS CONFERENCE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTONGR IFFITHSasked the President of the

    267
    Board of Trade whether, in view of the great impetus given to British Empire trade and settlement as a result of the first and second Imperial Press Conferences, he can inform the House when and where another conference of this kind will take place?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply to this question. These conferences are arranged periodically by the Empire Press Union, and, though I have no official information on the subject, I understand that it is contemplated to hold the next conference in Australia in 1925 if the necessary arrangements can be made.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: In view of the good work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir Harry Brittain) as the originator and organiser of these most useful conferences, will my hon. Friend endeavour to take advantage of his valuable experience or advice in any action the Government may take to further the interests of this third conference?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will most certainly bear that suggestion in mind.

    POLICE (PARADE).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a police officer who is instructed to parade at a certain time is regarded as on duty when complying with such instruction?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This is a general question to which it is not possible for me to give a reply without some indication of the particular circumstances in which the officer is instructed to parade. If the hon. Member cares to write to me and let me know the circumstances he has in his mind, I will endeavour to give him a reply.
    Mr. HAYES: In view of the varying practices which obtain in the various police forces, would it not be advisable to send out some definite instructions on the matter in order that the pin pricks that occur may not recur?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will certainly consider that. I was not aware that the instructions were not definite, but I will look into the question.

    HOLLOWAY PRISON (J. E. STUTTON).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Governor of Holloway Prison informed J. E. Stutton, late of that prison staff, that. he could not place him on lighter employment until he had heard from the Prison Commissioners; whether the medical recommendation for lighter employment was ever carried out; and, if so, what was the difference between Stutton's duties before and after 10th March?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Governor informed Stutton that he would have to report the matter to the Commissioners, as it was impossible for him to find entirely light work. The medical recommendation was carried out thus: Before the 10th March Stutton had been employed on general store porter's work and evening patrol duty. After that date, he was employed as messenger on evening patrol duty, occasionally as gatekeeper and on such of the porter's work as did not. involve the heavy lifting there is in the other parts of the stores. He also had assistance. For part of the time before he was placed again on the sick list, he was employed in connection with the stocktaking.
    Mr. HAYES: If I forward the right hon. Gentleman particulars and explain that he has been misinformed, will he reconsider the question?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I shall be very glad to reconsider any further particulars which are not in my possession now.

    CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SENTENCES).
    Sir C. BURNasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the sentences inflicted on persons convicted of cruelty to animals; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no doubt that in some cases the sentences passed on offenders of this class are more lenient than many of us would think right. The remedy, however, seems to me to lie in the development of a proper interest and a healthy public opinion on the subject: and to that end the various unofficial

    269
    agencies interested, whose activities I welcome, can, I am sure, do much more than any Department of State.
    Sir C. BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a circular round to magistrates to let them know, if they do not know it already, that public opinion is very strong.?
    Mr. HARDIE: In inflicting punishment. in this way shall we not be reducing ourselves to the level of the man who gives a clue] stroke to an animal?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have considered the question of a circular, but I think on the whole I prefer to leave it to public opinion. Every case differs in its conditions and circumstances, and I do not think it will be possible to draw up any circular which would be of any definite guidance to magistrates. I am sure the Debates we have had and the questions which have been asked and answered will have done a great deal towards stimulating public opinion.

    MADRAS (ENGLISH CHILD ADOPTION).
    Mr. BECKERasked the Home Secretary if he will form a committee of inquiry to inquire into the case of Doris Hawker, the seven-year-old child sent to Madras, the committee also to make general inquiries as to how girls are disposed of by charitable institutions formed to take care of young girls?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have in the, first instance asked the Chief Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools to investigate by personal visit the question of the disposal of girls from the Princess Louise Home and other representative voluntary institutions.

    CATHOLIC ECCLESIASTICS, MOSCOW (DEATH SENTENCES).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Prime Minister 'whether he has any additional information respecting the sentence to death of the Archbishop of Moscow by the Bolshevist Government of Russia; and whether it is possible for the British Government to make representations on behalf of the condemned Archbishop?
    Mr. McNEILL: A telegram has just been received from the British agent in Moscow confirming the report that the Archibshop and one of his priests have been sentenced to death, and stating that it is feared the sentence will be carried out within 48 hours. Mr. Hodgson has done all in his power, under repealed instructions from His Majesty's Government, to save these ecclesiastics, and I cannot see what more can he done, if the Soviet Government is determined to carry out barbarities of this nature.
    Mr. AMMON: Does the hon. Gentleman think it possible that something might be done if he would cable to our representative and the representatives of the foreign Powers telling them the opinion of this country?
    Mr. McNEILL: I made that inquiry myself immediately we received the telegram. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that every possible instruction and persuasion has been addressed to Moscow, not merely from our representative, but from the heads of all the religious organisations of this country and elsewhere.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to-day's papers state that the executions are to take place to-morrow?
    Mr. McNEILL: That is in accordance with what I have said already, that the executions are to take place within 48 hours.
    Mr. J. JONES: Could not the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold) be sent as a hostage?
    Mr. NEWBOLD: Is it not a fact that no cleric condemned at any time to death has ever been put to death?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Are we any longer going to tolerate in our midst a trade delegation from this barbarous Power?
    Mr. PETO: In order to emphasise the opinion of this country, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the so-called Soviet trade representatives in this country that they will have to leave within 24 hours, if these executions take place?

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  PROFESSIONAL WORKERS.
  On this day three weeks, to call attention to the position of professional workers, and to move a Resolution.— [Mr. Robert Murray.]
  CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.
  On this day three weeks, to call attention to the unequal position in which the Catholic schools of the country stand, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. T. P. O'Connor.]
  CRIMINAL TRIALS AND DIVORCE CASES (REPORTS).
  On this day three weeks, to call attention to the publication of reports of criminal trials and divorce cases, and to move a Resolution.—[Lord Apsley.]

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS.
  Mr. MIDDLETON: I beg to move,
  " That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Railway Regulation Acts; and for other purposes relating thereto."
  The object of the Bill will be to increase the statutory obligations now laid upon the railway companies. I propose in three short Clauses that these obligations shall be stated. The first Clause will make it compulsory on railway companies 13 provide third-class sleeping accommodation where first-class sleeping accommodation is already provided. The second Clause will provide that return tickets shall be available at any time. The third Clause will make compulsory the provision of automatic locks on railway carriage doors.
  In regard to sleeping accommodation, I hope the proposal will elicit the friendly interest of hon. Members on the benches opposite, as I know it will hon. Members on this side of the House. I may be told later on that the reason why the railway companies cannot provide third-class sleepers is that they do not pay. My answer would be that they have never tried them. I believe that if we had third-class sleepers it would not only meet a great need of the travelling public, but it would save a great deal of time on the part of people who now travel. In order to carry out the business of -the country there is always a flow of travellers
  272
  between long distance points in Great Britain. If you take the 7 o'clock train from Aberdeen, it means that a traveller by that train does not reach London until 12 hours later. During the journey he cannot sleep because he is constantly awakened for his ticket, and usually he is in a crowded third-class compartment. The railway group in this House, including the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) might look with a friendly eye upon this proposal, and if they have any doubt as to the discomfort of third-class travelling, I would invite the right hon. Baronet to share the compartment of my hon. Friends from Glasgow on one of the occasions that they have to make the journey from that city to London. Though he might be kept awake by the political theories of my hon. Friends, he would discover by the time he got to London that there was a case for providing sleeping accommodation for people who have to use third-class carriages. I believe that the Great Western train from Plymouth last Monday night left Plymouth with only half the first-class sleeping accommodation occupied. There were many people in the third-class carriages who would have been glad of the opportunity to pay the sleeping fee if they had had the accommodation.
  The second point relates to the immoral action of the railway companies in robbing people of their fares when they do not use their return tickets. These return tickets are issued under all kinds of conditions. If you take a short railway journey the day, the return ticket is only available for the same day. In other cases a longer time is given, but in all cases the railway companies say that in the event of that ticket not being used, they will not recognise any obligation upon them to return the fare. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not so!"] I have a copy of the Regulations here, and I am certain that that is so. That means that the railway companies are not content with keeping your money without paying any interest on it, but they will not recognise any obligation to the man who has paid his fare, to have his contract carried out. The third point., relates to the necessity of providing some security against the facility with which railway carriage doors are opened during a journey. During the last week or so we have had one or two examples of that. I am told that the reason why no auto-

  273
  matic appliance has been adopted is because the inventors cannot elicit the interest and attention of the railway companies. I am told that there is already an automatic appliance on the market which automatically locks a railway carriage door when the train is in motion, and automatically releases the door when the train stops.
  These three much-needed reforms, which I propose to embody in this Bill, will mee, I hope, not only with a friendly reception by hon. Members, but will encourage the Government to provide facilities later on for passing the Bill as a non-contentious or a non-party Measure, because it affects all classes. It is high time that the railway companies, which have had granted to them a great monopoly by the nation, should recognise that they have obligations to discharge to the community in return for the monopoly that. the community has given to them. I hope, therefore, that the House will give me the First Reading of this Bill.
  Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Railway Regulation. Acts; and for other purposes relating thereto," put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Middleton, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Wheatley, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Warne, and Mr. Tom Smith.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL,
  " to amend the Railway Regulation Acts, 1840 to 1893; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

  SEDITIOUS TEACHING.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I beg to move,
  " That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the teaching of seditious doctrines or methods to the young; and for other purposes connected therewith."
  The object of this Bill is to prevent the teaching of seditious matter to children under 16 years of age, and the dissemination of seditious literature among children. Let me make two points perfectly clear. First, no teaching or literature is interfered with by this Bill unless
  274
  it be seditious according to the common law of England, and therefore illegal; and, secondly, this Bill in no way affects propaganda among adults. The teaching and literature at which this Bill is directed is of the recognised Communist type, which aims at destroying the existing Constitution and order of things, by force if necessary, and the setting up in its place of a revolution on the Russian model. For this purpose, class-hatred, a rebel spirit, and hatred and disaffection against the King and the Constitution are preached. Love of country and patriotism are denounced. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Yes. Private property is anathematised as robbery, and owners of property—I wonder if hon. Members will cheer this—are held up to execration as "robbers and Judas Iscariots." I am quoting their words. Revolution on the Russian model is glorified, and, to use their own language, "Russia is the one bright spot," Let me say a word or two upon the object of this movement. The movement is the outcome of the First Congress of the Young Communist International, held at Berlin in November, 1919. That Congress issued a manifesto to the proletarian youth of all nations, which was published in England and Scotland, and which advocated the subversal of the existing order of things and—these are their words—for that purpose
  " the use of every instrument of revolutionary class warfare, including armed resistance."
  As a result, Young Communist Leagues have, been established in Great Britain and in many other countries. Schools have been established, and much literature has been published and circulated for inculcating these doctrines. The chief organ of the Young Communist League of Great Britain is a monthly paper called the "Young Communist," which is widely issued and distributed in the schools, and in the first number of that paper of December, 1921, there is announced—to use its own words—
  " an intensive campaign to inspire the communist rebel spirit in the young people of our class."
  At a later stage of the Bill, I hope to give illustrations of their preaching and literature, but it is not possible to give, or at least I cannot give at the moment, the exact number of these schools in Great Britain.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Name one.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: My information is that there are somewhere near 100 of them.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Name one anywhere.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: They are very numerous, and it is worthy of note that some of the schools Which have been lately known as Socialist Sunday Schools have been captured and turned into Communist Sunday Schools. The reason given by the promoters of this movement for inculcating these doctrines among the young is significant. The reason, in their own language, is this:
  " Boys and girls are not so afraid of anything of a revolutionary nature as grown-up people."
  What does that mean? It means that these people are prepared and desire to trade on the experience and helplessness of youth in order to poison their minds. I say that is a base act, and it is to be noted that resolutions have been passed and petitions have been sent by almost innumerable societies in this country, representing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, calling for legislation on this subject.
  The provisions of the Bill are exceedingly simple. Those who teach seditious matter to children under 16 or publish and disseminate seditious literature for the purpose of giving 'instruction to such children are guilty of an offence under the Bill, and on summary conviction are liable to a maximum fine of £50 or to a maximum term of imprisonment of three months. The Bill creates no new offence. The only change effected by the Bill is one of procedure. It provides that, instead of prosecution by indictment, people who offend under the Bill may be brought. before the magistrates and sentenced, subject, of course, to an appeal to Quarter Sessions.
  There is only one other point that I wish to make. Complaints have been made from sonic quarters that this Bill is an infringement of freedom of speech. There could not be a greater misapprehension. The object of the Bill is the protection of children. The State has already recognised its obligation to protect children from long hours, from overwork, and from physical contamination and assault. That refers to their bodies. Can it be maintained that the State, which has recognised its obligation to protect the bodies of children, is not bound to protect their
  276
  souls and their minds from contamination in their early and impressionable years?
  Mr. TURNER: I am reminded of two lines by a poet of the past—
  " Never let your zeal outrun your charity.
  The former is but human; the latter is divine."
  It does seem to me that the promoter of this Bill is allowing his zeal to outrun his charity and to sonic extent also his judgment. T want to call attention also to the fact that in the petitions presented by various hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, there are 72,718 signatures, and I find that those petitions are irregular to the number of 26 in the first. case, 28 in the second, and 11 in the third, thus discounting to a considerable degree their value. It seems to me that there has been a considerable attempt to manufacture opinion in regard to these Sunday schools, and that the promotion of this Bill is largely political spite in place of political wisdom. It is not at all in the interests of the nation or in the interests of fair play between Sunday school and Sunday school. The innocent ignorance of the hon. and learned Member who introduced the Bill is shown when he says that there are about 100 schools of the character he indicates in this country. When challenged, he failed to name even one.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I was not challenged to name one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]
  Mr. TURNER: It seems to me that the Bill is a general attack upon what may he termed democratic Sunday schools, as distinct from Sunday schools connected with our churches and our chapels. This country has had a variety of Sunday schools for ages past. In the early days of last century, there were Sunday schools in which children were taught the three "R's "—reading, writing and arithmetic—and in my young days we were taught to read and to do sums and so forth at our Sunday school. T have not a single word to say against either church or chapel or any other Sunday school. Let them all come. Those Sunday schools which are teaching wrong will die, because truth is eternal, and will alone stand the test. of time. It therefore seems to me that some of the opposition has not been manufactured and engendered out of any desire to pre-

  277
  vent sedition being taught, because there has been more sedition taught in clubs and institutions connected with organisations of hon. Gentlemen opposite than has ever been taught in any Sunday school. [Interruption.] I would like to challenge any criticism upon what I am going to assert are the doctrines taught by Sunday schools on the lines indicated by my observation just now. The first is:
  " Love your schoolfellows who will he your fellow-workmen in life. Love learning which is the food of the mind. Be as grateful to your teachers as to your parents. Make every day holy by good and useful deeds and kindly practices. Honour the good. Be courteous to all. Bow down to none. Do not hate or speak evil of anyone. [Interruption.] Do not be revengeful, but stand up for your rights, and resist oppression. Do not be cowardly. Be a friend to the weak and love justice. Remember that all the good things of the earth are produced by labour. [Interruption.] Whoever enjoys them without working for them is stealing the bread of the workers,"—
  and do not forget that there are workers by hand and by brain. We do not exclude any of these sections by these doctrines which we are teaching now. Every person who gives service is a worker. Then it says:
  "Observe and think in order to discover the truth. Do not believe what is contrary to reason and never deceive yourself or others. Do not think that those who love their own country must hate and despise other nations, or wish for war, which is a remnant of barbarism. Look forward to the day —[Interruption].
  Mr. COOPER RAWSON: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] This is extremely interesting, but it is not in the proletarian—[Interruption>].
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: It has nothing to do with the communist doctrines. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members on both sides do not observe order, I shall decline to allow the Question to be put. There is no cause for interruption, and I shall not allow the interruption of anybody.
  Mr. TURNER: My final quotation is
  "Look forward to the day when all men and women will be free citizens of one Fatherland and live together as brothers and sisters in peace and righteousness."
  I ask my hon. Friends if that is seditious teaching. [HON. MEMBERS "No!" and
  278
  " Eyewash! "] Then I wish there were more eyewash taught to-day. That does not include all the teaching. It teaches us so to guide the human soul that we shall have an understanding of the Beatitudes when they say, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and it teaches the principles of the 13th Chapter of Corinthians which are love, faith and justice. Then again the hymns include Longfellow, Morris, Shelley, Whittier, Montgomery and many others. The last observation which I have to make is in these declarations of the Sunday schools we say we desire to be just and loving to all our fellow-men and women, to work together as brothers, to be kind to every living creature, and so to help to form a new society with justice as its foundation and love as its law.
  Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the teaching of seditious doctrines or methods to the young; and for other purposes connected therewith," put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Butcher, Mr. Rawlinson, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Peto, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Norton-Griffiths, Sir John Ganzoni, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. Gould, and Mr. Pennefather.

  SEDITIOUS TEACHING BILL,
  " to prevent the teaching of seditious doctrines or methods to the young; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second thee upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That the Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill shall, until concluded, have precedence of all other Orders of the Day and of Notices of Motions at all Sittings for which they are set down."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
  Mr. HOGGE: This Motion is one to which the House is accustomed in the last week of the first Session of any Parliament, and while there are not in this case the same grounds for complaint against the Government with regard to the time of the House, as on former occasions, still there are one or two points which are worth while raising again, so as to get some information from the Government

  279
  In previous Sessions the time of private Members has frequently been taken by the Government for many more days than this Motion proposes to take. On this occasion I think, with the exception of one or two instances, for which the Government were not responsible, when the Chairman of Ways and Means took away the time of private Members, the Government themselves have not taken any of the private Members' time except Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. In previous Sessions this point has been raised. I remember that the Patronage Secretary interested himself in this particular question. The point is as to whether instead of meeting those difficulties by a purely ad hoc Motion on the Paper when the occasion arises, the, time has not arrived when a Committee of the House of Commons, composed of some of the older Members, with greater experience of how the business of the House is conducted, should not be formed to try to come to some better arrangement as to the use of Government and private Members' time from Session to Session.
  It raises. in addition to the questions which I have touched upon, the allocation of Government Bills to different periods of the Session. For instance, we have now reached Easter, and have not yet had introduced any of the first-class Measures for which the Government are responsible this Session. That probably means that after Whitsuntide we shall be run again into late nights. I always think that the Government meet too late in the year to cover their business before the end of March. There is, of course, a point as to whether we meet too late in the day, but that is a separate question from the allocation of business. We usually find that up to the 31st March the Government have got to surrender what amounts to two days every week, and there is considerable pressure to get through Government business by that time. The
  Patronage Secretary might consider now whether the private Members' time on two days of the week should not be put between Easter and Whitsuntide, instead of between the beginning of the Session and the end of March. Then there is the question of the Recess and the various holidays in which Members are interested. Previous Prime Ministers and previous Leaders of the House have taken part in those discussions, particularly with regard to Recesses. What I want to ask is this, whether a scheme for the better allocation of time—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that matter under this Motion. The general form does not arise here.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am not putting that, Mr. Speaker. On this Motion we are entitled to discuss—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not remain standing in the Gangway.
  Mr. HOGGE: This Motion is taking away private Members' time. I was suggesting that the way out of that difficulty was not by attacking the Standing Orders, but by setting up a Committee of the House. It is time we went into the matter to see if Government business could not be allocated in such a way as to make such Motions as this unnecessary. I should like to know if we may expect anything being done.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The matter raised by my hon. Friend has been engaging the attention of the Patronage Secretary and he and T have had some discussions on it. We arc giving it our full consideration.
  Question put,
  " That the Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill shall, until concluded, have precedence of all other Orders of the Day and of Notices of Motions at all Sittings for which they are set down."
  The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 151.

  Division No. 67.]

  AYES.

  [4.39 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Berry, Sir George

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Apsley, Lord

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.

  Blundell. F. N.

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Ashley, Lt. Col. Wilfrid W.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Astor, Viscountess

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Balrd, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Briggs, Harold

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Privett, F. J.

  Bruford, R.

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Raine, W.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

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

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Remnant, Sir James

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir s.(Ecclesall)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hughes, Collingwood

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hume, G. H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Cope, Major William

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

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

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Sandon, Lord

  Cot s, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

  King, Capt. Henry Douglas

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Shipwright, Captain D.

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.

  Crook, C. w. (East Ham, North)

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Singleton, J. E.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Sparkes, H. W.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lorden, John William

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Dixon, C. H, (Rutland)

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Stanley, Lord

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lougher, L.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Ednam, Viscount

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

  Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

  Elliot. Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Erskine-Boist, Captain C.

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Titchlield, Marquess of

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Flanagan, W. H.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

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

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. ( Honiton)

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Furness, G. J.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Wells, S. R.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Garland, C. S.

  Nesbitt, Robert C.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Gates, Percy

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

  White. Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

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

  Whitla, Sir William

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Gould, James C.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Winterton, Earl

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Wise, Frederick

  Greene, Lt.-Col- Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Paget, T. G.

  Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Halstead, Major D.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Perring, William George

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Peto, Basil E.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Pielou, D. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

  NOES.

  Adams D.

  Batey, Joseph

  Broad, F. A.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Brotherton, J.

  Alexandor, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Bonwick, A.

  Buckle, J.

  Attlee, C. R.

  Bowdier. W. A.

  Burgess, S.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Barnes, A.

  Briant, Frank

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  282

  283

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Chapple, W. A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

  Sexton, James

  Collison, Levi

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lansbury, George

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lawson, John James

  Sinclair, Sir A.

  Dunnico, H.

  Leach, W.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Ede. James Chuter

  Lee, F.

  Smith, T, (Pontefract)

  Edmonds, G.

  Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)

  Snell, Harry

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwe lty)

  Linfield, F. C.

  Snowden, Philip

  Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

  Lowth, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Evans. Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

  Lunn, William

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Fairbairn, R. R.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Sullivan, J.

  Falconer, J.

  McLaren, Andrew

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  March, S.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Gosling, Harry

  Maxton, James

  Thornton, M.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Middleton, G.

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Millar, J. D.

  Turner, Ben

  Greenall, T.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Warne, G. H.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Muir, John W.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Groves, T.

  Murnin, H.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Webb, Sidney

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Weir, L. M.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Nichol, Robert

  Welsh, J. C.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Westwood J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Whiteley, W.

  Hardie, George D.

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Philipson, H. H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Herriotts, J.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wright, W.

  Hill, A.

  Riley. Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Ritson, J.

  Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hogge, James Myles

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Major McKenzie and Sir A. Marshall.

  Irving, Dan

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  DANGEROUS DRUGS AND POISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Guardianship of Infants Bill [Lords],
  That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely:
  " That it is desirable that the Guardianship of Infants Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with
  284
  regard to the collection of rates on premises of low rateable value within the Borough of Bootle; and for other purposes." [Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for removing the limit on the liability of members of the General Reversionary and Investment Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [General Reversionary and Investment Company Bill [Lords.]
  Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords],
  General Reversionary and Investment Company Bill [Lords],
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES BILL,
  " to make perpetual, subject- to an Amendment, the Special Constables Act, 1914; to provide for the employment of special constables in connection with naval, military, and Air Force yards and stations; and to remove certain

  285
  limitations on the appointment of special constables in Scotland," presented by Mr. BRIDGEMAN; supported by Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson and the Solicitor-General: to be read a Second time upon Monday, 9th April, and to he printed. [Bill 73.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS' reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Bastardy Bill): Mr. Betterton, Captain Bowyer, Captain Viscount Curzon, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Maddocks, Mr. Shakespeare, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Turner, Mr. Warne, and Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Merchandise Marks Bill): Mr. Broad, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Mr. Cautley, Mr. Edmonds, Mr. William Graham, Mr. John Guest, Mr. Robert Jones, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Morris, Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Peto, Mr. Pretyman, Colonel Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. Shepperson, and Major Steel.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Bill and the Agricultural Holdings Acts (Amendment) Bill): Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Bonwick, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Mr. Lamb, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Samuel Pattinson, Mr. Pretyman, Colonel Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. Torn Smith, Mr. Sparkes, Mr. Weir, Mr. Tom Williams, and Mr. Murrough Wilson.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Performing Animals Bill): Captain Bowyer, Mr. Secretary Bridgeman, Colonel Sir Charles Burn, Sir John Butcher. Mr. Collins, Brigadier-General
  286
  Colvin, Sir Walter de Frece, Captain Arthur Evans, Mr. Gould, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Raymond Greene, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. March, Captain O'Grady, Mr. Frederick Roberts, and Mr. Tillett.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Lord Eustace Percy.

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERT'S further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committe A: Major Cope.
  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Colonel Lambert Ward.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Parliamentary Panel appointed in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899: Major Birchall; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Millar.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Chairmen's Panel: Mr. Charles Roberts.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  Mr. HAYDAY: First of all I desire to say how much I regret that illness prevents the Minister of Labour being present here this afternoon. But I feel sure that his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, will, in this, I believe, his first effort of defence of comments I may offer, adequately fulfil the expectations we all have. I want to direct several criticisms towards the present management of the Ministry of Labour and its machinery, and the first one is in connection with what I assert to be the general unsuitability of the premises known as the Employment Exchanges. Later I will give two short quotations from previous Committees of Inquiry who have made certain re-commendations in this connection, and I think it must be general knowledge to all hon. Members who, when visiting their constituencies and when, perchance, they take a walk around the vicinity of Exchanges, they come to the only conclusion I feel they would be justified in arriving at, and that is that those Exchanges are totally unsuitable for their requirements. In fact, I know of one, in a large industrial centre, where signing on takes place in the day, while it is let occasionally for boxing exhibitions and bouts on Mondays, but every Saturday evening it is used as a skating rink. Property used by the Ministry of Labour as Employment Exchanges ought to be something above that of temporary occupation if they are going to give adequate attention and be able to get the full efficiency from the staffs who are employed, and I object to the Ministry of Labour setting up their Employment Exchanges or registration places in a purely temporary occupancy and then expecting that they will get satisfactory results. It has been my business also to visit places which, I am sure, had a fire occurred, would have proved veritable death-traps to those in the upper rooms of those premises. In
  340
  some cases old derelict shops have been turned into Employment Exchanges for the purposes of registration and the keeping of records, and I think, in the main, that whatever inefficiency is shown by the staffs may be directly attributable to the unsuitability of the premises in which they are called upon to carry out their work. Since we must continue with our national scheme of unemployment insurance, I feel that, instead of having these second-hand registration premises, we should establish in the principal industrial centres, not unsuitable separate units dotted about here and there, but a real suitable central building which will meet the conveniences of the staffs as well as of the signees.
  Of the two brief quotations I desire to make, one is found in Command Paper 305 issued in 1919. It is the Report of an Interdepartmental Committee, over which Lord Aberconway presided. In their Report, dealing with the question of premises, the Committee say:
  " The recommendation contained in the interim Report, that any steps that may be possible should be taken at once to remedy the defects in the quality of the premises and staff of the Employment Exchanges, is repeated and emphasised. Further, in connection with any future extension of the work of the Exchanges, consideration should be given to the possibility of introducing staff of suitable qualifications into the various grades."
  My particular reference at this stage is to the first part of that quotation, recommending, as far back as 1919, that some immediate steps should be taken, as a matter of urgent importance, towards having more suitable premises.
  Then, in 1920, a further Interdepartmental Committee was set up by my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Labour (Dr. Macnamara), over which the right hon. George Barnes presided. That Committee says this, in summarising their recommendations:
  "We hare received evidence from unofficial witnesses to the effect that many of these existing Employment Exchange premises are such as seriously to hamper the efficient working of the Exchanges. It was stated that many Exchange buildings are situated in unsuitable quarters of the town, and that the buildings themselves are often quite unfitted to be used as Employment Exchanges. In some cases they are even unsatisfactory from the point of view of the health of the staff employed in them. We are told, also, that in a number of cases the work of the Exchanges suffers because there is not sufficient accommodation to provide separate rooms for special branches of the work."

  341
  They extend that recommendation by a further statement saying that many of the members of the Committee themselves had a tour of inspection and visited many of these Employment Exchanges, and could quite confirm the evidence that had been placed before them by witnesses, and they urged that the Labour Ministry should at once endeavour to establish suitable premises for the proper conducting of the registration, the filing, the keeping of the records, and of the general purposes of unemployment insurance.
  There you get two consecutive Interdepartmental Committees reporting almost in precisely the same terms, and yet nothing whatever has been done to carry out their recommendations. I quite well remember asking my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara) whether he had, while he occupied his office, taken into consideration those recommendations, and whether anything had been done. No steps have been taken. The Report was under consideration, I believe, at the time when further burdens fell upon the Employment Exchanges, and for the time being the matter was put off.
  There is, in conjunction with the unsuitable accommodation for the staff, so far as the Exchange itself is concerned, the absence of all arrangements for studying the convenience of the unfortunate signees. It is quite a common sight, for anyone who cares to look, to see queues of applicants waiting their turn outside ugly, shapeless, emaciated Employment Exchanges, the subject of the jeers, the vulgar scoffing and the crude jokes of the passer-by. Yet if one studies the features of those applicants, waiting in the full public view and parading their poverty because of lack of suitable accommodation for them in connection with their signing on, one sees the hopeless yet permanent imprint of poverty's pain, writ large ever those who have been called to stand the strain under those circumstances. It is not fair for a Ministry, even though it be to save some expenditure, to compel unfortunate applicants, through a circumstance which, in itself, is bad enough, to stand in all weathers publicly paraded and open to the scoffing jokes of the passer-by in reference to the dole, thus adding continual burdens of insult to the injury inflicted upon them over which they have
  342
  no control. I would urge very sincerely that some immediate steps should be taken to remedy this obvious defect which has lasted all too long.
  I want now to offer some criticisms so far as staff is concerned. This, too, was the subject of a recommendation by these two same Committees. I ought, perhaps, to qualify the remarks of mine which will follow by saying that I have no reason to doubt but that the vast majority of the staffs employed, when one considers the circumstances under which they are called upon to carry out their duties, are very valuable servants and anxious to do all they possibly can. I must say, however, there is a proportion of the staff who are unsuitable for their duties, either because of their lack of fitness, or because of their lack of knowledge, or because of their having been drawn from some calling or occupation in which they have not had occasion to display that human touch which is so necessary in dealing with human derelicts who have for a long time been unemployed. I have myself overheard remarks which have pained me considerably in the matter. I actually know of a case where it was a joke in the exchange that a man had passed the remark, "I have done him one," referring to an applicant who had persistently attended the exchange in order to get his claims for which he, as an association administrator, was responsible carried into effect, and when it came to his own turn to apply, the joke was passed round, "I have done him one." I myself had to be present at an appeal on behalf of that man, who had been disqualified by reason of that display of temper or lack of full appreciation of the proper duties and responsibilities on the part of a member of the staff of that particular exchange.
  There is one point of which I want the Minister's representative to take note. I believe—in fact I am informed that it is so—that secretaries of some of these Employment Exchange Committees (who, by the way, are responsible officials of the Ministry) have sent out invitations to people on behalf of the National Constitutional Party, in Government franked envelopes, inviting them to meetings for the purpose of propagating emigration. I say that a member of an Employment Exchange staff has no right to place his services at the disposal of any

  343
  private association, and has no right to use Government franked envelopes for the purpose of summoning meetings to support the propaganda of any particular association. If it is part of the Government's policy to encourage emigration, then it should be the Government's machinery which is used for its own propaganda. The Government machinery should not be used for helping any particular association.
  5.0 P.M.
  There is another point which I desire to mention. The staffs have been responsible for the loss of many thousands of pounds to associations administering unemployment benefit. I have in mind one, with which I myself am associated, which ceased to administer unemployment benefit. In July of last year when we asked for a settlement, although we supplied the accounts forms with our members signatures as having received the amount, we were told that authority had not gone through for the meeting of the bill. It left over £10,000 due to that one association alone, caused, I assert, if not wholly, in part, by the negligence of the Employment Exchange officials in not sending forward authorities such as could be presented for meeting payments made by the association. So much can that be said to have been proven, that a deputation waited on my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camber-well upon this very point, and the Kew Department gave assistance and accommodation for that association to send it own clerks to Kew to overhaul the records which were there. Three clerks have been there from July until the present month, and in searching out the records there they have been able further establish a claim for £3,000 out of the £10,000. The other £7,000 of claims have not yet been established. Whether it has been the unsuitability of the Exchange which has reacted upon the possible efficiency of the staff and caused papers to go astray, or incomplete records to be kept—whatever be the cause—the fact remains that associations stand to lose thousands of pounds by taking over the administration in that particular respect. I want to quote further from the Committee presided over by the Right Hon. George N. Barnes in connection with staffs, and
  344
  I would like that recommendation to be fully considered. It says:
  " The officials chosen to deal with employers and workpeople should either be (1) persons who, having been admitted to the Civil Service by the methods common in the Civil Service as a whole, have by subordinate work in the Exchange and by availing themselves of the authorised opportunities which that service presents, obtained a good general knowledge of the industry in the locality; or (2) persons taken into the Civil Service at a somewhat higher age than the maximum age for normal Civil Service entrance on the ground of their industrial knowledge and experience."
  I commend that to the present Ministry. It is no use putting in men, no matter how highly technically trained they may be, if they have not human helpfulness and that general understanding of the position of the applicant that is required. The Exchange is there to help and encourage all those who are entitled to it, and not for the purpose of depriving applicants or closing up the avenues of helpfulness that should be open to them.
  There is also the question of un-covenanted benefit. I am fully aware that early in 1922, out of the total payments made in unemployment benefit, there was a percentage of 66 drawing un-covenanted benefit and 34 drawing covenanted benefit. In January, this year, the figures had been drastically turned round to the extent that only 16 per cent. are receiving un-covenanted benefit. I can understand one reason for the change is, that, by rule or direction, certain credits had been given to those who had established stamp rights, and this fact wipes out a large number who would have continued otherwise to draw un-covenanted benefit, but, at the same time, I feel a doubt as to the extent that the unsympathetic or unwilling attitude of the staff in certain industrial centres may be responsible for the further cutting down of that figure. One knows that in normal times there is a rather unwholesome competition between relieving officers as to who can run his district cheapest, and I hope that is not the spirit which enters into the administration of un-covenanted benefit. No one would be more pleased than I to be assured that that is not so, and that every help and sympathy that can be given, is given. In this connection I would ask that the Minister might compare 10 or 12 comparable industrial centres and inform us as to the per-

  345
  centage of un-covenanted benefit in each of those districts. If there is a great margin of difference in the figures, then there must be a difference, as far as administration is concerned. There is the case of the applicant who claims for dependency allowance. He fills in a form, and I believe when one of his children is within a near approach to the age limit of 14, if the man satisfies the Exchange officials of all particulars every week, he has put before him the same receipt, which he has to sign.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. HAYDAY: That receipt is placed before the applicant every week, but in the course of time that child passes outside the age limit of 14. In the course of time the records are overhauled, and, perhaps, four weeks after the child has passed the age limit that man has been drawing the allowance. Then that man is taken before a Police Court and charged with having illegally received this extra 1s. per week. If the record is at the Exchange the precise date of the birth of the child would be there. I suggest that prosecution in such cases is very unkind, and that there should be some machinery for automatically stopping the 1s. a week as soon as the child passes the age limit, or for warning the man a week beforehand. I had such a case before me on the Bench, and I advised the legal representative of the Department that I thought it was rather cruel if the man had four or five children and was receiving the same amount every week, and had to hurry on and sign the receipt because other people are pressing behind him, that he should be prosecuted, even if he had a knowledge that the shilling extra had been drawn. That man has the knowledge of how much the extra shilling means. You may say it is wrong to give way to such temptation, but when an extra shilling is handed over the counter in a hurried way and the man is told to sign, I think there is some excuse, and I suggest that the Ministry should take means to automatically stop these payments as soon as a child passes the respective age limit period.
  I would like to refer to the position of a person who comes on when there is a break in the payment. I would like that
  346
  the machinery of the Department which reviews these periods should be brought to a higher state of effectiveness if possible, so that after the gap period is passed any person admitted to benefit should be in a position to come into that benefit as soon as the gap period has ended. They should not have to wait four or five weeks after the matter has been dealt with. There is another very grave matter which I now want to introduce. It involves, I rather think, the, Ministry of Health as well as the Ministry of Labour. It is the tendency to introduce test work for those in receipt of outdoor relief on what would otherwise be public works. They would absorb, as I think they ought to absorb, the unemployed through the agency of the Employment Exchanges.
  I will refer in particular to one case, which is a scandal and a violation of the pretension that it is desired adequately and fairly to find suitable employment at reasonable rates of pay for those who may be absorbed. The other day I asked the Minister of Health a question relating to Coventry. I asserted that the guardians, by arrangement with the local authority, had taken over certain gas main excavations and had applied them as test labour for those who were in receipt of relief, and that payment was being made in kind only. In answer to supplementary questions, the Minister of Health replied that it was an arrangement between the corporation and the guardians, and that it was not a matter, in which he had any responsibility. I am sure that the House will agree that this is not a time to apply Acts of Parliament that date back to 1844 and 1852, in order to find some precedent. In this particular case there is much more than that. It means the introduction almost of a penal test scheme, and I am sure that if the public knew to what extent it is being applied generally there would be much more said about it in the Press of the country. This is a case where the Coventry Board of Guardians claim the right to set men on to this work, and expect the gas department to report about a month later whether or not the men have passed the test. I suppose that if they pass the test they will continue in that employment. Then it becomes continuous employment under a system of payment partly in kind and partly in money.

  347
  Trade union standards have fallen considerably, and relief work wages are less than trade union wages, but this task work payment was less than the relief work payment. Therefore, instead of helping the unemployed it is lowering the standards, and it makes, not the Ministry of Labour the machinery for supplying men at proper rates of pay under proper conditions, but makes the Minister of Health and the board of guardians the machinery to take over from the Ministry of Labour the finding of work, under such degrading test conditions and at such rates of pay that none of us could agree with them. I wish to read an extract or two from some important letters bearing upon this matter. There is one from the Clerk to the Coventry Union to the Secretary of the Coventry Trades and Labour Council, with reference to this test work. The letter says:
  " I beg to inform you that the consent of the Ministry of Health was obtained to the scheme on 6th November, 1922. With regard to the National Insurance Act and Employers' Liability, the guardians are advised that the interpretation of employed persons ' and 'workmen ' in the National Insurance Act of 1911, Schedule I, and in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, apply to persons of the age of 16 or upwards who are employed under a contract of personal service. On the facts stated, the men to whom the guardians grant outdoor relief on condition that they do work in accordance with the terms of the work ticket, are not employed by the council within the meaning of the Act, and it is not necessary for the council surveyor to stamp the men's health and insurance cards, as it is clear that they do not work for the council under a contract of service. Further, the Board are also advised that the relationship of employer and employé does not exist in the work scheme as at present adopted with regard to Employers' Liability."
  You see, therefore, that this arrangement permits great schemes to be worked with the application of the test for oudoor relief from the guardians, and it excludes the stamping of health and unemployment insurance cards. Should an accident or injury take place it puts the men outside employers' liability. It is a state of affairs to which, I hope, the Ministers of Health and Labour will pay their attention, in order to see that such practices are not sanctioned. The matter arose with the Minister of Labour, for a letter was sent to him on 6th February, to which he replied on 21st February as follows:
  348
  " The Secretary is directed to inform you that from the inquiries made it would appear that the question referred to in your letter of 6th February is one for the consideration of the Ministry of Health, to whom your letter has accordingly been forwarded, and to whom any further communications on the subject should be addressed."
  Then the Ministry of Health replied:
  " I am directed by the Minister of Health to refer to your letter of the 6th, addressed to the Minister of Labour, and to reply that the extension and relaying of gas mains for the Coventry Corporation by men in receipt of Poor Law relief has been sanctioned by the Minister of Health as test work, and that the amount and nature of the relief granted are matters within the discretion of the guardians of the Coventry Union, subject to the Regulations in force."
  So the guardians can give whatever scale of relief they like; the Coventry Gas Department can hand over all its gas main laying to the guardians if it chooses, and the men employed on the work are to be deprived of all right to stamps on their cards and to employers' liability compensation should they be injured whilst so employed. That leads me to the conclusion that all the pretensions to a desire to help are futile. The board of guardians concerned lays down another condition, to which. I call attention. It is in a letter from the clerk to the Coventry Union to the secretary of the Coventry Trades and Labour Council. The letter says:
  " If the maximum scale of relief is granted, more than half is given in money, although it is an instruction from the Ministry of Health that half such relief should be given in kind."
  Further, the letter says:
  " After full and careful consideration it was resolved that an instruction be given for the rent book to be produced in all cases where the relief granted is on the basis of the maximum scale, even if relief in kind only is given."
  It is scandalous that cases of this kind should be allowed. Men ought to be taken from the Employment Exchanges at proper rates of pay. The guardians are putting in these workmen and depriving them of the common rights that belong to any workman outside Poor Law administration. Although they may have the bundles of groceries, the meat ticket, and the coal ticket, yet, say the guardians, "We must see your rent book every week in order to ascertain whether you have paid the rent." How can a man pay rent if the whole of the relief

  349
  payments are made in kind? How can be be expected to barter some of the tickets for food in order to raise the money for paying rent? This has been done in accordance with an Act that is 70 years old. The Corporation of Coventry is about to undertake work to the extent of over £45,000, and negotiations were begun to extend the test to that work. If the Minister of Labour has any power in the matter I would urge that a committee of inquiry be set up locally to go into the subject. When I went to present this matter on the men's side to the Joint Industrial Council of the Gas Industry, I heard reports of certain things that were being attempted in other parts of the country, but in those cases local feeling was strong enough to cause a postponement so that the unemployed men might be absorbed and their status and independence be maintained by their being engaged on work at proper rates of wages, instead of being sent in batches from the Poor Law, almost like a gang of convicts, to do a penal task as a condition precedent to receiving outdoor relief payment, the bulk of which was to be in kind. I hope that the precedent set at Coventry will not be followed by the Minister.
  In conclusion, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see to what extent relief work schemes can be hastened. Facilities for loans to local authorities have recently been somewhat handicapped, and I hope there will be an opening out of the channels which will permit of the rapid flow of assistance for schemes designed to absorb largo numbers of our unemployed. It is bad enough for many of these local authorities to be saddled with the loan. They will carry the burden for a large number of years, and it is very difficult for them to meet the liabilities that are placed upon them. Once they are prepared to do something, I hope the facilities afforded them will be as generous as possible and that everything will be done to assist them to meet the crying needs of the unfortunate inhabitants under their jurisdiction. I would further urge, in connection with these relief schemes, that instead of the rates of wages being less than trade union rates, the trade union rates should apply. Since that regulation was passed, many of the trade union rates have come down to the level which was at that time represented by 75 per cent. of the trade union rates, and with the longer period of unemploy-
  350
  went the men have lost a great deal of their efficiency at this kind of work. I hope the time has now arrived when not only will there be a more generous allocation of loans for local authorities on more generous terms, but also that the unemployed from the register may be set to work upon these schemes at trade union rates, and taken away from any overlooking by, or any supplying of test work to the boards of guardians under the debasing and harrowing conditions represented in the case I have just now put before the House.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will be brief, because there are many speakers, and several other subjects are to be raised in the Debate. As regards the figures of the register of unemployment, we commenced the year with 1,485,000 wholly unemployed. In the 10 weeks which elapsed down to 12th March we got down to 1,302,000. There is an improvement in those 10 weeks of 183,000. So far so good. The improvement of course has been very slow, and there can be no doubt that it will be very slow, but I think it is being steadily maintained. I greatly regret the indisposition of the Minister of Labour, and I hope he may soon recover, but I am quite sure it is a consolation to him to know that he is so admirably represented in the House, as he is this afternoon, by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister of Labour has done all he could in the circumstances. He has continued unemployment insurance. He has continued it, in the first instance, up to the middle of October, and I, personally, am much obliged to him for adopting the suggestion which I made on the Second Reading, that he ought to commence the new period as from 12th April and not as from 19th April as originally proposed. In addition, he has taken powers to continue the Unemployment Insurance Benefit Scheme —which is purely an emergency scheme, let it never be forgotten—from October, 1923, onwards for at least a year, and I gather, if necessary, even further than that.
  It is that point to which I wish to call particular attention but let me for a moment refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). As regards administration my hon. Friend knows he has only got to represent a case to the Minister and his

  351
  colleague and every consideration will be given to it. Upstairs during the Committee stage of the Bill, the Minister undertook to consider all the Regulations and see whether the harness galled anywhere. He undertook to review them, if at all possible, in the light of the representations made by my hon. Friend and I am sure he will do so. As regards the premises of the Employment Exchanges my hon. Friend was very severe upon the condition of a good many of them, and I say at once quite frankly, not without reason. Undoubtedly in many cases they are unsuitable; they are old residential houses which were not intended for this purpose at all, but we had to cut our coat according to our cloth. We had to economise because, after all, the real way to reduce unemployment is to reduce taxation. I have no doubt a good deal of unemployment to-day arises from the unduly heavy taxation resulting from the War. We had, to put it colloquially, to make shift as best we could. My hon. Friend was quite right in paying a tribute to the fine social service rendered by the Employment Exchange officers. I am full of admiration for what they have done during the 2· years of the slump in very difficult circumstances having regard to the unsuitable character of so many of the premises. It would be impossible to overstate our obligations to them.
  When my hon. Friend says that sometimes they may not deal sympathetically and humanely with applicants, I must say I have never met with cases of that kind. I have found as a matter of fact, that these men, 99 per cent. of whom are ex-service men, deal with the cases which come before them day by day with infinite patience, infinite sympathy and infinite humanity. That. I believe to be generally true, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that, generally speaking, these men are doing a very fine work with great patience and consideration, though admittedly the premises in particular cases are not all they might be. My hon. Friend referred to the lamentable spectacle of people standing in long queues in inclement weather waiting to go in for the purpose either of registration or of drawing benefit. Of course he knows that anybody responsible would endeavour to remove that necessity and it would have been removed if these poor people had
  352
  only kept to the timing arrangement which was drawn up. It was arranged that a certain number whose names began with a certain letter, should come at 9 o'clock in the morning, others coming at 10 o'clock, and so on. Had that plan been carried out no one need remain outside. Unfortunately it was not always possible for the people to fall in with the timing arrangements, and like all other human institutions, it did not work with the smoothness of machinery. I satisfied myself that had the timing arrangements been kept, notwithstanding the unsuitability of the premises, it would not have been necessary for anybody to wait outside, and the last thing anyone would wish is that poor people not altogether well sustained by food should have to stand outside during inclement weather. I am afraid they did not or could not keep to the timing arrangement which we tried to introduce, if it was necessary for them to stand about in the rain.
  I come now to the main point with which I rose to deal. The Government is taking powers to continue the Unemployment Insurance scheme which is an emergency scheme from October, 1923, onwards for a year at least and it may be for longer. I quite concur with that. It will make assurance doubly sure. I do not mind saying that I was constantly harassed by the fear that my provision might "peter out" at a time when Parliament was not sitting. Therefore I quite agree with this measure as a standby. What I press upon the Government is that it is not enough merely to continue the Unemployment Insurance Act in its emergency form from October, 1923, onwards. The Government ought to do far more than that. The Government has got to realise that the permanent post-War unemployment problem is going to be entirely different from and very much larger than the permanent pre-War unemployment problem. It is going to be different in character, and it is going to be larger for several reasons. Firstly, there is the increase in population; secondly there is the cessation of emigration during the War. Thirdly there is the fact that many women who came into industry temporarily during the War are remaining in it; and fourthly there is the fact that you have got ever increasing labour-saving appliances mitigated no

  353
  doubt by shorter hours in certain cases. For all these reasons the post-War unemployment problem is going to be much more serious as a permanent problem than was the pre-War problem.
  Before the War, in good times, when trade was flourishing, we had 200,000 men unemployed. When good times come again, as they will sooner or later, we are going to have at least twice as many and, in all human probability, three times as many. In good times we may very well have 600,000 unemployed. The problem is going to be different in this way. Before the War the 200,000 were middle-aged and elderly men, many of them rather broken and rather incapable of employment because of long periods of hard luck and unemployment. The 600,000 is going to contain quite a large number of active, strong, vigorous, enduring young men. That is the problem to which I wish to draw attention. These young men are there largely because of the War. They are in the ranks of the unskilled because of the War, and had it not been for the War they might very well be in the ranks of the skilled or the semi-skilled. What are we going to do about that problem? The first thing to do is to press for all we know the Empire Settlement Act. I understand an arrangement has been made to deal with that subject in greater detail at a later stage of the Debate, and I will not enter into it fully now. These men are drifting; they are becoming demoralised. Let us help them before their chance is gone. If we let this chance go, all efforts under the Empire Settlement Act will be no good, and it is as certain as that to-morrow's sun will rise that it will mean, for two out 'of every three, nothing but demoralisation, bad luck and failure. Each of them will marry some despondent woman who will bring up little scraps of humanity in the overcrowded parts of great cities—and these are the men to whom we owe so much—whereas in the open spaces of the Empire, for two out of three, there is an equally certain chance of health, strength and vigour with a happy helpmate conscious of the fact that she is rearing hardy children who will be able to make their way in the world as their father did before them. When my hon. Friend was talking about this Act and its administration he referred to the
  354
  fact that Employment Exchange officers sometimes invited men to consider that opportunity. Would not he agree that the officers should invite the men to do so, with these two prospects before them? It is a voluntary matter. The men please themselves, but do not let us think we are befriending them by telling them not to take up this scheme.
  Mr. HAYDAY: What I complained about was the secretary of the Employment Exchange committee sending out, on behalf of a private society, Government franked envelopes containing invitations to a meeting to discuss the question of migration. What I was complaining about was the use of the machinery not for a Department but for a private association.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Empire Settlement Act provides—though my hon. Friend may not be aware of the fact— that its operations can be carried out by the Oversea Settlement Committee and private associations as well—the Salvation Army, and so on. At any rate, with these two prospects staring the men in the face, if they wish to go, let them go, and God speed to them, and let us render them every assistance and see that they go under fair conditions. I agree that they are entitled to be prejudiced in this matter, because of the way in which the thing has been done in the past. I listened with sympathy to an hon. Member, the last time this was debated, who made some rather scathing remarks about the shipping companies and the operation of these schemes. But this is on a new plan altogether. This is a real chance, and all I ask is—
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Let them go on to the land in this country.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Let them do both. Here are open spaces that want the right sort of men, and here are the men, and therefore do not let us allow any prejudice to rob these men of their chance, which is drifting away from them every hour of the day.
  Mr. BROAD: Why not give them a chance here?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Give them a chance in both cases. If my hon. Friends wait until they get their system going, whatever it may be, then these men's chances will have gone. Cannot we compromise on this? Cannot we arrange

  355
  that you shall go on working out your system, but we will give these men a hand in the meantime? I press most earnestly upon the Government the question of the working of the Empire Settlement Act for all we know. There are one or two other things that I want to say apart from that, but that is the immediate thing, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will do me the favour to represent these views.
  More than that, collaterally with the working out of the unemployment insurance scheme from October, 1923, onwards, the Government has, I think, to ask the Cabinet Unemployment Committee to consider permanent schemes here at home for the post-War unemployment problem which will confront them, and, first of all, in that respect those schemes have, if I may say so, got to have as their main objective continuity of employment, and money relief a bad second best. Perhaps it was inevitable, in the calamitous slump which came upon us, but all other schemes have had as their first objective—I think I am not over-stating this—money assistance, with work as a second objective. We began with the unemployment insurance scheme, and then we went on to loan guarantees, trade facilities, emergency work, and so on. Now let us put continuity of employment as the first, the main, objective, with the necessary financial assistance as the second best. In regard to the first objective, then, there are all sorts of real public utility schemes in the air. There are tunnels and waterways, electrical power development, land reclamation, and afforestation. I want the Cabinet Unemployment Committee now to sit down, and hammer out these schemes.
  Mr. J. JONES: You said that in 1920.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, and we found work for 100,000 men on an average during the whole of the slump. Bearing in mind the overwhelming task thrown upon us, that is not such a bad record, but as the figures are now falling off and hands are getting lightened, we should look into the future, and take time by the forelock, and see whether we cannot sit down and hammer out permanent schemes of real public utility such as I have mentioned. There are plenty of works in the air, which the Cabinet
  356
  Unemployment Committee might consider, so as to have them ready for use directly bad times come again.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: A Ministry of Reconstruction!
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is reconstruction. The task in the past was overwhelming. We found ourselves with over 2,000,000 unemployed and over 1,000,000 on short time at one time, and, as I say, the task was really overwhelming, but even then we managed to make public utility work which found employment, on an average over the whole of the last two years, for 100,000 men, which is not so bad.
  Now I come to rather a difficult matter. I wonder whether private employers, especially when they operate on a large scale, cannot consider whether it is not possible so to organise their operations as to have regard to the condition of the labour market. I wonder whether the Joint Industrial Councils representing both sides—they have been referred to this afternoon as an admirable body by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham who submitted a case to them in another connection—cannot consider, for each industry, how far it is feasible so to conduct their industrial operations as to make them harmonise with trade fluctuations. I do not say that is easy; I do not pretend to say it is easy; I am quite willing to admit it is extremely difficult, but if we are going to get continuity of employment as our main objective, not only should public utility works be got ready and public contracts be put out with regard to the condition of the labour market, but private employers, especially those who operate on a large scale, should consider whether it is not possible—
  Mr. BROAD: We advocated that years ago.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member ought to rejoice that we are agreeing with him now. Some people are never satisfied. I suggest, therefore, the examination of these public utility schemes, the putting out of Government and municipal contracts, and the examination by private employers of the question of continuity of employment, notwithstanding trade fluctuations, if it be possible. These are my suggestions, and I

  357
  am quite sure my hon.. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will represent them to the Minister of Labour for what they are worth, but I press this: It is not enough to say, "Ah well, we have got an unemployment insurance scheme going on from October, 1923, onwards," and then to sit with nerveless, listless hands. That is not enough. Nobody on that Bench would wish that it should be considered enough, I know, and what I ask is that, collaterally with all that, these schemes should be hammered out, so that, say, on this day 12 months things may so far have got back to the normal that we may then be able to put in the place of this temporary scheme something more permanent, more stable, something which shall have, as its main objective, continuity of employment rather than money assistance for those for whom employment cannot be found.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I have listened with great interest to the latest convert to what the Labour party have been advocating for many years past. The Labour party suggested in 1918 that the Government of the day, of which the right hon. Member for North-West Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara) happened to be a Member, should prepare schemes for the problems of unemployment that would inevitably face this country as a result of the peace conditions, or the prospect of peace conditions, following on the War. We did the same thing in 1919. They set up a Ministry of Reconstruction, and after that they destroyed by destructive means the Ministry of Reconstruction. Now we are being seriously told that the Government ought to do all those things which we have suggested already. It is the old party game. In opposition, tell those in power what to do, but when in power, refuse to do what they have told those in power to do when they were in opposition. That is the position which we have to face to-day—the old party game being played. We are thankful that the country has seen fit to send a real live Opposition into the House of Commons, that will seek to show up the sham. Opposition there has been in the past. It has been seriously suggested by the right hon. Member for North-West Camber-well that we ought to go in for a great scheme of emigration. Why not
  358
  cultivate the barren parts of our own land first, before we seek to cultivate the barren parts across the seas?
  May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, and those who agree with him, that they might read a book just written by Dr. Ernest A. Baker? In that book he has pointed out what appeals to Scottish Members in particular, and that is the serious situation in connection with the land question as it affects the country from which we come and some of the constituencies which we represent. In that book, "Through the Highlands with Rope and Rucksack," the author has given to the country new material, so far as the depopulation of the Highlands is concerned. He there refers to the fact, well known by the students of the Scottish land system at least, that there was a time when the mountains and moorlands of Scotland were as free and open as the sea shore. They are not now. They are used in many instances— to the extent, I think, of approximately 4,000,000 acres— for deer forests. I do not claim for a single moment that in dealing with the unemployment problem the whole of those 4,000,000 acres could be used entirely for the ordinary methods of agriculture, but I suggest that at least one-half of the 4,000,000 acres could be used for better purposes than those for which they are used at the present time, and I suggest that, according to the figures submitted, and admitted by a Commission set up by this House itself, dealing with the question of re-afforestation, over 1,000,000 acres of that land could be used for re-afforestation, so far as Scotland is concerned. I suggest that, so far as the other 2,000,000 acres are concerned, which to-day are used for deer forests, surely if they can rear deer on it, to say the very least, I think—and T do not mean this for humour—they could rear goats on it. There are countries where they are able to use goats. Unfortunately, many of our opponents opposite have succeeded in using the horny-handed goats up to the present. I hope, however, they will become a little more intelligent in the future, and then we will be able to have real representation of the people to deal with the unemployment problem.
  I would ask the right hon. Member for North West Camber-well to read the book to which I have referred, as it will give him some education in connection with the situation in Scotland. There was a

  359
  time when that land was used for sheep runs, and there were at least, shall I say, 500 per cent. more people engaged in sheep farming than, at the present time, are engaged in connection with the deer forests. That also would help to solve the problem, and even if we went back to the old sheep farming system, it would help to solve some part of the unemployment problem, and also some of the problems in connection with the food supply of the country. One-fifth of the whole area of Scotland is to-day given over to deer forests, and according to the Departmental Committee on Deer Forests, there was in 1919 a total of 3,442,385 acres of land in Scotland given over to deer forests. People have been drifting from the hillsides, the straths, and the glens of Scotland into our industrial areas, and no one will say that that has been to their advantage. It certainly stands towards decreasing the physical power of the people of Scotland, and it certainly stands towards increasing the problem of unemployment in our large industrial areas. When they have got the 1,000,000 acres, that could be used for other pur poses, it is no use the right hon. Member for North West Camber-well beginning to preach about overseas development and emigration, when so many of those men who to-day are unemployed fought to defend what I believe is the most glorious land on earth, and now are told to get out, after they have made it successful for the owners of deer forests to draw rents from the land for that purpose.
  6.0 P.M.
  Unemployment is accentuated and intensified by the deer forests in Scotland. They provide trifling employment for approximately 2,000 gillies, who are employed in deer forests, and on the fringes of these pleasure grounds of the rich, where pheasants and deer are fed and Scottish peasants are starved, the relics of a bold, brave, fearless, and independent Scottish peasantry are fighting a losing battle against poverty, despair, starvation, and misery. There is no getting away from that, as those who understand the Scottish position know. In the Highlands in particular, and in Scotland in general, the land is being used to give sport, and an enormous amount of wealth is expended for the few, who are determined to keep out and keep under subjection the many who ought to
  360
  have free access to that very land. There are a few other aspects of the case with which I should like to deal. I want to deal with the suggestion of emigrating the child-life of this country. I have received a secret memorandum, supposed to be secret—and perhaps is the reason that I got hold of it—issued by the Labour Ministry to the Juvenile Employment Committees in Scotland. In that secret memorandum it is pointed out that the Department are desirous of emigrating from this country to Australia 500 boys per month. We have heard to-day eloquent declarations as to the need for proper guardianship of children up to a certain age. Yet some hon. Members are prepared to support a scheme for the emigration of young children between the ages of 14 and 17. I say that it is a diabolical scheme, and I use the word purposely, because it is a fair one to describe it. Sending away children who ought to have the care of parents in their own country!
  As a parent I am pleading in view of the fact that in the near future it may be the position in which I am placed in respect of my own child, and I want to appeal to hon. Members to look at this matter from the point of view of parents. Would hon. Members opposite like to part with their children between the ages of 14 and 17, during the most impressionable age so far as boys, at least, are concerned? You are busy at present passing a Bill to remove from lads one of the temptations around them in the drink shops, and that is all to the good. I am going to do my best to see that the boys of the working-classes are given a fair chance, because not only they, hut the boys of the richer classes as well, all require at these critical ages the guiding hand of the father and the tender care of the mother. I want, to protest against the suggestion of the Labour Ministry to emigrate children between the ages of 14 and 17. If there is to be a scheme of emigration surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to elaborate other schemes of emigration which will avoid seeking to destroy the homes of the people. We are justified in putting forward this attitude specially in view of the many petitions which have been submitted to the House suggesting that we on this side of the House are seeking to

  361
  destroy the sanctity of the home in connection with some of the teaching in our socialistic sunday schools. I beg to suggest that the circular which has led the Juvenile Employment Committees seriously to discuss the emigration of boys between 14 and 17 years of age is wrong and that you ought not to go in for any scheme of emigration on those lines. It is a shame, a scandal, and immoral to take away these children from the proper care of the father and mother at this particular age.
  There is another aspect of the question. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland in his place, because it is rather unfortunate that the Secretary for Scotland happens to be in the other place when we are discussing Scottish questions. I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman present, because there is a question which directly affects the problems of unemployment, so far as administration is concerned, and that is the question of the feeding of necessitous school children. The hon. and gallant Gentleman could, by the withdrawal by his Department of that infamous Circular No. 51, do something good. That circular sought to take away powers which for many many years the education authorities in Scotland—the old school board, and now the new education authorities— imagined that they had got in dealing with the children of necessitous parents. Anyone knows that if a father has only got 21s., 22s., or 23s. a week that it is absolutely impossible for the parents to provide all that is necessary for two or three children, as the case may be. They get better help from the parish council if they have three or four children. The father gets 12s. 6d., the mother 10s., and they are allowed up to 3s. 6d. for each child. Under the unemployment scale they are only allowed 1s. for each child. Actually it pays them better to be on the parish council relief rather than to be getting the unemployment donation. With the latter it is impossible to provide what it is necessary for the children and to provide them with food and clothing. Before this we claim that we had that power.
  Let me draw the attention of the Secretary far Health to what happened when the War was on. We were all brothers then, of course! The question of defending our native land and to see that justice
  362
  was done was to the front. I have here a Circular, No. 461, issued by the Education Department, dated 7th August, 1914, three days after we entered upon the awful catastrophe that came upon us in that month of August. It states in that circular that the determination of what cases are to be regarded as necessitous is one for the discretion of school boards. The powers of a board under the Act extended to the provision of meals for school children during the holidays, and not merely during actual attendance at school. It was hoped accordingly that when occasion arose boards, while taking all due precaution against waste and needless expenditure, would make a liberal use of their powers under the Act to meet all cases of genuine distress. That was the time, Mr. Speaker, when this country was face to face with an outside foe. May I remind hon. Members of a quotation from a famous poem by Quarles:
  " Our God and soldier we alike adore,
  But only when in danger, not before;
  The danger o'er, both are alike requited,
  God is forgotten, and the soldier slighted."
  There are hundreds of soldiers' children who have been refused food in Scotland, food that is necessary, because Circular No. 51 has taken the power away from the education authorities to fulfil the functions that they imagined they had' power to fulfil prior to that infamous circular being issued.
  I want to appeal to the Secretary for Health to put before his Noble Friend in the other House — that is the inevitable answer we get when dealing with these matters—to put before him the situation that has been placed before the House by a member of the executive of an education authority for which I can speak as to the absolute unanimity in our demand. It is no use trying to put dates into the heads of the children when they ought to be having dates put into their stomachs. That condition will be ameliorated by giving us back power to deal with the conditions that apply to unemployment at the present time. So far as constructive work is concerned, I beg to suggest that we should deal with the question of re-afforestation. You only allowed on a Supplementary Estimate a provision of £50,000 to deal with afforestation. At the present time I represent a county

  363
  where you could quite well spend £100,000 in re-afforesting the hillsides denuded of their trees during the War. That would practically help the unemployed problem from Edinburgh right to the borders. My hon. and gallant Friend has, I believe, been visiting the harder recently. I trust that he will deal more closely, as I hoped he was going to do, with the problem of unemployment, and that he will seriously consider the suggestions I am making about re-wooding the hillsides of Peeble-shire, by re-afforestation of the country on the proper lines. Such a policy would, at least, I believe, help the unemployment problem so far as the southern counties of Scotland are concerned.
  I might further point out that the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion and Afforestation, 1909, made certain recommendations. The Commission also made a certain statement in which they pointed out that there were 6,000,000 derelict acres of land in Scotland which were suitable for afforestation. They further said that not more than 5 per cent. of the soil of Scotland is under forest, while in Germany it is 26 per cent. and France 17 per cent. We import into this country every year £30,000,000 worth of timber and wood pulp, of which two-thirds could well be grown at home. That is a statement from your own Commission, Why should we not develop our own home resources first before taking in hand to develop resources overseas? I am not objecting to overseas development, but while we talk about that, I would point out very strongly that we have so much room for development in our own country—that so much can be done to keep the boys and girls employed in the land of their birth, the land for which so many of their fathers fought, for which so many soldiers died, and which we believe worth defending and worth fighting for.
  In Saxony the net revenue from the State forests was 22s. per acre, or £19,000,000 per annum. We know (say the Commission) that the only reason why private landlords do not engage in afforestation—and that is my reason for putting the scheme before the House, and because afforestation is a national question and something which ought to be done by the State—the only reason
  364
  private owners do not put it forward as a profitable investment is because the capital invested does not give that speedy return to the owner that he likes. The question is one for the State to take up and for the Government to provide the proper schemes necessary to deal with the problem of unemployment which will sooner or later become more intensified even than now. If we went in for a real scheme of afforestation, 150,000 acres annually would find profitable and economic employment in drainage and planting for 18,000 men for six months from October to March, which is the planting season. The expenditure of £1,000,000 per annum would purchase the soil, provide roots and implements, and cover certain expenses.
  I am going to state from these benches that the tribunal appointed to go into this matter of taking over the land of those who own it could see that they have a proper title; if not, obviously it is stolen property. The £1,000,000 to which I refer would provide what. I have said, and cover managerial expenses and wages, these latter on a basis of well over £1 per week. That is the Royal Commission basis of 1909. The expenditure necessary for the purpose of re-afforestation in Scotland would only be equal to the expenditure of one Dreadnought. I am inclined to think that it would be far more wisely spent by providing employment, something in return for the expenditure, than spending money on destructive purposes which we are so ready to do at the present time.
  I beg further to suggest that it might be worth the consideration of the Government, in considering the question of unemployment, to deal with the Mid-Scotland Canal Scheme placed before this House. I understand a Commission or Committee has sat which has seriously considered this particular problem. May I point out, in connection with the Mid-Scotland Canal scheme, that the strategic advantages of such a navigable waterway are admitted by the Admiralty? In a communication to the Secretary for Scotland on the 12th August, 1921, the Admiralty stated that the strategic advantages of such a canal are:

  " (1) A navigable waterway between the East and West Coasts of the United Kingdom, facilitating naval concentration in the North Sea or Atlantic, without having to pass either through the Straits of Dover or round the North of Scotland.

