Commons Sitting of 7 December 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    SMUGGLING (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. NUNNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will represent to the Chinese Government that the Chinese customs, in taking proceedings in respect of smuggled goods found on British ships, should conform to the practice generally followed by other countries of prosecuting the individual suspected of smuggling, and should proceed against the shipowners only when there is evidence of neglect or wilful default?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): This question is now under examination, but my right hon. Friend cannot at present give any undertaking to act as suggested by my hon. Friend.

    SHANGHAI (DISTRICT COURT).
    Dr. CLAYTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the municipal corporation of Shanghai has yet been consulted as to the future of the district court in that city.
    Mr. EDEN: As stated by the Prime Minister on the 16th November, His Majesty's Minister will keep in touch with the leading members of the British community at Shanghai, including, of course, the British members of the Municipal Council, but I have no information as to whether any such conversations have yet taken place. My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary has, however, just received, through the China Association in London, a statement which is understood to incorporate views of the municipal authorities. This statement is now under consideration.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    1594
    whether he will insist upon the municipal council of Shanghai retaining control of the judicial police so as to prevent abuses in connection with the resistance to execution of judgments?
    Mr. EDEN: In dealing with the question of the special district court, due account will certainly be taken of the importance of points such as that to which my hon. Friend calls attention.
    Mr. NUNNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the agreement governing the district court in Shanghai will expire early next year, he is taking steps to formulate a plan which will assist in ensuring the establishment of a court acceptable both to the foreign and the Chinese interests in Shanghai?
    Mr. EDEN: As I explained in answer to questions on the 5th December, the question of the special district court at Shanghai is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the nature of the steps which are being taken.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there was any of this trouble with the old mixed court?
    Mr. EDEN: I would not like to go into the merits of the mixed court at the present time.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH RELATIONS).
  Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have fully considered the report of the British Ambassador in Moscow concerning the instructions recently issued by the Third International to the British Communist party to form nuclei in military units and similar organisations, and to the Communist party of India to support non-payment of rents and taxes and organise a general strike; and, in view of the fact that the promise to abstain from propaganda has been officially held to include the activities of the Third International, can he now state what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. EDEN: This answer is rather long, but I thought that the House would like a full answer.

  1595
  His Majesty's Government have fully considered the reports which have been received from the British Ambassador at Moscow on this matter, as well as on the allegations made on the 13th of November last by the Soviet Government newspaper "Izvestia," that the Foreign Office had instructed their agents to furnish documents, real or bogus, establishing the connection between the Soviet Government and the Communist International.
  As a result, my right hon. Friend requested the Soviet Ambassador to come and see him on the 28th of November last, and pointed out to His Excellency that various matters of difficulty and complexity, particularly in relation to trade between the Soviet Union and this country, would shortly arise for discussion between the two Governments. If the Soviet Government wished these matters to be discussed in the usual manner as between Governments in friendly relations, they must apologise for the language of the "Izvestia" article, and also take steps to ensure that no further statements of the kind referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's question should be made in future.
  It was emphasised to M. Maisky that future indulgence in these tactics would only confuse the issue between commercial negotiations and propaganda, and render the former, which should be treated on their merits, impossible of conclusion. My right hon. Friend added that, as previous assurances given on behalf of His Majesty's Government had been ignored, he would repeat finally and categorically that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to promote trade relations on a permanent and stable basis and that they expect the Soviet Government to state clearly in their reply to these representations what is their policy towards this country. Since then His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow has held similar language to the Soviet Government. My right hon. Friend has now received an oral reply from the Soviet Ambassador which is at present under consideration.

  IRAQ.
  Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
  1596
  the British Ambassador in Iraq has authority to offer the services of the British Air Force in Iraq to the Iraqi Government in the event of internal disorder; and, if so, what means of information are at the disposal of the Ambassador to enable him to decide whether such an offer would be advisable?
  Mr. EDEN: I would refer the Noble Lady to the reply given by the Prime Minister on the 16th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander), to which I have nothing to add.

  PALESTINE (ARABS).
  Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how the emigration of Palestinian arabs to other countries compares now with their pre-War emigration?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am afraid I am without the material for making the comparison. I have no particulars regarding emigration from Palestine while it still formed part of the Ottoman Empire.
  Mr. ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the census returns show an increase or a decrease in the arab population in those districts where most progress has been made in Jewish settlement?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The report on the census of 1931 shows an increase in the non-Jewish population in such sub-districts as those of Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa and Tiberias.

  EAST AFRICAN MISSIONS.
  Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many advisers on East African matters have been sent out to East Africa from this country within the last two years; what has been the nature of their mission; who has paid their expenses; and what is the aggregate cost of these expenses?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the reply contains much detail I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, that it should be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:

  Name.

  Territory visited.

  Mission.

  Lord Moyne

  Kenya

  Financial inquiry. (See Cmd. 4093.)

  Sir W. M. Carter, C.B.E.

  Kenya

  Land inquiry.

  Sir A. Kitson, C.M.G.

  Kenya

  Geological inquiry.

  Sir S. Armitage-Smith, K. B. E., C. B.

  Tanganyika Territory

  Financial inquiry. (See Cmd. 4182.)

  Dr. H. H. Mann

  Tanganyika Territory and Nyasaland.

  Ten Cultivation.

  Captain C. M. Gibson, O.B.E., H.N.

  Tanganyika Territory

  Navigation of Kilombero River.

  Mr. C. P. Strickland, C. I. E.

  Zanzibar and Tanganyika Territory.

  Economic position of clove industry and co-operative marketing.

  Sir Alan Pim, K.C.I.E., C.S.I.

  Zanzibar

  Financial inquiry.

  Professor K. S. Troup

  Zanzibar

  Clove Cultivation.

  Lieut. G. B. Grylls

  East Africa

  Ground organisation of Cape to Cairo Air Service.

  Dr. Mann's expenses were met by a grant from the Colonial Development Fund, and those of Lieutenant Grylls from the Air Ministry Vote. Sir Sydney Armitage-Smith's salary continued to be borne by His Majesty's Treasury. The expenses of the remainder were borne by the territories concerned. As some of these missions are still proceeding, and the accounts of others are not yet closed, it is not possible to give the aggregate cost of the attendant expenses. Such figures as are available indicate that a total of about £13,570 has been expended to date.

  KENYA (GOLD FIELD DEVELOPMENT).
  Lord APSLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make a further statement as to the policy the Government is adopting with regard to the gold discovery in the native reserves in Northern Kavirondo, in Kenya, and to whom the mineral rights in the district belong
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not yet in a position to make a detailed statement, but the Government's policy will be directed to Turning the mineral resources of Kavirondo to the fullest benefit of Kenya Colony, while amply safeguarding the interests of the native occupants of the areas in question. In this district, as in the rest of the Colony, property in minerals, other than common minerals, is vested in the Crown.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any discoveries of radium in that district?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Not that I am aware.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the natives who may be required to vacate their territories will be given ample compensation in the form of alternative land to occupy?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They certainly will get either alternative land or full compensation. I can answer for that.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the full compensation going to be in money, as that does not really compensate a man for losing his land?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should deprecate answering that question offhand in reply to a, supplementary question when the full details have not been settled. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it will be the policy of His Majesty's Government to treat the natives just as fairly as the settlers.

  AVIATION.

    PRIVATELY-OWNED A RC RAFT.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of aircraft at present owned by private owners in England, France, and Germany, respectively?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I regret that the available statistics as regards civil aircraft in France and Germany do not classify separately aircraft which are privately owned. The only figures I can give, therefore, cover all civil aircraft, exclusive of those owned by regular air transport companies. On this basis, the latest comparative figures, which relate to 1st January, 1932, are, according to my information, England 889, France 1,164, Germany 887.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what, if any, Government financial assistance is given to private owners of aircraft in England, France, and Germany, respectively, in the purchase and upkeep of their machines?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No direct financial assistance is given by the Government to individual private owners of aircraft either in this country or in Germany. In the case of France, the budgetary provision for payments in respect of bonuses to constructors and owners of private aircraft, is at the rate of between 12 and 13 million francs for the present year.
    Mr. EVERARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea how much each private owner gets?
    Sir P. SASSOONI cannot say that without notice of the question.

    AIR SERVICES.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the recent decision of the Australian Commonwealth to establish an air service from Darwin to Singapore; and if he can say what steps are being taken to connect Singapore with an English air service to England?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and communications are at present passing with the Commonwealth Government. As regards the second part concrete proposals for the extension of the England-India service to Singapore are under active examination.
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is in communication with the United States airways authorities to ensure
    1600
    British and British Empire interests in the arrangements for a regular passenger, mail, and cargo air service via Bermuda and the Azores, and in the summer months via the Great Circle route, Newfoundland and Ireland; and what methods of co-operation affecting British Empire countries are in contemplation?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir; but I may state that, as a result of discussion which took place at Ottawa, certain investigations in connection with the possibility of the establishment of air communication across the North Atlantic are being undertaken.
    Sir P. HURD: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether representations have been made from Bermuda as to its share in any such development?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I should like notice of that question.

    FUEL (CUSTOMS DUTY).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the fact that, whereas foreign aircraft enjoy freedom from customs duty on fuel taken on board by them in England, British machines purchasing fuel in foreign countries have in many cases to pay the full customs duty imposed on such fuel by the countries concerned; and what steps have been taken by him to draw the attention of such countries to this fact with a view to enabling British machines to obtain fuel free of customs duty in all parts of the world in the same manner as merchant vessels?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the position to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, representations have been made in various quarters and the subject is under examination by the League of Nations.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PARACHUTE TESTS).
  Mr. EVERARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether tests carried out with the new parachute have been satisfactory; and whether any of this type will be used by the Royal Air Force?
  Sir P. SASSOON: The tests to which my hon. Friend refers have not yet been carried out.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (AIR MINISTRY).
  Mr. DENMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to what extent there has been a growth or a decline in the work and responsibilities of the Air Ministry since 1921; whether the headquarters staff of the Ministry has been increased or reduced since that date; and what changes there have been in that staff since the 1st January, 1932?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I apologise for a rather long answer. It is difficult to indicate in brief compass the immense growth there has been in the responsibilities of the Air Ministry since 1921. I will, however, cite four examples. Firstly, there are now 2½ times as many squadrons as then existed. Secondly, the Air Ministry had in 1921 no special responsibilities overseas, whereas it is now charged with the defence of areas whose combined extent exceeds that of Germany. Thirdly, in so far as concerns civil aviation, there were in 1921 only 160 civil pilots and 218 civil aircraft on the British register as compared with 3,093 pilots and 1,032 aircraft to-day. Fourthly, as indicating the effect of these and similar developments upon the work at headquarters, I may say that the volume of incoming correspondence is now 48 per cent. larger than in 1921, whilst the number of word-groups transmitted over the Air Ministry wireless telegraphy system in a typical 24 hours' period has risen from about 4,000 to 30,000. As regards the second part of the question, despite the foregoing and difficulties due to the dispersion of the Air Ministry among six different buildings, the number of the headquarters staff is to-day lower by 12 per cent. than it was in 1921. As regards the last part, a further reduction of 29 individuals has been effected since the let January, 1932.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is going to place the whole of the Air Ministry staff in one building to get greater efficiency?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I think that would result in a reduction of about 27 officials.
  Rear-Admiral SU ETER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. My question was as to whether anything was being done to place the staff of the Air Ministry in one separate establishment.
  Sir P. SASSOON: That does not rest with the Air Ministry.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Minister of Transport if he proposes to issue for the guidance of local authorities the information regarding the causes of fatal road accidents obtained from inquiries held during the past three months, under Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930; and, if not, to whom will the information be submitted in order that the facts disclosed may enable precautions against fatal accidents to be applied?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the reply which I gave on 2nd November to a question by the hon. Member for the Farnham Division (Sir A. M. Samuel), and of which I am sending him a copy. I may add that I have made arrangements, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, for a special investigation during next year of the causes of fatal road accidents. A form of return suitable for mechanical tabulation has been prepared for use by all police forces. A detailed analysis of the in formation thus obtained will be published in due course.

    TRAFFIC LIGHTS, OXFORD STREET.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Minister of Transport what experience he has gained from the experiment, now abandoned, of omitting the amber light from the traffic signal-lights in Oxford Street?
    Mr. PYBUS: This experiment was made on the suggestion of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, and the results will 'be dealt with in the general report of the committee in due course. The chairman has, however, informed me that the committee have reached the conclusion that the amber light should be retained.

