Commons Sitting of 25 February 1931

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

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Select Committee;
  "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for leave to dispense with Standing Order 129, in the case of the Petition of the Associated Owners of City Properties, against the Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with."
  Resolution agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    MILITARY RESERVISTS.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House information concerning the proposals of the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to create a force of military reservists, stating the numbers proposed to be so raised?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): My right hon. Friend has requested His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow to inquire into the truth of certain Press reports which have recently appeared on this subject.
    Captain MACDONALD: Would it not have been better if the Government had followed the usual procedure and appointed an attaché at Moscow to inform us?
    Mr. DALTON: No, Sir, my right hon. Friend has several times stated that we hold the contrary opinion.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate the result to the House when he receives it?
    Mr. DALTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question a little later.
    Captain CAZALET: Is there a Naval or Air Force attaché at Moscow?
    Mr. DALTON: No, Sir.

    CHINESE RELATIONS.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the result of the negotiations between Soviet Russia and the Chinese Republic concerning the protocol signed in 1929 by the representatives of the Manchurian local government, particularly concerning the future of the Chinese Eastern Government and the resumption of diplomatic relations?
    Mr. DALTON: These negotiations have been temporarily suspended owing to the departure from Moscow of the chief Chinese delegate, who has returned to China, presumably to consult his Government. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the details of the negotiations.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been reached between France and Italy on the relationship of their naval forces?
  Captain EDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to the outcome of his visit and that of the First Lord of the Admiralty to Paris?
  Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the First Lord of the Admiralty left Paris yesterday evening for Rome, where they will enter into conversations with the Italian Government. So long as these conversations are in progress, I feel sure that the House will not expect His Majesty's Government to make any further statement.
  Mr. HANNON: Have any special instructions been given by the Cabinet to the two right hon. Gentlemen who have gone to Rome?
  Mr. DALTON: Obviously, that is a question which it would be improper for me to answer.
  Mr. HANNON: Are these two Ministers to give away British sea power without the House knowing what is taking place?
  Captain EDEN: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say anything as to the Franco-British negotiations which, I understand, are now complete?
  Mr. DALTON: I am very reluctant to submit on this subject to pressure even of a friendly character. There was a Press communiqué this morning which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, no doubt, read, and that, together with the answer I have given, is the maximum information that it would be proper for me, having regard to the importance of the subject and to the fact that my right hon. Friend will soon be back in the House, to give to-day.
  Commander SOUTHBY: Can the bon. Gentleman assure the House that the United States and Japanese Governments are being kept au fait with these negotiations?
  Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir.
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give any information as regards the proposed naval building programme of France and Italy?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given him on 18th February (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 1230–31, Vol. 248). I may add that no information of any later programmes has yet been published by either France or Italy.
  Commander SOUTHBY: If I put a question down in a week's time, will the hon. Gentleman be able to give me a reply on the return of the First Lord?
  Mr. AMMON: I will give any information that I have.
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how far the
  2102
  construction has gone in the 1930 naval programmes of France and Italy respectively?
  Mr. AMMON: As far as is known, none of the vessels of the French or Italian naval building programmes for 1930 has yet been laid down. It is understood, however, that some of the vessels have been ordered and that work on material for the vessels is proceeding.
  Commander SOUTHBY: Can the hon. Gentleman say which of the vessels have been ordered?
  Mr. AMMON: Not without notice.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the actual respective naval reductions which have been carried out by the different Powers, including ourselves, as a result of the various conferences which have been held since 1929, with the object of limiting naval armaments?
  Mr. AMMON: Since 1929, the London Naval Conference has been held with the object of limiting naval armaments. Command Paper No. 3547, dated 15th April, 1930, sets forth the results of this conference. No figures can be given of the actual respective naval reductions which have been carried out by the different Powers as a result of this conference, since they could only be calculated with reference to the building and scrapping programmes which would have eventuated had no conference been held.
  Mr. ROSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to France or Italy availing themselves of the capital-ship tonnage to which they are entitled under the Washington Treaty?
  Mr. AMMON: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. ROSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what is the view of his advisers as to whether the numbers of naval aircraft possessed by navies have any appreciable effect upon the strength of fleets; and, if they are held to have such an effect, whether regard will be had to the numbers of naval aircraft in future agreements for the limitation of naval armaments?
  Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The draft disarmament Convention drawn up by the Preparatory Commission, which will form the basis for the discussion at the coming general Disarmament Conference contains provisions for limiting the numbers of naval aircraft.
  Mr. ROSS: Arising out of the first part of the reply of the hon. Gentleman, if that is so, why were they not taken into consideration in the London Naval Agreement?
  Mr. AMMON: For the obvious reason that it was concerned with ships and not with aircraft.
  Mr. ROSS: But the hon. Gentleman has said that they have an appreciable bearing on the fleets.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ARBITRATION, CONCILIATION, AND JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries have now acceded to or are in process of or have undertaken to accede to the General Act of Arbitration, Conciliation, and Judicial Settlement?
    Mr. DALTON: Norway, Finland, Luxemburg, Denmark, Spain and Belgium have acceded to the whole of the General Act. Sweden and the Netherlands have acceded to Chapters I, II and IV. The French Government have expressed their intention of acceding to the whole of the General Act, and a Bill providing for this has already passed the Chamber of Deputies. My right hon. Friend understands that the Italian Government are also considering the question of accession.
    Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman expect to be able to take the Motion for accession in this House at an early date?
    Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir, I hope so.

    ECONOMIC SITUATION.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present position with regard to the League of Nations' inquiry into the causes of the world economic crisis; and when a report is expected?
    Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend understands that a considerable amount of material has already been collected, and a meeting of economic experts, in connection with this inquiry, has been summoned for 2nd March at Geneva. It is impossible to say at present when the report will be forthcoming, but the United Kingdom delegation at the recent Assembly of the League emphasised the urgency and importance of this inquiry and expressed the hope that the report would be completed before the next Assembly.

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether tie proposes to make a detailed statement on the disarmament policy of the Government at any time before leaving this country for the forthcoming disarmament conference at Geneva?
    Mr. DALTON: As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the Disarmament Conference will not meet until 2nd February, 1932. I have no doubt that a statement on the policy of His Majesty's Government will be made before that date.

  MEXICO (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  Brigadier-General WRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make any statement as to the position of the claim of Mrs. E. Henry, of Glebe Cot, Whitchurch, Tavistock, which is one of those before the Anglo-Mexican Special Claims Commission; and, if no settlement has been reached, whether there is any likelihood of this claim and other similar claims under consideration being settled at an early date?
  Mr. DALTON: Arrangements have now been made for the Anglo-Mexican Special Claims Commission to reassemble early next month. It is hoped that all outstanding claims, including that of Mrs. E. Henry, will be heard during the forthcoming session.

  SPAIN (POLITICAL SITUATION).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign

  2105
  Affairs whether he has any statement to make to the House in respect of the present political situation in Spain?
  Mr. DALTON: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware from the Press, Admiral Aznar, Captain General of the Spanish Navy, took office, at the invitation of the King, on 18th February as President of the Council. The new Cabinet is a Monarchist Coalition. The Press censorship has been re-established, but martial law has not been reimposed. The new Government have announced that they will proceed to call a Constituent Cortes for the reform of the Constitution of 1876, and that, as a preliminary, free and unfettered municipal elections will be held. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has further informed His Majesty s Ambassador at Madrid that the general situation is now perfectly quiet.
  Mr. HACKING: Does the hon. Gentleman know when the elections are likely to be held?
  Mr. DALTON: The municipal elections, we understand, shortly, but we have no very precise information.

  EASTER.
  Mr. HACKINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement to the House as a result of his communications with foreign Powers regarding the fixing of a regular date for Easter?
  Mr. DALTON: Six, out of the 23 Governments to whom His Majesty's Government addressed a communication on this subject in November, 1929, have not yet replied. My right hon. Friend is, therefore, not yet in a position to make any further statement on this subject.
  Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: What is the position of those who did reply?
  Mr. DALTON: Perhaps, if the hon. Gentleman would like a detailed reply he will put a question down, but, broadly speaking, no very great enthusiasm was shown for this proposal.
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Why cannot we have our own arrangement in the matter as we did in the case of summer time?
  Mr. DALTON: I suggest that any question on the merits of this subject should be addressed to the Home Office which studies the matter in its relation to this country. We at the Foreign Office are only concerned in so far as it is treated as an international question.

  CHINA.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the position of affairs on the Yangtse, and the revolt of the Communist forces; and whether the authority of the Chinese Government has yet been restored?
  Mr. DALTON: His Majesty's Minister in China reports that the situation on the Middle Yangtse is still unsettled. He is, however, continually urging upon the Chinese Government the need to clear the banks of bandits, who attempt to interfere with shipping, particularly between Ichang and Hankow.
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position in China; and whether there is any recent evidence of attempts at political and military penetration by agents of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?
  Mr. DALTON: There has been no material alteration in the position since my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 21st January. As regards the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend has no information to this effect.
  Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in consultation with the Powers concerned with a view to supporting, by economic or financial means, the Nationalist Government in China for the restoration of its trade, internal and external?
  Mr. DALTON: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Does the hon. Gentleman think conditions in China can be established without the concerted help of the great Powers?
  Mr. DALTON: That is a difficult question to answer across the Floor of the House, but we are very much encouraged by the evidence of increased stability

  2107
  and increased control by the Nationalist Government over large areas of the country, and the House has recently approved the proposals of His Majesty's Government to encourage further economic development by passing the China Indemnity (Application) Bill. Beyond that we do not feel at the moment that it is possible for us to take action.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that Sir Arthur Salter is paying a visit to China on behalf of the League of Nations?
  Mr. DALTON: I am glad to say that is so, but Sir Arthur Salter goes on behalf of the League of Nations and not on behalf of any particular country.
  Captain CAZALET: Is not the question bound up with the question of the stabilisation of silver?
  Mr. DALTON: I have no doubt that has a certain bearing upon it, like a number of other factors.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    BUILDING PROGRAMME, 1930.
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much money has actually been spent on each of the three cruisers authorised by the 1930 building programme; in each case whether the ship has yet been laid down, what is the state of its construction or on what date it will be laid down, and the date on which each of the destroyer-leader and eight destroyers of the 1930 programme was ordered or when will the orders be given; and how much money will actually have been expended before the close of the financial year on the 1930 naval programme?
    Mr. AMMON: The amounts reported as actually expended to date on the three cruisers of the 1930 new programme are as follow:

    £

    Neptune

    …

    …

    …

    950

    Orion

    …

    …

    …

    480

    Achilles

    …

    …

    …

    480

    Neptune at Portsmouth Dockyard, and Orion at Devonport Dockyard, will probably be laid down during August or September, 1931. Achilles was ordered
    2108
    from Messrs. Cammell Laird and Company, on 16th February, 1931, and the date of laying down is not known. The date of order of the Flotilla Leader Duncan (to be built at Portsmouth Dockyard) was 14th February, 1931, and orders for the eight destroyers to be built by contract were placed on 2nd February, 1931. It is estimated that the amount that will be spent by the end of the current financial year on the 1930 programme is £13,175.
    Commander SOUTHBY: In view of the present situation of unemployment, is it not advisable to expedite this programme so as to give work?
    Mr. AMMON: It is being pushed forward as quickly as possible, following the practice which has been adopted for a number of years of beginning the programme towards the end of the financial year.
    Mr. ROSS: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake not to reproach any subsequent Government for having spent money on armaments?

    INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYéS (WAGES).
    Mr. KELLYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that men regularly employed on wiring work under his Department are refused the wiremen's rate; and what steps are being taken to remedy this grievance?
    Mr. AMMON: To be graded and paid as wiremen, skilled labourers must have been employed on electrical wiring for at least five years and be certified by their officers to be fully competent as wiremen. The men to whom my hon. Friend refers have not fulfilled these conditions.
    Mr. KELLY: Are the Admiralty at the present time considering an application from these people, and, if so, are they prepared to submit the matter to arbitration?
    Mr. AMMON: The Admiralty are always prepared to, and will, consider every application, but they are not prepared to agree that this matter should go to arbitration, because they are of opinion that it is not within the competence of the arbitration courts to decide whether dockyard employés are competent to discharge particular duties.
    Mr. KELLY: Is this not an application for wages, and, if so, is it not a matter of wages and not competence that is under discussion?
    Mr. AMMON: My hon. Friend is misinformed, even as to the nature of the own question. It is not a question of wages, but whether they can do certain work.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why civilian pensioners employed by the Admiralty in shore establishments are paid a lower rate than other industrial employés?
    Mr. AMMON: The duties performed by civilian pensioners employed by the Admiralty correspond generally to those performed by labourers and undifferentiated skilled labourers in the industrial establishments and their rates of pay are fixed generally to conform.
    Mr. KELLY: Are these lower rates fixed by taking into account the pensions of which these men are in receipt, and, if so, is that the policy of the Admiralty?
    Mr. AMMON: Oh, no, they are not. It is according to the work they are doing. These men cannot definitely be allocated to any particular category. They are paid for their work.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Are we to understand from the question that better wages are paid by private enterprise than by national undertakings?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

  HONG KONG.

    MUI-TSAI SYSTEM.
    Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with reference to the mui-tsai system in Hong Kong?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): A copy of the Governor's report of the 4th December, 1930, which covers the second six months of 1930 and which is the latest report on the subject which my Noble Friend has received, will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. DAY: I asked my hon. Friend whether he had anything to state with regard to the position. Can he give the House any further information?
    Dr. SHIELS: This is the report of the Governor. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, we are having six-monthly reports from the Governor on this subject.

    CURRENCY MISSION.
    Earl CASTLE STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to the proposed mission to Hong Kong to inquire into the question of Hong Kong currency?
    Dr. SHIELS: It has been arranged that a mission shall proceed to Hong Kong forthwith to inquire into the currency system of that Colony and report. The members of the mission will be Mr. W. H. Clegg, Governor of the South African Reserve Bank, and Mr. P. H. Ezechiel, C.M.G., one of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, with Mr. G. L. M. Clauson, 0.B.E., of the Colonial Office, as Secretary. Mr. Ezechiel and Mr. Clauson will leave for Hong Kong to-morrow, and Mr. Clegg will meet them at Singapore, whence they will proceed together to Hong Kong. The Commission will report to my Noble Friend, and action will not be taken upon their recommendations until the Government of Hong Kong has been further consulted. Should it appear desirable also to consult other interests, this will be done.
    Earl CASTLE STEWART: Can the Under-Secretary of State say whether the mission will be empowered to consult the Chinese Government and British traders in China, seeing that the question concerns depreciation of silver currencies?
    Dr. SHIELS: I have no doubt that the mission will take into account all relevant considerations, but it is solely concerned with the currency of Hong Kong.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE (COLONIAL CONTRIBUTIONS).
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which Crown Colonies or Pro-

  2111
  tectorates make an annual contribution towards Imperial defence, and the respective amounts so contributed?
  Dr. SHIELS: As the answer is in tabular form and contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL RETORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The Colonies which make annual contributions towards the cost incurred by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in providing for their defence and the equivalents in sterling of the sums provided in their Estimates for the current year are:

  £

  Bermuda

  5,102

  Ceylon

  90,000

  Cyprus

  10,000

  Hong Kong

  458,495

  Mauritius

  57,865

  Straits Settlements

  466,667

  Sierra Leone (shared with Gold Coast and Nigeria)

  2,898

  EAST AFRICA (COFFEE INDUSTRY).
  Mr. LESLIE BOYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of native planters that belong to the Kilimanjaro Native Planters' Association; the selling value of the native coffee crop during the past two years; whether it is estimated that there will be an increase, either in quantity or value, in the native crop during the present year; and whether the coffee control regulations apply in the same way to members of this association as they do to non-native planters?
  Dr. SHIELS: The association had approximately 11,750 members in 1929. No information is available as to the value of the coffee grown by its members during the past two years, but its annual value was estimated in 1928 at about £50,000, and it was then anticipated that its value would increase considerably in future years. The Coffee Control Regulations apply to members of the association in the same way as to non-native planters.
  Mr. BOYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds a Government official has been seconded to the Kilimanjaro Native Planters' Association?
  Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has no information regarding the secondment of a Government official for service with the association.
  Mr. HORRABINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many licences to grow coffee have been granted to Africans in Kenya Colony during 1930?
  Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend will inquire of the Governor of Kenya, and, on receipt of his reply, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  TANGANYIKA.

    RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT.
    Mr. BOYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the cost to Tanganyika of the Henn Railway Commission; and if he will say whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed in the near future with the construction of any railroads in Tanganyika; and, if so, between what points?
    Dr. SHIELS: No information is available at present as to the exact cost of this Commission. Pending the receipt of reports on economic and technical surveys which are now in progress, no decision has been reached in regard to the construction of any new railway lines in the territory.

    LIGHTERAGE RATES.
    Mr. BOYCE(for Rear-Admiral BEAMISH) asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what rates are paid by the Tanganyika Government and the public, respectively, for the lighterage of imports and of exports?
    Dr. SHIELS: The general export charge at Dar-es-Salaam was reduced on the 1st of February to 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. per ton according to the class of goods. The general import charge is at present 8s. 6d. a ton, which will be reduced to 7s. a ton from the 1st April next. These are the lighterage rates at the inner anchorage. There is a small additional charge for wharfage and cranage and the rates at the outer anchorage are higher, while special rates are charged in the case of certain commodities. I am sending a list to the hon. and gallant Member. There is no differentiation made in the case of Government imports.
    Mr. BOYCE(for Rear - Admiral BEAMI SH) asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many lighterage companies are operating in the port of Tanga, in East Africa; and whether Government lighterage licences at this port are restricted to British interests only, or whether other and what national interests now possess and exercise equal facilities for the lighterage of the port
    Dr. SHIELS: Two lighterage companies are at present working at Tanga. Government lighterage licences are not restricted to British firms. I understand that one of the two firms operating at Tanga is largely controlled by the Holland-Africa steamship line.

  NORTHERN NIGERIA (NATIVE TREATMENT).
  Mr. HORRABINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the shooting and severe wounding of an African servant, named Moses Ladele, by his employer, a Government official, at the Iju waterworks, near Lagos, in September last; whether any legal proceedings have been instituted in this case; and if he is aware that there have recently been other complaints of the shooting of Africans by European masters at Ijebu Ode and at Kaduna, in Northern Nigeria?
  Dr. SHIELS: The Acting-Governor has reported that a European officer at Kaduna has been committed for trial on a charge of manslaughter in connection with the death of a native servant from a gunshot wound. No information has reached the Colonial Office in regard to the other cases to which my hon. Friend refers, but the Acting-Governor will be asked to report.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    Loss OF AIRSHIP R 101 (INQUIRY).
    Mr. WELLSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he expects to receive the report of the court of inquiry dealing with the disaster to the airship R 101?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I understand that most of the report is written and in
    2114
    print, but I am unable to give a definite date on which the court will have completed it since, as I informed the hon. Member on the 4th instant, the court has asked for certain experiments to be carried out at the National Physical Laboratory, with a view to fixing more definitely the cause of the accident, and these experiments are not yet completed. Results of great value are to be expected from these experiments, and no time is being lost in carrying them out, but the court feels that it would be unwise to present its report until the results are available, or to curtail the experiments for the sake of a slightly earlier publication of the report. With this view my Noble Friend entirely concurs.
    Mr. WELLS: Can the Under-Secretary of State say whether the report will be issued before the Air Estimates come forward?
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Will the hon. Gentleman whisper a little louder?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I am hoping so, but I cannot say definitely.

    FLYING ACCIDENT, PLYMOUTH.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the recognised procedure whereby the instructor engaged on instructional flying in the Royal Air Force aircraft is in command of the machine, regardless of the executive rank of the pupil being possibly senior to that of the instructor, is made known to all ranks; and whether, in view of the recent flying-boat accident, he will consider republishing this in the form of an Air Ministry Order?
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN - DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the evidence given at the inquiry into the recent disaster to a flying boat at Plymouth, he will consider a revision of the discipline of the Royal Air Force so as to provide for the absolute control of ail such craft during flying exercises being in the hands of pilots experienced in heavy seaplane work, notwithstanding the presence aboard of inexperienced persons of higher rank?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part,

    2115
    and to the question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), my Noble Friend is considering whether any expansion or clarification of the Regulations is desirable. Since the hon. Members clearly have in mind the recent most regrettable accident to a large flying boat at Cattewater, I think it my duty to inform the House that it has emerged quite clearly from the court of inquiry that this accident would not have occurred but for direct disobedience of orders on the part of an individual officer. I may add, since there has been considerable misconception on this point, that it has also been established that the officer concerned went up simply to act as marker for gunnery practice, not for flying instruction.

    AIRSHIP R 100.
    Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if a decision has yet been reached as to whether the R 100 is to be dismantled and the air base at Cardington closed; whether he can state the number of Government staff employed in this work; and whether any final decision has been arrived at with reference to this airship?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first and last parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave him on 5th November and 11th February last, to which at present I have nothing to add. On the second part of the question, the total personnel now employed at Cardington is approximately 450.
    Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Member say with regard to the rest of the men whether they have been found employment in the Service?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: For some of the men employment has been found, and, in addition, certain work has been transferred from other stations to Cardington in order to employ as many as possible there.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of awaiting the report on R 101 before coming to a decision on this matter?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: That certainly will be done.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Will the hon. Member consider using the Cardington base for heavier-than-air craft?

    FAIREY-NAPIER MONOPLANE.
    Mr. HORRABINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air with regard to the new long-range Fairey-Napier monoplane which is now being built, whether it is intended to attempt with it a non-stop flight over a longer distance than any yet made; and whether he contemplates restricting the crew on such attempt to unmarried officers or men?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The aircraft in question is being built not for any specific attempt for a record non-stop flight, but in pursuance of the general policy of increasing the range of aircraft by all practical means, and thereby further developing the powers of mutual reinforcement by air forces in different areas which is an essential feature of air strategy. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir W. BRASS: Will the hon. Gentleman in regard to the Second part of the question ask for volunteers for these long-distance flights?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot promise that.

  AIR SERVICES (CHANNEL ISLANDS).
  Mr. EVERARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether a regular air service between England and the Channel Islands will shortly be in operation; and if a subsidy will be given for this service?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: No recent proposal for establishing an air service between England and the Channel Islands has been received by the Air Ministry, and accordingly the second part of the question does not arise.

  TRANSPORT.

    TOLL ROADS AND BRIDGES.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the recommendations in the third and final report of the Royal Commission on Transport with regard to toll roads and

    2117
    bridges, what inducement is offered by his Department at the present time to local authorities to use their powers under the Road Traffic Act to buy and free toll roads and bridges; and whether he will take immediate steps to expedite their abolition?
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Transport how many local authorities, if any, have taken advantage of their powers under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for the abolition of toll roads and bridges; how many toll roads and bridges still exist; and whether he intends to take further action in the matter?
    Mr. L. SMITHasked the Minister of Transport whether he intends, in view of the proposals contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to facilitate the movement of traffic along the roads of the country, to bring to the notice of the different local authorities concerned the powers they possess for acquiring by negotiation and arbitration the different toll bridges and tolls in their areas?
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Transport how many toll bridges or tolls have been acquired or are in process of acquisition by local authorities since the passing of the Road Traffic Act; and what steps have been taken by his Department to inform authorities of their powers under the Act?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am about to issue a Circular to local authorities drawing attention to the additional powers conferred upon them by the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and in particular the provisions contained in Part III of the Act. This Circular will refer, among other matters, to the provisions of Section 53, which deals with the transfer of toll bridges and toll roads to local authorities. I have already announced my willingness to make grants up to 60 per cent. of the net expenditure incurred on approved schemes, the amount of the grants varying with the importance of the road affected. The initiative in the promotion of schemes of this kind is with the highway authorites concerned. There are 55 toll roads and 80 toll bridges still existing. Seven schemes for freeing bridges from tolls are now under active consideration.