  365

  (2) A means whereby ships damaged in the North Sea could be speedily passed by a safe route to western repairing yards, and vice versâ.

  (3) A safe alternative route in time of war for merchant ships hound to and from ports on the East Coast."

  The argument used by those who oppose the scheme is that there would be no agreement as to whether the long route by Loch Lomond or the short route should be followed, but I understand that agreement has now been arrived at in favour of the direct route, which would be only 29 miles long, and which, it is now claimed, would cost only £35,000,000. Even if it cost £35,000,000 and then, at the end, did not provide a commercial return, still, having expended £35,000,000, at the end of that time you would have a canal that would help commerce and would be of some use, instead of continuing, as at present, to spend money on donations or doles from which there is no return whatever. I think the Government might, in dealing with the problem of unemployment, seriously consider this question of the Mid-Scotland Canal. But for the fact that I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in this Debate, I should be able to develop the argument and give figures showing the advantages that would accrue from the canal. There are one or two points in connection with administration to which I am anxious to draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and also of the Ministry of Labour. The problem of unemployment, as it affects the rural areas, has not yet received due consideration from this House. We have had repeated speeches and Debates in connection with unemployment, and eloquent pleas for the huge industrial areas, but, so far as unemployment affects the individual in the rural areas, it is just as great a tragedy to the individual there as it is to the individual in the big industral area. Proper facilities are not being given at the present time for the payment of unemployment benefit and as regards the method of signing on at the Exchanges. In my constituency, individuals in certain districts who may be unfortunate enough to be unemployed have in some instances to travel nine miles for the purpose of signing on at one of the local Exchanges. It might be a wise policy, and in the interest of some of these unfortunate people, if some arrangement were made whereby they
  366
  could sign on and receive payment at the local post office. That would be a great advantage in the rural districts. Again, powers ought to be given to local administrative bodies to pay the full amount of wages payable in the district where they are carrying out by direct labour schemes for relieving unemployment. At present they are only empowered to pay 75 per cent. Surely we have now, after the long period of unemployment we have had, reached a stage when we ought to waive that point, and allow local authorities, where they desire to do so, to have the right to pay 100 per cent.
  Consideration might also be given to rural areas and small boroughs. Peebles, for instance, has, I understand, appealed to the Ministry on three occasions for a grant for dealing with unemployment, but that appeal has been turned down, on the ground that the unemployment has not been of sufficient magnitude in the town to justify a grant. In proportion, however, to the other districts, it is just as difficult for the small boroughs to provide the money to help to alleviate unemployment as it is in the larger areas, and, surely, they ought to get a grant on proportionate terms, in the same way as the larger areas with huge numbers of unemployed. Some of these matters might be seriously considered by the Government, and I hope that in dealing with the problem of unemployment, so far as the Ministry of Labour is concerned, we shall get a little more sympathy and a little more speeding up in regard to some of the applications in connection with schemes, and also, in the rural districts, a little fairer treatment in the future than we have had in the past.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): In the unfortunate absence of the Minister of Labour, who, as has been already mentioned, is laid by by illness, I think it will be expected that I should say something in reply to some of the criticisms which have been made today. This is, I think, the third or fourth occasion on which, in one form or another, we have discussed unemployment within the last few months, but that of itself is a matter for no surprise, because this great, complex, human subject of unemployment is one which is regarded with anxiety by every Member of this House,

  367
  in whatever quarter he sits, and I myself think that the House is entitled to the fullest information in the possession of the Government on this question of unemployment, on every occasion on which the Rules of the House permit of its discussion. I consider it to be a fortunate circumstance that, the first time that I stand at this Box, it should be to make an attempt to give some information, and, perhaps, to dispel some doubts and to make clear what, perhaps, was not clear before, on matters relating to this question of unemployment. As has been already said quite truly, it is not open to us today, on this Consolidated Fund Bill, to consider the merits or demerits of the various Acts which have been passed dealing with unemployment. We cannot again travel over the ground over which we have travelled but a few days ago when we were discussing the Bill which, I believe, this very day will receive the Royal Assent. We are, however, at liberty to deal with the question of the administration of those Acts which exist, and the speeches and criticisms on this occasion have been almost entirely directed to questions of administration.
  When we remember that there are 12,000,000 insured persons, and when the live register is what we know it to be, it is not surprising that this huge, complex machine should be subject to criticism from time to time. That is very natural, and I am sure I speak for the Minister when I say that we welcome criticism, and particularly criticism in the spirit of that of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), who, obviously, made suggestions which he thought would be helpful and would improve the administration. I hope that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Westwood), who spoke last, will forgive me if I do not enter with him into a discussion on the old question of the Scottish deer forests. That is a question on which my hon. and gallant Friend who represents the Scottish Office is much more qualified than I am to give an opinion. I hope, also, that the hon. Member will not think me discourteous if I do not deal with one of the other points on which he laid emphasis, namely, the question of Empire settlement. That, however, is for a different reason. The question of Empire settlement is, I understand, to be a topic of separate discussion
  368
  on this Consolidated Fund Bill, and, therefore, the observations which the hon. Member made in that regard will be more relevant to that discussion, and accordingly I will not take up the time of the House by attempting to deal with it. The other points to which the hon. Member referred in the latter part of his speech, in regard to the treatment of rural areas, and his proposal with regard to the Post Office are, of course, proposals which I will bring before the Minister, and I will see that the Minister is seized of the hon. Member's views.
  Before I come to the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham, I would just say this, with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara), who has now left the House. Of course, it is perfectly true, and, indeed, it must be obvious, not merely to every student, but to the most superficial observer of this question, that the post-War problems of unemployment must be, for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave, among others, widely different in almost every aspect from the problems with which we had to deal before the War. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that schemes should be considered now, before the expiration of the operation of the Act which has just been passed, and I hope they will be considered now, dealing with the question of continuity of employment after a year next autumn. The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of Empire settlement, but, for the reason that I have just given, I will not now detain the House by going into that matter.
  The hon. Member for West Nottingham raised a number of quite specific points, and I desire at once to thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of many of the points which he raised. The last question of which he spoke, namely, the question of what he will at once recognise as the Coventry case, is one which has already, by way of question and answer, been discussed in the House, and I am authorised to state, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, that it will be dealt with by him in the course of this Debate, and, in so far as any consultation is necessary or desirable between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, such consultation

  369
  will take place. The first point dealt with by the hon. Member for West Nottingham was partially answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camber-well, namely, the question of the suitability of Employment Exchange accommodation. A great deal of what the hon. Member said with regard to the unsuitability of some of these premises is perfectly true, but let me remind the House, quite shortly, what the history of this matter has been. The firm Labour Exchanges—they are now known as Employment Exchanges— were opened no less than 13 years ago. That was when the attendance at these Exchanges was voluntary, and, therefore, the question as between 13 years ago and now is, in that respect, entirely altered. We have, by successive enactments, brought within compulsory insurance some 12,000,000 people, and, therefore, there is obviously all the difference in the world between 13 years ago and the present time. The hon. Member referred, I think, to the Aberconway Committee. There is now, I understand—
  Mr. HAYDAY: It was the G. N. Barnes Committee of 1920.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I am much obliged. There is still, I understand, an Interdepartmental Committee sitting which consists of representatives of the Treasury, the Office of Works, and the Ministry of Labour, and they frequently meet to consider how the accommodation can be improved. But in regard to the whole of this question, of course the difficulty is that the present time is not, a normal time. You have an immense amount of unemployment which you hope, and with good reason, will get less, so if you attempt to provide, at great expense, full and adequate accommodation for the numbers you have to deal with now, when unemployment goes down, you will be over-housed, and it will be found you have spent money which might be saved. I only mention that as some explanation for the charge which the hon. Member makes. With regard to a good deal of what he says, I agree, but he did not quite do justice—I am sure it was unintentional—to the Ministry of Labour when he said nothing had been done, because a good deal has been done. In 1920 the Treasury fixed the standard of
  370
  accommodation with regard to Employment Exchanges, but that was based upon an unemployment rate of 4 per cent. Obviously, when you have an unemployment rate of very much more than 4 per cent., that standard becomes insufficient and inadequate, but, none the less, no fewer than 40 Employment Exchanges have been provided with standard accommodation on the footing I have just stated, so it is not quite accurate to say nothing at all has been done. Speaking generally, there is every attempt to improve these Exchanges. I think the hon. Member will agree that it would not be right to incur great expense until the industrial situation becomes more normal, especially, of course, in view of the need for economy in every department of administration.
  The next point he dealt with was the question of unsympathetic treatment by members of the staff. On the whole, I do not think that charge can be substantiated. Of course, members of the staff, like everyone else, differ. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) quite truly said the other day that some people are born handsome and some are not, and when you have a large staff dealing with these questions, and when you remember that the staff at present employed at the Exchanges is no less than 8,700, it is obvious that they are not all blessed with the courtesy of the hon. Member for Nottingham. But complaints in respect of discourtesy are few, and if it should be brought to the notice of the Ministry itself that any cases of discourtesy on the part of the staff are well founded, the Ministry would at once take action. I remember the hon. Member himself, a month or two ago, paid a tribute to the attitude and the conduct of the staff as a whole.
  The next point with which he dealt was the question of un-covenanted benefit. His point, as I understood it, was, that there was a lack of uniformity up and down the country as between one district and another. I think absolute uniformity under the system we have adopted is quite impossible of achievement, because we have deliberately given to these committees a wide discretion, and with the discretion, of course, you have given them a great sense of responsibility. You can give a general direction, but you cannot expect to get anything like uni-

  371
  formity up and down the country. There are no fewer than 320 of these committees, which contain altogether 7,500 members, and when you remember the difference not only in the industries themselves but in the classes of applicant, I think it will be agreed, although it is not possible to get absolute uniformity, that, on the whole, so far as it is possible under these different conditions to get it, there is not really any very great cause for complaint.
  The next point the hon. Member made was the case of the overpayment of the 1s. in respect of a child. That overpayment may arise from one of two reasons. It may be that it arises where a wrong age has been deliberately given by the child's parent or it may arise in consequence of a mistake of the exchange itself after the child has reached the age of 14 or 16 as the case may be. Where the mistake is made owing to a wrong age being deliberately given by the parent I am sure the hon. Member himself would agree that the parent is entitled to no consideration, because he has committed a fraud on the authority, but with regard to the case where it has been paid after the child has reached the age of 14 or 16 by the mistake of the exchange itself, of course, the considerations are different. The Ministry have never prosecuted for recovery except where there is reason to believe there has been bad faith, or in other words, fraud. When I knew I had to deal with this point I asked for the actual form of the receipt signed by the parent when he gets the money, and I find he is required to say he has read the conditions set out on the back of the paper and understands them and is duly satisfied. One of the conditions on the back is that the child must be under the age of 14 or 16 as the case may be, so it is difficult for him, after he has signed a receipt which brings to his actual notice what the conditions are, to say afterwards that the mistake was not as least as much his.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I acknowledge all that, but the money is there for the man and he is told to sign. There are very many signing at the same time and he is told to hurry up. Not one of these receipts is read by the average man. He is given the form with the age filled in in detail, and correctly, and yet he is prosecuted. Such cases have come before me as a magistrate
  372
  where the representatives of the Ministry have admitted that the age is correct. What I am asking is that as they review these things for the purpose of prosecutions, they might review them a little more frequently and automatically stop payment as the age limit is reached.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly represent that to the Minister. There is a further point to which I would draw attention, that under the law as it stood until to-day—the Act comes into operation to-day—deduction might have been made in respect of an over-payment from future benefit coming to the man. Under the new Bill this cannot be done if the money was received by the applicant in good faith, which goes, at any rate, some way to meet the hon. Member's point.
  The only other point of which I have a note was that of the gap. The hon. Member very properly altered the word "gap," which has now a technical meaning in connection with these Acts, so I will use the word "break." Instructions have already been issued to the local employment committees that, in dealing with claims for benefits under the extension granted by the Bill the other day, they may authorise benefit to the maximum number of weeks in eases where they are satisfied that the claimant should receive that amount of benefit, which goes a very long way to meet the hon. Member's point. This, of course, is a matter in the discretion of the committee itself, because they alone are in a position to judge of the circumstances of the applicant and they have local knowledge of the situation. Where the committee does not grant the full maximum amount, it is now a standing instruction to the Employment Exchanges that the claims shall be brought before the committee before the expiration of the period, and so there ought to be no delay whatever in the resumption of benefit after the break, and I am authorised to say this point will be emphasised in the instructions now issued to the Exchanges. I do not think there are any other points with which I desire to deal, and if there are any I have overlooked, the Minister of Health will be here, and he will no doubt deal with them.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: While we regret the illness and absence of the Minister,

  373
  we are consoled, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his first appearance at that Box, and on the presentation he has made of the case, as also for the courtesy of his reply to all the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend. He referred to the fact that unemployment had come up already on three or four occasions during the Session. If I had my way, nothing else should ever come up for Debate in this House, because this is the most important question that not only this House, but any body of men in this country, can possibly discuss. We seem too often to deal with the unemployed question as though it affected only the unemployed. It would be bad enough if that were true, but it is by no means the full extent of the effect of unemployment. Unemployment is a curse not only to the unemployed, but to all those who have still got jobs. It deprives them not only of their full wage, but it deprives them of their manhood as free citizens in a free country. So long as we have, as we have to-day, 1,250,000 people unemployed, the men who have jobs cannot call their souls their own. Every week, when Friday comes round, every man in the workshop and the mine is terrified lest he gets a note from the foreman and is turned on to the streets. So long as we have unemployment, such as we have to-day, we shall have a reign of terror in this country, and the people who have jobs will have to accept whatever terms, so far as wages or hours are concerned, are asked of them by those who are good enough, kind enough and gracious enough to give them employment.
  Therefore, when we discuss the question of unemployment, we have not only in our minds the people whom the House has chiefly in mind, the people we see lined up outside the Employment Exchanges, the people we see going downhill mentally, morally and physically; but we are thinking of the effect of unemployment upon the whole community, the fact that it deprives the worker of the full reward of his labour, the fact that unemployment is the driving force behind the whole of our civilisation as we know it to-day, and that that unemployment is a whip used by the capitalist system to make the worker work. If it were not for unemployment, the worker would be able to bargain with his employer on equal terms; but while there are unemployed knocking
  374
  at the gate and willing to give half a crown to the foreman to be taken on, the worker is not bargaining on equal terms with the employer. He is not a free man; he is, as we say on these benches, a wage slave, and nothing can change his position so long as the unemployment problem is hanging round his neck.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: That is why the employers do not want to change it.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is not the only reason why we want this question debated in the House of Commons and on platforms in the country. That is not the only reason why at all our meetings, and they are very numerous, we talk of unemployment from beginning to end. We are up against this proposition, that when we hear hon. Members opposite dealing with the problem of unemployment, and talking about unemployment, it seems to us that all the time they are trying to make unemployment decent, and to preserve it at all costs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, you cannot do without unemployment. During the War, for instance, when they were combing out the engineering trade and taking every available man, I remember hearing one hon. Member protesting that the engineering industry could not be carried on without a 5 per cent. margin of unemployment. That is the real case in our present industrial system. You require a certain amount of unemployment in order to ensure that the trade unions will not raise the wages to any extent. During the War D.O.R.A. was invoked for that very reason and agreements were come to with the trade union leaders, all because there were two jobs for every man. Now that there are two men for every job, you do not require agreements, you do not require D.O.R.A., because wages sink automatically, trade unions lose their grip, and their finances, and become helpless, and the wage-earner is helpless, too.
  It is inevitable that those people who profit by cheap labour should look at unemployment from the point of view, the humane point of view, of providing sufficient doles to keep the people alive, and to keep them reproducing their species; but the dole will never prevent a man from going on all fours to any man who is willing to offer him a job. That is the way hon. Members opposite look at it, but that is not the way we look at the problem. We look at unemployment, not

  375
  from the point of view of doles and maintaining unemployment decently, but from the point of view of seeing that there is work for everyone. As long as there is no work, the man who is out of work is depriving the man who has a job of justice and freedom. We want opportunities of work in this country, and we want those opportunities because it will help the worker to get the best wage that he can get, and to get the best conditions. Until we do get that, no legislation in the long run will be any good.
  So long as we have in operation, as we have to-day, what we call the iron law of wages, so long as we have in operation that law which says that so long as there are two men for one job those men have either to compete for that job or starve, then, in spite of your trade unions, in spite of organisation, wages will gradually sink to the subsistence level. So long as we have that law in operation, what is the use of tinkering with remedial legislation? No matter what benefit we may give to the worker by legislation, so long as that law is in operation wages are bound to sink once more to the subsistence level. It is to break that law that we want to deal with the unemployment question, to get behind that law, and to do away with the causes of such an economic law, which depends upon two men being after one job, without a chance of any freedom of occupation and without being in a position to bargain on equal terms with the employer. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about foreign competition? "] That is an admirable case in point. The cry of the tariff reformers used to be all about unemployment. They talked about unemployment they advocated heavy tariffs on goods imported into this country in order to make more work. I presume that is the argument behind the mind of the hon. Member. Let me illustrate the point further. Society, as I see it, consists of a pillar composed of the useful productive workers, and on the top of the pillar rests the burden, not only of the idlers, but of those who are doing useless work. Our solution of the question must, therefore, confine itself to increasing useful productive work, and adding to the amount of useful work in the future. The tariff reformers would see a market gardener out of a job, and they would say to him: "My poor friend, are you
  376
  out of work? If you will only allow the Prime Minister to have his way we will put a thumping big tariff on tomatoes."
  Mr. SPEAKER: Tariff reform would require legislation, would it not?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not quite certain that it would.
  Mr. SPEAKER: At any rate, it would require a Finance Bill.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will not be led away into the Tariff Reform argument. We have to confine our attention to useful productive work. If we simply make jobs for people, that does not solve the problem. That simply acids to the load on the top, in so far as the tariff argument goes, but it does not help the situation. It does not help the situation when various schemes are brought forward for relieving unemployment. It does not help, for instance, if you put people to sweep the streets by hand when it could be done better and cheaper by machinery. It does not help by digging canals, if those canals are not an economically sound proposition. We must increase the opportunities for useful productive work, and nothing else. I have heard it suggested that we can solve the whole problem of unemployment by giving every man £5 every week—a nice, brand new, crisp £5 note. That sort of solution is frequently put forward in other forms by interested parties. We are told that if we subsidise an industry that industry will develop and employment will be found. We are told that if we guarantee overdrafts to Manchester merchants in the cotton trade that they will be able to finance further exports to India. We have been told, and we shall be told tonight, that if we only spend £3,000,000 or £30,000,000 a year on emigration that we shall solve the problem of unemployment. Nothing of that sort which costs money is going to solve the unemployment problem, if that money is spent in a less productive way than it would have been spent by the people from whose pockets we take the money.
  We have to look upon all these things that are put forward from the point of view of hard, sound economics. The one way in which we can help to solve the problem of unemployment is by increasing the opportunities for useful productive work. In that splendid speech of

  377
  the hon. Member for Peebles and Salkirk (Mr. Westwood), he illustrated one way in which further opportunities for useful productive work could be found in Scotland; but in every single case that we can think of the useful work we want to see begins by the application of labour to the land. In every case where you give the primary trades the chance of getting their hand in, the job does not finish there. They do their part of the work, and then they pass on the job to other members of the community to complete the process of manufacture which they have begun, and to distribute the goods which they have made. So we say that not only is the unemployment problem the cause of poverty, low wages, and wage slavery, but that the land question is at the root of the unemployment question.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Lieut.-Colonel PAGE CROFT: My hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I am unable to reply to what he has said, because I think it is understood on this occasion that one group of discussion has gone by, and I must turn to another subject, although I would have liked to have crossed a lance with my hon. and gallant Friend on that particular subject. These two questions do to a very great extent hang together, and the House will agree that the speeches which have come from the benches opposite this evening, and more especially from the right hon. Member for Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara) have caused us to realise that we must leave no stone unturned to try to alleviate the great sufferings of which we have heard to-night.
  When I raised this subject of Empire Settlement last year, I found that it is a question which really is regarded as a non-party question. There are, of course, different interpretations, and we may hear of criticisms of this aspect or the other, but, generally speaking, it is a non-party question, and since last year no fewer than 180 Members of Parliament of different parties have expressed to me personally their great interest in this question and their desire to see the matter thrashed out. Therefore, I make no apology for again raising the matter this year. May I very briefly ask the House to consider what are the facts of the case at the present time We have 1,300,000 unemployed people in this country. We have another 1,000,000
  378
  persons, young persons, between the ages of 14 and 18 years who will very shortly be entering the labour market; many of them are desiring to enter the labour market now. That brings the total to 2,300,000. In addition to that, the excess of births over deaths is no less than 300,000 per annum. This constitutes a problem which I submit is the greatest internal problem that we have ever had to consider.
  7.0 P.M.
  As my hon. and gallant Friend says, it is a question which he makes no apology for discussing three or four times in one Session, and which ought to be discussed every day. From my point of view, I can only say that my sincerity is equal to his, great as his is, on this subject. I submit that when you add up these figures it is the primary reason why the Labour party's fears are so great, namely, that you have many men after every job, because we have a number of unemployed in this country such as we have never had before, and the volume of which it is impossible to argue you can absorb under any system, capitalist or social. The consequence is that we have to look at it from a different point of view. Three years before the War emigration from this country had reached a very high figure. I am not sure that it was not rather too high. The fact remains that in those three years 1,380,000 persons left our shores to try their luck in countries new. It is perfectly obvious that had this flow of emigration gone on we should have had no problem of this gravity at the present time to consider, but emigration practically ceased from this country, and that cessation is primarily responsible for the unemployment position, and consequently for the terrible congestion of housing in this country. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the gentleman to whom, in the long run, we shall have to talk on these subjects. I am sure he will be the first to admit that unemployment and housing are the two great problems demanding the greatest financial attention at the present moment, and are likely to continue so for many years to come.
  I ask him to consider this all-important question. Unless we are going to act with unprecedented vigour in regard to it, my own view is—I hope I am not a trembler on these questions—that we are approach-

  379
  ing a menace of unemployment finance and also of housing which will force a crisis, the gravity of which no man can measure. I cannot conceive how you are going to grapple with this question if the plain figure facts I have given to the House are correct. On the other hand, if normal emigration were likely to start again, this problem would be largely settled in something like five years. Let us face facts, however. There is no sign of that normal emigration recovering for some years to come. There is nothing more cruel than to go round this country and to encourage people to emigrate to the Dominions unless there is a job for them at the other end. It is fatal, for it defeats the whole object in view. Let us face the fact that at the present time, in all the great cities and towns in the Dominions, there is a glut in the labour market. That is why I submit, with all the sincerity I possess, that we really must go all out for the establishment of new settlements within the Dominions in order that we may develop new territories under the British flag.
  What is being done, and what can be done? At the present time emigration to Canada has practically ceased. I have been trying very hard to get one or two fellows out to Canada lately. One of them happened to fight in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. He lost an eye fighting for the British Empire. He had the promise of a job in Toronto, but he was not allowed to go out—although I had managed to provide him with the money —because of the health certificate of his wife. I do not say that Canada is unwise to make very strong emigrant regulations as long as she has a glut on her labour market, but I do say that that is no reason whatever why the development of new settlements should not take place. It can only be an advantage to the Dominions overseas if we are to cooperate with them in building up new communities of civilisation in undeveloped territory within those Dominions. Australia—I think hon. Members will agree who recently have had an opportunity of meeting the Prime Ministers of two or three of the States of Australia—although it is not a very largo movement, is actively engaged in creating new settlements to assist us in solving our problems, and at the same
  380
  time to enrich those States to which they are welcoming the settlers. Although it is not a very large matter, it is only fair to say that it is really a considerable financial undertaking on the part of those States. We have heard of these definite plans for settlement in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia, and certainly, in regard to the first two, I am convinced that they are on sound foundations.
  I want to ask the Government a direct question. I am very glad to be able to address the question to my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, because I know that he is sympathetic in all questions concerning the British Empire; although, I rather regret, as I shall show in a minute or two, that I cannot ask the question of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Are we co-operating in this matter with the State schemes in the States of Australia that I have mentioned? Are we prepared to undertake to contribute that financial assistance for which they have asked us, in what I can only describe, and I think hon. Members will agree with me, as the generous proposals they have made? The second question is, in view of the pledges which were made at the time of the General Election by every one returned on this side of the House, in answer to the clarion call of our leaders, what steps are the Government taking for a real big scheme of Empire settlement? Have they a cut and dried plan ready, or are they drafting such a plan to lay before the Imperial Economic Conference, when it is held, as I hope it is going to be held, later in the year? They may have some great scheme, and very likely we have not been told; but the fact remains that, unless such a scheme is worked upon, it will mean a year's or two years' delay after the Imperial Conference is held. I have very briefly referred to the schemes in Victoria, New South Wales and elsewhere, and I ask His Majesty's Government this question. Have they endeavoured to approach the other States of the British Empire with a view to having similar settlements in those parts? I believe that it could be done. I believe that it is good business. I do not, for one moment, want to oppose any sane and sensible proposal, such as came from the Labour

  381
  Benches to-night that we should spend more money on afforestation. It is far better to spend it on that than on unnecessary public works if you have to choose between the two. After all, the trees will mature in days to come, and you will get some of the money back. The advantage of all schemes of Empire settlement is the fact that in every case, if you have the will power, the driving power, and the finance, all your money will come back in the long run.
  I suggest, first of all, that His Majesty's Government should send a Commissioner or Commissioners, with pretty wide powers, to every State in Australia, to every Province in Canada, to New Zealand, and to South Africa— although I admit that the chances in South Africa of getting a move on just now are rather smaller. Will they not send a Commissioner to those countries, in order to consult on the spot, and see if we can speed up our plans by discussing schemes, giving those Commissioners power to approve, subject to the financial sanction of Parliament, certain definite schemes? I submit that they should set out with a definite end in view. That is, that in every State and Province of the two great Dominions, and in New Zealand, we should go for a definite policy of 10,000 settlers. If you take New Zealand as a unit, and the Provinces of Canada, and the States of Australia, that makes in all 13 units, amounting to something like a definite plan of 130,000 new settlers. It would require, first of all, organisation on a very large scale at the other end, but it has been done in Victoria and New South Wales, and why cannot it be done in the other States and Provinces? It also would require organisation at this end. For that reason I am convinced that if you are going to organise on these lines, far and away the best method is to do it on a territorial basis, so that you will not be asking the people of this country to go out into the blue, away from their friends. You should organise it on the, county basis, so that the men in Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Yorkshire, or Lancashire can go out together, in companies, as comrades and pals, in order to make new homes surrounded by their friends.
  I also suggest that these settlements must be segregated from the existing interests. Otherwise, you are going to
  382
  have great hostility from the labour and vested interests in the Dominions. You must see that you are entirely free from the land speculators, who, in many cases — I hope there are no representatives of the Dominions in the House at this present moment, so I only whisper it in bated breath—might quite conceivably destroy any chance of your scheme if they once-got themselves connected with it. I want to say a word or two with regard to the finance of this question. I am going to speak very moderately, because I know-that the House is easily frightened on this question, although I believe that if we took a big paint brush we could do a very wonderful thing, if we had the courage, with this question, and could save a great deal of money. In those schemes to which I have specifically referred—in the irrigated areas and the Murray River district in Australia—the figure was indicated to us that £1,000 per head per settler was required. In approaching all the other States and Dominions, I suggest that the Imperial Government should pay one-third of the cost, the Dominion and the Commonwealth Government one-third, and the States and Provinces one-third.
  This money, let it always be remembered, would be a loan against the the security of the land, which I suggest, in all these cases, we ought to try to arrange should be gift territory from the Dominions concerned. If you take the figure I suggested just now, of 130,000 settlers, it would really moan that we should have to find in this country one-third of the proportion of the expenses of building houses, preparing the land, and starting the settler. That would amount to something like £33,000,000, which would probably be spread over three years. Interest at 5 per cent, on that sum of money would amount to £1,600,000 per annum. Supposing that with 130,000 settlers you immediately caused employment—I do not think that it is an exaggerated claim—for, say, 100,000 people in this country who are at present receiving relief, that would be an approximate saving to the nation of something like £5,000,000 per annum which would be a net gain in annual charges of £3,400,000. It must be clear that from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer alone in the long run he is going to gain, for he is going to get his capital expenditure back in addition.

  383
  Many of my hon. Friends are anxious to know why the Empire Settlement Act has been taken from its natural parent the Colonial Office and placed in the hands of the Overseas Trade Department. A great many hon. Members have realised this fact with astonishment, because it seems to us that the Overseas Trade Department, which is specially intended for extending British trade in every part of the world from Iceland to China, is a Department which must be fully occupied on the lines of its work, and it is difficult to understand how that Department could have been chosen to deal with the great specific question of Empire settlement. We think that the problem is so vital and so big that it deserves better consideration than that. We submit that it is so big a question that if possible it ought to have a Ministry of its own. We realise the hostility to forming new Ministries, on the grounds of economy, but we say that even if that is so surely we can have a representative at the Colonial Office to look after the affairs of Empire settlement in this House and look after administration. I say this without the smallest criticism of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Buckley) the head of the Department, because if we wanted someone to fill that place obviously we would look for him, but if he is doing this other job it is hardly to be expected that he can deal also with the equally great problem of Empire settlement.
  The view of a great number of Members of this House it that a large proportion of our population have got to decide whether they are going to emigrate or, I will not say starve, because that is impossible so long as we have the present system of relief, but lead what is really a hopeless life. At present you have a large portion of our people, the flower of our race, some 300,000 ex-service men under 30 years of age, who have seen no work for two years. Those men are bound to deteriorate. They are losing hope. Their pride is sinking, and even if it was not a good investment I believe that everyone would agree that we ought to do everything in our power to assist them. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) said, there are two things to be considered. On the one hand there is this hopeless despair. On the other hand you
  384
  have a chance of bringing relief. There is no question of trying to persuade any man or woman to go against his will, or any mother or father to send his children away against his will, but if they think that the future is hopeless then we do say let us give the citizens of this country a chance.
  It is a question of throwing a life-belt to our fellow-countrymen who are drowning in a sea of tribulation, and are likely to be overwhelmed. If the facts are as we have indicated, is it too much to hope that the Labour party will join with us in this great movement I An hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am inclined that from his point of view it might be a bad business. His principles might not find such great favour if the unemployed people found a chance of employment overseas, but from the point of view of the Labour party, who have said that the whole condition of the workers is being kept down, because there are two men applying for every job in this country, are they satisfied that the country will be able to absorb the unemployed labour at present in this country, and, if rot, will they join with us in a great national non-party schema of reconstruction?
  Colonel ALEXANDER: I rise for the first time to contribute, though only in a humble way, to the important Debates in this House. I hope that hon. Members will be sympathetic and not too severe in their criticisms, because I realise that my faults and imperfections may be many, and that my good qualities, in the eyes of hon. Members, may be few. Let me at the outset assure the House that I do not lay any special claim to statesmanship. I believe that it was Napoleon who said that to be a great statesman you must have your heart in your head, and I believe, at least so my doctors tell me, that my heart is still in its right place. I do not make any claim to great wisdom. There is a proverb which says, "Wise men rarely talk." I hope that hon. Members, after giving me their indulgence of listening to me, will not consider that I have departed from the path of wisdom. Above all, let me assure the House that I make no claim to greatness, because I believe that it was Emerson who said that to be great is to be misunderstood.
  It was a very short time ago that I heard the fair and Noble Lady the

  385
  Member for Plymouth say that if ever she was grateful to the Lord for having been created a woman it was during her first two years in this House, because, said this Noble Viscountess, whenever she got up to speak she was thankful that hon. Members could not see how her knees were trembling. If I may, I would like to add that I too am grateful to the Lord for having been created, be it only, of course, just an ordinary man, but I am still more grateful for the privileges and custom of this house in not compelling some of us, at Lily rate, to appear here in our national characteristic tartans and kilts, because I can assure the House, if it is not already apparent, that my knees, too, are very shaky at the moment.
  I know that we are deeply absorbed at present in the grave problems of Europe, and in the many serious problems at home. But during my short time in this House I have often asked myself have we as yet rally faced the most difficult problem at home, and are we not at times inclined to rely on somewhat temporary and small measures for the solution of our greatest problem of unemployment and Empire development. One appreciates that the markets of Europe, in consequence of the War have been very much disorganised, and in some cases indeed they have been completely destroyed, while the manufactures of some of our largest industries at home are being excluded by certain of our great Allied nations by the introduction and enforcement of prohibitive tariffs, tariffs, I submit, infinitely higher than were ever in existence before this great War. Our own Empire markets, too, have been greatly reduced, not only owing to the heavy war expenditure, but to my mind more so by the cessation of the desirable inflow of British capital and settlers from our Mother Country.
  Our emigration before the War—and I believe that these figures are accurate—to our overseas Dominions and abroad numbered about 350,000 people per year From the years 1914 to 1920 inclusive our total emigration to our overseas Dominions did not exceed 340,000 people, instead of 2,100,000 which it would have been at the old rate. The result, I submit, is obvious. Allowing as we must for the 750,000 people who have made the greatest sacrifice of which humanity is capable for the sake of human liberty and justice, we nevertheless
  386
  have a surplus for those six years alone of over 1,000,000 people in this country, and that surplus is being augmented yearly by an addition of some 400,000. It is indeed a very grave problem. I would like to ask the Secretary or State for the Colonies and the Leader of the Labour party, who I am sorry is not in his place, what is there in the state of our markets to-day and in the state of Europe to make us believe that we can absorb that large unemployable surplus population within the near future?
  The question of unemployment was discussed to-day, and one hears it discussed on every occasion in this House. The problem of Empire settlement must at the best of times, apart from the natural geographical and industrial conditions of a country, depend upon the wise and proper distribution of the people in a country. The population of the British Empire to-day, I submit, is badly distributed, and I make this submission on two fundamental grounds. First of all, I say it is wrongly distributed at home, as between our industries and our land and agriculture. Secondly, it is wrongly distributed as between the Mother Country and our overseas Dominions. If we take the statistical returns, hon. Members will see that in Great Britain to-day we have a population of 460 people and over to the square mile. What have we in our overseas Dominions? If you take Canada, we have 2·7 people to a square mile; if you take Newfoundland, we have 1·5 persons; if you take the great Commonwealth of Australia, we have 1·8 persons, and the Dominion of New Zealand has 11·6. We know, and great statisticians, great writers, and economists tell us—even Sir Rider Haggard points out very rightly, I think —that the Commonwealth of Australia alone can readily absorb and maintain a population of at least 50 millions of people, and Canada a number equally as great, if not, indeed, greater. To find, therefore, a solution, we must come to a more equitable and just distribution of our population. In other words, the master key to the solution of Empire settlement, and unemployment rests first of all on the transfer of a certain section of our industrial population at home from our industry to our agriculture; secondly, the transfer of a large number of our unemployable surplus population from this country to our overseas Dominions.

  387
  [An HON. MEMBER: "Why don't you go? "] The hon. Member asks me why I do not go. Perhaps I may be allowed to tell him that I was brought up there. [An HON. MEMBER: "You came back! "] I am always proud to come back to the Mother Country.
  I would like to draw the attention of the House to a very able speech by the Prime Minister of Western Australia, which he delivered last year. He said that his country consisted of 624,000,000 acres of land, and yet the total population to-day is no greater than 330,000 people—a population almost equal to that of the City of Hull. His country, he said, could, if even reasonably populated, supply sufficient wheat to feed the whole population of Great Britain, and yet to-day we are one of the largest purchasers of that commodity from the United States and from some of the South American Republics. His country, in addition, he said, had large deposits of tin, lead, copper, gold, and many other materials. Yet, with all these attractions, his country was practically empty. The 330,000 people that are populating Western Australia to-day, he said, could produce no more, because they already worked to the utmost of their capacity. What was needed in Western Australia—and I am repeating the words of the Prime Minister—was a steady inflow of British settlers and capital, so that within the next few years the population of that country, he hoped, would number 2,000,000 people. "Come to us, where men exist as equals," and while there are no capitalists to speak about, they equally have very low taxation, because they have no unemployed or poor people to maintain in Western Australia— [An HON. LABOUR MEMBER: "I have a brother there! "] Perhaps the hon. Member may follow his brother's example and go there, too. [HON. LABOUR MEMBERS: "And come back like you did! "] And why not! What is needed to cure unemployment in this country—and I hope hon. Members will take it seriously—what is needed to bring about. Empire development, is a real policy of Empire settlement and migration on a large scale. Both of these must be worked simultaneously, because hon. Members will appreciate that the capacity of the Oversea Dominions, speaking generally, to absorb large industrial populations, must of necessity depend upon their own industrial
  388
  and agricultural developments, so as to overcome any possible objection that may be raised by their own industrial community against the possible inflow of competitive labour from any other country.
  Let me, as briefly as I can, within the short time allotted me, illustrate how wise and proper it would be for us to concentrate to a much greater extent than we have done hitherto, on Empire development and settlement. If you take the matter from the economic point of view—and I am taking the figures of 1913, as being the year before the War—you will find that the exports of British manufactures from this country to our Oversea Dominions and the rest of the Empire amounted to £195,000,000. If you take for the same year British manufactures exported to Spain, to Italy, to France, to the whole of the Scandinavian countries, to Germany, to Russia, and even to the great United States of America, the total came only to £157,000,000. If you take the figures for 1921, you will find that our exports of British manufacture to the whole of the British Empire came to £298,750,000, while our exports to the countries I have just enumerated for the same year came only to £173,000,000. There is a great difference in favour of the British Empire as against foreign countries, including the United States and Germany.
  The population of our Oversea Dominions to-day is barely 16,000,000, and yet those 16,000,000 people have purchased more in total and per capita than the combined populations of 200,000,000 people in Europe. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches were advocating with a great deal of energy the resumption of trade with Russia. In pre-War days, let me tell you, our total trade with Russia did not exceed 2s. 2d. per head. That was in 1913. In 1921 our total trade with Russia was 3d. per head, against the British Dominions £6 15s. per head, and in some cases even more. Hon. Members say, "Why concentrate on the British Empire, when you have Europe at your door?" Let me assure the House that there is a great future for trade within the Empire to-day. It is waiting for us, if we are wise enough to take it. I do not say that we should not trade with Europe. By all means do all the trade you can, but let us above all hold

  389
  on to what we have, and develop it in the Way in which it is possible, so as to make us self-supporting.
  Let me give you as an illustration the United States. In 1865 America had barely a population of 33,000,000 people, a population at that time almost equal to the population of Great Britain and our Overseas Colonies. America was recovering from four and a half years of a great Civil War, her financial indebtedness was colossal, but she faced the future bravely, and in barely 55 years America undisputably became one of the greatest industrial and commercial countries in the world, with a population of 110,000,000 people. I say very frankly to this House that in wealth, in potentiality, in natural resources, in lumber, in agriculture, in water power, there is as much within the British Empire, if not more, as there is in the, United States of America, and yet what do we find? America has prospered on British capital, and up to the present time, to a great extent on British settlers. Why? Because America concentrated upon her resources. America formulated a sound industrial policy, and we in Great Britain and our Dominions were drifting. Thank God, we have plenty of oceans to drift upon!
  The difference between the two countries, to my mind, is this. America has a definitely-formulated, well-decided industrial policy. Great Britain has not. If you take our Oversea Dominions, you will find that until quite recently, and even to-day, some of our Overseas Dominions are running policies, in a point, one differentiating from another. I would like to say that perhaps a great deal of credit is due to the Dominion of Canada for initiating, as it did quite recently, an economic agreement with Australia, whereby a greater preferential treatment and a greater exchange of commodities will take place between those two great Empire Sister Nations. If our Imperial Government at home would concentrate and bring the policies of our four great Oversea Dominions in still closer co-operation; if the surplus products of our Oversea Dominions could find a more appreciable ready market within our own home, and if, indeed, some of the surplus of one Dominion could be brought to another in a much greater quantity than is the case
  390
  at present, then I say the Imperial Government would have achieved a great Measure. One hears a great deal about what we intend to do, but may I point out the greatness of the resources in our Overseas Dominions and how much backward we are? In very name, even, we are backward. We have a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who deals with foreign countries. We have a Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who deals with the Home country. What have we got for our Dominions? We have a Secretary of State for the Colonies, although we are no longer Colonials. Our Colonies have become great Dominions. May I humbly submit to the House, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whether it would not be wiser, instead of having a Colonial Secretary, to create a Secretary for Empire Affairs, so as to bring him into collaboration with the other Secretaries of State?
  A great deal was said a few weeks ago by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Muir). He said it was diabolical and damnable of the Government to introduce any policy which would help migration from this country of children between the ages of 11 and 17. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear. ".] I would like to say this to the hon. Labour Members who so proudly say "Hear, hear." There is more danger of the happy homes in this country being broken up for the lack of proper incomes with which to pay the heavy rates and taxes; there is more danger of the happy homes of this country being broken up, in so far as the youths are concerned, because you are unable to give them the huge spaces and the healthy surroundings that they require, than by sending them overseas, not to strange countries, but to your own land, to people of your own blood, and under your own flag. Hon. Members have said that there is no spiritual provision made for these children. I have too much respect for the hon. Members on the Labour Benches to criticise them too severely, but I will say this much. If any of the Labour Members will take the trouble to go across the Dominion of Canada, or the Commonwealth of Australia—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have been there."] That accounts for at least a few of the good manners they still have. Hon. Members perhaps, will listen, and see how they could have improved themselves if they had gone there as youths.

  391
  If they had gone there at an early age I am certain they would have had a different opinion from that of those hon. Members who say in this House that there is no spiritual or other provision made there for children. Children in the Oversea. Dominions are being taken care of in the highest degree possible, whether it be from a spiritual point of view, or whether it be from a humanitarian point of view. Let me point out to the hon. Members on the Labour Benches that only last week the Deputy Minister of Emigration of Canada made a speech in the City of London, in which he stated that, out of 25 Barnado boys who went recently to Canada, no fewer than five of them had their own motorcars. I should like to ask the Labour Members whether in this country youths of the Barnado Homes can afford Ito travel in their own cars, even when they come to maturity. I do not, however, propose to be dragged into an argument of this kind in my maiden speech.
  Have we so short a memory as to forget that, in time of need, our people from the Oversea Dominions came forth in very large numbers unflinchingly and unsolicited. Who of those who served with them can be hold enough to deny their splendid physique, their natural resourcefulness, their devotion to duty and their love for the Mother country? They did their duty unhesitatingly. They laid clown their lives unsparingly. Yet hon. Members are afraid to migrate because, they say, it means to go forth into exile. If those are the men who came from exile to fight for us, then the more exiles we have the prouder we ought to be.
  I humbly submit that the total sum in connection with the Empire Settlement Act ought to be greatly increased. The sum of £3,000,000 set aside under that Act is entirely inadequate. It cannot do full justice to the measure by which it is intended to carry on emigration and Empire Settlement. We are spending to-day in relief work and unemployment pay about £100,000,000 per year. The whole of that sum is merely, I submit, a temporary remedy. It is, if I may say so, a local anæsthetic. It is a dangerous drug, which, if you will, may have the effect of temporarily killing the pain, but it does not really cure the malady. On the contrary, it imposes a heavy additional burden upon our already heavily taxed
  392
  capital. It undermines that self-reliance, that self-respect, that desire for work, and that pride in work, which is so essential to every worker in this country. It. saps the marrow from the very bone of industry.
  I knows the policy I am advocating must, of necessity, mean a considerable expenditure of money, but I submit to this House that, whatever that expenditure might be—whether it be £15,000,000, £20,000,000 or £25,000,000 per year, whether it be by way of direct, loans to the Oversea. Dominions, or by way of direct contribution to the emigration policy of the country—it would be an expenditure which would more than fully justify itself, because it would permanently alleviate the suffering of the unemployed in this country. It would bring about the development of the British Empire and the development of trade within the British Empire. And it would do more than that. It would prevent at any future time a repetition of unemployment, on so large a scale as we have at present.
  I would beseech this House to support this Government, or any other Government, which is ready to bring in a Measure, or which is ready to increase the Measure, of the Empire Settlement Act. The policy I am advocating is not a selfish policy. It is not a party policy. It is not even a Government policy. It is an inter-Empire policy which, if carried out, must have the effect of permanently improving the condition of the people of this country, and of further cementing the unity within the whole of our Empire. Alone, or almost alone, the Mother Country stands out to-day as a mighty rock amidst the drifting and stormy waters of the universe. No one, looking over the British race as it spreads itself before our mental can have any single doubt but what the greatest acts of statesmanship have already been achieved; and the monuments to those acts are to be found in the very pillars of the structure of our Empire. We cannot afford to ignore that great structure. We cannot afford to be satisfied with a policy of tranquility—a policy which, I submit, has been so much unnecessarily abused of late. Europe has emerged from a Great War. She may-recover her natural resources some day. She may even recover her wealth at some future time, but I doubt very much if she

  393
  will ever recover her unity and solidarity. The British nation has emerged from this War though still suffering, and heavily taxed as we are at the moment, yet solidly united what a commonwealth of younger communities proud of their great traditions, and loyal to the core to their King and to the Crown. I beseech this House not to forget, however, that, as a result of the Great War, the very pillars upon which this huge structure rests have been badly shaken. They need re-strengthening, and I say it is our duty—indeed, it is our obligation—as the Parliament of the Empire, to recement those pillars with British capital, with British labour, and with British initiative, for the good of the British race, nay, for the good of humanity at large. I believe the words of Cicero may well be applied to our great nation: "Our country is the common Parent of them all." By our exertions we have saved Europe. By our example we have made civilisation safe. Let us unite both, and make our Empire safe. Let our future objective, irrespective of Party, he our Country, our Nation, our Empire.
  8.0 P.M.
  Major Viscount SANDON: I feel sure I shall have the usual indulgence shown me from the House on addressing it for the first time, and I may say, my diffidence is not minimised by the knowledge that six direct generations of my forebears, in succession, have addressed this House before me. I must confess that when I listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Southwark (Colonel Alexander) I was impressed by the fact that those of us who have had the advantage of visiting the different parts of the Empire must come away with a very great conception of its resources. I felt considerable disappointment when I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) give vent to the sentiment that the Conservative party and employers generally throughout the country were not deeply committed to every possible effort to cure permanently and temporarily this menace of unemployment, which is a menace to every section of the community. They will not accept it that our efforts on this side of the House to solve that problem are sincere
  394
  or genuine. I think we should be given every opportunity of pushing forward our ideals as to migration, as at least one direction in which we can contribute to the solution of this problem. I must say that one of the objections urged to our policy is the statement which was once made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that after the War we were to have a land fit for heroes to live in. I do not in any way want to utter a taunt at any idealism which is expressed in these unidcalist days. When I say we have not realised that wonderful land, I do not mean in any sense to level it as a taunt at the right hon. Gentleman, but none the less we have to face facts, and half the trouble in our country is due to our failure in facing facts as they are. It is of no use to say that a man who fought in the War is entitled to have the best possible life in this country if the fact remains that he has not got it and sees no possibility of getting it.
  We are faced with appalling distress and misery in this country, and both from the point of view of the man himself and from the point of view of the country as a whole, we must look for every means of increasing the happiness and utility of each individual man. To my mind, we are very much entitled to look in the direction of migration for a partial cure, at any rate, of these ills. When you have great bodies like the Y.M.C.A. and the Salvation Army taking up this work, then it cannot he said to be undemocratic. There is, as a result of the War, a tremendous consciousness among the men who fought that they want more elbow-room, that they are crowded out and cramped in every direction so long as they stay in a country where the competition is so severe, that only relatively a few can survive the struggle. Personally, I was brought up on the creed of the greatest happiness to the greatest number. We want to look at this question in that way and think out for ourselves whether or not emigration fits into that phrase, and whether or not by going out to the Dominions men will have more chances, higher wages, and healthier life and better conditions.
  I hear it often said that there are many cases where people have found themselves in as serious a plight in oversea

  395
  Dominions as in this country, and I believe there are cases of that kind. But I, for one, would never countenance any form of promiscuous migration of people going out for no reason except that they were not satisfied with the way things were going on at home, and it is this promiscuous emigration which has caused the trouble. I believe every safeguard is, and should be taken by the Government to see that trades in which there is serious unemployment overseas are not further overstocked by having people of the same trade sent out from here. It. is a common thing in these days to quote the phrase, "the rich Australian uncle." But if you meet the people of your own acquaintance who have left this country 10 or 15 years ago you find that, relatively to the existence of their friends who have remained in the old country, they have become "the rich Australian uncle." It may be that I differ from the large majority of people who are keenly interested in this question of emigration in that I welcome the statement made by Lord Haig a few months ago. There is no one in this country who has contributed so much to the welfare of the ex-service men as the gallant Field-Marshal under whom we had the honour to serve during the War. I consider that, far from rendering a disservice, he rendered a great service to the Empire as a whole in calling attention to the present conditions of emigration. It is my belief that he was primarily responsible for the fact that the Government are now alive to the consideration that things arc not what they should be in this question of emigration and that there is a great deal more in it than putting down a certain sum of money and seeing that a certain number of people are sent out. I welcome this Committee of Inquiry which has been appointed by the Oversea Settlement Committee, and I agree that it is of the utmost importance to give them the fullest powers to make recommendations and see that they are carried into effect.
  If we are to make emigration palatable to the people of this country, we must convince them that all proper steps are taken for their reception and distribution at the other end. Nothing could be more damning—if such a word is permitted in this House—to the cause of emigration than the many things that go on, lack of
  396
  a hot cup of tea, or a bun, or whatever it is, on arrival at the port. I do regard with a certain amount of alarm the fact that the authority which makes all the arrangements for emigrants proceeding overseas is not the same authority which carries out these arrangements at the other end, because, when you have divided authorities of that sort it makes it impossible to be absolutely sure that various things which are wrong will be put right. I am perfectly aware that there is a very considerable force in the argument that town-bred people are net the kind of people who are likely to make the best settlers in Canada, Australia, and so forth, but that is the problem we have to face. It is my belief that, it we can secure young men full of the spirit of adventure, which everyone has before they have seen too much of the world, and if we can send young married couples out with families to settle there and make good, we are putting emigration on the most hopeful basis possible. If we are going to send out people who have had to submit for many years to the grimness of life which exists largely in the big industrial centres of this country, they are not imbued with the hope and the happy outlook calculated to make the, best settlers under the some chat arduous conditions overseas.
  I believe the emigration of children is not an aspect of this question which is palatable on the other side of the House, but I am convinced that if we send out children under such a scheme as that of the Child Emigration Society under which all their needs, physical, moral, educational and technical, are carefully attended to—I believe on these lines it is possible for us to proceed With absolute safety in emigration. I feel very strongly, also, that when we send out grown people to the Dominions we should not merely dump them out in the Bush and say to them. "Here are 100 acres; do the lest you can with them." That may be all very w ell for people who have been born and bred in that atmosphere and have lived in it all their lives. But for the English emigrant who is accustomed to closely-populated areas, the only hope is that he shall he surrounded as far as possible by congenial circumstances, that he shall have his club and his opportunities for recreation, his cinema and his dances, and, in fact, everything that we mean by group settlement. I believe that

  397
  that is a policy which is largely advocated now. Not only from the point of view of the man himself, but from the point of view of the highest Imperial considerations, it is necessary that we maintain ample communication, so as to bring the Dominion or Colony and the Home Country as closely together as possible, and make the 13,000 miles seem less than they are. I would have no enthusiasm for emigration if we were to send out only the man whom we might consider—quite wrongly in my opinion—to be most suitable for working in the Dominions, namely, the agricultural labourer. That is a class of people whom we want to increase rather than decrease in this country. We ought not to adopt a wholesale policy for the emigration of such people.
  I hold that the Government might be even more enthusiastic than they are in making use of voluntary societies. In any event, so long as the State takes upon itself the main burden of emigration, from the point of view of organisation, we shall always come in contact with that most frightful of all gentlemen—I am not speaking from the personal point of view —the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that difficulty will remain, whatever Government is in power, and whatever our circumstances, whether we are living in days of wealth or in days of darkness. The voluntary societies have the will, the enthusiasm and the knowledge, and if they had more money they could extend the scheme of emigration in a way of which we have never dreamed hitherto. I would urge the Government to consider larger and larger grants to such organisations as Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the Young Men's Christian Association, the Church Army, the Salvation Army, and so on, which regard it as a personal affront of the most serious kind if they have to record any failure among their emigrants.
  The other day I visited a London Employment, Exchange at which there were 7,000 to 8,000 registered. Believing that the Government made use of the Exchanges in working out the State's scheme of emigration, I inquired what the position was, and I was told with much rejoicing that it was really believed that eight or nine men had been selected to go overseas! I am afraid that I did not show the enthusiasm that was expected of me. When we have facts of that
  398
  kind put before us we are entitled to say that the scheme has not got the backing that it ought to have, and that it is not working quite as smoothly as it should in the interests of this country and the Empire. I would echo the words used by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft), when he complained of the transfer of the overseas settlement work to the Department of Overseas Trade. It is not in the direction of progress to have the work taken away from the Colonial Office and transferred to a Department whose main head is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. At the same time I must give some qualification to my enthusiasm for the Colonial Office as the managers of the scheme. An hon. Member raised the question of the name of the Colonial Office. I have no wish to see the Colonial Office play any part in the affairs of the Dominions. It has already an enormous job in dealing with what are wrongly called the Crown Colonies, and that job is enough to occupy all its time. In my experience all that it is able to contribute is donkey work for the Dominions, work which does not arouse enthusiasm.
  The kernel of the problem is the question of finance. Although I know that practically every Member of this House has been returned pledged to the strictest economy, yet I would not be afraid to return to my constituents and to say that I voted for increased expenditure on emigration. When one is dealing with a question of profit and loss, it is fundamental that one should draw a clear and distinct line between waste and economy. Waste is waste all the world over, just as much in prosperous times as in other times. But when you have an expenditure of money which must very soon show a large financial credit to this country and the Empire, you are entitled to regard it as a thoroughly sound financial proposition. That is the aspect of the case which would put before the Treasury. Here you would have productive money—productive in the sense that the people you send overseas will become more prosperous there than they are in the old country. They will then be able to make more use of British goods. We are already the chief suppliers of goods to the Dominions, and if we were able to double the population of the Dominions by sending out people who would eventually become comparatively well-to-do, we