    ROAD AND RAIL INQUIRY (REPORT).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to indicate to what extent he proposes to implement the recommendations of the committee on rail and road transport; and, if not, whether he can state the approximate date by which such proposals will be available in view of the harm done to the motor-vehicle manufacturing industry by the present uncertainty?
    Mr. PYBUS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 30th November to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Kimball), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will the Minister be good enough to answer the last part of my question, as to the date when the proposals will be available, in view of the importance of this matter to the motor industry?
    Mr. PYBUS: On many occasions I have referred to the fact that the absence of any indication of what is to happen with regard to taxation may be detrimental to manufacturers of heavy motor vehicles, but I have also said that it is impossible, at this stage at any rate, to make any statement concerning future taxation.
    Mr. L. SMITH: Having regard to the increase in unemployment that has taken place since the publication of the report, could not the Minister of Transport make publicly some definite statement as to what the Department propose to do with the report? The question of time is very important, and delay will cause more trouble.
    Mr. PYBUS: I can only say that no time whatever has been lost, and that I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given.
    Colonel GOODMANasked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to state what action it is proposed to take with reference to the recommendations of the Salter Report?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am not in a position to add anything to the replies which I have already given in this matter.
    Colonel GOODMAN: Is the Minister aware that the report was issued as long ago as last July, and that the delay in
    1604
    announcing the Government's policy is having a very serious effect on employment, both on the operative side and on the manufacturing side of the motor vehicle industry?

    ROAD MATERIALS.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that many local authorities are using slag and stone purchased from foreign firms for the purpose of road making and road repairing; and whether he will take such steps as are necessary to see that in future only material produced in this country shall be used for road construction with a view to giving employment to our own workers?
    Mr. PYBUS: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 16th November, 1932, to the hon. Member for Newport (Mon.), (Mr. Clarry), and of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND- TROYTE: Will the Minister consider making it a condition of grant that authorities shall use English stone only.
    Mr. PYBUS: I have previously said that we cannot do it in that form, but, with regard to one item, namely, slag, we have succeeded to a remarkable extent, for the imports for September and October, 1931, were 51,670 tons, and for September and October of this year they were only 12,721 tons—a reduction of 39,000 tons.
    Lord APSLEY: Is the Minister circularising county authorities, chiefly in the West of England, as to the advantage and economy of using slag rather than somewhat indifferent stone?

    MOTOR VEHICLES (TIME DOCKETS).
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take authority to require the compilation or carrying of a time docket by drivers of road vehicles under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930; and, if not, what action he proposes to take to put a stop to the hours worked in contravention of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have no powers under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act to require the compilation or carrying of a time docket by drivers of motor vehicles

    1605
    to which the section refers. A proposal on these lines is included among the recommendations of the Rail and Road Conference, and is now under consideration in common with other proposals contained in their recent Report. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, proceedings have been taken under the section and substantial penalties imposed in several cases.

    GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of accidents that have occurred on the new Glasgow-Edinburgh road (luring the past 12 months?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The number of traffic accidents which have occurred on the road in question during the: 12 months ended 30th November, 1932, is 129.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Have investigations proved that these accidents are due to any particular causes, and, if not, will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries to try to reach some solution?
    Mr. SKELTON: In regard to investigations, the hon. Member must put down a question.

  ELECTRICITY PYLONS (ACCIDENTS).
  Captain HEILGERSasked the Minister of Transport the number of fatal accidents caused by the climbing of electricity pylons during the last two years?
  Mr. PYBUS: During the last two years there have been reported to the Electricity Commissioners four fatal accidents caused by unauthorised persons climbing the supports of overhead lines.
  Captain HEILGERS: In view of the fact that two or these fatal accidents occurred in my locality, may I ask the Minister if he will make representations to the Electricity Commissioners as to the necessity for providing wire round these electricity pylons?
  Mr. PYBUS: The regulations issued by the Electricity Commissioners say, with regard to pylons:
  "Adequate provision shall also be made to prevent unauthorised climbing."
  Captain HEILGERS: is the Minister aware that I could take him to a place in my constituency and show him a pylon round which there is no wire whatever?
  Mr. PYBUS: If my hon. and gallant Friend will do so, I shall be grateful, if opportunity and time can be made for such an outing.

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS).
  Mr. JOHNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state for March, 1931–32 the number of local education authorities which provided meals under the Education Act, 1921; the number of individual children fed; the total number of meals provided for payment and free, respectively; and the average cost. per meal?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:

  Education Act, 1921: Sections 82–34.

  Year ended 31st. March, 1932.

  Number of local education authorities which provided meals

  157

  Number of individual children fed

  319,715

  Number of *meals provided for payment

  12,367,213

  Number of *meals provided free

  35,490,997

  Average total cost per meal (1930–31)†

  2.45d.

  Average cost per *meal for food only (1930–31)†

  1.75d.

  *"Meal "includes" milk meal."

  †These figures are not yet available for the year 1931–32.

  AGRICULTURE (MUSK RATS).
  Mr. LEWISasked the Minister of Agriculture what expenses have been incurred by the Ministry of Agriculture, to date, in the measures taken to destroy musk rats which have escaped from captivity?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): The amount of expenditure incurred up to the 30th November was £631, exclusive of salaries and travelling expenses of members of the regular staff of the Ministry.
  Mr. LEWIS: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say to what extent, if at all, this expense will be covered by the value of the skins?
  Major ELLIOT: It is hoped to recover about one-third of it this year, and perhaps twice as much next year.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORTS (FOREIGN MANUFACTURES).
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the four-monthly period from January to April of this year the importations of goods covered by the Abnormal Importations Act showed an average monthly total of £695,500, and that during the six months, May to October, 1932, when these goods were subject to a lower duty generally of 20 per cent. the average monthly imports totalled £1,141,700, an increase of 64 per cent.; and whether he proposes to take any steps to check this increase in the imports of foreign manufactured goods which can be made in this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The value of the imports of goods liable to duty under the Abnormal Importation (Customs Duties) Act during the period January to April, 1932, was considerably greater than the value mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I am aware that the aggregate imports of these goods have increased since the revocation of the Orders made under that Act. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I would invite his attention to the reply which was given on the 29th November to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), a copy of which I am sending him.

    MEAT IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before entering into any further negotiations with foreign exporters restricting the importation of meat from certain
    1608
    South American countries, having regard to the probable effect on the coming World Economic Conference, he will ensure that the agreement of the Governments of the countries where meat is the main export is obtained?
    Dr. BURGIN: His Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to ensure that these measures are carried out in agreement with the Governments of the countries concerned.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Governments referred to were disturbed at the result of the action in connection with the temporary agreement?
    Dr. BURGIN: That is not my information, but just the contrary.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the British farmer, and not foreign Governments?
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any representations from the Governments of South American countries with respect to the recent negotiations restricting the importation of meat from those countries?
    Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. Discussions have been taking place with certain of the interested Governments in regard to the provisional arrangements for the restriction of the import of meat, and the position is as stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in his answer to the hon. Member yesterday.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to imply that particular foreign Governments were dissatisfied with the methods employed, but that, now that negotiations are direct, they are quite satisfied?
    Mr. EDEN: I should not like the hon. Member to assume that there have been any irregularities. There have been none. The procedure has been quite normal.

    CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES IMPORTS.
    Sir B. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether, as the United States insist on payment of the instalment of debt and interest duo on 15th December

    1609
    from Great Britain, the Government will denounce any treaties that interfere and so arrange our tariffs on the major items of the United States exports to this country as to enable us to transfer this trade to Canada and other parts of the Empire; and whether the Government will utilise the visit of Mr. Bennett to this country to arrange terms of a barter trade agreement with Canada for the substitution of Canadian wheat for United States wheat in our markets?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the British Note of 1st December to the United States Government, to which I have nothing to add. As regards the second part of the question, I am not sure that I understand exactly what sort of agreement my hon. Friend has in mind, but I would remind him that under the Ottawa Agreements, Canadian wheat now enjoys a preference of 2s. per quarter over foreign wheat.
    Sir B. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of Mr. Bennett's visit to this country to enter into negotiations which will result in a transfer of purchases from United States of wheat to the Canadian farmer?

    OTTAWA AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is contemplated that the provisions of the Ottawa Agreements as they affect one of the Dominions can be supplemented by separate agreement with that Dominion without consultation with all the parties represented at the Ottawa Conference; and whether he will inform the House of any representations made to the Government by any of the Dominions arising from the Agreements?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. Member to Article 23 of the Agreement with Canada, and to the corresponding Articles in the other Agreements which deal with the question of variation of the terms of the Agreements. The hon. Member may rest assured that the House will be kept informed of any important developments.
    Mr. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs
    1610
    whether he proposes to enter into negotiations with the Canadian Prime Minister while in this country for the extension or amendment of the provisions of the Ottawa Agreements; and whether conversations with the representatives of any other Dominion are intended?
    Mr. THOMAS: I cannot say at this stage what questions will be discussed with Mr. Bennett during his forthcoming visit.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Is it now proposed to consider the restriction of importation of Scandinavian timber in order to give a preference to Canadian timber?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have already said I cannot at this stage say what questions will be discussed with Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the First Commissioner of Works yesterday said such a thing was in contemplation? We should like to know.
    Mr. THOMAS: My colleague said that, on the question of timber, a preference is intended to be given to Canada, but that does not affect Mr. Bennett's visit.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Is Mr. Bennett not to discuss anything at all?
    Mr. THOMAS: I expect he will discuss what he wants.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that there will be no humbug about these conversations?

  SCOTLAND (TERRITORIAL ARMY).
  Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office to what extent the Scottish section of the Territorial Army is below strength at the present time; and what steps, if any, are being taken by the War Office to deal with the situation?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The shortage of recruits for the Territorial Army in the Scottish Command on 1st November was approximately 3,500. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 8th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Kingston-upon-Hull (Brigadier-General Nation).
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister not aware that the spirit of peace is abroad in Scotland, and not of war?

  COAL INDUSTRY (QUOTA SYSTEM).
  Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines whether the quota allocation to the county of Northumberland was exhausted prior to the increase of 150,000 tons recently granted; if not, what was the quantity unused; and whether the increase was required to meet a demand for any particular class of coal?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would again remind my hon. Friend that the administration of the schemes in force under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, is placed by that Act in the hands of the coal owners themselves. I have no detailed information on the subject of my hon. Friend's question, but I presume the Northumberland Executive Board is satisfied with its additional allocation, as, so far as I am aware, it has not exercised its right to submit the matter to arbitration.
  Mr. DICKIE: Is the Minister not aware that the allocation asked for was 350,000 tons, and that they only received an allocation of 150,000 tons; and that, as a result, they may have to stop production altogether or find themselves faced with the necessity of having to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. a ton?
  Mr. BROWN: I have already pointed out that, if the Northumberland Executive Board are dissatisfied with their allotted share, they can apply for arbitration. That is their method; I have no powers in the matter.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best solution of the quota difficulty would be a repeal of Part I of the Act?
  Mr. BROWN: There is a disease known as intellectual myopia, and some of my bon. Friends appear to have it in the form of myopia quotatis.
  Mr. LAWSO N: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the miners' wages are very low now, particularly in that part of the country, and that, if there were no quota and no organisation, they would he much less?
  Mr. BROWN: I had that fact in mind when I called attention to the nearsightedness that prevails in some quarters. There are many factors which have to be taken into consideration.
  Captain A. RAMSAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are other districts where production is hung up and men are likely to be put on short time, because, although extra quotas have been applied for, they have not been granted?
  Mr. BROWN: I am aware of a great many facts in connection with this difficult subject, but I am now answering a question with reference to Northumberland. If information is desired about any other district, perhaps a question will be put down.
  Mr. DICKIE: Is it not a fact that the best way to obtain good wages for the miners is to enable the pits to work at full capacity?
  Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that when an increase of quota is granted by the central council the tonnage allotted is divided amongst owners of collieries who may not need it as well as those who require it urgently, so that the former are at once placed in the position of being able to make profits by disposing of it to the latter, thereby increasing unnecessarily the costs of production?
  Mr. BR OWN: Section 3 (2) (d) of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, provides, inter alia, "that the quota fixed as respects coal or any class of coal shall be the same proportion of the standard tonnage of coal, or of the class of coal, as the case may be, for all coal mines in the district."
  Mr. DICKIE: Is there any parallel in any other industry for such a state of affairs as exists in the export trade of the mining industry?
  Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member must realise that under the Sub-section that I have quoted, coal owners may vary the standard tonnages so as to meet the circumstances of particular mines to secure the result that the hon. Member has in mind.
  Captain A. RAMSAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever they may or may not be supposed to be able to

  1613
  do, in fact the trade is being strangled because the Act is strangling the industry?
  Mr. BROWN: I am not aware of that fact. In fact, one of the problems that have now arisen is that, whereas up to the present the Act has had to be operated in a contracting market, at the moment the difficulties are because there is an expansion of the market.
  Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines if, in view of the fact that holders of unused quota are refusing to sell except at prices which render economic production impossible, thereby rendering the Act of 1930 unworkable, he will introduce amending legislation to enforce sale or transfer of unused quota at the reasonable figure anticipated when the Mines Act of 1930 was passed?
  Mr. BROWN: I have received no representations from the coal industry that difficulties with regard to transfers of quotas have made the Coal Mines Act, 1930, unworkable.
  Mr. DICKIE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that from 1s. up to is. 6d. or 2s. is a fair price to charge for the transfer of coal quotas?