    ROAD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the road development programme of the Government; and whether he has any new proposals to put before the House?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have nothing to add to the statements made on behalf of the Government in the course of the Debate on the Motion by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) on the 12th February.
    Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the statement of the Prime Minister on this matter, and am I to take it that the usual programme of the Ministry is being conducted?
    Mr. MORRISON: Certainly, I have noticed the statement of the Prime Minister, and I agree with the statement of the Prime Minister.

    MOTOR INSURANCE (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport if he has any figures to show what was the increase in the number of third-party risk insurance policies taken out in January, 1931, as compared with January, 1930?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no information with regard to the number of third-party risk insurance policies which have been taken out.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Has there been any increase in tariff rates as a result of the operation of the Act?
    Mr. MORRISON: Not to my knowledge.
    Captain CAZALETasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that it is necessary under the recent Road Traffic Regulation Bill for a farmer desiring to move a tractor from one field to another, which necessitates a short journey along a road, to take out an insurance policy against third-party risk for this tractor; and whether he will introduce legislation to mitigate this burden imposed on farmers?
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot see my way to introduce amending legislation with a view to exempting from the provisions of Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, farmers who use motor vehicles upon the

    2119
    public road. I understand, however, that agricultural vehicles used to a very limited extent upon the public roads may be insured against third-party risks in respect of such use at specially low rates.
    Captain CAZALET: Has the Minister of Transport received any complaints in regard to this matter from farmers?
    Mr. MORRISON: I do not think the complaints have been extensive, and I am not sure that there have been any at all, but the point has been brought to my notice on more than one occasion.
    Mr. TURTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any accidents occurred last year involving third-party risks owing to the dangerous driving of these farm vehicles.
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say.

    PUBLIC SERVICE VEFIICLES (SPEEDOMETERS).
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether, in order that passengers in public service vehicles may know at what speed the vehicle is travelling, he will consider making an order under the Road Traffic Act for all such vehicles to carry efficient speedometers with dials placed in such a position as to be plainly visible to the passengers?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no evidence of any general desire on the part of passengers in public service vehicles to know the precise speed of the vehicle in which they are travelling, and I am not satisfied that, on grounds of public safety, regulations for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Member are necessary.
    Sir W. BRASS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the result of putting speedometers in these vehicles would be to reduce the excessive speed of some of them?

    WANDSWORTH BRIDGE.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any schemes before his Department at the present time for the reconstruction of Wandsworth Bridge; and will he give particulars?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The London County Council have not yet
    2120
    submitted any definite proposals to my Department in regard to the reconstruction of Wandsworth Bridge.

    FORTH AND TAY BRIDGES.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now considered the views of the local authorities interested in the construction of road bridges over the Forth and Tay; and whether any decision has now been arrived at by him on the subject?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have considered the views of the local authorities interested in the construction of road bridges over the Forth and Tay, and I have already offered a grant towards the cost of a new bridge at Kincardine-upon-Forth where the local authorities are prepared to bear a share of the outlay. I hope that powers for the construction of this bridge will shortly be obtained and that work will proceed. Bridge projects at Dundee and Queensferry are still undergoing examination.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to indicate the extent of the financial assistance the Government are prepared to render to these undertakings?
    Mr. MORRISON: I would point out that up to the present, out of a total estimated cost for the Forth Bridge of £6,110,000, the local authorities have only definitely offered £108,000, which is 1.7 per cent. With respect to the Tay Bridge, no offer whatever of any local contribution has yet been made.
    Mr. MILLAR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a Government responsible for a national undertaking of this kind should say what they think is the right contribution for them to make?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am certain that every local authority would like the Minister to assume that every scheme is a national scheme, but I am afraid that I cannot assume that, in view of the traffic statistics in the area.

    LONDON TRAFFIC POOL.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates he will be able to put forward his precise proposals with regard to the suggested traffic pool for London?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a reply which I gave to a question on this subject on the 11th February, to which I have at present nothing to add.

    TEES BRIDGE.
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Transport what is the present position of the scheme for the Tees Bridge; if he can give any idea when the work, which will give employment to unemployed workers, is likely to be commenced; and whether any of the preliminary work can be expedited?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Tenders for the construction of a bridge over the Tees have been received, and my Department has approved the proposal of the Tees (Newport) Bridge Joint Committee to accept the lowest tender. It may be anticipated therefore that the works will shortly be commenced.

    LEVEL CROSSINGS, LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Minister of Transport the number of level crossings over railways in Lancashire at a convenient date about two years ago; and the number of schemes approved during the past two years to eliminate these crossings?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The information which the hon. Member requires regarding level crossings in Lancashire is not at present available, but I am causing inquiries to be made and will communicate with him as soon as possible.
    Mr. HACKING: Will the Minister of Transport let me know the number of schemes upon which work has actually been commenced and also the number upon which the work has been completed?
    Mr. MORRISON: I will endeavour to secure that information.

    MINERAL TRANSPORT.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUELasked the Minister of Transport whether any action is being taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the first report of the Standing Committee on Mineral Transport?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the principal recommendation contained in the interim
    2122
    report to the effect that Government financial assistance should be given for the conversion of colliery and other sidings so as to enable them to accommodate 20-ton wagons, has been accepted, and arrangements for giving effect to this recommendation have been made with the railway companies. With regard to the question of anti-breakage appliances, I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines to the question by the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle). The recommendations of the committee with regard to siding rent charges, the prompt working of wagons, arrangements to allow reserves of coal to be maintained in wagons at ports, and the establishment of sales depots at railway stations, have been brought to the notice of the parties concerned, and the committee have been asked to proceed on the lines suggested in their report with the further consideration of such questions as the standardisation and pooling of mineral wagons.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: May I ask whether Treasury assistance involves any ultimate charge on the taxpayer, or is it only by way of guarantee of loan?
    Mr. MORRISON: To the extent that the Treasury assists railway companies in securing the reconditioning of terminals the Treasury will contribute towards the interest charges.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: With reference to the case of the mining industry, can the Minister of Transport indicate what proposals the Government have for absorbing miners into the industry or finding them other employment?

    TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (LONDON).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Transport if he will give particulars of the further traffic restrictions proposed on the movement of private motor vehicles and taximeter cabs in the City and West End; and when it is proposed to bring them into operation?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Apart from the proposed regulations in connection with the scheme for the control of traffic in Oxford Street, notice of which was given in the "London Gazette" on the 20th of this month, the

    2123
    only proposal that I have under consideration at the present time affecting private cars and taximeter cabs is an extension of the number of streets in London in which such vehicles may not wait for any longer time than is necessary to enable persons to board them or alight therefrom. Notice of my intention to make regulations to this effect will shortly be published in the "London Gazette." The regulations cannot be made until 40 days have elapsed after the publication of the notice, and during this period representations may be made by persons who would be affected thereby?
    Sir W. BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these Regulations will be laid on the Table of the House; whether we shall be able to debate them or not?
    Mr. MORRISON: In the ordinary way the House would not debate this particular type of Regulation.
    Sir W. BRASS: We have not the right?
    Mr. MORRISON: I would not say that, but they are not Regulations which require an affirmative Resolution of the House.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can we have a Prayer against them if we do not approve of the Regulations?
    Mr. MORRISON: You may, but I hope you will not.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Minister of Transport if the new regulations dealing with certain horse-drawn vehicles in Oxford Street will apply to private carriages; and, if so, whether such carriages will be permitted to cross Oxford Street or New Oxford Street?
    Mr. MORRISON: The proposed London Traffic (Oxford Street) Regulations provide for the prohibition of slow-moving traffic, including all vehicles drawn by horses or other animals, except under the conditions defined in the Regulations, but these conditions will not prevent such vehicles from crossing Oxford Street or New Oxford Street or from going to any destination in those streets.
    Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why preference is given to rich people in their motors instead of
    2124
    to poor people with their horse-drawn vehicles?
    Mr. MORRISON: May I point out that rich people ride in omnibuses sometimes, and working people ride in omnibuses which are also motor cars? I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, despite the fact that everything I say is interpreted in some quarter or other as class bias, it is never present in my mind.
    Sir B. FALLE: There is no such idea in my mind.

    ROAD SCHEMES, BRISTOL.
    62. The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ALPASS:
    "To ask the Minister of Transport what schemes have been approved by his Department since June, 1929, for road and street improvements in connection with utility undertakings for the city of Bristol."
    Mr. ALPASS: Before the Minister of Transport replies I should like to correct an omission. After the word "improvements," the word" and "should be inserted.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am afraid that the answer would not read in the amended form of the question. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put the question down again.

  NATIONAL ANTHEM.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the question of advising that when the National Anthem is sung on special occasions for which the Government is responsible, a new and more appropriate second verse shall be substituted for the one traditionally in use?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): In this matter tradition is everything and the Government do not propose to improve upon it.
  Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread interest throughout the country in this matter, and will the Prime Minister be prepared to listen to any representations that are brought before him on the point?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of the existence of any widespread interest,

  2125
  but it may be information to the hon. Member to know that the words to which this tune is sung are no part of the National Anthem. It is only the tune itself which is the National Anthem.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Was there not a new version published in 1923 by the Prime Minister, containing the words, "Confound their monkey tricks"?
  Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the knavish tricks referred to in the verse were the knavish tricks of the Tory party at that time?

  ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (CO-ORDINATION).
  Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation for the purpose of co-ordinating electricity generating and distributive undertakings in this country on the lines of public ownership?
  Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The co-ordination of the generation of electricity throughout the country under the Central Electricity Board is secured by the provisions of the Act of 1926. Of the undertakings engaged in distribution, two-thirds are, as my hon. Friend is aware, already publicly owned, and wide powers exist under the Electricity (Supply) Acts for co-operation and inter-working between the various authorities. I do not contemplate the introduction of legislation in the immediate future.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask what progress has been made in this matter in the North-Eastern area?
  Mr. MORRISON: An arrangement was arrived at some time ago between the Government and the Board in respect of the North-Eastern area, and the agreement is being actively pursued.
  Mr. WEST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he proposes to do in relation to the one-third of the undertakings which are still privately owned?
  Mr. MORRISON: The Government are in conference with all the supply undertakings with a view to securing accelerated development, but, as I have indicated at the end of my answer, immediate legislation is not intended.

  BRITISH ARMY (CADET CORPS).
  Major EDMONDSONasked the Secretary of State for War the number of cadets enrolled in school cadet corps at the time when official recognition was withdrawn?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Sanders): The latest figures available are for 31st October, 1929. On that date, the number of cadets in school cadet corps was approximately 17,000.
  Sir W. BRASS: Can the hon. Member say whether there has been any marked reduction since the grant was removed?
  Mr. SANDERS: Not without notice.

  CONTINENTAL ARMIES (TRAINED RESERVES).
  Major EDMONDSONasked the Secretary of State for War the approximate number of trained reserves capable of being called up and equipped in one month for service in the armies of France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium?
  Mr. SANDERS: As regards Germany, the number and equipment of the forces is governed by Articles 160, 164 and 174 of the Treaty of Versailles. As regards the other countries mentioned, there is no published information about the reserves, and I am therefore unable to make an authoritative statement.

  NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA (AMALGAMATION).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if a reply has now been sent to the proposals of the Government of Southern Rhodesia for a conference on the subject of the amalgamation of the two Rhodesias?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): As stated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to a question on the 11th February, no final reply has yet been sent to the Government of Southern Rhodesia. The questions of policy involved, which are of considerable importance and complexity, are still under consideration.
  Earl WINTERTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the importance of this question as affecting the status and rights of oversea subjects of the Crown, His Majesty's Government propose at an early date to issue a statement of their intentions with regard to the future relationship of these two territories?
  Mr. THOMAS: The Noble Lord knows that the importance of this question cannot be minimised; and steps are being taken to explore the situation.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that these self-governing territories, or countries, within the Empire made these proposals to His Majesty's Government as long ago as September last, and that it is now February, and will he consider the importance from the point of view of Empire relations of accelerating a decision?
  Mr. THOMAS: No one knows better than the Noble Lord that there is no unanimity on this question; other views have been expressed, and it is because of its importance that even so long a time as has elapsed is not too long to arrive at a right decision, and, above all, to arrive at a decision which will not be a party decision, but which will express the sentiments of the House of Commons as a whole.

  POST OFFICE (INDIAN AIR-MAIL).
  Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMANasked the Postmaster-General whether the amount of mail at present carried to and from India suffices to make the Indian air-mail service a paying proposition; and whether he will take all possible steps to encourage business houses to avail themselves of the facilities of this service?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant)The answer to the first part of the question is that the air fees to the public for the Indian Air Service are fixed at the lowest figure which will ensure that the transport and other charges incidental to the service are covered. This result has hitherto been achieved; but the general finance of the Indian Air Service is not of course a matter for which my Department is responsible. The answer to the second part of the question is that all possible
  2128
  steps have been taken to bring this service and the advantages it offers to the notice of business houses and all persons likely to be interested.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: As comparatively very little use is made of this service by business houses, cannot the Government see their way to reduce the fees considerably in order to get people to use it?
  Mr. VIANT: If the hon. Member will read the reply I have given, he will see that that question is dealt with.

  COAL EXPORT TRADE (NEWPORT DOCKS).
  Mr. WALKERasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that, under the operations of the South Wales coal marketing board, Monmouthshire coal is being shipped at Cardiff instead of at the Monmouthshire port of Newport, and as a consequence the Newport docks are practically at a standstill; and will he make inquiries into the matter with a view to securing for the Newport docks an equitable share of the available work, and so alleviate to some extent the unemployment among the Newport dock workers?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I am informed that nothing has been done under the South Wales District (Coal Mines) Scheme which would affect the proportion of Monmouthshire coal shipped at Newport and Cardiff respectively. The second part of the question therefore does not arise. It is not unusual in the ordinary course of trade for Monmouthshire coal to be shipped from Cardiff instead of Newport, but the information at my disposal does not support the statement that the Newport docks are practically at a standstill.

  ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE.
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURT-HOPEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether a grant will be available from the Development Fund towards the cost of reconstructing the Royal Veterinary College; upon what conditions it will be made; whether any further grant will be available from other funds; and whether he is aware that in the event of

  2129
  the total sum required being unobtainable the college will not be able to continue its educational work?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The Treasury have sanctioned grants from the Development Fund amounting in all to £150,000, provided that the Governors obtain from other sources a sum of £100,000. Other conditions are attached to these grants, and I shall be happy to supply the hon. and gallant Baronet with a statement of them if he so desires; but they raise no difficulty, and have been accepted by the Governors. The hon. and gallant Baronet is no doubt aware that the Governors have themselves raised a sum which I understand is now slightly above £50,000. I can only add that I am well aware of the difficulties of the college.
  Mr. HANNON: Is it not deplorable that a great national institution of this character should he dependent for its existence on voluntary subscriptions?
  Dr. ADDISON: I share the view of the hon. Member, but I have to deal with the situation as it is.
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the application to which he referred in the House on a previous occasion, for a grant from the Pilgrim Trust has been successful?
  Dr. ADDISON: I understand not.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Has sufficient money been raised privately to enable the reconstruction work to be carried out, as I understand that it must take place by July?
  Dr. ADDISON: I understand that there is no use beginning the work of reconstruction until at least £250,000 is in sight. That is not the case at present, and therefore there is no use proceeding. The hon. Member is aware that when this place has been rebuilt, as it ought to be, the expenses of maintenance and salaries will be very greatly increased.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great efforts are being made by masters of hounds in sending round appeals to their followers, and otherwise by private
  2130
  people, on behalf of this institution, and, in view of the fact that there is a real endeavour to collect this money will he see that the subscription list is kept open and endeavour to increase it.
  Dr. ADDISON: I have not closed the subscription list, but I understand that the response from masters of hounds has been much less than was expected.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: Give them time.

  LOCAL RATES.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Health in how many areas there has been an actual decrease in the local rates per £ since April, 1928; and in how many there has been an increase?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): Full particulars of the amounts in the £ of the local rates levied for the financial year 1930–31 have not yet been received, but in the course of the next few months a statement will be issued as a Stationery Office publication giving these particulars, and comparing the figures for 1930–31 with those for 1929–30, for each rating area in England and Wales. A similar statement, comparing 1929–30 with 1928–29, was issued as a Stationery Office publication in August last. I would point out, however, that the first new valuation lists under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, were in force throughout the year 1928–29 in only 102 out of 1,800 rating areas. Consequently a comparison between that year and later years on the lines desired by the hon. Member might be misleading.
  Mr. LANWTHER: Are any of the decreases due to the Unemployment Insurance Act keeping people off the rates?
  Miss LAWRENCE: The hon. Member must wait for the figures.

  INDIA (AIR MAIL SERVICE).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for India what is the estimated cost of subsidising a weekly air mail service between Karachi and Calcutta via Delhi and vice versa?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The Government of India estimated in 1929 that the cost of subsidising a weekly air mail service between Karachi and Calcutta via Delhi in both directions, if operated by a commercial company, would amount in the first year to about £100,000, and in subsequent years to about £95,000.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any chance of this money being provided, so that this service will continue to function?
  Mr. BENN: I do not know that the question of a subsidised commercial service is under consideration.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the idea then that it is to be subsidised by the Government of India?
  Mr. BENN: No, the idea is that the Government of India should run the services.

  ECCLESIASTICAL ESTATES (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if the Commissioners will inquire into the conditions of work and wages of men who are employed on their estates, with a view to bringing their conditions and wages into line with those obtaining among the workers in comparable districts?
  Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): If the hon. Member will bring to my notice any case of alleged inferior conditions of work or wages among men in the direct employment of the Commissioners, inquiry shall be made into the case.
  Mr. LAWTHER: It is easy to do that by bringing up all these cases.
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if the Commissioners are aware of the low wages paid to their workmen at Stanhope, county Durham; and if the Commissioners will take steps to make the wages and general conditions of their workmen comparable to those of other workmen in Durham county?
  Mr. DENMAN: In view of information which has been conveyed to me by the hon. Member, further inquiry is being made into this matter, and I will let him know the result.
  Mr. LAWTHER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not back money will be paid?
  Mr. DENMAN: I will let the hon. Member know the result when the inquiry has been completed.

  EXPLOSION, CASTLEFORD.
  Mr. TOM SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the report of the inquiry into the cause of the explosion which occurred on 4th July last, at the works of Messrs. Hickson and Partners, Limited, Castleford; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the recommendations made by those who conducted the investigation?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): Yes, Sir; and steps are being taken by the Factory Department to bring the recommendations in the report to the notice of manufacturers concerned. In addition factory inspectors will pay special visits to the works and discuss with the management what further steps, if any, are required to give effect to the recommendations. My right hon. Friend will obtain a report on the results in due course and will then consider whether any further action is necessary.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
  Captain CAZALETasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury has studied the scheme submitted by certain economists by which a certain percentage of our debt to the United States of America shall be paid in silver at the current market price of silver; and what are their views on the suggestion?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that I am not clear to what scheme the hon. and gallant Member is referring.
  Captain CAZALET: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether His Majesty's

  2133
  Government and the United States Government have taken or intend to take any steps to stabilise the position in regard to silver in view of the great importance of this matter to our Eastern market.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: That is certainly not a question which arises out of the question on the Paper.

  UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF SCHEMES (BRISTOL).
  Mr. ALPASSasked the Minister of Labour what schemes have been approved by her Department since June, 1929, under the Development (Loan and Guarantees and Grants) Act, for the city of Bristol, and the total cost?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Since 1st June, 1929, 26 schemes of work for the relief of unemployment submitted by Bristol Town Council have been approved for grant from Exchequer funds on the recommendation of the Unemployment Grants Committee. The estimated total cost of these schemes is £268,576.

  SISAL-FIBRE HEMP.
  Mr. BOYCE(for Rear-Admiral BEAMISH) asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider setting up a special committee to study and report on the further uses of Empire produced sisal-fibre hemp?
  Dr. SHIELS: The Imperial Institute, with the help of its Advisory Committee on Vegetable Fibres, is constantly engaged in examining possible new uses for sisal, and it is not proposed that a further committee should be appointed for this purpose. The hon. and gallant Member may perhaps have seen in the Press a reference to the work of the Imperial Institute Committee in connection with the use of sisal for naval purposes.

  TIN RESTRICTION SCHEME.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in what form legislation is to be passed by Nigeria and the Federated Malay States restricting the output of tin; whether the contemplated legislation
  2134
  involves penalties for non-compliance and, if so, what; whether similar control and legislation is being passed by the Governments of the Dutch East Indies and Bolivia, respectively; and what quota of production is being allowed to these four principal producing countries, respectively?
  Dr. SHIELS: A meeting is being arranged at an early date with representatives of the Dutch East Indies and Bolivia. Until that meeting has taken place, it is not possible to give information as to what steps will be necessary to carry out the proposed international scheme.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do I understand that legislation has actually been drafted?
  Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir.

RACECOURSE BETTING ACT (1928) AMENDMENT.
Mr. MORRIS: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928."
It is not necessary that I should this afternoon say anything about the widespread evils of betting. They were admitted by the promoters and supporters of the Act of 1928, and I shall confine myself now to the narrower but none the less important issues arising from the administration of that Act. That Act was passed, as the House will remember, to provide for two things. It provided for the setting up, for the first time in this country, of totalisators upon racecourses, and the House was assured that these totalisators were to be operated upon racecourses promoted for the purpose of horse-racing only. The control of the totalisators was vested under the Act in a Racecourse Control Board, a body consisting of 12 members, five of whom are Government representatives; and it becomes material now to inquire what has been the result of that Act in its operation and how far the Act itself has carried out the professed intentions of Parliament and the professed intentions of those who promoted the Bill.
The Chairman of the Board, Sir Clement Hindley, in a speech which was delivered on the 13th December, 1928,

2135
immediately after the paining of the Act, said this:
"The Board is fully alive to the necessity of providing credit facilities. We shall undoubtedly make arrangements for credit betting."
That was the pronouncement of the Chairman, who was appointed to his office by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. We cannot in this House, under the Act, review the activities of the Board. The Board is free and untrammelled from any Parliamentary restraint, and we cannot discuss its policy in this House. The only thing we can do, as I understand it, is to review the activities of the Board in some such way as this. That was the policy of the Board as stated by its Chairman within a few months of the passing of the Act in 1928, and that was confirmed by other members of the Board and other Government representatives on the Board. Credit betting was one thing that was condemned by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn), who promoted the Bill in 1928. In making his speech on the Second Reading of that Bill, having admitted the widespread evils of betting, he said that if there was one form of betting which he condemned, it was the form of credit betting.
It is true to say that even under the operations of the Board credit betting is not actually allowed upon the racecourse itself, but ways and means have been devised by the Board of Control to get over the difficulty that has been placed in their way by the Act, and I turn to the report of the Board of Control, paragraph 63, where they set out a number of schemes that have been placed before them in order to attract a large volume of betting to the totalisator, and they say that one of the schemes which they have considered is the form of credit betting. Then they say:
"It was overlooked in this case that the law forbids cash betting except on the racecourse, that the Board cannot undertake to give credit, and that it can only legally operate the totalisator on a racecourse."
Then, in paragraph 67 of the report, there appears something which is totally new, and it is a means of getting around the difficulty. They say:
"The Board, after full consideration of all possible schemes, came to the conclusion that the first and obvious step was to make this established method of communication available for totalisator bets as for bets laid
2136
off with bookmakers on the racecourse. They accordingly entered into negotiations with the London and Provincial Sporting News Agency Limited (known as the "Blower") which has set up an extremely efficient organisation of the kind described above, with connections on a very large number of racecourses. Under the arrangement eventually agreed upon with this company, which included the payment of a commission in respect of money staked by it at the totalisator on the racecourse, telephone communication is established with a separate office room set aside for the purpose in the totalisator building on the racecourse."
This company can carry on credit betting, but so far as totalisators are concerned it carries on cash betting on the racecourse. That has been carried a step further. I find that in the "Daily Mail" of the 17th of this month there appears this paragraph:

TOTE BETS AT HOME.