  399
  should be doing great good, not only to those people and to the Dominions, but to the manufacturers and workers of this country.
  If we could put that point of view before the Treasury, it might be persuaded to look beyond its nose—the next Budget—and foresee the enormous addition which would be made to the prosperity of this country 10 years hence; it might be persuaded to look to the fact that, although now there is a hubbub in Europe because the French are making mistakes as some of us believe on the Ruhr and our industries are severely affected, yet we can make a permanent and growing maket for our goods in the Dominions, and if we look at it in that light we are bound to be convinced that the money which we are now spending on emigration will repay itself in the near future. I was very glad to see in the Overseas Settlement Report an expression of the hope and expectation that the big Corporations and the counties would take up this question of emigration. I should like heartily to re-echo the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth when he put before us the great advantagé of people from one locality going out together on the principle of the territorial battalions during the War. If cities like Manchester and Birmingham could have their own schemes and send out their own batches of settlers it would greatly add to the prospects of success. It is urged sometimes that by inviting the people of this country to proceed to the Dominions we are derogating from their liberties. I do not believe anyone who has visited the great Dominions will deny that the liberty and the freedom enjoyed in those Dominions is as great as the liberty and freedom which we know in this country. I consider there are two distinct sorts of freedom. There is the sort which expresses itself in the cry of "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternté," and ends at that—that is the last one hears of it. There is another sort of freedom which is not talked about and which does not wave flags, but which gives the maximum amount of individual right and privilege to the rank and file of the people. I have seen many countries of all sorts including republics and monarchies, but nowhere does one find that genuine liberty to which I refer in a more marked
  400
  degree than in this country and in the Dominions.
  If we look at this matter from the broader point of view of colonisation, consider what has been the contribution of the English speaking race in comparison with other races. Look at the Spanish attempt to colonise South America; they put their people there, but those countries have been developed entirely by the resource, individuality and initiative of British and other capitalists. On the other hand, look at the United States of America and our great. Dominions. These countries have worked out their own salvation. Their greatness have been achieved by their own effort, and they have not had to call in Spaniards or Dutchmen or anyone else to develop their resources. That marks the great difference—a difference which will commend itself to every Britisher—betweem the Latin civilisation and the British civilisation. But I believe the Empire cannot exist merely because of the fact that it happens to be ours. We can only maintain the countries which are under the flag whether Dominions or Crown Colonies by making it transparently clear to the public conscience of this country and the peoples of the world that these regions shall be devloped in the highest public interest to the utmost of their capacity, for the benefit and advantage of civilisation and also that not only shall the rights of the indigenous populations be maintained but that they shall receive the full benefit of the advance of civilisation. To my mind when the British Empire cm no longer fulfil that condition, when it can be said that a country would be better looked after by others than ourselves and the wealth of that country and the innate richness of the soil better developed, then we shall have no further claim or title to remain there. I do not advocate Empire Settlement from selfish motives by any means. I do not advocate it merely as a means of getting over our unemployment and other difficulties. In that connection I should like to quote from the Oversea Settlement Report:
  " It is regarded rather as a means of remedying fluctuations of trade by developing the best markets of this country and permanently minimising the risk of unemployment here."
  In spite of that consideration we are entitled to look at this matter in a much

  401
  wider aspect. If we do not populate our Dominions other people will in the future, and we are conferring a great privilege on the world by creating great communities imbued with British ideals of justice—those ideals which are so very distinct from the ideals advanced by other European countries. It was on the basis of those ideals, n my belief, that the League of Nations was founded. The League of Nations is essentially a British product. I was in Paris during the Peace Conference and I know it was, outstandingly, the work of the British Empire delegation—particularly, perhaps, the South African representatives—which made the League of Nations possible. That is the British Empire in a nutshell. It is contributions of that kind which we have made in the past, and which we are making at the present time, to the solution of the world's difficulties and by helping this emigration scheme we are bringing an increasingly large body of people under the influence of those ideals and propagating them throughout the length and breadth of the world.
  Mr. BROTHERTON: One scarcely knows how best to address the House on a subject like this, when one has been newly transferred to the atmosphere of the House from the streets and the market places. I cannot for the life of me understand the type of mind which has been expressing itself during the last hour and a half on oversea settlement and emigration from this country. I have yet to be convinced that this country is too small or too undeveloped to carry its own population, and I am certainly convinced that millions of these people do not desire to leave it.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Nobody wants them to leave it.
  Mr. BROTHERTON: Why are you talking so much about emigration, and about sending people overseas for settlement purposes, if you do not want them to leave the country? That is what I cannot understand. [Interruption.] As one who may have been in some respects a nuisance during the last 18 months' period of unemployment that I passed through before getting this job, I can understand certain people wanting to transport nuisances of the character of myself. Also, as a member of the unemployed organisation that has been
  402
  maligned so much in this House by hon. and distinguished Members of the House, I want to say that if you do not begin to adopt different means and methods from those which you have been trying in the past for the relief or the complete abolition of unemployment in this country, you are likely to find yourselves in a much more serious predicament than you have been in in the past. As one who has never been out of the country, and has never had any call to leave the shores of the finest country I know of, I want to say that this Government, if it wants to treat the subject of unemployment, wants to go about it by mobilising all its national resources. What to-day are its national resources? We have been told that there are 1,300,000 unemployed adult persons at present registered in this country. To me, they are a national resource that needs mobilising, and, in my judgment, it can he mobilised only by the representatives of itself, and that is the Government.
  The Government, in 1914 and the following years of the disastrous War that we passed through, could mobilise all its forces with a view to accomplishing a certain object. Most of the gentlemen representatives in this House have uttered sentiments of great sympathy with the unemployed, but the Government itself positively refuses to organise them with a view to using them to produce the things that we all need. As one who had some experience during the period of the War of the organisation or mobilisation of the resources of the country, namely, the people, I say you could mobilise and organise, for the purpose of producing destroying things, munitions and implements of destruction, and to my sorrow I was for sonic years engaged in the manufacture of them, as an engineer working in the national factories, so that I know what is capable of being done by this organising ability that we have in our ranks. I know that the production of munitions was accelerated during the War by the mobilisation of the resources, the people, men and women, nationally, and provision being made for their producing the things that you were then wanting. Why cannot you do it now, instead of talking about emigration and that kind of thing? Is there not just as much need for you to organise the people to do the things that are staring you in the face to be done, and not only doing those things but many

  403
  other things that all of us could thoroughly enjoy?
  We were promised during 1916–17 that you would so something, and you set up committees with a view to making arrangements for the after-War period, but all I ever saw out of those committees with all their fine schemes, was the issuing of a few pamphlets. In the investigations that were made, however, there were hints of possibilities of organising the resources of the Empire at home. For instance, there was great talk of huge electrical schemes throughout the country, and if you had gone forward, or if the present Government would go forward, with the development of the idea of electrifying this country and producing power, they might achieve wonderful results. If they would organise the resources of the Empire, both people and natural resources, they could produce electrical power cheaply, and what an advantgae and benefit it would be. You have dirty, filthy, murky streets in your huge towns that could be transformed by these electrification schemes and the using of the power that could be generated in a cleaner and better manner than is the case at present, and if you would go forward with schemes of that kind you would be able to employ hundreds of thousands of willing, skilful, capable men, who are idle and unemployed to-day, and whom we are having to keep for doing no work at all. That to me is a very foolish policy indeed. I want to see it altered and remedied. What did the ex-Prime Minister say on this question of emigration? Let me quote:
  " Walking around the principal streets of our great cities you will see displayed advertisements calling attention to the allurements of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for British labour. There you will see the picture of a nice house with most beautiful surroundings. There you will see a large tract of land just before the harvest, thick with corn, blowing gracefully in the wind. There you will find cattle grazing on rich pastures, and there, again, you will see an orchard laden with fruit. You will not see a landlord anywhere."
  An HON. MEMBER: Nor a gamekeeper!
  Mr. BROTHERTON: As my hon. Friend says, nor a gamekeeper.
  " During recent years these advertisements have attracted scores, nay, hundreds of thousands of our best labourers to find
  404
  a home across the sea. Point has been given to it by contrasting their experiences and the difficulties in the way of a decent livelihood for those at home."
  These are not my words. Hon. Members are listening carefully and very patiently to them, and I hope they are sinking in, as they have sunk into some of our minds on these benches.
  " Do you know when the land question will be settled in England; Scotland, and Wales? It will be settled when similar advertisements setting forth the attractions of settlement on British soil are displayed in some of the most prominent windows of the streets of every city and town in the land. Then you will have a picture and print assuring the British workman that he need not fly across oceans and continents in order to find food, freedom, contentment and plenty for himself, his wife, and his little children. They will be able to find it in the old homeland we love so well."
  These words were spoken on 11th October, 1913. In September, 1914, other words were delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members will recollect what happened in August, 1914?
  Mr. J. JONES: They all remember. They are drawing their pensions for it.
  Mr. BROTHERTON: The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Prime Minister, in September, 1914, at Queen's Hall, I believe, said:
  " The peoples will gain more by this struggle in all lands than they comprehend at the present moment."
  Do hon. Members comprehend? They are appealing to us to leave our country. They could plead with us and our sons and brothers to defend that country because it was our country. Now they, and the Government itself, are trying to make us deny the country we love so, well, and to flee from it! We are not made of that kind of material. I am here to ask the Government to-night to develop the national and natural resources of this our own country by the organisation of industry on right and proper lines. We will help them to so organise for the good of the communities in the Empire. We are not enemies of-our country. We are riot traitors to it, that we should be threatened with being driven from our country by either this or any other Government. I want this Government to realise that the problem of unemployment is one that has made some of us keen and angry men because of the experience we have had of it.

  405
  Eighteen months of my life I tramped the streets of this country as recently as jus before I was sent to this job, and I am here to make the question of the unemployed one that shall have to be listened to. Thousands of the unemployed of Gateshead sent me here. They voted for me because I was one of them. Hon. Members looking at the Gateshead returns will know what that means. Defeated in the Khaki Election of 1918 by a 10,000 majority, I have come here with a 5,000 majority. That is a portent that hon. Gentlemen opposite, this Government, and hon. Members below the Gangway will have to consider. I hope the Government is going to take warning of what has been said again and again from these benches on the unemployed question, are prepared to take hold of it, and tackle it with the intention of remedying it.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Brotherton), who has just made such a very eloquent and interesting speech, has taken us rather far away from the subject under discussion. I rather regret that he adopts the attitude that there is antagonism between Empire emigration and intensive work in the development of this country. I wonder how he thinks the British Empire was ever created, and has ever grown up? How is it that the huge Dominions of Canada, New Zealand or Australia have grown up?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: By voluntary emigration.
  Sir A. MONO: I will deal with that in a moment. I understand that now my hon. and gallant Friend, who is the leader of the Socialists, objects to State emigration. The hon. Member spoke as if the Government were driving people out of this country. Not at all. What the Government are doing, and what the late Government did under this Act, was to assist people who wanted to go to the Dominions to live an organised and better existence there than voluntary people could possibly find. That may be a food or a had policy, but there is no difference in the essential features, and all these rhetorics about driving people out of the finest country in the world, and all the attempts to contrast land settlement here, which is urgently required, and the development of electric
  406
  power in this country, of which I have often spoken, and which is now, I am glad to see, progressing, with the effect of putting our unemployed population to work here, are all beside the mark in dealing with this question. No one recognises that better than the chief leader of the Labour party himself, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), whom I am glad to see in his place. In the Second Heading Debate on the 26th April, 1922, when the present First Lord of the Admiralty introduced the Empire Settlement Bill, the working of which we are discussing, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting said:
  " I hope that all of us recognise that within the Empire there are millions and millions of acres lying in a state of waste for want of population, and that, on the other hand, in this part of the Empire we have conditions of overcrowding which cannot be for the good health of millions of people, or in any sense serviceable as tending to improve the social and economic good of very large sections of the population. Therefore, I conclude that we all agree that it is very desirable to devise some plan for a wiser and fairer distribution of the population within parts of the British Empire." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1922: col. 592, Vol. 153.]
  That is the leader of the Labour party, and the hon. and gallant Member had better discuss the matter with him. I would really ask hon. Members to look at the Empire as one great country. If Canada and Australia were not divided by the sea, but were attached to this country, would the hon. Member say that a man who was going from here to Canada was being driven out? Not at all. It is merely because of the water between, which possibly the hon. Member has never crossed. If he had, he would finally have got to Canada, and would have found it, not a strange land, but a land very much like this, with people speaking the same language. In reality these attempts to divide the British Empire are quite out of date. The world is too big now. When you can fly from here to Australia in six days, which we shall probably he able to do in the reasonably near future, you will be much nearer to Australia then than 100 years ago you were to Edinburgh. When you see the Empire in that sense, what is the use of hon. Members saying—
  Mr. BROTHERTON: Tell the landowners to fly.
  9.0 p.m.
  Sir A. MOND: I daresay they will fly, but that is really beside the point which we arc discussing, and with which I want to deal. We are really contrasting two things which have no real contrast. Hon. Members who wish to develop this country will find no one more anxious to help them than I am, but on the other hand I am very anxious to help the Empire. The two things hang together. For good or for evil, England is an industrial country. England could not, and no one can pretend that it could, support a population of 43,000,000 people on its own area unless it had a huge export trade in manufactured goods. No economist has ever denied that fact, and our unemployment is largely due to the fact that the people who used to buy British goods can no longer afford to do so. What is the obvious thing to do? The obvious thing is to create markets for our goods, and the best market for British goods is the British Empire. The engineers of this country would be more fully employed if they could exchange their engineering work with people in our Dominions who are growing fond under more favourable conditions than are possible here. That is a better method than any other which could possibly be devised, and I do not see that anyone who thinks seriously about the matter can come to any different conclusion.
  That being so, the whole point that we are discussing to-day is how the Government are doing the organisation. The hon. Member has said that they are not organising well in regard to unemployment in this country. Let us see whether they are organising this question properly. I want to ask, and no doubt we shall be told on behalf of the Government, how far the money which Parliament has voted is being spent, and with what rapidity progress is being made. It is most important that progress should be made as speedily as possible. We have in this country a large youthful population, very largely owing to the War, who are more or less untrained to any particular industry, and who, unfortunately, are largely numbered in the ranks of the, unemployed. They form excellent raw material for the wider and freer life which the Dominions offer them. What is being done to train them? It is very important that training centres for agricultural work should be set up, either here or in the
  408
  Dominions, in which an intensive training can be given, which no doubt will be quickly responded to. How much are we doing in that direction, and how much money is being spent on that object?
  In a very interesting report made by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, which was published in February, 1922, quite a number of schemes were stated to be under discussion by the different Dominions, some were in progress, and some were the subject of negotiation. Could we be told how many of those schemes have been concluded? When I was taking an interest in the matter as a Member of the Government, I always found that there were many schemes under discussion but what, never seemed to happen was that schemes were actually being settled. I do hope that the red tape which continually entangles the footsteps of the progress that we all want to make, is being cut with a big pair of scissors, that the Treasury is not being allowed to make about with every scheme that is being put forward by our Dominions for weeks and months, haggling about the proportion we are to pay and the proportion they are to pay, while nothing is being done. This House voted this money in a fairly generous spirit in order to gel something done, and it is really intolerable that we have perpetual delay through trying to do this bargaining, which I know is popular in certain quarters, when all the time, as hon. Members have pointed out more than once, we are spending vast sums in keeping people unemployed in this country doing nothing. I hope we shall have something satisfactory on that.
  A further question which is very important is the use which is being made of voluntary societies. Negotiations have been pending with several of them. I think that on a previous occasion I raised the question how far the Salvation Army, for instance, was being used, I mention that body because it has undoubtedly a great experience in emigration, it has very able practical officers doing very good work in all these places, and would be a very useful society to use. It would, should think, administer economically, and would enable a great deal of work to he done. It is in these directions that I hope we shall have some account of satisfactory progress. I should like to know how the Ontario scheme is getting on, the Western Australian Land Settle-

  409
  ment, the Victoria Land Settlement and the still larger scheme of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. These were never originally intended to assist emigration. What was intended was that the money was to be used in conjunction with the money of the Dominions and the interest on the loans to be raised was to be spent in developing those countries to enable emigrants to work when they got there. People must have railways in order to get to the land. Australia requires a good deal of railway development and indirectly this leads to the question of employment in this country. I have advocated Empire development as a two-barrelled gun—a right and a left—the right being the development of the land, the left barrel being intended to hit the bird of unemployment in our industries here. Those are really the two lines on which you want to develop, and the sooner we get on and the more active we are the quicker you will have the remedy—it is only one of many remedies —aid the sooner you will be able to diminish the number of unemployed. I can assure the hon. Member for Gateshead that this baffling problem is exercising mind and thought of every thinking person in his country and for years has been occupying the brains of the ablest men and the solution is still not of a final or definite or absolute character. I had hoped that the Department of Overseas Trade might have had someone of Ministerial rank at its head, because it is so important that it is almost a one man job to be properly looked after. I hope he will give it that attention which the problem deserves. The proposal made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) of sending someone out to discuss these questions on the spot, is a practical proposition. At one time it was contemplated to send the present First Lord of the Admiralty on a, kind of Empire tour to get the details settled and to get some of these points which take so long in correspondence cleared up. Something of that kind should really be done, and if some authority was given to someone to really settle something, I am sure progress could be made. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can succeed in getting that done he will have earned a deep debt of gratitude from all of us.
  Sir NEWTON MOORE: I am fully in accord with the views expressed by the right hon. Baronet. The hon. Member
  410
  for Gateshead (Mr. Brotherton) considered this was practically an endeavour to induce people to leave this country, and he implied that he would prefer to remain unemployed here than go to a country where he had a better chance. I think that is a very bad policy. He must know it is absolutely essential that the British Empire should be developed. If we are to hold what we have and develop it, we must have population. In Australia you have a huge continent with 14,000 miles of coast line and 3,000,000 square miles of territory. Within three or four days' sail we have a coloured population of something like 60,000,000, and if we do not develop that country, it stands to reason we shall not be allowed to hold it. It is a certainty, therefore, that we must do our best to develop it. Labour generally in Australia, though there are exceptions, has generally been in favour of helping emigration. Out of seven Prime Ministers, four or five have been Labour leaders, and four of them come from the old country. As far as labour is concerned, it is one of the best parts of the world they can possibly go to. They have a democratic franchise. An opportunity is given to every man to select his own land. He is given 160 free acres, and every possible assistance is rendered. Advances are made through the agricultural banks the land is cleared, and he is given thirty years to repay the advance. Consequently, be has an opportunity to obtain a freehold if he is prepared to comply with the conditions. One is that the land must be improved. That is essential before he obtains his title. Reference has been made to the schemes which have been propounded by various Prime Ministers. The Prime Ministers for Western Australia and South Australia were here last year. One had a scheme for settling boys on the land with farmers which has proved eminently successful, while the Prime Minister of Western Australia was responsible for founding a scheme, which, if carried out in accordance with the proposals laid down, would provide for the settlement of something like 25,000 people. I should be the last man in the world to advise a man to leave this country if there is a possibility of his getting a job, but to a man who can see nothing ahead of him, and who has no prospects here, I would say, "Why not go

  411
  out there? "I am Australian born and the son of a man who went out 90 years ago. In those days when settlers landed they were faced with dangers and difficulties sometimes from the blacks, hut they met them because they were of the right stuff to develop the Empire. I believe there are some of the old stock left in this country. Surely you are not going to deter a man who is desirous of making a home for himself across the sea. If he has a job, let him stay, and good luck to him, but every man who goes over there is a potential customer for your workshops here.
  The hon. Member spoke as an engineer. Le me give him an example of how his trade is affected. In 1910, I was Premier of Western Australia and I came here in connection with our policy of developing that country which provided for laying down agricultural railways. In that country railways can be put down cheaper than roads. We put them down at a cost of £1,200 per mile. Those railways required rails. Where did we go to for them? To this country. They required locomotives and where did we go? We went to Glasgow and placed orders for 100 locomotives. The Lord Mayor regretted that my visit synchronised with the fact that 500 good Scotch citizens were leaving Glasgow, but I was able to reply that as the result of those men going out there, we were able to employ 600 Glasgow citizens for 12 months in constructing locomotives. The people who go there are going to white men and they will be looked after by white men who are proud to be associated with this country. Surely we have some obligation to these people to help them to defend their land. They came to this country when the occasion arose, not in their hundreds, but in their hundreds of thousands, to fight for this country. Surely we should support any reasonable scheme, built on sound lines, so that people from this country may go out to Australia and assist in the great work of development. Hon. Members are reasonable, and if they can only be satisfied that these schemes are on practical lines, and that they are examined by people here who have sound knowledge, they will support them. One hon. Member spoke about Commissions. I do not take any notice of that. We have done with Commissions. I sat for 12 months on a Royal Commission on
  412
  emigration, and we got no further. The action of the Government quite recently in sending out people competent to make inquiries, including a Member of the Labour party, is sound. These people can go there and satisfy themselves whether there is unemployment. They can satisfy themselves whether the schemes put forward by the Government are sound, practical schemes. They can see the Labour leaders out there. The Labour party will not support any scheme which means that there is going to be unemployment in that country. I know what I am speaking about. I represented in this country, as Agent-General, a Labour Government for three years, and their policy was to encourage emigration by every possible means, so long as it did not result in unemployment.
  Mr. BROTHERTON: We want to encourage development here.
  Sir N. MOORE: We listened to the hon. Member with a considerable amount of interest, and I was very disappointed at the attitude he took as an engineer. I cannot understand an engineer looking for a job for 18 months in this country, when he has an opportunity of going somewhere else and getting a job. As a rule, engineers are pretty active people, and very handy men wherever they go. Some reference has been made to training in this country. I can speak as a practical Australian, as a surveyor who went into the bush when I was 16, in charge of a survey party. A man out there, if he has a heart, and is able to swing an axe, dig a post hole, and use a mattock, can do very well. That is the training that he wants. He must be prepared to rough it. As to the question of training in this country, I do not place much importance on that, because the conditions in this country and in Australia are entirely dissimilar. You see a man here driving a single furrow plough, with a single horse, but out in Australia you may see a man driving six horses and ploughing six or seven acres a day. An engineer is a very useful and handy man out there, because the Australians use a great deal of machinery. I have a farm in one of the States which is being run by a man whom I assisted to emigrate from this country—a Scotsman. That man is able to farm one thousand acres, with the assistance of two or three men at harvest time or when the plough-

  413
  ing and seeding is going on. We have very wide areas, and it is imperative, if you are going to make a success of it, that you use machinery extensively.
  I should like to refer hon. Members to the scheme that the Premier of Western Australia proposes. He has prepared one which will appeal to a large number of hon. Members. It is a group system scheme. He says that, provided they can get a guarantee of 1,000 per man, they will go into the group system and reserve the blocks of land necessary for the scheme. For that £1,000 these men are to be guaranteed 12 months' employment they are to work under a boss of their own selection, who will have an opportunity of directing their operations. They will have the advice of the experts of the Agricultural Department, who will give them all the practical advice that is necessary. A large number of people in this country lay very great stress on the advisability, as far as possible, of encouraging these more or less community settlements; but we, have to realise that these schemes cannot be accepted as if they were on chess-board lines. We have to realise that each Dominion is a separate proposition. It is no use sending, as suggested, say, 10,000 people to each Dominion or State. One may be able to absorb 50,000, while another cannot absorb 10,000. Therefore, it is not simply a question of dividing up one large prairie which you can lay out like a chess-board. Each country has its separate problems and difficulties. You have in some cases to provide proper roads and railways and you have to classify the land. In some places 100 acres will give a good living for a man, while in another place it may mean 2,000 acres, with only 150 acres of first-class land, and perhaps 500 acres of second-class land. We must beware of these chess-board schemes, and we must have them examined by competent people who can tell us whether they arc practical propositions or not.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The, House has listened with interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Sir N. Moore). He has praised the benefits that are going to flow to the working men of this country who are unemployed and who are prepared to emigrate; but it is peculiar that with all the blessings of Australia, of
  414
  which he has spoken, he has left them behind him and come back to this country. I think the unemployed man in this country will have the same point of view, and will prefer to remain in the old country and, possibly, to take the scat of the hon. Member at the next election.
  Sir N. MOORE: Men have gone out there and have taken their seats there.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Four Prime Ministers!
  Mr. MACLEAN: That is no reason why we should ask our people to emigrate. We cannot all be Prime Ministers in Australia. That is, perhaps, one of the reasons why the hon. Member for North Islington has come back. The Government in bringing forward this scheme of Empire settlement and for sending out our people to the Dominions, at a cost of £150, are breaking one of the most solemn pledges that was made to the people of this country during the War. There is no occasion for any man being sent out from this country. There is ample opportunity in this country for anyone who desires to have it; but industry and initiative are stifled in this country because of certain conditions that circumscribe the activities of people who want to go on the land. We spend £150 on putting people out of the country, when for half that sum we could pat people on the land in this country.
  Mr. BLUNDELL: Where could you put people on the land here?
  Mr. J. JONES: In Mensal Green Cemetery. For £10 you can put them on the land.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for Silvertown anticipates the future of the landlords. If the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) will allow me to develop my point, I will answer him. The people of this country desire to go on the land. The Secretary for Scotland has had thousands of applications from ex-service men who desire to settle upon the land in Scotland, and he could find land for them. They were promised some of this land to settle upon prior to the War. During the War the land promised to them was bought up, and they were refused it. So they had to go to the extent of seizing it, and were put in prison for doing so. There is ample opportunity for settling in this country.

  415
  There is no need to colonise the world until we have colonised the land.
  Mr. BLUNDELL: I am sorry to interrupt, but the point to which I called attention was that the hon. Member had said you could put the men on the land for one half of, £150. I admit that many people could be put on the land, but not at the price the hon. Member says.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member is perhaps correct, if he is looking at the price of land as it is to-day, under private ownership.
  Mr. BLUNDELL: Oh, no, at the expense of putting them on the land.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Make the land of this country Government land, and you can do it more cheaply than in Australia.
  Mr. BLUNDELL: The land in this country is developed.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Does the hon. Member suggest that this country is developed? Has he travelled through some parts of the country? There are miles upon miles of land in this country that await development. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] There are miles upon miles of land in this country that are being taken from development—land that has been ploughed, farmland. The farms have been taken in and added to game preserves. [HON. MEMBERS; Where?"] In Perthshire, in Sutherlandshire, in Ross-shire, and in Inverness-shire. If any hon. Member cares to conic with me to Scotland, I will show him acre after acre that has been taken from farmland and put into game preserves.
  Mr. ERSKINE: Never!
  Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Gentleman does not know his own country.
  Mr. JONES: He has pinched every inch of it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member does not know the history of his own country.
  Mr. ERSKINE: Every inch of it.
  Mr. SHINWELL: The Hon. Member only goes to Scotland on 12th August.
  Mr. MACLEAN: He only goes there for six weeks in the year.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I can give the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) the case of the large amount of land taken by the Duke of Sutherland and reclaimed, out of which the men on it could not make a living.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I can also give an instance where land was taken by an ancestor of the Duke of Sutherland, and 15,000 people were turned off that land—driven off by fire and sword. You have never heard of the Sutherland clearance. The whole of the situation that arises is due to this: First of all, you can have certain conditions in this country under which, during a war with other countries, you have no unemployment. You can find employment in this country when you are at war for every man. There is no unemployment problem then.
  Mr. ERSKINE: Six million were out at the War.
  Mr. MACLEAN: And you brought Chinamen in to take the places of the dockers at Cardiff. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense! "] It may be nonsense to you, but it is not to the men walking the streets unemployed to-day.
  Mr. ERSKINE: They were fighting then.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Exactly, and you cannot find a job for them now, when they have saved the country for you.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Give them a chance, if they want to go.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Here is a Circular issued by the Ministry of Labour, for the emigration of children from 14 to 17 years of age.
  Sir C. YATE: Just the best time to go.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Send your own children there.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It is just the best time not to be sent there.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: You take away our children at 14, but you keep your children at school until they are 24 years of age, and then set them racing on the Thames. You talk about emigrating children at 14; you ought to be ashamed of yourselves!
  Mr. MACLEAN: This Circular deals with children from 14 to 17 years of age.

  417
  It suggests that, owing to the fact that there are 200,000 children leaving school every year, they should be emigrated and be grained in the colonies. It is laid down that applicants interviewed have to be classified in three classes—as suitable, doubtful, or unsuitable. We are getting back to the A 1, B 2, and C 3 classes of the War period. This is to be placed before the boys from the ordinary schools of the country, not from the public schools or the universities. It is for the boys from the ordinary schools, the elementary schools, the schools to which children of the working classes go. These are the individuals who are to be taken out there, and who have to be shepherded by the Salvation Army, if you agree to let them take them out, or by voluntary agencies, if the Government agrees to the proposal of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) to subsidise them. These children are to be taken out and handed over to farmers.
  Mr. GOULD: I went out at 17 years of age.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The, Circular says, Not 17 years, but from 14 to 17 years.
  Mr. GOULD: And a good thing too.
  Mr. MACLEAN: And you came back also, like the hon. Member for North Islington (Sir Newton Moore). You did not wait out there, you came back.
  Mr. GOULD: I went out to learn something.
  Mr. PENNY: I should like to mention that I went out at 14.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny) is a fine-looking Member, I admit that. He also, like the other two hon. Members who have given their testimony, has come back. The old country is more to him than Australia.
  Mr. PENNY: Certainly.
  Mr. ERSKINE: They have come back having made their fortunes.
  Mr. MACLEAN: There are other men who have come back both from Australia and Canada who did not make their fortunes.
  Mr. GOULD: Because they would not work.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member is interrupting with nonsense, now.
  Mr. GOULD: Common sense.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I do not object to barracking, but I object entirely to individuals interrupting in that manner. Many of the men have been compelled to come back. I know seine who have come back, and there are others out in the Colonies who cannot raise the money to come back, and who have not got employment.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Do you know anybody who has stayed out there?
  Mr. MACLEAN: I do not understand that interruption. There are in Canada, at the present time, thousands of people who are unemployed. There are thousands of people unemployed in Australia. You are neither salving the unemployment problem there or here by sending unemployed people out to other places where there is unemployment. Only a year ago, in Canada, I was speaking to the Labour Minister, Senator Robertson, prior to the last General Election there. He told me he would have to pay the fare of thousands of men, from Toronto, Montreal, acid Winnipeg, up into the prairies to assist on the farms with the harvest. After six weeks or two months had passed, those men would drift hack again into the towns. There was no work for them in the towns, and there was no work longer than six weeks or two months, at the outside, to keep them on. the prairies. The Government talk about sending children out to the Dominions to be trained. We are told that this is a good idea. Empire settlement! Empire development! Why cannot you develop your own country first, before you talk about developing other lands?
  When you get a Liverpool soapboiler buying up a large portion of Scotland, and keeping the land out of cultivation, you call it development. That is not development in the sense in which we understand development. If you wish this country to become merely a pleasure ground for those who can afford to purchase the country, that is all very well from your point of view, but the men who have fought for the country, who have been born and brought up in the country, who were enticed into the Army under the promise that there were to be

  419
  better conditions when the War ended, the men whom you have deceived and you have robbed, are told that you can find them no employment in this country which they have saved, and you give them £150 to get out of it. The whole system of Empire settlement starting from that basis is absurd. When the Empire Settlement Act went through this House I said the same things that I am saying now. I protested against it, and I tried to have amendments made.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Your own leader supported it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: This is no new position for me to take up. The hon. Member opposite has said many things about the men who are sitting side by side with him. Has he swallowed his words now? He has changed his opinions? I do not attribute to that the fact that he is sitting on that bench now, but if my leader has said something a year ago different from what he says to-day regarding this point, he is not the only man in this House who has changed his opinion. I hope that the Government, whatever attitude they are going to take up, will at least withdraw this infamous Circular issued by the Ministry of Labour. No matter how we got it, it is marked "confidential." This is one of the documents which the Minister of Labour no doubt had in mind when, in answer to a question asking for all the Regulations and documents sent out to officials of the Ministry of Labour and unemployment committees, he said that he could not give them as they were confidential documents. It is a scandalous document, and I hope that the Government will withdraw it, and the terms contained in it for the emigration of young children.
  It may be that Dr. Barnardo's Homes send children out. No one wants to say a word against those homes or the children sent out by them in England or the Quarriers' Homes in Scotland, but they are orphan children, and the children proposed to be taken out under this Circular are children living with their parents who must have their parents' consent before they are sent out. Is there any free choice to a parent who is unemployed, who is on the gap with no money coming into the home, whose children
  420
  are starving? Undoubtedly the man will try to do the best he can for the family. The best he can do is to keep them in his house if he can do it.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. MACLEAN: If the hon. Member will continue to interrupt, I cannot help my rejoinders. The children sent out from Dr. Barnardo's Homes are orphans, but these children are not. I hope that the Government will withdraw this document, and I hope further that those questions of Empire settlement are going to be debated more on the lines of settling our own people upon the land of our own country.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: And have them starving.
  Mr. MACLEAN: You do not starve, and you are neither on the land nor in industry. We want the people to be placed on the land of the country. We want the land of this country to be colonised. We are told that every emigrant from this country becomes a potential customer for this country, but every man employed in this country is not a potential but an actual customer in this country. He cannot purchase outside this country, while the Australian and the Canadian can. First develop and settle our own country, and with all the agricultural implements we have, and with our knowledge of science, we shall find that this country can grow considerably more than will support a larger population than we have got to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is absurd to say that there are too many people in this country. There are not. This country will support more than live on it at the present time, if properly cultivated, with private ownership in land destroyed, and until we colonise our own country there is no occasion for Empire settlement, or for the emigration of British children under the age of 17.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The hon. Member who has just sat down has given us a very forcible and interesting speech, ranging over a large number of subjects. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in all the points which he has raised. My business here to-night is to discuss the Empire Settlement Act, which it is my duty to administer, though

  421
  I will endeavour in the course of my speech to answer, as well as I can, the points which the hon. Member has raised. The House has listened to a number of very interesting speeches delivered for the most part more with an idea of helpfulness than anything else. We have all been very much struck, I am sure, with the sincerity and deep purpose of the speeches, and if I may be forgiven for saying so I am very grateful for the whole tone of this Debate. I feel that I ought to begin by making some sort of apology for myself. It is only a few days since I was appointed and with the best will in the world it has been impossible for me to make myself completely master of the whole of a very difficult and very intricate subject. If I fail to deal with it to-night as completely as I ought and to answer all the questions and points which have been raised, I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I ask for their indulgence and assure them that it will not be for want of zeal.
  I should like to say at once that I welcome this discussion for three reasons. The Empire Settlement Act passed its Third Reading on the 22nd May last year without a Division. That is nearly a year ago, and it is only natural and right, as the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) reminded us, that the House should have some account of the stewardship of that Act. My second reason is that I find already after my short acquaintance with this work that there is much ignorance of the aims and nature of the problems with which we are attempting to deal, and I think I have noticed a good deal of that ignorance in the speeches delivered to-night. If there is ignorance with regard to the aims and nature of the problem, there is also ignorance with regard to its practical difficulties. The best way to dissipate these misunderstandings is by discussion in this House. I hope, and we all hope, that this project will ultimately prove to be a great commercial success and of material benefit, not merely to the people of this country, but to the whole Empire. Let me emphasise this point from the very beginning, that we must not look at it solely and primarily from the material point of view. It must not be looked at as a solution of the problem of unemployment. That is a special problem and an immediate problem. The dislocation of trade brought about by the War have pre-
  422
  sented that problem not merely to this country but to the Dominions. It is still with them in an acute form, and to talk of using them as a means of curing something from which we are suffering in a peculiar degree is a great political mistake. No, it is not from that point of view that we have to look upon it. We must not look at it, either, merely as an opportunity of getting rid of a number of people we do not want, and here I want to correct the misapprehension that seems to exist on the benches opposite. The whole aim of this policy is not to get rid of people but to reverse the spirit in which people used to leave this country in years gone by. Then they left it with bitterness, with hatred, and with rancour in their hearts against a country which could not help them, and which did nothing for them. Three-quarters of them went not to British Dominions but to foreign countries. We want to reverse the whole process, and to send them with affection and with gratitude, not to foreign countries, but to British Dominions, to remain and to be citizens of the British Empire, and to help us to people our great Empire as it ought to be peopled, with British people with British aims, British ideals, British thoughts and British aspirations. If we are ever going to get at the heart of this matter and to look at it from the right point of view, let us realise once and for all that at the very basis of it is a great ideal, the ideal of a solid, united, prosperous, peaceful, and beneficent British Empire.
  I have said that I do not look upon Empire migration from the point of getting rid of our surplus population, and I should like to say a few words with regard to population. I have seen various estimates with regard to the extent to which we are said to be overpopulated. A few days ago I heard we had 4,000,000 people too many in this country, and to-night the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) put his estimate rather lower, at about 2,500,000. I do not think it is a question so much of whether we have too many people in this country or whether we have not. The total volume of our foreign trade is about 30 per cent. less than in 1913. We have 1,500,000 people out of work, and it is reasonable to assume that if that trade could be

  423
  restored we should return to a greater measure of prosperity.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned that our foreign trade was 30 per cent. less. Is that in quantity or value?
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Equivalent value. No, what we have to do now is to restore that foreign trade to its pre-War dimensions, and what we have to remember in considering this question of population and migration is that, if we are going to maintain the same number of people in these islands, it will only be by the maintenance and expansion of our foreign trade, and that at the moment Empire development offers the best prospects for stimulating the demand for British products overseas. Everything points in that direction. The British Empire has a position of unequalled advantage. Its undeveloped resources are vast and of great extent, and there is no doubt that its population is unequally distributed. The hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Colonel Alexander) in his maiden speech gave figures with which I did not quite agree, but which were accurate enough for the purposes of his argument. The population per square mile of Great Britain is 480.5 persons. In Canada, excluding the North West, Territory and the Yukon, it is four persons; in Australia 1.8; in New Zealand 11.7. It is obvious at once that if we are going to develop the resources of the British Empire with British people there is vast room for a readjustment of the population. The second indication in the direction of Empire development is that in the future the whole trend of our export trade is almost bound to be towards the Dominions. Australia already is our second largest customer, and as time goes on, with the difficulties that encompass and threaten Europe with the drawbacks in trading with people who speak a different tongue and with different forms of thought, the whole trend of our trade will be more in the direction of people of our own ideas, who speak our language, who are citizens of our Empire and our best customers. The whole course of migration tends in the direction of the British Empire. What is the course of migration 2 In 1890 to 1894 three-quarters of the movement of migration was to destinations outside the Em-
  424
  pire. Twenty years later there was a complete change, and three-quarters of the migrants gent to Empire destinations. Down to the end of the 19th century the United States attracted more than all parts of the Empire together. The new century sees the tendency reversed, the United States almost fully settled, and railway development in the Dominions has given ample access to their fertile lands. It is no use being in a hurry over this matter. I shall presently quote figures which will show that the number of people who have been migrated under this Bill is not sufficiently large to go into ecstacies about, but which will show that considering the difficulties which have been very considerable and arduous a great deal has been accomplished in paving the way.
  For the first time in the history of this country the Empire has a definite policy of development. That is the first thing given us by the Empire Settlement Act. The British Emipre, loosely-knit as it is, misunderstood, and often mismanaged as it has been, withstood a great shock in 1934. We then learned it was a source of strength and not a source of weakness, and that it had what is the absolute requisite for the foundation of the ideal State, settlement, or Empire, namely, goodwill. In approaching this matter, may I ask my hon. Friends to believe that the first thing we have to do is to take every possible care that we do not dissipate that goodwill. The second thing we have to do is to work for co-operation and co-ordination. That is not always easy. It is not easy to hurry schemes of migration when those schemes have to be negotiated between Parliaments which are separated by several thousands of miles.
  Lastly, there is the question of organisation. The organisation on this side is a comparatively easy matter, but it is difficult at the other end. It is comparatively easy for us to collect the people, but it is far more difficult for those on the other side to receive them, as they want to receive them, in the best possible way. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Viscount Sandon), who made his maiden speech, that the bun and cup of tea is not lacking when these people land in Canada or Australia. It must be borne in mind that migration must not get ahead of development, and that there is

  425
  a strong need of harmony between the two.
  In answer to the very natural request of may right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea, I will now try to state what has been done. In the first place, the House knows, we have this Oversea Settlement Office, which has been in existence for four years. For the first three years of its existence it dealt with the settlement of ex-service men, who were granted free passages, and since this Act came into force it has had the duty of working and operating this Act. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) asked me why this Office had been transferred to the Department of Overseas Trade. It has not been transferred to that Department. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that the Department would be still under the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  Lieut. - Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: That was in answer to a question I put. The intention of it was to indicate that my right hon. Friend is already overburdened with work in connection with trade development, and yet on top of those arduous duties he has suddenly put upon him the work of this migration scheme, which could occupy the whole time of the biggest statesman which the country has ever had.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I am afraid I am not the only Under-Secretary who is overburdened with work. My hon. and gallant Friend whom I followed is far more overburdened with work than I am. After all, the Department of Overseas Trade is not a bad Department in which to have an office of this character, because sooner or later it is coming down to a commercial proposition. If it is the duty of my Department to watch the progress of, and to assist in the advancement of, the commerce of this country, surely, if we agree that the main trend of the future development of our commerce is towards the Empire, then this Office is not very badly housed where it is. The Overseas Settlement Office is working in the closest touch with the Dominion Governments through their representatives in London, and it also has the assistance of the organisation of the Ministry of Labour. Since the Act came into force it has arranged the following
  426
  schemes: A general passage agreement to Australia, a small scheme with Dr. Barnardo's Homes, a scheme with Western Australia, a passage agreement with New Zealand, and a small scheme with Ontario. Under these schemes 11,038 people have already been migrated. The Australian schemes are in course of negotiation, although they are not yet in operation, with the exception of the Victoria Settlement Scheme, which has definitely been approved. There is a scheme under consideration with New South Wales, a scheme with the Australian Farmers, Limited, a scheme with the Child Emigration Society, a scheme with the Government of Canada, a scheme with the British Dominions Emigration Society, and a scheme with the Salvation Army. Under all those schemes, if they come to fruition, as I trust they will, we hope to create a migration in the course of the next 12 months of 75,000 people, or at the rate of 1,500 a week.
  The migrants, the people who are going to migrate, are divided into three classes. There are, first, the single men and women. There are, secondly, the children and juveniles, and there are, thirdly, the married men with families. I shall have a few words to say shortly with regard to the order in which we shall deal with those categories and our policy with regard to them; but I want to say this now. I want the House to remember that every individual case has got to he dealt with on its own, and on its merits, and that every individual case goes to the representatives of the Dominion Governments in London, with whom the final selection rests. We are also, by way of experiment, setting up, or are about to set up, a Migration Committee in the County of Kent; but until the whole policy of the scheme of emigration is developed, we do not propose to proceed very much further in that direction. The Kent committee would rather be something by way of experiment.
  10.0 P.M.
  What is our policy going to be? Because that, after all, is what the House really wants to know. The first thing we have got to do is to complete the arrangements and to ensure that these schemes are working in cordial co-operation. I should like to say at once that, so far as I understand it, although

  427
  we have not always been able to agree on points of detail with the Dominions overseas, we have met on all hands the most active and the most cordial desire to co-operate in this great movement. The second thing we have to do is to get the right people to migrate. Sometimes the charge is made that we are migrating the best. The only thing I need say in answer to that is that we need the best. We need all the character, ability, initiative and enterprise there is in the people of this country to go out and face the difficulties of new positions abroad. I am not the least afraid of that. There are plenty more coming on. The inherent qualities of the race are not dead. They are only a little bit cramped, and if we made more room at the top it would merely mean a better opportunity for those who, at the moment, are underneath.
  What is the policy with regard to the migration of children? And here I must cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). In the categories of migrants, we place children and juveniles first. I will tell the House why I say that. It is not a question of carrying people away from their homes. There is not the smallest intention or desire to do anything of the sort. As a matter of fact the great majority of children who go abroad are children who are destitute and who are orphans, and whose outlook in this country is hopelessly black. We hope to give them a better outlook and a better chance in a new country. They are mostly in the care of the Poor Law guardians, or well-known and well-recognised societies in this country. When I first heard of emigration of children I was a little horrified. It seemed a terrible thing to take a small child abroad among strange people and new surroundings, but when I came to inquire into it I found there was nothing to be alarmed at. In Canada we migrate children down to eight years of age. There seems to be for some reason or another a great number of married people in Canada who are childless, and they are glad to adopt these little orphans. On this side suitable children have to be selected to be sent out. They go across the sea in charge of an officer of the society or some other responsible person. They are kindly and well received on the
  428
  other side. The Canadian Government exercises the very greatest care in the selection of the people who are to adopt them, and when they are finally adopted it has one of the most complete systems of inspection I have ever heard of. Government inspectors visit these children from time to time in the farms or homes or wherever they may be. They give no notice of their visits. They first make a careful inspection of the home and full inquiries as to the general treatment of the child. Then they have a talk with the child alone, and if the inspector is not satisfied that the child is being adequately looked after he takes the child away there and then. That is about as sensible and humane and kind a system as one could have. Australia is not so keen on child emigration or juvenile emigration. But there is a certain amount of it, and at the present time we have a Commission on the seas which is to visit Australia. They sailed last Saturday, and included among them is a Member of the Labour party who is known and respected in all quarters of the House, the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall).
  The second category is that of women. We have 1,700,000 more women in this country than men. Although in certain portions of the Dominions it is true that there are more women than men, taking them as a whole, the balance in the Dominions is the other way, and it stands to reason that an adjustment of the balance is a right and proper policy and in the interests of the nation as a whole. The next category is that of single men, and if they are not too old they are not a very difficult problem provided they are not unsuited to the life. I am rather inclined to the view that the people who go abroad should be given some training in this country as that would enable us to weed out the unsuitable, but there is no doubt that the Australians at least do not want them to be trained here. They want the raw material to bring them up in their own way. There is a good deal to be said for that, but I believe we shall have to consider the question of establishing in the future some system of training in this country. The last class is the married men with families, and here you have the ideal person to settle in a new country. The husband and wife take the children out with memories of the old country and look after them and bring them up not so much as citizens of the new Dominion,

  429
  but with a closer feeling towards the old country than orphan children and other young people would have. But they are a difficult problem to deal with because the question of sustenance while the man s finding his feet is not an easy one. It is not desirable to send the man ahead and leave the family to follow, and it is not desirable to send the man to a new country unless he has the chance of making a living straight away. The burden of sustaining the men while they are finding their feet is rather too heavy a burden for the Dominions, but if these settlement schemes mature there will be a great deal more done in the migration of married men and families. Here I will refer again to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth. If he will allow me to say so, I think the greater portion of it should have been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our means are limited, and we have not the means at our disposal to go in for large schemes. That is a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: He is holding it up.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: That is not his fault. In transferring this scheme to me and to my Department, I am quite certain the Government; have no intention of letting this matter drop. It is a matter of high policy and of first-class importance. I look upon the Empire Settlement Act as one of the most important and far-reaching Acts of Parliament that have been passed for many years. I have listened to-night to two most interesting maiden speeches, and I have felt too as if I were making a maiden speech. The office which I have had the honour of holding for the last two years has kept me a silent but interested spectator of the proceedings of this House. And thinking of maiden speeches has made me think of my early days in Parliament, of the high hopes with which we started in 1919 and of how many of us have lived to be a great deal disillusioned, but I see in this Act something which, in my opinion, is a first step to the new England we all want to see. I believe it will be a step also towards the making of a new Empire an Empire which will be a tower of strength, and not a source of weakness, a security and not an anxiety, and it may be that in the years to come it will be a great factor for
  430
  peace in a world which far too frequently has been ravaged and devastated by the cruelties and wickedness and follies of war.

  DISPOSAL BOARD.
  Sir JAMES REMNANT: I wish to speak on another subject, which I am afraid is not so interesting as the one we have just listened to, nor is it likely to attract so many speakers. I wish the House to consider the Disposal Board and Liquidation Commission. I want to persuade them to insist on the Government appointing an independant Committee to inquire into the many cases, as rumour has it, where the administration has not been as it ought to be. I am particularly sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present this evening, because he would have power to give us this Committee, and I am afraid my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can only give us, if he sympathises with us, the cold satisfaction of consulting his right hon. Friend as to whether it can be given. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us-whether the report in the newspapers, that the Disposal Board is to end on 1st April, is true. I hope that it does not mean that the whole of the administrative staff of the Disposal Board is to be transferred to another Department of State, as has happened in so many other cases. Only on 11th March there was another announcement in the papers —that at the special request of the Government the Disposal Board was to be continued for another three months. In my humble opinion, the Disposal Board ought to have been ended 18 months ago, to the advantage of the country and the taxpayers. When we consider these great schemes of Empire settlement as we have just done, we must recognise that it will he impossible to carry them out unless we are economical in the administration of the great Departments.
  When questions have been put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing especially with the brass scrap contracts, he has invariably said that he is quite certain that everything is all right, and that he sees no reason to differ from the decision arrived at by his predecessor in office. I hope, before I have finished my speech, to give the House a few details in reference to this brass scrap which will satisfy hon. Members that a Select Com-

  431
  mittee ought to be appointed, with full power to call for any documents, without having privilege urged, as is so often the case, where business men and lawyers could be represented—law enters greatly into the question—and where, if necessary, witnesses could be called and evidence taken on oath. Without a full and free inquiry I am afraid that the country will not be satisfied. In dealing with this brass scrap contract I shall have to refer to three firms. The House may remember that after the Armistice the Disposal Board were able to deal with individual applications for metals and did not enter upon block sales. The Press started a campaign, urging the early closing of the Disposal Board. The Board then went in for block sales. One of the earliest transactions in block sales was with a firm at Birmingham, E. J. Smith & Co., a firm who before the War were not engaged in the metal trade at all but were a firm of speculative builders and became metal merchants during the War and had practically the sole right to deal in this metal to the exclusion of all the other metal merchants at Birmingham. Why this firm should have been selected, I do not know.
  One of the first contracts that this firm had with the Government was to take brass at £56 a ton. The price dropped shortly afterwards. The firm was then relieved of its contract and was put on a 5 per cent. commission basis, which, according to an answer given in this House, represented a net profit to that firm of something like £80,000, although if it had been held to the contract the firm would have been bankrupt. It is a very curious transaction. Where a contractor makes a profit he sticks to his contract, but directly the price drops he is relieved by the Disposal Board of the obligation to carry out the contract. It is a very nice way of doing business, and many of us would like to be treated in that way. About that time another firm, a firm that had been tried during the War with great contracts, and who never let the Government or the country down—a firm well known in the engineering world—entered into a contract. The Disposal Board entered into a contract with them to take brass scrap (amongst other goods), which they sold for the Government, at £35 per ton. The contract was based on a minimum of a £5,000,000 deal and the whole organi-
  432
  cation of the firm was placed at the command of the Government. Sir Howard Frank sneered in a letter to the "Times" at a firm which showed only a nominal capital. I would like to ask him how much capital was represented in his business—nothing more or less than the office furniture. Why he should jeer at a firm which nominally had only £37,000 capital I cannot understand and to say the least of it, showed extraordinarily bad taste on his part. However, this firm was asked by the Government to give financial guarantees and they had not the smallest difficulty in getting Messrs. Coutts and Company to guarantee them absolutely and entirely for 5,000,000 golden sovereigns which was the minimum extent of their contract. This firm, Rownson, Drew and Clydesdale, an eminent firm with great credit proved themselves capable contractors for the Government during the War and this was the firm with which the Government entered into a contract and as I will submit in a few minutes the Government did not act according to their contract with the consequence that they have to pay compensation to the extent of between £45,000 and £50,000. This agreement laid it down that the Government could call upon this firm to sell, on the terms arranged, the minimum or as much over as they liked, of this brass scrap among other articles.
  According to Clause 5, Schedule A, they could be called upon to sell practically any stores which the Government choose to require them to dispose of. Sir Howard Frank has said that this firm could only deal with 120 tons of brass. They contracted with their sub-contractors at £35 a ton to take all that was available, and the only thing they could get out of the Government was 120 tons of brass while the Government were willing to offer other people, at a far less price, the scrap which they could insist on this firm taking. The consequence was that they did not hand to the firm anything like the quantity of goods which they had in store, and, as I say, they had to pay from £45,000 to £50,000 compensation for not carrying out the contract, although the Government had the goods. The other contractor takes a very different aspect altogether, and that is the British Metal Corporation. Hon. Members opposite, and in various parts of the House—and I agree with them absolutely and entirely—think it is

  433
  very wrong for men who have got to know the intricate business of any Department to take positions as directors or managing directors of companies which have immediate dealings with the Government. It is bad enough for Ministers. If Ministers do it, they cannot complain of other people following suit, but I think the ordinary Member of Parliament, like myself, is very sorry indeed to see anything of that sort taking place. Under D.O.R.A. the Ministry of Munitions and Disposal had the right to see all the contracts of all the metal merchants in the United Kingdom, which makes the present case much stronger.
  The British Metal Corporation got a huge contract—and this is the main contract for this brass scrap—for 150,000 tons at £24 2s. per ton, while it is sold by this other firm, Messrs. Rownson, Drew, and Clydesdale, at £35 per ton. At the end of the first year of Rownson, Drew, and Clydesdale's contract, during which the Disposal Board had undertaken to hand over goods to the extent of £5,000,000 worth, the Government actually owed them as compensation £125,000, and it would no doubt have paid the firm to have taken it, but they said: "No, we have seen too much of what is going on. We feel that we are under a duty to do our best by the country, and we will give you another year within which to complete your contract. We shall not want compensation; we want to work for our money, but we make one proviso. We will agree to extend it for another year, to allow you to carry out your contract without compensation, provided you accept the area clearance scheme which has been prepared at the request of Lord Inverforth and which has already been submitted." The Disposal Board accepted that, but they never carried it out. If they had carried it out, it would have meant closing up within six months all these different sections of the Disposal Board, and this is where I do blame the Disposal Board that they did not see carried out the various arrangements which they, with their eyes open, had made in reference to these contracts. The British Metal Corporation came on the scene. They were not registered before the Armistice; they were registered immediately after the Armistice; and came into being. Who are the directors? I will not give the names now. [HON.
  434
  MEMBERS: "Yes, do."] I am very willing to show them to any hon. Member who likes to see them, but I will say this much, that they were all of them, with two exceptions, men who had held advisory positions to the Ministry of Munitions or Disposal Board dealing with these very metals for which they were going to get this contract. One of them, Mr. Rucker, is the managing-director of the British Metal Corporation. He was the late Controller to the Disposal Board on non-ferrous goods. Some hold positions on the Metallgesellschaft. The late Sir Samuel Evans said, when dealing with the Metallgesellschaft and its kindred companies, that the hand of this German company was seen and its powerful influence exhibited at all times and places. The Disposal Board gave this British Metal Corporation 150,000 tons of this stuff at £24 odd per ton. We are told by some that this was only scrap brass. The ordinary man in the street thinks that scrap brass is old brass broken up, and all that sort of thing, but what will the Minister say who is going to reply when I ask him if he knew that some of it was new material which had been, under Sir Howard Frank's authority, transferred to scrap in the stores schedule at the various depots. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some of us have seen that done! "] If hon. Members doubt me, let me assure them that I hold in my hand the White Paper issued by the instruction of the Disposal Board, and over the signature of Colonel Corbett, which deals with this contract of the British Metal Corporation, and says: the brass scrap of 70/30, that is, 70 per cent. copper and 30 per cent. of zinc, which at the time was selling at from £60 to£80 per ton, was to be handed over to this corporation. The depots were to be very careful to select brass scrap of the proper analysis. The little grub screws at the head of the shell were actually taken out at the expense of the Government, thus saving the corporation a pound or two per ton. When Sir Howard Frank talks about scrap brass, as though he did not know that under his own instructions new commercial brass, e.g., rods, tubes and sheet, were to be included and called brass scrap, really he is asking us to believe what I am sure my hon. Friend would not believe if he had all the facts before him When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was answering a question put

  435
  by an hon. Member recently, he said that there was a great deal more behind this question than appeared on the face of it. There is. It is very difficult, at this late hour, to answer all the questions that have been raised, and go into all the technical points in connection with the matter, but I hope that when I tell the House that, by the directions of the Board, new brass rods, sheets and tubes were, just immediately after the signing of this contract, suddenly transferred to scrap, and that the whole was sold, at a less price than could have been got under a contract which was already running, they will agree with me that a very drastic inquiry should be immediately held. I know it has been said on behalf of the Disposal Board that Messrs. Rownson Drew and Clydesdale actually signed a contract for £25. They did, because, when this contract was signed without competition or even consulting the trade, their sub-contractor came and said to them, "How can I pay you £35 when the British Metal Corporation have this huge amount hanging over the market at £24? I can only give you £25." That was on the eve of the signing of this huge contract. The Government had made it impossible to get £35 when they handed over this vast amount at £24 per ton to the British Metal Corporation. Another very surprising statement was made by Sir Howard Frank, to the effect that he kept in touch with the trade, that the trade was consulted on this question, that it was open to competition; but, unless you had the facts before you, you would be inclined to believe it. But directly it was hinted about that this vast amount of scrap brass was to be sold to the British Metal Corporation, the Birmingham metal merchants, the London metal merchants, and the big metropolitan metal merchants throughout the country, wired to Sir Howard Frank protesting against it, and gave him notice that a big demonstration of protest would he held. At a meeting at Birmingham the following resolution was passed:
  " This meeting of Birmingham metal merchants, holding the view that block sales should only be made after the material has been offered to competition, strongly protests against the sale of brass announced in the Press, and should any portion exist of material previously sold which may not have been taken up by other contractors, will feel
  436
  compelled publicly to agitate for a complete inquiry into the whole of the circumstances."
  A London meeting also passed a similar Resolution, and they gave notice to the Government, before the contract was actually signed by the British Metal Corporation, that they were holding meetings protesting against the metal being sold without competition from the British metal merchants, and indirectly for the benefit of British trade. But directly the contract was signed, to show what this British Metal Corporation was clearly after—I would emphasise that some of the directors were continuing the influence of the Metallgesellschaft—the greater part of the brass was shipped immediately to Frankfort, the home of the company which the Non-ferrous Act was passed to suppress. I ask the hon. Gentleman will he let us have a full and free Committee to inquire into this question? I shall be delighted if I am proved to be wrong, but the information given me is so strong that I feel almost inclined to lay my money on the case I have stated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said he is quite satisfied that everything has been done properly and efficiently. If so, he need not fear an inquiry. I think we ought to have an inquiry, and I hope the House will support me in my appeal.
  There is another question on the sale of depots in France. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he saw the report of the Audricq depot which was made in 1921 at the request of Lord Inverforth, in which the value of that depot was put at £1,250,000, and it was coupled with an offer to clear it almost immediately. What is the result now? Audricq and three other larger depots, of the value of about £4,000,000 at a low estimate were sold to two men for £2,000,000. They were in possession for some months and then were let off their contract. They paid the Government £389,000 on account. The Government estimate what is left at £500,000. I want to know what happened to the difference, and why these men were allowed to have this contract without proper financial guarantees? I want to know also why Mr. Hughes, one of these two men who failed in their contract to pay for these depots is allowed to buy some of our capital ships that we sold last year. I asked the Admiralty to give me the names of the 11 capital ships that were sold last year,