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (CONCESSION).
  Mr. ALAN TODD (for Mr. JOEL)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement as to the action of the Persian Government in officially notifying the Anglo-Persian Oil Company of the annulment of the D'Arcy concession?
  Mr. EDEN: I regret that I cannot yet add anything to the reply which 1 gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham on 5th December.

  INQUEST, LANGHAM, ESSEX.
  Mr. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which the body of the late H. E. Smith, of Chapel Road, Lang-ham, Essex, was left lying in a barn for five days awaiting the presence of the coroner?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have received a report from the deputy-coroner, and I shall be glad to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

  IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (RENT).
  Mr. JOHNasked the Home Secretary if he will furnish a return showing for the two latest comparable years the number of persons imprisoned for nonpayment of rent in England and Wales, and in each judicial area separately?
  Sir. J. GILMOUR: I regret that no information is available which would enable me to answer this question, but I understand that the total number is probably extremely small.

  LAUSANNE AND OTTAWA CONFERENCES (COST).
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the gross cost to this country of the Lausanne Conference and the Ottawa Conference, respectively?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I understand that the expenditure from the respective Votes on the Lausanne Conference and the Ottawa Conference was approximately £5,000 and £12,000 respectively.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, ROTHERHAM AND DURHAM).
  Mr. LEWISasked the Minister of Labour whether, since he appointed a commissioner on 13th October to administer transitional payments under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in the county borough of Rotherham, he has received any protests from organised sections of the community or from individuals as to the manner in which the administration has been carried out?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): My right hon. Friend has received in all three letters written by individuals, each dealing with one case, and two of these from the same person. He has received no representations from organised bodies.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: How many examinations has the Commissioner made?
  Mr. HUDSON: The last figure I saw was 3,500.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Department received a protest from an organised body through myself?
  Mr. HUDSON: Not that I am aware of.
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the salaries of the 10 area officers, 10 deputy area officers, and two chief officers for the central office who have been appointed to administer transitional payments in the county of Durham in addition to the commissioner and his two deputies?
  Mr. HUDSON: The salaries of the clerk and deputy clerk to the commissioners are£750–£850 and£400–£550 respectively. In four of the areas the salaries of the officer and deputy officer in charge are respectively£400–£550 and £200–£400; in the other six areas they are respectively£200–£400 and£200–£250. In each case cost of living bonus is added at the appropriate rate.
  Mr. LAWSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea as to the extra annual cost?
  Mr. HUDSON: I hope the appointment of the commissioners will produce a saving.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the statement is being freely made in Durham that the extra annual cost of this administration is going to be round about £20,000 a year?
  Mr. HUDSON: I think it would be premature to decide what the total cost will be, but I should imagine that it will be exceeded by the total saving brought about.
  Mr. LAWSON: If I put down a question as to cost, will the hon. Gentleman answer it
  Mr. HUDSON: I cannot do that until the commissioners have been there for some little time.
  Mr. BATEY: What does the Department estimate will be saved by appointing these commissioners?
  Mr. HUDSON: As far as I know, we have made no exact estimate.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is there power to surcharge some of the people who have failed to do their duty?

  ARMENIAN REFUGEES (ERIVAN SETTLEMENT SCHEME).
  Mr. DAGGAR (for Major MILNER)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has noted the resolution on refugees passed by the League of Nations Assembly on 10th October; whether he proposes to take any steps to assist in the obtaining of funds for the Erivan settlement scheme; and whether he can report as to the measures taken to alleviate the situation of the 20,000 Russian refugees in China rendered destitute by recent floods?
  Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government have given careful and sympathetic consideration to the resolution of the 10th of October, as they have done to all Assembly Resolutions dealing with the problem of Armenian refugees. They have come to the conclusion, however, that the present time is hardly suitable for setting up in this country a national committee for the specific purpose of obtaining funds for the Erivan Settlement Scheme. I would at the same time refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by the United Kingdom representative before the Sixth Committee of the Ninth Assembly of the League of Nations on the 19th of September, 1928, when he pointed out that His Majesty's Government had already spent a sum of approximately £5,500,000 on the settlement of Armenian refugees in Iraq, this sum representing, moreover, only a small fraction of the £60,000,000, which His Majesty's Government had spent since the War in order to relieve refugees throughout the world. I regret that I have no information as to the measures taken to alleviate the situation of Russian refugees in China rendered destitute by recent floods.

  BRITISH GUIANA.
  Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the position as regards the Workmen's Compensation Bill which was introduced in the Legis

  1617
  lative Council in British Guiana, and subsequently forwarded to him for his consideration; and whether the Government proposes to accede to the request made in the petition addressed to it by the British Guiana Labour Union for the introduction of a compulsory old age pension scheme?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: So far as I am aware, no Bill has been introduced. A draft Bill has been under consideration, together with similar Bills submitted by other Colonial Governments, in consultation with the Home Office, and I hope shortly to be able to communicate my views on the matter to the Governor. I have no information in regard to the petition referred to in the second part of the question.
  Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to relieve unemployment in the Colony of British Guiana?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government of British Guiana are carrying out a variety of public works for the relief of unemployment. Existing roads are being reconstructed and improved: considerable sea defence works are being constructed and important repairs effected: further coast lands are being drained and opened up for settlement and cultivation: and buildings for public welfare are being erected.

  NATIVE COURTS, NIGERIA (APPEALS).
  Mr. DORANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Colonial Office legal adviser was sent to Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and the Gold Coast last February with a view to bringing about closer co-operation between the native courts and the higher tribunals, he will say whether those districts where Moslem law is not in force will be included; and whether it is intended to set up machinery of appeal other than to the Emir's courts?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certain recommendations in connection with appeals from native courts in Nigeria other than the courts of the Emirs have been discussed with the Governor. I am not yet in a position to announce the decision, but I hope to do so shortly.

  DIVORCE LAWS (DESERTED WIVES).
  Mr. A. SOMERVILLE (for Sir COOPER RAWSON)asked the Attorney-General if he has considered the case of many women in this country who married soldiers from the Dominions during the War but have been deserted by their husbands for over 14 years and are now left with children and no means; and will he consider some amendment of the divorce laws to enable these women to secure their freedom without incurring the expense of instituting proceedings in the Dominions instead of at home?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): It is not possible to state within the limits of an answer to a question the many difficulties in the way of legislation of the kind suggested. It would involve, among other things, an alteration of the law of this country so as to make desertion alone a ground for divorce. It would also involve legislation, similar to that which was in force for a short period after the War, conferring a separate domicile upon the wife for the purpose of divorce proceedings; and even if this alteration was made, a divorce granted to a wife would not be recognised in the Dominion concerned without reciprocal legislation. The situation is to some extent met by the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920. The reciprocal legislation which most of the Dominions have passed in relation to this Act enables a deserted wife to enforce a maintenance order against her husband in those Dominions.

  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
  Mr. CHARLES BROWN (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Minister of Health, having regard to the number of artisans and low-paid workers resident in rooms in houses of a rateable value of £45 or over in the London district, what action is proposed to secure that excessive rentals shall not be charged if the houses are decontrolled?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend thinks the question raised by the hon. Member could be most conveniently dealt with in the discussions on the Bill.

  DARTMOOR PRISON.
  Captain BRISCOE (for Sir WILLIAM DAVISON)asked the Home Secretary if he can make a statement to the House as to recent events at Dart-moor prison; and what action has been taken in the matter?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to make a statement on this subject. As regards the two convicts who escaped from the prison on the 16th November, and were recaptured on the 22nd November, I have received from, the Prison Commissioners and am now considering the report of an inquiry into the circumstances in which these two men succeeded in breaking out of prison. With regard to events at the prison since the two convicts were recaptured, a number of misleading statements have appeared in the public Press. It is true that on the November the Governor was assaulted by one of the convicts referred to, but apart from this and certain complaints about food, there has been no abnormal incident or indication of unrest. Misleading inferences appear to have been drawn from the facts that during the Governor's temporary absence on leave, his place has been taken by the Deputy-Governor of Pentonville, and that certain vacancies in the established staff have been filled in the ordinary course by the transfer of probationers from the training school.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  SOLICITORS BILL,
  "to amend the law relating to Solicitors by providing for the making and enforcement of rules as to the keeping of accounts for client's moneys and other matters of professional conduct," presented by Mr. Roy Bird; supported by Mr. Stuart Bevan, Sir Walter GreavesLord, Mr. Edward Grenfell, Major Hills, Mr. McKeag, Major Milner, Major Nathan, and Sir John Withers; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL,
  "to bring to an end the power of the Minister of Health to grant subsidies under sections one and three of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and to
  1620
  enable him to undertake to make contributions in certain cases towards losses sustained by authorities under guarantees given by them for facilitating the provision of houses to be let to the working classes," presented by Sir Hilton Young; supported by the Solicitor-General and Mr. Shakespeare; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

HOUSING.
Mr. BRIANT: I beg to move,
"That this House urges the Government to use its influence with local authorities, and employ any other practicable means, to speed up the building of dwelling-houses, particularly for persons on low wages, and the clearance of slums; and it further records its opinion that such an effort would be the most useful and practical means of reducing the present excessive unemployment in the building and ancillary industries."
3.27 p.m.
I regard it as somewhat unfortunate that I have to speak this afternoon between two Bills—a Bill for rent restriction which is already in the hands of hon. Members, and a Bill which was presented to the House a minute ago and which, of course, is not in our hands. It is not my fault that this discussion has come upon this clay, for obviously I did not know when either Bill was to be presented. I am sure that the House will not begrudge the time given to a discussion of such prime importance as housing conditions. I regret—and I hope that the Government may notice this—that at no time has the House ever had in its possession any figures or anything definite to show the actual housing shortage. The House is always in the unfortunate position of having no figures to guide it, and, therefore, has little or no knowledge of the kind of policy necessary to meet the difficulties of the situation. I suggest to the Government that for the purpose of future discussions they should endeavour to obtain some figures upon which reliance can be placed. However, we have certain facts which may guide us.
It was estimated before the War that 3,000,000 people were living in insanitary conditions. The War came with more than four years' arrest of all housing. Then we had the annual requirement of roughly 100,000 houses to supply the needs of the increased population and also to take the place of houses no longer fit for habitation. Estimates have varied very much, but I think that I shall not be far wrong in saying that on a low estimate at least 800,000 more houses are required to replace those which are worn out and to remove from houses already overcrowded some of the families and give them adequate and decent accommodation. I have always believed that, next to the provision of food, housing is the main essential for health, comfort and
1626
happiness, and there is no subject which we ought to consider in all its aspects more important than housing.
I will give the House a number of facts which certainly bear on the subject. Though they do not all seem to correlate, they are facts upon different aspects of the question which should be borne in mind when we are considering the whole subject of housing. The rent restrictions committee stated that it is disappointed with the number of houses built for the poorer people. That is obviously the greatest difficulty with which we are faced. For those who are able to purchase houses, thanks to the good offices of the building societies, who have done splendid work, there has been a large supply of houses. Many local authorities also have built excellent houses and apartments, but they have been in the main for those people who are not in receipt of very low wages. That is our great problem, and the figures are rather disconcerting.
In answer to a question in this House, it was stated that in eight months 21,000 houses to be let at. 10s. a week or less had been built. This is equivalent to 31,000 for the full year. If that is to be the rate of progress I do not know when the people will be housed. I am afraid we shall have to look forward 20 or 30 years before they get the accommodation which they ought to possess. We know that in London there are at least 100,000 people living in basements. They would not have been allowed to remain in basements by the medical officer of health were it not for the fact that the authorities dare not turn them out, because there are no houses where they can go. The debt we owe to the medical officers in England can never be repaid. They have given very good advice and wise discretion in regard to housing.
The London County Council in 1930 drew up a five-year scheme. The programme provided for the building of 34,000 houses in the next five years, costing £21,000,000. In 1931 the actual expenditure was £3,000,000 and in 1932 the estimated expenditure is £1,650,000. At that rate of progress at the end of the five years only about £8,600,000 will have been expended of the £21,000,000 set down in the programme. That seems very much to forecast a dangerous arrest