  LORD DERBY'S INTEREST IN NEW COMPANY.
  Two members of the Jockey Club, the Earl of Derby and Sir Humphrey Edmund de Trafford, have turned betting agents. At least, they are supporting with their money and influence a betting concern.
  It is called Tote Investors, Limited, and begins operations at the Newbury meeting on Thursday. The company introduces a new method of betting by enabling the stay-at-home bettor operating on credit to take full advantage of the tote on any racecourse.
  By special arrangement with the Racecourse Betting Control Board, Tote Investors, Limited, transmits every bet received in time to the totalisator on the racecourse and pays out full tote dividends on winning bets.
  The directors of the company include, besides Sir Humphrey de Trafford, such well-known racing men as Sir Laurence Richard Philipps, Sir George James Thursby, Major Cecil Price Harrison and Mr. William Edward Fry."
  The last named gentleman is also himself a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board.
  "The shareholders include Lord Derby and the Aga Khan. The Northern Securities Trust, which numbers among its shareholders members of the peerage, clergymen, and a master at Eton, has the biggest interest."
  That was never intended when the House passed the Measure in 1928, and this statutory body, set up by Parliament to see that the intentions of Parliament were carried out, is itself guilty of a breach of trust. It may be that they are keeping within the four corners of the law, but in so far as the law in that particular does not carry out the professed

  2137
  intention of the promoters themselves and this loophole is being used to extend credit betting, then Parliament, in order to carry out its own professed intentions, should take the first possible opportunity of amending the law so as to make it conform with those intentions.
  That is not the only particular in which there is transgression. Take the case of ready-money betting through the post. It cannot be suggested that it was ever contemplated by this House that ready-money betting through the post should be tolerated under the Act of 1928, and indeed, in this report, the Betting Control Board itself admits the difficulty. It discusses, in paragraph 64, the suggestion of betting through the post, and it says this:
  "Another suggestion was that bets should be received by the Board's officials by post on the racecourse by means of Postal Orders, received by the first post on the morning of the day of racing. The practical difficulties connected with such a scheme, the large clerical staff that would be required, the risks connected with possible mis-despatch of letters and dividends, and questions connected with identity of senders, made such a scheme impossible of execution under present conditions."
  They were contemplating carrying it out, and in fact on 3rd October of last year the board announced that money received through the post by the manager of the totalisator on any approved racecourse would be accepted. Following that announcement by the board, there was a storm of protest, voiced mainly in the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Daily Telegraph," and as a result of that protest, which was widespread throughout the country, the Board of Control thought it necessary to withdraw their scheme, and on 21st October they announced that they would not accent any further bets by post or telegram. But the point is this, that although, as a result of that protest, they withdrew, within three weeks, the scheme they had initiated on 3rd October, they still claim that it is lawful under the Act of 1928 for them to carry out the scheme at a later date. They have never abandoned the claim that it is a lawful position under the Act.
  It was said when the 1928 Act was before the House that it would not encourage an increase in the volume of betting, that there would be no further inducements, that the totalisator would
  2138
  stand on the racecourse mute and would not bellow in any way, that it could not be moved about from street corner to street corner, and that there would be no advertisement. What has actually happened? A loud speaker is now placed upon the indicator of the totalisator, and advertisements are appearing in the Sporting Press. Last year, according to this report, no less than £5,425 5s. 10d. was spent upon advertising. Can it be said that that is carrying out the intentions and the undertakings that were given to the House in 1928? An undertaking was given that the totalisator would apply only to those courses upon which horse-racing took place, and that a volume of the money produced would be used to encourage and support stockbreeding. According to the decisions of the court—it is true that they are magisterial decisions—it has been held that, the totalisator can be lawfully set up upon courses other than horse-racing courses. That is not in keeping with the intentions of Parliament, and I doubt whether it is in keeping with the first Section of the Act. If there be any doubt, it is time that Parliament made that clear. For these reasons, I ask leave to bring in a Bill to make impossible credit betting, betting through the post, betting by cheque or any other form of deferred payment, and to limit the Act of 1928 to horse-racing courses only.
  Major GLYN: The hon. Gentleman has complained that the practice of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is not in accordance with the intentions of the House when the Act of 1928 was passed. As a matter of fact, I understand that everything that has been done is strictly legal, and, in regard to the totalisator being used for greyhound-racing, that was never the intention when the 1928 Act was passed. That is a magisterial decision in the provinces, and I have never understood why it has held good. If it be possible to utilise the totalisator for greyhound-racing, it was unnecessary for us to bring in a Measure to enable it to he established for racehorses. We particularly excluded greyhounds from the provisions of the Act. On the wider point of credit betting, the promoters of the Act of 1928 stated that it was their hope that no credit betting would be encouraged, because we believed that half the evils of betting are due to bet-

  2139
  ting on "tick." As a matter of fact, the totalisator does not accept any bets except bets for cash, and I am informed, whatever the arrangements may be, that they do not in any way alter that provision of the Act. The totalisator gives no credit, and any bet that is made has to be substantiated by money before it is accepted by the machine.
  The Racecourse Betting Control Board has had to work under great difficulties. A great deal of the betting in this country is off-the-course betting. The agents who choose to bet with the totalisator, whether individuals, bookmakers, or representatives of outside organisations, are all one and the same so far as the operating of the totalisator is concerned. Every penny of the money, no matter from what source it comes, is put into a common pool; and as far as I can see, provided that condition exists, that no credit is given to anybody, and that the actual money wagered is in cash in the machine, it is extremely difficult to say that these outside organisations should not exist. As the House supported the promoters of the 1928 Measure, and the conditions under which it was introduced were quite clearly understood, I should be the first to protest if I thought that its provisions were being exceeded.
  We are very anxious to encourage horse-racing and horse-breeding, and to encourage clean sport on the turf, and I still believe that, through the medium of the totalisator and the fund that will flow from it, it is possible to do these things. I am satisfied from the experience we have already gained that the unit of wagering is much less and smaller than it used to be, and that a great many people who used to bet in 10s. are now satisfied to bet in florins. To that extent, we claim that the totalisator has done good. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman who asks leave to introduce this Bill and those who support him do it on conscientious grounds, but it is impossible for the promoters of the 1928 Act to know exactly what is the intention of the hon. Member until his Bill is in print. Therefore, I and my friends do not propose to offer any opposition or—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should have told me that sooner.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Morris, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Foot, Mr. Philip Oliver, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. Compton and Major McKenzie Wood.

  RACECOURSE BETTING ACT (1928) AMENDMENT BILL,
  "to amend the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

SMALL LANDHOLDERS AND AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the improvement of live stock by regulating the keeping and importation of bulls; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill [Lords].
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.

  SUPPLY.
    CLASS VI.

      BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY, GREAT BRITAIN.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain."
      4.0 p.m.
      The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE
      (Dr. Addison): I have to ask for this Vote in accordance with the existing law, under which a subsidy of 13s. per cwt. is payable for the current year on sugar-beet produced under the provisions of the Act. As everyone who has grown beet knows, it is very difficult to say 12 months beforehand exactly how much beet will be produced. The result is that the Estimate that was submitted to the House early in the year, although fairly near the figure, requires some rectification. For two reasons this Supplementary Estimate is required. Owing very largely to the depression in other branches of arable farming the acreage of beet last year was greater than had been anticipated. As a matter of fact early in the year it was anticipated that the acreage of beet would be 320,000, whereas the acreage actually planted was 28,000 more. That is one of the chief reasons for this Supplementary Estimate. The increased acreage of beet means that the subsidy under the existing law requires to be £450,000 more than it would have been for the lower acreage.
      Another element enters into the Estimate, and it is one which is entirely creditable to the grower, namely, that as experience has increased so the expertness of the grower in producing good quality beet has increased. It was estimated last January that the tonnage per acre would be 8.3, whereas as a matter of fact the tonnage per acre has turned out to be 8.7. That fractional increase
      2156
      of 4 of a ton means an increased amount of beet-sugar on which the subsidy is payable, and the figure is £250,000. Those two items together, increased acreage and increased yield of beet per acre, account for this Estimate. They are in fact together £100,000 more than the Estimate, but we have to set against that the molasses which are still retained in the factories. These molasses are retained by the factories no doubt owing to the low price in the world market, and it will hereafter be necessary to come to the House for an Estimate in respect of those molasses when they are released to the market. But they account for a reduction of £100,000 on the sum that would otherwise be required. So that the net amount of this Estimate is £600,000.
      This increased acreage of beet has given rise to a vast volume of employment, both in the factories and elsewhere. I understand that it is not in order for me to discuss beet policy on this Estimate. It is at this moment a very tempting subject. During the past month it has been my duty to spend many weary hours listening to statements on the question of beet, beet sugar, polarisation, prices and such like, and I am very tempted to say what I think about it all. However, as it is not in order on this Estimate I must refrain. I can say that this year marks the end of the second triennial period of the Beet Sugar Act, and that the subsidy hereafter, except for the agreement details of which are known to Members, will be reduced from 13s. per cwt., as it is in this Estimate, to 6s. 6d. The Committee may be interested to know that the acreage of beet five or six years ago was 22,000, and that it has risen to 348,000. There are 40,000 growers employed, and I am glad to say that a large number are smallholders. There are 30,000 seasonal workers. There are 10,000 men engaged during the manufacturing campaign in the factories and 2,000 in the factories all the year round. The amount of sugar on which the subsidy is now required is 424,000 tons, and the transport charges on the sugar, on the 200,000 tons of pulp and the 100,000 tons of molasses, apart from 3,000,000 tons of beet, represent a great contribution to the transport industry. Indeed, it represents £825,000 for beet only.
      Captain PETER MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many growers there are in the factory areas and how many outside?
      Dr. ADDISON: Some of the factories draw beet from greater distances than others. At present the transport arrangements are very uneconomical, because some factories have to draw beet from long distances. There are no defined factory areas arranged between the different factories. The increased acreage, owing to the productiveness of this crop compared with other arable crops, and the increased yield per acre owing to the increased efficiency of our cultural methods, are the two elements accounting for the increased Estimate.
      Viscount WOLMER: I would like to thank the Minister for the explanation that he has given of this Supplementary Estimate. I think we all recognise that it is impossible for a Minister or his Department to calculate in advance with precise accuracy what the sugar beet subsidy will come to, and therefore we can regard a Supplementary Estimate on sugar beet as one which is bound to occur practically every year, unless the Minister by a sheer stroke of luck happens to hit off the exact sum. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the amount of the subsidy depends not only on the acreage but also on the yield per acre. I am sure that we on this side and hon. Members opposite are equally pleased that there has been an increase in both these items. The Minister will bear me out when I say that there is a third factor on which the amount that Parliament has to pay depends, and on which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch, and that is the sugar content of the beet. I hope that the Minister, in replying to questions later, will be able to tell us something about the sugar content last year.
      I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman pay a tribute to the increasing skill of the farmers in growing this new crop. The policy of the late Conservative Government was based on confidence that farmers in the course of a few years would improve in the art of growing sugar beet, and that year by year, subject to weather conditions, they would get increasingly good results. It is very satisfactory to
      2158
      hear from the Minister that that confidence has been fully justified. Of course sugar content must be largely influenced by the weather. I think I am right in saying that it is not the "hotness" of the Summer or the amount of light that beet gets in the Summer that is responsible for the sugar content so much as the length of time that the beet can be left in the soil during the early autumn when they get increased hours of daylight. I believe that the sugar content obtained in this country compares very favourably indeed with the sugar content of beet grown on the Continent. It would be interesting if we could hear from the Minister whether this gradual increase in the skill of the farmer, as reflected in the weight of the crop per acre, is also reflected in an increase in the sugar content of the beet.
      The Minister pointed out what a great deal of employment this industry has given, and I am very glad that he did so. Some hon. Members, particularly those on the Liberal benches, are very much disposed to criticise the money that we require for the establishment of the sugar beet industry; but against that expenditure of money there are to be set two things: First, there is the Excise Duty, which is mentioned on page 15 of the Estimates. It amounts to 2,270,000, which will all come back to the Exchequer. Secondly, there is the indirect saving to the State by the great amount of employment which is given on the farms, in the factories and on the railways. I do not know whether it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us in round figures what that employment amounts to, but I suggest that if it could be summarised in a figure we should be able to realise its extent and the saving that the country was making in unemployment relief. In the present state of trade and industry it is fair to say that every man employed in this industry is one man less drawing unemployment benefit. Whether a man is an insured worker or not, when unemployed he has to be kept by the State. Agriculturists would appreciate the information if the Minister could state what the saving of unemployment benefit has been owing to the development of this sugar beet industry.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The questions put and the answers given

      2159
      must have a direct bearing upon this Supplementary Estimate. It is better that the Committee should understand at the outset that we cannot have a discussion of policy on this Supplementary Estimate.
      Viscount WOLMER: I hope my questions are entirely confined within those limits. We are asked to vote an extra sum of £600,000, and all that expenditure has a bearing upon the points I have mentioned. I am most anxious not to carry the discussion beyond the scope of the Vote, although, as the Minister has pointed out, there are wide questions in regard to sugar beet which we should like to discuss but cannot. Another question I should like to ask is whether the Minister can give us any idea of what proportion of this money sticks in the hands of the factories, if I may put it in that way.
      Mr. MacLAREN: That is well put.
      Viscount WOLMER: We know that some of the factories are doing a great deal better than others. Some factories have not done particularly well. There is a factory at Eynsham which I think I am right in saying has actually gone into liquidation. It is an unfortunate thing, because that factory was sponsoring a new process, and if that new process could have been established it held out hopes of reducing very substantially the cost of manufacturing sugar from sugar beet and it would have made very much easier the problem of increasing the number of factories and extending them from the East of England, where they are very much concentrated at present, into the West and other parts where growers would like to grow beet but have been unable to do so as no factory is near them. I think some of this money was paid to the Eynsham factory, and the Committee would appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman would say why it had to go into liquidation, whether arrangements were made to take up the crop which that factory had contracted for, which factories are dealing with the crop, and how the problem of railing the crop the extra distance to the other factories was got over.
      We all recognise that the establishment of this new industry as taken place in
      2160
      exceptionally difficult circumstances in that the world price of sugar has been continually dropping and has now got to an unprecedented pitch. Whether the whole subsidy arrangements will have to be reviewed in future in view of the world price of sugar is a question which is outside this Vote, but it would be of assistance if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some idea of what the Ministry thinks the cost of growing beet in this country is to-day and how that compares with the world price of sugar; in other words, what world price would make sugar beet growing in this country remunerative without any subsidy? It was impossible to get those figures until the industry had been running for a number of years, but with the experience of the last six or seven years it may be possible for the Minister to give us some guidance on the subject. I would like to ask, further, whether the Orange Book on the sugar beet industry, which has been in preparation at the Ministry for some months, is to be issued shortly, because if it is up to the standard of the other books it will be of very great assistance to beet growers.
      Dr. ADDISON: We expect to issue it in about a month.
      Viscount WOLMER: I am glad to hear that. This is still an experimental crop for many farmers; every farmer who is growing it wants to find out what the experience of other farmers has been; and as there is a good deal of development going on in the adaptation of implements, and a great deal of experiment as to the suitability of manures, the Orange Book will, I am certain, be of great help to farmers. Another thing I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us is how many of the factories that receive this grant are operating under facilities provided under the Trade Facilities Acts. That is an important point to have in mind at the present juncture, when factory costs are so much to the fore. Although we cannot go into the main sugar beet question this afternoon, we are entitled to gain all the information we can as to how this money has been expended, and in as much as it has all gone to the factories the question of the profits the factories are making is to that extent connected with the amount of assistance they have received under the Trade Facilities Act.

      2161
      Those are all the questions that I have to ask. We do not desire to oppose this Vote in any way, but we wish to watch the experiment most carefully and gain all the information we can as to its working. I am convinced that if the sugar beet industry were allowed to collapse in the present circumstances of British agriculture it would be a serious disaster to the agricultural community such as no party would be prepared to face.
      Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Noble Lord has referred to the number of people who are finding employment through the subsidy which has been granted by the Government. No one would deny that a large number of people are finding employment on the land because of the subsidy. The subsidy has already cost the Exchequer a direct sum of £22,000,000 up to the end of this year, and in addition there has been a loss to the Exchequer of some £6,000,000—in rebates—and hon. Members will realise that the disbursement of this £28,000,000 of public money over the country must have brought privileges to a favoured few. The Minister told the Committee of the number of people who are finding employment on the land. Will he tell us how many extra people have found employment on the land through this large expenditure of public money? I will give way to him now if he will supply that figure. Surely he must know. He surely would not ask the House of Commons for another £600,000, making a total this year of £6,000,000, if he were not fully convinced in his own mind that a greatly increased nmber of people are finding work on the land as the result of the subsidy.
      I suggest that the real test of this subsidy is not whether it is giving work here or work there, but whether it is finding large numbers of additional people work on the land. The policy of the Noble Lord and his friends favours subsidies, and no one will deny their advantage to the lucky few, but it is the unfortunate taxpayer who is forced to find the money, and the "screw" is being applied to him this afternoon for this £600,000. He is the man who is finding the cash, and there are a certain number of fortunate people who are receiving the "swag."
      Viscount WOLMER: Would the hon. Member describe the Liberal unemploy-
      2162
      ment policy as a subsidy for the fortunate few?
      Sir G. COLLINS: I am prepared to answer that question.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the question of the advisability or otherwise of granting subsidies does not arise here. The principle of subsidies in this case has been agreed to by the House of Commons, and all that we have to decide is whether we shall grant this supplementary sum of money to this purpose.
      Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it not in order when we are asked to vote an additional £600,000 for hon. Members to take stock of the enormous burden on the Exchequer which is mounting by reason of this succession of Votes, and to ask whether it is worth while.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the point might be made the subject of grief reference; but any discussion upon the principle of the subsidy would be out of order. The principle has been confirmed by the House and all we can do to-day is to say whether this extra money should be applied to this service.
      Major ELLIOT: Would it be in order to refer to the increased cost to the Treasury of other schemes which have been put forward in this House?
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That w paid be equally out of order on this Vote.
      Sir G. COLLINS: I would like to associate myself with the question which the Noble Lord put to the Minister in asking the cost of growing beet in this country and the world cost of beet-sugar production. The answer to that question will enable, the Committee to have a better understanding of the situation when the next Supplementary Estimate is introduced. If I understood the Minister aright, we are shortly to be presented with another Supplementary Estimate. This is just the beginning.
      Dr. ADDISON: I do not wish that there should be any misunderstanding. I said that the Estimate was less by £100,000 than it otherwise would have been on account of the molasses still retained by the factories, The subsidy is not payable on the molasses till it is

      2163
      released. When it is it will be necessary to ask for another subsidy.
      Sir H. SAMUEL: What about the new arrangements?
      Dr. ADDISON: The Estimate in respect of the new arrangements will not come up till next January.
      Sir G. COLLINS: Having granted some benefit to the factories, the House of Commons will not be asked until next October to vote another sum of money—
      Dr. ADDISON: These Estimates relate to beet that was grown last summer, and has been dealt with in the factories between last November and now. The proposal to which the hon. Member was referring relates to the beet that will be sown in spring and grown in the summer and dealt with in the factories next autumn and winter.
      Sir H. SAMUEL: Will the House be obliged to pay this extra £200,000 or £300,000 without having any opportunity of discussing it?
      Dr. ADDISON: Oh, no. Legislation will be required to authorise it.
      Sir H. SAMUEL: When will that be brought in.
      Dr. ADDISON: I could not answer that question without notice.
      Sir G. COLLINS: Then I will not pursue that matter any further. Agriculturists during the course of the current year will grow certain crops, and, if the House of Commons does what has been suggested in September, there will be created at once great hardship, and you will have the agricultural industry accusing the Government of holding out certain promises which later on they have failed to carry out. When we get the new Estimate we shall be able to judge—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing a matter of policy; and I have already ruled that policy cannot be raised on this Estimate.
      Sir G. COLLINS: May I ask if the Minister can tell the Committee the amount of the sums which the Government have lent to the various factories during the last few years? A White Paper was issued last year which gives
      2164
      some very interesting information. Reference to it will show that these companies, during the last few years, have placed very large sums of money to reserve, and are quite able, without any further assistance either to-day or in the future, to pay the farmers a very good sum for all the sugar-beet grown in their area. I would like to mention the extra-ordinary situation which has arisen. The first company referred to in the White Paper is the English Beet-Sugar Corporation. This company by its profits and through the subsidies received from the Government have reserves equal to 16s. for every £1 of share capital, and they are a very fortunate company. Many other companies to-day are drawing on their reserves at a time when the Government are proposing to pour out another £600,000 to subsidise the beet-sugar industry. I turn next to the Home-Grown Sugar Company, a small company with a general reserve of £95,000 and £125,000 ordinary capital. The reserve in this case is equal to 15s. in the £ of their ordinary capital.
      Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: That company wrote down its shares from £1 to 5s.
      Sir G. COLLINS: That does not vitiate my contention, and I make the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) a present of that argument. Instead of the capital being £125,000, the hon. Member agrees that it was £500,000 and therefore they have a capital reserve to-day of £43,000 and a general reserve of £95,000, that is £138,000 out of a total capital of £500,000. The Ely Beet-Sugar Factory has a capital of £450,000 and a reserve of £241,000, or, in other words, the general reserve is equal to 10s. in the £ of their ordinary capital, and, in addition to that, last year they wrote down their assets by one-third of the total sum which they had spent. Consequently, not only is their reserve equal to 10s. in the £ of their ordinary capital, but the excess sums which have been paid to the company by the Government have enabled them to wipe off at one fell swoop one-third of their total capital.
      The Ipswich Beet-Sugar Factory, Limited, has £400,000 ordinary capital and a general reserve of £143,000, and their reserves are equal to 6s. in the £

      2165
      of their ordinary capital. In the case of the King's Lynn Beet-Sugar Factory the reserves are not so large as those of the other companies, the ordinary capital being £450,000 and the general reserve being £8,000. On the other side of the balance-sheet this company has written off 10 per cent. of the capital sum expended on their buildings. This fortunate company is able to write off its assets on a much larger scale than the sum allowed by the Income Tax Commissioners in the case of other companies. The next case I would like to mention is the Anglo-Scottish Beet-Sugar Corporation. This is a most fortunate company. The share capital is £442,000, and they have a loan from the Government of £469,000 guaranteed at 5 per cent. Therefore this fortunate company has received from the Government £1 for every £1 advanced by the shareholders who have invested their money in the company.
      Dr. ADDISON: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the present Government have done that? It was done years ago.
      Sir G. COLLINS: The first time a beet-sugar subsidy was announced under these conditions was in August, 1924, and the announcement was made by a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer. It does not, therefore, become the Minister of Agriculture to run away—
      Dr. ADDISON: I do not run away, but, in presenting this Estimate, I am carrying out the law. The hon. Gentleman is referring to matters which relate to a law which was passed years ago.
      Sir G. COLLINS: Then the law should be altered.
      Mr. HANNON: Surely the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in negotiating this scheme was one of the most admirable things that he has ever done.
      Sir G. COLLINS: I remember the point being raised in connection with the Corn Production Act, and I divided the House on that subject.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now debating the general principle of the subsidy, and I have already pointed out that that principle has been definitely decided. The only question which can be discussed at this stage is the additional sum which is being asked for in this Vote and the hon.
      2166
      Member must not discuss the general policy of subsidies.
      Sir G. COLLINS: The next company on my list—
      Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is it not a very surprising thing that there should be such glowing accounts as those which have been given by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) when it is well known that the Minister of Agriculture has been negotiating for weeks with the factories in order to persuade them to make contracts with the farmers which they could accept?
      Sir G. COLLINS: It is well known that whenever companies receive a pecuniary advantage from the Government the effect is to whet their appetites, and they try to get more in the future. The last company I will mention is that of the Second Anglo-Scottish Beet-Sugar Corporation. The capital of this Corporation is only £240,000 but they were able to persuade the Government of the day to lend them £740,000 by way of debenture stock guaranteed by the Treasury at 5 per cent. That means that for every £ of money the shareholders of that company found the Government found £3. Having got all this money from the Government so easily, their affairs have not been well managed, and consequently their profits are not large. I suggest that money which is so easily found is generally unwisely spent. I think I have said enough to show the absurdity of the present system. It is a great hardship on the taxpayers that these large sums are being paid out, and have been paid out in the past, to the sugar-refining industry which is in the hands of private individuals. The result of this policy has been to pour out money year after year to the favoured few, and the unfortunate taxpayer has had to find the money to subsidise the sugar-refining industry and its allied industries.
      Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: The position that I take up in regard to this matter is the exact opposite of that of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). The hon. Member states that the establishment of this industry has done great harm to the sugar refining industry. I am not myself concerned in the sugar refining industry, but I am concerned in British agriculture, and I submit that whatever harm has been done