  437
  their tonnage, the price paid for them and the conditions attached—whether they were to be broken up in this country for the benefit of our unemployed or not. A great many of them were taken straight away to Germany and other foreign parts. But the Admiralty again, like so many other Departments said, "It is not in the public interest to give you the information asked for." Why not? It is the taxpayers' money. The thing is done. I want to prove, what I am told is the case, that for one of these ships the price accepted from Mr. Hughes was less than another offer that was made. I want to know why Mr. Hughes was allowed to buy these ships when he could not carry out his other contract. It may be necessary to preserve secrecy when we are dealing with delicate negotiations in foreign affairs, but in this case the representatives of the taxpayers are entitled to have the information.
  The same thing happened at the end of the last Parliament. Sir Eric Geddes, the Economy Minister, who is very keen on economy when it does not affect his own pocket, was paid by the North Eastern Railway £50,000, or, rather, the North Eastern Railway would not pay, and the Government paid. When I asked the Government to allow the agreement to be placed on the Table, they refused, and I do not know how we can make them. All this nonsense about its not being in the public interest to give information when the taxpayers' money is concerned ought not to be tolerated. The House of Commons has the right to be master in its own house, and these refusals will not satisfy those who are anxious to promote economy. We have heard about railway engines at Woolwich. I approached the firm and said to them: "There has been a lot of talk in the House of Commons about the Woolwich locomotives. Would you have taken them? "They replied:" Yes. We should have been obliged to take them if the Government had asked us to do so." I asked in the House whether the Government had asked this firm to take the engines. They did not do so. The transactions of the Disposal Board have been dilatory. They have been opposed to the early closing of the Disposal Board, and have purposely put obstacles in the way of handing over materials which this firm could have dealt with. I believe the
  438
  reason was that the officials were afraid of losing their appointments. There were more engines at Shoeburyness. At high tide the sea came nearly up to the engines, and the effect of the sea air on the engines can be imagined. It was recommended that these engines, and other engines from other parts, should be transferred to some central place, where they could be scheduled and disposed of. The Shoeburyness engines were still there up to a month or two ago. Why has the Disposal Board not taken the ordinary course of preserving if they do not choose to sell these expensive engines, that are being reduced practically to scrap-iron?
  In June, 1921, it was reported that there were 12,000,000 sand bags lying at Dagenham waiting to be sold. They were costing £1,500 a year in rental alone, although within 2· yards of the place where they were stacked there was Government free property where they could have been stacked for nothing. Although it was recommended that this vast number of stacks should be sold when they had a market value, they have been bought for pulp, and are being turned into the "Daily Mail" newspaper. I could give plenty more cases, but I am sure there are other hon. Members who, from their experience, can give others. I do appeal to my hon. Friend to report, if he cannot give us permission himself, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the feeling in the House, and to press him to give us an inquiry, which alone can satisfy, not only hon. Members in this House, but many people outside.
  Mr. SHINWELL: The comprehensive and—if I may say so—outspoken speech which the hon. Baronet has just delivered renders my task a comparatively light one, although in so wide and comprehensive a question there are hound to have been omissions. I can, at least, dot the i's and cross the t's of the points to which he gave expression. It will be admitted in all quarters of the House that this is by no means a party question. This is a matter upon which all parties in the House can co-operate. In the demand which the hon. Baronet has made for a full and independent inquiry, there will be considerable sympathy of an active kind expressed by hon. Members. While I desire to reinforce the request of the hon. Baronet for such an inquiry, I ask

  439
  that the inquiry should go much further than merely into the transactions of the Disposal Board itself. I ask that such an inquiry should go so far as to ascertain what were the individual transactions of servants of the Disposal Board and of ex-employés of the Board. I regard this question as extremely important, and I feel sure that that view will be supported in this House, because it is desirable that the nation should be protected against waste and reckless expenditure, and that administration must be beyond reproach.
  There are in this country to-day very grave and disquieting rumours amongst the public. The man in the street asks, in perhaps a vague way, without the submission of facts, questions relating to the transactions of the Disposal Board. It is true that his knowledge does not enable him to submit evidence of an authentic character, but there are men engaged in this business, men whose practice it is to purchase large quantities of surplus stores, and who were engaged in that kind of business long before the War, who themselves are complaining bitterly, and with reason, about the conduct of the Disposal Board. Surely, some consideration will be given by this House to complaints emanating from such a quarter. I submit that the hon. Baronet and those who, like myself, will support him in his demand for inquiry, are rendering a public service. It may be urged that during the War waste was bound to take place. With that view I should express sympathy, because, in a time of national crisis, it is extremely difficult to avoid waste and even reckless expenditure. But there was no excuse whatever after the War was ended. Having regard to the fact that there was quite justifiably a desire in the country for economy of the most drastic kind in the interests of the nation, the Disposal Board should have exercised much greater care than it did with regard to administration. When we refer to the Report for 1922 of the Public Accounts Committee, which I am sure will he regarded with due interest by hon. Members, the minutes of evidence which were taken in May, 1922, show that two very prominent officials of the Disposal Board were examined before the Committee, and reference was made to the following alleged conduct of the Board in this matter. I quote from a statement
  440
  made by a prominent member of the Disposal Board:
  " As a result discrepancies were disclosed which proved in some instances that the results of previous stocktakings were untrustworthy."
  The question was put to Sir Daniel Neylan, who, as is well-known, was a very trusted official of the Disposal Board:
  " Who took the stocks? "
  And he replied:
  " Our officials at the Ministry."
  I submit that that admission is in effect a very grave charge against the officials of this particular Department. I submit another case as indicating the extraordinary manner in which that Board conducted its business. It so happened that the Board proposed to dispose of a very large quantity of stock, and there was a gentleman with a speculative mind who approached the Department and offered to purchase. A subordinate official entered into an arrangement, without the consent of his superiors, to sell the surplus stock, and then it transpired that the would-be purchaser was not in a position to purchase because he had not the necessary finance. That, perhaps, is not unknown even in the most respected and trustworthy business circles, but look at the evidence that was given before the Committee. The question was asked by a member of the Committee, an hon. Member of this House in the last Parliament:
  " What notice was taken of the conduct of the officer who had granted this contract without reporting the matter to you? "
  The reply was:
  " The officer who did that stated that he did it for the reason that he thought this man, being the son of a peer, was in such a position and so on that it was not necessary to refer to me as to his financial standing."
  I do not want to hurt the feelings of hon. Members who may have some sympathy for impecunious peers or peers' sons, but I do submit that conduct of that kind ought not to be tolerated by a House which has a very great respect for business capacity.
  11.0 P.M.
  I pass on from the Public Accounts Committee, although with very great diffidence I submit that hon. Members would find ample material in the Report of that Committee to justify demanding an inquiry such as has been suggested. I am

  441
  going to submit one or two points to the hon. and gallant Member in a somewhat hesitant way because until I am assured that the Government are prepared to conduct an inquiry such as has been asked for I am not prepared to submit all the evidence which is in my possession. I am prepared on this occasion to indicate the purport of the evidence which will be submitted to an inquiry if it takes place. I ask the hon. and gallant Member two questions. First of all, whether he is aware that there was in the possession of the Disposal Board telephone material which had never been used, which cost £7,000, and which was sold by private treaty for the sum of £15. I can understand the amazement, perhaps not expressed amazement, but existing amazement, when I put a question of that kind. My submission to the hon. and gallant Member is: You hold your inquiry and the facts will be tabled. I pass on from that and leave it for Members to digest. I submit another question— whether the hon. and gallant Member is aware that the Department, or at all events, an official of the Department, purchased a large quantity of printed forms weighing 65· tons, valued at £27,000, which was never utilised by the Department or by any other Government Department, and which was eventually sent to the paper-makers to be pulped, a gross loss of £27,000 to the nation, and reflecting, I think I can say with absolute justification, a very sad condition of affairs so far as the Department is concerned. I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he is aware of these alleged cases—facts. I put it no higher than that. He can reply, if he cares, at the proper moment.
  Now I come to a matter about which I have submitted questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which was perhaps the primary reason -why I intervened in the discussion. I refer to the peculiar position of the Georgetown Munition Depot, which occupied a tract of ground more than one mile square. Perhaps there are hon. Members who know something of the district and of the depot itself who will support me in the statement I have just made. It is a fact—and here I do not ask questions of the hon. and gallant Member—that these buildings, at all events 75 per cent. of the buildings—I do not wish to exaggerate—have been disposed of by private treaty for a sum
  442
  which is not stated, but which is believed to be about £10,000, to a syndicate, through the medium of an ex-official of the Disposal Board. The transaction was conducted in a somewhat underhand way. I hasten to assure the hon. and gallant Member that I am not accusing him, or even his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of doing underhand things.
  I am rather imputing them to the Disposal Board, and to the general administration of that Department. The transaction was conducted in, I say, an underhand way; but there is a more serious aspect of the question than that. Communications were received by the Disposal Board from contractors, asking if they would be permitted to tender. Their letters were not acknowledged until the Department informed those contractors that the buildings had been disposed of by private treaty in the manner I have already indicated. I submit that is a very serious state of affairs. But that is not all. It is alleged that the buildings would have fetched, at the very least, by public auction £50,000, and that is not an exaggerated estimate. They are tremendous buildings, and I am certain that the mere statement that I make will be quite sufficient for the purpose.
  There was some lead electric cable lying at Georgetown, 19 miles in length, which was disposed of, not by public auction, but privately, to a firm in Glasgow—I do not care at the moment to mention the name—for the sum of £1,500. Every person associated with the business is bound to admit—I know that many contractors associated with the business have already stated it—that at the very least £5,000 would have been obtained for that material. I do not want to submit any further facts with regard to what happened at Georgetown, except to indicate the serious displeasure which has been manifested among contractors in Scotland at the action of the Department, and I think they have got a justifiable ground of complaint. They are in the business, and they naturally expect that, if the Government are disposing of surplus materials and stores and buildings by auction, the Government will continue to dispose of such materials and buildings by auction, and not permit ex-officials of the Department to use their influence and their undoubted knowledge

  443
  in order to assist their friends to undertake transactions of that kind.
  Now I come to what is the most serious matter of all. I am going to ask the hon. and gallant Member if he is aware that a Report was prepared by an official of the Department, Mr. J. H. Beer, on the 7th February, 1920, at the request of the Board, on the transactions of the Disposal Board; that that Report was placed in the hands of Lord Inverforth, who was then Minister of Munitions, Sir Sigmund Dannreuther and Sir Daniel Neylana Report of a startling character, which was never made public, and which, I presume is still in the hands of the Department. I ask why this report was never made public? What was the purpose behind its concealment? Surely, if it was desirable to conduct an investigation into the transactions of the Board, it is equally desirable to record the facts in the interests of the nation. In support of my contention that such a report was submitted to the Department, I will read a, letter, which was sent by an official of the Disposal Board, while in the employment of the Department, to a certain official of the Board, sometime in 1921. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not give dates or names, but I am prepared to submit both dates and names and all the necessary and ancillary facts if the hon. and gallant Member will assure the House and myself that an inquiry will be held. That letter was sent relative to the Slough Depot, and Mr. J. H. Beer's report of the 7th of February, 1920. The letter is as follows:
  "In reply to your verbal request that I should let you have copies of the above Report (which you have already read when auditor in this Department) I have to say that the documents constituting the above Report and supplementary papers were handed me for personal custody [by a gentleman named] upon his quitting this Department on the 22nd instant. For the first time an opportunity has been afforded me of reading them, and of reading a copy (apparently) of the comments made by the Committee which sat on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th March, 1920, at Slough, to consider the Report. I cannot find anything in the Report or supplementary papers which would justify any additional action now in the interests of the public, having regard to the magnitude of other waste scandals of which we have read in the Press in the meantime.
  It is probably true to say that had the Report been acted upon more fully early in.1920, certain additional criminal prosecu-
  444
  tions might have been sustained. It must be remembered that, in all likelihood, the Committee had in mind the difficulty of securing the necessary evidence to lead to convictions.
  It is a gruesome story of indifference in those in administrative positions; of negligence and wrong to the detriment of the public funds; and to the ordinary standards of decent conduct. It allows of the inference that there was lack of administrative foresight and lack of adequate accounting methods at the initiation of the Slough Depot scheme.
  Knowing what we do of the indifference of those in high authority to the proper conservation of public money; of the atmosphere of prodigality and waste to which they have become inured and to their adroitness when adverse criticism arises, of so representing the measure of official responsibility as not so much individual as spread over a number of persons in descending degrees, of fractional accountability, so as to make it next to impossible to attach a particular quantum of reproach to any individual—I do not see how the cause which you have at heart in common with other comparatively helpless officials could be benefited by the reopening of this sepulchre.
  I should prefer to take the responsibility of sending you copies of these documents as you suggested only when it is fairly demonstrated that some really useful public service would be effected. I would be freed from regarding them as solely confidential and private by being so satisfied, and that the action which it was proposed to take was justified and was unlikely to be taken otherwise."
  I would ask the House to note that this is sent from the office of the Disposal Board by a somewhat prominent official. I think the House will admit that it is very surprising, but, if the House had been regaled with statements regarding transactions of the Board, as I have been, they would not regard this as surprising at all. At all events, I submit that a prima facie ease has been made out for an independent inquiry. I think it is worth reiterating that this is not by any means a partisan statement. I am certainly not attacking the present Government because of something for which, presumably, the late Government are in some degree responsible. In the interests of the nation, in the interests of efficiency, in the interests of the House of Commons itself, which is, after all, always jealous of finance and expenditure, it is desirable that the Financial Secretary, if he cannot himself give the assurance, should convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government the urgency and desirability of insti-

  445
  tuting an inquiry, where the terms of reference will be of the widest and most comprehensive character, to enable us to plumb the depths of the transactions of the Disposal Board.
  Sir EDWARD MANVILLE: I join with the hon. Member who has just spoken in saying that the complaint I have to make against the Disposal Board is not a complaint against the existing' Government, which, of course, was not responsible for the appointment of the Disposal Board or for the policy which guided its actions. My complaint is that the action of the Disposal Board is hammering perhaps, the last nail into the coffin of a whole industry, unless that policy is immediately reversed. May I for a moment draw the attention of the House to what happened in the early days of the automobile industry? The legislation which this House failed to pass a quarter of a century ago placed many of the countries in front of this country in a most important industry. It was many years before the mechanical genius of this country brought us to a level with those countries which had been in front of us. Happily, when the commercial motor vehicle was being developed there was no such handicap, and this country became beyond question pre-eminently the first in the design and manufacture of these commercial vehicles. A very satisfactory industry, giving much employment, had been established at the outbreak of war. Then, unfortunately for this industry, the whole aspect of affairs was altered. As the House is aware, all these factories were commandeered, and either continued in the manufacture of motor lorries or were put on to other work which the Ministry of Munitions thought they were better able to tackle in the interests of the country. That goodwill which we had achieved all over the world was lost, because we could not supply other countries, when the production was required by our own Government, and other countries, like the United States, were able to capture the markets, as they had a perfect right to do.
  The industry realised the perilous state of affairs which had arisen, because even during, the progress of the War and as early as 1916, they commenced to formulate plans which were submitted to the various Government Departments concerned as to the method which should be adopted, in their opinion, for the disposal
  446
  of the vehicles after the War. The Departments included the War Office, the Ministry of Reconstruction, the Ministry of Munitions and the Board of Trade. Several practical schemes were put forward and were promised consideration, but the War terminated, and nothing was done in the way of the adoption of any scheme. Then individual manufacturers negotiated, first with the Ministry of Munitions and then with officials of the Disposal Board, for the purchase of vehicles of their particular make and between the Armistice and time when the Slough contract was entered into, they had actually purchased lorries to the value of at least £1,500,000 at prices—and this is an important point—which were relatively high. For example, one prominent firm bought 900 of its own vehicles back at an average cost of £380 and other manufacturers were proceeding on similar lines. They were endeavouring to preserve their own industry, and at the same time as the prices show, to give a really good return to the nation for these vehicles.
  It might be thought, in such circumstances, that if the Disposal Board has any scheme in mind for the wholesale disposal of this material, they would at least take into their confidence the association representing the manufacturers and see what they could do. I believe something in the nature of a bombshell fell into the midst of the manufacturers when they learned that a contract for disposal had actually been entered into without a single one of them being taken into consultation. What was the result of the operations of the people to whom the disposal of the vehicles was entrusted under the Slough contract? They immediately slumped the price to a level at which it was impossible to imagine the vehicles being sold. What then was the position of the manufacturers who had even within three weeks of the Slough contract purchased from the Disposal Board some of their own vehicles? The firm to which I have referred as purchasing their vehicles at £380, bought no fewer than 200 of them three weeks before the Slough contract was entered into; at about that price, and within three weeks the Slough people were offering the same vehicles at a price of £72.
  Ordinary business people dealing with each other would not have been guilty of

  447
  an action of that sort. I do not think anybody could, to use the common saying, have the conscience to sell a man an article for £380 with the knowledge that some uncontrolled people were going to sell the same article immediately afterwards for a fraction of that price. Of course, this manufacturer and many others who were in the same position had to cut their losses at once by selling all these vehicles, which they had bought at high prices from the Board, at the prices which were then quoted by Slough. Needless to say, this entirely destroyed the industry so far as the manufacture of new vehicles was concerned. It is true that at that time we were not faced with the threat of unemployment, but it may be safely estimated that the amount of skilled and unskilled labour which is taken in constructing a motor lorry of average size is equal to the employment of 100 men for a week; that is, of course, the complete manufacture. It will not be denied, I think, that the average dole being paid at present is not less than 20s. a head, and in that case every 100 men put out of employment in this way receive £100 at least per week.
  What is the value which the Government is receiving for allowing these 100 men to be out a work? I do not know what they are receiving, and I am confident they do not know themselves what is their share of the spoils, but since the gross price of these vehicles is £72, it is certain that the Government share of that would not amount to more than half, probably a very great deal less, so that for £35 of realisation of these commodities, £100 in doles is being paid, altogether apart from the consideration that this industry is day by day being crushed to death and will be completely extinct before long. The actual employment to-day in factories making motor vehicles in this country is only 10 per cent. of what it was in the year 1920, and that, notwithstanding that the use of these vehicles has increased enormously since that date. The various manufacturers have tried to keep a stiff upper lip over this business and to keep their factories going, in the hops that this never-ending flow of secondhand vehicles at these prices may end and that the good time may come when they will be able to manufacture new vehicles,
  448
  but they cannot keep on doing that for ever. During the last two years, 12 of the leading factories have lost £2,500,000 amongst them, while four have had to go into liquidation, and I ask hon. Members to consider how long it will be before all the rest of these factories have also to go into liquidation, and the industry become completely extinct.
  Let us look for a moment at the attitude taken up by other Governments under exactly similar circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question the other day, said—and his authority is quite good enough for me—that the United States Government put a duty of 90 per cent, on the re-importation of their surplus motor vehicles back into that country. In other words, they made it impossible for anyone to buy one, and if they wanted a motor vehicle they had to buy a new one. What became of the large quantity of American vehicles? Of course, a large proportion of them were put into this country and dumped at prices as low as, or less than, those I have mentioned. I feel confident that it is the opinion of this House that a new industry such as this ought not to be crushed out of existence, and I hope the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take that view. It cannot be denied that transport of all kinds is one of the primary necessities of the country. Anything that can be manufactured for it ought to be encouraged and not made extinct, as looks likely in this particular case. It may, per haps, give hon. Members some idea of the new business which has been lost to industry when I point out that during the last year, ending last August, one complete year, there was an accession of no fewer than 20,000 licences for commercial motor vehicles. I trust my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary will represent these facts to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope, looking at the matter from the economic point of view and leaving sentiment altogether out of the question, that the Treasury will decide that not one single vehicle more shall be dealt with in the way the others have been, thereby putting this industry on the footing of other industries in which every effort is being made to promote more employment.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter); The speech to which we have just listened

  449
  very vividly explains without many words of mine the main difficulties with which the Government has been confronted on questions with which the Disposal Board and the Liquidation Commission have dealt. It has been continually said by hon. Members inside and outside this House, in criticism of the Board and the Commission: "Why do you not get on with your work; cut your losses; get rid of all this mass of machinery which is only an aggravation to the country and a disappointment to those who have to deal with it." At the same time we are told by the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir E. Manville): "For goodness sake do not try to get rid of your obligations; hold on to the motor-lorries at Slough; do not put them on the market and realise what you can for them." Surely that is an extraordinary position to be adopted at the present moment? It is perfectly true that the members of the Disposal Board—which, by the way, has come to an end this evening—would be the first people to wish to be free from their obligations. For they have worked for years, "un-honoured and unsung," gratuitously, criticised for all their work which has been done ungrudgingly, particularly by men in a high position in the commercial life of this country, who have deliberately devoted their services, at the request of the State, to carry out their arduous and disappointing job. Therefore it is only fair to say that in criticising you will always find—as has been said to-night—thatif the price, so charged by those responsible for the management of the affairs of the Disposal Board is one that may seem to one section of the public too high, then the Board is attacked, and told that they are preventing the purchaser from the Board getting rid of what he has purchased in a free or reasonable market; while, on the other hand, if the price is too low they are told that they are defrauding the British taxpayer of his due. Both sides wish to have it both ways. I suggest, even as regards the cases that have been referred to—and with which I will deal in a moment—there are many other aspects, and it is just as well for hon. Members to recognise it. They have a bearing on these matters. First and foremost there is undoubtedly this, that the people of the country would require that the aftermath of the war, represented by these masses of surplus stocks, should
  450
  be got rid of as soon as possible, and at the best price that, under the circumstances of the day, could be, obtained. The business men who were on the Disposal Board were certainly not less capable of understanding what was a business price than many of the critics outside, who had not to contend with the difficulties with which the Board have been confronted. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) said that he would only give us specific instances of what, I venture to suggest, he meant to call scandals, if we promised in advance an inquiry. Surely he is putting the cart before the horse. We could not possibly, and no one could possibly, consent to an inquiry merely on the suggestion, "If you do grant us an inquiry, we will try and put before you what we may call evidence."
  Mr. SHINWELL: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, as a matter of fact, I did put to him some questions, and ask him if he was acquainted with the facts.
  Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am not disputing that, and I will come to it in a moment. At the same time, the hon. Member does not controvert my statement that he said he would only give us the evidence, as he called it, on condition that we first promised an inquiry. As regards the question to which he has just referred, am I aware of certain facts and certain rumours? There are a great many people who call things facts nowadays which are not exactly facts, but which, when they are investigated, are found to be merely base rumours, and, therefore, it would be quite futile on my part to say, and, indeed, the hon. Member would be the last person to expect me to say, that I am acquainted with all the facts, to which he has not referred in detail, or cognisant of all the rumours, of which one has heard many, but, perhaps, not the particular ones to which he refers. I can, however, reply to one suggestion that he put forward, namely, that in regard to the position of Georgetown. The hon. Member seems to infer, as, indeed, he did in a Question in the House the other day, that there is something malignant underlying the transaction of the sale of the hutments at Georgetown, that there was some individual who, having inside knowledge, used his position as a former employé of the Disposal Board

  451
  to get some consideration over and above the terms which might have been granted to anyone else. I can assure the hon. Member that he is not correct. As a matter of fact these hutments at George town were valued, by a gentleman named Major Dunsmore, at £15,600, and they were also valued by another and quite independent gentleman named Jarvis, who valued them at almost identically the same amount, namely, £15,360.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to the whole of the buildings at Georgetown, or simply to the huts occupied by persons employed there?
  Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am alluding to the sale of the hutments to which the hon. Member referred, and to which he could only have referred, because he brought in the question of the identity of this former employé of the Disposal Board.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I am sorry, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not put words into my mouth which were never there. I did not refer to hutments, but to the whole of the buildings at Georgetown.
  Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. Member referred to the supposed transaction of a former employé of the Disposal Board, and it is only as regards these hutments and their sale that the name and identity of this gentleman comes in at all. That is the only sale referred to, and, as I have said, Major Dunsmore valued them at £15,600 and Mr. Jarvis at £15,360. This other gentleman, who left the employ of the Disposal Board in July, 1920, but who was employed subsequently by them on various occasions to make valuations, also submitted his valuation, which was £15,000, or almost identically the same as the others. The fact that this gentleman had been employed by the Board weighed in the minds of the members of the Board, and, therefore, they carefully considered as a body whether they could accept this, in view of that fact. They absolutely and unanimously came to the decision that in so far as the valuation was identical and the price was the same, there could not be the slightest objection and there was no reason why they should not accept the tender offered on behalf of
  452
  someone else by this individual. There is no mystery about it. There can be no complaint of the transaction, and there can be no real inference or insinuation which could possibly be drawn as regards the actual transaction. It would be very unfair indeed to the candour and the honesty of those distinguished gentlemen who are members of the Disposal Board, who considered the matter personally and collectively because of the identity of the individual referred to.
  Then I come to the charge made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). I am a little sorry that he has made these charges, because I really think they are based upon a very unsure foundation. As regards this particular case, the complaint of Mr. Donald of Rownson, Drew and Clydesdale, when I heard the matter was to be raised, en-entirely uninfluenced by any Treasury official or anyone else, I took the papers and last Sunday read and re-read them three times, perhaps disposed almost by my naturally combative spirit to imagine that there would be some reality underneath the charges put forward. I searched and read as fairly as I could the whole history of these very difficult and complicated transactions, and I honestly came to the conclusion that there is not a shadow of basis or foundation for anything the hon. Member has said. There are two distinct charges, one that by the sale of what is called this mass of brass scrap the Disposal Board made a very bad transaction and lost the taxpayer and the Government a very large sum of money, estimated at £1,500,000: and there is another suggestion that the failure of the Disposal Board to meet its obligations as regards Mr. Donald, has resulted in the payment of compensation amounting to £50,000 to that gentleman or that firm I agree the compensation has not yet been paid. I will deal with that first. It is rather a curious position for Mr. Donald to adopt, because I am sure, as he says, he is actuated by the purest spirit of public patriotism. Mr. Donald, on behalf of this firm, entered into a contract with the Disposal Board in March, 1920, when prices were very high indeed, and the contract was for £5,000,000. It was a very definite contract. It was not a contract involving all kinds of supply services and stocks of every kind. It was definitely

  453
  articles of brass, and what was called in an item of the contract "Rownson's Encyclopædia." That was a well understood term involving certain things within the contract itself.
  Sir J. REMNANT: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the schedule in the contract which was made and signed by the Disposal Board, if he reads Clause 5, practically any article of engineering use could be insisted upon to be sold under this contract.
  Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. Baronet will find out, if he looks at the original, it was not so devised. It distinctly said articles of brass—not scrap brass at all—and those 'things included in Rownson's Encyclopædia. It was not a general contract affecting all these matters of surplus stocks of engines, hutments, buildings, etc. It was a very definite and limited contract. It has been said that a sale of brass scrap took place. Why It was the Disposal Board itself that gave permission to these people, because they could not dispose of articles of brass for which there was no market, to convert them into brass scrap; and now the hon. Member makes it a charge against the Disposal Board, when they did this for the convenience of the contractor. He bases his charge as regards the financial loss upon the price of £35 a ton for brass scrap. He must know perfectly well that that is not a correct figure. For heavy brass scrap £35 a ton was the figure, but there was light brass scrap at £26 a ton, and there was irony brass scrap at £20 a, ton. He bases his argument as to the loss to the Exchequer on 150,000 tons at £35 a ton for all this brass scrap.
  Sir J. REMNANT: It is a fact that 120 tons which the Disposal Board did hand over included that for which £35 a, ton was asked, good, bad or indifferent, heavy or otherwise.
  Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The facts are not as my hon. Friend states. Mr. Donald disposed of only 102 tons of this scrap, and only seven tons were sold at £35 a ton. The accusation is that the 150,000 tons which were sold to the British Metal Corporation should have obtained £35 a ton, but if the hon. Member had gone a little more deeply into the matter he would know that he could not have got that price, and that Mr. Donald himself
  454
  in September, 1921, before the Disposal Board signed this contract with the British Metal Corporation, himself asked prices from his sub-contractor very much less than those to which reference has been made.
  Sir WALTER PRESTON: Is the Financial Secretary aware that within three weeks they were selling at 100 per cent. profit; that what they bought at £3,000,000 has been sold for £6,000,000?
  Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am afraid that does not help my argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] I would remind hon. Members that I am dealing with the accusation that the Disposal Board, by dealing with the British Metal Corporation, deliberately sacrificed £1,500,000. That is not a fact, as is proved by the very prices which Mr. Donald had to give to his sub-contractor to get rid of the brass scrap to which reference has been made. Therefore, it is not a fair criticism, nor is it a just statement, to say that by the sale to the British Metal Corporation this amount of money was lost. The hon. Member has referred to £24 and a few shillings as being the average price per ton. If he will look at the figures which we obtained, namely, the £3,650,000, which was paid by the British Metal Corporation for these 150,000 tons, he will find that it is almost identical with the average price to which he has made reference—£24 and a few shillings per ton. Therefore, there was no loss because the metal was handed over to the British Metal Corporation. The Disposal Board got exactly the same price that Mr. Donald could have got, no more and no less. I have tried to point out that the price received by the Disposal Board is almost identical with the price that Mr. Donald could have obtained.
  Then there has been this reference to the £50,000 compensation. As I ventured to say a moment ago, that contract was entered into at a time when prices were very high, and the contract was for £5,000,000 Prices fell, and then what happened? The Disposal Board had quite genuinely and honestly entered into an agreement with a firm. They could not have expected that steady and very real fall in prices. What did they do? They had entered into a contract where the terms to Mr. Donald of this firm were not unfavourable. It is only fair to remind

  455
  the House that Mr. Donald of this firm was getting 2· per cent. sales commission and 16 per cent. for charges—18· per cent., while the average price under all other transactions has only been seven per cent. It was not altogether an unfavourable contract. Yet, when prices fell, what did the Disposal Board do? They said to Mr. Donald, of this firm, "Well, come on, we will try to adjust the position between ourselves. We have entered into a bad bargain. Prices have fallen. We could not anticipate that, but we are not going to turn round on you and shove you out now because the position is less favourable for us to-day." So they tried to arrive at terms with him in order that his expectation of his commission should not be diminished to such an extent that he and his firm might feel aggrieved. Was that a dishonourable thing to do? It was the only thing that an honourable body of people on behalf of the Government could have done. Now it is brought up against the Disposal Board to-day. It is said, "Why did you do this wickedness? You have involved the country in paying £50,000 compensation, and this is against the public interest." It is open to Mr. Donald, of course, if he is animated by a public spirit, not to claim that £50,000, and the Board and the Exchequer will be very glad to have that money; but it was a transaction that was done purely from a business point of view. The situation had altered, but they were not going to repudiate an agreement, even if they were representatives of the Government. Therefore it is not a fair criticism or accusation to be brought against the Disposal Board.
  I do not know that it would be useful to delay the House much longer, or to say much more upon this vexed question. When for four years a Disposal Board of this character has been at work dealing with three million different cases, with sums of money amounting to over £670,000,000 involved, which has already been paid in as a result of these transactions, it would be folly and stupidity not to say that even the most keen-sighted business man on the Disposal Board might be found napping at a critical moment. It would be ridiculous to suggest that there were not probably faults and failings in some of these transactions. But when one has said that,
  456
  surely one can say something else—that it would be the height of imprudence to-day to suggest that a roving Commission of Inquiry should be set up, which would be incapable of delving into three million cases, which would sit for weary months and, perhaps, years. We should all be in our graves before it reported, if it were set up. It would be the height of imprudence, it would be impracticable, and I believe it would be quite the worst slur upon that very devoted work of those highly-skilled business men who have given up their time for four years. It would not only be so: it would be worse, because there is no need for it. If there were any great scandal, the Comptroller and Auditor-General can put forward his remarks. The Public Accounts Committee has the power and the right to investigate all these matters. When there is a clear issue the House of Commons will always act through the Public Accounts Committee. It would be invidious, impracticable, and unnecessary to establish such a roving Commission of Inquiry as is suggested. The matters of detail brought forward to-night are not substantiated in fact.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Why was it that in the Georgetown case the matter was arranged by private bargain, and not by public auction?
  Major BOYS-CARPENTER: Because it is often found, in affairs of this nature, that it is more convenient to adopt the system of private tender. Therefore, I hope that the House w ill not press the holding of such an inquiry, which would take an immense amount of time, involve considerable expenditure, and be a grave reflection upon these gentlemen who have given up their time and labour for four years. It would be a reflection upon their honesty and their business ability. I care not much about the reflection on their business ability, but I deprecate very much that these men, who gave up their time to serve the State, should have brought against them what would be regarded by many who have served on the Disposal Board as a personal charge. It would he regrettable, in these circumstances, if the House were to insist on such an inquiry, which would do no good, involve much expense, and bring more speedily to an end the opportunity of

  457
  securing public service unrewarded from many distinguished men.
  Sir ARTHUR MARSHALL: I regret very much that the Financial Secretary, in dealing with the inquiry which has been suggested, has not had time or opportunity to reply to the criticisms and suggestions of the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir E. Manville) in regard to the disposal of heavy motor lorries by the Disposal Board. The hon. Member gave some telling instances, which I think merit the attention of this House, in regard to the extremely serious effects that have been caused by the way in which that great quantity of surplus motor wagons has been dealt with by the company. It is not only the interests of the companies that have been affected, but those of trade generally. I would appeal to the Financial Secretary to make representations to the proper quarter with regard to this question, but more particularly from the point of view of those people who are engaged in this heavy motor industry, which I think as much as, if not morn than, any other industry will be affected seriously by the continuance of this trade in these surplus motor wagons.
  12 M.
  Figures have been quoted by the hon. Member for Coventry, which show how very seriously the whole of the heavy motor industry has been affected. Now I would like to point out that the most serious effect in this respect is that the whole of those who use this type of motor traction in connection with their transport work have been induced by the weights of the vehicles offered to adopt very much heavier types of engines than need have been adopted if there had been a more convenient and more modern type of motor wagon than is now being used. It is impossible to estimate the extraordinary expense that is incurred in the upkeep of the roads by the use of these lorries, which are so much heavier than those required. When one thinks that it was possible to purchase from the Slough Trading Company a motor wagon at far below the cost of such wagons to-day, of the cost per mile of running those wagons, and of the wear and tear of the roads, taking a wide view we are making a very bad bargain in allowing these lorries to be used.
  In my constituency there is a company which has been engaged in this industry,
  458
  and practically four-fifths of the men in that company have been deprived of employment almost entirely on account of the fact that there is no opportunity for the sale of the type of motor lorry they are manufacturing. What applies to my constituency applies in a very much greater degree to the constituency of the hon. Member for Coventry. Though it is very easy to say it now, these things ought to have been dealt with in a very much more drastic way than that in which they were. The American Government hasp a much more courageous method. They did not attempt to sell them, or at least not in their own country, and only at a price which, if they were brought over, would have made them more than if bought at home. [HON. MEMBERS "Protection! "] It may be protection. At any rate, it had this effect, that the American Government said they were not going to bring over a lot of unsuitable material which they could not use and throw it on the market of America quite regardless of economic laws. [HON. MEMBERS: "Protection! "] It may be very well for us to protect, our country against exceptional circumstances, and I am perfect free to admit, as a sound Free Trader, that I should be prepared to destroy surplus and damaged vehicles if imported into this country rather than flood the market with them. It is an extraordinary case with which we are dealing. Extraordinarily unsuitable heavy types of wagon, at the very moment when we need employment in ibis country, are being foisted on the market by artificial means, at absurd cost, and without regard to the character of the employment that is concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I make hon. Members a present of my conversion. The cost of the material in these wagons is, after all, a very small proportion. The highly-skilled work engaged on the production of these machines out of the raw material is a very high relative cost in the wagons in question.
  It would be better if, instead of continuing this policy, the Government were to declare, quite firmly, that they were not going to dispose of any further surplus wagons to the Slough Trading Company. They would therefore restore to a proper economic basis of competition the companies that are engaged in this work. In this way, by first of all taking

  459
  off the roads the heavy wagons and putting on in their place 30 cwt. to 50 cwt. wagons, they would save an enormous cost to the taxpayer. In the second place, by getting rid of the unemployment, they would save a large sum of money in doles and would inevitably increase the prosperity and purchasing power of the working classes. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make representations in the proper quarters, in order that this industry, which may truly be described at the present time as a distressed industry, may be restored to that very large prosperity which it enjoyed in the past by producing these excellent motor vehicles.
  Sir CHARLES BARRIE: I will not detain the House long in telling them, what they may not know, that at the present moment I happen to be the Chairman of the unfortunate Disposal Board. Although a reply has been most adequately given from the Front Government Bench, I think the House might like to view for once the chief actor in this terrible drama. I confirm absolutely all that my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said about the unfortunate statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). I tried to assure the hon. Baronet many times that the allegations he was about to bring before the House were entirely without foundation, but, at the same time, I told him I should be very glad indeed if he would take the opportunity of raising the matter on the Floor of the House. There have been so many things said with regard to the action of the Disposal Board, that I thought it right that an opportunity should be given, both to the attacker and to the defender, to state their cases on the Floor of the House.
  The allegation in the case centres around the sale of brass. As I have already said, I confirm everything that the Financial Secretary has said to-night. There is no shadow of foundation for the allegation made by Mr. Donald that brass of the nature described was included in this contract. Nothing was further from the fact. Certain articles of brass were included in this contract, and for this reason. We found it was impossible to sell, and we allowed the contractors to
  460
  turn them into scrap brass and sell them as such. When the other quantity of brass came along, we made the contract, as we thought, in the interests of the State, with the British Metal Corporation. It is true that no tenders were asked, but it has never been the policy of the Disposal Board to invite tenders for every article that they have to sell. Sometimes, in business—as business men in the House know—it is convenient to make contracts with firms of substantial standing. We made a contract with the British Metal Corporation for £3,600,000, and when I tell the House that that total sum was paid in cash to the Disposal Board within six months of making the transaction, I think they will agree we did not make a very bad bargain.
  Sir WALTER PRESTON: They made an enormous profit:
  Sir G. BARRIE: I hope every contractor who has had to work with the Disposal Board has made a profit. People are not in business for the benefit of their health. If we had set out to make it impossible for them to make a profit at all, we should have sold nothing. What is the Disposal Board there for? Our business is to dispose, and surely a contractor is entitled to make a profit. I do not know how much they made.
  Sir W. PRESTON: Nearly 100 per cent.
  Sir C. BARRIE: That is not my concern. We made the best possible bargain we could at the time, and we considered it a good bargain. Further, with regard to Rownson, Drew and Clydesdale, it is an extraordinary thing that nothing was said about this brass contract with the British Metal Corporation by Mr. Donald's firm until almost a year after we made the contract with the British Metal Corporation. Why? Mr. Donald is a disgruntled contractor. He imagines he should have made much more out of the Disposal Board than they have allowed him to make, and therefore he, like many other contractors, squeals. He imagined that he had an omnibus contract with us, with which ho could deal in such a manner as to sell everything we possibly could give him. Indeed, at one time he suggested that, as we were selling about £230,000,000 worth per annum, he might get a contract for the balance, which would leave him the comfortable sum of

  461
  £11,000,000. That is the sort of contractor we have sometimes to deal with. Many times we had to call the firm in question, particularly in regard to their charges. They had a commission for selling; they also were allowed expenses. The Disposal Board have sold almost £700,000,000 worth of goods for the State, at something under 7 per cent. The cost in Mr. Donald's case has been something just under 18 per cent. Had we given Mr. Donald the contract to sell the brass, it would have been subject to such a like commission as I have suggested. Therefore, I ask the House whether they really think, on the whole, that the Disposal Board made such a very bad bargain?
  The hon. Member for Holborn brought out some further points, which I know he brought forward in all sincerity. He suggested that new brass was transferred by the ton to the British Metal Corporation. That is not so. Very little new brass was transferred to that contract at all, but only sheets and such like articles that could not be sold as such. It is asserted the Trade was not consulted. The Trade was consulted. Brass screws were extracted from articles in which they were in order to make the brass come within the new category and to be sold at the highest price. Before we entered into this contract, we had sold £9,000,000 of brass. Up to that point I suggest that the Disposal Board did know something about brass, and the knowledge was not confined to Mr. Donald or the British Metal Corporation. These are just a few facts I thought the House might like to know.
  When the Government wishes to get any matter conducted in which they thought they would like the services of business men, people are asked to join the various Boards, and on the Disposal Board I find various names which I am sure will give confidence to the House. On that Board, at the time of its inception by Lord Inverforth, whose name stands high in the City of London, we have Sir William Ellis, managing director of one of the largest steel works. Mr. Hitchens, the present deputy-chairman, and chairman of Cammell, Laird and Company, Sir Philip Dawson, Sir Sydney Henn, Sir William Beveridge, Sir Henry Maybury, now at the Ministry of Transport, and several others, in-
  462
  cluding a chartered accountant. Are these gentlemen who are likely to make bad contracts willingly and to defraud the country to the extent of £1,500,000,000? The hon. Member who lays this charge has picked out about two items in connection with the whole of our transactions, numbering about 3,000,000.
  Sir J. REMNANT: I had not time for more.
  Sir C. BARRIE: I dare say that the hon. Member could not have readied £700,000,000, even if he had had time. All the contracts could hardly have been bad. Is it fair, at a time like this, to raise a question of this sort? I do not object to criticism, but I like fair criticism, and I am sure that the House will agree that any business firm in the City of London who carried out 3,000,000 contracts to the extent of £700,000,000 was bound to have made one or two bad debts and one or two bad bargains. I do not say that every action of the Disposal Board has been good, but I do say that every member of the Board has been actuated by the greatest sincerity to do his best for the country. It must be remembered that this was not simply a case of selling articles that were at our doors. After the Armistice these stores were scattered all over the world, and they had to be collected before they could he sold. We shipped no less than 100,000 tons of stores from Mesopotamia to Bombay and Calcutta to sell them there. In one year alone we took 1,000,000 tons of stores out of store in order to sell them. At the same time, we have destroyed 1,500,000 tons of explosives. All these things had to go on at the same time as we were selling goods. I submit that that is a record of which any Board would be proud. I do not ask the House to throw any bouquets at the Board. We ask for no credit, for we have only done our simple duty by the State. But I do ask for fair criticism of our acts, which have been done with the best intentions.
  In conclusion, let me add this: if this country in future is to get the benefit of the advice of business men in carrying out work of this kind, such business men will not object to fair criticism, but if unfair criticism is levelled at them when they are asked to take on jobs of this kind, I am quite sure that the day is

  463
  coming when very few business men will give their time to work of this sort, and I personally would very carefully consider the matter before I again tackled such a job, which has meant work night and day for four years. Simply because one or two contracts have not pleased disgruntled contractors the matter is raised on the Floor of this House without the whole of the case being taken into consideration.
  Sir W. PRESTON: I am not a "disgruntled contractor." I never had a penny-piece from the Disposal Board, but I would ask this question: Did they make a contract with one firm in this country to buy 85,000 tons of steel scrap at £12 10s, a ton? Did they absolutely default in delivery, although they had thousands of tons of steel scrap at their back, and did the firm finally cancel the contract and the country lose £250,000, and was the scrap finally sold to another contractor, not at £12 10s. a ton, but at 45s.? That is one case on which I challenge the Board. How many similar cases are there of steel scrap, where contractors were willing to pay enormously high prices, but where this incompetent Board
  464
  missed the market, lost the trade, and lost this country millions?

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Major Cope be discharged from the Public Petitions Committee.
  Ordered, That Mr. Clarry be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

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

MOTOR TAXATION.
Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I beg to present a Petition of the Automobile Association and 920,000 motor owners and users, as follows:
"We are gravely concerned with the continuance of the system of motor taxation imposed by the Finance Act of 1920, which in the view of your petitioners is inequitable and unjust to the vast majority of motor owners, chiefly because it levies a lump sum per vehicle entirely ignoring the extent of road users. We therefore humbly pray that the present method of motor taxation be amended in favour of a flat rate duty on petrol, plus a small registration fee, thereby more equitably distributing the burden over all motor taxpayers."

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton Extension) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
PRIVATE BILLS (Petitions for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for additional Provision in the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Rotherham Corporation Bill.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill.
Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Dartmouth Corporation Bill (Prince of Wales's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Llandudno Urban District Council Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WORTHING EXTENSION) BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Worthing," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Basingstoke, Bingley, Brighton, Halifax, Mansfield, and Taf Fechan Water Supply Board," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EMPIRE COTTON.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the freight rates charged upon raw cotton from Mombasa to this country and the freight rates charged upon raw cotton between Mombasa and Japan?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The freight rate for raw cotton from Mombasa to the United Kingdom is 40s. per ton of 40 cubic feet, less 10 per cent. deferred rebate. I am informed that the rate from Mombasa to Japan is 32s. 6d. per ton of 40 cubic feet.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that, on a subsidised Japanese line from Mombasa to Japan, raw cotton is being

    955
    transported without any freight charges whatever?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I have no information about that, but I will make inquiries.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether cotton grown in British East Africa is subsidised by public funds through the Empire Cotton Growing Association; and what proportion of this cotton is annually exported to Japan?
    Mr. PENNY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to take this question. According to the published accounts of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 1927, the corporation's total expenditure in Nyasaland, Uganda, and Northern Rhodesia amounted to £4,840 16s. 11d. About one-third of the income of the corporation is derived from public funds. This expenditure was incurred almost entirely on experimental work designed to improve the quality of the cotton produced in the several countries. Of a total of 790,748 centals of 100 lbs. exported from His Majesty's East African Dependencies during 1926, 99,281 centals were consigned to Japan. Final figures for 1927 are not yet available, but in the first three quarters of the year 429,340 centals were exported from Kilindini, of which 101,629 were consigned to Japan.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand from that answer that in point of fact the Lancashire cotton industry is paying a subsidy to its former competitors?
    Mr. PENNY: The hon. Member must draw his own conclusion.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May we not adduce from the somewhat involved nature of the answer the fact that the cotton manufacturers of this country are being compelled to pay subsidies for the production of raw cotton which their competitors in the cotton industry are able to get for nothing?
    Mr. PENNY: That is a repetition of the previous question.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Was not the subsidy for the purpose of encouraging
    956
    the growing of cotton granted on the understanding that the cotton was for consumption in this country, and if it is proved that it goes elsewhere is the Government prepared to make any alteration in the subsidy?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put on the Paper.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of applications for safeguarding made to the Board of Trade; the number referred to a committee of inquiry; the number granted; and the number still under consideration?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Forty-eight applications have been received. Twenty have been referred to committees for inquiry; in seven of these cases safeguarding duties have been imposed, and in five the committees' reports are pending. In four other cases duties have been imposed in Finance Acts.
    Mr. HANNON: Are there any cases being considered at the moment?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have said that in five cases the committee is being asked to report.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the industries concerned in the five cases which are pending?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The five cases which have been referred to the committee include cotton hosiery and various trades of a similar character, buttons and so on, and one other which I am sorry I cannot remember.

    GERMANY.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the objections raised by the German Government to recent tariff changes in this country, he will state the volume of British exports of manufactured goods to Germany for the years 1913, 1924, and 1927, respectively, and the volume of German manufactured goods imported into this country during the same years?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Our exports of articles wholly or mainly manufactured to Germany in 1913 were of the value of nearly £27 millions, and in 1924 of £24½ millions. Our imports of articles wholly or mainly manufactured from Germany in 1913 amounted to £56 millions, and in 1924 to £32½ millions. Corresponding figures for 1927 are not yet available.

    CANADIAN TARIFF.
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade how far the new Canadian tariff is likely to benefit British trade; and what is the exact nature of the provision affecting the percentage of Empire labour in Canadian imports?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The new Canadian tariff involves considerable changes in classification so that it would be difficult to give any exact comparison with the former tariff. There are certain reductions in duty, and a maintenance, and in some cases an increase, of the British preference. With regard to the second part of the question, detailed proposals have not yet been formulated, but I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a notice published in the Board of Trade Journal for the 8th March, which gives the latest information I have received on the subject.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask whether a considerable advantage will not accrue to the textile industry of this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not had the whole of the details before me, but I think the answer I have given does give a fair summary of the position. The preference is maintained. In some cases there is an increase in the preference.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Mr. BETHELasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many of the fabrics in the textile section of the British Industries Fair were of foreign origin; and if in future stipulations will be made that articles shown at the fair must be of British manufacture throughout?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I have been asked to reply. My attention has been called to the fact
    958
    that some of the linings of overcoats shown in the textile section were of foreign origin. The regulations regarding the admissibility of exhibits at the British Industries Fair require that they must have been manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire, and I have no reason for supposing that any exhibits did not come within the terms of this regulation. With regard to the second part of the question, I feel that it would be undesirable to lay down a regulation that exhibits must be 100 per cent. British manufacture. Such a regulation would exclude many exhibits which are essentially British in character, and can usefully be shown at the fair to the advantage of British industry.

    MOTOR CHASSIS (EXPORTS TO AUSTRALIA).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the fact that Great Britain in the year ending 30th June, 1927, had nearly half the trade in sterling value in motor chassis in Australia, and that from July to November these were only a trifle more than one-tenth in number as compared with American machines and not quite one-fourth in sterling value, he has any official information to account for this falling off in our exports?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have been asked to reply. There was a considerable decline in the last six months of 1927 in the imports of motor chassis into Australia, but I regret that the fall in the British share of the trade appears to have been more immediate and more severe than in the case of the United States of America. I have no special information as to the causes of this recent falling off in our exports. My hon. and gallant Friend is doubtless aware that the whole question of the Australian market for motor cars has recently been explored by a mission sent out by the industry itself.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is to a very great extent dependent on the horse-power tax, which prevents the building of a type of engine suitable for the Dominions?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the hon. Gentleman's answer knock the bottom out of the main argument for the McKenna Duties on motor cars?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot see in what way it does that.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It was going to increase our exports.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Since the motor industry is protected in the United States as well as in this country, I do not think there is anything in the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). With regard to the other point, I think my hon. and gallant Friend's question should be addressed to a different Department.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not the fact that American firms, owing to the enormous profits they have made during the last two or three years, can afford to dump motor cars into Australia and spend large amounts on publicity campaigns?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Were not we told that the trade in motorcar chassis was to be increased as a result of the imposition of the McKenna Duties?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    DIRECTION-FINDING SYSTEM.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has yet instituted any experiments into wireless loop direction-finding system?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The rotating loop direction-finding system has been developed by the Air Ministry as an aid to air navigation. The system has been investigated by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and preliminary trials have been carried out in connection with marine navigation. The Board of Trade have considered the results of this investigation and are now examining, in conjunction with the Air Ministry and the Trinity House, the question of establishing an experimental station of this type in a position where its utility, as an aid to shipping, can be fully explored. It is hoped to reach a decision on this question very shortly.

    ATLANTIC ICE PATROL.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent
    960
    this country co-operated with the United States of America during 1927 in the maintenance of the Atlantic ice patrol; what was the cost of the service; and whether any ships of His Majesty's Navy participated?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The ice patrol service in the North Atlantic is managed by the United States Government in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1914. Under these arrangements the patrol is carried out during the ice season by two of the United States Coastguard cutters, and the cost is borne by the Governments specially interested in these services, in fixed proportions. The cost of the service during 1927 was approximately £29,700, and the contribution of His Majesty's Government will be about £9,300. Ships of His Majesty's Navy do not participate in the patrol.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    PENSION CLAIM (CHARLES SPAIN).
    Sir HENRY COWANasked the Secretary of State for War the grounds on which a claim to a modified pension and to the long service and good conduct medal was rejected in the ease of Charles Spain, of No. 4, Crayford Road, Holloway, N.7, whose record of service in the Army and Royal Air Force extended over 18 years, namely, 4th Essex Regiment, joined April, 1888, served nine months; private, No. 2,345, 1st Northants, joined 11th December, 1888, served 13 years; private, No. 6,501, 3rd Northants, joined 7th March, 1902, served nine months; private, No. 30,369, Royal Flying Corps, joined 6th June, 1916, served three years 10 months, and whose service would have exceeded 20 years had he been allowed to complete his contract, i.e., service for the duration of the War, into which he entered when joining the Royal Flying Corps on 6th June, 1916, a contract, the man contends, which should not have expired until the official termination of the War, namely, 1921?
    Mr. PENNY: I have been asked to reply. Mr. Spain, whose case has frequently been reviewed, had insufficient service to qualify him either for a modified pension or for the long service and

    961
    good conduct medal. He had no contractual right to be retained until the official end of the War, and even if he had been so retained, it may be added, he would still have been ineligible for a modified pension in view of the conditions of his discharge. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend remembers the correspondence that he had with the Air Ministry about this case in September, 1925, when the reasons for which neither pension nor long service medal could be given were explained to him in fuller detail in a letter of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is sending him a copy.

    SALISBURY PLAIN (LAND PURCHASES).
    Mr. HUGH MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been definitely decided to purchase further land for the War Department on Salisbury Plain; and, if a decision has been arrived at, will he give assurances that agricultural workers who are displaced will either receive compensation or will he take steps to find them work in some other part of the country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, as farms are acquired they are relet to tenants, subject to military reqirements. It is too early to say whether this will involve any reduction in the number of agricultural workers required on the farms, but should this prove to be the case, endeavours will be made, as in the past, to find employment on the War Department Estate on Salisbury Plain for such of them as may be suitable.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: In view of these extra purchases of land by the War Office, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to move the buildings from the neighbourhood of Stonehenge?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise on this question.

    MECHANISED CAVALRY REGIMENTS (FOREIGN SERVICE).
    Brigadier "General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War whether the forming of two cavalry regiments into armoured-car units will alter the roster of these regiments for foreign service; and, if so, with what
    962
    result as to the change of stations in Egypt or India?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not possible to say what effect the conversion of the two cavalry regiments into armoured-car units will ultimately have on the foreign service roster.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: May I ask whether this means that the 12th Lancers in Egypt will go on to India in two years as an armoured-car unit instead of a cavalry regiment; and whether the armoured-car regiment in Egypt will then be relieved by a cavalry regiment and leave no armoured-car regiment there?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is precisely what I cannot say. I do not know what developments will take place in the next two years.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Have the War Office made up their mind?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON "EVANS: They make up their mind as the problem is being solved.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION (GERMAN WIVES.)
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War how many marriages have taken place between soldiers in the Army of the Rhine and German women since the Armistice; whether any, and, if so, how many wives of the soldiers now serving in Germany are of German birth; and how many of these German-born wives are on the strength of the units to which their husbands belong?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is approximately 690. As regards the remainder, the information is not available at the War Office, but I am inquiring whether the figures can be obtained without disproportionate labour and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member in due course.

    DOCUMENTS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what are the regulations governing the length of time the discharge and other documents of a soldier are kept before they are destroyed; if he is aware that in many cases a soldier claims that

    963
    bounty or gratuity was not paid to him owing to his absence abroad or other reasons, and when he does claim he is told by the War Office that all relevant documents have been destroyed, and therefore the matter cannot be investigated; and whether he will consider retaining all documents for a sufficient length of time to ensure that no hardships can occur?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The length of time for which discharge and other documents are retained is governed by the Schedule submitted to Parliament in February, 1923, in accordance with the Public Record Office Act, 1877, and should be sufficient to enable all valid claims to be put forward and examined without any hardship arising. I regret that I cannot agree to have the documents retained beyond the scheduled period.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot keep the documents, may I ask if he has any system of card indexing at the War Office where the details can be put on the cards and kept for reference?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am governed at the moment by the Act of Parliament, to which I have referred the hon. and gallant Member. They vary from 50 years to a very short time indeed.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is he aware that last week the War Office turned down the case which I brought to them of a soldier who served during the War, because his document had been destroyed. Can he not have some record kept?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If there is a sum of money to a man's credit it is noted before the documents are destroyed. Claims have arisen 10 years after the sum was alleged to have been payable, and frequently documents have been destroyed, and it is impossible to check them.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman reorganised this side of the Department, possibly reducing the staff and effecting considerable economies?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think we have organised it very efficiently and economically.

  SCOTLAND.

    MILK AND DAIRY ORDER.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Milk and Dairy Order is inflicting hardship on small farmers,, especially in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where good milk and good butter are made, although the byres do not conform to the Regulations; and whether he will have the Order suspended?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): My right hon. Friend assumes that this question refers to the bylaws made by individual district committees under Section 8 of the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, for the regulation of byres and cowsheds in their areas. The Scottish Board of Health have confirmed such bylaws in respect of certain districts in the Highlands and Islands but they have no evidence that the operation of the bylaws in these areas is inflicting hardship on small farmers.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it be too much to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to point out to these local authorities that it is the dairy-maids who make the butter and cheese and not the byres; and to take into consideration the fact that if these people have to build new byres and have not the money to do it they are ruined?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for speeches.

    NECESSITOUS AREAS (ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of Poor Law authorities in Scotland that have approached his Department for assistance on account of industrial depression?
    Major ELLIOT: Since 1921, 16 parish councils applied for loans from Government funds in respect of their expenditure on relief of able-bodied unemployed, and 41 parish councils applied for advances from Government funds in 1926 to enable them to continue the payment of relief to destitute dependants of

    965
    persons involved in the coal mining trade dispute during that year. In all cases loans or advances were granted. Grants were made to 134 parish councils under Section 2 of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1927, in respect of relief afforded to destitute dependants of miners. Representations that Exchequer grants should be made to the Poor Law authorities of necessitous areas have also been received from numerous parish councils, and from associations of parish councils.

    UNFIT HOUSES, GLASGOW (RATES).
    Mr. ROBERT MacDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that several houses in Langside Road, Glasgow, have been rendered uninhabitable owing to subsidences, whereby the tenants have been warned out and compelled to seek other accommodation; is he aware that these dispossessed tenants are now required to pay the whole rates and taxes in respect of the houses lately occupied by them, notwithstanding that in most cases they will also be paying taxes for alternative accommodation; whether he is prepared to take steps to authorise some relief in the payment of the rates, seeing the corporation in regard to water rates, and the landlord in respect of rent, have already done so; and is he prepared to introduce legislation to remedy the present law?
    Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend understands that the statement in the first part of the question is correct. He

    Parish.

    Number of persons in receipt of able-bodied relief at

    Amount of relief paid during year ended

    12th March, 1927.

    12th March, 1928.

    l2th March, 1927.

    12th March, 1928.

    £

    £

    Glasgow

    …

    …

    36,917

    28,372

    511,425*

    518,678

    Govan

    …

    …

    23,117

    18,816

    314,168*

    333,322

    * Exclusive of cost of relief to miners' families during coal stoppage, namely, Glasgow £24,781, Govan £2,771.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SMALL HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a boarding
    has no power to take the action suggested, but he is informed that applications for exemption from the payment of rates, including water rates, for the Period during which the premises were not occupied are now under consideration by a sub-committee of the corporation. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. MacDONALD: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman will recognise the unfairness of a law which compels a man to pay rates and taxes for a house out of which he has been ejected, and also to pay rates and taxes for the alternative accommodation supplied to him under the same local authority?