1627
of housing in London. I fear that many local authorities all over the country have interpreted the Government's advice with regard to economy in a similar way, with the result that there has been a great decrease in the number of houses built.
I should like to pay a tribute to the London County Council and I do not wish by any means to minimise the importance of their housing programme, but some of the conditions which they lay down are worthy of special notice. For instance, if they pull down a house which is unfit for habitation and which may have been let at 8s. or Os. a week, they offer in its place excellent accommodation, with perhaps twice the number of rooms, at an additional rent of 5s. or 6s. What has happened and is happening is that very often the classes of people who need housing most are refused by the county council. I do not blame the county council for laying down certain requirements. They say, quite rightly, to a man who has six children: "You should have so many rooms." They further say that they must have a complete account of the man's income. It is no use letting people have a house unless they have the money to pay for it; otherwise, they will fall into arrears and be evicted later.
I will quote one case of many. A man with a wife and six children, that is, eight people living in one room, applied to the county council for accommodation. They had a house which he could have, but they wrote an official letter, which I have in my possession, in which they said: "When you have paid your fares to and from your work and have paid for the maintenance of your family, you will not have enough to pay the rent." That is to say, the greatest municipality in the world say to a family of eight living in one room: "We are very sorry for you. You ought to have four rooms, but as you cannot pay for four rooms you must live and die in one room." That is an awful statement to be made by a municipal authority like the London County Council. I fear that conditions in regard to large families living in one room are not infrequent in London and other parts of the country. We ought to take these matters into serious consideration when we touch the problem of housing.
1628
Another fact that is extremely disconcerting is that in London the number of people living more than three in one room has increased in the last 10 years. That shows that our housing, whatever it may have been, has not touched the very class which most requires accommodation. One cannot look upon these things with a sanguine eye at the present time. One cannot believe that we are grappling with the question. There are houses in existence which are not considered uninhabitable though they are not really fit for habitation, but I fear that at the present rate of progress we shall not overtake our arrears and that we shall not make proper progress in supplying the housing accommodation required by our fellow countrymen.
I am sorry that the House has not in its possession the Bill which has been presented to-day. It is a little difficult to discuss this subject without that Bill. I would say that I am not satisfied that the houses with which I am particularly concerned will be built without subsidy. How have the Government satisfied themselves that without the subsidy the houses which apparently are the least remunerative for builders to erect, will be built? Before the War there was no subsidy and no Rent Restrictions Act—which we are told has interfered with building—and yet we were so short of houses then that there was gross over-crowding and 3,000,000 people were living in congested areas. Therefore, it cannot be altogether the subsidy and the Rents Act which have been responsible for the present state of affairs. I am not content to run any risk of arresting the building of those houses or rooms which are so badly needed, because some people may have the idea that the subsidy interferes with the energy of private builders or, it may be, with local authorities.
There is one more figure that I want to quote. I know that the figures are somewhat disjointed. The medical officer of health for Glasgow produced a few years ago some startling figures showing that in the one-room tenements the death-rate of children was exactly three times that of children who lived in three-room tenements, while the death-rate of those living in two rooms was exactly twice that of those who lived in three rooms. I do not doubt the accuracy of these figures, and they are certainly striking

1629
and alarming in the extreme. It means that our death-rate almost depends on the number of rooms in which the people live. I would ask the House to consider this matter from the point of view of finance. Until a child reaches the age of 14, it is not a producer. No child produces for the benefit of the community until it reaches the age of 14. Therefore, we are spending millions of pounds on the education, care and nurture of children who never reach the producing age. I do not know how many millions of pounds are lost every year through that cause alone.
I cannot agree with the Government with regard to the Rent Restrictions Act. I hope they will think twice of the effect of removing the restriction on some of the houses. In my own area there are hundreds of houses which are assessed at over £40 a year, some up to £60, and in some of these houses six, seven or eight families are living. If you decontrol houses it will mean that rents will go up and these people will have to leave, because they have not the money to pay an increased rent. It will also mean that the already overcrowded areas will be still further overcrowded and things will be in a far worse state than they are at present. It may be said that people should pay an economic rent, but, whatever may have been the position a few years ago, and whatever may be the position in a few years to come, the present moment, with the large number of unemployed, the reductions in wages and the small incomes of vast numbers of people, is a time when people really cannot afford to pay an increased rent, and I shudder at the thought of some of these overcrowded dwellings being still further overcrowded. I hope the Government will bear these considerations in mind.
Let me turn to the financial side of this problem. When one proposes any great building scheme or social reform one is almost always met with the objection that we cannot afford it. In my opinion if we cannot afford it new we never shall. The position now is more propitious for building houses than it has ever been since the War. We have a low rate of interest. I believe that a reduction of 1 per cent. in the rate of interest means a reduction of is. 6d. per week in rent. Building costs are also lower than they have ever been, and we have a large
1630
army of men fit for the work who are now dependent on unemployment pay or transitional payments. These three factors make the present a specially favourable time when the building of houses should be pressed forward with the greatest speed. I am confident that the country would not lose. Some remarkable figures emerge when one considers the financial side of the problem. It is estimated that in the building of a house two-fifths of the cost are labour costs, direct labour costs. On a £400 house it means that £160 is paid in labour. If you take the total we shall pay this year in unemployment benefit, transitional payments and relief for meeting the needs of those who are out of work in the building industry alone, we shall spend as much as would pay for the whole labour costs in the erection of 100,000 houses, that is in one year alone. It is most alarming.
It is preposterous, to the ordinary man, who does not profess to be a statesman or an economist or an industrialist, that we should spend in this way an amount of money which would pay all the labour costs of the erection of 100,000 houses without having a single yard dug or a single brick laid. If I was in the position of the State, bound to maintain the destitute and having on my hands a large number of men and had work to give them, work which I wanted done, I should not hesitate to put them on that work. The State has to keep these men, we are not allowed by law to leave them destitute, they can claim their rights; and the position to me seems farcical, if it was not so tragic. I cannot believe that the ingenuity of statesmen, of which I am not one, or of economists, of which I am not one, is insufficient to provide some solution of the problem. Every living economist has urged that an expenditure of public money in this way will be available for national income in the long run. I hope the House will take that view, because I think it is the right view.
So far I have said nothing about the human side of the question. I am always slow to say much about it. I do not want to approach this as a matter of sentiment, but as one who knows the human side of this problem as well as most people. I say that we cannot leave it out of the question altogether. I want hon. Members who may not be personally acquainted with the condition of hous

1631
ing to visualise what it really means. We hear so many statistics in connection with the housing problem that we are apt to ignore them, but, if we can visualise what the problem really is, then it becomes, as it should become, a pressing one on every man and woman's heart. This week a woman with eight children came to see me. There were 10 people living in one room, and I did not know where to send them. Let hon. Members consider what that means. It means the most sacred intimacies of life and death and even birth in the presence of the whole family. I do not want to exaggerate these things or to overemphasise them, but I should not be doing right if I did not state things which I have seen, which are not an exception but which hundreds and thousands of people are still enduring.
We spend millions of pounds on our health services. In our hospitals children and adults receive the finest medical and nursing service there is, but there is not a doctor in a hospital who does not know that when he has patched up a child or an adult he is sending them back to conditions which produce the sickness or the disease which they have attempted to cure. That is a waste of money in our health services, because the work of the medical profession and the nursing profession goes for nil, or next to nil, because the people have to go back to conditions which one may describe as deadly.
Take, again, the expenditure on our educational service. If it was not so tragic it would be grotesque, but take the provision of scholarships for some of our children. Every teacher will tell you that the housing conditions are always reflected in a child's capacity for learning, that a child has a lower mental capacity the more it is subject to overcrowded conditions. A child with brilliant brains is a distinct asset to the State, an asset which should not be lost, but when a child wins a scholarship and goes to a secondary or central school, if it is to succeed, it must do home lessons. In our Library we have solemn notices that hon. Members must not talk too loudly lest they interfere with the studies of hon. Members who are preparing their speeches. But here is a child with home lessons to do in a single room with eight people eating and sleeping and washing. It is a farce to expect any child to suc
1632
ceed in those conditions. If we give these scholarships, we should give them opportunities for exercising their faculties.
I am anxious to be as brief as I can and, therefore, I will not deal with many other factors which should be considered. I am extremely anxious to-day to hear from the back benchers, many of them new Members, who I am sure feel equally strongly with me and possibly are acquainted with the facts themselves. From personal experience, I say that many of us who have been social reformers, more social reformers than party politicians, feel very strongly that we can never get rid of some of our social evils until we tackle this housing problem. It may be weakness, or I may be called a faddist, but I happen to be a total abstainer. To many a woman the mainstay of her life is pride in her home. If she loses that she loses all, loses the thing that keeps her straight more than anything else in the world. I defy any woman in the world to feel pride in a home that is crowded, a home that is not much more than a big cupboard, with three or four children around her. She gets sick and tired of her drab existence, and she goes to the public-house. I am sorry she goes, but I am not going to throw any stones at her.
I ask hon. Members to remember the effects of this overcrowding upon morals. Can we expect any refined delicacy of feeling when grown-up men, young men and girls are all sleeping in the same room? To me the miracle is that so many escape the evil effects and grow up with clean and wholesome minds. I am not at all sure that if I had been born and bred in such surroundings I should have outlived my environment as many of these people have so splendidly done. I think the House will realise that here is a problem that we cannot afford to evade. I am not putting forward my Motion in any party spirit. I do not want to indulge in propaganda. Personally, I think that in the minds of many millions outside this House the very word "propaganda" has come to be objectionable. I merely want Members of the House to consider the question from the point of view of common humanity. There is no question that bad housing is a running sore, which is devitalising millions of our people. There is no doubt that it is disseminating germs of evil, physical, moral and mental.