      2167
      to the sugar refining industry as more than compensated for by the enormous amount of good that the establishment of this industry has done to British agriculture. The hon. Member for Greenock has asked the Minister to what extent this industry has given employment on the land. I can answer that question. I assure the hon. Member that for every acre under sugar-beet the amount paid in wages averages £10, while in the case of grass land the wages per acre amount to 10s., so that, when grass land or arable land is put under sugar-beet, the amount of labour employed is multiplied something like 10 times. Whether the Minister can or cannot give the additional number of people employed on the land, I can assure him that there would have been a great deal more agricultural unemployment had it not been for the establishment of this industry.
      I assure the Minister and the House that this industry has been the salvation of British agriculture. The criticism of the hon. Member for Greenock is that the amount of this Supplementary Estimate is large, namely, £600,000, making a total figure of £6,000,000. I admit that a Supplementary Estimate of £600,000 is a large one, but why is it necessary to ask for this supplementary sum? It is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an under-estimate last year. He did not realise, and I think the House did not realise, the extent to which this industry would be taken advantage of by the arable farmers of this country. I say without fear of contradiction that last year sugar-beet was the only arable crop that gave an economic return to the farmer, and naturally, therefore, last year, farmers increased their acreage under that crop, on which they could get a satisfactory return. The reason for this Supplementary Estimate is not the fine summer of last year, not an increase in the sugar content of the beet or an increase in the tonnage grown, but the increased advantage which the establishment of this industry have given to arable agriculture. The House may not realise that this industry has become of extreme importance to agriculture. The acreage under sugar-beet is now almost as large as the total acreage under potatoes in
      2168
      this country, and, when the House realises that fact, it will realise—
      Sir H. SAMUEL: I am sorry to rise to a point of Order, but may I ask if the hon. Member's observations are in order, and if we shall be permitted to reply them?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not at the moment out of order, but I am following his speech with care.
      Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I was endeavouring to show why this Supplementary Estimate is essential, namely, because of the increased acreage under sugar-beet, and I submit that I was in order in making that point. I was saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his original Estimate last year, did not realise the advantage which the farmer would obtain at the present time. The farmer has taken great advantage of the establishment of this industry, and that is the reason for the Supplementary Estimate. I would like also to point out that the type of arable farmer who is taking most advantage of this industry is the smallholder. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), who is my Member and represents me in this House, will at any rate support me in this statement, that in his constituency the number of smallholders who are taking advantage of sugar-beet growing is in excess of that in any other part of the country—
      Mr. de ROTHSCHILD Mr. de ROTHSCHILD indicated assent.
      Sir E. SHEPPERSON: My hon. Friend will also be aware that many of them have the whole of their land under sugar-beet, and that, therefore, they are benefiting very greatly from this industry; while, as I have already indicated, the agricultural labourer is also benefiting. For these reasons I support the Minister in his request for this supplementary sum. I admit that the criticism is possible that too much of this money is going to the factories, and too little to agriculture. The purpose of the original Estimate was to establish this new industry in this country, with the object of helping British agriculture, and I should like the factories to bear that purpose in mind. The amount of this Supplementary Estimate is a measure of the help to British agriculture. I know

      2169
      that the Minister realises that the position of British agriculture is worse to-day than it has been within the knowledge of anyone, and that the possibility of making arable agriculture pay is very small. Therefore, it is mare important to-day than it has been at any other time that this industry should continue.
      A great proportion of this sum is going to the factories. I realise that it is a large sum, and a large proportion of the amount which goes to the factories goes to that group of factories which is called the Anglo-Dutch group. They were the pioneers of the beet sugar industry in this country, and British agriculture is grateful to them for that. Having been the pioneers of the industry, they were able to take the greatest advantage of the subsidy and to accumulate these reserves. In this House I want to make an appeal to that group that they will consider British agriculture and do what I suggest they ought to do in return for the sum that has been paid to them. I appeal to them publicly in this House of Commons to come up to the other groups and make a reasonable effort so that the industry can be carried on in the future as it has been carried on in the past.
      Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: I rise to support this Estimate. As the representative of an agricultural constituency in an agricultural county, which, since the inception of this Act, has found from actual experience in the industry itself that the sugar beet industry has proved to be a very godsend so far as the agricultural cultivators are concerned. I do not suppose that any party in the House is very much wrapped up with the idea of subsidising any industry or any section of commerce, on principle, but in this instance the subsidy has proved itself to be so amply justified in regard to the fundamental purposes of the original Act that even the House of Commons is coming to realise that this is one of the exceptions which prove the rule. [Interruption.]
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have previously said that the discussion of policy would not be in order on this Supplementary Estimate.
      Mr. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Dunnico; I am also kept in order by an hon. Member behind me. I should like to support the point of view expressed
      2170
      by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) in relation to this Vote. I only differ from him on one point, and that is in regard to the county which should be given the credit of possessing the largest number of smallholders who are benefiting by this provision. I have the honour to be the vice-chairman of the smallholdings committee in the county which I represent, and that committee sent to me this morning a very strong resolution in support of this Vote, which accounts for some 30,000 acres of land in the county of Norfolk, and no fewer than 2,250 smallholders, most of whom are very greatly interested in the issue that we are discussing this afternoon. I shall be interested to hear of any other county that can compare anywhere nearly with Norfolk in that regard.
      Sir E. SHEPPERSON: If I might interrupt the hon. Member, I said, or at any rate I intended to say, that it was the largest number in proportion to the size of the county.
      Mr. TAYLOR: I understood the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) to say that this Vote meant the maintenance of a particular privilege for a favoured few. I hope that he was referring more to the factories than to the struggling industry which I have the honour to represent, because, whatever may have been the position in the agricultural industry in years gone by, I do not think that many Members who know much about that industry to-day would regard it as a particular privilege or favour to be engaged in arable agriculture. Anyhow, I hope that the hon. Member, if he has any doubts on that head, will take an early opportunity of experimenting for himself. If he does so, I rather think that next year we shall find him supporting the principle of this Vote as a bare means of keeping tie industry on its feet at all, because, on the arable side, the situation in my county is, indeed, deplorable.
      5.0 p.m.
      I hope that, in facing up to this position, there will be a growing understand-in; of the accuracy of the statement made by previous speakers that, as I ventured to state last year, and as I repeat this year, if the figures of the factories are ex mined by any impartial man, he cannot avoid forming the opinion that the factories have taken too large a pro-

      2171
      portion of the subsidy in relation to the producers. I can only say, and here I must tread carefully, that the only remedy seems to me to be more effective control of the size of the profits made by these factories when public money is concerned. I hope that the Anglo-Dutch group will listen to the appeal of the hon. Member for Leominster in regard to their attitude on this issue at the present juncture, because undoubtedly they are the most able, the most capably organised, and the most efficient group of factories, and probably they have made bigger profits than any other group of factories in the country. Now that we have made this protest, the company should be sporting, and meet the growers in the same spirit, rather than offer us profits in the form of a gamble. Let them meet the agricultural industry on terms at least equal to those to which my hon. Friend has been able to persuade the Anglo-Scottish to agree.
      I apologise for keeping the House so long on this question, the urgency and importance of which is not understood by my city colleagues and friends. If they only knew the situation in the country, the vital importance of this industry to the maintenance even of a livelihood, and the fact that it increases tenfold the amount of employment on the land where sugar-beet supersedes the ordinary cereal crops, I feel sure they would sink their opposition, while remaining true to the general principle that they are opposed to subsidies. This is an exceptional case, in which the national interests and the interests of agriculture are involved. Money could not be better spent.
      Mr. L. SMITH: We on this side of the House do not often support a suggestion from the other side, but this is an occasion where I think some of us will do so. I am very pleased that this Supplementary Vote is necessary, because it means so much additional employment on the land. I consider that the beet-sugar subsidy has been well-spent money. Very large numbers of men have been employed, not only in factories, but also on the land. Indirectly, this money has provided employment for a number of other workers in trades that are dependent upon the beet-sugar industry.
      2172
      I was amazed to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) criticise the amount of money being paid. It seems impossible to understand the type of mind that only a few days ago supported whole-heartedly the proposal to find £20,000,000 for maintaining the unemployed, and yet will oppose a Vote such as we are now considering. Every country in Europe has subsidised this new industry in its early stages. I should like to read from a periodical that has been sent to me. It is issued by the National Council for Industry and Commerce. The Council studies economy, and is somewhat critical of certain expenditures that are being made by Parliament, but with regard to the beet-sugar subsidy, the periodical states, after setting forth the Council's own method of dealing with agriculture:
      "From our standpoint, we see no objection to continuing the beet sugar subsidy at this level for a further period of five years, at the end of which time the scheme that we suggest would, we are assured, be in effective operation, and the growing of sugar-beet would form a crop in the ordinary rotation of arable farming."
      There is a group of business men who, considering the subsidy on its merits, agree that it is well worth while. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to an important point that has not been mentioned. During the time that this subsidy has been in operation a very considerable amount of experience has been obtained by farmers and factories. It is extremely difficult to commence a new industry of this sort. I believe we have to thank the factory organisations for providing the brains required to teach agriculturists in all parts of the country how to grow sugar beet in a progressive way. Year by year the sugar content has increased, and so has the tonnage. I am told that two-thirds of the factories have been able to make an offer to the farmers by which they can see a chance of making a livelihood. The majority of those factories, I am pleased to learn, have agreed to a definite offer with regard to tonnages.
      I would like to emphasise the appeal that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) has put before the Committee, that the one group of factories that has not already agreed to make the offer to the farmers that was agreed with the Government should come

      2173
      into line. The farmer finds in such offers as these a price that will at least cover his costs, and he cannot see as much in the growing of a good many other crops at the present moment. If sugar-beet is not extensively grown during the next year or two, probably a very much larger acreage will be given up to crops like potatoes, and we shall then get a glut on the market and disaster to the farmers. During last season, while this subsidy was in operation, especially in the Eastern counties, sugar-beet was the sheet-anchor of the farmer. Forty thousand farmers have grown about 350,000 acres of sugar-beet and approximately £7,500,000 has been paid out to farmers this year. I say without hesitation that it would be a calamity if we allowed this industry to lapse for the sake of a few hundred thousand pounds, when employment of so many men is at stake. In other countries in Europe a subsidy to an even larger amount than is provided in this country has been thought worth while. Germany is finding 16s. per cwt.; Czechoslovakia 21s.; France 11s. 6d.; Italy 14s. 6d.
      The Committee need not hesitate for a moment in agreeing to a subsidy at the present rate. Those who live in the cities and towns of this country do not have to pay more for their sugar than in other countries. They pay less than in any other country in Europe with the exception of Holland. If it were well known in all the cities and towns that the beet-sugar industry was a new and valuable one, I think the voters would be overwhelmingly in favour of helping the farmer to continue beet-sugar growing. The amount of coal that is necessary to supply beet-sugar factories is 300,000 tons each year, and 150,000 tons of limestone is necessary. Consider the amount of transport, a million tons by rail and a couple of millions by road. Railways were last year paid £300,000. All this is providing work in other industries. Then there are the bags for the sugar, the fertilisers, and the seeds.
      There is a great future for the further development of the beet-sugar industry. Considerable experiments are being made in dealing with the tops of the beet as food for cattle, and in many other ways we are getting value for our money. Farmers would welcome the continuance of this industry, and so would the large
      2174
      numbers of men who as a consequence would be employed in the industries that I have enumerated, and, on their behalf, I have the very greatest pleasure in supporting the Vote.
      Sir DONALD MACLEAN: So far as this subsidy is concerned I agree with what has already been said. Agriculture is not getting a square deal out of it. Thus far we are agreed. It is perfectly evident that vast sums have been poured out, in addition to what is proposed to-day, and a large part has gone, not so much to the industry which stood in need of it, as to capitalists who have had huge subsidies from the State in support of their investments. With the utmost possible force at my command I say that I oppose the granting of this additional sum of £600,000. We have had some comments upon the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) and upon the figures which he gave. The concerns to which he referred have undertaken a capital expenditure of £8,000,000 in six years, during which time they have written off £2,000,000 out of profits, and they have accumulated reserves of another £2,000,000. At least £4,000,000 of depreciation have been written off, and thus there are accumulated reserves amounting to half of the total of their expenditure on those two items alone. In addition to that are the enormous dividends which they have declared and are still declaring. I do not wonder that agriculture is so restive under those conditions.
      I hear Members say: "Let us have more money." I dissent profoundly. I say that it is quite time this further expenditure was stopped, and a thorough examination was conducted into the whole of this discreditable ramp upon the public funds. If this is hon. Members' idea of how unemployment should be assisted, it is a thoroughly bad lookout for the State. I dissent profoundly from the whole of the proposals that have been made, even from the Treasury Bench. I am quite certain that those who look at this from the point of view of assisting agriculture do not know the facts. I should like to know what the National Farmers' Union would say if they could have the whole of this subsidy to expend on products. They would

      2175
      not touch this beet-sugar subsidy. They would leave it alone. They would like to have this £22,000,000 to spend on other subjects. The whole of this matter is a discreditable episode in British finance.
      Mr. PERRY: I think it is essential that some of the points that have been made should be replied to. I hope we shall hear from the Minister that an inquiry is to be made into the whole method of the subsidy and the proportion that is being taken by the factories and by the farmers. Is there a single Member opposite who will defend, as a business proposition, what has actually happened? We are told that the amount of the subsidy, approximately, is about the value of the sugar that has been actually produced. I do not think the farmer is getting a square deal. The negotiations which have recently been conducted have been with a view to securing for the farmer a greater share of the money that is available. There is no business organisation in the country which would attempt to defend the argument that you can increase the prosperity of an industry when you have to assist it from public funds to the full extent of the product itself.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: What about the by-products?
      Mr. PERRY: That may come in later. I recall that in 1924, when there were only a few of us on these benches, we pointed out the danger of the system that was then being introduced. The figures which have been quoted by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) have confirmed every word that we said then, and it is due to the taxpayers of the country that, before any more public money is poured out in this direction, the Committee should insist on some measure of public control and on putting some pressure upon the factories in regard to the allocation of the money at issue. I hope we may be told that the whole system of the subsidy and the proportion to be taken by the factories is to be considered by a Committee of the House. It appears to me that the greater part of the subsidy is being taken by an Anglo-Dutch Company, the greater portion of whose capital is not British.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: That is not true.
      Mr. PERRY: At any rate, it is a very fair proportion. I should like to have the views of hon. Members opposite as to the patriotic side of the question.
      Captain RONALD HENDERSON: I should like to traverse the statement of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) that this is a distribution of largesse in which only the favoured few participate. I should like the Committee to consider what benefit the taxpayer at large, who is not concerned with agriculture, has derived from the subsidy. I should like to ask the Committee to cast its memory back to the condition of the country before we had a beet-sugar industry at all. We were entirely at the mercy of the European sugar cartel.
      Sir H. SAMUEL: Some of us were most anxious to raise the general question whether the taxpayer is unduly burdened by this subsidy. We have been prevented by the Chair from doing so, no doubt quite properly. Is it in order to raise the general question of the advantage obtained by certain agriculturists and the taxpayers generally?
      The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): My attention was withdrawn for the moment, and I was not following his remarks. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to cover such wide ground.
      Viscount WOLMER: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend was replying to an argument from the Liberal benches which your predecessor, Sir, allowed to be stated very fully.
      The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear that speech.
      Captain HENDERSON: I was trying to point out how this Estimate will benefit not only those who are taking part in agriculture but the ordinary taxpayers of the country. Owing to this industry having been started, and to the enormous production of sugar, we have made ourselves completely independent of that controlling factor in the world sugar price. The effect has been that the taxpayer has received cheap sugar for the whole time during which the industry has been flourishing in this

      2177
      country. One might for the moment put the agricultural industry out of the question and look at it purely from the point of view of the benefit of the food consumers of the nation, and from that point of view alone I am sure the Committee ought in all fairness to sanction the Estimate.
      Viscount ELMLEY: I do not quite share the apprehensions and the disapproval of this Vote which have been expressed by my right hon. Friends. They have put up a very strong case against it. I do not think I have the ability to put up an equally strong case for it, but I should like to draw attention to one or two things which I have noticed in my Division, in which is situated the first beet-sugar factory that was put up. We are asked to pass this Vote because the industry has done better than was expected. I suppose it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to get his Estimates quite right. I can bear out what was said by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor) that this industry has been the means of saving a great number of people in Norfolk and, as far as I know, in East Anglia generally from bankruptcy. One simply does not know what many farmers would be doing if they were not growing sugar-beet. I do not know what they could do.
      There is another point that one has to bear in mind. I know of a firm of haulage contractors which earns £900 a year by taking the beet to the factories. I should like also to endorse what has been said about this subsidy being intended not for the factories but for the industry of agriculture. We have been ruled out of order in discussing whether subsidies are good things or bad, and I am rather sorry, because there are one or two things that want to be said about it. Anyhow, we have this subsidy for good or for evil—I hope for good—and we have to make the best of it as things are now. The balance-sheets of the factories have been published, and we have heard of the very good position in which the factories are situated. I have recently had an opportunity of examining the balance-sheets of farmers who have been growing sugar-beet and I have seen a very different state of affairs indeed, showing that they are not getting anything like the benefit that they ought
      2178
      to get from this subsidy. The Government should try to devise some method of seeing that it goes where it really ought to go.
      There is a very strong feeling in various parts of the country which grow sugar-beet that the Anglo-Dutch group will see its way to come into line with the rest of the companies. I hope, when this extra subsidy comes along in October, the factories will be able to give far better terms even than have been suggested to the farmers. I should like to ask whether any part of this extra subsidy is to be devoted to research. There is a great deal to be done in that direction. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the experiments that have been carried out at one factory with a view to seeing whether it is possible for sugar-beet to be manufactured and grown all the year round. That is a point that is worth while following up. It will do a great deal of good all round if progress is made in that direction.
      Mr. DUCKWORTH: I am not a talkative Member and I make no apology for rising to support this Estimate. It vitally affects an industry which is of great interest to my constituents and, indeed, to the agricultural community as a whole. In Shropshire during the last five years it has been the sole means of keeping a very large acreage under the plough. Last year the area under the beet crop was no less than 16,000 acres. I have often met farmers who have been quite prepared to admit that they have done exceedingly well out of their beet crop. I believe that in spite of the opinions which have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, there really is an almost general consensus of opinion in the Committee that the money which is being spent upon these subsidies has been money well spent in establishing this particular industry. The answer to the criticism which has been made, that the factories have taken an unduly large share of the subsidy, is really to be found in the vast increase of the acreage which has constantly taken place year by year.
      At the same time, I agree that it is of very great importance that the industry should ultimately be placed upon a self-supporting basis. If the subsidies are not to be continued year by year, it is of the greatest importance that there should be a reduction of costs, because I believe that it is only through a reduc-

      2179
      tion of costs that these factories can continue to live, and only those which can effect such reductions will continue to live. A great deal has already been achieved. Certainly a great deal has been achieved in the reduction of costs as far as the Shropshire beet-sugar factory is concerned. There is another point which I should like to put to the Minister, and it relates to the question of the yield per acre. He has told us that the yield has risen from 8.1 to 8.7, but I understand that, compared with various Continental countries, it is a very low yield. In Holland, Germany and Czedhoslovakia the yield runs from anything between 10 to 13. I should like to ask the Minister whether research is being carried out with a view to increasing the yield, because it is evident that not less than about 30 per cent. requires to be made up in this country.
      It is very rarely, unfortunately, that we on this side of the Committee are able to see eye to eye with the Minister. When he comes to ask for further sums of money we eye him with great suspicion, because we are all well aware that he has all the personality and charm of manner which we associate with those who have established a reputation for financial recklessness. We are glad to find ourselves in agreement with him this afternoon. Finally, I support the Estimate because I hope that when the present difficulties of the industry have passed away, it may be established on a self-supporting basis and be able to look forward to many years of increasing prosperity.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: A number of questions have been asked and criticisms made during this Debate concerning the Anglo-Dutch group of factories. As the Committee know, I am associated with that group, and have been from the beginning—I was as a matter fact, Chairman of the company which built the first factory at Cantley—and I know what it is all about. Perhaps I may be allowed to reply as briefly as possible to the criticisms and questions which deal specifically with that group. I have also one or two words to say about costs of cultivation and matters of that kind of a more general nature. First of all, I want to refer to the criticisms—they were unfair because the information given was incomplete—which were made by the hon.
      2180
      Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). We all know why he makes them, because from the very first time the sugar-beet industry began to be discussed in this House and the question of assistance by the Government came up, we realised, and he realised, that he would hold the seat of Greenock so long as he could continue to complain that the subsidy was being given to an industry which competed with the sugar-refining industry in his constituency. I do not quarrel with him, but I discount the value of his criticism.
      HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
      Sir G. COLLINS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a personal observation about myself, and indicated that I was animated solely by the interests of Greenock, and that I held my seat by opposing the subsidy. May I remind the hon. and gallant Member that for five elections before the subsidy was introduced, I held my seat? To suggest what he has suggested this afternoon is a gross insult, and I ask him to withdraw it.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: I very much regret it if the hon. Gentleman feels aggrieved at the chaffing remark which I made. Of course, I know perfectly well that he held his seat for a long time, but I do not think that he would suggest that I am overstating the case when I say that he would be less enthusiastic on this point if it did not appeal to his constituents at Greenock. Otherwise, why on every occasion does he bring in his constituents?
      Sir G. COLLINS: I am asked why on every occasion I bring them in, because, when the original subsidy was mooted in this House, I opposed it in the interests of Greenock. Unfortunately, the House did not agree with me. They thought that I had over-stated the case. But every inhabitant in Greenock is well aware that the subsidy has caused hardship, quite unwittingly. But that has been the result of the subsidy. To show the accuracy of my remark, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had to reduce the excise duty on sugar melted in Greenock, because he felt that the present subsidy had indeed done an injury to that industry.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: To return to the hon. Gentleman's arguments—
      Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: Do we understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman withdraws the suggestion against the hon. Member for Greenock
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: I said that I regretted that he felt insulted by a facetious remark of mine. I do regret it.
      Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: With great respect, the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought not to make such a suggestion.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) is entitled to stand up for his constituency, and if any motive is implied perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw it.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: Certainly; I wish to make it clear that the chaffing remark I made was not meant seriously, and if the hon. Member takes it seriously, I will withdraw it, and gladly withdraw it.
      Sir G. COLLINS: I accept that statement.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: It was not meant as a serious accusation, and the last thing I would wish to do would be to insult the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in the Committee. With regard to the statement about the reserves of the companies, it is quite true that the group of companies to which he has referred have built up very large reserves, but what he did not state was that with regard to the first two—one in particular, the Cantley factory—which have built up reserves, a very large proportion of the capital invested in building those factories was lost originally and had to be written down in the reconstruction, and that no amount of reserves which the present reconstructed companies may build up will ever repay to the shareholders the capital which they lost through the early failure of those companies.
      Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member to explain how it is that the Cantley factory has a capital of £500,000 and reserves of £460,958 5s.?
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: I will explain that, certainly.
      Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is that in accordance with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said?
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: Absolutely. The Cantley factory was built by a company called the Anglo-Netherland Beet Sugar Corporation, of which I was chairman, but owing to nobody's fault—
      The CHAIRMAN: I should like to intervene for a moment. I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is replying to something which was said by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). If that be so, I trust that the reply will be the last that will go outside the scope of the Estimate.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: I will endeavour to reply to the questions without disobeying your Ruling. The capital of the original company was lost. My point is that the £500,000 in reserves of the reconstructed company can never repay to the shareholders the very heavy loss of capital which was sustained in the early days. I do not want to develop that point because I realise that I am walking on very thin ice.
      Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: That was prior to the Act?
      Mr. ALPASS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to inform the Committee what was the average rate of dividends paid by the companies since the Act and the amount of reserves which have been accumulated?
      Sir G. COURTHOPE rose—
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's question raises a very wide point. If an hon. Member gives some facts and I allow a reply, that is no reason for re-stating the arguments.
      Major GEORGE DAVIES: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) devoted 75 per cent. of his speech to going through a Command Paper dealing one by one with the capital and reserves of a series of companies. Many of us here who have spoken since refrained from dealing with the subject because we knew that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) was the one person in the Committee, not only on account of his knowledge, but because of his admitted financial connection with some of these companies, who would be the proper person to reply.
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the intervention of the hon. and gallant Member concerning the reply of the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) was necessary. I hope that the discussion will not develop on those lines—[Interruption.]
      Mr. MacLAREN: These illustrations were given. Does that mean that in the subsequent discussion no comment and no reply can be made to any criticism of the Command Paper as read out by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins)?
      The CHAIRMAN: That is not what I said. The hon. Gentleman is now in possession of the Committee and has replied to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I understand that he has made a full reply, and therefore I want to get back to the Estimate.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: I feel that I should be outside your Ruling in attempting to give the average figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks. They have all been published. I have not got them before me in the form of averages, but it will be found that whilst some companies have been able to pay substantial dividends and build up reserves, the general average profit earned by the subsidised companies has been rather on the small side. I think that that would be the result of any researches; they are all published figures. A question has been raised by several hon. Members but not yet answered about cultivation costs, which have a very material bearing on the Supplementary Estimate. There has been a gradual increase in the sugar produced per acre, and that, in turn, affects the Supplementary Estimate. Therefore, I do not think that I shall be out of order in giving what I think will interest the Committee, namely, the actual costs in the past season of one large concern which cultivated 339 acres. The average yield was approximately 10½ tons—10 tons, 9 cwts, 2 quarters—per acre, the sugar content 17.7 per ton, the tare dirt per cwt. 18.9 lbs., the price per ton of beet 53s. 7d., and the cost per acre £19; the gross return per acre £28 19s. 1d., leaving a cash profit per acre of £9 19s. 1d.
      Mr. ALPASS: Does that take into account the manurial residual value left in the land?
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: No. This is cash profit. He gets in addition to the £9 19s. 1d. per acre the manurial value of the tops. On my own farm in Sussex—I have not the figures for the past season but for the season before, which was an exceptionally good one—my costs were about £23 per acre, and my receipts £40. I grew a very fine crop.
      Mr. ALPASS: You were very thankful for the subsidy.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: I was thankful. The subsidy enabled me to get a price for my beet and to get a good return. Several hon. Members have made an appeal to the Anglo-Dutch group of factories, for which I am able to speak, that they should come into line with the other factories in regard to the offer that has been made. I would like to point out that requests of that kind reveal a complete ignorance of the position. All the factories and groups have offered the farmer for the coming season everything that they can make. They will take no profit, they will take nothing for reserves, nothing for depreciation, they will pay no directors' fees, and they will undertake not to increase salaries. The difference of opinion arises in the technical interpretation of what that will mean in the terms of shillings per ton.
      Compliments have been paid by several hon. Members to the technical efficiency of the Anglo-Dutch factories. I do not want to overstate the case, but I think the Committee will agree that I am entitled to say that the technical staff of those factories have proved themselves at least as efficient as the technical staffs of any other group. I personally have the highest confidence in their technical efficiency. I am bound to accept their technical advice, because I am not a technical expert myself, and they put an interpretation upon what it is possible for the factories to make in gross returns under the present sugar market conditions of the world, which is very much lower than the interpretation placed upon it by the other groups of factories.
      If our technical people are right, the other groups of factories will fail to implement the offer which they have made. My group have made the same offer. We offer to operate the factories without profit, without provision for reserve, without depreciation, without directors' fees,