    POOR LAW RELIEF, GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of people in receipt of able-bodied relief in Glasgow from the respective parish councils; the number a year ago at the same date; and the total amount of relief paid in each year at those dates?
    Major ELLIOT: As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table contains particulars of the number of persons in receipt of able-bodied relief in the parishes of Glasgow and Govan at the 12th March in each of the years 1927 and 1928, together with the amount of relief paid in each year ended at these dates:
    house is about, to be erected on the small holding of Springbank, near Brodick, Arran, an d that the party who has secured the site and is erecting the building is not resident in the district but in another part of the island; whether he is

    967
    aware that similar encroachments on small holdings have in recent years taken place on this same estate in the Island of Arran; and whether he contemplates taking any action in the matter?
    Major ELLIOT: The Land Court have no knowledge of the case referred to. My right hon. Friend understands that a boarding house is being erected on feuing ground adjacent to, but lying outwith, the smallholdings constituted on Spring-bank Farm. Three applications for partial resumption of holdings in Arran for feuing purposes, were made to the Land Court in 1924, one in 1925, two in 1926 and none in 1927. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the numerous cases in which there has been resumption of small holdings, in whole or in part, for building purposes or for the personal or family requirements of owners, under the Acts of 1886 and 1911; whether he is aware that the security of tenure of crofters and statutory small landholders is thereby being impaired; whether he will take steps to discourage the breaking up in this way of holdings, especially in cases where alternative sites are available; and, if his powers are not sufficient, whether he will introduce the necessary amending legislation?
    Major ELLIOT: The resumption of smallholdings can only be effected after application to the Land Court, and with their authority, for purposes specified in the Small Landholders Acts, and the cases are enumerated in the Court's Annual Reports. The extent to which small holdings are affected may be measured by the fact that, since 1923, 154 applications have been granted by the Court, a number of these being for partial resumption. My right hon. Friend sees no necessity for legislation.
    Mr. BARR: Is there not great hardship in a case where there is only an acre and a half of arable land and where perhaps half-an-acre is taken for building? I have such a case in mind; and does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not recognise that that is a serious encroachment on the small piece of arable land held by the crofter?
    Major ELLIOT: I am sure that would be regarded as a thing which must be carefully guarded, and that is why it can only be put through after an application to the Land Court which considers each specific case and goes into all the details concerning it.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (LIME).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Minister of Agriculture how many official demonstrations showing the benefit to agricultural land of the application of lime in its various forms were given, and where, during the financial year drawing to a close; and if he is proposing to hold further demonstrations this summer?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Demonstrations of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend are carried out by local agricultural education authorities. Similar work of a more experimental nature is arranged by University Departments of Agriculture and agricultural colleges, both directly and through the local authorities. Both types of work are aided by grants from the Ministry. The numbers of such demonstrations and experiments are not immediately available; but they were carried out generally in those parts of the country suffering from lime deficiency. This work will be continued in the normal course during the coming season.

    FRANCHISE BILL.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated number of women voters who will be added to the roll in Dennistoun, Whitevale, and Mile End Wards, respectively, of the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow by the new Franchise Bill?
    Major ELLIOT: The information available does not lend itself to accurate estimation, but in each of the three wards named the increase referred to will probably be between 2,000 and 2,500.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many plural voters are on the electoral registers; and is he able to state how many persons in receipt of Poor Law relief are registered as local government and Parliamentary electors in the County of London and how many for the rest of the country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The number of persons registered as Parliamentary electors in England and Wales for the business premises franchise is 205,538 and for university constituencies is 60,712, though it does not follow that all these persons are "plural voters." The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  HOUSING.

    CAMLACHIE DIVISION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, the number of houses which have been built in the Camlachie parliamentary division and are occupied; the number under construction; the time when they wig be ready for occupation; and the number that it is still proposed to build under the various schemes?
    Major ELLIOT: In the area in question the number of houses built with State assistance and occupied is 150. The number of houses under construction is 66, which are expected to be ready for occupation in the course of a few months. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend understands that the corporation contemplate the erection of 804 additional houses in the area?

    RURAL, WORKERS ACT.
    Sir ALEXANDER SPROTasked the Secreatry of State for Scotland what progress is being made in Scotland in the improvement of labourers' cottages under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act; and which counties are taking most advantage of this Act?
    Major ELLIOT: Up to the 31st December, 1927, the latest date for which information is available, applications had been received by local authorities in Scotland for assistance in respect of the improvement or reconstruction of 385 houses; applications had been approved in respect of 281 houses; and grant amounting to a total of £25,763 10s. 10d. had been promised. At the same date work had been completed on 62 houses and grants, amounting to £4,380 13s. 8d., had been paid, while in respect of 156 houses work was in progress. Most advantage is being taken of the provisions
    970
    of the Act in the counties of Haddington and Peebles, and in certain of the districts in Aberdeenshire and Rossshire.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
    Mr. C. P. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines whether tests have been carried out on behalf of his Department on the low-temperature carbonisation of North Wales coal; and, if so, the yield of tar oils obtained?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): No tests have as yet been carried out on the low temperature carbonisation of North Wales coal.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he can give details of results of tests carried out at the fuel research station on the low-temperature carbonisation of coal from the Somerset coalfield; and the names of the collieries from which the coal was obtained, with the yield of oils, gas, and carbon residue obtained from each ton of coal treated;
    (2) whether he can give details of the results of the tests carried out at the fuel research station on the low-temperature carbonisation of coal from the South Wales coalfield; and will he give the names of the collieries from which the coal was obtained, with the yield of oils, gas, and carbon residue obtained from each ton of coal treated?
    Commodore KING: The results of tests of low-temperature carbonisation of coals from various coalfields are published from time to time by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The laboratory results already published for South Wales' coals will be found in Technical Papers Nos. 1 and 10 of the Fuel Research Board, which should be read in the light of information contained in the Report of the Fuel Research Board for the years 1920–1921, Second Section. Some large scale results for a South Wales coal are contained in a report by the Director of Fuel Research on the Freeman Multiple Retort. The results of large scale tests of a Somerset coal are being prepared for publication. No summary of the results of such tests could be given without technical particulars of

    971
    the kind contained in these reports, since such particulars are necessary for the correct interpretation of the results.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of the fact that this investigation as it is called into the Bergius system is simply a means of intimidating the progress of the British plants now on a commercial scale?
    Commodore KING: The research is for the benefit of the coal industry.
    Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that we have commercial plant working in this country, and the excuse has always been that we are getting something from the Bergius system or somewhere else, so as to keep back British interests and to help the combined financial interests of Germany and the combines in this country?

    CLOSED MINES, YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that collieries are being closed down at the present time in Yorkshire and thousands of additional miners are being thrown out of work; and will he inquire into the connection between this policy and the new scheme for selling coal which is being arranged by the coalowners?
    Commodore KING: Four pits employing 1,918 persons have closed down in Yorkshire since 1st February; but according to the statistics of output and persons employed furnished to my Department, the general position in Yorkshire in recent periods has fluctuated in substantially the same proportions as in the rest of the country. I therefore see no need to undertake any special inquiry.
    Mr. LUNN: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman hear the speeches made during the last two days with regard to the scheme that has been adopted by the coalowners; and has he not heard that they are bringing down their supply to a particular quota to meet the necessary demand for coal, and is not that having some effect in closing the collieries? Some of us know it is having that effect.
    Commodore KING: I believe the effect of the scheme is as the hon. Member states with regard to the quota, but I
    972
    have no evidence that the setting up of the quota is reducing employment at the moment.
    Mr. LUNN: In my question I asked that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should make inquiries into this matter. Acknowledging these facts as he has done just now, is it not necessary that he should make these inquiries and get his Department to work in this matter?
    Commodore KING: As I have said in the answer, the position in Yorkshire is substantially the same as in other parts of the country, and I see no reason for making special inquiry.
    Mr. PALING: In addition to the pits which have been closed altogether, is it not a fact that in South Yorkshire particularly a good many collieries have reduced the number of men, owing to the operation of the quota?

    BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary of Mines if he has received any complaint that boys under 16 years of age have been kept down the pits in Durham for 16 hours per day; whether he has inquired into the complaint; and can he give the result of his inquiries?
    Commodore KING: Yes, Sir. A complaint of this kind was recently sent to me by the hon. Member, and I have had it investigated. It was found that on three occasions during January and February a boy had been kept to work a second shift on account of the absence of other boys through illness. The management considered that the circumstances constituted an emergency which made it lawful for them to take this course, but consequent on representations made to them by my Department they have agreed not to adopt this method of meeting the difficulty in future.
    Mr. BATEY: Seeing that to keep these boys 16 hours a day is a breach of the Eight-Hours Act, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to take some action against the company?
    Commodore KING: I do not think that from the nature of my answer that will be necessary.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman state in this House that there is one law for the mine-owners

    973
    and one for the miners; if not, what is the reason he is not prosecuting the mine-owners for this definite breach of the Regulations?
    Commodore KING: I have stated the reason of the coal-owners, and they will not repeat the offence.
    Mr. PALING: Does the keeping of boys over 16 hours constitute an emergency reason?
    Commodore KING: That is the reason given by the coal-owners.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why is there a difference of treatment between miners and mine-owners? If an offence were committed three times by a miner, would not he have been prosecuted; and why has the Minister not prosecuted the owners in the same way as he prosecutes the miners?
    Commodore KING: I make no difference between owners and miners.
    Mr. BATEY: At the end of questions I shall ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to this matter.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the Minister aware that the necessity of keeping these boys all that time in the mines is to make them do the work of the two shifts of eight hours of the men?
    At the end of Questions:
    Mr. BATEY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
    "The failure of the Government to prosecute certain coal owners for breaches of the Coal Mines Act, 1926, by the continuous employment underground of a boy on three occasions for more than 16 hours per day?"
    The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until Half-past. Seven o'Clock this evening.

    EXPORT TRADE.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Secretary for Mines whether the inquiries of his Department into the question of the coal export trade have been completed; and whether he is now in a position to Make a Report to the House?
    Commodore KING: I am continuously keeping in the closest possible touch with the position of the coal export trade, but am not conducting any special inquiries, nor have I any unpublished information which could be usefully reported to the House.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman noticed any increase in the export of coal, either in 1927 or 1928, as compared with 1925?
    Commodore KING: I shall want notice of that question.

    TRANSFER COAL (PRICES).
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Secretary for Mines whether his Department are considering the desirability of securing a return of the prices paid for transfer coal in order that the information regarding the coal industry may be as complete as possible?
    Commodore KING: The Quarterly Statistical Summaries issued by my Department give particulars for each district and for the country as a whole of the quantities and values of all coal commercially disposable. It is not practicable to give details of the prices of the widely different qualities and sizes of coal which go to make up the sum total—and without such information aggregated figures of the prices paid for transfer coal, even if obtainable, would be of little value and would be misleading.
    Mr. WHITELEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that we are not able to get to know exactly what the prices of transfer coal are? There have been one or two cases where it has been shown that the prices were too low, and have had to be raised, and, even then, we have not been able to get the original price, and for the people working the coal it is essential to know exactly what the prices are?
    Commodore KING: The hon. Member understands that the question of transfer coal is dealt with by district committees, and the joint auditors of the owners and the men have full access to all the books showing the prices of transfer coal.
    Mr. WHITELEY: The auditors of the men may have access, but the men are not allowed to see the honks, and the

    975
    auditor is not allowed to give the men information; that is the point I want the Minister to take into consideration.
    Commodore KING: Yes, Sir; the auditors are the representatives of the men, and the auditors are given full particulars.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the auditors are not permitted to investigate the books as they desire to investigate them; that the Yorkshire Miners' Association had to appeal to an umpire to get permission for that to take place, and that they succeeded in justifying their claim?
    Commodore KING: Yes, I understand that there was a dispute, and that they were given the books they required.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Would it not be quite easy to get the figures if the miners only had good leaders?

  TRANSPORT.

    AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC-REGULATOR.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the automatic traffic-regulator at the crossing of Park Row and Bond Street, Leeds; and whether it is proposed to erect similar apparatus in the Metropolitan area?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The question of making experiments in the Metropolitan area with automatic traffic regulators is under consideration.

    TRAFFIC OBSTRUCTION (STATIONARY VEHICLES).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport what conclusions he has arrived at with regard to the obstruction to traffic in busy urban thoroughfares, caused by vehicles drawn up at the side of the road; and what measures he proposes to adopt?
    Colonel ASHLEY: So far as my information goes, the powers possessed by the police authorities under the existing law are adequate for dealing with any such obstruction.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware from his own observation that the nuisance referred to has become notorious?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is a matter within the discretion of the police.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman, from his own observation, satisfied that such obstruction does not exist?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I can only repeat that this is a matter within the discretion of the police, who have ample power to deal with it if they think that an obstruction is created.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Has the Traffic Advisory Committee ever considered the possibility of prohibiting two vehicles stopping in a roadway opposite one another, and thereby causing one way traffic?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that that specific point has been considered, but I will look into it.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman again not sheltering himself behind some authority or other?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, I am not at all. I said what is a fact that the police have ample powers to deal with any obstruction that exists, and I have every confidence in them carrying out that duty.

    BRIDGES, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that it has been found necessary to close the bridges at Burngrains and Brigend, in Aberdeenshire, and also the Taitswell bridge, on the main road between Peterhead and Banff, in the interests of public safety; and, in view of the inconvenience thus caused whether he proposed to take any steps in the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that the District Committee of the Deer District of Aberdeen have closed the three bridges in question, the recent failure of a similar bridge having drawn attention to their weakness. I should be prepared to consider sympathetically an application from the District Committee for assistance towards the substitution of stronger bridges on suitable lines provided it embodies a satisfactory arrange-

    977
    ment with the railway company as to the contributions to be made by them in respect of their liabilities.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the highway bridges over the London and North Eastern Railway in the Deer District of Aberdeenshire are in bad condition, and not in any way up to present requirements; and whether, seeing that the railway company is at present only bound to maintain the bridges in the condition in which they were originally constructed, which is inadequate for modern purposes, he proposes to take any steps to secure that the necessary reconstruction of these bridges is carried out?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that many of the bridges in question are too weak to carry unrestricted loads and that the liability of the railway company is limited. In replying to my hon. Friend's other question to-day I explained my policy in respect of such structures. I may add that with regard to the general question of weak bridges, I am hoping that it may be possible to promote legislation embodying clauses which will facilitate negotiations between local authorities and the statutory undertakings concerned.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are we to have this legislation this year?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is a private Member's Bill, and I am afraid that the prospects are rather uncertain.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: If there be substantial agreement as to the necessity of giving these powers, which are very long overdue, cannot the Government give time?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As far as I am concerned, I am anxious that this legislation should be passed.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for facilities to be given to this Bill, if it be an agreed Measure?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is for the Prime Minister to decide.

    ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC, HYDE PARK CORNER AND MARBLE ARCH.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Transport if the roundabout
    978
    systems of traffic at Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch are now considered to be permanent; and, if so, whether he is making any arrangements for a fresh lay-out of the refuges and monuments at those places?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is proposed to continue the present "roundabout" systems of traffic working at Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch as a permanency. The position of several of the refuges both at Hyde Park Corner and at the Marble Arch has been altered to facilitate the working of the systems, and it is not at present proposed to make any fresh lay-out at these places.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dangerous condition of affairs just outside St. George's Hospital?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.
    Captain BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what actual alterations have been made?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Quite a number of alterations have been made.

    ROAD WORKS (CONT RACTS).
    Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the repeated comments made by the Auditor-General on the special arrangements made by the Ministry with contractors to carry out certain road works; and whether, in view of the fact that under these contracts remuneration paid to contractors approximated in some cases in 1927 to 22 per cent. of the cost of the works, he will at once take steps to abolish this system and carry out the work with local authorities' aid instead?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The contracts to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers were let during the years 1920–1922 in very exceptional circumstances, as owing to the urgency of instituting these works for the relief of unemployment it was not possible to obtain the data requisite to enable tenders to be invited before the contracts were let. The circumstances were fully explained to the Public Accounts Committee in 1924. Since 1922 no similar contracts have been let by my Department. I may add that the per-

    979
    centage mentioned in the question was reached only in one case, and that the average percentage to cover the contractor's fee and bonus on the whole of the contracts was about 12½ per cent. of the net cost.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this criticism is in the Report of the Auditor-General for 1926? Has he given the Auditor-General a reply about this matter to which attention was drawn in this 1926 Report?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not know in what year the Auditor-General made these comments, but the facts are as stated in the question, and no similar contracts have been let since 1922.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the Auditor-General asked for a reply to this matter in his 1926 Report? Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made that reply, and has he satisfied the Auditor-General?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The point was fully explained to the Public Accounts Committee in 1924. I have no knowledge as to whether we satisfied the Auditor-General, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question I will look into it.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: But has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the Report of the Auditor-General—has he any knowledge of it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir, I have not seen that particular Report.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made any definite statement to the Auditor-General arising out of his Report?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I did not quite hear that question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that Reports of the Auditor-General which refer to the right hon. Gentleman's Department are not brought to his notice?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No doubt they would be brought to my notice if there was anything to answer, but the circumstances were explained in 1924 to the
    980
    Public Accounts Committee, and they were satisfied.
    Mr. WALTER BAKER: Has it not been definitely stated that the Auditor-General in 1926 made a further Report on this subject, which could not have been considered in 1924?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down that question.

    ROAD FUND (IRISH FREE STATE CLAIM).
    Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Minister of Transport whether the claim on the Road Fund by the Irish Free State has yet been settled; if not, when is it anticipated that the transaction will be completed; and what is the amount still outstanding?
    Colonel W. ASHLEY: This matter is still under discussion with the Government of the Irish Free State, but I hope that a settlement will shortly be reached. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that pending agreement between the two Governments as to the basis of settlement it is not possible for me to state the amount outstanding.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If there is any sum due to the Irish Free State, is there any possibility of attaching that sum for the purpose of paying British civil servants the amount found due to them by the recent decision of the Privy Council?

    BENTLEY ROAD, WEST RIDING.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Minister of Transport when the negotiations between the West Riding County Council and the Doncaster Corporation regarding the remaking of Bentley Road are likely to be concluded; if he is aware that this matter has been under discussion for nearly six years; and whether, in view of the state of the road concerned, he will give the question his immediate attention so that the work may be proceeded with as soon as possible?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that agreement has been reached between the county council and the corporation that certain preparatory works have already been put in hand and that the widening is likely to be completed in the near future.
    Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only within the last week or two the county council passed a resolution protesting against the delay,

    981
    which they say has been caused by the Doncaster Corporation. Does he know that this business has been occupying those bodies for six years, and will he step in and put an end to it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Preparatory works have already been put in hand, and the widening is likely to be completed in the near future. I do not know what more I could do.
    Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that preparatory works have been going on now for nearly six years, and that the main work still remains untouched?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the cause of much bad language?

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

    HOSPITALS AND INSTITUTIONS (INTERRUPTED SERVICE).
    Mr. LEEasked the Minister of Transport whether he has had any complaints as to the failure of public electric supplies during the past six months and to the danger of interrupted service in hospitals and similar institutions; and whether alternative supplies are being established or recommended for establishment by his Department?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The Electricity Commissioners have received a certain number of complaints as to the failure of public electric supplies, but no specific representation as to the danger of interrupted service in hospitals and similar institutions. One of the objects of the schemes of interconnection to be carried out under the Act of 1926 is to ensure increased reliability of supply by providing alternative sources of supply for authorised undertakers whose systems will be linked up in due course with the main transmission system of the Central Electricity Board.
    Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Has the Minister considered what steps it is necessary to take to prevent Socialists from cutting off the supply in time of disputes?

    CHARGES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any applications from any of the municipal
    982
    authorities in the County of London asking him to set up an inquiry into the prices charged by the County of London Electric Supply Company; and what decision he has arrived at?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have received no such application, but I understand that one is likely to be received shortly.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Transport if he can inform the House what changes, if any, in the charges for electricity have followed the redistribution of the areas of supply brought about by the Electricity Commissioners?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid that I do not follow the hon. Member's question. Perhaps he would be good enough to send me some further information showing more fully what is in his mind.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman requires a statement of all changes in charges, seeing that that is one of the objects?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will communicate with me about that, I will try to give him an answer.

    BONUS SHARES,
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the statutory limitations placed on dividends of electrical undertakings, he can supply figures showing what transfers, if any, of funds from reserves to capital account in the form of bonus shares have taken place in those electricity undertakings whose area of distribution has been enlarged as a result of the decisions of the Electricity Commissioners?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not aware that any electricity undertaking has transferred funds from reserves to capital account in the form of bonus shares as the result of its area of distribution having been enlarged.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS (DEPOSITS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General the amount of deposits held to the last convenient date by the Post Office Telephone Service for and on behalf of telephone subscribers in England and Wales?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The amount at 31st December, 1927, was, approximately, £2,146,000.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that amount includes deposits for telephones which have since been discontinued and which the telephone subscribers have not reclaimed?
    Sir W. MITCHELL"THOMSON: I could not say that without notice. I think the amount would be very small.

    INLAND TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Postmaster-General if he proposes to take immediate action to carry out any of the recommendations of the committee on the inland telegraph service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Some of the proposals recommended by the committee were in fact being carried out before the report was received, and arrangements are now in progress for giving effect to others. The remaining proposals affect various interests both external and internal, and a good deal of time will be required for their consideration both by the Government and by the interests affected.
    Mr. WELLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the assistance of a leading business man in regard to this service?
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether his Department makes a close study of the working of the telegraph service in countries where this system is carried out under private enterprise with satisfactory financial results; and whether he will consider introducing certain of these business methods into this country?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. Friend presumably refers to the United States of America. I hope to arrange shortly for another visit to be made by officers of the Post Office with a view to a close study of the American telegraph service, but it cannot be assumed that all the methods in force in the United States will be found suitable for adoption in this country, where conditions are very different.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does the Postmaster-General agree with the speech
    984
    made by his Controller of Telegraphs in which he refers to this Report as
    "the vapourings of a so-called business committee and a monument of inconsistencies."
    Does he approve of that or not?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as long as the telegraph service is conducted by a Government Department it can never reach years of discretion?

    PUBLICITY.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General which department of the Post Office undertakes the work of Post Office publicity which places before the public the various facilities which the different departments of the Post Office offer; whether a single individual is employed; by whom is the appointment made; and what salary is paid?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The department controlling the administration of each of the Post Office services is, generally speaking, responsible for publicity, whether through personal canvassing, the distribution of posters and leaflets or by other means. An officer appointed by the Postmaster-General at a salary of £485 per annum is employed for the distribution of information to the Press and for other similar duties.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a trial of one of the well-known business firms who have undertaken very successful publicity work for several years on behalf of the Government?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have considered that point more than once, but I think the present arrangements are probably more effective and economical.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not false economy and does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that for £480 a year you cannot get a very high-class man in that line because he can get much more in business?

    CABLE AND WIRELESS COMMUN ICATIONS.
    Sir H. COWANasked the PostMaster-General whether his attention has been called to the possibility of tapping beam wireless messages to and from

    985
    Australia; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the privacy of such messages?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware that the Anglo-Australian beam service, in common with other wireless services, has been criticised on the ground that it is liable to illicit interception. In practice, however, the beam services are worked at so high a speed that interception would only be possible by means of complicated and expensive receiving apparatus requiring expert operating staff. I think, therefore, that the risk of such illegal interception is for all practical purposes negligible.
    Sir H. COWAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain parties have instruments which are able to tap these private messages between Australia and this country, if they wish to do so?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact, indeed, any such action is contrary to the terms of the wireless licences.
    Mr. PILCHERasked the Postmaster-General whether, and, if so, what, reductions in cost of cable messages to India and South Africa have been conceded since the introduction of beam competition during the past year; and whether he can give an assurance that such reductions will not be annulled as a result of a cable-wireless merger or through other causes?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A year ago the cable rates to India and South Africa were 1s. 8d. a word and 2s. a word respectively. The present rates to India are Is. 5d. by cable and 1s. 1d. by beam; and the rates to South Africa are 1s. 8d. by cable and 1s. 4d. by beam. Corresponding reductions have been made in the rates for deferred telegrams and letter telegrams. No statement can be made concerning future rates until the Report of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference has been received and considered.

  BROADCASTING.

    SCOTLAND.
    Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISONasked the Postmaster-
    986
    General whether, seeing that the service in the East of Scotland is worse than it was two years ago and that the British Broadcasting Corporation is ready with new plans to improve this service, and are waiting only for the permission of the Post Office to begin operations, he can state when such will be given so that the service can he materially improved?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 23rd March to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels).
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything has been done to improve the broadcasting service to the East of Scotland? Does he know that there are very serious complaints all up the East Coast, at Arbroath, Montrose and other places? I should like to know whether anything has been done?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have had personal experience in the locality mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member. As he probably knows, the British Broadcasting Corporation have a scheme of regional distribution under consideration, but at the moment the position is that I have received no such applications as he referred to.

    INTERFERENCE (TRAMWAYS).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Postmaster-General whether he has any official information as to the success of the experiments in Germany in effecting the elimination of interference with broadcast reception caused by friction-bow trolleys as compared with the roller-trolley system; and whether he will state what tramway authorities are co-operating with his technical officers in the endeavour to eliminate this technical difficulty?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understand that no effective remedy has yet been found either in this country or in Germany for interference with broadcasting caused by trams working on the roller-trolley system. Tramway authorities in various parts of the country, notably at Birmingham, Blackpool and Glasgow, are experimenting with various devices, but the experiments are not yet

    987
    completed. The engineers of the British Broadcasting Corporation and of the Post Office are co-operating with the tramway authorities in an endeavour to find a remedy.
    Mr. BAKER: Seeing that a tremendous number of complaints continue to be made in the Bristol area on this matter, will he invite the local tramway authorities to co-operate with the engineers of the British Broadcasting Corporation in an endeavour to find a remedy?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The tramway authorities are already co-operating with the British Broadcasting Corporation and ourselves in that endeavour, but I will have the attention of the British Broadcasting Corporation specially drawn to the cast of Bristol.

    EXPERIMENTS.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Postmaster-General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation are experimenting with the Post Office in regard to low-wave length telephony: and what the results have been?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The British Broadcasting Corporation were authorised last September to undertake experiments in broadcasting on a short wavelength. These experiments are still in progress and the results hare not yet been reported.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is there any likelihood in the near future of any station of the British Broadcasting Corporation transmitting under 100 metres?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Chelmsford Experimental, of course, works under that at the present moment.

    COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister how often the Committee of Imperial Defence has met during the present Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I propose to give these figures during the course of the Debate this afternoon.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the particulars now?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to speak very early in the Debate, and the hon. and gallant Member will be able to hear the particulars. I have got several figures of a similar nature to give.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    SUPER-TAX.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the Super-tax outstanding on the 31st March, 1927; and what steps are being taken to recover it?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): It is estimated that the amount of Super-tax due to be paid but not paid at the 31st March. 1927, was £19,325,000. The assessment and collection of the Super-tax proceeds continuously throughout the year. The amount unpaid at any given date thus includes tax in respect of which demands for payment may have recently been issued, and must not be regarded as tax outstanding for any considerable length of time. The bulk of the tax in question has, in fact, since been paid. I can assure the hon. Member that no step is neglected by the revenue authorities to ensure the prompt collection of the revenue.

    AGRICULTURAL RATES ACTS.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the 75 per cent. abatement in the assessment of agricultural land and farm buildings is repaid by the Treasury to local authorities to meet the deficiency caused by such abatement?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. It is estimated that in 1926–27 (the latest year for which the estimate can be made) the amount of rates, to which the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896 and 1923, apply, which was paid in respect of agricultural land was £3,450,000. and that if the Agricultural Rates Acts had not been in force the amount so paid would have been £12,460,000. Of the deficiency. amounting to £9,010,000, £4,684,000 or approximately 52 per cent., was met out

    989
    of Exchequer grants. The 75 per cent. abatement in the assessment of farm buildings has not yet become operative. There is no statutory provision for an Exchequer grant in respect of this abatement.

    IMPERIAL DEFENCE (EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost incurred for defence for the latest year for which figures are available in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and also the cost in 1913?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Estimates for the years 1926–27 or 1925–26 are to be found in the Armaments Year Book published by the League of Nations. I am taking steps to obtain more recent figures and will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT when available.

    WINE DUTIES.
    Mr. GEORGE HARVEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that is felt by Empire wine importers that they should be charged a duty of 4s. per gallon against a home-produced article at 1s.; and whether he will consider raising the duty on the home-produced article to 4s. per gallon?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware, that dis-satisfaction on this point has been ex-pressed in some quarters. As regards the second part of the question, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Gentleman not recollect that this home industry is practically only of a few months' standing, and will he see that he does not kill a goose when it is only a gosling?
    Mr. HARVEY: May I be permitted to ask if it is a fact that it is hardly fair to the foreign importer to have this disparity?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That point will receive due consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    MOTOR TAXATION.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he
    990
    has received any representations or petitions with regard to the present horsepower tax; and whether, in view of the fact that a 2s. 6d. horse-power tax and 6d. a gallon on petrol would bring in a similar amount, he will consider an alteration in the present system of motor taxation?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him on the subject on the 21st February last.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will my hon. Friend remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a petition signed by 920,000 owners and users of motor cars was presented this afternoon in favour of the change over to a petrol tax?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the Financial Secretary represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the imposition of this tax would make a very heavy additional burden on business firms?
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Will the hon. Member represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the desirability of deciding this question of the motor spirit tax upon its merits, and without reference to the need of future Chancellors of the Exchequer being able to take a certain amount out of the Road Fund?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    AFFORESTATION, DENBIGHSHIRE.
    Mr. C. P. WILLIAMSasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the number of acres planted in the County of Denbigh during the years 1924 to 1927; and what the plans of the Department are for 1928 and 1929?
    Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners have not planted any land in the County of Denbigh, as they have not yet acquired land in that county.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the case that afforestation employs more labour than sheep farming?

    ASSISTANT FACTORY INSPECTORS.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that assistant inspectors of factories were appointed owing to their practical acquaintance with industrial processes, he will state why their inspections are restricted to milliners, dressmakers and similar workshops; whether inspectors on first appointment are put on duty in factories in which dangerous machinery and processes are employed; and, if so, whether, in view of the high percentage of fatal and non-fatal accidents, he will consider utilising the services of assistant inspectors in work more appropriate to their previous experience?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) on the 14th instant. The assistants selected were not required to possess the technical qualifications necessary for the discharge of the full duties of an inspector, and few of them had, before their appointment, more than a limited experience of industrial processes. Inspectors, on appointment, are always given a thorough course of training before visiting by themselves important factories where dangerous machinery and processes have to be inspected.

    CHARITIES (SUPERVISION).
    Sir ALFRED HOPKINSONasked the Home Secretary whether it is intended, during the present Session, to bring in legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Supervision of Charities?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A Bill for this purpose is in preparation, but I fear that it will not be possible to take it this Session.

    PRISON CONDITIONS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary the average cost of maintaining male prisoners in the various prisons of this country; whether in any prison stone breaking, stone pounding, or oakum picking is imposed as a task of work and, if so, whether such tasks are imposed as punishments for offences committed in prison; and whether any prisoners are
    992
    allowed to earn money while serving as prisoners, and, if so, how much per week or month such payments amount to?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As this question raises a number of points, and the reply is necessarily long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The Annual Reports of the Prison Commissioners always contain particulars of the cost of maintaining the various classes of prisoners. For the year 1926–27, the net cost, after deducting the value of prisoners' labour, was £1 9s. 5d. a week for convicts and £1 0s. 6d. a week for local prisoners. Stone breaking, stone pounding and oakum picking are not now regular prison industries. There is a stone breaking machine in the quarry at Dartmoor; occasionally some stone is broken by hand, but the work is not tasked, nor is it imposed as a punishment. Oakum picking is never imposed as a punishment, but it is still occasionally required to be done when no other work is available. For instance, when an outdoor working party at Dartmoor is prevented by the weather from going out to its ordinary job, it may be employed on picking oakum. A measured task is usually required. As regards the earning of money, prisoners committed for trial and prisoners treated under the rules for debtors are allowed to earn small sums, amounting in the case of trial prisoners to not more than 5s., and in the ease of debtors to not more than 2s. 6d. per week. Convicted prisoners, generally speaking, do not earn money, but there are arrangements whereby convicts undergoing preventive detention, and certain other long-term convicts, may earn small gratuities by good conduct and industry.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary in how many prisons concerts, lectures, and other work of a reformative, educational and recreational character is carried on; in how many is actual task work of a fixed character imposed; and whether he is able to say that the majority of persons detained in prison are engaged in useful work of a character which does not tend either to degrade or demoralise the prisoners?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At every prison for convicted prisoners there are educational classes and occasional lectures and concerts, Prisoners work in

    993
    the day time in parties under supervision, and for most kinds of work the practice is not to require a measured task, but to rely on the supervising officer to see that diligence is maintained. In the evening, prisoners who are not occupied by educational courses do industrial work in their cells, and, so far as the nature of this work permits, a measured task is usually required. All work done in prisons is useful, and I do not regard any useful work as degrading or demoralising.

    LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make as to the date of coming into operation of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the fact that 25th March—the date on which the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, came into operation—was a Sunday, and that tenants whose leases will expire on Lady Day next year, and who wished to make a claim under Section 4 of the Act, or to serve a notice under Section 5, were obliged to make their claim or serve their notice on Sunday. Section 23 of the Act provides that instruments under the Act may be served in one of three ways—by personal service, by leaving the instrument at the last known place of abode of the landlord or his agent, or by sending the instrument by registered post. I am advised that of these three methods, the first two would constitute good service, even though service was made on a Sunday. As regards the last, the question is not altogether free from doubt, and, if it appears that tenants have been damnified in this respect, I am prepared to consider the matter further.

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE.
Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it obligatory for owners of motor vehicles to be insured against third-party risks."
I would like to assure the House that, in bringing this Bill forward, I have not done so without very careful thought, or without discussion, so far as discussion is possible, both with Members of the House itself and with those outside who
994
are interested in this subject. As to the necessity for this Bill, I do not think there is really any difference of opinion. I think that Members in all parts of the House are well aware of the very large number of accidents that have occurred in which, unfortunately, persons who have sustained damage, and sometimes, in case of death, the relatives of the person fatally injured, have been unable to get any compensation at all. From inquiries that I have made, I find that there appears to be throughout the House a general knowledge of such conditions throughout the country, but perhaps I may be allowed to mention only two cases that have come very definitely to my notice, cases which I believe are typical of many others.
One is the case of a woman employed in a mill, who was knocked down, had her leg broken in three places, and was laid up for something like nine months, incurring, as a result, expenses amounting to something like £150, and she was unable to recover any compensation whatever. Another case was that of a young man, the sole support of his mother and sister, who was killed by a motor cyclist, and there, again, his relatives were unable to recover any compensation of any kind. I do not think it would be desirable to give in detail instances in which the Courts have referred to this matter; at any rate it is probably not desirable to give names; but perhaps the House will allow me to read an extract from one case. I will not, unless the House decides to the contrary, give the actual names. In this case the Judge said this was the second case he had had in that week:
"In both cases the man has not been insured, and therefore cannot pay the damage. I hope soon it will be compulsory for all motorists to be insured."
In the short time at my disposal, I cannot deal further with the necessity for the Bill, but I do not think that there is any necessity to do so, because I have not heard in any quarter of the House any opposition to it. I want to deal with what the Bill will involve. It is to make it essential that any person who owns a motor vehicle shall be insured against the possibility of damage caused to the public. Damage to the owner's car is another matter altogether, but, so far as liability under the Common Law exists,

995
I and those who support me desire that insurance shall be compulsory. The position as regards motor cars, so far as I can ascertain it, is that something like 85 per cent. of all the motor cars owners are already insured. That leaves only 15 per cent., but, in regard to motor cycles, there are only something like 33 per cent. insured. These are the figures I have been given. I believe there is hardly a single motor car or motor cycle owner who will not really be in his heart of hearts in favour of the Bill. He cannot but see the necessity, in these days of rapid transport, of insuring that if by any chance damage is caused to the public he should be in a position, if he is responsible for the accident, to pay for the damage. The position as regards compulsory insurance and its difficulties has often been exaggerated. Some 60 per cent. of all the motor cars in this country, I am told, are obtained on the hire-purchase system, and the owners are compulsorily insured, and we may assume that if the remaining 15 per cent. of uncovered cars are also insured, acute competition will produce reasonable rates. Not only will competition insure that the rates will remain reasonable, but the Minister of Transport, in the Bill he intends to bring forward at an early date, is proposing to make it compulsory for all public vehicles to be insured, and in fact in the case of chars-a-bancs compulsory insurance exists at present, because by means of arrangements with the local authorities it is impossible to get a licence unless third party risks are covered. I believe the Bill meets with general acceptance, and I hope the House will unanimously give it a First Reading.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, Major Braithwaite, Mr. Compton, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Allan Burgoyne, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Snell.

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE BILL,
"to make it obligatory for owners of motor vehicles to be insured against third-party risks," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.

GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. BARR: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the better government of Scotland."
This Bill establishes a national Legislature in the form of a single Chamber of 148 members elected by the present constituencies. It will deal with all the subjects which are meantime treated by Parliament in this House and in another place. It reserves certain subjects as common services. Questions relating to the Army, Navy and Air Forces, questions of foreign policy, and the like are to be jointly administered by England and Scotland. As soon as this Parliament is constituted, the representation of Scotland in this House will cease. If we are insisting on managing our own affairs, we cannot claim also to manage the affairs of England at the same time. It has been represented to me from all sides that this proposal of the withdrawal of the Scottish representation would be something of a national calamity and an injury to this House. I say, quite frankly, that I, and those who are acting with me, have an open mind on this question. What I see in the future is the separation of Imperial matters from more local affairs, which might by common consent be assigned to local Parliaments in England, Scotland and Wales, or wherever a district may be marked out, and, when that day comes, Scotland will claim a worthy part and her rightful share in the administration of these Imperial affairs and also in the wider field that is covered by what we know as the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I will put forward some of the grounds on which we urge that a First Reading at least should be given to this Bill. In the first place, in the interests of this House itself. On 4th June, 1919, a Committee was appointed, known as the Speaker's Conference. The proposal put before that Committee was to devise a scheme of federal devolution. The reference was passed by a vote of 187 to 34, and it is remarkable that the Scottish vote for devolution was 35 to 1. There was only one Member for Scotland who did not support the proposal for devolution. There arose in that Committee some difference of opinion as to the character and composition of the Grand Councils, or Legislatures, but there was no difference of opinion whatever as to the powers that

997
should be conferred on such Legislatures and that Scotland was an area which should have such a Grand Council or Parliament. In the next place, this is proposed in the interest of the dispatch of Scottish business.
4.0 p.m
The House may not be fully aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has control of no fewer than 16 departments, and, whether he works with boards or, as he now proposes, with departments, it is an impossible task for any human being. We are given two days in the course of a Session to discuss Scottish affairs, Last year, when I spoke on this subject, I was surprised at the number of hon. Members opposite who came to me and said some movement of devolution was necessary in the interests of Scottish business. We have some special questions in Scotland—land, housing, education and public health—in which we have our own laws and customs and in which we have even more acute problems than there are in England. 4.0 p.m. These can only be properly organised, supervised and ameliorated if we have a Parliament in close touch with them. Then we advocate this in the interests of public economy. To secure the amalgamation of Edinburgh and Leith, a sum of £51,771 was spent in legal expenses at this end; and to secure an extension of the boundaries of Glasgow, £46,308 was spent at this end, and if the expenses of the opposing bodies are added at the other end, the sum was about £100,000. Demands have been made in Scotland for this Measure, or a similar Measure, ever since 1890, whatever the complexion of the Government, and we have not failed on any occasion to get, a large majority of Scottish Members for some such scheme of devolution as this. In 1912 the vote was 43 to 6, and in 1920 it was 38 to 9. I will not trouble the House with the names of the public bodies in favour of such a Measure. Support for this Measure passes far beyond party lines. On the 15th April, 1926, the Duke of Montrose wrote a letter to the "Glasgow Herald" saying he was in favour of a Scottish Legislature being established. I do not claim his support to the particular Measure I have in hand. He thinks it is in bad hands, and is being handled unwisely, but he stands for a Scottish Legislature. I will give his words:
998
"I cannot believe that for all time coming Scottish affairs will continue to be settled by Englishmen in London."
On the 18th April, 1926, Principal A. P. Lawrie, an eminent educationist, supporting in the "Glasgow Herald" what the Duke of Montrose had said, observed that the establishment of such a legislature
"would bring about a revival of national life in every department of thought and art."
When I was in Australia I was very much struck by one of the speeches at a Scottish Home Rule meeting in Granville, New South Wales. The speaker said:
"We need no argument in Australia to convince us not merely of the utility but of the absolute necessity and inevitability of every nation managing its own affairs."
One word more. We also put this forward on the ground of national sentiment. I need not say that in Scotland our whole literature pulsates with the passion for Scottish freedom and Scottish nationality. A protest was made in regard to this matter in connection with the panel, "The Building of Britain," in St. Stephen's Hall. I was not here to take part, but I will tell the House of the conclusion to which I have come. I am quite willing that that panel should remain, on condition that we realise that the building of Britain is not complete, and that we have another panel in which the grant of self-government, which was surrendered then, will be restored. As one of the common quotations regarding that old surrender of self-government was that of Lord Belhaven on the 2nd November, 1706:
"None can destroy Scotland save Scotland's self"—
so I would propose to the House that the artist should take for the motto of the new panel:
"None can save Scotland but Scotland's self."
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barr, Mr. William Adamson, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Wheatley, and Mr. Wright.

GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND BILL,
"to provide for the better government of Scotland," presented accordingly, and

999
read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

AUCTIONEERS.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to auctioneers, and to prohibit the holding of mock auctions."
The object of this Bill is to protect the public, particularly the members of the working-classes, against a form of fraud practised by men who hold Inland Revenue licences to trade as auctioneers who are a disgrace to an honourable profession, and are exploiting the public in a way that, I think, ought to be prohibited. Many Members will have noticed these gentlemen and their operations in the main streets of London, in the main streets of many of, our large towns and cities, and particularly at the seaside resorts during that portion of the year when large crowds of visitors are attracted thereto. The system they adopt is to pretend to have a bankrupt stock or pawnbrokers' forfeited pledges, or to offer some other pretext. They have their own touts, who mix amongst the crowd, and, by misrepresentation, big prices are obtained for apparently worthless goods. These men are practising this trade throughout the country day in and day out.
It may be said, why is not the law put into operation to deal with them? As a matter of fact, there is a case, but as it is sub judice I cannot mention it here. If hon. Members, however, will only take the trouble to read the evidence in that particular case, they will realise how very difficult it is to get a successful prosecution, because, under the present law, you can only prosecute for selling by false pretences. There is a difficulty in getting a person who has been "had" to come forward and give evidence, because people do not like to expose their foolishness and ignorance to the public. I have the testimony of chief constables of various towns saying that it is indeed most difficult to get a prosecution, and asking that a Bill such as I am introducing should be passed by this House. Let me read the opinion of the chief constable of Blackpool,
1000
where, undoubtedly, this matter is becoming a public scandal. He says:
"The existing law is inadequate to deal with this matter, and I am quite satisfied that the proposals in the new Bill would effect a definite improvement in the present position."
I have also letters from the chief constables of Edinburgh, Great Yarmouth, Southend-on-Sea, Hastings, Margate, Southport, Brighton and Plymouth, all asking that something should be done by this House to amend the law as regards this particular form of fraud. There is also another kind of operation with which this Bill seeks to deal, namely, rigged sales of this description: An empty house is taken and stocked with goods, and bills are displayed announcing the sale of household goods in that particular house. People are induced thereby to come along and to bid probably very high prices for the goods. This practice has been in operation a great deal in the Brighton district, but it is not by any means the only district where it is being practised. It is being practised all over the country. Let me give an instance that came under my own notice. It is the case of an old-fashioned inn in a country district on a road passed by a number of motorists. A smart man got hold of this inn. It was not doing very much business. He took it, and stocked it with dummy antiques, such as what were supposed to be old glass and old Sheffield plate. I am reminded that the term "dummy" is not a correct one; I will therefore amend it, and say "sham" antiques. Motorists who passed saw those things, thought they were genuine and admired them. Shortly afterwards a large bill was posted outside the inn, and advertisements were inserted in London newspapers that these goods were to be sold by auction. I can assure the House that the innkeeper made more money out of that sale than be could have made in 25 years out of selling beer. He retired, and went to another district.
I suggest to this House that, bearing in mind that these frauds are being perpetrated on the public day in and day out, it is time an amendment of the law took place, and I suggest that the Bill I have asked leave to introduce will meet the case. It has the support of the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents, the Auctioneers

1001
and Estate Agents Institute, the National Chamber of Trade, the National Association of Goldsmiths, the Scottish Association of Watchmakers and Jewellers, and the London and Suburban Traders' Federation. The Bill is backed by 12 Members, and I could have got many more if the Rules of the House had permitted.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Womersley, Mr. Duckworth, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Hayes, Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Templeton, Sir William Perring, Mr. Looker, Mr. Fenby, Colonel Applin, and S0ir Cooper Rawson.

AUCTIONEERS BILL.
"to amend the Law with respect to auctioneers and to prohibit the holding of mock auctions," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law of Scotland relating to the division of counties into police districts." [Police Districts (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and simplify the law of Scotland relating to false oaths, declarations, and statements." [False Oaths (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board relating to vessels sunk, stranded, or abandoned; and for other purposes." [Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords].

DOVER GAS BILL [Lords].
That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That is is expedient that the Dover Gas Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that all
1002
Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION).
That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolutions, namely:
"That it is desirable that in the present Session all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing private Acts of Parliament be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament:
That the Joint Committee shall not take into consideration any petition against any such Bill which seeks to alter the existing law."

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Haslam; and had appointed in substitution: Mrs. Philipson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
  Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I wish to raise a question which has for long agitated Members of this House. I want to examine how far we can alter our administration of the Services, and to see if we cannot get some greater co-ordination and control over the three Services than we have at present. We have expended and are expending enormous sums upon our Defence Services. This year the total, as taken from the Estimates, is £121,495,000 odd, and that does not include the amount of money which will be required for our Forces in China, and no doubt the additional sums that will be contained in Supplementary Estimates. At the end of the War, our two old Services of the Navy arid Army were joined by a third Service, the Air Force, and this in itself added another difficulty. Each Department puts forward its individual Estimates, has its own General Staff and prepares its own plans for the application of the forces under its control, and, except through an advisory body, the Committee of Imperial Defence, there is no real control which can give any unity of action for the three Forces. It is undoubtedly true that in latter years, since the War, there has been more co-ordination and consultation between the Forces than we had before the War, but I, for one, think we have not gone nearly far enough in the direction of central control.
  During the War, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) found it necessary to improvise a central control over our war activities, and he created that very useful body, the War Cabinet, created out of Ministers who were not embarrassed by the control of Departments, and towards the end of the War this body exercised a very useful and necessary control over
  1014
  the whole of our activities. It had the support of the whole country behind it, and the result was that its various decisions were treated as executive and were given effect to by the various Departments concerned; but since the War this body has disappeared, nothing has taken its place, and the Services have dropped back into the position in which they were before the War, each under its own Departmental Chief.
  The general tendency in the world as we see it to-day is for a movement of units into bigger organisations. You see it in commerce. You see whole businesses being co-ordinated and brought together in the form of amalgamations and combines, and this does not mean that the actual boards or individuals who are managing those businesses are done away with; it means that there is a superimposed body, a body which really represents a holding company in the commercial world which is superimposed over the various individual units, and, this controlling body, headed probably by the most eminent person in that particular business, deals with policy, with high finance, with general standardisation, and with prices, either for buying or selling, and in many directions it unifies that industry, reduces costs, and undoubtedly creates greater prosperity in that industry. It seems to me difficult to understand why we cannot apply a similar movement to our Services. I know it will be said that the Services in themselves are not businesses, but that does not mean that the actual control of these Services cannot be conducted on the same lines as, we will say, the controlling body in the chemical industry or any other of those large combines, to the very great advantage, not only of the nation and the Empire as a whole, but of this House, which has to find the money. One has only to follow that simile to see that there arc certainly, on the face of it, a great many advantages to be gained out of such a control.
  I know it has been said that you have got the control at present exercised by the Committee of Imperial Defence, but anyone who knows the workings of that body and who knows how often it meets, will realise that there is no real control at all. This body is purely an advisory body and a meeting place for the Chiefs of Staffs to get in touch with our various

  1015
  Dominions and the General Staffs of those Dominions, and that undoubtedly forms opinions on matters military, naval, and aerial which are of very great value and which, applied to the various Departments, produce very excellent results. But there is no responsibility by this body, there is no definite control, and it is extremely difficult to get any co-ordinated action between the three Services from the point of view of doing away with overlapping.
  This question has been debated, or attempted to be debated, under the various Service Estimates, but it has always been pulled up to the extent that it has not been applicable to the Army, to the Navy, or to the Air Force, as the case might be, and again and again we have had the repudiation of responsibility by the Minister at the Box. In these circumstances, I think this House owes a debt of gratitude to my party and to my right hon. Friend who has allowed this Debate to take place. It is a subject which has certainly excited interest ever since 1922. We have had various Committees which have been assembled to examine the question, and we have had articles written, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Sir F. Sykes), who used to be associated with me in the War Office, has written very able articles on this subject. Altogether, the question has aroused an interest, both in this House and outside, which demands very careful investigation. There was a Committee which was formed under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who was afterwards succeeded by Lord Weir; we had the question examined again by a Committee under Lord Salisbury we had the Colwyn Committee dealing with it; and we have had it examined on various occasions from inside the different Departments.
  I would like to point out that when you deal with a subject of this nature it is almost impossible to have a Committee examining into the desirability of amalgamation or unified control when you take evidence from the heads of the various Services concerned, because, obviously, those Services must stifle any Committee. Therefore, it is necessary for any Government which deals with
  1016
  this subject to have courage and conviction, to say that they intend to carry out some unification, and to put it to a Committee, if necessary, to see what steps are requisite, and in what rotation those steps should be taken, in order to arrive at the desired ideal.
  There are many questions in regard to which a unified control would give us very great advantages. We should get a far better application of our forces wherever they are required in the world. Everyone knows that at the present moment the Air Service is absolutely necessary, both to the Army and to the Navy. In fact, the Army cannot fight without the air any more than the Navy can fight without the air, and we have three separate Services dealing with the different types of arm, whereas we have a separate Air Ministry. You cannot move in the Army without your Air Arm, and the same thing applies to the Navy, and yet we get the Air Ministry taking over an area like Iraq to run the defence of that particular area. It is well known that if we had trouble on the frontiers, the Air Ministry must immediately draw in the War Office for bringing in men to defend the frontiers. Though aeroplanes move with very great speed, they cannot hold positions that are necessary to defend frontiers. Therefore, we should immediately get two Ministries brought in, and it, would be a very great advantage if we could have one controlling authority which would deal with all three Services, thereby enabling us to use a portion of each arm or each Department as required without any conflicting or dual control in any way.
  Then there is the question of the provision of material, of supplies, of stores, of hospitals, and subjects of that nature, and undoubtedly a very great advantage could be obtained if we could co-ordinate under one authority the provision of those articles. Anyone who is in the Service knows that a large quantity of stores and supplies are necessarily held in reserve for mobilisation and other measures, which no doubt overlap and are held in duplicate or triplicate by the various Services, and it would be a very great advantage to the State and to the Exchequer if we could remedy that. Then we have the difficulty of the interchangeability of personnel in the various Departments. We have heard only

  1017
  recently about the short-service officers in the Air Force, who come to a dead end at the end of seven years. Surely, if we had a central control, those officers could be used in other directions, in the other arms. There is no reason why young officers should not go to the Army or elsewhere and carry on the very useful service which they have begun, and in many such ways, we could get the interchangeability of personnel.
  I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), below me, will agree with me when I say that it is quite possible to have one medical service for the three Forces. It has been pointed out that medical recruits join a particular Service, that they want to serve in the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, as the case may be, but there is a possibility that we might get a much wider and bigger Service by having one combined for the three Services. In the same way, our chaplains might be combined, and in various other ways we could get economies. I think we should get a betterment of the Service, certainly in dealing with hospitals, the provision of wagons and supplies, and in dealing with contracts, and in all those directions we should get great advantages by having a unified control. The great difficulty that I see at the present moment is the difficulty of getting over what are called vested interests. You have the vested interest of the staff. You have the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force each with its general staff, and each Serice has its own staff college. You will have great difficulty in getting over this difficulty, but there is no reason why, by a different system, by a unified education, by having your staff college for the three Services, you should not ultimately produce a staff officer who really has been brought up to the idea of one central controlling authority.
  By establishing a central control we should be able to meet a great difficulty in modern war. In the late War we had to build up control during the fighting period. We had to break down all kinds of difficulties during the War. We had to deal with competition in contracts, competition in regard to recruits; in every way we had to deal with the Services competing with each other. Should it be our misfortune—I trust it never
  1018
  will be our misfortune—to go into another war, I hope that we shall be able to avoid these difficulties by having a central control board. I do not wish to mention the name of the Ministry of Defence, because it commits one to a line of thought for which we are not yet prepared. We want to examine how far we can move forward, building on present institutions, to a better control. Take, for instance, the present control in the form of the Committee of Imperial Defence. That body lacks responsibility, and it lacks control. It would probably be a good thing if the Government could gradually change the personnel of that body and ultimately evolve it into the form of an executive general staff; in other words, gradually change it from its present advisory position into an executive position. There is no reason why it should not take the same place in the Service world which is filled by an over-riding body in the commercial world, forming a board of control. That board might consist of, partly, full-time officers, who would be the best staff officers we could collect from the various Services, and as the unified education in the staff sense produces the necessary personnel it would become better and better fitted for the purpose required. Added to that, we should have the part-time staff officer drawn in to give the information required, in the form of staff officers of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force.
  It would be necessary to have a Minister in charge of the central control authority, acting under the Prime Minister. No one could really control the whole of the Services unless you had a Prime Minister, someone like the President of the Council, who has not a Department at the present time, who would be put in the position of the Minister in charge of the board of control of the three Services. It would be of great advantage from the point of view of this House. The money would be voted to this central control Department, who would allocate the money between the three Services, knowing the difficulties and the necessities of the Services. The Services are kept as a provision against war, and any provision that is made must necessarily be towards war efficiency. Anything we pay for is with a view, ulti-

  1019
  mately, to producing the fighting machine, if required. The money voted is not given merely for peace provision, but for the definite purpose of preparing for war. If the central control body, with an expert staff behind it, could allocate with knowledge the money required by each Service, we should get in this House a far better account of our expenditure, and we should be able to get a definite result in economies through their efforts.
  At the present time, we have a sort of control by the Treasury. Any additional demands for money have always to be examined by the Treasury; but the Treasury knows very little about what is required for the Services. It acts purely as a brake on the expenditure on these Departments. There is no relation between the three Departments from the purely expert point of view. The control board would, undoubtedly, with knowledge, as is done in commerce, be able to control expenditure and to see that we get really good value. One great criticism by the Estimates Committee is that there is no relation between the three Services as regards expenditure, and they say that it is very difficult for them to understand how the actual money is being spent. I believe, having some knowledge of one of the Departments, at least, that we should get very great advantage if we evolved some sort of central control board.
  After the South African War, we had the Esher Committee. That Committee altered the whole of our War Office system; the whole control of the Army. It was done arbitrarily. I believe that Lord Roberts did not know what was going to happen, until he saw the note on his desk. The administration which was then provided for the Army was a very great advance on what we had before. The Esher Committee evidently pointed to some central control of the two forces of that time, the Army and the Navy, and foresaw that ultimately we should have to establish a control board on the top of those two Services. Now we have a third Service, the Royal Air Force, which is vital to the Army and to the Navy, and, therefore, there is greater reason now than in the days of the Esher Committee for the setting up of a central control board. I know
  1020
  that there are many arguments which can be advanced against it. You get professional advice against it; you get the Civil Service giving advice against it.
  A great many hon. Members who have examined this question as closely as they can, feel that we are up against a dead end in the way of economy. No matter what Ministers may say, there is, undoubtedly, expenditure going on that might be stayed. It is only by having some central authority that we can get economy. It would be an advantage to this House if we could have such a, board set up. There is no certainty that the various services will continue as they are now. We are moving in a world of transition. There is no certainty that our great, wonderful battle-line ships will be of any use in the next war. We have the testimony of that great Admiral, the late Sir Percy Scott, that the battleship is an absolute myth; that their day has gone. It is possible with the development of the submarine, or something even more terrible than the submarine, that that class of battleship and that type of warfare will have gone. It is true that the movement in a future war may take the line of a financial war; it may take the line of an oil war, a raw materials war, or a war of chemicals. In that way, you might absolutely eliminate one or, at any rate, part of your present fighting Services. Therefore, there is all the more reason for some central control board being established, which could examine all the means of offence or defence, that we might use against any potential enemy, instead of the purely advisory body in the form of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
  The Committee of Imperial Defence has done wonderfully good work and has advanced greatly our knowledge as to the requirements of the various Services. It has brought us into touch with our Dominions and with the Empire generally, and solved questions which otherwise we could not have solved, but it has no executive power at all, and in order to give it the necessary executive powers we must constitute some body of control and give it a Minister at the head of it who will be able to give orders that certain things shall be done and see that they are done. We are faced with enormous estimates of £120,000,000, divided as to £61,000,000 for the Navy, £41,000,000 for the Army, and £19,000.000 for the Air

  1021
  Force. That is an enormous sum, and, considering the terrible burden of armaments I do think that a case has been made out for having this question very closely examined from every point of view. I am not talking from the technical point of view, but rather from the point of view of the man in the street, the common-sense point of view, following modern procedure in commerce and elsewhere. The Government would do well very seriously to consider this matter and go ahead on the lines of forming some executive body of control for the three forces, and I am sure the House and the country would benefit thereby.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member said that the House owe a debt of gratitude to his party. I gladly pay my tribute to that. This is a discussion that we have desired for some years, and my only regret is that it has never been selected for discussion on one of the days on the Estimates, so that it might have been taken before. I should like, at the outset, to assure the hon. and gallant Member that we on this bench desire to take into most careful consideration anything that may be said from any quarter of the House on this subject that interests us all so much. I had intended, in any case, to make, I am afraid, a somewhat lengthy statement to the House, because these matters have not been discussed, and it is useful to discuss them; and when my hon. and gallant Friend said that we had dropped back into the pre-War conditions, I felt that when a man of his experience, knowledge and skill could make such a statement it was all the more necessary for the House to have some such statement as that which I propose to make this afternoon.
  On one general principle I feel sure that we are all agreed. We all want economy. We all want to avoid duplication. We want efficiency, and we want to get full value for the money we spend. The real difference between us, or one of the great differences between us, is how we may best achieve the end which we all desire. There are, I know—this will probably be said this afternoon, as it has been said in the article to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred—those who advocate in some form or another what is called a Ministry of Defence: a very wide term that covers a very great principle in many different
  1022
  ways. It has been spoken of either as a fusion of the three Departments into one Department under one Minister, or as a position in which the Ministers themselves are abolished and one man does all their work. The amalgamation of administrative services, staff colleges and so forth have all been adumbrated as variants to these proposals.
  In so far as I speak about any of these matters, I do not speak about them in any controversial spirit. I want, to try to examine them on their merits, and say here that I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend that we are in a period of transition. Evolution is going on. I cannot say what the form of administration is to be in the years to come. I can only say that it is not static, and give my reasons for considering that a continuation of the present progressive methods, which have been adapted for some years past, is, I believe, what meets our peculiar conditions best at the present moment. Administratively, over-centralisation is an evil; it is as great an evil as excessive decentralisation. We have a number of Ministries in this country dealing with internal affairs—Agriculture, Health, Labour, the Post Office and so forth; and external affairs are dealt with by the Foreign Office, the Dominions and Colonial Office and the India Office. Over them all you have financial considerations and the Treasury.
  No one with administrative experience would consider for a moment the amalgamation into a single Department of these groups of offices on the civil side. You would have over-centralisation and would inevitably lose your grip on the whole. You would have an insufficient grip, and in my view any Minister trying to work a group of that kind, and certainly his staff, would break down. We must remember that these Departments have not grown up haphazard. They have arisen gradually to meet a real administrative need, and in the past it has been just the same in the Departments that have to deal with defence. Their common denominator of course is war—the defence of this country—but the principles are the same for all of them. The policy should be a single one. But we must remember that, in spite of all developments up to date, the work of the Navy still is on the sea, of the Army on the land and of the Air Force in the air. That being so, each of these Services has its own very