1633
To this task and to these conditions, I think the House is called to put its judgement and its experience, and I would add, its conscience. I therefore urge the Government to give sympathetic consideration to the matter, not the kind of sympathy that begins and ends in words, but sympathy that means that we shall see an improved housing scheme, that no longer will the Government even suggest to local authorities by inference that they should modify their schemes, but, on the contrary, that they should urge them for- ward to greater activity than ever before, to increase housing, and so remove what I believe to be the greatest blot on our country.
3.54 p.m.
Sir PERCY HARRISM: I beg to second the Motion. We have had a moving and eloquent speech from my hon. Friend. No one is more qualified than he to speak on this problem. He has had long personal experience and has given devoted work to local government. He has been 30 years and more giving his time to work among the people whom he represents, only a stone's throw from this House on the other side of the river in Lambeth. I feel very honoured by his having allowed me to associate myself with this excellent, broad Resolution, which I believe will be carried by the House. No one can say it is a partisan Resolution, and I can add that it is not embarrassing to the Government. It is worded on the broadest principles. It comes at an opportune moment because just above it is the anticipation of a Bill.
I have been for a quarter of a century associated with local government on the Housing Committee of the London County Council. There have been many ups and downs in that work there. I think many of our failures have been due to constant changes of policy. The other day I was talking to one of the most experienced housing officials in the country, and he impressed upon me the necessity of persuading the Government to take long views, to adopt a consistent policy, and not to chop and change. When I entered public life 25 years ago, we were at the threshold of a reaction. Housing comes in waves of enthusiasm. We had just had a forward policy. The London County Council of that day had been extravagant according to some people's standard, and had bought four large
1634
estates. It became an issue at the election, and, as a result, it was decided to slow down, if not close down. That was in 1907.
During the next few years very little progress was made. But the facts were too strong. Just before the War the then majority at the County Hall was persuaded to go in for a forward policy. Then the War came, with four years of stagnation, four years of no action. In 1918 there was another great wave of enthusiasm. The national conscience was aroused. It was a time of big ideas and large policies. A lead was given by the Government and great schemes were worked out all over the country. Nothing was too large. A Conservative county council put forward schemes for building 29,000 houses in five years. The pre-War policy was considered too small for the new era, and we went in for wholesale buying of land, 3,000 acres in one particular site. There was the inevitable reaction and slowing down. The Geddes axe fell, and the Mond policy was framed, and there was another year or two of inaction.
Then, I remember, there came a particular by-election. I do not want to remind the Government of unfortunate political incidents, but a Minister of Health had to appeal on appointment under the electoral law to his constituents for election. He lost his post and lost his seat entirely on the housing issue. We had a new Minister of Health, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to pay a tribute to him. Whatever we may think of his fiscal policy, we owe him a great debt of gratitude for his housing policy. His name, his family name, both his and his father's, will always be associated with great municipal work. Birmingham has always been in the forefront in housing policy. What has come to be called the Chamberlain Act was on the right lines. It led to a great number of houses being built and to great progress. The Wheatley Act, which followed shortly after, was based on the same principle, but it had one great advance. It took a long view, and arranged for a 15-year programme, under which houses were to be produced like sausages out of a machine.
If this problem is to be tackled, you must take a long view. It takes time to buy land, and all sorts of problems arise in London. My hon. Friend, the present

1635
chairman of the Housing Committee, who is present, I am glad to see, is heart and soul in the work, and I hope that he will back me up in what I say. He knows the difficulties of drainage, planning, materials and so on. If you are really to get results, you must, therefore, take a long view. The Wheatley Act was a bold attempt to lay plans ahead. I want to emphasise one of the particular things with which that Act dealt. My hon. Friend who has just spoken referred to it. Hon. Members who were then in Parliament will remember the difficulties. We were told then that the real cause of the housing shortage was due to difficulties of labour and difficulties of material. At the time we were in desperate straits. We could not get bricks, timber, iron castings and so on. There were not sufficient bricklayers. There was a real shortage, and so arrangements were made with the building industry as a whole, both employers and employés, that men were to be trained, and that there was to be an ample supply both of men and materials.
We must give credit where credit is due. The result of that Act was that now there is ample labour available, and there is ample material, but, unfortunately, there is another side to the question. The men feel that they have been let down. Where there was no unemployment, and where the bricklayer and the plasterer had the upper hand, to-day they swell the ranks of the unemployed and stand outside the Employment Exchanges. In the Metropolitan area alone, I think, there are 50,000 men in the building trade, in one section or another, and, unfortunately, the local authorities, owing to the new policy of economy and the Ministry of Health, are limiting their operations. In 1931, just before the economy circular, the London County Council was employing on two big estates, 5,700 men, and now they are employing only 1,900. My hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) gave some very interesting and informing particulars. I would like to dot the i's and cross the t' s. Has it ever occurred to Members that one man can build a complete house in a year? The cost of an ordinary three-roomed, non-parlour house in building alone is £160 for labour, while the average wage of a labourer, taking a
1636
rather low average, in the building trade is something like £3 a week, or a little over. So that if that man who is now out of work was employed for the whole year, you would have a complete house instead of an unemployed man. That is an interesting calculation which I would suggest that the Minister of Health might well hand on to the Minister of Labour.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) is not here. We have had a remarkable document from the hon. Member, who is still on the London County Council. It is an interesting report, and I would recommend its study to those who have not read it. One little paragraph is very remarkable. It is in paragraph 64, and opens the chapter dealing with housing. He points out:
"The industrialists, by whom in many cases the houses were provided, usually required their capital for developing their growing industries, and the accommodation which they erected for the workers whom they needed in ever-increasing numbers, was often deficient both in quality and in quantity. Moreover, the law did little or nothing to control and regulate the construction of new streets and buildings by private persons and companies."
In other words, it is a case of the sins of the fathers being visited on the present generation, but that does not make this generation escape the responsibility of making up for the failures of the industrialists of the middle of the 19th century. What is the germ of the report? It. amounts to this—to put a stop to State assistance. I ant afraid that the Bill before the House wilt take it out of the power of the Ministry to grant subsidies under the two Acts. There are modifications, but it rather suggests that the hon. Member for Richmond has got home, and I want to persuade the Minister not to listen to the hon. Member.
Mr. SPEAKER: I shall have to point out to the hon. Member that, having regard to the Bill of which notice of presentation was given to-day, it would hardly be in order to deal with the question of subsidies.
Sir P. HARRIS: I am going to refer—I do not know whether I shall be in order —to the Rent Restrictions Acts. Take paragraph 35:
"In present circumstances it appears "—
Mr. SPEAKER: Notice has also been given of a Bill to deal with rent restrictions.
Sir P. HARRIS: I can see the difficulty. Of course, I would not question your Ruling, and I see the advantage of it because shortly we are to have an opportunity on both those Bills, when presented, to discuss these particular questions. I must, therefore, confine myself to the urgency of going on with houses, and I do want to persuade the House, if it is necessary to persuade it—I do not believe it is—that the need still exists. Whether provided by subsidies, or by private or public enterprise, the need for houses is as great as ever. May I refer to the very remarkable document which has just been printed by the London County Council? They have now no fewer than 50,000 houses and something like 250,000 tenants, and they are in a very strong position to test the needs and necessities. In that report they point out that 98,000 inquiries reached their central office in one year alone, and over 104,000 inquiries by letter. Incidentally it transpires that in many cases applicants had to be turned down because of inability to pay rent.
Those facts show that the need for houses is as great as ever, and, even if no other figures were available, they would make out a case. But, fortunately, we now have the Census returns for 1931 which have just been made public. They show that, in spite of the efforts of the last 10 years by various agencies, on the whole for the poorer section of the community the housing is far worse than before. In 1921, only 38 per cent. of the people in London were living in separate structural dwellings—an alarming figure. Ten years after, in 1931, instead of the condition of affairs having become better, it was really worse, the figure being 36.7. It goes on to point out:
"Two-thirds of the families in London"—
that is, two-thirds of the whole population of the capital city,
"fail to secure the exclusive occupation of a separate dwelling, hut share in a majority of instances common water supply and common sanitary arrangements."
It adds that in many boroughs half the children under 14 are living in overcrowded conditions. That is certainly discouraging after 10 years' effort. It does not suggest that this is the time to
1638
slow down in our efforts. It suggests that the need of a forward movement is as great as ever. My hon. Friend referred to the great programme put forward in 1930. A London County Council committee, I think under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley), made very cautious estimates of the needs and necessities of London, and they put forward a proposal to spend some £21,000,000. I am revealing no secret when I inform the House that I attended, under the chairmanship of my lion. Friend, the Housing Committee of the same body this morning. If we are to carry out the policy outlined in 1930, we should have been putting forward an estimate of something like £4,500,000 but, unfortunately, the committee are limited to an estimate of £1,600,000, which is quite inadequate to meet the needs, if we are really to tackle the arrears of the housing problem.
My own view is, and always has been, that the best way to tackle slums is to build houses—not houses crowded round the slums—and the slums will cure themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know there is a difference of opinion, but the most urgent problem of the day is the building of enough houses to meet the demand. Of course, when you have these black spots in the centre, the result of years of neglect of overcrowding, you cannot afford to let them stand, but it is no use pulling down houses if, at the same time, you are not building more. It only causes a shifting of population and crowding somewhere else, instead of where they are at present. The two problems must be tackled by parallel methods. On the one hand, you want to develop on the outskirts of great towns, garden cities, to draw out people from the centre to relieve congestion. While you are doing that, by all means clear the slums, but do not allow yourselves to be diverted entirely to the concentration on slums from the real necessity of building sufficient houses for each family to have a separate home.
I would impress on the Minister that the real need is not houses for sale but houses to let. Private enterprise in the last two years has been in a position to meet the demands of persons who can afford to buy houses through building societies or other organisations of that kind, or through private builders. But the need of the ordinary weekly wage-earner in this respect is as treat as ever,

1639
and I respectfully suggest that the time is not yet ripe, and will not be for many years, for the State or the local authorities to stand aside and leave the whole responsibility for housing to private enterprise. I ask the Government, if they are putting forward a new housing policy, not to break completely with the past, but, on the other hand, to see that it is a policy planned for the future. This problem will never be solved except by a long-term policy well thought out, planned well ahead, and carried out with the intimate co-operation of the State and the local authorities.
4.17 p.m.
Miss PICKFORD: Hon. Members on whatever side of the House they sit agree upon the urgency and importance of the housing question although we may not all agree upon the means of solving that problem. Each Government since the War has tackled this problem to some extent. The sums of money spent out of the national Exchequer in the last 12 years under this head amount to over£100,000,000. The annual burden on the Exchequer is over £13,500,000 and the annual burden on the rates is something like £2,750,000. Yet in spite of that great expenditure it must be admitted that the housing problem, at any rate as regards the people who can pay only low rents, is not anywhere near solution. Houses like any other article are subject to the law of demand and supply, and therefore, while the supply of houses, and particularly of houses at cheap rents, remains restricted, the price is bound to remain high. It is to this question of high rents that I wish to direct the attention of the House this afternoon.
The problem of high rents is probably worse in London than in any other part of the country. London has always been a district of high rents. I represent the northern and poorer half of the London borough of Hammersmith which is a dormitory area for people of modest means, a good many of whom are occupied in trade and commerce and very many of whom are occupied in industry and belong to the class of poorly paid wage-earners. That district has its advantages because it is reasonably near to the City and to places which are centres of industry. It has good road and rail services, and that is a
1640
matter to be taken into account when persons are considering what rents they can pay. It may be better to live in a fairly central district with a high rent than to live farther out at a lower rent but with a large weekly sum payable in fares. It used to be considered before the War that in a working-class family budget, a fair proportion to be allotted as rent was one-sixth or, at the outside, one-fifth of the weekly income. I assure the House that it is not exceptional but usual in my constituency to find working people who pay more than half their weekly income in rent.
I wish to give some precise figures about these matters which were recently published in the annual report of the medical officer of health for that borough. These figures are not exceptional, but are perfectly fair samples of the state of affairs existing in neighbourhoods of that kind. Let us first consider the cases of 10 specimen families where unfortunately the breadwinners are out of work. These are all families in which the fathers are the only earners. There are no supplementary wages from the children who are all of school age or under school age. Of those 10 representative families dependent solely upon unemployment benefit, the largest family is receiving 31s. 3d. per week and the smallest 25s. 3d. per week. Yet out of incomes of that size rents varying from 17s. 6d. to 25s. are being paid. The obvious result is that the amount left for the necessities of life including food is in many cases as low as 1s. 7d. per head. In the case of the more fortunate the amount left when rent has been paid is only 2s. 8c1. per head for cleaning materials, food and clothing.
I admit that these are families in which, unfortunately, unemployment is rift at present, but let us turn to another class of families, those in which the fathers are employed, and we find that the state of affairs is very little better. Taking five representative families in this class varying from three to five children in family, we find that the weekly incomes range from 31s. to 60s. and the rents vary from 20s. to 30s. So that even in those families where the fathers are in work, the rent in every case is more than 50 per cent. of the weekly income and in those families the amount left for cleaning materials, fuel, food and other necessities of life varies from the tiny