      2185
      and without increases of salaries. We offer to pay everything to the farmer; to pay something substantial on account, and to pay the balance on the delivery of the beet when the accounts are made up. We cannot do more, but we put a technical interpretation upon the offer which is much less than that of the others. We are not in a position—no factory is in the position—to offer, say, 10s. a ton more for beet than we can possibly hope to get for the product when we sell the sugar. If our technical people are right, the other will fail to pay, because the money will not be there.
      Mr. PERRY: Is it the suggestion of the hon. Baronet that his technical people are right and the other technical people are wrong?
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: I prefaced my remarks by saying that experience entitled me to express the view that our technical people are, at least, as competent as the other technical people.
      Mr. PERRY: Judging by the amount of their reserves, they are.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: Certainly, and by general factory costs. I believe that our technical people can convert sugar beet into sugar rather more cheaply than the technical people of any other group. The Minister of Agriculture does not quarrel with that statement.
      Sir E. SHEPPERSON: Is it not a gamble Under the offer that has been made by the group of factories in the Anglo-Dutch group, I gather than if the price of sugar goes up the price to the farmer may even be more than the price offered by the factories and—
      The CHAIRMAN: If I understand the Supplementary Estimate aright, it is an additional sum paid on a subsidy which is fixed for this year. The only question which arises is whether this increased amount of subsidy should be paid. Certain statements were made by an hon. Member below the Gangway, and I have allowed the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) to reply, but that does not entitle the hon. Member to widen the Debate.
      Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I bow to your Ruling.
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: I have tried to keep within your Ruling, as far as possible, and I have little more to say to the Committee. No one desires more than I do that the people with whom I am associated should make an offer of a thoroughly satisfactory nature. We have offered everything we make in the next campaign, and I hope that that will be acceptable to a sufficient number of our own growers. I wish we could honestly interpret it in terms that were wholly satisfactory to them, but for reasons that I have shown we are unable to do it. If our technical staff prove to be wrong, or if there is a very exceptional season next year, the offer of the Anglo-Dutch factories to the farmer may prove to be worth more than the offer made by the other factories. On the basis of existing circumstances and on the basis of the best technical advice that we can get, the best interpretation that we can put upon the situation justifies us in the offer we have made, and nothing more. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the latitude you have allowed to me, and I thank the Members of the Committee for the patience with which they have listened to me.
      Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: Am I to understand from the hon. Baronet that the Anglo-Dutch factories are unable to make us a firm offer?
      Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Anglo-Dutch factories have made a firm offer which has been circulated to the growers. I have a copy of it in my hand. But they will not make a minimum payment of 38s. for 15½ per cent. beet, because they do not consider that circumstances will allow that to be paid.
      Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I rise to support this additional expenditure. I approve of it because it is giving work to 30,000 people a year. The total sum which is being contributed by the Government is £6,000,000, and according to a computation which has been made in this House, by experts and members of the Government, every £1,000,000 makes for the employment of 5,000 people. Therefore, the money cannot be said to have been altogether misspent. I should like to protest, with other hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies and sugar beet growing districts, with respect to the points raised by the hon.

      2187
      and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope).
      The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member heard what I said. I understand that before I came to the Chair a speech was made by an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, which seems to have gone wide of the Supplementary Estimate. In fairness, I allowed the hon. Baronet to reply, but I indicated that the Debate would not have to be extended. The amount of money in the Supplementary Estimate is an additional sum on the fixed subsidy for this year. The question arises whether that sum should be granted and whether the money has been earned in a right or wrong way. Anything that arises on the main Estimate will come up next year.
      Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I am discussing the past and not the future. My point was that this money has not altogether been spent in the right way. I submit that the £600,000 that has been spent has mainly gone to the wrong people. Most of it has gone into the pockets of the shareholders of the factories, instead of into the pockets of the growers. When the subsidy was given in 1924 it was opposed by the Liberal party, but the Liberal party have never opposed the continuance of the subsidy, after it had been granted, during the 10 years that it has to run. What they asked for, and what I have asked for in this House is an inquiry into the incidence of the subsidy, but this inquiry has not been forthcoming. About this time last year I asked the Minister whether he would publish figures and all the information that he had in regard to the growing of sugar beet and in regard to the whole industry, to enable the farmers to compete on terms of equality, so far as knowledge went, with the gentlemen in the factories. I am still awaiting the publication of that document, which was promised to us for June of last year, and for which the farmers would have been very grateful.
      The difficulties which the farmers have had will be intensified in the future unless something of that kind is done for them and we get a proper inquiry. The people in my constituency looked upon the Dutchmen who came to instal their sugar factories in the Eastern counties in the same way as they have in the past looked upon the great Vermuyden,
      2188
      who built their dykes in the fens, but the Dutchmen who have come there this time have not rendered them the same service. I am not taking into account the money that may have been lost by previous undertakings before the Act was passed—but since 1925 the money provided by the Government has gone in the main to swell the pockets of the industrialist and not to the fen men. The Cantley factory has been able to pay off the whole of its capital in dividends, £500,000, and besides that has put £460,000 to reserve in six years. That is where the money from the Treasury has gone. It is a large part of the subsidy which this House has voted, and it is the factories and their shareholders that have got it, and not the agriculturists who are the mainstay of the industry. The Dutchman has got the swag—and now he says: "My Motto is Butt on park; I'm off to Holland."
      6.0 p.m.
      Major DAVIES: The closing words of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) have rather left me gasping. I am not sure whether they are to be taken as a quotation or whether they indicate the hon. Member's intention to go himself to Holland. I propose to occupy the lonely and solitary position of trying to keep in strict order on the Estimate we are discussing and not be led away by previous speeches. The Minister of Agriculture, in response to an interjection from hon. Members below the Gangway, said that he was carrying out the law. That is true, and that really is his defence. In carrying out the law he is bringing forward this Supplementary Estimate for £600,000, which differs fundamentally from other Supplementary Estimates which come before the Committee. All the others are the outcome of misplaced optimism or misplaced pessimism.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member started very well, but he has not continued so well, and at the moment he is criticising something which is not before the Committee.
      Major DAVIES: I think, Mr. Chairman, that you have been a little unkind to me. I was saying, in passing, that this Supplementary Estimate arises from conditions which neither the Minister of Agriculture nor anyone else could know beforehand because of the factors upon

      2189
      which they depend. The size of this Supplementary Estimate is the test of the success or failure of a principle which we are not allowed to debate at the moment. At a time like this, when economies are called for in every direction, it would be proper to criticise the amount except for the fact that it is a gauge of the success of the operation and the application of this principle during the past year.
      Those who have been interested in this question in previous years have seen a great change in Parliament, a change which, I believe, is reflected in the country as a whole. More and more the country realises what a great benefit this sugar-beet industry has been to the countryside, and if we once admit this and also appreciate the size of this Supplementary Estimate, it means that it has been a much bigger success than it was thought to have been and that we can with cheerful voice go into the Lobby, if necessary, in support of the Estimate and at the same time disassociate ourselves from the somewhat carping criticisms which always emanate from the Liberal benches when anything definite is done or proposed to be done for the assistance of the agricultural industry. You have only to ask the farmers themselves. The only criticism they have to make is that they have not a proper share of this £600,000. As to whether the policy is sound, everyone knows that hon. Members opposite would not support the policy if it were not sound. This money is not going to support a pampered few.
      In setting out upon this policy it was hoped that by the application of State assistance we should establish an industry which would ultimately be able to stand upon its own feet. The realisation of that aspiration depends entirely upon whether the farmers can develop, by experience, the necessary skill. The tonnage has increased quite materially this year. It is 8.7, and when we remember what the tonnage was when the industry was in its infancy it is a fairly satisfactory development, but not so satisfactory as we should like to see. "Bogey" is about 10; and we have many difficulties to face. At the same time the glucose content, which is another important factor, is remarkably high in this country, a surprising fact, because the absence of steady sunshine might
      2190
      prove that this country is not suited for this industry. The real test as to whether we are justified in passing this Supplementary Estimate for £600,000 is to look at the figures of the industry. No less than 356,000 acres are now under arable cultivation, giving a crop which pays the farmer and provides an enormous amount of ancillary occupation in transport and haulage and many other directions. It also gives employment to skilled and unskilled workers in the factories, apart from those engaged on the land itself.
      If it was a question of considering the principle of a subsidy, much could be said against it, but the test of this Estimate justifies from every point of view the State coming to the assistance of the industry. Whilst we have some considerable distance to go as regards efficiency and tonnage, I believe that with continuous scientific and practical experiments we may feel satisfied that the 8.7 per cent. is not the summit of our achievement. There is no Member of the Committee but would deplore the thought that by not bringing forward this Supplementary Estimate an industry which has fully justified itself not only from the agricultural point of view, but from many other directions as well, should disappear. The criticism has been made that more than a fair share of this £600,000 is going into the wrong pockets. I do not grow an acre of sugar beet myself, and I have no interest in any factory, but I have been closely connected with the sugar and cane industry in many parts of the world. Hon. Members must realise that the only reason why this is becoming a crop for farmers is because there are factories for turning sugar beet into beet sugar; and that fundamental to the success of the whole scheme. The encouragement given to the industry must not be given entirely to the farmers; you must also encourage the erection of factories to convert what the farmer grows into a marketable commodity. Everyone will appreciate the risks attaching to such an enterprise.
      We want, by means of State assistance, to insure that when the time comes and when we are no longer called upon for Supplementary Estimates, we have firmly entrenched in the countryside an industry which, financially and technically, is in a position to work at the lowest possible cost. That is an import-

      2191
      ant consideration which must be borne in mind when we make the criticism that more should go into the pockets of the farmers and less into the pockets of the factories. There may be some foundation for that criticism, but there is a great deal to be said for continuing the encouragement to factories, because they are the basis which gives the farmer any reason for growing a crop at all. The point is to get factories for British farmers where British crops can be manufactured. Although I hate to see additions to any Estimate of such sums as £600,000, still I feel justified in supporting whole-heartedly this Estimate, for the reasons which I have endeavoured to put before the Committee.
      Mr. MacLAREN: I have been looking back to the Debate on the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill. For the propositions in that Bill there was not the same applause on the benches opposite which we find to-day for this proposal, and it is a little hard to see why there is this enthusiasm to-day. I am hampered in my remarks because of the restricted nature of the Debate. I am suffering in the same way as the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major G. Davies) but, apparently, we can discuss whether the money should be spent or not. When this Estimate was before the Committee on a previous occasion I protested against the subsidy, and pointed out that there would never come a time when this industry would be able to stand alone. We have been told that that time is coming. Perhaps we should not protest against this Supplementary Estimate if we saw the time coming when these factories will be able to stand alone financially; but on one in this House or outside can predict the day when the beet sugar industry in this country will be self-supporting, and we are, therefore, becoming apprehensive when we see this Estimate brought in by a side wind as it were, and under the conditions of a restricted Debate, in order to maintain this artificial process of production. That is why I protest against this Estimate.
      I prophesied what would happen. In 1926 and in 1927 we were told that the day would come when it would not be necessary to call upon public money, because at the end of 10 years, when the
      2192
      Chancellor of the Exchequer had paid £20,000,000—with what we have lost in Customs Duty as well the State has paid £26,000,000—as a subsidy to this industry, it would be self-supporting, but I defy any expert in this country to say that it will ever be able to stand on its own finance. It can live only by Estimates of this kind; it can never be maintained as a free, private and independent proposition. One can understand why there is this applause from hon. Members opposite and I suppose that Mr. Van Rossum, Dr. Wijnberg, Dr. Van Loon, Dr. Hirsch, Dr. Aczel and Baron Korfeld, these patriotic gentlemen, will be applauding outside when this Estimate is passed to-day. They foisted these machines and these factories on this country. This has been the greatest financial hoax ever known, imposed upon an unguarded and unthinking people. The more the public get to know about it the more will the criticism react upon this House, and I hope the suggestion that there shall be a public inquiry into the whole matter before any further attempt is made to bring in a Supplementary Estimate will be accepted by the Government.
      I feel that I cannot "get going," because of the Ruling from the Chair by which we must all abide, but there is much to be said which would make this case seem almost on an equality with some of the little developments in the City of recent days. Yet we have had Members on the Labour benches supporting this Estimate on the ground that it will give employment in the agricultural areas while Members on the Conservative benches are declaring that the lion's share of this money is going to the factories. The irony of it is that a representative, a director of the factories, stands here himself and says that he cannot accede to the demand, or the request of the farmers, because he does not think he could make it pay. He does not think that the factories can fulfil the requirement put before them by the farmers, because it might not pay. Yet in face of that statement we have Conservative Members supporting this Estimate, while admitting that the factories are running away with the lion's share, and in spite of all that we have heard, there are some hon. Members sanguine enough to believe that the day is coming

      2193
      when we shall require no more £600,000 Estimates for this purpose. But these Estimates will continue. This subtle attack on the Exchequer of this country will continue to be made in order to feed the maw of this group, who have already pocketed millions of the taxpayers' money. It will continue unless the House of Commons has a bigger and fuller Debate on this matter than is possible to-day.
      I hope that there will be such a Debate, after a full inquiry has been held into the subject, and that an end will be put to this fanciful artificial scheme for providing jobs for men. We are told that this artificial industry is going to provide work. If so, why stop at sugar? Why not begin to grow bananas or oranges or grapes? There is plenty of hot air available at little cost. In any case look at the amount of coal which would be required to provide the hot air. Look at the work it would give to the pits. It is all fatuous nonsense about the amount of work which can be given in this way. Men can be given jobs if the Exchequer is induced to pour out public money for the purpose. Perhaps I stand alone in this Committee in protesting against squandering public money on charitable projects which bring you nowhere. When you are finished with them the problem is still with you. But I have done my best to protest against performances of this kind and I am sure that you, Sir Robert, will bless me for having kept within the bounds of your Ruling on this occasion. I think I have done so even better than the hon. Member who announced that he was going to do so, and I conclude by hoping that an end will be put to all this in the very near future.
      Captain P. MACDONALD: I find great difficulty in understanding the mentality of some hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who so strongly objects to what he calls the pouring out of public funds by spending this sum on work which is to provide employment for 40,000 hands all the year round, and for 30,000 seasonal workers for part of the year, was quite prepared the other day to support a proposal for the expenditure of £20,000,000. The same remark applies to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Corn-
      2194
      wall (Sir D. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). They take strong exception to this expenditure on the ground that the money is going into the pockets of foreign capitalists instead of to the farmers. But part of their own policy for dealing with unemployment is the expenditure of £200,000,000 of public money on work which would not, as far as I can gather, benefit anybody. I think that this money is very well spent on this industry, but, now that the industry has been going on for some years, it is about time that we had a report on it, so that the farmers and factory-owners may know where they stand.
      The situation which has arisen this year is an absolute disgrace. Farmers who have prepared their land, bought their seed and contracted for their labour in connection with the growing of next season's crop have been held up month after month, while the factories, the National Farmers' Union and the Government have been trying to make up their minds as to who was going to concede the most, and how much one was going to get from the other. All the time the farmer who was responsible for the growing of the crop did not know where he stood in the matter. We have heard to-day from the Minister that, as far as this offer is concerned, no group of farmers is ruled out, but I beg to differ from that view. There is an area inside of which the factories will contract and outside of which they will not contract. I have in mind, in my own constituency, a group of farmers who started to grow this crop a few years ago. I encouraged it, because I know that it was a crop particularly adapted to that soil. They have proved it to be so by getting a larger yield per acre than perhaps any other part of the country. They have reached a high sugar content, and there was every prospect of the industry growing in that small island. Now they say that they have no prospect whatever of growing sugar-beet profitably under the new conditions offered by either the Anglo-Dutch group or the other factory groups this year under the terms made by the Minister.
      I regard that as a very serious and disgraceful situation. The industry is being confined to a limited area, while the whole country, including the farmers,

      2195
      outside that area, are obliged to contribute to the taxes from which this subsidy is provided. I am told that the factory representatives have been withdrawn from these outside areas and that the farmers there have been told that there is no prospect of obtaining any contracts this year. I urge on the Minister to take immediate steps to try to put the whole industry on a sound economic basis. I understand that a committee has made a report covering the whole industry. I hope the Minister will make use of that information immediately and will set up some body to advise the Government and to assist the farmers to know exactly where they stand. They should not be allowed to go on from year to year not knowing what is going to happen in connection with this crop and not knowing whether they are to be allowed to obtain contracts or not. There is a great deal of criticism against factory-owners on the ground that they are obtaining what is termed most of the "loot," and a great deal of that criticism is justified. It is true that the farmers up to now have not been complaining about the factories getting the lion's share of the subsidy. The farmers have been quite satisfied while they themselves have been making a fair profit, but, with diminishing subsidies, their profits go down and they are naturally asking why the factories, such as the Anglo-Dutch group, which have built up enormous reserves in the last few years, should not be prepared to take part of the risk at the present difficult time instead of passing it all on to the farmers.
      The farmers were quite satisfied that it was necessary for the factories to obtain a return for their capital outlay. What is to be their position now? Will they find that the reserves which have been built up are not to be used for the assistance of the industry at all? Are all these people all over the country to be left high and dry? There is going to be a great deal of criticism in the future about this aspect of the matter and something ought to be done. I do not, as a rule, uphold Government control, but something will have to be done to give the Government further control of this industry, if this is the way in which the factories are going to behave
      2196
      in the future. The factories would never have got the production which they had to-day if it were not for the growers in outside areas such as mine, where transport charges are exceptionally heavy. It costs the farmer in my area about £1 per ton to transport from the farm to the factory, and it is obvious that, with the present rate of subsidy and the present price of sugar, it is going to be very difficult for them to make a profit. I ask the Minister to bring pressure to bear upon those factories which have been unwise enough to stand out from this agreement in order that those who have made commitments for next year, in preparing to grow the crop may not be "let down" as badly as they have been previously, and in order that they may obtain some benefit from the outlay of this money to which they themselves contribute.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Minister tell us, as trade unionists, seeing that they are going to subsidise this beet industry, if they have made any provision to see that trade union wages will be paid and that fair conditions will be recognised in this industry?
      Dr. ADDISON: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), I am glad to say that the fair wages condition applies to these factories, and although we have had at times complaints so far as, I think, two places were concerned, investigations were made, and what was wrong was put right. It is fair to say that the employment conditions in the factories are very good and that the wages earned are very much higher than they are in the rural areas where the factories are situated. I will now reply as best I can to many of the other points which have been raised during the Debate, and taking first one which has been raised by many speakers, as to how much of the subsidy would go to the factory and how much to the grower, I can only give our calculations as to the average. The Department estimates that of the £22,200.000 paid as subsidy, £11,000,000 has been passed direct to the growers, or about half. To explain this particular figure, I may point out this year the world price per ton of beet was 30s., and the amount paid to the farmer was 50s. The average subsidy per ton of beet was therefore £2, of which the farmers had £1. As far as we can estimate the