  1023
  peculiar problems—problems of staff and strategy and tactics and personnel and armament and supply and organisation.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Strategy is the same with all three.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a fine distinction, but I see the hon. and gallant Member's point. Our problem is to see that they all act on a common principle, that they carry out a single policy, and that their various functions and responsibilities are defined and—here I am going to use the blessed word that the hon. and gallant Member who raised this question used so often—"co-ordinated," so that on the one hand you will have no overlap and on the other hand no hiatus. But even in peacetime the work of supervising these three Departments effectively would be a very heavy burden for a single Minister. I think that anyone who is not a superman, which I have never claimed to be, would find the burden intolerable. Such a Minister would have to co-ordinate the work of these three offices, the defence force as a whole and the groups of services relating respectively to the air, the sea and the land. He would require a Navy Council, an Air Council and an Army Council and probably a Defence Council, and he would have to preside at all these Councils himself, because both in the Cabinet and in Parliament he would have to speak with the same knowledge as is displayed to-day by the three separate Ministers of the three separate Departments. In addition, if he was to pull his weight in the boat, he would have to take his share of Cabinet Committees; and, while it is true that, I believe, the Prime Minister combines in his person more Departments even than three, I do not think there are many men in Europe who would safely undertake more than one.
  The Services exist, however, not for peace, but for war: that is their raison d'être. It is quite true that our armaments to-day are maintained at the very minimum necessary to meet the obligations of our Empire. There will be few who would object to that statement. They are little more in the world to-day than a police force, and the machinery under which we can organise ourselves if, which God forbid, there should again
  1024
  be war. But should a great expansion of the forces again become necessary, it. seems to me that a single Department, a single control, would inevitably break down. On this subject the Leader of the Liberal party, who, I believe, will follow me, of course had more experience during the War than any living man,, and we shall all be interested to hear his views. We have to remember that, although you had the titanic energy of Lord Kitchener and those who worked with him in the creation of the New Armies in the early days of the War, yet additional Departments were formed rapidly, and before the War was over there were 10 new Ministries created in this country and over 160 boards and committees. That this was no singular fact in Europe is shown from this—that France, presumably a country more ready for war than we, created nine new Ministries, and Italy at least four. The war problem was not one of centralisation: it was a matter of co-ordination, and, if I may so put it, co-ordinated decentralisation.
  In a future war of magnitude there is no doubt, I think—although I should be prepared to listen to argument to the contrary—that your single Ministry would have to be expanded before long into many. By analogy with the Great War that is certainly so. I cannot say that a scheme is sound under which you would have to expand the Ministry of Defence into Ministries such as that of National Service and Munitions, and add the separate Ministries that you would undoubtedly have to form of the Navy, Army and Air Force. Then, of course, the alternative, Which has sometimes been described, to the single Ministry of Defence, is the super-Minister over existing Ministries. I do not know whether the phrase used in the Order Paper, of co-ordinated authority with full executive powers over the Departments, the Navy,, Army and Air, would be such a super-Minister, but it does introduce difficulties of another form.
  What is going to happen in the Cabinet when the super-Minister differs from one of the Ministers under him? Matters of dispute must come before the Cabinet. In the Cabinet all Ministers are equal. The position will be an extremely difficult one. Of course, I know it has been said, and said often, as the reason for having

  1025
  one Minister, that three Ministers representing the fighting Services give undue weight to the demands for money for the fighting Services in battling with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I think it is only fair to remember—none of us wants to see our fighting Services skinned below the safety point—that if you have but one Minister, then again, unless he is very much a super-man, one Minister in the Cabinet to defend all the fighting Services will have a very unequal handicap against the Cabinet and against the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The hon. and gallant Member made allusion to sundry committees which in the past have considered this subject. I do not propose to take much time over these, but I must refer to two or three of them. Between 1921 and 1925, we began with the Geddes Committee. That was the first Committee held. There my hon. and gallant Friend got what he wanted. It was a Committee of business experts. The next Committee was the Weir Committee of 1922, and after that Lord Salisbury's and Lord Balfour's Committee of 1923. Both those Committees reported. Lord Salisbury's Committee thought that the reasons were overwhelming as against all proposals for setting up a Ministry of Defence or any Minister of Defence with authority overriding that of the Ministers at the head of the Service Departments, or combined staff. That was a Committee formed out of the then existing Cabinet, with the addition of Lord Weir. The Weir Committee of 1926 reported that
  "in existing circumstances the complete or partial amalgamation of the common services of the fighting Departments is not advisable, as no substantial economies would thereby be effected."
  That was a Committee on which no Minister sat. Those two inquiries confirmed the views expressed by a Committee of which Lord Haldane was Chairman—on "The Machinery of Government," in 1918—in favour of maintaining the present system. That was a rather remarkable Committee. It may interest the House to recall to mind the names of those who composed it. Its members were: Lord Haldane, Mr. Edwin Montagu, Sir Robert Morant, Sir George Murray, Sir Alan Sykes, Mr. J. H. Thomas and Mrs. Sidney Webb.
  1026
  Those views, of course, as my hon. and gallant Friend indicated in his speech, have been shared both by the Service and the civilian advisers of the Government. At the present moment I can see no useful purpose in having a fresh investigation on the lines of the investigations which have taken place so recently. It would re-awaken the controversy—there is never any advantage in that—and it would tend to take the spring out of the machinery of defence. When hon. Members have been good enough to listen to the end of what I have to say, they will see that a great deal of progress has been made, and in all the circumstances I hope they will agree that to continue on that line of progress is on the whole the wisest course to pursue in the immediate future. People do not always. realise that defence questions do concern many other Departments besides the Departments of the Fighting Services. They concern the Foreign Office, they concern the India Office, they concern the Dominions and Colonial Office and they concern the Board of Trade. It is rather interesting to remember that out of more than 50 sub-Committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence only one is confined entirely to Service representatives. Out of the last 100 subjects which came before the main Committee, it was found that only five did not involve one or more of the civilian Departments.
  The present system—and I think it is well for us to try and keep this firmly and adequately in our minds—hinges to-day, as it has done for 5.0 p.m. many years past, on the Cabinet. The defence policy is a part of Government policy, and it cannot be considered apart from the foreign and Imperial policy for which the Cabinet, as the Executive of Parliament, is and must be responsible. But since the creation of the Committee of Imperial Defence, the Government of the day have been advised by that Committee. The Committee of Imperial Defence have also been invited to assist the Governments both of India and of the Dominions, and, whenever their advice is asked, they are always ready to examine any question submitted to them. The Committee of Imperial Defence is an advisory and a consultative body. This does not mean that all their recommendations go to the Cabinet. No Cabinet would have time

  1027
  to deal with them. All questions of policy, of course, are referred to the Cabinet, but many recommendations on lesser questions, which, if they were departmental, would fall to be dealt with by the departmental Minister, are dealt with under Ministerial authority. It is possible at any time, bearing out what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) said, to convert in case of emergency the consultative body—the Committee of imperial Defence—into a deciding body. The position of the Committee of Imperial Defence was very strongly upheld from that point of view by Mr. Asquith as an advisory consultative body. Speaking in this House in the early days of the working of the Committee he always laid great stress on the authority of the Cabinet, and under our system, if I may repeat it, the Cabinet, as the executive body of Parliament, must be the body which has the ultimate voice and the ultimate authority. The Committee consists theoretically of the Prime Minister and such persons as he chooses to ask to assist in the deliberations of that Committee.
  I think a statement has been made before on the present composition of that body, but I will make it again. The Prime Minister has asked to be summoned regularly, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, the Colonies and Dominions, War, India and the Air, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Chiefs of Staff of the three Fighting Services and the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury as the head of the Civil Service. Other Ministers, officials and experts are summoned ad hoc. The Esher Committee laid down in 1904 that they considered it vitally necessary to have the Prime Minister of the day as the invariable President of the Committee of Imperial Defence. In the pressure after the War, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is going to follow me, knows that it had to be delegated at times and that it will be necessary again, perhaps, to do so.
  On the death of Lord Curzon, who had been presiding over that Committee and was presiding over it when I became Prime Minister, I decided myself to
  1028
  resume the Chairmanship, and I have conducted it ever since. Experience has shown me, as I think it must show everyone in office, that as all important questions of policy come before the Cabinet, it is very important that the Prime Minister should be familiar with those subjects from their inception. He is far better able to handle them, and if, unhappily, there should be a war again at any time, it is necessary that the Prime Minister should be familiar, as far as a layman can be, with all the defence problems and with the higher personnel in the Services, because the responsibility for much of the control in war-time must fall on the Prime Minister of the day. Thirdly, and not unimportant, unless the Prime. Minister of the day is familiar with the defence problems, it is not so easy for him to do what lies in his power to effect such economies as are practicable in dealing with the Estimates of the various Services. I should like to pay tribute to the great work that one of my colleagues, who, unfortunately—I hope only temporarily—is laid aside by illness, Lord Balfour, has rendered to this Committee for a great many years.
  The Committee of Imperial Defence, from its personnel the House will see, contains a number of men who are very busy in their ordinary work, and it would be impossible for them to examine in detail all the questions that come before that Committee. That is the primary reason for the creation of the sub-committees which do so much of the work. At the present time, there are over 50 of these sub-committees. Some of them are permanent and some ad hoc. Last year about 400 people worked on these various committees, including. 20 Ministers, 126 Service representatives, 158 civil servants, and 86 outside experts. Now I come to the question asked of me by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He asked how often the Committee of Imperial Defence had met during the present Parliament. The answer is: the main Committee—that is, the Committee of Imperial Defence itself—44 times. That is to say, once in every two or three weeks during the Session of Parliament. The sub-committees have had 556 meetings, making a total of 600 meetings. I have excluded from this total many inquiries by Cabinet Committees or Inter-

  1029
  Departmental Committees which bear closely on defence and where the Secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defence have rendered very valuable assistance.
  I want to say a word or two about the organisation of this Committee. Hon. Members who are familiar with the working of the Service Departments will recollect that the Minister at the head of the Department presides at the Board or Council. The first professional member deals with General Staff questions, strategy and tactics; the second professional member deals with Personnel; and there are one or more professional members who deal with questions of Supply and Transport and so forth. The Committee of Imperial Defence is organised on these lines. The Prime Minister corresponds to the Departmental Ministers inside his office, and he presides over the whole body. Then the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee corresponds to the Chief of Staff of the Service Departments. The Man Power Committee, which I shall have occasion to mention later, corresponds to the second professional member, and there is a committee called the Principal Supply Officers Committee, which corresponds to the third and fourth professional member. The great step forward which has been taken quite recently has been the creation of the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee. The functions of this Committee have been described and, I think, given to this House in the Report of Lord Salisbury's Committee of 1923.
  "In addition to the functions of the Chiefs of Staff as advisers on questions of sea, land or air policy respectively to their own Board or Council, each of the three Chiefs of Staff will have an individual and collective responsibility for advising on defence policy as a whole, the three constituting, as it were, a Super-Chief of a War Staff in Commission. In carrying out this function, they will meet together for the discussion of questions which affect their joint responsibilities."
  This individual and collective responsibility has been emphasised in the last year by the issue to each of a warrant signed by the Prime Minister. The advantage of this change is that the Committee of Imperial Defence now receive collective advice on all General Staff questions instead of receiving, as in the past, separate and even contradictory advice from three different quarters.
  1030
  Another great advantage of this Committee working as a single unit is in regard to the initiation of questions to be raised by the Committee of Imperial Defence. Initiative used to rest with the Prime Minister alone, but now the Chiefs of Staff have a direct responsibility to advise the Chairman in the matter of initiative. They are particularly well equipped for performing this function, because not only do they study the different problems of Imperial Defence as they arise, but they have to furnish the Committee of Imperial Defence every year with a survey of the whole defence problem. This survey which they present every year to the Commitee of Imperial Defence is founded on a separate survey of the International situation by the Foreign Office, and contains recommendations—and it is a point worth noting—as to the priority of Service needs. That is where, in defence, the spending of money can be postponed if the amount is limited where money in any case ought to be spent.
  We have found that of very great value in the last year or two. The Committee of Chiefs of Staff is under the direct control of the Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence. When political guidance is required on questions they are discussing, then the Prime Minister presides over the meeting of the three Chiefs of Staff. When matters under consideration are technical, then the Chiefs of Staff meet, and the chair is taken by one of their number. Questions of detail are remitted by them to the appropriate members of the Staffs of the three Services for study and consideration. Thus we get the close contact throughout the three Services, which certainly has been lacking in the past and which, so far as I am able to judge, has brought the three Services for the purpose of consultation into far closer co-ordination than they have ever yet attained. There is an Overseas Defence Committee which has been functioning for 40 years, and a Home Defence Committee which has been functioning for 20 years, and the Joint Committee of the two, as well as the Committee of the General Staff Officers recently established at the instance of the Chiefs of Staff themselves, work together in the orbit of the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee.

  1031
  That has a co-ordinating effect right through bodies which used to meet separately and entirely by themselves. I cannot over-estimate the value of the work which has been done and is being done by this Chiefs of Staff sub-committee. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose was evidently feeling after something of this kind when he alluded to Iraq. I would like to assure him that when the crisis arose a year ago in Shanghai we found that the Chiefs of Staff of the three Services working together had explored as a common service the possibility of trouble of that kind before it happened, so, when it did arise in Shanghai, and it arose very suddenly, they were able to give a full joint appreciation to the Cabinet of the whole position, and it was of very great assistance to the Cabinet in taking the decision it had to take in getting out that expedition, in deciding on its numbers and its personnel. We were advised all through the critical months by this joint committee with promptitude and with wisdom.
  Then as to the Imperial Defence College. That was started as an experiment on a small scale. It was established only in January of last year. The object was to train a body of officers drawn from all the Services, with just a sprinkling of civilians, in all the aspects of Imperial strategy. The college is situated in Buckingham Gate, and is fortunate enough in having as its first director Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond. I have had the pleasure of going over the college, talking to the men, and seeing the work they do. The first course was completed at the end of last year, and the second course is just beginning. At the present time there are 25 students there, and we are hoping that in time the college may grow. There are five naval officers, six Army, four Air Force, four from the Dominions, two from India, and four civil servants, including one Australian. We believe that this bringing together of officers of the type that are attending this course at present will result before many years are passed in our having in the officers of higher rank men who have been trained not only in the strategy of the branch of the Service to which they belong, but in the broadest general strategy comprising Air, Navy,
  1032
  and Army, and that therefore we may gradually get amongst those who in years to come will be the leaders of the various defensive forces of this country that habit of working together and regarding defence problems as a single united problem which will be of the utmost value to the country in the future.
  I have already alluded, with only one or two dissenting voices, to the smallness of the forces at the disposal of this country to-day. However remote we hope and believe the prospect of war to be yet, bearing in mind how we are situated in our island, with these small forces, I do not think any Government can allow the country to be unprepared, and so it is that we are following the example of other countries and are examining with great care and keeping under examination, reviewing the whole time, the steps that will be necessary to take in the event of trouble. The bulk of this branch of the activities of a Committee of Imperial Defence falls on the two Sub-Committees, the Man-Power Committee and the Principal Supply Officers' Committee. Both have been at work for several years, and have made considerable progress. Both work under the Chairmanship of the President of the Board of Trade, who had exceptional experience during the War on the very matters with which these Committees have to deal. I do not think the House will expect or desire that I should go into the details of the work of these Committees, but I may just mention in addition to them, the main Sub-Committees that are constantly at, work in connection with the Committee of Imperial Defence.
  There are the Committees on Disarmament, on War Trade questions; Censorship of all kinds; Imperial Communications; Oil Fuel; Insurance in Time of War; Air Raids Precautions, and the protection of civilians in time of war; War Emergency Legislation, and the Coordinating Committee, whose duty it is to keep the War Book up-to-date. All these Committees, even those whose work is practically finished, are kept alive by having to send in an annual report to the Committee of Imperial Defence of their work for the year. So far as the Empire Overseas is concerned, India has always been represented by the Secretary of State, or by his military

  1033
  Secretary or one of his officials; and the present Commander-in-Chief in India and his predecessor, and the Chief of the General Staff in India, have all attended meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence. So far as the Prime Ministers of the Dominions are concerned, we keep them informed on all matters relating to our work with which they ought to be acquainted. The documents which are forwarded to them for their confidential use are supplemented, as the House knows, by unreserved statements at the time of the meeting of the Imperial Conference, and not infrequently the Dominions consult us on matters relating to their own defence, and in such cases, as I stated earlier in my speech, we are only too glad to give them such advice as we can or lend them such technical help as we think desirable in their case.
  The Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence is Sir Maurice Hankey, who is also Secretary to the Cabinet, and there, again, that link gives you the closest co-operation between the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence and the work of the Cabinet. There are four Assistant Secretaries, one drawn from the Army, one from the Navy, one from the Air Force, and one from the Indian Army. This Secretariat supplies the secretarial duties of the whole organisation, and when it has to be reinforced, as it sometimes has for the purposes of a particular inquiry, it is reinforced by experts from other Departments. The co-ordination of principle, of policy and of detail in the sphere of defensive preparation on the staff side is very complete. I am afraid I must say a little about what has been done on the administrative side—I am sorry to take up so much time of the House. In 1922–23, the Weir Committee, which was set up to examine these matters, advised against a complete or partial amalgamation of the common services of the Fighting Departments, but they did recommend the establishment of a number of co-ordinating Committees, and, as a result of that recommendation, a number of such Committees have been working and reporting on the common services. A hundred meetings took place during last year on this subject, additional to the figures I have given for the meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
  1034
  The House was informed two years ago that in addition to the collaboration secured in matters of detail by direct and frequent intercommunication between officials of the Service Contracts Departments, co-ordination on general questions was secured by the Contracts Co-ordinating Committee, composed of the three Directors of Contracts. This system has been extended on the recommendation of the Estimates Committee of this House by bringing into the Committee the Post Office, Office of Works, and a representative of the Treasury. The Committee is also linked up with the Principal Supply Officers' Committee, and these methods of co-ordination are supplemented by the work of five co-ordinating committees, to which all questions of the co-ordination of patterns are now referred by the Contracts Co-ordinating Committee, and which act in general in consultation with that Committee. The five technical committees deal with foodstuffs, clothing, textiles, mechanical transport, and with general stores—dealing with which there are 11 sub-committees—medical stores and veterinary stores. The closest possible touch is thus maintained between the three Departments in regard both to contract policy and the adoption of common standards, patterns and designs of supplies and stores for the three Services. The policy of the service Departments is directed to agency contracts, wherever they are appropriate, and in other cases to the synchronisation of tenders and the utilisation of common specifications and co-operation in costing investigations.
  There is a technical costing staff borne on the Naval Vote which undertakes investigation for all the Service Departments and the Government of India. There are joint contracts for some articles of common use between the three Departments, and contracts are placed concurrently, after joint comparison of tenders, for petrol by the Admiralty, War Office, Air Ministry, Post Office and Office of Works. Again as a result of the suggestion made by the Estimates Committee, household coals are treated similarly. Contracts for condensed milk for the Navy and Army are placed after consultation between the two Departments, and in the case of other articles there are joint contracts, or else one Department will purchase for another. Foodstuffs, rifles, small arms ammuni-

  1035
  tion, and other necessaries are supplied or purchased by the War Office for the Air Ministry, while torpedoes, compasses and marine parts and spares are purchased by the Admiralty for the Air Ministry. In addition there are co-ordinating Committees dealing with the Chaplains' Services.
  All this work, very detailed, and involving in the case of thousands of articles, different demands on the part of the three Services, is continued throughout the year. From the voluminous and technical reports on the subject showing what is, in the aggregate, a remarkable achievement, it is difficult to pick out what is sufficiently outstanding to interest the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose said a word about the Medical Services, and I would like to show, by way of illustration, what, is being done by co-operation between the hospitals at the present time. I think in that respect there has been a move forward in the last year or two. The Air Force maintains no separate hospital at home except the two big isolated stations of Halton and Cranwell, which have no hospital in the neighbourhood, and a small officers' hospital of five-and-twenty beds at Uxbridge for dealing with flying accidents which may occur at that centre. But, abroad, where the Royal Air Force is in control, they maintain their own hospitals, and during 1926 there were up to 3,000 admissions of personnel of the Navy, the British and Indian Armies, and local forces of Iraq and Palestine treated in the Air Force hospitals. The military hospitals at Cosham and Devonport were closed in that year and arrangements were made for the sick of the Portsmouth military area and of the military stations in the Devonport area, to be treated in the Royal Victoria Hospital at Netley or the Royal Naval Hospital at Haslar and the Royal Naval Hospital at Plymouth.
  No less than 3.000 of the Royal Air Force personnel received treatment in the Navy and Army and civil hospitals during the last 12 months period for which figures are available. In the same way there has been a considerable treatment of Air Force and Army patients in the Navy hospitals both at home and abroad. The possibility of pooling other hospital arrangements has been examined
  1036
  and in some cases found impracticable, but there are some others which are still under investigation. The Air Force makes no general contracts in regard to medical supplies itself, They take the existing Army contracts; and standardisation and pooling have been agreed to, in principle, in regard to the ambulance trains, and the details are being worked out. The India Office are being invited to co-operate and a number of other matters are being studied now by the Joint Medical Services Committee. In research, co-ordination is effected through three co-ordinating Boards for Chemistry, Physics and Engineering. Service and civilian wireless research is co-ordinated by the Radio Research Board. The Estimates Committee, again, in one of their admirable reports, draw attention to the danger of overlapping between scientific research undertaken by the Service and Civilian Departments, and the Government, therefore, referred the whole question to the Committee on Civil Research. That Committee has recently reported on the subject, and their recommendations are at present under consideration by the Government.
  The various co-ordinating Committees to which I have referred, present reports annually and simultaneously to the Committee of Imperial Defence by whom they are examined and, supplementing all this work, is the work of the Treasury in securing economy and avoiding overlapping, and the valuable labours of the Estimates Committee of this House and of the Public Accounts Committee. I have no doubt that the Weir Committee was right in advising that no substantial economies would necessarily follow amalgamation, but I am convinced that, on the administrative side, we shall produce, as we are producing, better results by the steady and continual pressure of the present system which I have endeavoured to describe.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Who examines the reports in the Committee of Imperial Defence? The right hon. Gentleman said that the reports of all these Committees were referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence. What then happens to them?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee of Imperial Defence itself examines a great many of them and the

  1037
  reports for the Cabinet are examined by the Cabinet. I examine a great many myself. A great many deal with Departmental matters, and are examined by the Ministers concerned and the Departments concerned. I do not think that such a system as I have attempted to describe, which has been slowly evolving, can be properly described as a Ministry of Defence but it certainly has provided a vast system of co-ordination of principle, policy and detail between the three Service Departments, such as did not exist before the War. You get it in the principal sub-divisions of General Staff, Personnel and Supply. You get it throughout the administrative functions of the departments wherever those services are common, and you get it in the activities of all Departments wheresoever defence is concerned, whether those Departments be, miliary or whether they be civil. That form of wide co-ordination is one which a Ministry of Defence by itself could not obtain, at any rate without having made the same exertions as we have made, and yet it is of the first importance to get that co-ordination because as Sir William Robertson said quite truly at the Royal United Service Institution:
  "War is not nearly so much a matter for soldiers and sailors alone as soldiers and sailors sometimes think. On the contrary, it embraces all the activities of the nation."
  In the system which is stressed in the Resolution on the Order Paper the decision rests with the Cabinet, where the power of final decision always lies and must lie under any system. Now, the existing system does preserve the responsibility of the Cabinet for deciding policy and the responsibility of Ministers for carrying it out. It provides for the continuous investigation of every kind of defence problem, whether it be of policy or of detail, and in the annual review by the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee, there is an annual stocktaking of the position as a whole. Owing to its consultative character the machinery available can give advice to His Majesty's Government here and to His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, and to the Government in India and it can pass by easy transition from a state of peace into a state of war. The Committee of Imperial Defence provides a meeting place between Ministers and the Fighting Services and the Civil Service and enables
  1038
  all branches of the public service to study together the problems which would confront the country as a whole in the event of war. The Committee of Imperial Defence, in my view, is of the very greatest value to the present system. The present system of three Service Ministers instead of one ensures that the Cabinet, be the Government what it may, will always contain a certain proportion of Ministers with past and present knowledge of the Services and of Defence problems.
  The system is progressive; it is trusted by Ministers and by the Services and is not unsuited to our Constitution. We are in an age of transition, and what I have attempted to describe is a process of evolution which is going on. Where that process of evolution may bring us, I do not know. I will make no prophecy this evening as to what developments may take place. Whatever proposals or suggestions are made this afternoon, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government are prepared to consider without prejudice and with care; but to make so great a change quickly now, from the existing system which we know is working well, and to exchange it for a system untried and open to many objections, would be to throw over many weighty reports made in the last three or four years. Before we do that, we should require the production of very solid and very convincing arguments. I have to thank the House for having listened to me so patiently, but I wanted to give the House all the information I had up to date. I hoped that it would make a good foundation for discussion. Much of what I have said may be criticised. We welcome criticism. We have no objection to it at all. It is all legitimate matter for discussion. I have only, as I said before, to thank the House for the attention with which they have listened to a long and rather dry discourse on this subject, and I await the remainder of the Debate with interest.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Prime Minister certainly need not have apologised for the technical statement, which was crowded with very informative matter, and was also instructive as to the present position, and as to the developments which have taken place since the War in the Committee of Imperial Defence. Personally, I inter-

  1039
  vane with very great reluctance in these discussions on defence. I have done so very rarely, but, having had some experience of the difficulties with which Governments arc confronted, I should like to make one or two observations. The Prime Minister, in the first part of his speech, was very critical of the proposal put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) with regard to unification of control, but I think the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was simply a long argument in favour of it. He gave us a list of a very large number of committees. There was a regular warren of committees, all breeding a numerous progeny of sub-committees, and the only suggestion which my hon. and gallant Friend makes is that it is about time that a keeper was appointed to look after them. I think all these committees are invaluable for the purposes of exploration. I am not criticising the appointment of one of them, and the same remark applies to the sub-committees and the sub-sub-committees, and the co-ordinating committees. Putting them together, no doubt, they are all valuable, and it is a very valuable organisation, but what is needed is some sort of control—some sort of unification. They are all useful for exploration, but futile for action. In fact, there is a real danger that the activities of all these sub-committees may end in more expenditure unless there is control.
  The Prime Minister has dealt a good deal with the question of Cabinet control. I have been a member of a great many Cabinets, and the control of the Cabinet is not as intimate, as close, as effective, as one would wish it to be. After all, what really happens in the Cabinet is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War brings forward his Estimates and then his right hon. Friends bring forward their Estimates. They never criticise each other. There is a tacit understanding that they will always vote for each other's Estimates. I am not talking about the present Ministers, but of the practice. The Prime Minister says that if you have only one man, the Chancellor will have only one man to deal with. I agree that with the present Chancellor, at least three men would be needed. What is
  1040
  the present state of things? You have three to one. It is idle to pretend that when the War Minister brings forward his Estimates he has only himself to depend upon; he can always depend upon the support of the other two Service Ministers. I remember a story told about the late Sir Michael Hicks-Beach when he went to the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Somebody asked one of the Ministers what had happened. He replied: "Hicks-Beach was I against 19; all the Ministers combined in order to rob the Exchequer." The same thing happens in regard to the Services.
  The sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence sat for over 500 days, and I am sceptical whether the members of the Cabinet read 5 per cent. of the voluminous reports that are produced. After all, all the other Ministers are peppering their colleagues with memoranda on every conceivable subject under the sun. They could not read them, if they had nothing else to do. The idea that the 20 members of the Cabinet could sit down, and laboriously peruse and blue pencil all the documents produced by the innumerable subcommittees, which have taken 550 days' work of able men to prepare, is perfectly preposterous. I am not criticising the present Cabinet, but am talking in the abstract about all Cabinets, with this difference, that it seems to me that the control is getting more remote than ever. You have to go through a labyrinth of sub-committees in order to find the smallest rabbit in the warren before you really can control anything.
  I should be sorry to say the least thing against the Committee of Imperial Defence. It was founded by Lord Balfour, and undoubtedly justified his prescience in the appointment. The work that they did in the matter of exploration was invaluable when we came to the War, but nobody ever dreamt of considering it as a controlling authority. It was an informing and instructing body, and it was a very good thing to get these great experts to meet politicians, for whom they have the greatest contempt, in order that they could compare their ideas. But, after all, it did not solve the difficulties which actually arose in the War. War makes short work of all these things unless there is

  1041
  a reality. What were the difficulties? I agree with the Prime Minister that we hope that there will be no more wars. We are increasingly hopeful. I think Europe is so exhausted that we will not get wars, however much the provocation, for a great many years to come.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is the use of the Army and Navy then?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am coming to that later on. That is the experience of the past. A great country like our's cannot proceed on the assumption that a war is utterly impossible, and take all risks and hazards and have no preparations. That is the assumption on which I am proceeding. I am not proceeding on the assumption that there is a probability, or even the possibility, of war. I am only taking into account the fact that this country must not run that hazard. Proceeding on that assumption, I say that we ought to learn the lessons of the last War, and it is very odd that nations do not do that. They had not even learned the lessons of the Boer War when they came to the Great War. There were lessons in the Boer War for the Great War. There was the lesson, first of all, of trenches. How formidable they were as a means of defence. That was the lesson which was taught to the Boers by a French officer who came out of the French Army. Yet the French Army itself had not learned the lesson when the Great War began. They had not learned the lesson that the ordinary light artillery and shrapnel were worthless for trenches. At Paardeberg there was hardly a man killed in the trenches. Tugela and Magersfontein were the same, and that lesson was never taken up by any army in Europe until the German Army took it up. I am only taking that as an illustration of the fact that we are not now learning some of the lessons of the late War from the point of view of defence.
  One of them is the danger of dual control. I do not want to raise controversial issues, but I am bound to point out two things that happened. I shall never forget, for instance, the time that was wasted in the controversy between the Army and the Navy upon the question of the Air. Weeks were wasted in discussing that matter; for instance, who should control and who should manu-
  1042
  facture, and what were the relations of the one to the other? Valuable time was wasted over the competition between the Army and Navy for material, for manufacturers, and on the question as to where munitions should be manufactured, and on the question of filling process. The most disastrous illustration of all was the Dardanelles; that most decisive, disastrous, and irreparable incident of the whole War would not have happened if there had been one control. I am not criticising anybody in particular; I am criticising the system. There was an attack by one force, and an attack by both. If the Army had been ready to go to Gallipoli when the Navy attacked, it would have made the whole difference. There was no co-ordination between the forces of any sort or kind. One Minister was in control of one part of the attack, another Minister was in control of the other part of the attack, which was probably the more important. It was really only a question of a few hours that did it, even in the end. Those hours would have been saved, and a great deal more would have been saved also, if there had been, not co-ordination in the sense of committees to explore, but co-ordination of action, of command and of direction, and the worst disaster of the War would have been prevented. I do not like to express an opinion with regard to that. It is obvious to anybody who reads, and certainly for all those who sat there and saw what was happening, and saw that there was complete lack of co-ordination between the two forces.
  Take the instance of the coast of Flanders. I do not believe that coast would have been lost—and everybody knows what a disastrous effect that had on the course of the War, especially in regard to submarines—if there had been more complete co-ordination between the two forces in strategy, in realising the importance of Flanders, and in making the Army and Navy work together, and even to realise the strategical importance of that particular coast to the whole of commerce, trade and life of this country. These are only two or three illustrations of what I mean. The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force are not three separate defences; they are only one branch of the defence forces of this country. That is the great lesson of the last War. The

  1043
  Prime Minister has quoted a very striking sentence from Sir William Robertson. No man can speak with greater authority upon this subject than Sir William Robertson, and no one can criticise him on the ground that he has not a proper appreciation of the importance of the military as a defensive element. What was the lesson of the last War? May I give a list of what turned out to be the most important defensive elements of the whole War. First, there was foreign affairs. It was vital. We had Italy on our side, we had the United States of America on our side: they were triumphs for the handling of foreign affairs. But we missed Turkey, we missed Bulgaria, and we certainly did not get the full benefit of Greece. It shows that the Foreign Office is a vital part of the defence arrangements of the country when we go to war.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
  What about Russia?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a more debatable point. If Russia is thrown in, it is only another illustration, but it is a much more arguable problem.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You were responsible for losing Russia.
  6.0 p.m
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not want to go into another Zinovieff letter. The Foreign Office turned out to be as vital as the Army and Navy and the Air Force. Finance, of course, played a greater part in this War than in almost any war, even in the days of Pitt. One of the greatest contributions that America made when she came in was not so much her man-power as the fact that she came in at a very critical moment in the history of the finances of the Allies. Our shipping was a vital link, and, if that had broken down, the Army would have been no use. We could not have supplied our own troops and we could not have supplied the Allies with the necessary supplies and equipment. Man-power! The recruiting sergeant broke down altogether. We had to hand recruiting over to the civilian powers. I am not at all sure that it was not done largely by the Local Government Board; at any rate, it was done through the municipalities and through political agents. The agents of the Con-
  1044
  servative party, the agents of the Liberal party, and I am not at all sure that the agents of the Labour party did not also all come, in and form part of the department dealing with the man-power of the country. Manufactures—that became a civilian department, being essential to defence. Raw materials and coals—the organisation of the exports of this country. Then there were the experts who discovered most of the expedients which enabled us to combat the submarines; and those who deciphered and decoded messages—university experts were useful there. Then there was the organisation of the resources of the Empire. It was not merely the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force that were organised; the whole country was organised, like one huge tank crushing all opposition with all its resources, all its strength, all its motive power. It was the first time that we had waged war in that way. Therefore, when we come to consider questions of defence we must consider the lesson of the late War, and not treat this merely as if it were a problem of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force alone, and say there must be three separate Ministers, one for each. They are one, and we have to supplement them by all the others put together.
  What was it that delayed victory? It was not that we had not studied questions of strategy. It was not that we had not about as perfect a little Army as has ever turned out, or as gallant a little Army. It was not that we had not a magnificent Navy. It was due to the fact that we had not the equipment necessary for our increased man-power. I remember perfectly well how we raised a million men in a very few weeks, and then saw them trudging about without uniforms and without rifles. There was no artillery, there were no machine-guns: and this went on for months and months. As a matter of fact, the equipment of our millions of men was not complete for nearly two years after the War began. That is not quite the ease now, and that has to be borne in mind when we come to the question of expense. The guns are there, the machine-guns are there, the rifles are there. The difficulty with regard to all these things was not merely that we could not manufacture them in time, but that we had not the machinery for their manufacture. We had to begin

  1045
  by manufacturing machines for the manufacture of the parts of guns and of rifles, and that all took time. We have now got our rifles—millions; we have got our guns; and all that ought to be taken into account when we come to the question of expense.
  Then there is training. The one thing the War demonstrated with regard to training in all branches, the training of workmen as well as of soldiers, was that it did not take as long as people had imagined. There was the case of the workmen who were called the skilled workmen. I remember a General telling me that we could not get the men to make the machines—only those who had been at it all their lives. Before the War had gone on very long tens of thousands of girls who had had only two or three months' training were manufacturing the most delicate fuses and the most complicated machinery. The same thing applied to gunners. I saw the other day a quotation from General Rawlinson in which he said I had criticised the gunners. I did not. I passed on to the Army a criticism which was made by Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener's view was that you could not train gunners in a short time, that it would take longer than the War would last to train gunners. As a matter of fact, the machinery is there—for any man who has the knack for machinery. There are some of us who if we spent 15 years over it would know nothing about machinery. It is a question of the knack. There are others who can pick it up in a very short time. That was the experience with regard to the gunners. Lord Rawlinson in his report said our gunnersfired with the greatest precision, they were better in many respects than the enemy, or at least quite equal to them; and they were all men who had had a very short training. Therefore, the trouble was not about the training—of raising the men and of training them.
  All these things have to be taken into account, and I am very glad there are committees, but what we really want is somebody who is in supreme control, and that we have not got at the present moment. I have pointed out what happened in war; the same thing happens in peace. You just have a fight between Ministers as to who shall get the biggest share of such loot as is left. If there
  1046
  is one of them who is either more forcible or more crafty than the others—the First Lord of the Admiralty seems to think I am alluding to him. [Interruption.] I do not in the least deny it. He gets his share of whatever is going. After all, there is only a certain sum of money available. The Government are beginning to realise that. They have been compelled to cut down, after they said they could not. They were forced to do it. What really matters is that we ought to have somebody there, who is quite impartial, to decide, if so much money is available, on what it can be most usefully expended. That we have not got at the present time. Our problem is different from the problem before the War. I have no doubt the Government have decided as a matter of policy—though I do not ask them to state one way or the other now I am sure they must have done it—that in their judgment no war is possible, let us say, for 10 years or 20 years, whatever the date is, and they have organised their policy upon that basis. That is right.
  The 1914 position was different from the present one. Then there was in existence the greatest military empire the world has ever seen, so far as its Army was concerned. There has never been an army comparable to it. Marshal Foch told me so himself—that the German Army which marched into France was the finest military machine the world had ever seen in equipment, in training, in everything that made a powerful, resistless military machine. In addition, they had a very formidable Navy, formidable enough, at any rate, actually to challenge us on the high seas. It is very doubtful whether, as a question of policy, they ought not to have been a little more intrepid. That is one of the things which will be discussed in history. I am sure that if we had been in their position we should have shown more intrepidity than they did, and done more damage than they did. If we had had the same number of ships as they had, and the same ships, and they, on the other hand, had had the same number of ships as we had, we should have made a far better show of it. At that time our relations with that Empire were—I will not say unfriendly, but they were not cordial. They were really better than they had been, but three years before the War we were actually discussing the probability of war

  1047
  and how it should be waged. That Empire, that military machine, is shattered. The Fleet, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, is at the bottom of the sea.
  I am making no predictions and the Prime Minister is wise in taking that line, but I am perfectly certain that nothing will enable the German Empire for a generation or two to get anywhere near the same position of dominant force and menace that it was in before the War. I do not say they desire it—I do not believe there is any such desire in Germany at the present moment. A quarrel with France is simply undebatable—perfectly undebatable. A quarrel with the United States of America is quite unthinkable. Further, there is always the dominant fact that Europe is exhausted, and that we have never had a great war for 40 years after a prolonged war had taken place. We have to take that into account, and, therefore, what we need is a force that will police the Empire and will also be a nucleus for expansion, whatever the emergency may be. You should first of all discover what is the vital minimum. There is a certain class of officer who is invaluable. The non-commissioned officer is very rarely mentioned, but in the late War he turned out to be absolutely essential when it came to organising new forces all over the country. Therefore, a considerable amount of training of a small force is essential. That was one of the arguments used by the French against allowing Germany to have a force of 100,000 men engaged for long service. They would have preferred even conscription—within limits. They did not like the 12 years' service. They said "Every one of those 100,000 men is a potential officer—they are potential non-commissioned officers or potential officers. They will know everything that is to be learned about war from training."
  Our force ought to be a force which is capable of expanding should the emergency arise. The next thing is that we ought to be capable of expanding rapidly from the point of view of equipment. We have the equipment in so far as our knowledge of war goes now. I agree that we may discover some mechanism or some new resource which will make existing equipment obsolete, and if so, we shall be confronted with a new situation,
  1048
  but at the moment there is nothing to make the rifle, the machine gun, or the great guns we had in the last War obsolete. We must consider the possibility of expansion from the point of view of manufacturing capacity. The War Office, the Air Force and the Navy ought to look into the question of whether we have in this country the necessary machinery for producing the things required if they were needful. I have another argument in favour of having some greater co-ordination. I am not at all sure that my right lion. Friend is right in assuming that you can do it by means of a Committee of the Cabinet. I agree with the Prime Minister that nobody will listen to a Committee of the Cabinet unless the Prime Minister presides over it, and that means he has to be the Minister of Defence. I do not think that, with the other duties which the Prime Minister has to perform, it will be possible for him to perform those duties as far as control is concerned. During the last two years of the late War there was a Committee of ex-Ministers who held no office at all. They sat every morning and afternoon, and often late into the night, and they were practically controlling the Department and administering it. It was really an administrative Department. The Haldane Committee recommended the same thing in regard to peace, and that is an idea which cannot be dismissed.
  You have Bills put forward by Ministers. They are circulated, although they are not always read. They come before the Cabinet, and the Minister for the Department makes his statement and then the Cabinet say, "All right." There is nobody there who really sits in control over our peace department under the present organisation. There is a good deal to be said for the principle of the War Cabinet being applied in peace time. There should be a body supervising our peace policy, and co-ordinating our forces for emergencies. If you had a body of that kind now, the problem of unemployment would have been solved long ago. At present it is the business of a Minister to look after his own Department, and he says in regard to these other matters. "I must leave them to somebody else."
  There is one argument which I hesitate to advance, although it is true. You have three Ministers now in charge of defence. There is no Cabinet which has more than

  1049
  a limited number of very able men. Some Cabinets have had more than others. I am not referring to the Coalition Cabinet, but will take the Cabinet of 1895. In that Cabinet you could pick men from two parties who were very able men. That was the first Cabinet I saw in this House, and it was a very able Cabinet indeed. Those men had been trained in two camps and that Cabinet contained a very large proportion of exceptionally clever men. I do not mean to be offensive to the present Ministry, although I could be offensive if I wanted to. I am now dealing with party Cabinets as a whole. As a rule, in a Cabinet there are six very able men, and sometimes there are only about three. The quality of Cabinets varies. Sometimes there are a few very able men in a Cabinet, and it is filled up with people who are net so able and efficient.
  During times of peace the most important Departments are not the Air Force, the Admiralty, the Navy or the Army, but the Departments dealing with trade, agriculture, labour, education, health and the mines, because all those Departments deal with the vital things of the nation and they are vital to our defence. The nation that is the most formidable in war is that which is strong and prosperous, has reserves behind it, and possesses the capacity to build up those reserves. These defence Ministries have a great tradition behind them. If you have these three Departments and one co-ordinating Minister, it is idle to say that he cannot control them. The sort of work Ministers had to do in the War was 20 times as much as the work which is being done by any Minister at the present, time. It might do if you assume that a Ministry is going to last for 20 or 30 years, but God forbid that the present Ministry should be in office for a period like that! On the assumption that Providence will be good to us, I think we shall get a change.
  It is a good thing to put this pressure of work upon the Ministers. The Minister who goes into every sort of detail which ought to be left to the clerk is not administering his office. I have never seen Ministers of that kind who are worth anything. The Minister who examines every paper most carefully often forgets that he is administering a great office. In a great business the head of that, business does not examine every de-
  1050
  tail, and no great Minister ever does that in a well-conducted Department. If you have a man in complete control who is a first-class roan you can spare the other two first-class Ministers. In every Department there are men who are distinctly not first-class. I have listened to all these arguments, and my view is that you will never economise. By economy I do not mean merely saving money but seeing that the money is wisely spent.
  If it is absolutely essential that the nation should find the money, I do not believe that there is a party in this House, and certainly not in the country, who would deny it to any Government. There is, however, a feeling that the money is not wisely spent. At the present moment you have a competition between three departments, and you have to propitiate this one and that one, and see the other chap does not starve. The result is that you build up a huge expenditure. On the other hand, if you said, "We will give you £100,000,000 for the defence of this country upon the assumption that there is no peril of real war with any great Power for 10 number of years," and put it in the hands of one Minister, then you would have a much more effective system than you have got at present. I appeal to the Prime Minister not to be satisfied with this interminable stream of committees who issue reports which we spend a lot of time reading and digesting. At the same time, you must handle this thing, and it is the handling of it that the country wants.
  Mr. AMMON: We ought to be grateful to those who initiated this Debate, because it has produced a lengthy statement from the Prime Minister which gives us some indication of the work that is now being done by the imperial Defence Committee and the various subcommittees. In the labyrinth of committees which he has recited to us, it seems to me that the Prime Minister has made out the strongest possible case for co-ordination. We have been told the position which the Prime Minister occupies in regard to those committees, and the number of meetings held by the Committee of Defence. All this seems to strengthen the case for a reconsideration of the whole question and for the appointment of somebody in the nature of a chief or a Minister of Defence.

  1051
  I want to make it quite clear in speaking from these benches that I feel very much as other hon. Members feel, that no party as a party has yet definitely made up its mind exactly where it stands in regard to all that is involved in this particular position. We are all exploring the situation and we are willing to discuss and try to find ways and means, but we are all convinced that something must be done to supplant the present system which is haphazard, and which cuts across the various departments. I want to recall to the House what I think has given rise to the position that led up to this discussion. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, that we are considering this question in the light of the lessons we learnt during the last War. We have to consider this question now in the face of post-War conditions and the developments which have arisen out of those conditions. We have to consider such questions as the rise and development of the Air Force, the increased mechanisation of the Army, the dispute which exists among experts as to whether or not the capital ship has any place in the Navy of the future, and the various problems that have arisen with regard to co-ordination and efficiency. We have to consider the necessity of finding some point of focus with regard to the future defence of this country.
  The points are threefold. The first is war efficiency, then comes co-ordination and economy, and the third is finance. I deliberately separate economy and finance as not being synonymous terms. With regard to war-time efficiency, there has already been given to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs some indication of the confusion that arose owing to the division of commands and the difficulty of getting proper co-operation during the last War. Judging from the discussions which we have had on the various Estimates during the last few weeks, these difficulties are by no means as simple as they are presented in the development of our three great Services I remember in earlier Debates that the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford
  (Rear-Admiral Sueter) raised the question of the development of the Air Force.
  1052
  All of these facts indicate that the House ought to come to a very definite conclusion on many of these matters. The question has been raised more than once by myself and other Members as to what is going to be the position in the event of a combined naval and Air Force attack—who is going to be in charge, and where is going to be the co-ordinating centre? It is no good waiting till war breaks out, and you are actually involved in a position such as that at Gallipoli, before facing this problem. We have now all the lessons and experience of the last War, and this problem ought to be faced now. To carry that still further, we have the position that might arise with regard to naval and Air Force operations in the wide seas. What is going to happen there? What is going to be the position of the capital ship in circumstances like that? Some people believe, as I humbly, with no expert knowledge, believe, that there is no place for the capital ship in circumstances like that. These matters ought to be faced at a very early opportunity. We have had before us the three sets of Estimates during the past week or two, all of which have had certain provisions for the respective Air Force services, and I defy any hon. Member to get a clear vision of what exactly is entailed with regard to the Air Force, divided up as it is in that manner and presented in separate parts to this House.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evens): Not in the case of the War Office.
  Mr. AMMON: I accept that correction—in the case of the Navy and the Air Force. Surely, on the ground of finance, it is necessary that there should be an opportunity for this House to consider the question of defence as a whole, and not in three separate bites, as we now do with regard to the three separate Services. We are unable to visualise the position from the war point of view, or consider exactly what is involved in either co-ordination or finance. With regard to co-ordination, in the Estimates Committee we have been giving some considerable attention to a number of services which are common to the three fighting Services, and, from what the Prime Minister has told us to-night, we gather that those Reports have not fallen

  1053
  on deaf ears, but that some consideration has been given to them, and co-ordination has taken place in regard to hospitals, stores and so forth. It must strike the House that services of this kind can be dealt with in a lump rather than divided up in the manner in which they have been, and in that respect something has been done, so that we need not give much time to that; but with regard to other matters it does seem that the country has a right to have the Estimates presented in such a form in future as to afford some general idea of what money is to be expended, and to make it possible to discuss the Estimates with regard to the application and the operation of all three Services at once.
  The Prime Minister, in his statement just now, led us, as I have said, through a labyrinth of committees and sub-committees, which I imagine has rather overwhelmed the House, and left it without any very clear idea as to what exactly the separate functions are; but one thing that must stand out quite clearly is that, given a time of emergency, no Prime Minister, be he ever such a super-man, can combine the duties of Prime Minister and Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, with all these complications and ramifications of committees and sub-committees. It seems to me that in that statement the Prime Minister has made the case for a co-ordinating head, whose sole business it shall be to visualise the whole problem of Imperial defence, and to be the person responsible for it. I wish to make it quite clear that in this matter I speak entirely for myself, and I imagine that no Member of the House is quite in a position to commit his party as a whole to any definite policy with regard to this matter. All of us are open to conviction and argument with regard to it. It, seems to me, however, that there can be no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister himself has put forward an unchallengeable argument that it will be impossible for him or anyone else to carry on work like that, should an emergency arise when we might find ourselves having to consider the question of war. Surely, then, we ought not to wait until the time arrives when we are faced with an emergency, but ought to consider the whole problem with a view to finding the right person or persons to study this position in order to be ready fully
  1054
  equipped should that time ever unfortunately arise. That, really, is the main problem with which we are concerned at the present time.
  We know, of course, that there are a great many difficulties in regard to it. There is, first of all, the tradition of the old Services. They, naturally, and one Cannot blame them, will resent any attempt to push them down from the position which they now occupy into a secondary position under general scheme, but war cannot be waged on traditions, and events are rapidly changing, so rapidly that it is almost impossible to keep pace with them. The whole question of war in the future on land, having regard to the mechanisation of armies, and at sea in connection with the defence of our narrow waters, which has now largely been taken away from the Navy and handed over to the Air Force; the re-orientation of our naval forces, the re-distribution of our dockyards, with more and more of the dockyards in our home waters falling out of use, and other dockyards being opened up in other parts of the Empire as bases for our naval forces—all this calls for fresh views and a fresh outlook. I submit that, at least, it is worth while considering, and the Government might consider, having an Expert Committee to consider whether the time has not arrived when a Ministry of Imperial Defence, or some equivalent, should be established for the purpose of planning out the scheme in a very different way from the present one.
  One point that I want to press is the position of this House with regard to its control over matters of finance. It is absolutely impossible for us to exercise proper control in the present circumstances, with the Estimates presented, as they are, in three separate parts, and I do plead that at least a good step can be taken along the road that has now been advocated, if the Government can think out ways and means whereby a day or days could be set apart to discuss the whole problem of finance in regard to national defence, when the position of all the three Services in relation to each other could be discussed as a common problem of wartime defence. I do not propose to detain the House any longer, but I put forward these points tentatively, knowing that I speak quite confidently for my party with regard to

  1055
  matters of co-ordination and economy, and particularly with regard to the discussion in this House of matters concerning the Estimates, but putting forward solely on my own initiative anything that I may have said with regard to the need for a Ministry of Defence on the military plan, in order that others may follow and explore it, so that, in the clash of discussion, we may perhaps arrive at an agreement with advantage to the country and the Empire.
  Major - General Sir FREDERICK SYKES: I should like, if I may, first of all to join in thanking my old colleague, the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir Hutchison), for having raised this subject to-day. I will try to be as brief as possible, but, as we have already seen, it is such a vast subject that it really is almost impossible even to scratch it in the few moments at one's disposal. At the outset, as has been said more than once this afternoon, we have to take it that defence is now on an absolutely different basis from that on which it was before the War. The greatest factor in that alteration is, in my opinion, the advent of the air. It has been said, I think by the last speaker, that the Air is now so mixed up with the other Departments that it is almost impossible to say exactly how it stands in relation to those other Departments. The fact really is, however, that the three Services are now so inter-dependent that, if for no other reason, it seems absolutely logical that they should be considered as one, as a matter of defence as a whole. Curiously, it is the Air which has brought this new condition into defence as a whole. It has bridged the gulf between the Army and the Navy; it has made it possible for the Navy to attack an Army, and for the Army to attack a navy, and yet, curiously, the Air itself is dependent in a very large degree upon the Army and the Navy for its support. I only say that in order to try to show how absolutely inter-dependent the three Services now are, and for that reason to go on to try to show how much I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose when he says that there should be some definite form of control, in order to ensure that the best is obtained from this, as I would call it, unified service, both in money and in results.
  1056
  After all, there is no doubt now that strategy is three-dimensional. We have tried to meet this changed condition since the War, or rather, at the end of the War and since, by two great changes. One, of course, was in the last year of the War, the institution of the Air Ministry, which was an absolutely radical alteration, and one which no other country in the world had undertaken. I think that that change was absolutely right, and that it had the effect of developing the Air, and so assisting the Army and Navy in the best degree that was then possible. The second alteration which has taken place is that of the reassessment of the functions of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and the setting up, as the Prime Minister has said, of a large number of sub-committees, all with the object of trying to co-ordinate the activities of the three Services, both in policy and in administration. But, as I think and believe, neither of these two acts has really met the case. Under existing conditions, at all events, they are entirely inadequate to meet the requirements as things have developed. We still lack that co-ordination which has been mentioned many times already today, and, as I see it, no number of committees, no number of advisory boards, no number of bodies of any kind without executive power, can have the effect of holding this thing together and getting the best value from it. After all, as has also been said, committees are generally for exploring and recommending, and there must be some executive power which can put the results of those committees' work into effect. Of course, obviously, the Cabinet is the authority for doing that, but, unless you have one man within the Cabinet responsible for grouping the results together, you will not, in my opinion at least, get full results from or carry out the intention of all this amount of work that has been done.
  So it is, I think, that both the steps which have been taken have been unsatisfactory in their results. The Committee of Imperial Defence has in the past done, and is still now doing, an immense amount of very good work, but the scene has shifted and you want some other form of mechanism to carry on the good work they have so far done. The possibilities of a single Ministry, or Defence Organisation, call it what you

  1057
  like, are, of course, very great and, as far as I can see, it is the only alternative to the present system. We have tried to co-ordinate by getting a three-legged arrangement instead of a single one, and it does not work out. I do not really mind what you call this central controlling authority, whether a Central Control Board or a Ministry of Defence, but what I think is essential is that there should be some mechanism which has direct executive power and responsibility to this House. Short of that, you will never really get anywhere with it at all. Where there is direct divergence of opinion, as there must inevitably be between the three Services, those subjects will probably not be brought up at all and, if they are, they will be compromised and shelved and pushed out of the way, and it is exactly those subjects which are really most vital to the whole concern.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) mentioned the case of the Air as between the Army and the Navy. That dissention in minor form continues to this day. The Navy does not think it has enough air, or has enough control over the air it has, and so on, and unless you have some executive power which can, if necessary, force the three into one mould in order to ensure united and common action, you will never get the results you ought to achieve from the vast sums the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose says we are spending. The main objection that has been raised to this mechanism has always been, as I understand it, that no one man can handle it and that no single Department can look after the three Forces. It is clear that a Defence Ministry must, as I see it, be directly under the Prime Minister, because he alone, as he says himself, has the full knowledge that is necessary to grasp all the subjects which directly and in practice affect the drawing up of schemes of defence. One of the greatest disadvantages of the present system, both in the Services and in the Government Departments, is the impossibility of an overladen Cabinet maintaining close touch with policy and getting to understand what is going on. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has said has an enormous amount in it, that there should be some form of War Cabinet
  1058
  investigating this and other subjects of a similar character in order to draw the results up to some pivotal height where they can be dealt with. As it is, there is the day to day routine work and it is almost impossible for those responsible, who have this vast work to carry out, too, to separate the important elements from the work that is going on.
  The second criticism is that too much power will be given to one man. I, really, think that is beside the point because, after all, if this House of Commons is worth anything at all, it is not going to allow that to happen, so that might just as well be dropped. As far as that goes, if one man is going to have so much weight as against three, he deserves to have it. Finally, there is the frame of mind of those who will not risk the upsetting of vested interests and want postponement. In my opinion, reorganisation should be thought out in all its aspects now. Those aspects should be put into effect on a systematic, gradual, step by step basis. No one who has ever thought on this subject imagines that you could bring in a Ministry of Defence or any form of control by a stroke of the pen. It is entirely on the basis of a step by step, gradual, systematic arrangement on a systematic thought-out plan. What I urge, and what I think a great many Members will agree with, is that the whole subject should be explored and if the ultimate result is obviously desirable, a systematic plan might be worked out and gradually and steadily put into effect. Of course, there would be innumerable problems which would arise as you went into this investigation, but, after all, if the principle of a unified machinery and the amalgamation of the Services were right, and if you were able to frame your policy on right lines and carry it into effect on right lines, it is certainly worth putting up with a good deal of difficulty in getting through minor troubles in order to secure the inevitable ultimate end of the investigation.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir P. Hutchison) on giving the House this all too short opportunity of discussing a matter of the very highest importance to the Government, not only as it affects the defence Services, but as it also affects the civilian life of the country in peace

  1059
  time, as the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Liberal party said. This idea is by no means new. In 1922 a Bill was introduced for a Ministry of Defence, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and I and other Members in all parts of the House supported it. So the idea is not new, but the chance of discussing it is new, and that is what I welcome.
  Commander BELLAIRS: It was proposed before the War.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
  I did not know that. I only wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other advocates had been more successful, because the War would only have lasted two years instead of four. I was appalled, amazed and disgusted at the speech of the Prime Minister. He showed that he realises the need of this great co-ordination, to put it no higher than that, and he tried to bring it about by the appointment of innumerable committees, and yet he will not take the bold step that is required by modern conditions, and urgently required. All he could say was that there was a committee that purchased house coal required by the three Services by means of a single contract. What an anti-climax He told us, to use almost his exact words, the three fighting Services have different problems of strategy, which are distinct and separate. Strategy is common to them all, and the problems of strategy are common to all three Services, and it is impossible to separate them. If that is all the Prime Minister of England, after his experience of four years of presiding over Committees of Imperial Defence has learnt about the strategical needs of Empire, all I can say is Heaven help us all!
  This problem divides itself into two parts. There is the much less important question of economy in peace time. All these Committees say is that they purchase condensed milk, house coal and petrol in common among the different Government Departments, but the Departmental staffs remain at Whitehall or Gwydyr or Adastral House. The Weir Committee has been quoted. It was composed of a number of busy and overworked people and divided itself up into
  1060
  sub-committees, and each one looked into the question of the chaplains' department, the medical department, intelligence, supply, education, etc. The subcommittee of medical services were the people who were set to work to discover whether they should abolish themselves. The Chairman was Sir Philip Nash, a business man, and the Director-General of Medical Departments and the Deputy-Secretary to the Admiralty were on the sub-committee. There was also the Adjutant-General of the War Office and the Director-General of Army Medical Services, and there was the Director of Personnel of the Air Ministry and the Director of Medical Services of the Air Ministry. These were the people who were set to work to see how they could effect economics by amalgamation of the Medical Services of the Army, Navy and Air Force. You might just as well call together a committee of bookies and jockeys to abolish horse-racing.
  Take the question of the chaplains. I do not know whether in the future the Navy intends to use the old Prayer Book, the Air Force the new Prayer Book and the Army the old Prayer Book, or whether there is some spiritual difference. I have never understood why there should be a chaplains' department for the Army, a chaplains' department for the Navy and a chaplains' department for the sky pilots of the Air Force. Anyhow, a subcommittee was set up to report whether it was possible to effect economies by reducing the personnel, not of the chaplains, but of the administrative people, who never preach sermons and never carry out the office of Holy Communion, but do the paper work in Whitehall, some of them chaplains, some clerks and some officials, but all pen-pushers, and those are the people who go away with the money. It is obvious that these people were the very last who should have been set to work on any
  sub-committee.
  Let us see who the people were who were set up to consider this. Again Sir Philip Nash was the Chairman, the Admiralty were represented by Sir Oswyn Murray and the Venerable Archdeacon Ingles, Chaplain of the Fleet, the War Office by Sir Harry Creedy and the Right Reverend Bishop Taylor Smith, Chaplain-General. There was Air Vice-Marshal Swann for the Air Ministry and no chaplain for the Air Force at all. It is obvious