1641
sum of 2s. 9d. per head up to 5s. 4d. per head in the case of the most fortunately circumstanced.
The same report refers to an article which appeared not long ago in the "Lancet" on the minimum cost of a physiologically adequate diet for working-class families. It was calculated that at that time, which, as I say, is not long ago, the minimum expenditure on food under the best possible conditions of household management and economic purchasing by the mother should be 7s. per week. Yet as I have shown there are cases, and they are not exceptional cases, in which the sums left after paying rent vary from 1s. 7d. per head up to 5s. 4d. per head. I suggest to the House that the result of this high level of rents is to produce in those families, not perhaps starvation, but conditions under which malnutrition is inevitable.
A resolution was recently sent to me from one of the school care committees in which they expressed the opinion that the present high level of rents was doing away with the good of the social services. I do not think that is an overstatement. As the Mover of the Motion pointed out, these conditions are vitiating and taking away the value of the social services and all the efforts that are being made in the schools and elsewhere to produce a healthy and sound community. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not often appeal to sentiment, but the common sense of the country is agreed that it is bad economy to bring up families in the circumstances which I have described, and it is in the interest of the country to see that those conditions are not continued any longer than is absolutely necessary. Take, as an example, the efforts that are being made in connection with maternity and child welfare work. In the borough of Hammersmith large sums have to be spent on the provision of milk for nursing and expectant mothers and small children. That does a little to mitigate the conditions of malnutrition in these families. Of course, in cases such as I have indicated it is naturally the mother of the family who suffers most. She does what she can to provide for the breadwinner and for the children, but she herself is the person who suffers most and suffers longest with, of course, inevitable reactions upon the children.
1642
Suppose that those typical families to which I have drawn attention, instead of paying rents representing 50 per cent. of their weekly income, were paying what used to be considered a reasonable proportion namely, one-sixth or one-fifth of their income, they would be paying from 5s. to 10s. per week. This would be well within their means, and they would then have the surplus which is necessary to provide themselves—and surely it is better that they should provide it themselves—with the nourishment adequate for bringing up a healthy family. In many of these cases the men's wages have fallen during the last couple of years. It is true that the cost of living has fallen in that period, but if the cost of living is calculated on the basis of rent being in the proportion of one-fifth or one-sixth of the weekly income, and if the rent actually paid is more than half of the weekly income, it makes comparatively little difference to the families concerned that the cost of living has fallen in respect of those articles on which they have to spend the other half of their income. So long as rent remains constant at this high figure, the fall in the cost of living makes very little difference to those families.
Furthermore, there is a feeling of grave apprehension among such families that rents, so far from falling, will remain stationary, if they do not rise. They fear that with the decontrol of some classes of houses they may be subjected to rents even higher than those which they are paying now. In those Metropolitan areas where the rateable value on the whole is low, it is not easy for a borough council to do a great deal towards the provision of houses. The amount that a ld. rate will produce is not very great, and any great addition to the rates would add still more to that high figure, which, of course, represents rates and rents, and would, therefore, increase the burden of just these people whom I am certain, everyone would be most anxious to relieve. But even supposing it were within the power of one Metropolitan borough so to increase the number of houses that rents fell to a level more within the capacity of the inhabitants of that borough to pay, you cannot isolate a Metropolitan borough. It is affected by everything that happens in the surrounding districts, and if once the rents should fall in one part of London, there would

1643
be a movement from other parts to that more favourably situated area, and soon the congestion would be just as bad in that part again, rents would rise, and nothing would have been done towards the solution of the problem.
It is, therefore, of the greatest urgency chat this question of the supply of more houses at low rents should be tackled as a national problem, and tackled, not in one district after another, but more or less simultaneously, so that the level of the rents would fall throughout the district. Anything that can be done, on however small a scale, to bring a few tenants into better circumstances, where they are more comfortable, where they can live in health and decency, is all to the good, hut it is nothing but a national effort on a large scale which will produce a supply of houses sufficiently large to bring the level of rents down within the capacity of poor people to pay.
No doubt hon. Members have noticed comparatively recently the suggestion in the Press of a scheme by which the building societies, which up to now have lent money for the erection of houses for sale, are now prepared to lend money from their very large resources for the erection of houses to rent, for people who can only afford a modest rent. In the memorandum which they issue it is suggested that the rents should be from 10s. to 12s. Undoubtedly that would have a very good effect in helping people who can pay that rent, but it must be remembered that there are many millions throughout the country who cannot afford a rent as high as that, and I hope very much that the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell the House something of what they 'have in view.
It seems to me that this problem must be tackled in three ways—by the provision of a very large number of houses at a modest rent, by continuing at the same time every effort for the clearance of slums, and also, if it is possible, by aiding the reconditioning of houses, which in many parts of London are of sound structure, that used to be better class houses and have now become or are becoming tenement houses. By a good scheme of reconditioning, many of these houses could be made into good self-contained tenements, instead of being
1644
let, as they are now, one or two rooms at a time, with no proper facilities and no properly self-contained quarters for each family. If the problem could be tackled from these three points of view, I cannot think it is beyond the resources and ingenuity of this country to provide houses for their population at a reasonable rent, which would leave to these people the resources to provide themselves with the food which is necessary to bring up a healthy family, and all the other conveniences which the population in a civilised country should be in a position to provide.
We hear a good deal about the cost of erecting houses. Let me, in conclusion, say a word on this point. Much has been written about the restrictions of the building unions as affecting the cost of houses. I think it is common knowledge that those restrictions in output have come about because of the fear of the cutting of rates by employers. Would it not be possible to have a gentlemen's agreement between building employers and the unions within the building trade that for one year at least there should be no restrictions in output and no cutting of the rate within that year? I cannot help thinking that if some arrangement of that kind could be come to, the output of houses would increase and the cost would be lowered.
4.37 p.m.
Mr. HICKS: I rise to support the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant), and I think all of us must congratulate him upon giving the House an opportunity to discuss this very important and grave problem of housing. I listened with very great attention to his speech, as I did to the subsequent speeches, and particularly to that of the hon. Lady the Member for North Hammersmith (Miss Pickford), and I feel it somewhat difficult to understand to which party the speakers on this housing question belong. It is very difficult to believe that those hon. Members who have already spoken in this Debate will be supporting the National Government in their inactivity on housing generally. The speeches have been very good, and I certainly rise to reinforce them, in so far as I am able to use any arguments in that direction. I would be very happy if the House would not only give general agreement to the Motion, but at the same time would urge the

1645
Government to take much greater steps than they are taking to deal with this fundamental problem.
The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) referred to the building trade unions and the supply of labour available for house building, and the hon. Lady the Member for North Hammersmith referred to the restriction of output by trade unions. I thought both of those canards had long been exploded, and that the facts which had been revealed from time to time by responsible speakers on both sides, both employers and operatives, had shown that there was little truth in those statements which went to make up a public agitation on this subject. This is not the occasion for me, in the very short time at my disposal—because I would like to hear as many speeches on this subject as possible—to deal with the shortage of labour or material or with the statements about restrictions upon output., but I am sure--speaking as I am in the presence of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley), who is the chairman of the housing committee of the London County Council, and a master builder, and, immediately behind me, the hon. Member who is the secretary of the National Master Builders Federation of Great Britain, both of whom know that side of the story—that if we were to devote our speeches to-day to those questions, we should be able to convince, or at least I hope we should, those who still believe that such things exist, that they exist more in the imagination of those who want to make a public agitation than they do in reality. I say that very definitely, and I hope the House will accept it.
On this grave problem of housing we of the Labour party are, of course, specifically interested. I do not say that we can urge it with any greater force than hon. Members opposite, but we regard housing as a great and fundamental problem, and we know that humanity is very largely moulded by the type and character of the houses in which they live. Here in England, at any rate, the home is the social unit, and the type and character of the home, its influences, and its conditions will very largely mould the expression and behaviour of those who live in it. It is one thing to build houses, and it is another thing to enable people to occupy them. The question of
1646
being able to occupy a house is not conditioned from the standpoint of desire, because the pitiable appeals for housing accommodation with which every municipal authority is only too well acquainted to-day, from hundreds and thousands of people, show that the demand is there all right, but that the capacity to meet the rent and so on is quite a different matter. Wages are low, doles or unemployment benefit and transitional payment are at starvation level, and the people simply cannot pay. If you take the 3,000,000 people who are unemployed, they have to have some housing accommodation, and how are they able, from their income either from unemployment benefit or transitional payment, to pay decent rents? It is simply begging the question to expect them to be able to do so.
The vast majority of our people have never been properly housed. Ever since the time of the industrial revolution, when people were brought from the land into the great towns, such as Bradford, Leeds, Manchester, and so on, they have simply had forms of shelter but have never been properly housed. Over 50 per cent. of the working class houses in Great Britain to-day have only two bedrooms, and with boys and girls in the same family, it is impossible, when they start to grow up, adequately and properly to segregate the sexes. Nobody can argue that mothers with growing families of boys and girls, and with only two bedrooms, have adequate housing accommodation. Over 75 per cent. of the houses in Great Britain have not got a bathroom or a bath, and it is absurd, therefore, to talk about the people being adequately or properly housed. There never has been proper housing. Mothers of families are undergoing countless worries as to how to provide accommodation for their children. They are fighting a battle the whole of the time. The hon. Member for North Lambeth referred very poignantly to some cases, which came under his review, of mothers giving way to drink because of the pressure and anxiety of the home and their incapacity to provide ordinary accommodation to house their families properly. They are fighting a losing battle the whole time.
The Labour party and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)

1647
have tried by both Bills and agitation to rouse the country into a housing fever so that their fellow-countrymen may have the opportunity of decent housing accommodation. Over 9,000,000 people are living in overcrowded conditions, and over 2,000,000 children are cheated of fresh air, sunshine and decent surroundings which could be made available. Owing to unemployment in the building industry, architects, technicians, supervisors, employers, factories and plants are available in great abundance. What greater opportunity could be given to such agencies than to allow them to pull down slums and build better homes, and to provide decent housing accommodation for those 9,000,000 of our fellow-countrymen who are herded together indecently and improperly? It is a big problem which we cannot hand over to private enterprise. If private enterprise were able to meet it, there has been nothing to stop it during the past 20 or 25 years, but it has its limits. No one will deny that they have made a big contribution, and we congratulate them on it. No one will deny that the building societies have rendered good service, and we congratulate them on that. We shall appreciate any other service that they can give to the housing of the people.
The problem is to enable people to occupy the houses that are built. There has been a reduction in wages of £5,000,000,000 in the last few years. Where is then the capacity to pay rent? Since the National Government have been in office, there has been a reduction of £10,000,000 a week in wages.
HOWARDa drop in the cost of living.
HICKS: There has not been a drop in rent. It exists in imagination but not in fact. Practically one-third to one-half of a worker's wages goes in rent. The Government cannot escape responsibility, and we should not allow them to escape it. We should press them more strongly and in every way in order to get them to take bolder action. There is not a town in the country that has not its slums. There is not a borough in London that has not its slums. Westminster, where we are sitting, has them; the Royal borough of Kensington and Battersea have them. The East End of London is practically all slums. My own con
1648
stituency of Woolwich has them. We do not like them; they are plague spots and ought to be removed. I will read a quotation from the "Economist" of the 3rd December referring to an examination of poverty in the East End of London.
Speaking of housing, they say:
"There is a chapter on overcrowding, illustrated by an admirable separate map, which would make it impossible to look the social reformers of 40 years ago unblushingly in the eye. From this chapter it appears that although the average number of persons in a room in the Survey Area as a whole declined from 1.04 in 1921 to 0.95 in 1931, there was actually an increase in the acutest overcrowding—the percentage living more than three to a room rose from 3.1 to 3.3. Over the whole area 9 per cent. of the tenements contain more than two persons to a room, but this proportion varies from 1 per cent. in Lewisham to 23 per cent. in Shoreditch. Most disquieting of all is the revelation that in many boroughs something like half of the children under 14 are living in a state of overcrowding. In short, for all the attempts at improvement in housing during the last 10 years the success which has been achieved has not been sufficient, to remove the widespread prevalence of disgraceful conditions, and the housing question still remains London's acutest social problem."
That is a fair statement and is not exaggerated. In looking at the size of the problem, we have to ask what efforts we are taking to grapple with it and how we are encouraging municipal authorities to get on with the job. We know what municipal authorities are, except when they have a Labour majority. They wait for someone to get a move on, but, when they have a Labour majority, they get a move on themselves. Municipal authorities are not progressive in the main and are not tackling this problem. The supply of houses is not proceeding at a rate which is comparable with the increase in the population, with the marriage rate, and with the necessary replacement of houses which were built 100 years ago. On that comparison, we are hundreds of thousands of houses behind the requirements. We require anything between 80,000 and 100,000 houses a year to replace those built 100 years ago. There were 80,000 houses a year being built in 1831–32. Those houses were never built to the same standard that is demanded now in the sense of having good foundations, good damp-proof courses, good sanitary arrangements, good flues and so on. We all know the type of house that was built to suit the period