      2197
      figure, it has been divided equally between the factories and the growers in the prices paid.
      I should very much like to follow some of the speakers into the attractive region of beet-sugar policy, but this is not the opportunity. In reply to some of the detailed questions asked by the Noble Lord, I may say that the sugar content last year on an average was lower than the year before. The tonnage per acre increased but the sugar content was nearly one per cent. less, and that was owing to the fact, of course, that the weather conditions for the most part were much more unfavourable to the development of a high sugar content in the beet. I recognise too that, as two or three other speakers have said, the tonnage per acre, although showing a satisfactory increase and although that item itself was responsible for £250,000 of this Estimate, even now we are a considerable distance behind the Continental growers in the tonnage.
      In reply to the question relating to that, I can say that the factories themselves and various institutions have spent a good deal of money in connection with research in this matter. The results depend upon the particular behaviour and varieties of the seed, which is gradually being acclimatised in this country. The average yield in the Colonies is 10 or 11 tons per acre, and we are two or three tons less.
      Sir H. SAMUEL: About 20 per cent. less?
      Dr. ADDISON: Materially less than the Continental growers.
      Mr. DUCKWORTHWhat about differences in soil
      Dr. ADDISON: The differences in soil in different parts of the country are very great indeed. In many cases the soil is very much like some of the Continental soils in which beet is grown, and even when you use the same seed, you have varying tonnage per acre. It depends on all kinds of things. For one thing, the foreign growers have been growing beet for 40 or 50 years, whereas our growers have only been growing it for five or six years, and that is the explanation of the difference, because there is a marked improvement in the quality and in the method of delivery to the factories,
      2198
      and there is a marked improvement in efficiency, so far as the sugar extraction is concerned, of the factories themselves. I can say this, that there has been a much nearer approach in the last 12 months to economic conditions than was perhaps foreseeable a couple of years ago, and the fact is that we think anyhow that the price now being offered by many of the factories—38s. 6d. per ton of beet with 15½ per cent. of sugar content of beet, rising to 43s. 6d. with 17½ per cent. content—will be a remunerative price. That is 10s. a ton less than the average price paid last year.
      Mr. L. SMITH: There has been a statement in the Debate this evening which might make the farmers hesitate to place contracts, fearing that they might not be able to get what has been promised to them in those contracts. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the arrangements come to with those 12 factories are such as will make sure that the farmer gets what is specified?
      Dr. ADDISON: I was coming to that matter, which I think ought never to have been introduced into this Debate. I am not going to enter into factory rivalries, but I can say this, that we have investigated the accounts of the factories which came into the agreement and offered 38s. 6d. per ton. All their accounts, of course, are open to our inspection. The experiments carried out at Cambridge and other places led us to believe that beet could be grown successfully at a figure round about 40s. on the average, with 16½ per cent. sugar content. A good many growers grow at substantially less, but we believe that that is a fair price. We investigated the conditions of those factories, and while, of course, some are stronger than others, we believe that on the whole that is a fair offer. It is true that the factories are going without interest, depreciation, or profit, and we are quite satisfied ourselves that they will be able to make good.
      I am very sorry, indeed, that a statement should have been made here to-day, which will occasion misgivings among growers. We cannot, of course, guarantee anything, but we were satisfied that the factories were making a businesslike offer in making that offer. It is a bit

      2199
      of a gamble, in view of the state of world prices, but I think that the appeals which have been made ought not to fall on deaf ears. With regard to the other great group, in which case all the risk is on the shoulders of the unfortunate grower, the position is quite clear. Therefore, I am not going into that. It is outside the scope of this Debate except in so far as it may affect the Estimates next year. As far as payments go, we believe it is about half and half between the factories and the growers.
      I have also been asked as to the amount of employment given. So far as we can tell, the figure paid in wages last year in connection with beet production would be over £2,000,000. There was also paid in connection with beet transport a figure which we think was about £850,000. There are various other payments in connection with maintenance staff at the factories, repair work, and so on, which we cannot give with any precision, but it is undeniable that these payments represent an immense addition to the wages paid. I have been asked, I think by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), how much additional employment this has given.
      Sir G. COLLINS: On the land.
      Dr. ADDISON: Quite so. Quite frankly, I cannot answer that question, and neither can anybody else, for the simple reason that you do not know what otherwise would have happened to the land. The fact is that as compared with ordinary arable land, I believe, we employ about three times as many in connection with sugar-beet cultivation and eight to 10 times more than on grass. How much additional employment sugar beet has provided would depend on what otherwise would have been done with that land. I cannot answer that question—nobody can—but I am quite sure that it has enabled farmers in East Anglia to keep labourers on the farms who otherwise would not have been kept there. There is no doubt whatever that that is the case to a very large extent.
      The cost of growing in England as compared with the cost abroad was one of the questions I was asked. So far as we can ascertain, the efficiency costs in England are better than they are in the United States, but, of course, we have to set against that the fact that the tonnage per acre in England is less than
      2200
      on the Continent. Our efficiency cost to the grower per ton of beet is probably a little higher here than in America and as high as it is in most Continental countries. The returns really depend upon the tonnage of beet per acre and upon the sugar content. This effectively disposes, I think, of the accusation that this £600,000 is being handed out to the companies. Half of it, anyhow, it is fair to say, according to the average of our experience, will go to the grower. Some companies, being much more efficient than others, will do better out of this share on the average than others.
      The fact is, however, that the Government to-day have no option. The Act of Parliament provides that 13s. per cwt. shall be paid for this season according to the number of cwts. produced, and it is purely an arithmetical calculation as to how much we have to pay. The additional production of sugar in this country, owing to the two changes which I have mentioned in introducing the Estimate, accounts in all for about £700,000 more than was estimated at the beginning of the year, and, of this, £100,000 is held in reserve. I was asked as to the position of some of these companies. The capital debentures which have been guaranteed amount in all to £2,000,000, of which some £1,500,000 is still outstanding.
      Sir H. SAMUEL: How much has been lost?
      Dr. ADDISON: I do not think that any of it has been lost. Some of the factories have been very unsuccessful, but they were a specialist type of factory. There was a loss in connection with them, and the Ministry cannot offer any assistance to anybody on that matter. It is a purely commercial venture, and not a venture in which I should advise Parliament to advance public money. With regard to the rest, I should say that our meticulous examination of the factory accounts has revealed that the standard of efficiency is improving very rapidly, and that so far as that side of the work is concerned, we have complete confidence in the forthcoming year. I have replied to all the points that were put to me except to the point relating to the principle underlying the Act. There is on that a difference of opinion of a very marked and recognisable kind, but it has nothing to do with this Vote. I can understand anybody object-

      2201
      ing to the principle of the 1925 Act, but that is not the point before us. There is no difference of opinion as to the case made for this Estimate, and I appeal to the Committee to pass it.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I understand that some legislation is necessary. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when it is likely to be produced?
      The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Vote.
      Mr. HASLAM: As an agricultural Member, I desire to make one or two observations before the Vote is passed. The question has been asked as to the value of this subsidy to the farmers. It is not too much to say that in the arable districts many a farmer has been saved from bankruptcy by the sugar-beet crop and by the subsidy. This crop benefits farmers in the very depressed and almost impossible conditions in which they find themselves to-day by the particular way in which they receive payment for the crop, because practically all crops are speculations. When the farmer sows a crop, he does not know the price he will get when he reaps it and takes it to market, but with the sugar-beet crop he knows beforehand, because the factories offer him a certain price. It is because it is a subsidised crop, and because the factories know exactly where they are, that they are able to offer that price. Thus the farmer has a financial anchor, for when he sets this crop he can make his calculations and say that he will have some reward at the end of it. Therefore, I add my testimony to that of other agricultural Members to the great value of the sugar-beet crop to farmers, especially in the arable districts.
      Calculations have been given as to the amount of employment that it gives. There is no question that it not only gives employment to the people who work in the factories and to the farmer who grows the crop, but to a large number of other workers and to workers in subsidiary occupations. The Minister said that he was unable to state the amount of employment that was given, because he was unable to say what would happen to the land if this subsidy were withheld. I can answer that question to a large extent. If it were not for this subsidy, a large part of that land would go out of cultivation altogether. The state of the
      2202
      arable districts is such that wheat, barley, and oats do not pay; there are certain losses on these crops, and sugar-beet is the only thing that the farmer can grow at a profit.
      The subsidy helps agriculture in another way. It is impossible to make one crop a paying proposition without assisting many other crops, and even if we could say the number of men who were engaged in growing sugar-beet that would not be the end of the matter, because the sugar-beet crop is of assistance to other crops. I will illustrate that by referring to the great distress into which the potato growers were thrown by over-production in 1929. Sugar-beet is grown by the same kind of men, in many cases, that grow potatoes, and it will be in the nature of a safety-valve to the potato growers, if they can have the subsidy to grow beet, so that the crop is a paying proposition. In that case land will not go from beet to potatoes and the danger of overproduction, which caused so much financial and actual distress in the potato-growing area two years ago, will be reduced. This subsidy, therefore, not only benefits directly the farmers and men who are employed in growing the beet crop, but it benefits indirectly a large number of other farmers and men on the land. There can be no question about that fact. Therefore, in the present conditions in agriculture, I strongly support the continuance of this subsidy. It is one of the few things that enables land still to be cultivated, and I should deplore it if the Committee did not agree to this Vote.
      Mr. CHRISTIE: I want to remind the Minister of the speech made by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor), and to call his attention to the large number of smallholders in Norfolk. The Minister will remember that recently we had the pleasure of seeing him and putting the case of these men before him. He will remember that the facts we were able to put before him showed that these smallholders were growing sugar beet to a greater extent than any other crop, and we were able to prove that it was on the sugar-beet crop that they were basing their ability to keep their end up at all. The Minister knows the unfortunate position in which these smallholders find themselves. I can

      2203
      understand the Olympian attitude of detachment which he preserves to this subject generally, feeling that it is a matter between the farmers and the factories, but the case of the smallholders is different. They are tenants of the nation, and the Minister is in a different position with regard to their situation than he is with regard to the situation of the ordinary farmer. I know how sympathetic he is with them in their unfortunate position, and I want to ask him whether he advises the tenants of the Norfolk County Council to accept the offer made by the Anglo-Dutch sugar factory, and, if he thinks that it is not a good offer, what he suggests that they should do. If they are not able to grow sugar beet next year, many of them will not know what to grow at all. We have to say something to these men, and, unless something can be done, next year will be the most serious year in the history of smallholdings in Norfolk.
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I support this Supplementary Estimate because of the protection that attaches to the subsidy, a protection for a. part of the agricultural industry, which has enabled an industry to be created from nothing five years ago until to-day 300,000 acres are under cultivation. It has induced people to go upon the land, and has done something to alter the balance in favour of the agricultural population as opposed to the urban population—
      Sir H. SAMUEL: I must protest against a speech of this character when we are not allowed to give any reply on the general question.
      7.0 p.m.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was about to rise. The hon. and gallant Member was not in the Committee, I think, when I laid it down quite definitely that we cannot discuss the merits or demerits of the subsidy, as such. The only thing we can discuss is whether this Supplementary Estimate should be granted or not. We must not discuss the principle of the subsidy.
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I apologise for being out of order, but I was endeavouring to show the necessity for continuing this subsidy, because in the past it has proved to be of such inestimable benefit.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question is not the continuation of the subsidy; it is the granting of the actual amount of money.
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The Minister has shown in his reply that, instead of a great proportion of this subsidy going to the factories, about one-half is going to the producers of sugar beet. Although perhaps more than is necessary may be going to the factories, the subsidy has enabled the farmers to produce a crop which is a profitable proposition. I was extremely interested to hear how many of those who produce this crop are smallholders. I am amazed at the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway who are opposed to this subsidy. I always considered they were particular friends of—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member cannot proceed along those lines.
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: There can be no doubt, from the Debate that has taken place that this subsidy has amply justified itself and has created this industry. In course of time the subsidy may be reduced—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is again disobeying my Ruling. If he disobeys again, I must ask him to resume his seat.
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I apologise, Sir.
      Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: If I may intervene, I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not acquainted with our procedure, and perhaps you, Sir, might just indicate to him that it is more a matter of detail than principle.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have on several occasions stated quite clearly and precisely that it is not in order to discuss the principle of the subsidy, either its continuance or abolition. The only question under discussion is whether this Estimate should be granted for this purpose.
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The Minister did make one very important remark, that the industry has shown a tremendous advance and that it has improved enormously during the time the subsidy has been in operation. I was

      2205
      glad to hear this, because so often it is argued that the operation of a subsidy tends to make—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      Mr. MACQUISTEN: I would like to say that I entirely approve of the increase in the subsidy. I hope that is in order. I do not think the increase is large enough, and I wish it were possible to increase it still further.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS V.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920."
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The Supplementary Estimate before the Committee is for £350,000 on account of old age pensions. The Committee will realise that under this Vote we pay old age pensions to those who reach the age of 70 years, or, in the case of blind persons, those who are over the age of 50. It is a Vote which is regulated by Act of Parliament, but it operates automatically so far as the Treasury is concerned in the matter of payment. Where a man or woman proves his or her claim to payment, we are compelled by the provisions carried through Parliament to provide the pension. The only variation in the amount, therefore, is due, not to policy, but to the number of people who are able to prove their claims for pensions during a particular year. Estimates are made as carefully as possible, but it is inevitable that these Estimates may be either in excess or in default. In the present instance, the sum for which we are asking, though a very large sum in itself, is less than 1 per cent. of the total original Vote, which was for £36,500,000. The reason for the discrepancy between the Estimate and the result lies in the additional number of people who have come on to the fund. It was anticipated that there would be 190,000 new pensioners who would begin to draw pensions in the
      2206
      course of the year, whereas the number will approximate more nearly to 220,000. After allowing for the various factors concerned, that involves an additional provision of the £350,000, which I am now asking the Committee to sanction. No question of policy is involved in this instance. It is simply that we are dependent on circumstances which it is only possible for us to estimate at the beginning of the period, and at the end of the period we are compelled, if the Estimate has been in default, to come to the Committee to increase it.
      Sir K. WOOD: We are indebted to the Financial Secretary for the very careful and painstaking statement that he has made. It is true that the original sum for old age pensioners and pensions under the Blind Persons Act reached the colossal figure of £36,536,000. It is a tremendous figure, and it shows the provision which is made in this country for old people and blind people, which, I suppose, is exceeded by no other country in the world. One hears criticisms of the cost of the social services, but I am making no suggestion so far as these pensions are concerned. It is right that we should carefully scrutinise Supplementary Estimates of this character, because unless we do so these amounts may rise steadily year by year and reach such sums as will render the provision for these old people difficult. It is no good disguising the fact that many people think some of our industrial difficulties at present are due to the heavy cost of our social services.
      We are presented here with a Supplementary Estimate for a very large sum, and the Financial Secretary says that it is due to an under estimate of the number of people entitled to pensions under the Statutes. I fully agree with him. There can be no question of policy arising in connection with this Supplementary Estimate. It is perfectly true that, if a person complies with the statutory provisions and is able to satisfy the necessary conditions and qualifications, then under the Act of Parliament the Treasury has to meet the bill and the pension has to be paid. It would be a very wrong thing if on account of either an overestimate or an under-estimate it should be suggested that the one per cent. who are affected should in any way have their pensions interfered with or reviewed. No

      2207
      one could contemplate a greater injustice than that.
      While I make no particular criticism of this Estimate, beyond saying that it is unfortunate that we should have this extra Vote presented to us, it is desirable that the utmost care should be taken in the presentation of these Estimates. It is true that it only amounts to a difference of one per cent., but that means a very large additional sum of £350,000. It is, in my judgment, Supplementary Estimates like this which, when they are presented to the House of Commons, provoke criticisms of the heavy cost of our social services, and also criticisms that we vote all these social services and then later get a bigger bill which the House of Commons is bound to meet, and by that means the House is losing control over one of its paramount duties—the provision made for the financial services. One constantly sees these criticisms made outside by people who are disappointed with Parliament for various reasons, personal and otherwise; and I daresay that you, Mr. Dunnico, have observed that criticisms of this kind generally come from people who are failing to get their own way, or, perhaps, are not occupying the position which they think they ought to have on the Government Bench or elsewhere in Parliament. When one sees criticisms of this kind one wants to note the position which the people who make them occupy at that moment.
      But when that has been said, and due discount has been made for criticisms about the control of the House over financial business, I still maintain that efforts ought to be made by the Treasury to get their original Estimates for services as nearly accurate as possible. We have a most competent Government actuary to make these Estimates, Sir Alfred Watson—no one would venture to criticise his technical skill; but we all know the difficulties in the way. I only refer to that by way of illustration, and in view of the fact that the Estimates in connection with transitional benefit have been exceeded by many millions. While I would not ask any Member to lift a finger against voting this sum for those who are entitled to pensions under an Act of Parliament which all of us would desire to honour to the full, yet
      2208
      this additional amount is something which we cannot pass over without comment and without asking the Treasury to take note of the aspects of the matter which I have put forward. Looking at the original Estimate, I see that provision was made there for the expenses of pensions committees, and it occurs to me to ask whether, as there has been so large an addition to the number of old age pensioners, some further expenses may not have been incurred by the pensions committees? Some years ago 1 was associated with the old age pension authority for London, and was chairman of it for one or two years, and I remember that an increase in the number of claimants added to the costs of the committee.
      Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: The expenses of the committee may be included in this sum.
      Sir K. WOOD: It may be included, but I hardly think it will be, because if the hon. Member looks at the original Estimate he will see that Subhead A deals with pensions, and the expenses of pensions committees come under Subhead B. The expenses of pensions committees are put at £35,000 in that Estimate, and as there has been an addition of 1 per cent. to the number of claimants probably extra provision has had to be made for the committees in the matter of extra clerks, stationery and the like. I hope the Committee will understand the motives which have led me to make these observations. I am making no attack upon the payment of this money. All I am asking is that the Financial Secretary shall exercise his considerable influence in trying to get these Estimates drawn up as accurately as possible when they are originally presented to the House. so that when Parliament does vote the money for any service it will know that, so far as is possible, it has a full presentment of the situation, and that we shall not have application made to us later to grant additional sums.
      A large sum like £350,000 is even more important than ordinarily in view of the position of the Exchequer. A most serious statement was made the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is true that he has since whittled it away a great deal, but he told us that we were approaching a Budget deficit, and when we are faced with

      2209
      Supplementary Estimates totalling £1,858,500 I am sure the Treasury and the Financial Secretary must feel very apprehensive of the position. Whilst we are glad to know that these old people are getting pensions under an Act with which my party has been so honourably associated, I hope the Financial Secretary will have some regard to the opinion, humble as it is, which I have expressed, and that, so far as it is possible to avoid it, we shall not in future have the Treasury coming to us for these large extra sums.
      Mr. MARCH: I desire to ask one or two questions in connection with the administration of pensions. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) need not fear that there is not now the same sympathy for the people who apply for pensions as there has been hitherto. I have been a member of the old age pensions authority in London ever since it began.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The money asked for in this Supplementary Estimate does not include expenses of administration.
      Mr. MARCH: What is the £350,000 for, if it is not for administration and the paying of old age pensions?
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Minister has explained that the £350,000 is required to meet extra charges arising from an increase in the number of claims, and not for expenses.
      Mr. MARCH: But no claim is settled until inquiries have been made by pension officers. An old age pensioner cannot apply for a pension and get it straight away.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would only be justified in raising questions of administration if further money had been asked for administration expenses. In this Estimate no money is asked for that particular purpose, and we can only discuss the purpose for which the additional money is required.
      Mr. MARCH: I would like the Minister to explain how many additional people have been making claims and have had their claims allowed. You allowed the right hon. Member for West Woolwich to go into the question of com-
      2210
      mittees and their expenses. The right hon. Member knows better than I do that there are no expenses for committees.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) went just as far as he could.
      Mr. MARCH: He knows better than I do that members of committees are not paid for their attendance.
      Sir K. WOOD: Forgive me, I never made any such suggestion.
      Mr. MARCH: Oh, yes, you did.
      Sir K. WOOD: If I did, I want at once to correct it. The point I put was that, as the number of old age pensioners had increased by 1 per cent., did it not follow that there would be some corresponding increase in the outlay of the pensions committees? I do not want the hon. Member or anyone else who may have misunderstood me, perhaps from the imperfect way in which I expressed myself, to think that I ever suggested that any member of a pension committee is paid, or has anything to do with the increase in the number of claims.
      Mr. MARCH: I probably knew what the right hon. Member meant, but I also know what he said. As one who has been a member of the London Central Committee for a number of years I may tell him, as well as others, that we have never received a penny for our services, they are all voluntary. If the right hon. Member had said expenses are incurred by the officers of the committee, that would have been a straightforward statement, but he left an impression on my mind, and probably on the minds of others, that Members of these committees are paid for their services. We hear enough of that from people outside, who tell us that we would not be doing the work if we were not getting well paid for it; and I do not want it to go out from Parliament that we get paid for our services. It is only the officers who get paid. I repeat that I would like to know the additional number of old age pensioners who have been granted pensions, and also the difference between what is paid to them and to the officers for administration. The right hon.

      2211
      Member knows full well that old age pensions officers are paid per capita of applicants dealt with, whether it is a case in which a pension of 1s. is granted or one in which the pension is 10s. My trouble, and the committee's trouble, lies in the strict scrutiny of so many of the investigators who are trying to debar, as we call it, old age pensioners from getting 10s.—trying to see how much lower they can make the pension. It is in that way that a vast amount of administrative expense is incurred which never ought to arise.
      Viscountess ASTOR: I am not at all surprised that there has been a much larger number of people asking for old age pensions. My surprise is that hon. Members are not enraged at the action of the Government in not keeping the promises which were made at the last General Election to the old people—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must understand that she is not in order in discussing promises which were made at the last General Election. The only question before the Committee is the additional sum which is being asked for to pay these old age pensions.
      Viscountess ASTOR: When a Front Bench Member addresses the Committee, he is generally a Member who is accustomed to the ways of the House and knows how to avoid difficulties in regard to our procedure. That enables him to get in a great deal more than simple Members like myself. I think back bench Members ought to have the same leniency shown towards them—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must not suggest any partiality on the part of the Chair. It is my duty to enforce the Rules of Order and so long as she remains within those Rules the Noble Lady has the same freedom as other hon. Members.
      Sir ARTHUR STEEL - MAITLAND: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us that a much larger number of people have claimed pensions than were estimated for, and I should like to ask if it is not within the Rules of Order to ask how it has come about that there has been such a large increase in the number of applicants.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not concerned with the Act of Parliament now; that cannot be criticised at all. This Estimate deals only with those people who have qualified for pensions and for whom this extra money is required.
      Mr. McGOVERN: I think you have just ruled, Mr. Dunnico, that the Vote we are discussing does not deal with the expenses of administration. May I point out that the words of the Supplementary Estimate are:
      "for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith."
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that that is the ordinary formula which is adopted in the original Estimate.
      Viscountess ASTOR: I was under the impression that we should be allowed to ask for the reasons which have led a larger number of old people to apply for pensions. I think hon. Members have reason to congratulate themselves upon the fact that all the promises which were made by the supporters of the Government at the last election have not been kept. I do not think that the whole of this increase is going directly to the old people. I do not think that there is a single hon. Member who begrudges all we can give to these poor old people. I know that many of these old people would not vote for me at the last election, because I would not promise them pensions like the Labour candidate promised.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would like to point out to the Noble Lady that this Vote is for pensions paid to people who have qualified for them.
      Viscountess ASTOR: How are they qualified?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: They are qualified for pensions under the provisions laid down in the Act.
      Viscountess ASTOR: I congratulate the Front Bench upon being so well protected by the Ruling of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I am not making any attack upon the Deputy-Chairman, and I would like to say that I have always found him fair and more than polite, but I say that the Government are very lucky in this Debate. Speakers on the Front Bench are allowed