  1061
  that these people were the very last who should have been set to work on any such Committee to see whether they could bring about economies in the three separate spiritual departments of the three Services. This is the precious Committee the Prime Minister relies upon. It was like bringing together a committee of men who are to be hanged to decide the date of their execution. Naturally they would put it off for 100 years. While you have these three Ministries administering Services which should be common to them, you have overlapping and waste and expense, and of course you have jobs, and that is the secret of the whole thing. You have swollen staffs at the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry and you will never get rid of them as long as you tell them to reduce themselves.
  7.0 p.m.
  There is a far more important thing, and that is the strategical question. The fact of the matter is that there has been in the last 10 years a shifting of the balance of power. The Navy is of far less importance to-day, relatively, than it was 20 years ago. The first line of defence is not the Navy to-day but the Air Force. While soldiers cannot go to sea to-day as sailors, and sailors are not particularly efficient as soldiers on land, the Air Force can do the work of both to a very great extent. I do not want to exaggerate this, but there has been this shift of power, and you have this situation in a nutshell, that the Navy is over whelmingly strong. There is no Navy comparable to the British Navy to-day, even on paper. We have the same battleship force as America, we have more cruisers, naval bases, personnel and men, etc. The Air Force, which is admittedly weak, is under strength. The Government require something like 60 squadrons for the defence of this country according to themselves, whereas there are only in existence between 40 and 50 squadrons. That is the position. As for the War Office, it is, I think, notorious that from the mere point of view of efficiency, mechanisation should be applied on a far larger scale, not only for one division but over a far greater range of the Army.
  Therefore, you have to-day too much money being spent on the Navy, not enough on the Air Force, and I do not think you get sufficient value for the
  1062
  money spent on the Army. I think it is common ground, and the only way you can meet this, I do riot hesitate to say, is by a combined Ministry of Defence, with one Minister in the Cabinet. If the present Government have not any man big enough for the post, they ought to resign and let somebody else supply the man. There should be a combined General Staff. That is the most important thing of all, because I am quite certain if another great war should come upon us, before that war is over, if we survive, we shall have a combined General Staff controlling all the means of defence of this country. It would be far cheaper and more efficient to set up that combined General Staff in time of peace. I am speaking as a pacifist, as we all ought to be to-day. Anyone who is not is a traitor to this country. But, speaking from these benches, I have no hesitation in saying that every penny voted for the Fighting Services should be looked at twice, and expended to bring 100 per cent. efficiency.
  I want to make this appeal to any of my colleagues whom it may reach, or who do me the honour of reading my speech, that I believe the Labour Government would gain far more from having a Ministry of Defence than from the present system. There should be one Ministry instead of three Ministries. There is another reason. The Committee of Imperial Defence is becoming a very powerful body, an obstructionist body, and any future Government will have more difficulty in getting past the vested interests entrenched there. For these reasons, I hope my friends in my own party will support this idea, and I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving us this opportunity of discussing it.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) kindly alluded to the fact that on 3rd May, 1922, I brought in a Bill under the 10 minutes' rule entitled the Ministry of Defence (Creation) Bill. At that time I could only get nine supporters, hut now we have a great Liberal party supporting what practically becomes a Ministry of Defence. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) says this idea was mooted before the War. It was mooted by Lord Randolph

  1063
  Churchill many years ago. For years and years the whole question of defence has been one of our greatest problems. When we had only two Services the high-water mark was a very good line of demarcation. Now we have three Services the problems are much more difficult, and it is no solution to them to carry out what the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone wants, to split up the Air Force into practically three forces, because then you would have an independent Air Force and a small Air Force for the Army and Navy. It is no solution to the problem to split it up again. It would make the problem more difficult. The Air Minister put his finger on the problem in the speech on the Estimates last year when he said:
  "I believe the air might be used as an instrument of economy in our system of Imperial defence rather than as an additional form of expenditure."
  But who is to decide where the economies are to be made? The First Lord of the Admiralty presses for the largest Estimates, the Minister for War would not be carrying out his duties if he did not do the same, and the Secretary for Air does the same, and there is nobody in control to criticise that expenditure. The Committee of Imperial Defence have done good work in the past under their able secretary, Sir Maurice Hankey. The opinion of Sir William Robertson was quoted by the Minister. I have looked up another quotation. It reads:
  "The most regrettable feature was not the time spent in reaching a final decision when war became imminent, but the omission to lay down beforehand an appropriate military policy upon which comprehensive preparations and plans could be based."
  That is a great condemnation of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Who decides whether we are to have battleships, tanks, and so forth? There is no one to go into this question properly. The Admiralty got out a very good Memorandum in 1910 in which it was stated:
  "The really serious danger that this country has to guard against in war is not invasion but interruption of trade and destruction of our mercantile marine. The strength of our Fleet is determined by what is necessary to protect our trade."
  That is perfectly true to-day, and the battleship plays no part in that picture. Hon. Members in this House disagree,
  1064
  but I challenge them and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. C. P. Williams), who a year or so ago said the battleship was the backbone of the Fleet. I entirely disagree with him. The battleship has only a slight potential value, and we spend here £7,000,000 sterling on building them. How are you going to use battleships 3,000 miles away from their bases? I cannot get an answer.
  Mr. C. P. WILLIAMS: As I have been challenged, may I ask, are all battleships 3,000 miles away from their bases?
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: The hon. Gentleman may be depended upon to answer me later at great length. It is not only the cost of the battleship but its upkeep. I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the cost of keeping in commission a battleship of the "Rodney" class, and he replied that the annual cost of upkeep was £432,960, which includes £22,150 for cost of oil fuel and £40,990 for cost of practice firing. That is nearly £500,000 for upkeep. We have 20 battleships allowed under the Washington Conference, and the "Nelson" class costs £360,000 per annum, the "Queen Elizabeth" £305,000, the "Royal Sovereign" £301,000, the "Repulse" £330,000, and the "Iron Duke" £229,000 per annum, and each costs for repairs £6,500—a tremendous amount of money. On these useless ships £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 a year is expended in the upkeep, money that could be spent far better in other directions.
  Then look at the Admiralty staff. I asked a question of the First Lord of the Admiralty in July last, and he gave me the number of ships in commission in 1914, in reserve, and under repair, and compared them with 1927. Sea-going ships in 1914 in commission numbered 444, in reserve 102, and under repair 24. Naval personnel was 146,047, and the Admiralty Headquarters Staff 1,718. In 1927, there were only 190 ships in commission against the 444 in 1914, in the reserve 84 against 102 in 1914, and under repair 14 against 24. The naval personnel was 101,890, and they required 2,741 people to run the reduced number of ships with a reduced personnel. A Minister of Defence would put his probe into that and stop it at once.
  Now let us look at the War Office. The Secretary for War answered a question of mine last July. I asked him to

  1065
  compare the numbers in 1914 and 1927. He gave the number of men in 1914 as 181,568 and War Office staff 1,878. In 1927 the numbers were 152,501, requiring 2,387 people to run it. It may be right or wrong, but I think the Minister of Defence would put his probe into the Secretary for War and want to know the reason for that increase. I introduced my Bill, the Ministry of Defence (Creation) Bill, and went into the whole question of putting a Minister of Defence in charge of these three fighting services, with an Under-Secretary in charge of each of the three services. The Minister of Defence was to be responsible for all strategical and tactical questions of the defence of the Realm. I dealt with that at some length. I had a Clause as to the provision of materiel, personnel, finance, civil aviation and so on. I submit that with a Defence Ministry, as I think the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) would agree, we would not have had that shortage of ammunition during the War. They would have had some authority over them, and again I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that at the battle of Jutland we would have had Zeppelins and torpedo-carrying aircraft and the right sort of shells, we would not have been short of searchlights, and we would have had a sufficient number of aircraft carriers. We should have had an authority over these fighting services who would have asked questions, instead of anybody who came forward with a new proposal being turned down, as is generally the case at present.
  I submit that a Minister of Defence would look into all those matters. You have only to look at the Estimates for defence purposes last year and this year. Last year £115,115,000 was provided for defence purposes, of which the Navy took £58.000,000, the Army £41,565,000, and the Air Force £15,550,000. That is to say, the Air Force got one-seventh of the total amount. This year, 1928–29, £114,600,000 is provided, of which the Navy take £57,300,000, the Army £41,050,000, and the Air Force £16,250,000. Again the Air Force gets only one-seventh of the total amount provided, and yet we cannot protect our own homes. Our first line aircraft are only half what France has, and we find the Navy taking all, or the greater part, of the money and putting it into obsolete battleships when
  1066
  there is no battleship danger to this country in Europe, and we are not likely ever to want to fight with America. It is unthinkable, as Mr. Asquith said from that Front Opposition Bench when I first came into the House. Neither do we want to fight with Japan. Therefore, why do we build all these battleships which cost so much money? A Minister of Defence would put in his probe and stop that unnecessary expenditure.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) has dealt with the criticisms about a Minister of Defence, the notion that he would be a superman, and so forth. I think the Prime Minister must be a superman now, to understand a quarter of what he said in his speech to-day. A more complicated method of running the defences of this country I think I have never heard reported, and I think that that speech of the Prime Minister to-night will do more to establish a Ministry of Defence in this country than anything I have ever heard or anything that any other hon. Member will contribute to the Debate to-day.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I want to pay a tribute to our Liberal friends for bringing this Motion forward, partly because it giver us an opportunity of seeing them packed so closely on those benches, a pleasure which is so often denied us, and also for having given us the opportunity of listening to our strategical pacifist, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Undoubtedly the most bellicose Member in the House, he always finishes up all his speeches as a pacifist. This is one of the questions on which you get agreement from every side. I have not heard a speech against it to-night, and yet we all know that nothing is going to be done about it. I am not prepared myself to vote against the Consolidated Fund Bill, but if we ever get this question as a, definite issue, there is no doubt about it that the Government will be in a very nasty position, and I will vote against them on the question with enthusiasm if it ever comes to that. The speech of the Prime Minister to-night was the most damning indictment we have ever heard against the present system of administering the defence forces of this country. He told us that this was the first opportunity

  1067
  for four years which we had had of discussing this question, and yet there is not a soul in the House who will not confess that a Debate of this kind on the possibility of setting up a Ministry of Defence is admitted to be a method of getting more economy than in any other way, yet for four years we have been waiting for this Debate. This question is not one of cutting down Ministers' salaries. Government after Government have Shown a ridiculously false modesty about their own salaries. People who run Empires should be paid very heavily, and Ministers, I think, are not paid enough.
  As we can talk about anything, I might introduce the fact that the time has come when we might reorganise the question as to who is in the Cabinet and who is not. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State for War, at a time when there is no possibility of war, should automatically have a place in the Cabinet, and that people like the First Commissioner of Works should always be in the Cabinet. I said the other day that his duty was growing bulbs in the park. which is a very good duty, but why should he have an important post in the Cabinet when a person like the Minister of Transport is not allowed in? It seems to me an extraordinary thing in these days, but the vested interests of the old occupants of these particular offices are too strong even for the House of Commons.
  I do not want to make a long speech, as there are many other hon. Members who wish to take part in the Debate, but I would like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman who, I presume, is going to reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago actually promised us a date on which we could discuss the Votes of the three Services together, hut we have never got any further than that. Year after year we have raised this question on every opportunity, but every time these Service Votes come on what happens? The Ministers in charge know perfectly well. Labour introduces one of those delightful general Amendments on disarmament, on Geneva, on something which has nothing to do with the point whatsoever. They blow off on to us a lot of disarmament speeches, and we have Debates which have nothing to do with the question. This occurs year
  1068
  after year, Vote after Vote, and I ask the Government that they will at least tell us to-night, not that they are going suddenly to build up a Ministry of Defence, which must come slowly and by degrees, but that they will make a start. Let the Government promise us to-night that next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nobody else, shall introduce the Service Votes as a whole. We can then discuss them as a whole. When we get down to the details, Service by Service, let us talk about the Service and nothing else, and let us leave the larger question to be debated on the money which we are going to spend for the defence of the Empire.
  Captain LODER: I think the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moorel-Brabazon) about the few opportunities we have of discussing defence questions in this House is one which cannot be made too often. The Estimates Committee, two years ago, in one of its Reports, suggested that one of the things that might be done was to put the three Service days into one and move the Speaker out of the Chair on all three Service Estimates together. That seemed a possible way of getting a general defence discussion, but nothing has been done about it. The House is grateful not only to the Liberal party for giving us this opportunity to-day, but, in spite of the things that have been said about him, I think it will be grateful also to the Prime Minister for having placed so much information at its disposal. I was not surprised that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who has himself fathered so many Committees, should have been appalled when the Prime Minister revealed how many grandchildren and great-grandchildren have sprung up since his day.
  Of course, both he and the Prime Minister speak with a weight which no other Member of this House can claim on this subject. It is not so much the technical arguments in favour of a Ministry of Defence that I wanted to develop this evening as, approaching the question from a rather different angle, to use the demand that there is for a Ministry of Defence as a particular instance of a tendency which I think I can see running right through the whole of the

  1069
  machinery of Government in this country. The other day the Prime Minister said—and he said it again tonight, I think—that if a Ministry of Defence came at all, it would come as a result of natural growth. That was a very sensible observation to make, but I would just point out to him that "natural growth" is rather an elastic term. It might he taken to cover the riotous exuberance of a tropical forest as well as the well-kept orderliness of an English garden, and I venture to think that in recent years the development of our administrative machine has been rather in the direction of the tropical forest than of the well-kept English garden. The multiplication of Government services which we have had in recent years is, I think, a feature which has really come to stay. I do not think that, at the moment at any rate, there is any real chance of the number of Government services being reduced, and that makes one consider, in spite of what the Prime Minister has said, whether the grouping of Government Departments has not really got something in it.
  A Ministry of Defence, or a central control over the defence Services, is the most obvious of the groupings of Government Departments that might be resorted to, but it is not by any means the only one. It is a tendency which is going on now and which has gone on in the past. Take the financial arrangements for the administration of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is really the head, or at any rate the effective political head, of a whole group of Departments. He is the effective political head of the Treasury, Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue, and a whole batch of subsidiary Departments, but if anyone says that a Ministry of Defence is too big a job for one man, I would refer him to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has a very wide field indeed to cover, and I am sure that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would emphatically repudiate the suggestion that anything was too big for him. Take the Home Office, which has been the residuary legatee of Government Departments. The Home Secretary has been called the Pooh-Bah of the Government. One day he is leading the flappers, like Joshua, to the promised land, the next
  1070
  day he may be dealing with the orphans of constitutional storms like Ulster, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, another day it may be factory legislation with which he is dealing, and another day he may be exercising his powers as a quasi Minister of Justice. He has wide, extended, and varied powers.
  But these are already consolidated, grouped Departments. Something of the same kind is going on in other Departments as well. The Board of Trade has recently acquired two satellites. It has attracted the Mines Department from the Home Office, and, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, it has thrown off from itself the Department of Overseas Trade. Might there not be something to be said in favour of one head of the economic services of the country? Might not a case he made for a political chief of that economic general staff of which we had heard a certain amount even before the industrial policy of the Liberal party came out? Again, I cannot help thinking that the Debate which we had on the distressed areas yesterday, when the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Education spoke, showed how very closely connected and interlocked are the questions connected with social services.
  It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question, put.

COAL INDUSTRY.

  BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).
  Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  I move the Adjournment of the House in order to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to prosecute certain coal owners for breaches of the Mines Eight Hours Act by the continuous employment underground of a boy on three occasions for more than 16 hours per day. I put a question to the Secretary for Mines to-day on this subject, and not only was I amazed at the reply, but the whole of the Members on these benches were amazed. The first intimation that I gave to the Minister of this particular case, so far as my memory

  1071
  serves me, was four or five weeks ago, when I received the complaint. I did not receive a reply, and not having received a reply I put down a question for to-day, and received an answer. May I refresh the memory of the House by reading the question and the reply? The question was in these terms:
  "To ask the Secretary for Mines, if he has received any complaint that boys under 16 years of age have been kept down the pits in Durham for 16 hours per day; whether he has inquired into the complaint; and can he give the result of his inquiries."
  The answer given by the Minister was as follows:
  "Yes, Sir. A complaint of this kind was recently sent to me by the hon. Member, and I have had it investigated. It was found that on three occasions during January and February a boy had been kept to work the second shift on account of the absence of other boys through illness. The management considered that the circumstances constituted an emergency which made it lawful for them to take this course, but, consequent on representations made to them by my Department, they have agreed not to adopt this method of meeting the difficulty in future."
  When the Minister was pressed as to whether he proposed to take any action against the coal owners for a breach of the Mines Act, he told us very clearly and distinctly that, seeing that they had promised not to repeat the offence in future he did not intend to prosecute the owners. Might I point out to the Minister so far as his reply is concerned that the excuse of the employers that they had to keep this boy on double shift because of the illness of other boys, is no excuse. Those who are acquainted with coal mines know that if on the second shift boys do not turn up for work, there is an abundance of others who can do the work and who can be employed.
  One thing which this House definitely intended when it passed the Eight Hours Act was that boys should not be kept underground more than eight hours per day. This complaint refers to the Tursdale Colliery, in the County of Durham. The complaint came to me that a boy—in the question I stated that he is under 16 years of age—15 years of age, went down the pit at four o'clock in the morning and did not come out of the pit until a quarter past eight that night. That is not all the story, because after the boy had worked in the pit from four in the morning until
  1072
  a quarter past eight in the evening, he was at work again at four o'clock next morning. It is a very serious state of affairs for a boy of 15 years of age to work such long hours, especially when we remember that there are so many accidents amongst boys in the coal pits. A question was put to the present Secretary for Mines by the hon. Member for Walls-end (Miss Bondfield) on the 13th March, and I would like to refresh the memory of the Minister in regard to that question and the answer. The hon. Member for Wallsend asked for the number of boys employed in the coal mines between the ages of 14 and 16, and the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents respectively occurring in this age group in the year 1927. The answer was:
  "The total number of boys of this age killed during 1927 was 37 and the total number seriously injured, 264. I regret that the particulars of the number less seriously injured during 1927 are not yet available, but during 1925, when 51,700 boys were employed, the total number of seriously injured and less seriously injured was about 9,200."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1928; col. 170.75, Vol. 214.]
  That is a very sad state of affairs, but can we wonder at such a heavy list of boys being killed and injured when we have boys of 15 years of age, mere children, sent down the coal pit at 4 o'clock in the morning and kept down until 8.15 p.m., and going back to work at 4 o'clock next morning? I would like to call attention to a Clause in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, which puts very clearly and distinctly what the House of Commons had in mind when it passed the Eight Hours Act. Clause 1 says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, a workman shall not be below ground in a mine for the purpose of his work and of going to and from his work for more than eight hours during any consecutive 24 hours."
  Clause 7 says:
  "If a workman is below ground for a longer period during any consecutive 24 hours than the time fixed by this Act, lie shall be deemed to have been below ground in contravention of this Act, unless the contrary is proved."
  We complain that the Minister refuses to prosecute the employers in this case. We believe that the answer of the Minister simply means that there is one law for the employer and another law

  1073
  for the workman. The Minister must have fresh in his mind the fact that hundreds of our men were not only prosecuted during 1926 but sent to prison for the most trivial reasons. One of my own local secretaries in my division, because he was a local official and out on a march during the dispute was sent to prison for a month's hard labour. That was the only crime he had committed. There ought not to be one law for the employer and another law for the worker. If this boy of 15 years of age had committeed a breach of the Act, if he had had, for instance, a match in his pocket and it had been found upon him, he would have been taken to Court and fined. When that happens in the case of a workman then, surely, when the employers are guilty they ought not to escape. The impression made on our minds is that since 1926 the employers consider that they have the Government behind them and that they can treat these Acts of Parliament as mere scraps of paper.
  One of the common complaints in our colliery districts is that there are other Acts of Parliament which the employers are continually breaking, especially the Minimum Wage Act. One hears innumerable complaints that the employers are continually breaking the Minimum Wage Act. The trouble with us is that your men dare not complain. They are in a different position from the position which they occupied in 1926. If before 1926 an employer broke an Act of Parliament, whether it was the Mines Act or the Minimum Wage Act, our men would complain and feel secure in making the complaint, but to-day they dare not do it. To make a complaint to-day simply means losing their employment. The complaint with respect to this particular boy came to me from a man who dared not give his name, and I dared not allow the man's writing to be seen, lest he should be detected, in which case it would have meant his dismissal. There is great need for the Government to protect our men, and when there is a clear breach of the Mines Act, as in this case, they ought not to hesitate to prosecute the employer.
  I believe that eight hours a day is too long for a boy to be down a pit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or to work above ground!"] Above ground, boys cannot
  1074
  start work until six o'clock in the morning, but they can be sent underground, as in this case, at four o'clock in the morning. I started work down the pit the first day after I was 12 years years of age, and my recollections of those years make me very enthusiastic in my support of boys and my claim that they should work as few hours as possible underground. Now that the Government have taken the step, with which we disagree, of saving that boys shall work eight hours, we do think that they should protect those boys and say that they shall not be called upon to work 16 hours, day and night. It is in order to call attention to the fact that the Secretary for Mines does not intend to prosecute the employers that I move the Motion.
  Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to second the Motion.
  The protection of the lads in the mines ought to be the concern of every one in this House. When the Secretary for Mines gave his reply to a question today, I think it was a surprise to everyone, at least on this side of the House, and I should think to many of the Minister's supporters on the other side of the House. Particularly is it essential that the miners and boys working underground should have the special protection of the Mines Department at this time. We have not to-day the same facilities for protecting our men and lads as we had in days past. There is among the coalowners, in spite of what is said on the other side from time to time, a spirit of animosity and venom. There is in the minds of the coalowners a determination to get their full pound of flesh and to prevent us from having the facilities for taking care of our people that we have enjoyed in the past. In days past we had the opportunity of appointing men of our own to go on to the pit bank and to watch the men who were descending to see the time that they were descending, and to check the times when they ascended.
  To-day we have not those facilities. The employers are using all the power they have to divide us into two sections. They are trying to break the powers of the Miners' Federation, and to give all assistance possible to other kinds of organisations which have not the same understanding of our people, in order that our people may be victimised even more than they are to-day. It is because

  1075
  of this lack of understanding, this lack of the provision of the necessary facilities to assist our men and boys, that we are asking the Minister to consider carefully the Acts of Parliament governing the mines of the country, and to see that if the owners will not allow us to have the inspection that we used to have, the Government inspectors face the responsibility that they ought to face in connection with the working life of the men and lads. It cannot be said that sickness can be brought into the category of "emergency." As a matter of fact, there is sickness in all kinds of occupations, but there is no employer to-day who would consider that the sickness of a lad justified him in using that as an emergency in order to extend or double the shift of another lad who was working in the same factory or mine.
  The Act of Parliament provides for cases of emergency. If there is an unusual or very big fall that has to be moved in order to make the working places ready for the next shift, of course men are called upon by the manager, as that is an emergency. Men can be called upon to work longer time to remove that fall, or if there is any breakage in the mines in connection with the haulage of tubs, if the way is torn up by accident—all those things are provided for in the Act of Parliament as cases of emergency, and the manager has the power to call upon men to work additional time in order to get these things rectified, so that the colliery can go on working. But never in our history have we heard of a case of sickness being called an emergency. Therefore, we say definitely that Section 7 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act ought to have been put into operation by the Minister when his attention was called to this particular case. Clause 7 says:
  "A person guilty of an offence under this, Act, for which a special penalty is not provided, shall, in respect of each offence, he liable, on summary conviction, if he is the owner, agent, or manager of the mine, to a fine not exceeding £2, and in any other case to a fine not exceeding 10s."
  As my hon. Friend has said, if a workman commits any offence under the Coal Mines Regulation Act or the Eight Hours Act, he has no option; he has to "go through it." If strong action is not taken in this particular case this kind of
  1076
  thing will spread. It is quite possible that it may be spreading already, because we have not the same facilities for checking as we had previously. The time has come when the Minister should make himself a really useful Member of the Government by compelling the coal-owners of the country to face their responsibilities, by seeing that this kind of thing cannot occur again in future, and that the victimisation under which our people are suffering to-day is not allowed to extend. If the Secretary for Mines will do that, he will do a service to the country.
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): In the first place let me say that I was very grateful indeed to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) for bringing this case to my attention, as he did in a letter on 17th February. I thanked him for it at the time, and I only regret now that he has to complain that he has not received a personal reply, following my investigation. I explained to him that it was the first information we had, and I instigated inquiries straight away. Those inquiries have taken a considerable time. After the first report from the inspector a period of a fortnight or more was allowed to elapse, and a second inspection was then made. Therefore, before the matter could be taken up by my Department and with the owners, a considerable time passed. But I do apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I have not been able up to now to send him a written reply to his letter. I would like to read a part of the Act which both of the hon. Members who have spoken have so far omitted. It is agreed that the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1908 lays it down that, subject to the provisions of the Act, a workman shall not be below ground for more than eight hours during any consecutive 24 hours. That is in Section I. But Sub-section (2) of that Section says:
  "No contravention of the foregoing provisions shall he deemed to take place in the case of a workman working in a shift if the period between the times at which the last workman in the shift leaves the surface and the first workman in the shift returns to the surface does not exceed eight hours; nor shall any contravention of the foregoing provisions be deemed to take place in the case of any workman who is below ground for the purpose of rendering assistance in the event of accident … or for dealing with any emergency or work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances which re-

  1077
  quires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine or in any district of the mine."
  Those are the words of Sub-section (2) of Section 1, under which the owners consider that they were exempted from the provisions of that Act. With regard to the case itself, I understand, not of course that this is the same boy who was employed on three different occasions, but that there were three separate occasions on which a boy was kept over from one shift to another owing to the sickness of boys coming on and the inability to continue the work of the mine unless some additional assistance was brought in. As far as I am concerned at the Ministry I am certainly going to see that these Regulations are carried out strictly—most certainly. I will even go so far as to say that I regret, from the humanitarian standpoint, that boys work below ground at all; but as we find the industry at the present time we know that it is a long-standing custom for boys to go down the pits quite early, and that, sometimes under their fathers or brothers, they work below until they become miners. So long as that custom exists, and so long as boys are allowed to go down pits, I believe they will go down; but I agree that it is most essential that the welfare of those boys should be looked after as far as is possible. That is done by His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines when they go round to the pits.
  Perhaps I can best explain the position that was taken by the owners by reading the report which was sent in reply to the Chief Inspector's letter. Within two days of receiving the hon. Member's letter one of the Inspectors of Mines visited the pit and went into the whole question. That was followed by other inspections. The Chief Inspector wrote to the owners and took up the case with them, and asked for their explanation. He received a reply from the owners on 2nd March. With their reply the owners sent a copy of their mine manager's report on the occurrence, and I think it will be to the convenience of the House if I read the following extract:
  "In the case of N. Fortune, one of the boys. A number of men and boys were off work in the pit through illness, and no one was available to do the work without keeping the boy in question. It was imperative to get the coal off the coal cutting face so as not to interfere with roof control.
  1078
  Failure to clean up probably meant actual danger to the next shift coming in. It may be mentioned that the back over-man was driving at the same time, so that the emergency was real."
  It will be seen from that that the back overman had to be driving at the same time to get the coal clear.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: You are making it worse now.
  Commodore KING: I hope hon. Members will listen to me. I am trying to put the case clearly and I am not trying to hide anything. The Report goes on:
  "In the case of the other two buys who worked an auxiliary haulage winch in the fore and back shift, again so many other employés were absent through sickness that no one else was available, and the alternative to keeping the boys back would have been to lay the district idle. Again there appears to be an emergency."
  That is the reply of the owners to the question put to them by the Inspector of Mines. They claim that under the Exemption Section of the Act that I have read, they were legally entitled to keep those boys back for the purposes of an emergency.
  Mr. HARDIE: Under those circumstances was there no one employed at the coal face who would have done the duty of the boy?
  8.0 p.m.
  Commodore KING: No, Sir. From the Report that I have read there was apparently no one else available, as even the back over-man was doing work which was not his work in the ordinary way. That being so, it seems clear that there was no one else available to do that particular work. I think it is quite clear that there were not sufficient men available. The wording of the Act is not very closely drawn, and I cannot help thinking that the owners may have had some excuse for thinking that such a state, where they could not clear the coal away from the face and where the work in that district would otherwise have stopped, came under the exemption which provides for dealing with "work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances which requires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine or in any district of the mine." I am not suggesting for one minute that that is the legal interpretation of that Section. All that I am saying is, that I consider,

  1079
  speaking without any prejudice, that there was an excuse anyhow, for that view being taken. Our inspector did not agree with that view, and, after considerable discussion with the owners, he managed to convince them that his view was right and obtained a promise from them that in the future they would most certainly not deal with a similar situation by keeping boys back. I should like also to mention, as the hon. Member's Motion is a sort of censure on me for not prosecuting, that I have, naturally, to take a certain amount of advice and guidance from those who directly deal with these matters. I should like to read to the House an extract from the report of the Senior Inspector who inspected the mine and who also communicated with and spoke to the owners. He said:
  "I came to the conclusion that they"—
  that is the manager and agent—
  "held the view quite honestly that on the dates mentioned, because of the particular circumstances in the district in question a real emergency existed and that in keeping the boys for a double shift they were not contravening the provisions of the Eight Hours Act."
  He suggests that there were some grounds for that belief and goes on to say:
  "The district is an isolated one. Old pillars are being extracted longwall, the coal being undercut by machine, and experience has shown that any failure to maintain the regular cycle of operations on the faces results in dangerous conditions."
  Holding that view, and having obtained the promise of the owners that they would waive their view altogether and the definite promise that they would not do it again, it did not strike the Department in the first place, and it does not strike me now, that it is really a suitable case for prosecution. I will tell the hon. Member why. There are certain duties laid upon the Department of Mines and upon the Secretary for Mines to see that the Acts are carried out. I think hon. Members will agree that it is no good whatever for a Department light-heartedly to take up prosecutions which might fail when they came before the Court. This would he a legal question, the owners claiming that they were exempt in a state of emergency. It is as likely as not, in a case of this kind, that the decision would have gone
  1080
  against the Minister in favour of the owners. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have really no right to say what decision would have been given. There was a grave doubt as to which way a decision would be given. When we had already accomplished what was desired, that was to see that the offence would not be repeated, if offence it be, when we had already ensured that it should not again take place, I did not think that it was a proper case in which to take proceedings against the owners.
  Mr. WHITELEY: Can we have the decision of the Chief Inspector after he had had these communications?
  Commodore KING: He concurred. I take the responsibility for it. I am not speaking for the Chief Inspector or for the Department; I am stating my own view in regard to the decision to which I have come. With regard to the suggestion made in the two speeches which we have heard and which was also mentioned at Question Time to-day, that there is one law for the owners and another for the employés, it may interest the House to hear how the position actually stood during the year 1927 with regard to prosecutions taken by the Mines Department against owners, agents, managers, and under-managers. There were 176 charges made by the Mines Department against these people. From those 176 charges we obtained 142 convictions; 16 cases were withdrawn; and 18 cases were dismissed by the Courts. It certainly shows that the Department is hardly lax in dealing with the coalowners when one realises that those 176 prosecutions were taken against a body representing perhaps less than 7,000 people. That is certainly a fairly heavy percentage, and, I think, shows that my Department is not overlooking offences as they come along.
  There is another side of the picture. It was put to me to-day that my Department would not hesitate to prosecute a miner whereas it refused to prosecute an owner. I have made inquiries, and, as far as I can gather, certainly over three years back, not a single working miner has been prosecuted by my Department. [Interruption.] I am not saying anything unfair. I am merely stating that an accusation was brought against, my Department. These prosecutions were

  1081
  taken by my Department against mine-owners, managers and so on, but no prosecution, as far as I can gather, has been taken by my Department against a working miner during the past few years, the reason being that prosecutions of miners who commit offences in the mines are mostly taken by the owners. [Interruption.] I am only drawing the distinction, because at Question Time to-day it was my Department which was accused. I think hon. Members know quite well that in the ordinary course of events the owners are expected to take disciplinary action against people who offend against Mines Regulations and so on. It is more especially for the Mines Department to see that the mine-owners and those immediately liable under them are kept up to the mark and that they keep within the Act. The total prosecutions taken by mine-owners—I have stated that out of less than 7,000 owners, managers, etc., there were 176 prosecutions—in respect of nearly 1,000,000 mine workers last year numbered about 800. Hon. Members will realise that the proportion of prosecutions is nothing like as great as it is in regard to the mine-owners—I think it is nearly 140 to one as against the mine-owners.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: It shows where the great proportion of the criminals lie anyway.
  Commodore KING: Hon. Members, in dealing with these questions, are a little unfair sometimes, and therefore, I am trying to put what I think is a true picture. Out of these 800 charges which the mine-owners had to bring against the miners, 218 were in respect of contraventions relating to matches and smoking. All hon. Members connected with the mining industry will admit that these are very serious offences indeed. One hundred and forty-three of the prosecutions were for carrying timber, tools, etc., in the cage while ascending. Hon. Members opposite know that that is strictly against the rules and is one of the ways in which removals from the mines are prevented. I only mention these figures in order to defend my Department against the accusation made to-day that they are overlooking offences by the owners and are very hard on the miners.
  I can assure hon. Members opposite that as regards all these questions I in-
  1082
  tend to deal with them as firmly as I possibly can. I believe that firmness is necessary, but at no time do I intend to be vindictive or unfair either to owners or to workmen. I am independent and have to take a fair-minded view of the whole thing, and it is left to my discretion to say in these different cases whether I consider that a particular case is a proper one for prosecution or not. Not wishing to be vindictive, and as there was a doubt as to the legal position in this case, and as we had already received the definite assurance that these boys would not be kept on over other shifts in future, I considered that it was not necessary to prosecute and that we had already achieved our object.
  Mr. LUNN: The latter part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was very interesting but it was beside the mark and away from the case that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). He has raised the case of a boy who was called upon to work not on one occasion, but on several occasions for 16 hours a day.
  Commodore KING: Different boys on three occasions.
  Mr. LUNN: One can understand a first offender being treated as a first offender, but when an offence happens on a number of occasions one cannot understand the expression of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he intends to carry out these Regulations as strictly as possible. If those people who have been guilty of the robbery in Hatton Garden are first offenders, if this is the first time that they have ever stolen anything, I suppose he would agree that the law should excuse them because they have never been convicted of such a thing before. That is really what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said from that Box to-night; that because this colliery have carried out this particular thing with regard to a boy they should not be prosecuted. But they have carried it out on many occasions! They have broken the Act on many occasions.
  I do not think there is any excuse whatever, even at this moment, for passing over the question of a prosecution. I know that His Majesty's inspector went to the colliery office, and, of course,

  1083
  we know, as many miners know, what the position is when His Majesty's inspector sometimes goes to the colliery office. We do not know what was said in the colliery office, but we do know from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he secured a promise that it should not happen again. They have violated the law on several occasions, but because he has secured a promise that it shall not happen again the Minister is not going to prosecute. This sort of thing would not happen in the ordinary affairs of life. I am going to say, as one who went to work in the pit at 12 years of age and who has no pleasant memories of my boyhood life in the pit—the worst part of a boy's life is when he has to work in the pit—that I would have no mercy on employers—and I am as gentle as most people—who kept a boy down a pit for more than 16 hours in one day. I do not think that the Mines Department ought to be doing what they are doing to-night and defending employers who are violating the Act and who have so little humanity in them that they have a boy under 16 years of age for more than 16 hours underground on several occasions. This sort of thing cannot be justified in any respectable company in the world, and as it is breaking the law I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to put the law into operation.
  Commodore KING: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to be unfair. He has repeated several times that the owners were breaking the law. There is no proof of the rupture of the law. That is what I have said. They claimed that they were within the law, and there being that doubt I think they are entitled to it.
  Mr. LUNN: The law says that a boy shall not work underground for more than eight hours, except under certain conditions. The Courts should decide that point. It is not for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say what is the law, any more than it is for me, and it is not for him to come and repeat parrot like the answers which the employers have told him to give. His Department should inquire into these things more thoroughly than it does. There is another point in connection with this matter. I do not know whether this boy was a pony
  1084
  driver or not, it is not said. Let us take it that he was a pony driver, then the pit pony was working 16 hours as well. That is a matter which might also be inquired into. One of the first speeches I made in this House was in defence of pit ponies, and it is important for us to know how long the pit pony was worked. I think it is Mr. Bernard Shaw who says, "Ladies and gentlemen may have friends in their kennels but not in their kitchens." There is no doubt that bon. Members in all parts of the House have friends who cannot speak to them in human fashion, and no one wants to see dumb animals treated unfairly and unwisely. If hon. Members opposite have no consideration for the wellbeing of the human individual—they have been ready to vote for any sort of treatment for the men and the boys working in the industry—I think they should have some consideration for the animals engaged in the industry. I suggest that this is a matter which the hon. and gallant Gentleman should watch very closely and upon which he should make some inquiry. I hope he is going to reverse his decision and make an example of the employers on this occasion. They may not be the only people who are doing it. I hope that even this Government will take steps to stop boys and animals being treated in this way by employers.
  Mr. LAWSON: The answer of the hon. and gallant Member, in effect, was this, that the manager of the colliery admitted that on three occasions he had employed this boy longer than he ought to have done, but he claimed that it was a case of emergency and the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that there was a doubt as to what would have happened if the matter had gone into Court. I say that there is no emergency which can justify a boy of 15 years of age being kept at work for 16 hours a day, and I do not think there is any doubt as to the course the Secretary for Mines should have taken in a case where the offence has been repeated three times. In the Mines Act there is nothing which would lead any manager to believe that a boy could be employed in this way in any ease of emergency. I remember reading the discussions which took place at the time when the Act was passed, and the only emergency in the minds of hon. Members was an accident of a particular kind

  1085
  which might render it necessary for longer hours to be worked. There was nothing of that on this occasion; and what makes the situation worse is that in every colliery in this county, as in most counties, there are large groups of boys of this age who cannot get work. The work which was done by this boy of 15 years of age could have been undertaken by some other boy or miner. The hon. and gallant Member says that one of the chief officers was actually working at this time. All I can say is that any other boy or miner could have done the simple work that was being done by this boy, and in any case there was no emergency which could be justified in any Court for employing a boy for 16 hours.
  The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) pointed out that men and boys hesitated to take on work in these circumstances, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that during the past year there have been complaints on the part of men and boys with regard to a loosening of the regulations, but they dare not lay their complaints in the proper way. That is the situation in the mines to-day. I have heard the men say that they dare not insist upon the application of the legal minimum wage. That is a very serious situation for any industry, but it is the position in the mining industry to-day; and if the Government does not protect men and boys by insisting on the regulations being carried out there is very little hope for them under present conditions. When we compare the hours worked in the coal mines here with the hours worked in other countries we are told that they work the same hours, or less than we do, on paper but that they do not carry out the regulations which govern the industry. Here is an instance of a boy 15 years of age working 16 hours in the mines. The manager admits that he did so on three occasions. If the law of this country is broken to this extent we cannot point the finger of scorn at other countries who do not carry out their laws and regulations. I hope we have heard the last on that subject.
  We do not want to be vicious in regard to the managers of collieries, but when it comes to boys of this age working these long hours the House should insist that the Secretary for Mines should see that those who are responsible are carrying
  1086
  out the law or take proper steps to bring them to the Court and have them dealt with in a proper way. That is our point of view. If many Members of this House had, as boys, worked a double shift in the mines, as some of us have done; if they had worked even 10 or 12 hours in the mine, then, I am sure this House on all sides would insist upon the Secretary for Mines seeing that these regulations were carried out. They would insist upon the Mines Department taking this manager into Court so that he might he dealt with in the proper way, instead of allowing him to ride off on the excuse of an emergency. The Secretary for Mines and those advising him should carry out the law in this case, as it would have been carried out, had the case been one against a mineworker.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I heard with amazement the Secretary for Mines making out a case for these owners. I am sure that the colliery manager has played upon the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know anything about the matter. It is too much to ask us to accept a story such as has been told to the Secretary for Mines. We merely laugh it to scorn. To say that a pit is going to be thrown idle because a boy of 15 years of age is not kept at work in this way is absurd. All that these people have to do was to call in another man and nothing of consequence would have occurred. We know too much of the sort of thing that is going on. We know of the things that are being done with impunity in our mines by those who, on the slightest opportunity would take a miner or a boy before a court of justice for the smallest offence. I wish to tell the Secretary for Mines that he must not rely on stories like this. Many of us here who have had 40 years' experience of the mining industry can tell him something different. As some of my hon. Friends have been pointing out, the miners at the present time need protection. Thanks to the Government the miners to-day are in the position of being "down and out" and cannot take their own part. Men are forced into the position of having to walk the streets without work for no crime at all. They are simply told they are surplus.
  That is what is happening in the mining areas, and if the miners have not

  1087
  the protection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department then bad as their state is to-day, it is going to be worse in the future. At the present time the situation in many places is such that no mine-worker dare say anything at all in the way of complaint. The man or boy knows only too well that if he mentions a complaint his work will be taken from him. There was another point mentioned by the Secretary for Mines which was of vastly more importance even than the question of the boys being kept for 16 hours. To take away a man who is presumably responsible for the safety of the pit, and to put him to do a boy's work and to leave everything else to take care of itself, is a very serious matter. Some of us who have been miners know how these things happen and I have seen a young boy taken into Court and sentenced to a month's imprisonment for doing things which others had done only the day before. In the present state of things, if the hon. Gentleman will not take steps to protect the miners, what is going to happen to them when they are at the mercy of vindictive people who can do all these things? There are people in this House who assume that the coal-owner is an ordinary employer of labour but my experience has been to the contrary. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has said that he does not want to be vicious but the position that is being disclosed here makes me more vicious than I have ever felt in my life.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to do something for those who are compelled to live under such awful circumstances as we find in our mining districts. Let him do his duty and see to it that the miner is protected. He is the only man who can do so. The miners cannot protect themselves, because the Government have dragged them down and placed them in a position where they can scarcely call their souls their own. If the hon. Gentleman is going to leave them at the mercy of these people, they will be dragged down still further. The Government have done their best to cripple the miners' power by the Trade Unions Act and in other ways, but if the law is to be broken with impunity by the colliery owners, then the Minister will have more
  1088
  deaths and more accidents to record when the next Report of his Department is presented to this House. The Government have left our men without the power or the means of defending their own rights. It the Government do not protect the men against this kind of thing, then the day will come when they will regret that they did not take some action. I plead with the Secretary for Mines to do the right thing by these men. I plead with him to do his duty in this case and to let us have the matter tested in a Court in the proper way, and to have it laid down that a mere boy of this kind is not to be kept at work in a pit for 16 hours.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I direct the attention of the Secretary for Mines to three important statements which he has made. First, on the question of emergency he has suggested that a Section of the Act has been drawn loosely and can be interpreted so as to imply that on this occasion an emergency had arisen, justifying the company in keeping this 15-year-old boy employed for 16 hours continuously. As the last speaker has truly said, nobody would ever dare to assert to people with practical experience that there could be such a thing as an emergency necessitating the retention of a boy of that age for 16 hours in the pit. We know the explanation because in days gone by we have suffered in similar circumstances. The reason why a boy of that age is kept in a pit for a double-shift is simply because they are too mean to employ an older person whose wages would be a shilling or two more than the boy's wages. By no stretch of the imagination, and by the exercise of no amount of charity, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this case credit the colliery company, or even his own inspectors, with attempting to meet the position fairly when they argue that this can be honestly interpreted as a case of emergency.
  If the colliery agent were absent for a day the pit would not cease work. If the manager or one of the officials happened to be away the pit would not cease work. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and his inspectors must know that all over the country there is absenteeism at every colliery due to minor accidents and illnesses. Unless colliery companies made adequate arrangements to cope with these difficulties day by day,

  1089
  this sort of alleged emergency would occur every day, and the retention of boys for long hours would continue. It is true the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this particular company will not offend again, but what guarantee is there that any one of the other 3,000 companies will not offend similarly? The hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that the proof that the Mines Department are fair as between employés and others is the fact that, last year, owners were prosecuted in 176 cases, but that out of a million miners there were only 800 prosecutions. That goes to prove nothing at all. The only persons who can summons either an agent, manager, or under-manager is one of His Majesty's inspectors. They are the only people who can institute proceedings, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he had any practical knowledge of mining operations, would know that it is the duty of the colliery officials to prosecute any miner who happens to offend against the law. It is not the duty of the inspector of mines to do that at all. If a miner broke the law, and an inspector discovered it, he would intimate to the colliery officials that proceedings had to be instituted.
  Merely to say that His Majesty's inspectors have not prosecuted any miners, but had instituted proceedings in 176 cases against officials, in no way proves that the Mines Department are interpreting their duties fairly and squarely, or that officials and miners are receiving even-handed justice. As a practical miner who commenced to work in the pit at 11 years of age, and has had at least 18 years' experience down below, I know something of what takes place. Luckily, I am not so long removed from the pits but that I know what takes place to-day. While there may have been only 800 prosecutions of miners in 1927, in all probability there would have been tens of thousands of mine workers who committed indiscretions and who were fined by the colliery officials from 5s. to £2, and threatened that, unless they accepted the fine, they would be dismissed from their work with the resultant loss of wages and independence. Therefore, the mere figure of 800 prosecutions is in no way indicative of what happens to the mine workers throughout the country. This case, at all events, justifies those people, beyond the
  1090
  four walls of this House, who believe that the, law is not administered as impartially as it might be as between the owners of collieries and the people who work therein.
  I do not remember the date when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was appointed to his present office, but within very recent weeks I had occasion to write to the Mines Department because of a complaint that had reached me from a colliery not 10,000 miles from my home, where the ponies were roofing to such an extent that they were rubbing their backs absolutely bare. No workman in that colliery dare lodge a complaint; they would have been deprived of their wages. The horse was made to suffer because the men dare not lodge a complaint. I had to lodge a complaint to the Mines Department, who in turn sent the complaint back to His Majesty's Inspectors, who went to the colliery and insisted on the cause of the trouble being instantly removed. It was removed, to the credit of the Mines Department, when they got to know, but not before the driver of a pony which had been roofing, and which had been made so sore that it dashed off and broke its own neck, had been dismissed for not preventing the horse killing itself, and because he would not bear a fine of anything up to £10 for the loss of the horse. He applied for unemployment pay, and was refused because of a report sent by the colliery company, and yet, when the Mines Department received the report, their inspectors acted upon it so that the cause of the trouble was removed, but no prosecution of the colliery company took place. They were merely permitted to kill this horse, as it were, and dismiss the driver, and yet the only thing that happened when His Majesty's Inspector brought it to their notice was that they corrected their error. These things are common knowledge to most of the men who sit on these benches, who have had practical experience in mines. That is a very recent ease. I recall, not so very long ago, the case of a fatal accident at a colliery—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): This is not the occasion for a general indictment of the management of mines; that is an entirely different question from that for which the Adjournment was asked and given.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I was merely attempting to illustrate the general feeling that the Coal Mines Acts are not applied quite as impartially as they ought to be, and that there are cases on record, which are constantly brought to our notice, where men for mere indiscretions are prosecuted, heavily fined, sometimes dismissed from their work, and tyrannised in various ways; while, on the other hand, where the loss of human life takes place, the law is not carried out to the extent that some people think it ought to be. I was merely illustrating that point. I am content to say that, so far as this particular case is concerned, I in no way doubt the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he argues that it may have been that there was a state of emergency at this colliery; but I am bound to confess that no hon. Member, who has had any practical knowledge of the working of coal mines at all, would dare make a statement of that description. I would further tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, unless he can acquaint himself with the practical side of mining life, he is going to have some very difficult times in this House. There are so many people here who have lived their lives round coal pits, who have not only a practical, but a technical knowledge, of coal mines, that, unless answers are given to questions or replies to discussions based—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the Debate is only on the one point in regard to the boy.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: With all respect, I am suggesting that the reply given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the case that has been submitted is not consistent with the knowledge of any person who has had a close acquaintance with the working of mines. I leave it at that, and merely tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this was no case of emergency, and that if the offence or indiscretion had been committed by a workman, there would have been no shadow of doubt as to what would have taken place. He would have been prosecuted. We have no desire to be vicious, but we do want to see the law administered fairly and squarely and impartially as between men and employers.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: The case submitted by the Secretary for Mines for taking no action is about the weakest which has ever been stated to this House. He has stated as evidence of its being a case of emergency that the back shift over-man was actually doing work on that particular night. But surely that is no evidence. The back shift over-man was merely one of the running charges in connection with that particular shift. With my practical knowledge of mining I know that if they had desired to get someone who was 19, 20, or 22 years of age and could have got him at the same wage as the boy of 16 there would not have been this trouble. It has merely been a ease of trying to save Is., 2s., or 2s. 6d. on the shift. I am interested in safeguarding the lives of our boys in the mines and preventing accidents happening to them, and I have heard what other hon. Members have said about their experiences. My own experience has been worse than that of almost any other Member in the House. I wanted nine days of being 16 years of age when I was carried home on a stretcher, and lay there for 13 weeks. I was off work 11 months. Therefore, I have a vivid memory of working underground before I was 16 years of age, and I think it is a crime on the part of any Department of the State which has power to take action to safeguard the lives of our boys if it fails to do so. To employ a boy for 16 hours is not to give him a chance of escaping accidents; indeed, it is creating the possibility of accidents. It is participating in a crime to allow boys to be employed in our mines for 16 hours at a time. The chief reason given by the Secretary for Mines for taking no action was that he wanted to prove that he was not vindictive against the owners. At any rate, he said that he was trying to be unbiassed in the exercise of his powers of administration. Despite the fact that on three occasions boys under 16 years had been employed in the mine for 16 hours, the Minister was satisfied with the owners' promise that they would not do the same thing again, and says he took no action because he wanted to show that he was not vindictive. Are we to have it suggested that one of his colleagues in the Ministry, the Home Secretary, allows his Department to be vindictive because there is a prosecution if

  1093
  any one is handed a glass of intoxicating liquor only two minutes after closing hours?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the subject.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I was submitting this case by way of illustration. I want to show that there would be no question of vindictiveness if the Secretary for Mines had ordered a prosecution in this case. Anyone selling a packet of cigarettes after hours is brought before the Courts, but when a manager of a coal mine, in order to save 2s., employs a boy for 16 hours, though it would have been quite possible for him to employ an adult, no proceedings are taken. Again I have a vivid recollection of my own experience. I well remember a mine manager coming to me when I was only 15 and saying, "Westwood, how old are you?" I said, "Fifteen—past." Oh, he said, "You ought to have said" Sixteen, past, and you would have got a double shift." He wanted me to tell a lie for the purpose of having a chance of working a double shift. Action ought to be taken against those who break the law. We are told that in this ease managers were not quite sure and the Ministry were not quite sure whether there had been a breach of the Coal Mines Act, but where they are not sure then, in the interests of safety, and the lives of our boys, they ought to take action. There ought to be a prosecution in this particular case. It is not a question of vindictiveness, but of seeing that the lives of our boys are saved, and I trust the Secretary for Mines will admit, I will not say that he has made a mistake, but that he has been wrongly advised in this connection. We feel that action ought to be taken because this is not the only case in which the Coal Mines Act is being broken. We are sure it is being broken every day of the week, but our men fearing victimisation, will not stand up for their rights. I submit that the Minister ought to agree to institute a prosecution in this particular case, so as to prove to us and to the outside world that the Mines Department are prepared to safeguard the lives of our boys and not to allow boys to be employed for 16 hours.
  Mr. TINKER: After listening to the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion, I felt that the first thing the Minister would do would be to advance the emergency Section. Even if the employer did have it in his mind that he could keep the lad on because another lad did not turn up, it is no excuse for keeping him on during the whole of the shift. He could have retained the boy for a short time until he had got someone else to take the place of the boy who did not turn up. The fact of his keeping the boy on for the whole of the shift tells me that the manager had no idea of trying to carry out the Eight Hours Act. Because of the extent to which this thing has gone on, the Minister ought to have taken a case to Court in order to get the question settled once and for all. In the minds of the employers there is a feeling that they can use these emergency powers on any and every occasion, and I am sorry to say that the inspectors of mines have assisted employers to form that opinion.
  When the Seven Hours Act was passed, I say without hesitation that the inspectors of mines thought seven hours was too short a period, and in scores of cases which, on my own information, were notified to inspectors in not one did they prosecute. They warned employers, who promised not to do it again, but there was never any prosecution. But if they thought the seven hours' day too short, when the eight hours' day came into operation I did expect that the mine inspectors would at once see that the law was carried out in its entirety. Even if they did not think seven hours was long enough, surely eight hours is long enough, and that Regulation ought to be rigidly carried out. The Secretary for Mines is new to his position, but he must not leave himself entirely in the hands of the mine inspectors because there has been far too much of this kind of thing in the past. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will examine this question impartially, and if he feels that something ought to be done I hope he will not let the office dictate to him. I know if the lead given by the Mines Department is followed, there will be very few prosecutions in cases of this kind. I am glad that this matter has been brought forward on the Floor of the House, because

  1095
  it will show mine managers and inspectors what we intend to do.
  This question cannot stop where it is now. Probably the Secretary for Mines will not take any further action in this case, but when the next case comes up, there should be no doubt as to what he ought to do. He should let the Courts decide these cases. We are demanding a more strict enforcement of the Mines Act. That Act is on the Statute Book, and somebody should see that the mine-owners fufil their duty, and this kind of thing ought not to be carried any further. I am glad that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has brought this case forward in the House of Commons for the purpose of preventing this kind of thing happening again in the future.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The Secretary for Mines dwelt for a long time on the point that he was not biased in favour of the employers. I put certain supplementary questions on this question earlier in the afternoon, and after hearing the hon. Gentleman's answers, I have nothing to withdraw. I believe the Mines Department has taken the employers' point of view, and has not even given up defending the employers in this House.
  9.0 p.m.
  Of course, I do not expect that any good will be done in this particular case, but the Debate we have had will do two things. First of all, it will put a little heart into the men employed in the coalfields, who will see that somebody is taking notice of their grievances; and, secondly, this Debate will be a warning to those who are breaking the law and to the inspectors, because it will show that we are insisting upon the law being carried out, and that inspection should take place from day to day. The speech made by the Secretary for Mines can be divided into two parts. The first part consisted of an apology for the employers, and the second was an attempt to show that the Mines Department was neutral in regard to these matters. I propose to examine both those points. The first part of the speech consisted of an apology for the employers. It is no good the Secretary for Mines coming here and stating that he is neutral. We did believe that the Government was neutral in 1925, and the Prime Minister was looked upon at that time as neutral in these matters, and hon. Members went about the country
  1096
  talking about the simple, honest Prime Minister. We accepted the man at his face value, but we have been done once and we cannot stand it twice. After proposing to increase the hours of miners from seven hours to eight hours, the representative of the Mines Department cannot come here and talk about neutrality in these matters, and it is time that humbug and nonsense of that kind was stopped. The Secretary for Mines has read two or three documents sent to him by one of his inspectors and from the owners. The owners' case is that these boys worked on three different occasions for 16 hours. It is admitted that the Act of Parliament says they should only work eight hours, but the Secretary for Mines hangs on to a Clause which makes an exception in the case of sickness and emergency, and under those circumstances it is claimed that a person can be worked for more than the regular hours. I do not believe that mine inspectors are empowered to overlook a thing like that. I know that there is a kind of hidden belief that if a man is an official, his word is to be taken like the laws of the Medes and the Persians.
  The point put in this connection by the last speaker has not been met, but assuming that there was an emergency and a difficulty occurred, it did not justify the working of these boys for 16 hours per day. The Secretary for Mines says that this is an isolated colliery, and we are asked to deal with this as an isolated case. The representative of the Mines Department does not say how far this colliery is from a place where another man could have been got to fill the vacancy. I am told that there is a district close at hand where a man could have been obtained to fill the vacancy. In districts like these there are frequently motor bicycles near the colliery, and a place that is usually a 20-minutes' walk can be reached in a very few minutes on a motor bicycle.
  Assuming that there was an emergency and admitting there was sickness, it was quite easy within half-an-hour to notify a man in the neighbouring village that there was a shift vacant. In a village near to this colliery there were many unemployed men signing on at the Labour Exchange, and this work would have meant to them a day without receiving unemployment benefit. Instead of that course being taken, the Secretary for

  1097
  Mines comes here and defends the action of the employers who on three different occasions worked these boys for 16 hours a day without attempting to bring any other men to take their places.
  The Secretary for Mines says there was reasonable doubt in the employers mind, but I should like to know who was consulted by the inspector. Did he consult the boys? Were they asked a single question? Were the victims ever asked a question by the inspector of mines? The boys were not consulted, and the men who worked with the boys were not consulted. I would like to know if the union officials were consulted. The only persons whom this neutral department and the neutral Government representative consulted seems to have been the employers, and of course the criminals are bound to make any excuse. The Secretary for Mines consulted the criminals but he never consulted the boys, and so far as I know he does not say that he consulted the check-weigher. The employers were consulted. We are told that an inspector was sent down and he consulted the person who committed the offence, but the person consulted says that he did not commit the offence and we believe him. We are asked to say that that is the action of a neutral Minister.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman sought to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) when he said that the law was being broken. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite indignant, and said that there had been no breaking of the law, but that there was a doubt as to whether the law was broken or not. Surely, that is all the more reason for undertaking a prosecution. Take the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own words. He says that the Act was not drawn so tightly as it might have been, or, at least, as some people thought it should have been; it leaves a doubt. That is one of the very reasons why a prosecution should have been undertaken, not the third time but the first time, in order to get a case decided in the Courts, so that the miners, the boys and the owners would know exactly where the law stood. Further, if that case had gone against the miners, it would have been the duty of the House of Commons to take immediate steps to put that right. What is the position now? This is vague. We cannot come here and
  1098
  ask for an amendment of the law, because we do not know whether the law says that this is a crime or not. The hon. and gallant Gentleman refuses to undertake a prosecution, because he wants the law to remain vague. When some of my hon. Friends on this side occupied seats on the Front Government Bench at the time of the Campbell case, the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends nearly went wrong in their minds because an ex-soldier, who had not committed any offence like this, was let off. They demanded all sorts of inquiries. Here, however, when their friends are in the dock, when their friends are deliberately committing an inhuman crime, we are asked to believe that the thing was not seriously meant at all.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted his figures. He says that so many men were prosecuted for carrying matches to the danger of their fellows. He says that that is dangerous, and everyone admits that it is; no one denies it. But is it any more dangerous than this crime of working a boy of 15 for 16 hours, presumably using the ordinary miner's lamp? You see hon. Members here sleeping after eight hours in an atmosphere like this—eight hours less than the time for which these boys of 15, growing boys, were down a pit with an atmosphere 50 times worse than this, bad as this is. Fancy a boy at the end of 14 hours, and, indeed, more than that, because there is the time occupied in going to his work—possibly 15 or 16 hours, with a miner's lamp, and every temptation for a lad of that age. I never worked in a pit, but it was bad enough in the old days to leave home at five in the morning in order to start work at six, and for growing boys, apprentices, to have to stand on their feet at the bench till about five o'clock at night. Think of the danger to which the employment of these boys in the pit exposed their fellows, and yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about the dangers of people carrying matches, as if this other offence were not far more dangerous. I am told that these boys are even responsible for machinery that is worked in the pits. Imagine that—boys of that age, after all that time down the pit. Then we are told that really no offence was committed, and that we must be satisfied with a guarantee that it will not be done