1649
from the Industrial Revolution. They were not the highest type of expression of the building craft, but were only sufficient to form a satisfactory kind of shelter. Those houses, even if they were ever fit for habitation, want replacing now. If we supplied one house for every three couples who got married each year in Great Britain, we should want another 100,000 houses. The actual number we are building varies from 20,000 to 40,000. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield planned the building of 40,000 houses for agricultural workers under the Act which he introduced, but the actual number built was something less than 1,000. How can any Minister feel comfortable in his seat when he knows that this problem is mounting up in this way?
I would like the Minister to agree as a practical stop to call together a conference of the municipal authorities with reference to the Circular on housing economies which has been sent out to them. The Government should say to the authorities: "You responded to our Circular in a greater measure than we intended you to. We asked you not to spend on housing anything that was not essential. You have gone to the other extreme. You have not done what you should. Let us meet together and discuss the problem and see if we can agree to a reversal of that policy." The Government should ask them to agree to revive housing progress and should do everything to encourage them instead of telling them, for instance, that they must not have paper on the walls or picture rails or fireplaces in the bedrooms. In the year 1932, with all the knowledge and capacity that we have in the building trade industry, such a mean standard is not worthy of this country or anyone who gives support to it. To ask the people, because they are unfortunate, to live in such a scanty, miserable and objectionable form of shelter does not do us credit. We ought to search our own minds and hearts before we sanction such houses.
The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion has done good service by calling attention to this problem, and I feel certain that everyone would like to see the Government encouraged to more activity. There would be a general rejoicing if it was known that the Government were doing something to tackle this great problem, and anything that is done
1650
will meet with the approval of our party. I would like to emphasise the importance of this question and the tragedy of millions of our fellow countrymen who through unemployment and low wages cannot pay rents. Private enterprise cannot supply the need, because they cannot invest the money unless they get a return. Therefore, it becomes a problem beyond private enterprise and one for the Government to deal with. I hope that the Minister who will reply will give us some encouragement to believe that the present dead hand on building progress will be lifted and that the Government will encourage municipal authorities or some form of enterprise to build houses to relieve the distress of millions of our people.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. SELLEY: I am glad to have the opportunity of joining in this discussion. The Motion is drawn so wide that one can almost give it support. I should like to join with the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), who made some reference to myself, by saying that, although I am a retired builder, I have had my finger directly on the operative side of the great building trade by virtue of being chairman of the housing committee of the London County Council. I should like to state publicly that there is no need for the public to fear that there is any trade union ramp for keeping back output or for hampering the improvement of housing conditions in any way. If that were so, unemployment is so rife and there are so many men to choose from, that a slacker would very quickly be changed for a worker. I was rather impressed by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who always tries to get it both ways. He pointed out the great forward urge that took place in London 25 years ago and then referred to changes in policy. May I remind the House that 25 years ago the London County Council built two of its large estates. They are excellent estates even to-clay, and they were built on the basis of something like 25 to 30 houses to the acre. Under the policy to which he referred, which was adopted immediately after the War, 12 houses were built to the acre, and the cost to the taxpayers and ratepayers was, on an average, £1,050 per house. Had we gone on long enough on those lines we should have piled up a

1651
debt almost equal to the War debt. A change of policy was absolutely necessary.
Although I have not been a Member of this House for more than a year I have been a member of every housing committee set up by every Minister of Health since there has been a Ministry. On the first occasion when I was called in as a practical man to discuss this great problem, one of the first things I tried to bring before the Minister was that if it was necessary to have a subsidy—and we found it was necessary—we must have the largest subsidy for the smallest house. It seems strange to me, having been engaged with this problem since 1919, that it is only now, in 1932, that we arc really awake to the fact that the real problem with which the nation sought to deal has not been tackled, in spite of the fact that we have been housing people. One may have a bricklayer or a mechanic, with a wife and one child, who is earning good wages, and working with him as his labourer may be a man with a large family all of school age. The former man is getting about one-third more in wages than the other, and he, with his small family, can take a small house with three or four rooms. The man with the larger family, earning the lesser wage, is compelled, if he can get a municipal house at all, to have a house with five rooms at a higher rent. Therefore, the labourer often stays in bad housing quarters while at the same time indirectly paying a subsidy to his more fortunate brother who is in a municipal house.
We have been dealing largely with the London issue, and I would tell hon. Members that London has a problem of its own. It costs the London County Council or any borough council which attempts to provide accommodation for the working-classes in central London £200 per habitable room. That means that a five-room house for a labourer and his family needs a capital expenditure of £1,000. On cottage estates, however, we can build at a cost of only £100 per habitable room, just half the amount. People who live in the central parts of London are called upon to pay a rent out of all proportion to their ability to pay, but they cannot afford to go to the outlying estates on account of the expense of travelling. Therefore, we have the anomaly that we are trying to house the
1652
poorest workers in the most expensive form of buildings. I have been actively engaged in the last year in trying to get our architects and our people together to see if we cannot produce a type of accommodation which will break down some of these very heavy costs. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green made an allusion to what we ought to do. The difficulty in London is sites. The whole of the Metropolitan area is practically built-up, and if we wish to establish cottage estates we must go outside the Metropolitan area.
With the building societies coming forward with their huge funds and ready to play their part in this problem, the Government would now be well advised to see whether they cannot produce a scheme for laying out whole areas outside London for the accommodation of the poorer-paid working-classes. In spite of all that has been said, I believe it is possible to produce a house to let at between 10s. and 12s. a week in London. If we do that, and send a lot of people outside, we shall relieve overcrowded conditions in London. There is another problem in London. London has not been a depressed area during the last four or five years, and thousands of people have flocked to London, to crowd our already overcrowded centres. Time after time when examining conditions in an overcrowded area we have found it occupied largely by families who have been imported into London.
Then there is this other side to the problem, that London people have the greatest objection to living away from those centres in which they have been brought up. Although we deplore overcrowding, I am bound to say that many people are living in overcrowded areas from their own choice. They could well afford to go outside them but have the greatest aversion to doing so. As one who has been engaged in the industry and has taken a great part in this problem, I am prepared to say that whatever we do as local authorities we shall never solve this problem until we link up private enterprise with it. I know that many hon. Members of the Labour party do not believe that any housing has been provided unless it has come through a municipality. The solution of the housing problem is to provide houses and more houses. Many of the poorer-paid working-classes have been housed in

1653
exactly the same way as they were clothed in the old days, that is to say they took the "hand-me-downs" of their more fortunate brothers. That is what has happened with a lot of property in London.
If we are to tackle this problem, do not let us be obsessed with the idea that it is a case purely for municipal effort. If we are to proceed with municipal undertakings subsidised, at no matter what cost, out of the rates or the Exchequer, then we must recognise that we must cater for all the working-classes, and not for the fortunate section whom the municipalities have been housing so far. Every time we take rates from a workingman a portion of the money goes to pay the housing subsidy of those who are being housed by the municipality. The more that is done in that way towards housing one section of the community the more difficult we make it for the other sections who can never hope to be housed properly in their lifetime.
With good will all round, let us bend our efforts together and work upwards from the bottom, not, as we have been doing during the last 10 years, starting with a high ideal at the top. We must recognise that we have to dig down. The Mond houses, with which we started, had an area of 950 superficial feet. They were not homes for labourers, but villas for middle-class persons. That was one of the great faults of our early enthusiasm. Let us come down to the practical side of the problem. There are the brains and good will in the country to solve it and I am one who will play his part in doing so if the opportunity is afforded.
5.11 p.m.
Colonel CHAPMAN: I do not wish to take up time by stressing the urgency of the need for rehousing the people, but to address myself to the possibility of getting over the difficulties of the housing problem without any additional burden to the State or the municipalities. Since 1919 more than 1,000,000 houses have been built by means of the subsidy, and 800,000 houses without any subsidy at all, so we see that private enterprise has done a great part in producing houses. The census figures, which have only recently been issued, show that the family unit is getting smaller. In Durham the family unit is now four, which is 12.4 per cent.
1654
lower than it was in 1921. In South Shields, the town to which I belong, there are 29,000 inhabited houses, and 50 per cent. of them are occupied by families of three or under. It is apparent, therefore, that the need of the day is for smaller houses for the working-classes, for houses of not more than four rooms; and there is a great demand for houses with three rooms. No good purpose can be served by building houses of a standard of accommodation beyond the actual requirements of the people or at a rent which they are unable to pay.
The side of the housing problem which still requires the assistance of the municipality and the State is slum clearance, and I am glad to say that it has been tackled in many districts in the past year. In the town from which I come we have built houses of three and of four rooms which are let at a rent, inclusive of rates, of from 4s. 5d. to 5s. 7d. per week. Those are rents which people who have to live in distressed areas can afford to pay. We must not forget that large numbers of them are living only on the dole, and, unfortunately, many have little prospect of getting back to work. Apart from that the miners of Durham—the datal men—even if working, are not getting more than 35s. a week. It is no good putting up houses for them to he let at 10s. to 12s. per week.
The question is: How can the problem be solved? To my mind, it is a question simply and solely of rates of interest. On the outskirts of Newcastle houses with four rooms have been built which are being sold for £280. They are subject to a ground rent of £2 10s. a year. Newcastle building societies are making advances of £250 on them at 5 per cent., but with a rate of interest so high that the weekly charges, including the payments to the building society, amount to 12s. 6d. That is a. lower sum than has been discussed in this House, but to my mind it is not low enough. If the Government would tackle this question as they have it in their power to do, and if they would raise a housing loan of 3i per cent., it is perfectly possible to do so. The interest on that loan would be £3 10s. for every £100, but from that there would have to be deducted 5s. in the £ Income Tax, so that the net amount that the Government would have to pay to each bondholder of £100 would be £2 12s. 6d. If the Government would lend that money