      2213
      to go on for hours and hours talking about nothing, and what they say in this House is nothing compared with what they say outside.
      Miss LEE: I think it would be a much better course for hon. Members opposite to take if they would make their criticisms and then finish up with a Division in the Lobby on an Amendment. I have listened with a considerable amount of admiration to the skill with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has engaged in his favourite entertainment of Minister baiting at Question Time, and on this occasion he and also the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) have exhibited a considerable amount of skill in that direction.
      Viscountess ASTOR: I have not wasted a moment of the time of the Committee, and I protest against that statement.
      Miss LEE: I will continue with my serious points. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich takes a great deal of pleasure in asking Ministers first one thing and then another—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady is not in Order in referring to matters of that nature at this moment.
      Miss LEE: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite scrutinise Estimates of this kind in minute detail with a view to discovering whether there has been the slightest laxity or extravagance in order to find out where some small economy can be enforced. They are placed in an extremely awkward position when they discuss an Estimate of this kind. In speeches outside this House, hon. Members opposite frequently ask for economy, but, when the Estimates are under consideration in Committee, those hon. Members are extremely careful not to mention the details on which they desire a reduction of expenditure to take place.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: What view did the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) and her party take in regard to the question of the payment of Members' travelling expenses?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question could not be answered, because it is out of order.
      Miss LEE: I will not follow the hon. Member upon that subject. Hon. Members opposite talk a great deal about economy, but they generally want an increase and not a reduction in the expenditure on the Fighting Services.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I remind the hon. Member that the only point before the Committee is whether the extra money asked for in this Vote is justified or not?
      Miss LEE: I would like to get some explanation as to why the Labour party are being criticised for spending too much on the social services—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Vote.
      Miss LEE: On this particular Estimate, hon. Members opposite have a chance of voting against this Estimate if they desire to reduce the expenditure on social services. All I say is that if hon. Members opposite desire to see the expenditure on our social services reduced, if they believe that items like the one which we are now discussing are a bad thing, then they ought to have the courage of their convictions and go into the Lobby against this Estimate. I think we ought to apologise to the old people in the country, not because we are spending too much—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not persist in discussing policy on this Vote.
      Miss LEE: I shall postpone to a more appropriate occasion what I think ought to be done in the way of apologising to the old people outside instead of bandying words about concerning this inadequate Estimate.
      Captain BOURNE: I sympathise with the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) who on this occasion has not been able to make the speech which she desired to make. When the hon. Lady has had more experience of the House she will realise that Supplementary Estimates are, owing to the Rules of the House, not a suitable occasion on which to deliver a Second Reading speech. If I attempted to follow her argument, I should undoubtedly be ruled

      2215
      out of order. The Supplementary Estimate says that the amount required is:
      "for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920."
      On this point I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question. Under the Supplementary Estimate, it is difficult to make out whether the increase comes under the Act of 1908, which I think is the original Act, and under which the age is 70 and where there is a means test; or whether it comes under the Act of 1925, where the means test was removed and where the age was 65. I want to know whether the actuarial estimate of the number of people reaching the age of 70 and thereby qualifying under the Act of 1908 was too low or not. That is my first point. My second point is whether a number of people provided for under the Act of 1908 would be excluded by the means test or entitled to lesser pensions because of their private incomes being exhausted through industrial depression or other causes. [Interruption.] I should also like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I had better make it clear that the hon. and gallant Member is quite in order. He is simply trying to ascertain what is the cause of the increase, and that is a question that he is perfectly entitled to ask.
      Captain BOURNE: I am much obliged, Mr. Dunnico. I should also like to ask the Financial Secretary whether the increase under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, is larger than was estimated. Owing to the form of the Estimate, it is difficult to see under which of the headings the increase comes, and I think the Committee is entitled to know.
      Major COLFOX: If I may be allowed to say so with very great respect, I should like to offer to you, Mr. Dunnico, my sympathy in your difficulty in keeping certain hon. Members within the bounds of order. I hope that I shall not add to your difficulties in that respect. I believe I am right in thinking that the only point that can be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate is the reason why, this year, more persons are claim-
      2216
      ing pensions under these various Acts than the Government estimated in the early part of the year, and I should like a little information from the Government on that point. It seems to me that this Estimate is a very severe condemnation of the action of the Government in the year which is now drawing to a close, because it seems to me that the increase is very probably due to the fact that there are a great many more people this year whose incomes have been reduced, largely by the action of the Government, below—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must not pursue that point; it raises the whole question of the Government's policy. If hon. Members were permitted to deal with that question, I should have to allow a right of reply.
      Major COLFOX: One of the qualifications of people who are entitled to pensions under these Acts is that their means shall be below a certain sum, and I want to ask whether this increase is due to the fact that a larger number of people have fallen below the means limit than the Government actuary imagined earlier in the year—in other words, whether there are many more necessitous people below the income limit than was anticipated? Alternatively, or, perhaps, in addition, is it that the average length of life is increasing? It may be that many more people are living to an older age than formerly. If, as I anticipate, both of these causes are operating, can the Financial Secretary tell us how much of the increase is due to the one cause and how much is due to the other? I should like, further, to ask him how much of the increase is due to increases of pensions payable to blind persons. Are we to be led to believe that there are more blind persons in the country than the Government anticipated, or that they are living longer, or what is the cause under that head? [Interruption.] I quite understand the reason for the interjections of hon. Members opposite. They obviously take no interest in old age pensions—[Interruption]—beyond the party political advantage which they hope to get at election time.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must not disobey my Ruling by persisting in that argument.
      Major COLFOX: I apologise for being led away by interjections which I imperfectly heard. I merely wanted to ask the Minister the reason why the number of beneficiaries has increased beyond what was anticipated. It seems to me that probably all of the three causes I have named are in operation, and it is quite possible that there may be other causes as well. Therefore, I shall be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me the information for which I have asked.
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to put one or two points to the Financial Secretary. I understand that he is going to reply, and it will probably save him trouble if we put all the points that we want to put, so that he may not be called upon to reply more than once. He claimed for this Supplementary Estimate that it was much smaller than it looked, because, although the absolute sum seemed fairly considerable, it was only about one per cent. of the total amount involved. May I, however, put to him one consideration on that point? This Estimate deals with a subject which is more susceptible of minute and accurate calculation than almost any other that comes within the purview of the Government. In the case of Customs and Excise, and Estimates of that kind, there must obviously be a very considerable margin of error, according to the prosperity of trade or otherwise, but when it is merely, or very largely, a matter of estimating the probability of persons living, it is one of those subjects on which the most accurate estimation is possible.
      What has happened is that, in a subject-matter of that kind, the estimate has been for an increase of £1,000,000 over the previous year, and that estimate has been exceeded by £350,000. In other words, if the total amount of money involved—[Interruption.] The estimate of pensions for this year is £36,500,000, as compared with £35,500,000 for the previous year. Clearly, therefore, whatever the actual out-turn of the previous year was, the estimate for this year was that old age pensions would cost about £1,000,000 more, instead of which they are costing about £1,350,000 more. That means that the increase is more than one-third greater than it was estimated to be,
      2218
      and I think that any argument as to the accuracy of an estimate of that kind must be based, not merely on the total amount involved, but on the degree of accuracy with which the increase was estimated. There is one point which comes in materially as regards the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) as to the classes. I made a rapid estimate while the Financial Secretary was speaking. He said it was anticipated that there would be an increase of 190,000 in the number of persons, whereas the actual increase was about 220,000.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not quite appreciated the point. The figure at the beginning was 190,000, but, as regards the figure of 220,000, it must be remembered that some are dropping out at the other end.
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I see; it is not a net increase of 220,000 as compared with 190,000. But, surely, that means at the same time that not only must the entry have been greater, but the number of survivors must be considerably greater also, because an entry of 220,000 means an addition of less than one-sixth to the Estimate. [Interruption.] I think that my figures are right now. On the Financial Secretary's own showing, there entered as recipients of pensions into the pension-receiving age, whether it was 65 or 70—
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is 70 in all cases except for the blind. I think there is some confusion in the right hon. Gentleman's mind between the pensions paid on this Vote and the pensions paid on the Health Vote. So far as this Vote is concerned, these pensions are only paid on attaining the age of 70, except in the case of blind people.
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My point is quite a good one, and is not affected in the least by what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are entering into pensions of this class, whether the recipients are blind people or others who have reached the age of 70, 220,000 instead of 190,000. That is 30,000, or rather less than one-sixth, more than was contemplated; but the actual increase in the money involved over what was contemplated is one-third. What I should like to know is how the Financial Secretary

      2219
      reconciles this difference. It is quite clear from the figures so far as he has given them that that is the inference which ought properly to be drawn.
      8.0 p.m.
      With regard to the larger point which was dealt with by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee), the Financial Secretary spoke as though this was an inconsiderable sum, only about 1 per cent., but it is a very large sum indeed, and it occurs in a service in which such an error is the less excusable. When one carries one's mind back to Budgets before the War, it is enough to convert a surplus into a deficit, or a deficit into a surplus. What is more, it means this: The hon. Member for North Lanark said that we on this side of the House scrutinised these Estimates with minute care to see if there was any fault in them, or any lack of economy. I say that that is the duty of everyone in this House, and more particularly the duty of the Opposition; and the inference that for that reason we want to vote against this Estimate is a wholly and absolutely unjustifiable inference. So far as pensions are given by law, we want pensions to be given and enjoyed. We have not the least hesitation in voting for them, and we have no wish to vote against them. What we do want is to have as accurate an estimate as possible of the bill that we are to be asked to pay. It is quite right to pay it; of that there is no doubt; but no one wants to have a bigger bill than he has been led to anticipate.
      We have had expressions of opinion with regard to the financial situation of the country from the Government Front Bench, and we have been led to believe that we are in very great difficulties and have to be careful as regards expenditure. We have to cut our coat according to our cloth. Here is an under-estimate of about £350,000. If we had known that we were going to be let in for that Estimate, surely it would have been right, not only for the Opposition, but for the Government, to see whether they ought to have expended all the money that they propose to expend under other projects of legislation. [Interruption.] I am not discussing any of those other projects, but I think I am well within the Rules of Order in saying that a definite result of an under-estimated expenditure of very considerable sums, like this of
      2220
      one-third of a million pounds—a direction in which accurate estimate ought to have been possible—does seriously disorganise and prejudice the proper attitude of the Committee in other respects.
      I am not dealing with the merits of the other respects or of any one of them in particular. There might be many items. I am not going to transgress the Rules of Order if I can help it. If the Government had known that the Committee were to be faced with this under-estimate it ought to have been rather more cautious in other projects which they have let loose upon the country, and for which the country is going to be asked to pay the debt. We think that this bill should be paid, because it is a bill which is due, and rightly due, to the recipients. At the same time we think it perfectly right to criticise the Government for giving us an unanticipated sum of very nearly a third of a million pounds to pay for this single Estimate, on an item in which a much closer Estimate ought to have been possible.
      Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Liberal party is intensely interested in this Vote. [Interruption.] I am speaking for the five and a half million voters in this country. Either there has been a gross waste in the administration to the extent of this Vote, or else there are 14,000 persons—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should know that the Minister has stated not a penny of this money is involved in administration, and that it is therefore out of order to discuss that aspect of the question.
      Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am doing my best to pick up the points made. If none of this money is concerned in administration, assuming that these are all old age pensioners, it means that 14,000 persons are living longer than they did when the Government Actuary made his calculation. We cannot tell how many of these people have got the old age pension by reaching the age of 70, and how many are blind persons. I have worked out 10s. a week, for 52 weeks in the year, and roughly it means that 14,000 persons are living longer. Perhaps they are living longer in the hope that the Government will be turned out and a Conservative Government will come in. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or a Liberal Government!"]

      2221
      Yes, or a Liberal Government. Has the Financial Secretary any reason for saying that these old persons are living longer, and why they are enjoying this expectancy of life?
      What is the percentage of error, and how is it that a very skilled person like the Government actuary—I presume he is consulted—can make an error of this extent? On what livelihood does he work? His own, or the four or five life-tables used by the well-known insurance companies? I should like to know whether the Financial Secretary has the information? It is a very grave thing that this error should spring up, but the Liberal party is delighted that 14,000 persons have lived a little longer on the old age pensions started by the Liberal party. Is there no means of telling where these old people are living? From what part of the country do they come? Are there many East Anglians? Does it mean that in East Anglia they live longer than they expect to live in Islington or the North? Is there any means of telling their occupation? All these points want clearing up. I do not believe the Financial Secretary has made out his case up to the present.
      Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I want to ask a simple question of accounting. I myself had to go into these points two years ago and, in my opinion, this is not an accountant's problem. It is a perfectly unjustifiable inaccuracy. These figures of the people who require to be provided with money are susceptible of minute and accurate calculation. This is not an actuarial problem at all. I happened to take up an Estimate two days ago in the large book of the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1930. There I found, so accurately had the figures been estimated for that year, that out of the £35,000,000 for more people who were entitled to money under this Vote for the previous year, every voucher was accounted for, and every payment with the exception of £24 was known.
      The Government had a perfectly good basis for making its calculation, yet they ask for an increase in the first Vote of £1,000,000. Now they come down and say that they need to ask the Committee for a further third of a million. I will not go into the merits of how the money has been spent, or in what divisions or
      2222
      categories it has been spent, but I say that unless the Financial Secretary can give a very good reason for the blunder we shall take the view that this is a very unskilful calculation.
      Mr. DIXEY: The hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal benches, from among the Government's co-partners in the administration of affairs, seemed somewhat perturbed at having no detailed explanation of this item. I take it that the Financial Secretary is going to reply on the Debate, and I would like to point out to him that there is a note at the bottom of this Estimate saying that the additional provision is required owing to the increase in the proportion of the population claiming pensions. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare) has quite properly asked whether it is due to the fact that people are living longer. Speaking for myself, I welcome that. It is an encouraging sign that even under the present administration, people, with all their worries and troubles, are surviving in larger quantities than before. If that is not so, it is proper for us, whose duty it is to scrutinise all these Estimates very carefully, particularly an Estimate of this sort which can be so easily accurate, to know what is the Government's explanation for this increase in the population who are obtaining pensions. I take it that it is quite proper to suggest, until we have a better explanation, that the reason for it is the bad trade in the country.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite entitled to ask a question, but he is not entitled to assume a reason and then to make a long speech upon that assumption.
      Mr. DIXEY: I bow to your Ruling. If I transgressed it was due to my genuine desire for information. I want to ask the Minister what is the reason for this increased grant. Is it the longer lives of the people, or is it owing to the fact that a large number of people are becoming increasingly "hard up" and therefore have to apply for these pensions? I think that is a very proper question to ask the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government to-day. I am sure the hon. Gentleman who is acting for the Liberal party will welcome an answer as much as the hon. Members sitting on these benches.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am aware of the conditions under which these Supplementary Estimates are discussed, and I think I have shown myself in the past to be willing to answer all the questions that are put to me, but it is departing a little from the rules of the game that hon. Members should accuse me of having given no explanation when they were not present when my speech was made and the answer for which they are asking was given in the course of that speech.
      Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If I said anything unjust, I withdraw it. My reason, although I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, was the extreme dissatisfaction of the Opposition, and, therefore, I concluded that the hon. Gentleman had not said much.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member must have argued backwards from the dissatisfaction of the Opposition to a speech which he has not heard, because I answered all the points made in. the last two speeches in my original explanation, and it is not quite playing the game to say that I have given no explanation when, in fact, I did give an explanation and definitely answered the points that were raised. However, I will answer what I believe to be all the points that have been put forward.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: You will answer the same points again.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There are a few new ones.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: That will be repetition.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Perhaps it will be as well, in view of the number of Members who have come into the Committee, that I should break the rule to that extent. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) asked me whether there has been any increase in the amount of expenses of the committees, and the answer is "no." The original amount voted is quite sufficient to meet that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) asked me a number of questions relating to the proportions of these people, and he thought I ought to give him an exact answer. This is still only an estimate.
      2224
      No doubt in a few months' time, if he puts a question, to me, I shall be able to give him the exact number of persons who obtain pensions under each of the categories. I cannot be as meticulous as that now, but I can tell him that there are, roughly, 900,000 people drawing pensions under the Act of 1908, that is the non-contributory pension, and 441,000 under the 1925 Act, and, broadly speaking, the proportions are the same throughout.
      Captain BOURNE: The hon. Gentleman means that the extra amount that he is asking for is really in that proportion?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes. I endeavoured to find out before the Debate began. The figures cannot be given, but they are roughly in that proportion. May I come to the two last speeches. I gave the answer at the beginning. This addition is due to the fact that about 30,000 more people than were expected have entered upon pension rights. It is not due to longer life, but to the fact that a larger number of people have substantiated their claim to pensions—to the number of about 30,000. The number anticipated was about, 190,000, and the number who have actually succeeded in establishing their claims is about 220,000. I come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). He developed what is rather dangerous inside this Chamber, an arithmetical argument. He said 190,000 people had been expected to enter the fund at the lower age limit, and that in fact the number had been 220,000, and he argued that, as that was about one-sixth more than was expected, and £1,000,000 had been estimated as the probable increase, there ought only to have been an addition of one-sixth in the expenditure. But he forgot this simple fact, that, while 190,000 people were estimated as entering the fund at one end a certain number, roughly about 140,000, were anticipated to disappear owing to death, or possibly other causes, and the increase of 30,000 is, therefore, an increase upon the net figure found by deducting those who leave from those who enter and is not an increase that must be taken in proportion to those who enter alone. That is why I shook my head when he said the arithmetical argument was irrefutable; it was an entirely unsound argument.
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: How many dropped out, and was that different from the estimate or not?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The number that dropped out is 145,000 owing to death, or, occasionally, to other causes, and that is approximately what was anticipated. I have dealt with all the points except the statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman and so much emphasised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), that this was a very great failure in correct estimation. The right hon. Gentleman based his argument on the ground that, while this was in appearance only a 1 per cent. error in the Estimate over the whole figure, it really was something like 33 per cent. of the estimate for the increase. That is a very fallacious way of attempting to look at these facts. The Government Actuary, who has to go into these matters and on whose estimate our figures were based, has to take the whole range into consideration, and there are all sorts of circumstances which may increase or diminish the amount that will be required under this fund. Deaths have to be taken into account and there are the actuarial figures of those who attain the age of 70 during the year in question, but there are a great many other considerations. There is the question of people who are already on the fund, or who are not on the fund because their means limit has hitherto been above, and yet are over 70 and come on to the fund.
      There are a large number of points that have to be taken into account, and it is on the balance of all these points that the Actuary makes up his mind. The real figure with which he is dealing is the cost of the charge and, taking the pluses and the minuses and working them all out, he could arrive at the conclusion that there was likely to be an increase. In fact, the increase has been exceeded, but the percentage of error cannot be taken on the increase. It must obviously be taken on the gross total. The hon. Member for Farnham waxed very eloquent and adopted a tone of considerable castigation at the present occupant of this office for failure to estimate correctly. I have only this to point out, that in the year when he was in charge of this Vote, he was not content to come to ask for a miserable £350,000. He asked
      2226
      for £550,000 because his estimate was nearly twice as much out in proportion as the present estimate.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: That was in 1928, before we had experience of the Act of 1929. We have lived three years since then. We have had the 1929 Act in operation, and we know the amounts which have actually been paid out. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has given a sufficient answer.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid that the hon. Member really does not thoroughly appreciate what it is that the Actuary had to decide. When he tells us that all the facts must be in the possession of the Treasury and that there is no reason why there should be any doubt over the Estimate, it really must be that he cannot appreciate the points at issue. It is perfectly clear that there are a large number of points which can only be estimated actuarially with regard to this Vote. I still maintain that although he makes these disparaging remarks of what we have done, his own Supplementary Estimate was nearly double as large in proportion.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VII.

      STATIONERY AND PRINTING.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I hope that the Financial Secretary does not think that I am going to castigate him. I should like to ask a few questions about the Supplementary Estimate. I notice here that in Section E there is an increase of £24,000 for paper, and also that there is an increase for printing of £50,000. How was this Estimate made? In view of the fact that the cost of materials has probably fallen, it seems that the Estimate must have been pretty wide. Were allowances made for a fall in the cost of materials? With regard to Section F in page 23, "Voters' Lists," which shows an additional provision required of £50,000, perhaps the Financial

      2227
      Secretary will tell me how he came to overlook the necessity for making provision for voters' lists. It should have been foreseen that these things were required. And yet we have such a large sum as £50,000 put down. I notice that in "Miscellaneous Office Supplies" there is an item of 10,000 for calculating and other machinery. I do not take any exception to that. I am rather glad to see that this sort of thing has been extended, because I have always been of opinion that the Departments of His Majesty's Government do not use sufficient of these calculating and other machines. What kind of machines are they? Perhaps he will tell us. I should like him to tell us for what purpose they are to be used. Are they for the census, or are they included in the general office equipment of the Treasury and Ministry of Labour?
      Is a policy being laid down now, such as there is in the great, industrial insurance offices, to introduce calculating machines so as to save labour and cut down the cost of expenditure With regard to Item (h) under Appropriations in Aid, I notice the word "advertisements"—£30,000. I dare say that that matter has given the Financial Secretary a considerable amount of trouble. Where do these advertisements appear? Are they in the Board of Trade Journal? How are they obtained? In what Government publications do they appear? Is the amount stated the net amount, after paying the commission and other costs of collecting the orders? How is it arrived at? There is Item (k), "Supplies on repayment terms." What does "repayment" mean? Is it a system of credit on the instalment plan of which we hear so much in America, or what does it mean? I am rather surprised that the total under Appropriations in Aid of £66,000 is so small. I should have assumed that there would have been savings arising from the removal of the printing office from where it used to be to Pocock Street. Has any assistance been credited to the Stationery Office which might have helped the Appropriations in Aid due to the change—I have forgotten the name of the street for the moment where the old printing place was situated—to Pocock Street, which we thought a year
      2228
      or more ago would bring about a considerable economy? I aim not going to oppose the Vote or give any trouble, but I should like the Financial Secretary to give me a running reply to the points which I have raised.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member has asked me a number of questions. In the first place, with regard to paper, the reason why the provision for paper is larger than was anticipated when the Estimate was formed is the decision which was taken with regard to the Telephone Directory. Members of the Committee are probably aware that it has been decided in future to issue the Telephone Directory in two parts. One of those parts will appear a month earlier than has been the practice hitherto. It has involved placing an order for paper a month earlier, and that is why it has come into this Vote instead of being postponed until the following year.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Is that recoverable at all from the Post Office Estimates?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think the hon. Member can understand the point. The paper has to be ordered in time for printing, and at the present time the Directory has not been printed, and will not be printed before the end of the financial year. But the order for paper having to be given and the amount paid, the additional amount comes into the Estimates of the Stationery Office for the current year. That account amounts to about £14,000. The need of additional unemployment cards and forms owing to the increase of unemployment, which also was not anticipated, has meant about another £8,000, and general requirements about £2,000 more.
      Mr. SAMUEL: What about the voters' lists?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEWith regard to the printing of voters' lists, the reason why that charge is more than was anticipated is not that we did not anticipate voters' lists, or that we did not anticipate that there would be a good deal of cost entailed in printing them, but is the exceptionally large number of removals and changes at various times. The cost of printing those removals has involved us in this very considerable additional charge. With regard to the question of office supplies, about £6,000 is due for typewriters and repairs, and about

      2229
      £10,000 for calculating machines. The policy of replacing worn-out typewriters has been going on for some time, and most of the old war machines, of which there were a great number at one time, are becoming out-of-date and it will be necessary to purchase fresh machines to replace them. The hon. Member has asked where the calculating machines are used. They are used throughout the Departments. I do not think that the hon. Member wishes to know with meticulous accuracy how many there are in each Department, but, broadly speaking, they are used throughout the whole of the Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman asked me where, in the main, were the advertisements. They are, of course, mainly in the Telephone Directory.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Are there no other publications?
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There are other publications, but the bulk of these advertisements are in the Telephone Directory, and it is chiefly from that source that the amount mentioned in the Appropriation-in-Aid has arisen. With respect to the question of repayments, certain Departments have sources other than Exchequer grants, for instance the Metropolitan Police, Trinity House, etc. Supplies are made by the Stationery Office, but the Office claims repayment.
      Major DAVIES: With regard to the calculating machines, the Financial Secretary says that they have been distributed pretty generally throughout the Service. Has he any general or exact figures as to the effect of the introduction of these machines? Has there been a saving in the number of clerical staff? Generally speaking, the substitution of calculating machines means a reduction in permanent staff.
      Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid that I cannot give figures. These machines have only just been supplied, and it would probably be too early to say what has been the effect of the introduction of the additional calculating machines.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS II.

      DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £62,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course
      2230
      of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; Relief of Refugees from the Near East; certain special Grants, including a Grant-in-Aid; Sundry Services arising out of the War; and a Loan to the European Commission of the Danube."
      Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON
      rose—
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): Perhaps it would be more convenient for the Committee if I made a statement before the right hon. Gentleman speaks. This Supplementary Estimate for £62,900 falls under four main headings. The first, under the heading of "Diplomatic Service," is an additional sum of £4,000 for outfits. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, who preceded me in office, will appreciate the truth of what I am going to say, namely, that this particular Vote varies from year to year according to the number of losses by death and retirement, and the consequential transfer of Ambassadors, Ministers and other diplomatic officers. In the year with which we are now dealing, there has, unfortunately, been a large number of casualties of this kind. Similarly in connection with the General Consular Service, an additional sum of £10,000 is required for outfits, travelling and special services on account of exceptional transfers following retirement and death. In the case of the Consular Service it may be of interest to the Committee if I repeat what has already been sated in this House that two officers of the Consular Service have during this year been appointed heads of diplomatic missions, Mr. Scott Dickson at Bogota and Sir Andrew Ryan at Jedda. This has naturally meant consequential appointments and transfers.
      Under the heading, "Losses in Russia," an additional sum of £8,900 is required. Similar charges have had to be met in previous years. In the years 1917–18 there was a certain confusion prevailing in Russia and roubles were purchased on behalf of the British authorities. I do not desire, unless I am pressed, to give particulars, but if I am pressed I will give them. Certain roubles were purchased and claims, based upon those transactions have been coming in

      2231
      for payment in subsequent years. This is a very unfortunate charge for which the Foreign Office was not in any way responsible. In this particular case a certain gentleman of German nationality makes a claim for £8,900, and we are satisfied that he is a perfectly bona-fide holder of a cheque paid for roubles. This transaction was made on the authority of Mr. Bruce Lockhart, who at that time was known as the British diplomatic agent in Moscow. Hon. Members will recollect that there was the Aronowitz case which came before the courts in 1927, when Mr. Justice McCardie expressed the view that it would be very wrong for the British Government to refuse payment of these claims which had been incurred in good faith. For that reason, we are asking the Committee to honour this latest claim, which we have investigated and believe to be perfectly bona fide.
      Under the heading of "Appropriations-in-aid," owing to general trade depression, which has had many repercussions everywhere, our receipts from Consular fees and fines are down, especially in China. There is an estimated decline of £10,000 in Consular fees, fines, etc., connected with the General Service and £30,000 in connection with the Services in China, making a total of £40,000. That is directly traceable to trade depression. For that reason, the Appropriations-in-Aid will fall short by that amount.
      Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I rose, in the first instance, to get information from the hon. Member. He has now covered every item of expenditure about which I had intended to ask for information, and therefore I have nothing further to say.
      Mr. CAMPBELL: I should like at the outset, Sir William, to congratulate you on your well-merited honour and upon taking the Chair for the first time in this House. There are one or two items connected with the Consular Service to which I desire to refer and particularly to the service in the Dutch East Indies. I take a special interest in this because I became British Proconsul in Java in 1901 and was there during the whole term of the War. In 1914 the Consular Service in these parts was handed
      2232
      over to the Foreign Office. Since 1844 the consulate had been run entirely by my own firm; and it is rather curious to note that to-day, when we are talking about Russia and slavery, that the reason for the appointment of a British Consul in the Dutch East Indies was because it was necessary that someone should give a certificate of origin as to whether the sugar shipped from the Dutch East Indies was free or slave grown. A consul was appointed for this particular purpose and he happened to be a man who was in the same firm as I myself to-day. In 1914 the consulate was taken over at our request by the Foreign Office and a Consul-General was sent out just prior to the War. As I left in 1920 I am anxious to know some particulars about the service, because the Dutch East Indies is a very important place, there is a large British community and great British interests. One never likes to be extravagant, but I consider than a man in the position of Consul-General in a place like the Dutch East Indies should have an adequate salary.
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir William Jenkins): It will be interesting to know to which item the hon. Member is referring.
      Mr. CAMPBELL: I am referring to the extra £10,000.
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this Vote covers the subjects mentioned by the hon. Member.
      Mr. CAMPBELL: I was only pointing out the reasons which justify this sum. This money is required because of the general trade depression, which has brought upon these officers a great deal of extra work while at the same time the lack of fees and fines is doubtless due to the lack of shipping; the lack of shipments of goods for which a British consular certificate is necessary. In former times there had been several hundreds of thousands of pounds of sugar and other products shipped to this country on which a British certificate of origin was necessary, but under present conditions these certificates are not necessary. I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us something about the services in the Dutch East Indies for which this money is required. Apparently we have recently appointed a commercial agent, whose fees will also come out of this

      2233
      £10,000. Is he getting a sufficient remuneration? He will have to keep up a position comparable with the heads of big banks and firms and with the French and German and other Consuls, and it is therefore advisable and necessary that he should get an adequate remuneration in order to keep up the prestige of this country.
      I should also like to know to what services they are at present attached, whether it is to Bangkok or to the China Civil Service? The success of a diplomat and Consul depends on a knowledge of the language of the place to which he is appointed. If these Consuls come from Siam they have learned a language different altogether to the language they will need in the Dutch East Indies. Any success which I happen to have had in the Dutch East Indies was principally owing to the fact that as soon as I arrived there I set to work to learn the languages necessary, Dutch, Malay, and a bit of Chinese. I suggest that all officers to the Dutch East Indies, instead of going via Bangkok, should go via Holland, as they would then have an opportunity of picking up a bit of Dutch. My firm sends all their youngsters for a couple of years to Holland to learn the trade and the language at the same time. It is very useful to anyone in the Consular Service if he arrives at his destination with a knowledge of the language he is going to use.
      The TEMPORARY - CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is getting very far from the Vote. He must confine himself to the Vote before the Committee.
      Mr. CAMPBELL: I hope that this money is being expended in the best interests of the old country and to the benefit of our Consular servants who are out there in a rotten bad climate, far from the old home.
      Major G. DAVIES: I must say that my own Dutch is very rusty, and I do not speak Malay or a bit of Chinese; I confine myself to English. The Under-Secretary of State has asked us not to press him on the item under the heading "QQ," and following his alphabetical description, I will merely speak of the individual as "Mr. X." I want to
      2234
      know, it having been proved that Mr. X deposited these roubles, whether there is any additional loss to the Treasury on account of the difference in value at the time he deposited them and the value at the time we recognised the claim? Have we lost by depreciation in that matter? My other question refers to the heading "PP."
      "Fees, Fines, connected with the Services in China."
      I want to know—it may be the question of an ignoramus—whether that is entirely a loss on estimated activities such as shipping or whether a depreciation in the value of silver has entered into that loss in any way?
      Mr. PALMER: There is one question I want to put in regard to the item of outfits, travelling and special services. It refers to a number of transfers following deaths and retirements. May we know how many Consuls were affected in that exchange?
      Mr. DALTON: I am anxious to keep myself in order, and I would be very glad if your Ruling permitted me to answer all the points raised by the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell). As he said, he gave me notice of the questions which he intended to ask, but, possibly, in view of your Ruling it will be better if I answer him now briefly, and send him a rather fuller statement later on giving him the information which he desires. We do of course attach great importance to the work of the Consular Service in the Dutch East Indies, and I have in front of me a long column of figures relating to that matter, but I think I should be going rather far if I were to read these figures to the Committee, and perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to communicate them to him. With regard to the relation of the East Indies Consular Service to other services, it is still linked with the Siamese service.
      I have taken note of the hon. Member's remarks on the subject of languages. I am not permitted to do more than take a note of it, but that matter shall he borne in mind and considered. It is evident, I think, that if we separate our services too much we encounter difficulties regarding promotion. I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that fact. We must have a fairly large establishment; otherwise, promotion would often

      2235
      be very long delayed and would often be quite arbitrary. Of course, we keep in touch with other Departments such as the Department of Overseas Trade which is responsible for the Commercial Agent to whom the hon. Member referred. That Department is, as it were, the child of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade but it very often leans rather more towards the mother's than the father's side. The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major G. Davies) asked me about the exchange problems involved in the Russian case and also in the case of the Appropriations-in-Aid for the China service. The Russian cheque was in sterling and consequently we have lost nothing through variations in the value of Russian currency since that time.
      Major DAVIES: I forgot to ask the hon. Gentleman if this was an unexpected thing and if there are any other cases of the kind, floating in the air as it were. Does he know of any other such cases which are still outstanding?
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. DALTON: We do not know of any such cases which are outstanding and we hope there are none but we cannot be completely certain because as I have said, when Mr. Bruce Lockhart was in charge in Moscow there was such looseness of financial control that we have never been able to get a proper account, but we hope we have now come to an end of these claims. With regard to China, I am informed that we collect these sums in dollars and of course, if the rate of exchange in dollars falls, then we lose. But I am advised that, broadly speaking, this falling off in the Appropriations-in-Aid is due not to exchange fluctuations but to trade depression of a general character. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer) asked me about the number of consular transfers and I can give him some particulars under that head. This year, as I have said, we have had the transfers of two Consuls-General to be Heads of Missions in the Diplomatic Service. I hope that hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the Committee who are frequently urging us not to treat the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service as closed and separate services,
      2236
      will appreciate and approve of the fact that the Government have made these two appointments in Colombia and the Hedjaz. That of course has meant a series of consequential changes and people have been moved up, not according to any mechanical order of seniority, but according to merit. Then we suffered the loss through death of an Inspector-General—(Mr. Murray)—and the retirement under the age limit of five Consuls-General. We have unfortunately also had the death of a Vice-Consul and another transfer from the Consular Office to the Commercial Diplomatic Service. All this has resulted in a much greater degree of movement this year than we usually have to provide for.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS IX.

      AUSTRALIAN ZINC CONCENTRATES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £246,990 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure arising out of Contracts dated 9th April, 1918, and 3rd March, 1922, entered into with the Zinc Producers' Association Proprietary, Limited, to give effect to agreements made in 1916 and 1917 for the purchase of Zinc Concentrates."
      Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that a Vote under this head has not been debated for a considerable time, I wish to know if it is possible to allow the discussion on this Supplementary Estimate to take a rather wider course than usual, so that we may obtain from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade fuller information as to the position of this country in relation to these unfortunate contracts, the amount which the country has definitely lost while these contracts have been in operation, and other information which, I think, would be of the utmost service to the Committee as well as of the greatest interest to the electorate outside. I ask that question, Sir William, in view of the fact that your predecessor in the Chair some years ago, on an exactly similar Vote ruled that the widest latitude in debate was allowable in order that the facts of the case might be ascertained.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): In my opening statement, I may give some of the information which the hon. and gallant Member seeks. Perhaps that intimation will simplify the proceedings.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The Chairman in his wisdom may refuse to allow those statements to be made. It rests entirely with him whether the hon. Gentleman will be allowed to make those statements which the Committee and the electorate are, I am sure, anxious to hear.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I reinforce the appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend. The agreement under which we are paying this large sum of money is about to come to a close and this appears to offer a convenient opportunity to hon. Members of the Committee who would like to review this matter thoroughly and even, to some extent, to go into questions of policy. A very large sum of money has been lost by the taxpayers in connection with this agreement and it is a matter on which I think the widest discussion ought to be allowed.
      Mr. DIXEY: May I reinforce that appeal? I have a Motion on the Paper for the reduction of the Estimate, as this is a subject which concerns a large number of people in my own division, and as the contract is coining to an end it is essential that the Minister should allow a full discussion. I think it was in 1923 that the fullest laxity was allowed in Debate, and I suggest that the Minister in charge should now allow the fullest possible information to be placed at the disposal of the Committee.
      Mr. PERRY: On that point of Order. Has not your predecessor in the Chair, Sir William, on repeated occasions earlier in the evening definitely ruled against questions of policy being discussed on these Supplementary Estimates?
      The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot deal with original policy on a Supplementary Estimate. I think it would be better to see how far the Minister is able to give information as to whether we can agree to allow the Debate to continue. I hope it may not be necessary to rule harshly in the matter.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am much obliged.
      Mr. W. R. SMITH: This Estimate arises out of certain obligations that this country incurred with Australia, entirely arising out of a war condition. It was in 1916 that Australia found themselves in a difficulty so far as the disposal of their zinc concentrates was concerned, because previously their market had been almost entirely in Germany. This country found itself in a difficulty also, in so far as there was likely to be a great shortage of supplies, whereby the smelting of spelter in this country would be seriously handicapped. As a result, an agreement was entered into between this country and Australia in 1916, a further one was entered into in 1917, and then those agreements were confirmed in a letter-contract in 1918, and finally embodied in a definite contract in 1923.
      Under the terms of that contract this country obligated itself to take practically the whole supply or output of zinc concentrates in Australia, and made itself responsible for the selling of that for the purposes of manufacture into spelter and ultimately into zinc. I am glad to say that this contract is now coming to an end. Our obligations so far as the purchase of concentrates is concerned finished in June of last year, but on the selling side our obligations do not finish until June of this year, and the difficulty in which we find ourselves at the moment is that this Estimate is very largely due to the fact that we have had an excess of expenditure during the period to which the Estimate relates, due to three causes. The first is that we have to pay railage from the mines to the port, secondly the cost of assay and agents' commission, and thirdly there is the fact of the companies taking more deliveries than was expected in the period. That explains why the expenditure has been so under-estimated. The receipts are down because the price of spelter has fallen, and we have not received what was anticipated in that respect for that reason.
      I do not know that it is possible to say more in regard to it, because it is not a matter which the Government of the day nor indeed this House can in any way alter. It is a contract made under the conditions and at the time I have already stated. It was then, I anticipate, made in very good faith and in the belief that a good bargain was being made for ourselves as well as for Australia, but unfortunately things have not turned

      2239
      out as was hoped. The price of spelter has fallen to about half what was contemplated, and therefore we find ourselves in the position of having to ask for a further sum of £246,990 in order to carry out our obligations under the terms of the contract. I can only repeat that the one consoling feature of the whole position is that this is practically the last sum that will be asked for, apart from the fact that for the first three months in the next financial year there will be a small sum possibly that will have to be estimated for in order to meet the cost of delivery from the dump of zinc concentrates to the ports in order to carry out our selling obligations under the second part of the contract.
      Mr. DIXEY: I beg to reduce the vote by £100.
      I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, and I think he is right in referring to this as a very bad contract. It is not only bad from the pecuniary point of view, but from an employment point of view. When this contract was first brought before the House, it was prophesied in no uncertain way by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) that there would be a very serious financial loss resulting to the Exchequer of this country. Every word he said has been proved to be true. The deplorable thing is that it has thrown out of occupation a large number of men and employers of labour in this country. There are in my own division two mines which were quite successful before this contract was made. Those mines to-day are closed and the people who were employed there have no occupation. The responsibility for those men being out of employment rests upon the Government of this country, although not perhaps upon this particular Government, and therefore, when the contract comes to an end, I think it proper to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that there may come the question of resuscitating these mines which have been put out of existence by this contract.
      How many tons of concentrates are represented by this Estimate, and further, what is the amount of tonnage that the Government have themselves got, irrespective of the amount represented by this figure? As I understand it—I may be entirely wrong—there is a consider-
      2240
      able quantity still in the possession of the Government. If this contract had any excuse at all, it was that it would benefit Australian trade. The export of zinc pre-War from Australia was, I believe, something like £500,000. Has this contract increased the exports of zinc from Australia? If not, it seems to me that the contract, so far from doing any good, has resulted in nothing but harm. Could the hon. Gentleman give us approximately the amount of our future liability so far as the selling price is concerned? I understand that this Estimate concludes the liability so far as the buying side is concerned, but that there is a further financial responsibility on the selling side. I would like the hon. Gentleman to give me an approximate figure of that responsibility.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: This Vote discloses a truly disastrous state of affairs from the point of view of British revenue and the British taxpayer. I have nothing to say with regard to the policy which prompted these contracts, as that would be out of order. All I would say on that subject is that those who occupy the Front Government Bench have nothing to do with it, nor had those who occupy the Front Bench on this side. The responsibility for these contracts, which were made in 1916, is the responsility of the Liberal party, whose benches are significantly empty, as they usually are when an expenditure of this kind comes under discussion. I at once absolve the present Government of all responsibility for these disastrous contracts. All they have had to do, and all successive Governments have had to do since 1918, is to make the best of a thoroughly bad job.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: None of these contracts was made under a Liberal Government.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: They were made in 1916—
      Mr. JONES: It was a Coalition Government.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: —under a Liberal leader, and those responsible for them—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing policy.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I bow to your Ruling, and will not allude further

      2241
      to that point. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, as far as he could tell, our commitments under these contracts had practically come to an end on the buying side. That means that we have no longer to buy practically the entire output of the Broken Hill and other mines at prices far in excess of the market value of the commodity. On the selling side, however, he said that there still might be some liability. Perhaps he can tell the Committee what stock of these concentrates we still have for disposal in this country, and who is responsible for selling them. If he could let us know that, without impairing the efficiency of the selling organisation, I should be obliged. Have we, ever since the contracts were confirmed in 1922, been taking practically the whole of the output of the various Australian mines, the principal one of which is the Broken Hill mine? If so, what is the total amount that we have taken during that period? The amount which we were compelled to take has been limited to 300,000 tons a year, but I do not know whether the mines have been in a position to supply that amount, or whether we have been fortunate enough to be able to take a less amount than the maximum which we could take under the contracts.
      Still more important, what has been the aggregate loss to this country ever since these contracts have been in full swing? In the Geddes Report issued eight or nine years ago, the Committee could not estimate what the loss would be, but said that in all probability it would run into several millions. Has that somewhat pessimistic forecast been justified. When the hon. Gentleman says that the contracts are practically at an end, I take it that it means that we are not to be compelled to take any more of these zinc concentrates, so that it ought to be an easy matter to let the Committee know what the total net loss during that period has been. We must take into consideration that when this contract was entered into, war conditions prevailed and we were all more or less suffering from a disorganised mentality. I cannot help thinking, however, that even under those circumstances, the contract was a most disastrous undertaking from the point of view of the country. It is a sound indication of Government trading at its
      2242
      worst, and of the unfortunate consequences that are likely to fallow when Government trading is indulged in on a large scale.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I have watched the life of this contract for a good many years, and have a recollection that there was a reserve of £750,000 against fluctuations of price. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what has become of that £750,000?
      Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: As the Minister has said, this will probably be the last occasion on which the Committee wilt be asked to approve either an original or a Supplementary Estimate under this head. This item has been with us for a number of years, and in view of the interest that has been shown in it, I should like to take the opportunity of saying how it came among us, why it has been with us so long, and the reason for our bidding it farewell tonight. This Vote is a relic of War days, and a reminder of the fact that modern warfare rests on a metallic basis. On the outbreak of the War, Australia was producing nearly one-fifth of the world supply of lead and zinc, and great quantities of copper. Suddenly we woke up to find that the great metal industry in Australia was completely dominated by German capital and German influence. The Merton group with their headquarters a Frankfort-upon-Main, and operating in Australia under the name of the Australian Metal Company, controlled—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What connection has this with the Supplementary Estimate?
      Mr. BOYCE: I am coming to that, and I am explaining how it was that the company which is mentioned in the Estimate came into being.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I want the hon. Member to tell me what the point is.
      Mr. BOYCE: I am sorry if I have led you astray. The Merton group had its headquarters at Frankfort. The Australian Metal Company controlled the production of Australian metals, the supply of which was vital to us in the life and death struggle which the Empire was carrying on at that time. The only spelter works in this country were also

      2243
      owned and controlled by Germans. The Australian companies, at the outbreak of the War were tied hand and foot by contracts to sell the whole of their output to agencies of Germany—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is trying to justify the original contract.
      Mr. BOYCE: I am justifying it.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not under discussion. The only thing we can discuss on this Estimate is the sum required.
      Mr. BOYCE: I submit, of course, to your Ruling. I only wished to point out that the sum we are paying under this contract was justified.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is perfectly in order in giving any adequate reason why this extra sum should be granted, but he must not discuss the merits or demerits of the original question. Otherwise I would have to allow a full discussion on that, which is obviously impossible.
      Mr. BOYCE: The Australian Zinc Producers' Association Proprietary, Limited, entered into an agreement to purchase the whole of the output of zinc concentrates from various mines for 50 years as from 1st July, 1916. During that year the British Government entered into an agreement with the Commonwealth Government to purchase supplies of zinc concentrates. The following year 1917, the Board of Trade—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not pursue this subject.
      Mr. BOYCE: With all respect, I am referring to the agreements mentioned in this Vote, and giving some of the information for which the Minister was asked and which he apparently could not give.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member does not understand. The agreement itself is not under discussion. The agreement is an accomplished fact and we cannot discuss whether it is right or wrong. The only thing we can discuss is whether this extra sum ought or ought not to be granted.
      Mr. BOYCE: Perhaps you will tell me if I would be in order in saying what
      2244
      the agreement was. The purchases under this agreement, which amounted to 250,000 tons of zinc concentrates per annum from the 1st January, 1918, to the 30th June, 1921, and to a further 300,000 tons per annum for nine years from the 1st July, 1921, until the 30th June last, have now come to an end. I regretted to hear from the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) that his constituency has suffered in consequence of the 1918 agreement. The fault lies, not with the Government of the day—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order. The only argument that the hon. Member can use must refer to this money.
      Mr. BOYCE: I was only proceeding to say that, if the British producer had been included in this agreement, my hon. Friend would not have had cause to make that observation. We have been told by the Minister that the position to-day is that the purchases under this agreement concluded on the 30th June last, and also that the sales by the British Government to the British smelters concluded on that date. Therefore, under this heading we should not be asked in future to vote further sums. But there are still considerable quantities of zinc concentrates at Broken Hill, which are owned by the Government and which the Government are under contract to sell to the Electrolytic Zinc Corporation of Tasmania until 30th June next. This contract, we have been told, has resulted in a serious loss to the Government.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member persists in discussing the agreement, I must ask him to resume his seat.
      Mr. BOYCE: I am sorry. Every time I refer to what another hon. Member has said, I am told that I am out of order.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not attribute to the hon. Member any desire to defy the Chair, but I want to make it clear once more that the merits or demerits of the original contract cannot be discussed now. The only thing that can be discussed is whether the amount of money now asked for should be granted or not. That is the only issue.
      Mr. BOYCE: My object in rising in my place was to say that, in my opinion, this money should be granted, and that we would not be asked to find this money at all if it were not for the fact that it is solely due to the fall in the price of spelter, which, of course, governs the price of zinc.
      Mr. W. R. SMITH: Perhaps I might answer one or two questions put during the discussion, and I hope I shall not be out of order. The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) asked how many tons were left to be disposed of. There are 127,000 tons, and the prospective liability in that regard during the next financial year is approximately £62,000. The hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) asked me what the total tonnage of output is. The total is 2,892,125 tons, and the total loss on the whole transaction up to date is approximately £6,000,000. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) and the reserve figure he mentioned of £750,000, that is merely a paper figure and has nothing whatever to do with the financing of the transactions. Since the net financial result is a loss of £6,000,000, I do not see how there can be a reserve figure other than a paper one.
      Mr. DIXEY: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that 127,000 tons of concentrates is represented by the figure of £246,999? I asked the hon. Member specifically what this figure represented in tonnage.
      Mr. SMITH: I am afraid it would be impossible for me to give the exact figure
      2246
      in tonnage. The Supplementary Estimate which I am submitting represents an excess of expenditure due to the three causes I mentioned: first, the cost of rail transport from the mines to the ports; secondly, the cost of assays and selling commission; and, thirdly, the fact that we have had to take bigger quantities than was at first anticipated. I can only give the total output from the mines, more than 2,000,000 tons, and the total remaining to be dealt with, 127,000 tons, and the charges that will arise out of meeting our obligations next financial year, £62,000.
      Mr. DIXEY: It boils down to this, that you have 127,000 tons of concentrates as against your £62,000 of liability?
      Mr. SMITH: Yes; it is all sold, and we are under obligation to deliver.
      Mr. DIXEY: In that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; committee to sit again To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
    Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes before Ten o'Clock.