  1099
  again, and are asked to believe that there is no difference in the administration of the law.
  I remember a case with a colleague of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's, the Secretary of State for Scotland, at the end of last Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) had a case where some boys of about the same age started to steal some coal from a bin outside the pit. It was the first time they had ever been in trouble, and we came down to this House to ask that their sentence should be reduced from the three months which was imposed. The Secretary of State said, "No; the law must be administered; we must carry out the law with its utmost rigor." That was a case in which poor boys were concerned. This time it is rich mine-owners, and, therefore, they are to be exempt. I say that the case which has been raised to-night is an indefensible case, a shocking case, and that a Minister should never have undertaken the task of defending it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted right at the outset that even to work a boy for eight hours was against a great deal of the laws of humanity, and that from a humanitarian point of view it was hard to defend, but he comes down here to defend working a boy for 16 hours. He ought to have been ashamed of the task that was set him, and no decent man should have taken the job of defending a Government that would allow that to go on. It is said that we must not be vindictive towards the owner. I would not be vindictive towards him, but I would see the law carried out and put into full force against him, for a person who would commit a crime like that deserves an even stricter and harsher law than has hitherto been passed to punish him.
  Mr. POTTS: I want to say, in the first place, that the new Minister has started very badly so far as the management of mines is concerned. I speak from experience of these matters. In my time I have had the privilege, or the opportunity, of meeting mining inspectors in many cases in connection with our mines, and I know of cases where they have refused to take proceedings. In my time I have had to go to Doncaster myself and see the chief inspector of the York-
  1100
  shire district, submitting to him what evidence I could, and have obtained convictions in prosecutions which have taken place against colliery companies and managers. How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know what would be the result of a prosecution in this case? Was not the Coal Mines Act passed for the purpose of ensuring safety in our mines, and how can we amend the Act unless we know its weakness in regard to various conditions in the mines? This is one of the very cases in which there should have been a prosecution. The hon. and gallant Gentleman alleges that there might not have been a conviction, but this is a case in which, if the law is not clear, it ought to be made clear.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he was going to deal strictly and justly with both sides, but he cannot do that so far as prosecution is concerned, because the jurisdiction of his inspectors is only on one side. If, as has been already said, a workman commits any offence, he is in the hands of the management, and, as has also been said by an hon. Member on this side, there is no telling how many offences have been convicted. I can corroborate the statement that has been made that hundreds of cases happen in the year in our mines in which no conviction takes place, which are compromised by the payment of money, sometimes to hospitals or other kinds of charities, and they are allowed to go free under those conditions. The Coal Mines Act needs remedying if that sort of thing can go on, and if an offence is committed on either side a prosecution ought to be undertaken in the interests of the safety of the men. If this boy had been killed on the third shift the Minister would be in a very serious position. Fortunately he was not killed or injured. Here is a case where the Minister admits a doubt as to getting a. conviction if action had been taken. I have no doubt at all in my mind that a conviction would have been obtained. But assuming that he did not succeed in getting a conviction, it is worth taking the trouble with a view to amending the Act to make it safe for humanity in the mines. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bring in a short Bill to amend this Section so that there shall be no doubt in the future?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A question of amending the law is not in order in this Debate.
  Mr. POTTS: It is new legislation I agree, but the thing is of such importance that I thought I should be allowed in the interests of humanity and the safety of life to put it. The point has been put and I hope the Minister will consider what I have said. If we have no amending legislation in the near future it will be up to us to take the necessary steps to bring in an amending Bill.
  Mr. PALING: I think most Members on this side who know anything about coal mines were pretty sure in their own minds what would be the defence made by the coalowners concerned in this case. In every case that has come to my notice ever since this Clause was put into the Act about working over eight hours a day, whether it has been the subject of a prosecution or not, the defence by the coalowner has been that it was a question of emergency. It has been the boast of these people for years that they could drive a coach-and-four through the emergency Clause. They have used it from that point of view and they have broken it scores, hundreds and thousands of times. When they have been faced with it they always ride off on this question of emergency. I was hoping the Secretary for Mines would have known this and, having such a glaring case in front of him, would not have been persuaded by such a, weak and flimsy excuse, because that is what it amounts to. He knows, or should know, as every coal miner and every coalowner knows, that the word "emergency" was never intended to be used in that way. It was intended to be used in cases where something had occurred and a gang of men was necessary to keep the pit going, whereby a good many men might have lost shifts, and particularly in cases where ventilation was impeded and gas might accumulate.
  Let us look a little closer at this and see what it really means. It appears to me, and I think to most of us on this side, that the trouble was not that they could not get someone else on the shift that was just going on to do the lad's work, but that they would have had to get a higher paid worker than the lad of
  1102
  15. Maybe he got half a crown per shift and they would have had to pay another man 4s. 6d., 5s., or even 6s. or 6s. 6d. I guarantee that if the Secretary for Mines cares to sift this business to the bottom he will find that was the real reason why the lad was kept on. I should like to have been present when the coal mines inspector interviewed the coalowners and heard what he said to them in private when they told him it was a question of emergency. The very fact that be reported as he did is proof positive that he did not think it was an emergency case, and I warrant he told them a lot more than has been read out in his Report. I wish we could get the whole business relating to it. It is too flimsy an excuse. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to take his duties seriously he has got to treat these cases much more seriously than he has done up to the present, and when he gets a case as outstanding as this it is his duty to prosecute, if it is only to prevent other people doing the same thing in the future. It has been done too often in the past and, if he is determined to stop it, he has got to take more vigorous action than he has ever taken in the past.
  There is another question I should like to raise apart from the humanitarian point of view. I remember the question that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) asked a week or two ago about the number of accidents occurring to boys between 14 and 16 and when the figures were given a gasp of astonishment went through the whole House. There were 37 fatal and 264 serious accidents, and the number of less serious accidents could not he given. Serious accidents are those in which there is the loss of a limb or an eye or a fractured skull, which often results in death. In face of that, with a glaring case like this in front of him, the hon. and gallant Gentleman refuses to touch the people who have so flagrantly broken the law. If he wants to reduce that terrible toll of accidents to boys it is in this direction that he has got to act. I was in Doncaster Infirmary a week or two ago. On one side of me was a collier with a broken leg and on the other side a boy of 16 who had been run over by a tram. What position would a boy be in after being in the wretched atmosphere of the pit for that length of time, through loss of energy and physical

  1103
  fatigue, to take care of himself? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows anything about mines and the haulage roads and the work the boys have to do, he must know they have to use every ounce of energy they have and have every nerve fixed on their work and to be alive to the utmost extent in order to take care of themselves and to prevent accidents happening. When boys are kept in a, pit this length of time the manager is guilty of a criminal offence. We shall be having these accidents going up by leaps and bounds if this kind of thing is to be allowed.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman complains because it has been suggested that there is one law for the coalowner and one for the miner. He suggests that while he occupies his office he is going to carry out his duties without fear or favour. I hope it is true, but I have not been very much assured in that respect up to the present. He has been in his position a very short time, and perhaps he has a lot to learn yet. If he can prove to us, after he has had a little more experience and has got thorough knowledge, that he is going to do it, so much the better, but he has got something to live down, not only on the part of his Department hut on the part of his Government. We have a very keen recollection of what has been done in the last two years in regard to the miners and the mineowners and when we charge them with being a mineowners' Government it is because we remember what has been done in these last two years. The hon. Member has got that to face, and, in view of that, I think he will admit that he has got to watch this Question very carefully or we shall be on his toes every time, and we shall make no apology for doing so. I want him to remember that we are suffering under a sense of resentment and indignation at the treatment which has been meted out to us by his Government, and that it is up to him to be as keen as it is humanly possible for the Secretary of Mines to be in watching the interests of our people.
  Reference was made to the number of prosecutions—176 out of about 7,000 people. He says it is a pretty high average. Maybe it is, but it does not meet every prosecution that ought to
  1104
  have been taken against them by a long way. As the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, when talking about 800 prosecutions against men out of 1,000,000, there are probably thousands and thousands of fines inflicted on these people and the figures are not comparable. In any event, he must remember that our people are not in the position to prosecute as the Minister of Mines is. They dare not complain in a good many cases where they ought, for the sake of their own lives and welfare, because of the tyranny which would be exercised against them if they dared do it, and because they would lose their jobs. The right hon. Gentleman's Department is subject to no such conditions. He can afford to be impartial and to act when it is necessary, knowing he will suffer from no such tyranny. Having these things in view, I hope in the future if any similar case crops up he will not hesitate to prosecute these people immediately, in the interests of the safety and welfare of the whole mining community.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not know very much about coal mines. I have not had the misfortune to work in a coal mine, but I know something about boys, for I have boys of my own. It is from that point of view that I approach this question. I approach it as a father and as a member of the working classes hearing of one of his class being treated in this brutal and unnatural fashion in which the colliery owners are now treating my class. Then there is the Secretary for Mines, like all the great men who have occupied that Bench since this Government came into office, who have come there with a great reputation, from the Prime Minister downwards, and whose reputations have gone by the board. It is evident that here is another reputation going by the board. There is the reputation of the present Secretary for Mines. It is a terrible price that a man will pay to get into the Government, a sacrifice, that it should be more to any man than anything else, because
  "Who steals my purse steals trash,
  But he that filches from me my good name,
  Robs me of that which not enriches him,
  And makes me poor indeed."
  The last Secretary for Mines left those Benches with his reputation gone. The

  1105
  present Secretary for Mines is evidently going to walk in the same path, because there is no denying that he is taking an animal view such as those represented on those Benches have taken right down the ages ever since there were coal mines. This animal view is responsible for the hellish conditions in the mines. The animal view of the ruling classes of this country is responsible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down!"] I will not sit down because an hon. Member says so. Do not you say that or I will put you down.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that we are on the Adjournment Motion, and he should keep more strictly to the subject.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am keeping very strictly to the point, and it will take a better to put me off the point. I am dealing here with the case which has been brought before this House in the most respectable and honourable fashion that a case could be brought. It was brought here when you, Captain FitzRoy, were not in the House, but I was, at Question time, and it was as a result of the offhand manner in which the Minister dealt with the question that we decided that it should be raised on the Adjournment, and we got the Adjournment from Mr. Speaker. Those are the circumstances which we are discussing here to-day, and at the moment I am putting my point of view. I hold that I have every right to put it, and I am going to put it, and you can do what you like with me afterwards.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the point at issue.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am confining myself to the point. I am pointing out that the Secretary for Mines has got an animal view in dealing with this, and I am showing that it is because of that animal point of view that I will put a direct question to him. How many times has he or his Department prosecuted the mine owners for abusing boys? How many times have the coal owners prosecuted boys for abusing ponies? There is more interest in them because they are ponies and private property, but no interest is taken in the boys. In the same way that animal point of view pervaded that Front Bench when it was suggested that here was a great industry where the Welsh miners work—this is part and parcel of this
  1106
  question—and the individual who spoke for the Government yesterday suggested that the people who were right up against it through no fault of their own, should send round the hat and beg, so that they should be reduced to beggars.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must resume his seat when I rise.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will do that.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must realise quite well that he is straying from the point.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You say I am straining the point. I agree, but this is a point that is value for straining.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I said the hon. Member was straying.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Oh, I see. I was trying to modify your language, and accommodate it to my point of view. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are not able to pick me up. I spoke about the animal point of view, and, of course, animals cannot understand a Scotsman. My point is this, against the whole of this idea, this complex of mind that is in charge of affairs in this country, that it is all right that the boys of my class should he working 16 hours a day, working like galley ayes, under most unnatural conditions. I was only once down a mine in my life, and I would not work down a mine for all the gold in Christendom, and as far as the present Government are concerned—[Interruption]—I believe those individuals who are interfering with me, if they had to work in a mine, would go and make a hole in the Thames first.
  Think what it means. Here are boys, 15 to 16 years of age, working away down in the bowels of the earth, far away from everything that is pleasant, working at work that is brutalising. If it were not that they were reared by heroes—the greatest heroes of unwritten story are their mothers—they would become completely brutalised because of the hellish work which they have to do in order to carry on this great Empire of ours. If every boy in Britain had to be subjected to this I could understand it, and I would not be standing here to-day doing my uttermost to trounce the ruling class at the moment, to try and whip

  1107
  them and make them squirm for the way they have put it on to my class. If every boy, if the boys of the Government at the moment, had to go and work down the pits, do you tell me that this would be allowed to go on? They would hang the employer who would dare do that to their boys. What do they do to their boys? They send them away to Eton, to Cambridge, to Harrow, to Oxford. I have seen them, boys who never work.
  "They toil not, neither do they spin:
  And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
  [Laughter]—Hon. Members laugh, but a man may smile and smile, and be a villain all the while. It is that type who have never worked, that type who have been reared to enjoy life, who know what it is to be out in the blessed sunshine, paddling in a boat, that type who have the best that this country can give them, making them physically and mentally fit, while my class are condemned to live a hellish life in the bowels of the earth. My class have to work under those hellish conditions, working these damnably long hours, under a system that is crushing the very best that is in them, in order that these other individuals can get so much, all the good things of life. Then we have to send our lassies to go and be servants and wash them and school them and keep their houses in order—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must please keep to the point.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, Sir. Here you have a poor boy. Think what it means—16 hours on end. His mate happens not to turn up. A hundred and one things can happen. Probably his mate has been overworked, and he has not been able to come out, and because of that fact here is a little fellow, a manly little boy, somebody's darling—[Interruption]—as much a darling as any of your boys—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"]—I can speak up, and I can come and hit you on the ear as well as speak up. This
  little lad, a better boy than anything that is produced—[Interruption].
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have told the hon. Member so often to keep to the point that, unless he will do so, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, Captain FitzRoy. I want to tell you this.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to—
  HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it you with the white shirt front who is telling me to sit down? [Interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have told the hon. Member so often to keep to the point that I cannot keep on telling him any more, and I must tell him to resume his seat.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have a point to make, a point of Order. My point of Order is this, that while I have been speaking I have been interrupted, and it is your duty, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as well as keeping me in order, to see that I am not interfered with by those individuals who are entirely out of sympathy with the topic that is being discussed to-night, who do not give a damn for the working class—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Here you have the miners in the country who are up against it, who are absolutely stabbed in this House. and the Government are doing nothing whatever to try and remedy that terrible state of affairs. [Interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not want to have to take stern measures with the hon. Member, but, if he persists in disregarding my ruling, I shall have to do so.
  Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 179.

  Division No. 60.]

  AYES.

  [9.44 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fite, West)

  Barr, J.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Batey, Joseph

  Buchanan, G.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Cape, Thomas

  Ammon, Charles George

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Briant, Frank

  Cluse, W. S.

  Baker, Walter

  Bromley, J.

  Connolly, M.

  Barnes, A.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Davies Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Lawson, John James

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Day, Harry

  Lee, F.

  Smillie, Robert

  Dennison, R.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lowth. T.

  Snell. Harry

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Lunn, William

  Stamford, T. W.

  Gillett, George M.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Gosling. Harry

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

  Montague, Frederick

  Strauss, E. A.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Morris. R. H.

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murnin, H,

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Groves, T.

  Haylor, T. E.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hall, G. H. (Mtrthyr Tydvll)

  Oliver. George Harold

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Owen, Major G.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Hardle, George D.

  Palin, John Henry

  Viant, S. P.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Paling. W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Potts, John S.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Richardson, R. (Houghfon-le-Spring)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Riley, Ben

  Westwood, J.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Johnston. Thomas (Dundee)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphitly)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Windsor, Walter

  Kennedy, T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Wright, W.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Scurr, John

  Kirkwood, D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury),

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lansbury, George

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

  NOES

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Ellis, R. G.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Maclntyre, I.

  Albery, Irving James

  Fermoy, Lord

  McLean, Major A

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Macmillan. Captain H.

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Forrest. W.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francle E.

  Macqulsten, F. A.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Gadle, Lieut-Col. Anthony

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Apsley, Lord

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Gauit, Lieut -Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Atkinson, C,

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Meller, R. J.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Goff. Sir Park

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Greene. W. P. Crawford

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F.E.(Bristol,N.)

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Blundell, F. N.

  Gunston. Captain D. W.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hunnon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Oakley, T.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Harland, A.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Henderson. Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)

  Pilcher, G,

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Ramsden, E.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hills, Major John Walter

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Rees. Sir Beddoe

  Buchan, John

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Remer, J. R.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hopkins. J. W. W.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hopkinson. Sir A. (Eng. Universitles)

  Richardson. Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Ruggles-Briss, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.( Ladywood)

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Rye, F. G.

  Christie, J. A.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Couper, J. B.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Llndsey,Gainsbro)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip

  Sandon, Lord

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H.

  Long, Major Eric

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Davies, Maj, Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

  Davies. Sir Thomas (Clrencester)

  Lougher, Lewis

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Skelton, A. N.

  Dlxey, A. C.

  Luce. Major-Gen Sir Richard Harman

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glan

  Smithers, Waldron

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)

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

  1110

  1111

  Storry-Deans. R.

  Vaughan-Moroan, Col. K. P.

  Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel George

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Withers, John James

  Streatfeild, Captaln S. R.

  Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hutt)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Woodcock. Colonel H. C.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Watson, Rt, Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Tltchfield, Maior the Marquess of

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Major Cope and Captain Viscount

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Curzon

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Question again proposed.
  Captain LODER: When the Debate was interrupted, I was trying to elaborate the argument that the movement in favour of a Ministry of Defence and of greater co-ordination in the fighting Services was part of a general movement discernible throughout the whole machinery of Government. I had been trying to illustrate that point from what was happening in various fields of Government activity and I had come to the last of my illustrations, which was that of Imperial affairs. In Imperial affairs one Cabinet Minister runs two Departments, which have only just been separated, besides the Imperial Economic Committee, and so on, and I want to ask whether it would be really absurd to suggest that the time might come when there might he a Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs, and that Indian Affairs might come under a Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs and not have a separate Secretary of State as at the present time.
  I have wandered some way from the question of a Ministry of Defence in order to bring out the point that a unified administration of the fighting Services is really only part of a much wider problem. The main aspect of the problem was touched on by the Prime Minister when he referred to the functions of the Cabinet. I am not at all sure that the time may not come when we shall have to choose between two quite distinct conceptions of the functions of the Cabinet. On the one hand, there is the prevailing view of the Cabinet as a group of small people—[Laughter]—I mean a small group of people acting as one man; people who are Cabinet Ministers first and heads of Departments second. If you hold the
  1112
  view that the essence of Cabinet Government is that the Cabinet should consist of a small number of people, it seems to me that the right thing to do is to have as many Under-Secretaries as you like, so long as you group all the work under the major heads. Recent Cabinets have consisted of something like 20 members. Anyone with experience of any sort of committee work knows that it is very difficult for 20 people to act as one, or at any rate not as easy as it is for halt a dozen or a dozen at the most.
  The other view is that it does not matter much how big a Cabinet is, because you can split up the work into committees and you can co-ordinate the work of those committees by having a standing secretariat. I would not be so presumptuous as to give a definite opinion as to which of these two views of the Cabinet is the better one. I must say that my inclination is towards what I call the traditional view of the Cabinet. But, as a matter of fact, during and particularly since the War we have gone quite a long way in the other direction. If this is to be the future line of development, a Ministry of Defence is not so necessary; that is to say, if you are to have a large Cabinet and if all the committees about which the Prime Minister has been telling us are the right way to arrange these things, then I am not sure that a Ministry of Defence is so necessary on broad grounds, although it may very well be justified on technical grounds. But if you take the other view, if you take the view that your Cabinet ought to be a small body of people, then I think a Ministry of Defence is essential, because it is only by reducing the representatives of the fighting Forces in the Cabinet to one, and by making some similar reduction in the number of Ministers that attend to other services in the Cabinet, that you can possibly have a small enough body of men to be able to think and act together without the cum-

  1113
  bersome machinery of secretariat and sub-committees into which we are gradually drifting?
  The Prime Minister mentioned the Haldane Committee on "The machinery of Government," and my recollection is that on the question of the? Ministry of D efence what they said was that they thought the thing had better remain as it was, because they sat at the end of the War and they recognised that war conditions could not end all at once and—I think it was in the latter part of 1918—they could not see their way to make definite recommendations on the subject. But conditions have changed a great deal since 1918. What I would like to ask the Prime Minister is this: Would he consider carrying on and bringing up to date the work of the Haldane Committee on "The machinery of Government"? The reason why I ask that question in this particular connection is this: It seems to me that it is only by examining the place of the fighting Services in the administrative machine as a whole that you can come to a conclusion as to whether or not a Ministry of Defence is worth while on the broad view, apart from the technical points which have been put by my hon. Friend.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. ALFRED WILLIAMS: I had hoped to take part in this Debate earlier in the day and to say various things, but I now find that most of them have already been said, and I will confine myself to one point. I would like, first of all, to thank the Liberal party for having given us an opportunity of discussing this very important question. Important as was the subject of discussion a few moments ago, the subject we are now debating is even more important, and, speaking for myself, I wish that we had been able to devote the whole of our time to it. My one point is this: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) quoted one of my statements and rather challenged my contention that the battleship was the backbone of the Fleet. As it at present exists, it seems to me that the battleship, and nothing else, is the backbone of the Fleet. I do not mean to say that I believe the battleship cannot be defeated from the air. I do not know; I do not believe that anyone know whether a mass
  1114
  attack by dozens and perhaps hundreds of aeroplanes would demolish a Fleet or not. No one can be dogmatic about it. Put the matter the converse way. Supposing the First Lord of the Admiralty came to the House and said: "I am going to risk it, and to abolish all our battleships, even if other countries keep theirs." Should we then be safe?
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: Yes, perfectly safe.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot contradict my superior officer, but I am bound to say that I am doubtful whether cruisers and aircraft could protect merchantmen in all parts of the world against an enemy battle fleet. It would be a very serious risk, and, while I am not in love with the battleship, I do not believe that as a nation we can abandon battleships before other people do so, without running very serious risks indeed. Let me add that the first thing I want to see abolished by common consent is the battleship. It is the most expensive engine that humanity has devised for destruction, not only in itself, but in its dockyards and all its various appurtenances. If the countries of the world cannot agree to promise never to fight each other again, they might at any rate agree to make peace time a little more pleasant by reducing expenditure on their most expensive arm, by reducing battleships. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year wants the race between revenue and expenditure to be a little more uneven and to have his revenue well ahead of expenditure, the best way to do it is to get on as far as possible internationally with the reduction of the size and fire and number, and the increase of the age of battleships of all kinds.
  In conclusion, let me say that it does not seem to me that the Prime Minister was quite clear on one matter. Undoubtedly what the man-in-the-street feels to-day is that we are spending a tremendous sum on the Navy and on battleships, and that we are spending a very much smaller sum on the Air Force. He feels uneasy about it, and he feels that the relative expenditure between the three Forces is settled in rather a curious way. He feels that it is settled by a wrangling between the three Ministers concerned. In other words, the relative strength of the three Services of this nation is decided when the Prime Minister decides which wrangler he is going

  1115
  to put into office. If it be a question of wrangling, and the devil takes the hindmost, the Secretary of State for Air seems to me to be in the clutches of the devil at the present time. From the national point of view—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman in winding up the Debate will make this clear—how is the decision come to with reference to the relative expenditure of the three fighting Forces? As a naval officer, I rather think we are spending too much on the Navy and not enough on the Air Force, that there is a threat to the centre of our Empire from aerial attack which is greater than the threat to our battleship and sea supremacy. I think I am expressing the feelings of a great number of Members on this side of the House when I say that we are not satisfied that this decision on the relative expenditure on the three fighting Forces is come to in a cool, calm and clear atmosphere. The decision seems to be come to by a wrangling between the three Departments.
  Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: I would like to offer one or two comments on this subject, which is, to my mind, a question of unity of control—whether it is desirable to have complete unity of control or not. Let me refer for a moment to what happened during the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was in control at the time, was very anxious to achieve unity of command during the War, but, from our point of view, there was only one way of achieving it and that was by appointing a Generalissimo. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would not have that, and in this House, in November, 1917, he stated that it was his definite conviction that that solution was unthinkable—that was the expression he used—for this reason, that if he put the British Army under a French Generalissimo the responsibility for the safety of the British Army would really devolve upon the Cabinet and not upon the British Commander-in-Chief, and it would make extraordinary difficulties for the British Cabinet. He much preferred to have Committees to effect the unity of command. We find precisely the same thing to-day. It has been described this afternoon that the unity of control in the
  1116
  three Services is being secured by Committee, a multitude of Committees, which is a weakness. When these Committees are really co-ordinated by a very powerful Secretariat, I think they make for still further weakness.
  I am not one of those who advocate running straight into a Ministry of Defence right away. I think it is quite impossible to do so. I am one of those who believe very strongly in the Report of Lord Haldane's Committee on the machinery of Government. I believe it is absolutely sound, but there, again, we cannot get that straight away. I think that we have to make greater progress towards a Ministry of Defence, which is the obvious solution, never mind what anybody thinks. Obviously, we have to get to it in course of time. We are going too slowly at the moment. We have to make greater progress. I congratulate the Government upon taking one step, and a very important step—the establishment of the Imperial College in Buckingham Gate. It is a step in the right direction. I have always advocated the construction of a combined General Staff, or whatever you like to call it—a staff which will study the naval, military and air problems. It is essential that we should train people up to it, and I am glad that the Government have established such a college. But we are not going quickly enough. A greater pace is required.
  I asked the Prime Minister—I think it was two years ago—whether he would not give a day in this House for the discussion of Service Estimates as a whole, and the answer he gave, as far as my recollection goes, was that on that particular occasion it was impossible, but he would think about it on another occasion. We have not had it this year. I say that we want it next year. We want some evidence of progress towards this end, which we all know must come in the establishment of a Ministry of Defence. I feel very strongly that the Government ought to promise us a day for the discussion of Imperial Defence as a whole. If I were to get up on the Army Estimates and talk on naval matters or on air matters I should be ruled out of order, and on the Air Estimates and the Navy Estimates I should be limited to those subjects. This question is one whole question. You cannot

  1117
  divide it into parts; you have to discuss it as a whole. We have to get this unity of control, and the sooner we realise that the better. My whole object in rising to-night is not to say that we ought to have a Ministry of Defence at once, which I believe is impossible, but to urge that we should make some progress towards it. Let us next year have a chance of discussing the subject as a whole and not in the watertight compartments as we have been forced to do in the past. I certainly think that Ministry of Defence is the ultimate solution, and we have to work towards it gradually, but regularly and systematically.
  Commander BELLAIRS: A discussion on this question as a whole certainly was promised to us in the past. There may have been reasons why that intention could not be carried out, but I certainly think that it is desirable that we should have such a discussion before the Service Votes are disposed of. I venture to think that if this question of a Ministry of Defence were submitted to a free vote of the House, it would be carried by an overwhelming majority. I do not think that would be because the question would be carried entirely on its merits. One reason is that we do not trust the multitude of confidential committees to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred. We have never been given since the War a public inquiry into the question of the unity of the Services for war purposes, and how to bring about economy and efficiency in the three fighting Services. In the old days we referred to the evils of being insured in two offices. Now we are insured in three offices, and the question has become more complex. With regard to those confidential committees, of which the Prime Minister told us so much, we know nothing about witnesses or about the terms of reference. I think we have had quotations from the Colwyn Committee given in the Debates in this House and we have had quotations in the House of Lords, and quotations against the Navy and in favour of the Air. Then it emerged that Lord Colwyn had never even asked the Chief of the Naval Staff to give evidence. What is the value of a Committee of that kind?
  Then there was the Salisbury Committee. I only know of two of the conclusions at which they arrived. One was
  1118
  that the menace of a military invasion had become less. I say that the menace of a military invasion never even existed. They also said that the air menace had become greater. That is true; and yet it is not exactly true. Aircraft have become so powerful that no army would part with it for the purpose of raiding cities. They want it in order to destroy the enemy army's communications and to protect their own; and that is now in the French war plans. Therefore, I say that the air menace has become even less than it was during the War, because it is so valuable that aircraft cannot be spared for the purpose. We have been told of the working of the Committee of Imperial Defence. It has done very valuable work indeed, but on the major propositions the Committee of Imperial Defence utterly fails. It failed on the major proposition of providing the machinery for the conduct of war. What happened on the outbreak of the War? On the 5th August, 1914, the Committee of over 30 assembled, consisting of 22 Cabinet Ministers and a number of officers of the. Army and of the Navy. There were great differences of opinion. The Committee sat a long time and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the Army should go to France. Thereupon, the whole of the General Staff fled to France, and when Lord Kitchener arrived at the War Office he found no General Staff there. Then there was set up a Committee of the Departments, presided over by an Admiral. That Committee was superseded in 1914 by the War Council.
  In May, 1915, there came the Dardanelles Committee, with 12 Cabinet Ministers on it, and following that came another War Council, and then at last we reached the right solution, referred to by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the War Cabinet, of Ministers without portfolio. These changes took place. because the Committee of Imperial Defence had not prepared on the important question of the conduct of war. The reason why we have such great difficulties, it seems to me, is that we will not face facts during peace. We have to learn during war. I take the Crimean War. The only use that was to us was that it taught us the impossibility, as the Secretary of State for War knows, of

  1119
  having a separate artillery and engineering force under the Master-General of Ordnance. That was stopped in 1855; but we have repeated that mistake in connection with the Air Force in having a separate Air Force independent of the Army or Navy. The South African War taught the Army to form a General Staff, but it did not teach the Navy. Then came the Agadir crisis, and Mr. Asquith decided that the Navy must have a war staff. He sent a, Cabinet Minister to the Admiralty, but all he did was to form an Intelligence Department, not a war staff, and it was not until after the Great War had taught us the lesson that the Navy got a war staff. I could refer to the wrong conclusions arrived at by the Committee of Imperial Defence with regard to invasion in 1912 and 1913. The Committee of Imperial Defence considered the question of invasion, and they decided to tie up a large part of the Army in order to resist invasion. It was not until the disaster in March, 1918, that this policy was finally stopped, and within two weeks we had thrown across the Channel 287,000 men in order to retrieve that disaster.
  I turn for a moment to what the Prime Minister has said about the Chiefs of Staff Committee. They have, he said, reached agreement on many points, but is it not because the main questions referred to the Chiefs of Staff Committee are questions on which they are likely to reach agreement? They have not referred to them questions on which there are likely to be differences of opinion; and I put it to the Secretary of State for War, if the Chiefs of Staffs have ever had referred to them the important question of the defence of commerce in the Mediterranean? It is largely an air question, because the declared policy of France is to apply the air menace to merchant ships, just as the Germans applied the submarine menace to merchant ships. Therefore, the Navy must know, in connection with the defence of commerce in the Mediterranean, what possible assistance it can get from the air, and that is a very important question. It is often said that a Minister of Defence would be in exactly the same position as a Cabinet Minister is in now, that is to say, that he would have to be guided by experts, but he would have the
  1120
  advantage of choosing his own experts, and I am not sure that, if the right men were chosen, he would not be an expert himself.
  The leader of the Liberal party, when he was Prime Minister, asked the question, "When does a man become an expert?" and he answered it himself by saying that it was when a man had had experience. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman anticipated another answer which one might have made. I felt inclined to tell the story of Frederick the Great who, when discussing with his generals the value of experience in war, said he had two mules which had been through 20 campaigns, but, he added, "They are still mules." You will find mules among generals, and among admirals, and among politicians too. I acknowledge the difficulty of getting the right man as Minister of Defence, but types of men have been produced in this country like Cardinal Wolsey, Cromwell and Chatham—all men who could conduct war and impose their will on their experts. In the old days of Greece and Rome, when they were in their primacy, they produced men of this type, who were statesmen in times of peace and commanded armies in the field in times of war. It was only when they began to specialise that Greece and Rome fell. Then the statesmen became politicians and the generals became technicians. But quite recently in our own history we have produced these men. In south Africa, Botha was one of them, and so was Smuts; and if we could only bring Smuts home he would make a very good Minister of Defence indeed, but I venture to say that he would have to be freed from the trammels of being elected to Parliament. When we introduce our House of Lords Bill we will have to provide for Ministers from the other Chamber coming to speak in this Chamber.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: That will be never.
  Commander BELLAIRS: We would also have to do another thing. A Minister of Defence would be of no use in a Cabinet of 21 members. You cannot conduct affairs in connection with a war with 21 members. Such a Cabinet is only a debating society, and it would

  1121
  be necessary to reduce the Cabinet to an efficient working force of five members.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I think hon. Members must be thankful that we have had a Debate of this kind introduced in a non-party spirit. That has been the spirit not only of those who introduced the Debate but also of those who have followed. I was extremely interested to find that the vast majority of speakers in the Debate have been in favour of a Ministry of Defence. Speaking in favour of the proposal have been representatives of the Navy, of the Army, of the Air Force, and, if I may say so, of the civilian population. It is a most remarkable achievement that Members of such divergent views should be brought to agreement upon this matter. I think we ought to examine the reason for this great change over of opinion since the Haldane Commission of 1918. I think we must realise that the Haldane Commission was set up at a time when we were overcome by war problems, and when we were thinking in terms of the Great War. We have had time to forget that, and to disabuse our minds of a great deal of prejudice and false doctrine that we generated in that War. Now we realise, perhaps, that the three forces in that War are not separate forces, but one force.
  Before the War, we had only the Army and the Navy, and there was a very nice distinction between the two. The Navy took charge of everything below high-water mark and the Army of everything above high-water mark, and even then there was often difficulty as to how the coastal defence batteries were to be dealt with. Now we have more confusion between the three forces. I am interested in anti-aircraft, and I should like to draw the attention of the Government to the difficult state of confusion that exists in air defence, as an illustration of the necessity of a Ministry of Defence. If hostile airships ever came over the North Sea, they would presumably be attacked by the Navy, but the moment they crossed dry land, they would probably come under the aircraft guns of the Army. If they went to the north coast of Lincolnshire and along the Humber, they would fly about first over the sea, and then over land, and they
  1122
  would come under the Army and Navy alternately every few seconds. We cannot control the defences of the country with a complicated system like that. We must have one Minister in charge during peace time to co-ordinate the policy of air defence.
  I should like to issue a distinct caveat against dealing with defence by committees as against putting it under one person, such as a Minister of Defence. However efficient, willing, and competent committees are in peace time, they can be no more than advisory bodies. We want someone to take charge of the defence of this country, and for that reason, we are, sooner or later, bound to come to a Ministry of Defence. The difficulty of saying whether we want more cruisers or more airships has been mentioned, but we have to decide what is to be the future of the personnel of these Services. We see the Army becoming mechanised. Are we going to train separate mechanicians for the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, or are we to have one school, so that we can transfer the men from one Force to another as they are required; the same with signals and wireless telephony, with clerical staffs, the hospital staffs, and the general administration services.
  It is time we stopped suggesting to ourselves that we have three Forces. It is essential that we should concentrate on the idea that we have one force to deal with, a force that is split up into three parts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that it was impossible to say where we were journeying, and he gave the instance of gunners in the War who were trained more quickly than we thought was possible. As an old gunner, I agree that it is amazing how quickly gunners were trained, and they were perfectly all right as long as it was trench warfare, but once the guns began to move it was difficult for them to carry out their duties. It is perfectly true, as he said, that we do not know on what courses we are moving. Therefore, we must have one head to say how the three Forces are to divide the money. We are all interested in economy, and we have considerable doubt whether at present the money is expended in the right direction. For myself, I take the view that competition

  1123
  among the three equal heads is not the right way of deciding to which services the money shall go. Therefore, I wish to associate myself in a non-party spirit with those who hope that the future of defence of this country will be in the hands of a Minister of Defence.
  Colonel CROOKSHANK: I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the Liberal party on bringing forward this subject, and I would support the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) in regard to the lack of opportunities for dealing with this question. When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and I tried to bring this subject up on a certain occasion, we were talked out, and therefore this is an opportunity which we welcome. I would recall a point to which I referred on that occasion. In 1922 the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) had brought in a Bill to deal with this question. The Geddes Committee, after considering the subject, had reported in favour of a Ministry of Defence, and on that occasion the late Sir Henry Wilson, who was a Member of the House, dealt with the subject in this way. He said the air is not to be under the Army or the Navy nor is the Navy to be under the Army or the Air, nor is the Army to be under any body except itself, but they are all to co-operate. The word "co-operation" translated into action in this way, means to lose the war. The Prime Minister at that time, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), said such a Minister was impossible because a super-Minister would be necessary. From his remarks this afternoon, to which I listened with great interest, I am glad to see that he has altered his opinion on that subject. We all welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister, because at last we have some idea of the workings of this subject. I trust he may be prepared to consider this question rather on the lines I propose to develop. One recognises that a Ministry of Defence may not be possible at once and must develop, and that from a strategical point of view probably in the present Committee of Imperial Defence the best solution. We all recognize—
  1124
  all who happen to know anything of the general staff—that that committee has done valuable work and is now in a position to put forward a considered case. Further, the establishment of the Imperial College will enable an Imperial trend of thought to be developed, which was not possible before, when they have produced an Imperial General Staff to deal and to think imperially.
  if the Prime Minister will allow me to say so, I think he is really the Minister of Defence, but we must all recognise that with his enormous responsibilities and duties it is quite impossible for him to be able to devote sufficient time to study the very contentious questions which are put up to him by the three chiefs of the Imperial General Staff, who, in virtue of the positions they occupy as representing their own particular arms, are bound to differ on important subjects, and it is impossible for the Prime Minister to study their minutes with sufficient care to form an opinion as detailed and concise as he would wish to do. Therefore, I suggest that under the present organisation there ought to be a Deputy-Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, say either the Lord President of the Council or somebody in a very high position, who would be able to balance the considered knowledge of three officers in the position of the chiefs of the Imperial General Staff and be able to co-ordinate their opinions sufficiently to present a case to the Cabinet. I feel that something of this kind might be a possible solution of the qestion. In the case of the Administrative Service I cannot help feeling that the House will agree that the details which have been given by the Prime Minister were particularly necessary. I have known many who have served on some of the Committees which dealt with the various subjects referred to by the Prime Minister, and I know that the Departments have been criticised a good deal in regard to overlapping. Accordingly, in this connection, I do not think that the Committee of Imperial Defence can be the final body. It has already been pointed out that that body is advisory and consultative, but it is necessary to have an executive body represented in the House of Commons.
  Without wishing to suggest anything which would unduly upset the present

  1125
  arrangement, I feel that we might continue the present system, giving more power, say, to a Deputy-Chairman of the Imperial Defence Committee; but I think we should also have some Minister who can deal with the Services, and who would be able to co-ordinate all the problems which have been criticised in this House. Perhaps the Minister who is going to reply to these questions will be able to consider my suggestion. Generally, it is quite easy to suggest a Ministry of Defence, but, as the Prime Minister pointed out, we shall have to rely upon the present organisation, and I hope the points I have put may be a stepping stone towards achieving that object. I think more power should be given to a Deputy-Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and that there should be a Minister to co-ordinate the Administrative Services.
  Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Before I say anything about administration and defence, I want to refer to a remark which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who spoke about the Gough disaster in 1918. No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mean to impute anything to General Gough, but, in case there should be any such impression, may I say that so far as my own knowledge goes it was not General Gough who was responsible for anything that happened in the spring of 1918. I do not want to suggest that we should find a scapegoat, but, if we did, it would not be Sir Hubert Gough.
  I think anyone who has been concerned in any way with the conduct of war must have been very unimpressed by the description which was given by the Prime Minister of the mechanism of the Committee of Imperial Defence as a means of organising for war, and far more so for carrying on a war. I never thought when I entered this House that I should ever find myself in accord with the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but this afternoon, in reference to almost everything he has said, I find myself in complete agreement, and the same applies to what was said by the hon. Member for Fareharn (Sir J. Davidson). He and I were associated in the conduct of the War in France on the staff of the Commander-in-Chief.
  1126
  He knows better than I do, but I know, perhaps, as well as other Members of the House how much one was hampered all through those operations by the lack of unity of control and unity of purpose.
  It is a question not only of unity of command but of unity of purpose, and that is one thing that you can never achieve by committees. However formidable the names of their members may be, however assiduous may be their work, they can never achieve promptness and unity. A committee will either report as a compromise or will waste time, which is valuable in war and nearly as valuable in peace, in trying to come to agreement. That is not the way in which war can be organised, conducted or run. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs pointed out, I think with complete justice, that the three Service Departments, as we know them now, are only in fact one part, and perhaps not even the most important part, of the whole machinery that has to be brought into play to conduct and win a war. But, at the same time, although they are only one part of the machinery, they must be directed together. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs referred, again with complete justice and truth, to the loss of the Channel ports in the earlier stages of the War. I can hardly conceive of a General Staff, comprising Naval, Army, and Air Force officers, losing sight as completely as they did lose sight of the importance of these Channel ports to the future of the War.
  Then there was another point which, so far as I know, has not been brought into evidence in this Debate, and here, perhaps, I may part company with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. If, in the conduct of war, you find a Minister of the Crown, whether he be the Minister for War, or the Prime Minister, or any other Minister, who may have some ideas on the conduct of war which are not in accord with military principles or practice, then, in one or other of these committees, he will find the means of getting people to support him for technical reasons in carrying out his scheme, which may be entirely unsuited to the conduct of these operations. That in itself, I think, is a sufficient reason why these innumerable committees, all of them independent of one another, can

  1127
  never be successful in organising or carrying out a war. It is quite true that the control of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force may require what the Prime Minister called a super-man, by which I think he meant a man out of the ordinary. That is perfectly true, but it is equally true that war, above all things, does throw up men who are out of the ordinary, and I have not the least doubt that the British nation would throw up, in due course, a man competent for such a big thing as the control of the three integral parts of war, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham pointed out that it was really a question of the pace at which we advance. He and other hon. Members have also pointed out, and I think it is quite true, that the great majority of the Members of this House are already convinced, as, indeed, any student of history must be, that the ultimate solution of this problem lies in a Ministry of Defence. The question is not what we are aiming at, but how fast we can advance towards the goal which is not only aimed at by us but is inevitable, and I admit that there is room for great diversity of opinion. It would not be possible at the present moment, by any Resolution of this House, to institute an active Ministry of Defence. The first step, or one of the steps, has been taken by the present Government in the organisation of the college which is now in Buckingham Gate, but I do not think we should wait until that college itself produces a scheme for the transition before we take the initial steps. The ultimate scheme no one now living can foresee; it must be the result of experience, it must be the result of mistakes. But the sooner we begin to start an organisation, to get that experience, to make those inevitable mistakes, and so gain knowledge, the better.
  The committee of the Chiefs of the General Staff, to which the Prime Minister referred, is undoubtedly a step forward as compared with anything which has existed before in giving what may be called a General Staff view to the Cabinet; but that committee of General Staff officers, like all committees, will probably only consider questions on which they are more or less in agreement
  1128
  already. No one can imagine the Chief of the General Staff of the Army or the First Lord of the Admiralty, or the Chief of the Naval Staff, bringing to the committee some point on which he knows he is directly and strongly at variance with either or both. He will keep it away as far as he can from the committee. It seems to me that the committee, existing as it does and doing good work, remains the basis on which we can make the next step forward, and one of the first steps should be to give that committee a small staff and say to it, "You will continue to be a committee, but, instead of being co-equal, one of you, selected by the Prime Minister, shall be the head and the chief and the presiding person at the committee and with due responsibility."
  There is a great danger, which has not been emphasised in this Debate, but which became very obvious during the War, that in a permanent staff committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence you may obtain a dangerous rival to the General Staff, a rival, not in knowledge, not in study of the subject, but in influence, and it may well be that at some stage or other, either in preparation for war or in the conduct of war, you may find the Committee of Imperial Defence urged one way by their permanent staff, who are in the main drawn from the fighting Services, and the other way by the permanent technical advisers of the Navy and Army and Air Force. That ought not to be. There ought to be one, and only one, definite source of technical advice to the Ministry, and the technical advice ought to be in a unified form from one staff representing those three most important parts of the great machine which represents the defence of the country.
  We were discussing in Committee this morning a Bill in which every fault of this system of Committees and Boards and advisers without responsibility was contrasted with a system in which there was. one responsible Department giving one system of responsible advice. No words I can say could have been more eloquent and forcible than those that fell from a Member of the Ministry in favour of the single system and against the Board system. Every word that fell from that Member of the Cabinet is equally applicable when one is considering the question

  1129
  of this system of Committees as against a unified staff representing the three Fighting Services, representing an educated and a considered opinion on a Service problem to the Cabinet. I quite realise that in this Debate we shall probably go no further forward. We have talked it out, and we must wait until next year before some active step can be taken. I hope by the time the Debate is renewed, as I trust it will be next year, the Prime Minister will have seen his way to take another step forward towards the goal which is quite inevitable and whereby we can alone obtain not only the security of our country but true efficiency and true economy.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Government are very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) has raised this question. I do not propose to repeat the very complete statement made by the Prime Minister earlier in the day. As there has been a great number of speeches mostly in favour of some form of Ministry of Defence—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—there is great variance between the conceptions of hon. Members who have spoken, but I admit that they were mostly in favour of some form of Ministry of Defence—I think it is right that I should at least endeavour to reconcile the position of the Government with the aspirations of many of those who have spoken. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened this discussion did not pledge himself to a Ministry of Defence. Those who were present will have observed the care with which he shied at the name Minister of Defence. As he developed his argument, he showed that really he had in mind a super Minister who was to be in complete control of the three Fighting Services. He called it a Central Control Board under a Minister, with a grant of money from Parliament for its services, indistinguishable from a Minister of Defence except in this one particular—Which was rather noteworthy—that this Minister of Defence was to be one of the lucky individuals who were to escape Treasury control. He was to be so much superior to any Chancellor of the Exchequer that he himself was to be the sole arbiter in the expenditure of the money voted to him.
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: No.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was so noticeable that I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to see what he did in fact say in his speech. However, the main argument was that there should be a Minister of Defence called by some other name, such as a Board of Control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was quite outspoken. He was in favour of a Ministry of Defence. He admitted, of course, that committees were useful, but he said they were futile in action. Of course, we never have supposed that committees were to have executive powers, but that they were in fact to be advisory. In fact the Prime Minister made it quite clear that the Committee of Imperial Defence and all the other committees were advisory and advisory only. It was not intended that they should supersede the responsibilities of the three Ministers who now represent the defence services. The right hon. Gentleman complained of these committees nevertheless.
  I think it was highly desirable that the Prime Minister should have informed the House of the amount of co-ordination which has already taken place, and the amount of examination which has already been made into the overlapping which the War showed up and which would take place if no such co-ordination was in fact in operation. The committees have examined the different questions and have reported to the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Committee of Imperial Defence have made their recommendations to the Cabinet and the Cabinet have come to a decision. The decision binds the various departments, and when these decisions have been accepted by the Cabinet the various Fighting Departments are bound to, and do, in fact, carry them into operation. I think it is most useful that Members of the House should realise that the Departments are not careless of overlapping and are not competing with each other and duplicating services. On the contrary, where there is any suspicion of such duplication, the Committee of Imperial Defence has made an investigation, and executive action has followed in the way which I suggest is the right way, on the decision of the Cabinet

  1131
  through the Departments which are responsible to this House for administration.
  It is odd to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs jeering at these Committees—and he was supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—because, if there is a sinner in this matter, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is the greatest sinner of all. At the end of the War there were in existence over 200 Committees which had been doing exactly this work, which has been co-ordinating the various services in the War, and which had been reporting to the War Cabinet, so that the War Cabinet should take action in those matters. That is what we want in peace as well as in war, and more in peace than in war, and it is precisely for that reason that these Committees have been set up, so that appropriate action shall be taken, on the responsibility of the Cabinet, by the various Departments.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But you have not got your super-Cabinet now.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It may not be a super-Cabinet according to Members of the Labour party, but from the point of view of the Conservative party, whether or not it is super, it is a Cabinet which makes decisions, which puts the various Departments into action, and in which these overlappings or other evils are dealt with.
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: The right hon. Gentleman represents a Department, and is putting out the Departmental point of view.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not right that the House should hear the, other side? The House has heard quite a number of speeches by very well-informed hon. and gallant Members giving one point of view, and is it not well that the House should hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls the Departmental point of view, though I should have said it was rather a wider point of view myself? I do not understand what the hon. and gallant Member's complaint is.
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: That it is from the narrow point of view.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the complaint that I am too narrow? Let us develop that. Whether or not there is a Minister of Defence, it is not suggested that the personnel of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force should be amalgamated, nor is it suggested that they should be entirely interchangeable. Presumably the Army will continue to be an Army, the Navy will continue to be a Navy, and the Air Force will continue to be an Air Force. It is true that strategy and some part of the administration might be unified, but it is not proposed that each organisation should be either scrapped or amalgamated. Then their functions, to a certain extent, will continue, and there will be overlapping unless it is cured, and the Committees of which we are speaking will still be necessary, whether there is one Minister or whether there are three Ministers, unless yon scrap separate Services altogether and amalgamate them as one, which you cannot do. Then why complain of the Committees? Why say it is an excrescence of three Ministries? It is not. It is a necessary part of a great administration.
  11.0 p.m.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) asked whether, amongst all these Committees, the problem of the Mediterranean had even been considered. Yes; there has been an inquiry into that very question by a Committee of the Imperial Defence Committee. The Chiefs of Staff Committee is the nearest approach towards a Ministry of Defence that has yet been made. The Chiefs of Staff Committee is a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to which questions are referred, especially questions which relate to joint action by the three Services. Over and over again questions, for example, of what should be done in regard to the position in Shanghai have been referred to the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and they have given us not three separate advices, but one advice. [An HON. MEMBER: "A compromise!"] Not a compromise. Who says a compromise? Why a compromise? Not a compromise at all. It is advice given by the responsible chiefs of the three Services, who will not compromise, but who will give fair and proper advice, according to their merits.
  Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Suppose that one of these three members holds diametrically divergent views from the others. What is he to do? Is he to sign a minority report, or is he to compromise?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend hardly does credit to the Chiefs of the Services. They are men who are considering a question which takes the form of what is the best kind of force to apply to a particular situation.
  Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: They may differ.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Why should they differ? The reason why they should not differ is that the occasion does require a decision which is clearly plain among instructed people, and they are instructed men. I do not know of any case, although a great many references have been made to that Joint Staff Committee, where there has been a difference of opinion between them. It is a most valuable Committee, which is now advising the Cabinet, and whether there were a Ministry of Defence or not I cannot believe that anyone would scrap a Committee of that sort. It does co-ordinate, in a degree which has never been surpassed, the force at the disposal of the Government, and does bring into operation the force most suited for the occasion.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs accuses us of not having learned the lessons of the War, and he proceeded to illustrate that. He said that there was competition between the Army and the Navy for supplies and for manufactures during the War. I am very well aware of that fact. I was at the Ministry of Munitions for some part of the time, and I know very well that we always found the Navy was getting ahead with various supplies which the Army and the Air Force would well have liked to have. It is precisely because of that experience that some of these Committees, which hon. Members are inclined to deride, have been set up, so that the supply, where there is a limited amount of supply, shall be properly allocated between the requirements of the Services. We have now set up an organisation which, should there, unfortunately, be a war, could be
  1134
  put into operation, which will prevent the sort of competition to which my right hon. Friend referred. Already, these Committees have been considering these questions, and from them, if necessary, should the war be big enough, a Ministry of Munitions or a Ministry of Supply could be formed, and some part of the permanent personnel is actually being formed in the work of these Committees, so that, instead of having the scramble and the muddle which we had at the beginning of the last War, we shall have men who have been following up the work in these Committees, and can take their place in a Ministry of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman next asked us to remember that not only the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, but that foreign affairs came into war. It was hardly necessary to remind us of that, but never-the less he did. He explained to us that Turkey and Bulgaria were lost and the United States and France had been retained; also that finance and the power of manufacture took a part in war. He advanced all this as evidence that there should be a Ministry of Defence. Is the Minister of Defence to govern the finance and foreign affairs as well as the Navy, Army and Air Force?
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: My right hon. Friend never suggested that. He used the argument that if the three Services were combined in one Ministry of Defence it would not be an overpowering Ministry in the Government, but the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would be as important, and that during the War we failed in that we did not get in Turkey and Bulgaria and other powers. My right hon. Friend was only giving an illustration, that a Ministry of Defence would not be over-powerful in the Cabinet.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I accept that statement from my hon. and gallant Friend, but I do not quite know why the right hon. Gentleman advanced that argument, nor do I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has succeeded in making it much clearer to me. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was a great danger that we had not learned the lesson of the War, that dual control was a serious thing, and that all these results had followed because of dual control in the War and the want of concentration in

  1135
  the hands of a Ministry of Defence. The truth is that all those things are undoubtedly essential for the winning of a war. Finance is an extremely powerful weapon. The getting or losing of allies is also an extremely important affair. But that is not an argument in favour of a Ministry of Defence; it is an argument in favour of a strong War Cabinet; it is an argument in favour of a strong central control which will control finance, foreign affairs, the Army and the Navy and other services.
  But whether there were three Ministers or one Minister, that form of central control would be just as much required, and I cannot see the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He painted another picture, in his inimitable way, of the three Ministers on this Bench all struggling to share what he called the loot—an odd phrase. What was the loot to which he referred'? Is it money which apparently in a lump sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day can spare? Was that it? Who are the three Ministers who are all scrambling for a share of it? I do not know whether that is going to be what will be done by a future Labour Government, or a Liberal Government for that matter, if there is one. If that is what is going to happen I can tell the right hon. Gentleman this: That is not the way in which the Conservative Government conduct their business. It is not a question of a lump sum which is thrown at three Ministers and of the cunning or obstinate getting the share that they deserve. On the contrary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Government is most careful to examine every estimate, and he does not allow the Admiralty or the War Office or the Air Ministry to have a penny more than they can show is absolutely essential for the purpose of the Service. Do I not know it? It is not a question of sharing the loot. I would not mind that, probably, from my own point of view. I try and get my share. But that is not what happens in our Government.
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: I think we know of that. If the right hon. Gentleman were the Secretary of State for Air, would he be very pleased to see six
  1136
  heavy batteries in the South of Ireland scrapped? That is much more important.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON "EVANS: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to proceed in my own way. I am answering questions that have been put, not questions which, on second thoughts, can be put, because that is a process which would keep us all up very late. The right hon. Gentleman said one single Minister would be the arbiter, and an impartial arbiter, between the three Services under his control and I see some assent to that view. At first sight, it is rather attractive that there should be a Minister who is not specially the Navy nor specially the Army nor specially the Air Force but who should have an equal responsibility with regard to all of them and should thus be the sole arbiter of how much of the lump sum he had extracted from an unwilling Exchequer should be devoted to the three Services. On consideration, I think hon. Members will see that what would happen is that the so-called fight between the three Ministers would be transferred from them to the three staffs under the single impartial Minister.
  The Admiralty would naturally through their staff, having been deprived of a Minister, struggle hard, and I assure you the War Office would do the same and the Air Force would not be backward. And you would transfer from the Ministers, whose business it is to deal with finance and political arguments, to the technical staff the very duties of which you are trying to relieve the Ministers.
  Brigadier - General CHARTERIS: Would it not be possible ultimately to have one combined General Chief of Staff to give the responsible Minister considered advice?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is exactly what the Chiefs of Staff do now. It is a representation of the combined Staffs. The hon. and gallant Member smiles. He has not the slightest idea that the Chiefs of Staff are doing the precise thing which he, with his want of experience, does not seem to realise is being done at this very moment. The right hon. Gentleman thought that there ought to be a great reduction in the expenditure on the defence forces. He said

  1137
  that Europe was exhausted and that with regard to the United States and France it was unthinkable that they should be in a position of antagonism; that there should be a force to police the Empire, and that there should be a power of expansion. As far as the Army is concerned, it is not greater than that; it is a force only just sufficient to provide the Empire garrisons and to keep a force in existence for expansion, if expansion should be necessary.
  The House should realise the great reductions that have been made. I should welcome a Debate when the major questions could be considered, because I do not think hon. Members realise the great reductions which have been made. Although the atmosphere is peaceful and the outlook good we have to remember that emergencies may arise—it is not long since there was an emergency at; Shanghai—and we have to keep a force which can operate at short notice. The problem has been envisaged by hon. Members in quite different ways. The hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) suggested that the Ministry of Defence should be directly under the Prime Minister. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone saw the possibility of an expert Minister, of a Cromwell or a Chatham, who would be expert as Minister of Defence. These suggestions are so far from possibility that hon. Members have not really thought out the position. How can you put the Ministry of Defence under an overworked Prime Minister? It is impossible. Where, are you to get your Cromwells and your Chathams? How long are they going to take to be expert in their job? I happen to have been in one of the Ministries of Defence longer than most men. I have been Secretary of State for War for four years, and in the last 15 years, before I was appointed to this office, there were 10 Secretaries of State for War. Are you going to get 10 Cromwells or 10 Chathams in 15 years?
  Colonel CROOKSHANK: I was rather developing that line myself. The present Prime Minister has to come to these decisions himself in addition to all his enormous responsibilities as head of the Government of this country and Empire, and I suggest that there should be a Deputy-Chairman of the Committee
  1138
  of Imperial Defence, who should study and consider the reports of the Chiefs of Staffs Committee, and possibly deal with them with a more intimate knowledge than the Prime Minister could possibly possess.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understand that; it is an alternative. One is a superimposed Minister, and the other is a Minister on the loose. My hon. and gallant Friend wants to have a Minister on the loose, who will be studying these questions but not taking responsibility for expenditure or be responsible to this House. He is to be a fourth Minister; a Minister of Interference. He is going to interfere with all the other Ministers who are trying to do their duty and who are responsible to this House. There are two ways of doing it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to see the Minister's face occasionally.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I assure you that no disrespect to the Chair is intended. I must refrain from following my hon. and gallant Friend, except most furtively, and try to conclude what I have to say to the House. There is this difficulty, that, if this Minister is to be a super-Minister, although we were asked not to imagine that he would be too powerful, I am not at all sure that there is not a great deal in that criticism. It was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that as things stood now the Chancellor of the Exchequer was overwhelmed by three Ministers, who conspired together to bring pressure to bear upon him. I believe the truth is that one Minister would be much more powerful than three. As it is now, the Chancellor can always play one Department off against the other, to a certain extent. The idea that all three Ministers combine against the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a myth. In my experience it is not so. In my experience the Chancellor of the Exchequer, taking each one of the Ministers separately and one by one, probably does a great deal better than he would do if there were one Minister, who had three staffs all acting together and willing to support him in demanding that such and such a sum should be allowed for the Defence Service.
  Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Does that conduce to efficiency?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In my judgment such a Minister would be infinitely stronger and more likely to obtain what he desires, but I myself think we have not yet got to the time when we can have a Ministry of Defence. I will not say that at no time will it be possible to have a Ministry of Defence. Great progress has been made towards the unifying of policy and administration of the three Services. The Committee of Imperial Defence has been evolved, as most of our institutions have been evolved, by the neceesities of the case.
  We have to remember that here we are at the centre of an Empire. We cannot dictate to the Empire forces, but the Empire is frequently willing to have these problems considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and is willing to consider the advice given by the experts there. But it might be quite different if it appeared to the Ministers of the Empire that, instead of getting advice, they were being asked by a Minister of Defence to conform to the views of a Ministry set up in this country. The Committee of Imperial Defence has already had the advantage of Dominion Ministers sitting with British Ministers and conferring together upon the policy of the Empire. That is a delicate instrument, which it is highly desirable should be maintained in being, and should not be brought to naught. I do not disagree
  1140
  with the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam that if there is to be a Ministry of Defence, it can only be one which is brought in step by step, and the Committee of Imperial Defence, as it now stands, is a useful instrument which, should war break out, can be rapidly converted into a war cabinet with all the essential committees already in existence for the purpose of carrying out war work; and, while we are willing to consider all the suggestions which have been made, while we are not desirous of prophesying for the future, or of saying that certain progress has been made and that no more can be made, I cannot do more to-night than say that we believe that we have an organisation best suited for the position in which we find ourselves, and any advance on that must be gradual, and such as experience justifies.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.