1655
to the building societies, in order that they in turn could lend it out to the people who want to buy their own small houses, they would be able to put up houses at a price that people could pay. If the Government would lend that money at £2 12s. 6d. per cent.—the House is aware that building societies pay a special rate of Income Tax of two-fifths the normal rate—the Income Tax on the £2 12s. 6d. would be 5s. 3d., so that the total cost to the building societies for each £100 would be £2 17s. 9d. If they in turn lent that money to the borrower at £3 10s., which would leave them a margin of 12s. 3d. for their working expenses, a margin which is quite enough, although it may not be quite as much as they are accustomed to, I can say, from personal experience in running a building society for many years, that it can be well done.
Houses of four rooms can now be built for £350. If the whole of that money were lent—I do not suggest to the House that it should be—at 3½ per cent. to a man who was wishing to buy his own house, to be paid back over 30 years, the weekly payment to a building society would be 7s. 4d. The municipalities would be justified in putting a low rateable value on those small houses, say, a rateable value of £10, with a rate of 10s. 6d., to which sum, in some towns in The North of England, the rate has fortunately now been reduced. That would mean five guineas per year for rates, which is the equivalent of another 2s. per week. If you allow another 1s. for repairs and for insurance, you find that the total payment that a borrower would have to make in respect of a loan of £350, would be 10s. per week.
What would be the effect of this upon unemployment? The two problems are surely linked together. If we take a unit of £100,000,000 at £350 per house, you would build 300,000 houses. If we increase the number of houses per acre to 15, that would mean 20,000 acres of land upon which to build those houses. The land should be obtained, at any rate in the smaller towns and the large industrial towns, at not more than £400 an acre. My views are sufficiently Socialistic to support the Government taking powers to acquire land at that figure, or at a district valuer's figure if landowners are un
1656
willing to sell. In addition, there are the costs of transfer. They, unfortunately, are too high. For 300,000 houses, £2,000,000 would be sufficient for the transfer, so that with land and transfer we would have absorbed £10,000,000, leaving £90,000,000 with which to build our 300,000 houses and to pay for labour and materials.
From the start to the finish of house-building, from when the bricks are made to when the houses are completed, 80 per cent. of the cost of the houses goes in labour. If we take 80 per cent. of that £90,000,000, we get £72,000,000 for wages. The building operatives' wages are, on an average, £3 per week. That would give us 24,000,000 man-weeks, or a full year's work for 480,000 men. There are at the present about 300,000 men unemployed in the building trade. The scheme I am outlining would provide work for 480,000; it would provide work for the whole of the unemployed members of the building trade for two years. There may be difficulties in the scheme, but there are none that cannot be got over. I might point out that the cost of road making is far too high. Local authorities should be less exacting in the cost of road making, because that all goes on to the unfortunate worker's rent and adds to the cost of the house.
This scheme may mean that the landowner would have to sell his land somewhat cheaper than he hoped, that the lawyer might have to do with rather lower costs, and that the building societies would have to work with a lower margin for expenses. Let me say to each, if he hesitates to fall into line, what his Grace the Archbishop of York said recently when addressing a great meeting at Newcastle-on-Tyne upon social service: "It is the duty of each of us to ask ourselves when considering unemployment, 'What can I do?' "It is not what the State alone can do, but what each is willing to do individually that will help us through our difficulties. The working-man of the North needs a house, inclusive of rates, at not more than 10s. a week. I submit with every confidence that I have made a proposal to the House that will make this possible, one which, if carried out with good will, will solve the difficulties of unemployment in the building trade.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. DICKIE: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Colonel Chapman) I am glad of the opportunity to make a few observations on this question of housing, which is of paramount importance to those of us who represent industrial constituencies in the depressed areas. Our figures of unemployment in those areas range from 25 per cent. to 70 per cent., and the problem, extremely grave as it is, is complicated by the fact that very large numbers of our population are living under conditions which are a, disgrace to a civilized community in the 20th century. They are, moreover, paying for wretched accommodation high rents that would entitle them to decent accommodation in habitable houses that could be supplied on a purely economic basis.
It is not right that a Member of Parliament, when he visits his constituency, should find a succession of callers at his house to ask him to use his influence to enable them to get a house to live in; that he should be stopped in the streets of his constituency by constituents asking him to use his influence with the local housing officers to enable them to get a roof to cover their heads, or that he should be continually receiving letters from his constituents asking for houses of any kind in order that they may live in decent conditions. The people of whom we are speaking are not those of the type referred to by the Minister of Health in a recent Debate. They are not "wasters"; they are decent, respectable, hard-working citizens, who are prepared to pay an economic rent for a decent house. They are the sort of people who have been brought up to believe that an Englishman's home is his castle, and they have never had an opportunity, even in a two-roomed cottage, of being able to shut the door behind them and to say: This is home."
In the county of Durham there are thousands of young people who have never known what it is, although married perhaps five years and, some of them, with four or five children, to have a house of their own. Many of them live with their relatives in single rooms, or in two rooms for which they pay exorbitant rents. Many of them live in lodgings. There are others whose families are grown up, and who are ready to vacate the larger type of house and make room for others
1658
by going into a smaller house, if such a house were available. There are young people waiting to be married, and who cannot be married for the simple reason that no houses are available, unless they are prepared to live with their parents, to go into lodgings or to start married life under conditions that are not in any way conducive to a happy wedded life. We need something like half-a-million houses to meet the present shortage. We have about a quarter-of-a-million, and probably 300,000, building operatives out of work. If a Dutchman or an Italian were to say to us: "Why do you not pay your quarter-of-a-million building operatives to build your half-million houses?" there are only two replies that we could give to them. The first is that we have not enough organizing ability to do it, and the second is that we prefer to keep those building operatives in idleness. We have been in that position for 10 years. Either reply is a pitiful one. It makes us wonder whether Rudyard Kipling was not eight when he said that Englishmen were the maddest people on earth. This is a mad policy. Out of those quarter-of-a-million building operatives, 300 are in my constituency. I want the House to look at my constituency as a. typical example, and to note what is happening there, because the same is happening in every other constituency throughout the length and breadth of the country. Those 300 have to be maintained, and are being maintained, at the expense of the State, and the State is getting in return absolutely nothing. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that the State is getting absolutely nothing, because it is getting something which is not very desirable—the demoralization of those who are wasting their days, months and years in idleness. Every week an official whose duty it is to administer the Acts of Parliament which we pass in this House draws a cheque for £400 for the maintenance of those 300 people and their families in my constituency. The cheque having been written, must be signed. The official to whom I have referred takes it to one, John Citizen, shall we call him, who lives in a cul-de-sac called Overdraft Alley, and in a crazy house the foundations of which are tottering. He says to him: "Another cheque for signature, sir." The poor, overburdened old gentleman says: "How much is it for this time" "£400 sir." "Who is it for?" "Those

1659
builder fellows in Consett." "Another £400? It does not grow any less." He signs it, and he says: "Will you tell the House of Commons what I said the week before and what I said last year about this same thing, that I was tired of signing this cheque, disbursing money and getting absolutely nothing in return." The reply is: "Yes, I gave your message, sir, and the reply from the House of Commons and the Government is that they will give their most earnest consideration to your representations on this most important subject."
What happens then? John Citizen explodes, and he has a perfect right to do so. He says that he has been told this for the last 10 years, and he "goes off the deep end," as we say in the North, and gives his views on the House of Commons, and the Government generally, in language which is not only un-parliamentary but unprintable. This is what is happening throughout the length and breadth of the country. In tram, train, tube, omnibus, club, "pub.," by the village green, wherever men and women gather together, you will hear the same fierce condemnation of the pouring out of public money for which absolutely nothing is received in return. It has gone on for far too long, and there are some of us in this House who hold that a continuation of it is bound to lead to graver disasters.
Some of us are beginning to feel uneasy as to the Government's plans for dealing with unemployment, on which this question of housing has a very important bearing. I have said that we have 300 or 400 building operatives out of work in my one constituency. I have gone to the trouble of approaching the local councils in the constituency, and I find that to meet the immediate shortage they need no fewer than 1,000 houses. I have consulted them all, and they are all suffering from The same thing—a shortage of housing accommodation for working-class people. Of the 1,000 houses needed, 60 or 70 are required for caravan dwellers who are living on the fells on the Consett Hills under such conditions that the local council are threatening to evict them because their conditions are so intolerable, and, in their dire plight, they have been to ask a Royal personage to save them from eviction and to endeavour
1660
to do something to help them in the condition in which they are.
I want to ask a question which I have asked many times before. Where is the sense in sending a cheque for £300 or £400 to my constituency to maintain in idleness people who can build houses, when 1,000 houses are needed in the constituency? I must confess that I fail to understand the policy, because we not only need the houses, but we want to stop the demoralization that is going on. If these men could earn good wages, they would have increased purchasing power, and would be able to maintain their families and themselves at a higher standard of life; but bricklayers, joiners, masons, slaters, tilers, plumbers, carpenters—every one of them a skilled craftsman—are wasting their time doing nothing, and are losing heart, losing patience, and losing something more, namely, that pride in the skill and craftsmanship which they have acquired and which they have been proud in days gone by to exercise. All that is needed is the organizing ability to put in hand the work which is at their doors ready and waiting to be done.
I desire to make a bold suggestion to the Government. I suggest that, if they themselves are unable to use this £300 or £400 a week to any better purpose than subsidizing and encouraging idleness, they should give it to the local authorities in my constituency to use in providing employment for men who need it. This is not an unreasonable suggestion. I should like to see the Government make a simple experiment. I should like to ask them if it is not possible, under the aegis of the Ministry of Health, to get these councils to act together and form a regional committee, composed of one or two members from each council, which would be asked to formulate a scheme to cover the whole of the area. For building purposes only, all the building operatives could be transferred from the Employment Exchange to that committee, and, in view of the urgent need for houses in my constituency, I have not the slightest doubt that before the scheme had been in operation for more than a week not one of them would be on the books of the Employment Exchange, but every one of them would have been re-absorbed into the industry and would be doing useful work.

1661
I estimate that 300 men can build 300 houses in six or seven months, and I would ask the Government to sanction such an experiment for, say, 12 months. They could give notice to the local authorities that they would consider such a scheme, and could give them, not three, or six, or 12 months in which to formulate a scheme, but a month, and I have no doubt that at the end of a month the scheme would be forthcoming. I confess quite frankly that I am shedding many of my preconceived notions. I do not believe in direct labour, but, if it were a question of employing direct labour under a Socialist town council, the problem is so grave that I would waive my objection to it immediately, in order that we might get on towards finding at all events a partial solution for this problem.
I should like to emphasise the fact that, if such a scheme were adopted, it would cost the Government nothing. My hon. Friend appears to be surprised. The present situation is costing them £300 or £400 a week in my constituency, and they are getting nothing for it. Why should they not use this £300 or £400 as I have suggested? They might even save by doing so. If they are not prepared to give the whole amount, let them give 75 per cent. That would be so much to the good, and those men who were got back to work would be saved from the utter and absolute demoralization of continued years of unemployment and all that it brings in its train. Housing is not a non-productive investment; it is one of the best investments that any nation could go in for, not merely in the financial sense, but in the physical and moral sense as well. A scheme such as I have suggested could be made self-supporting for, with money so cheap as it is to-day, and with co-operation between the Government and the local authorities, decent houses could be built at a figure which would enable them to be let at an economic rent, as they are now in my constituency, even to miners, with their present low wages. When I speak of an economic rent in the North of England, I mean an inclusive rent of not more than Ss. 6d. or 9s. a week, which is high enough in distressed areas like ours.
I am well aware that there is nothing new in this proposal, that it has been brought forward before, that the idea of using what is called the "dole" to give employment has been considered and dis-
1662
cussed on many occasions; but I make no apology for bringing it forward again, because the conditions are such to-day that, unless we do something of the kind, the situation will grow even more grave and disaster will assuredly overtake us. I have been told that this would be subsidizing wages, but, as I have said, I am casting aside many of my preconceived notions, and am willing to cast aside that one for the good and sufficient reason that I would rather subsidise wages than subsidise idleness, as we are doing at this moment. I cannot see why we should not bring these two things together. We want the houses, we have the men who can build the houses, and we are wasting millions of money in maintaining these men who could build the houses. Toleration of a continuance of the state of things that prevails to-day is nothing short of a national reproach. The same thing is going on in every part of the country.
Such a scheme as I have suggested, wisely applied, would not merely make two blades of grass grow where only one is growing at present, but would make many blades of grass grow where none is growing at present. Nay, more, it would make grass grow where weeds are growing at present. Anybody who knows anything about horticulture knows that you cannot grow grass where weeds are, and that, if you do not cut out the weeds, they will spread. That is the danger for this little country of ours at the present moment. I sincerely trust that the Government will give this suggestion, and every other suggestion, their most earnest consideration, because it is vital, not only in my district but in others where this problem is causing such grave concern, that we should find some solution in order to overcome the difficulty of housing conditions in the north-eastern corner of England and in the other distressed areas of the country.
5.42 p.m.
Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: We have listened to a number of speeches all of which have advocated, as I think every Member of the House will join in advocating, the general principle of more and better houses; but most of the speeches, and particularly those of the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) and of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie), have been directed to demanding a drive

1663
forward in housing policy by the Government, that is to say, the provision of an increased number of State-built and State-paid-for houses. None of the speeches that I have heard in the Debate, however, has put forward a constructive proposal as to where the money is to come from. The hon. Member for Consett suggested that the unemployment benefit should be used towards the building of houses. He gave us a figure of £300 or £400 a week in the case of his constituency, and suggested that that money might be used for the purpose of setting the men in question to work at building houses. The trouble is, however, that the £300 or £400 a week which is now keeping those people in unemployment would only keep a small portion of them in work, because of the greater wages that would have to be paid to them when they were actually in employment. Would the hon. Member for East Woolwich, who is connected with the trade union in question, advocate the building of houses at wages equal to the present unemployment benefit? Of course he would not, and I think he would be perfectly right. In that case, this amount of money would not find employment for the people whom it now has to keep in unemployment.
Mr. DICKIE: May I interrupt the hon. Member for a moment, to say that I had no intention of suggesting that the rate of wages paid should be the same as the rate of unemployment benefit? It would work out, in all probability, at somewhere about half, and to that extent the money would be saved.
Mr. BEAUMONT: Supposing that half the unemployed building operatives in the hon. Member's constituency could be found Employment with that money—I think that that. is an optimistic estimate, but let us accept it—there would still remain the other half, far whom money would have to be provided. If that were so, you would have over half the number on your hands for whom you would have to provide more money. The plain fact is that at present the State cannot provide any more money. It is the fact that it has been providing more and more money from rates and taxes which has got us into this mess. It is owing to that that we have all these people unemployed, and, unless we
1664
are prepared to reduce our public expenditure in every direction, however unpleasant it may be, we shall not get those people back into employment.
The bon. Member for East Woolwich said this was a problem that private enterprise could not solve. If it could, why had it not done so in the past 20 years Private enterprise has not had a chance of solving it because of the restrictions, and because of the taxation, and the unfair incidence of the taxation that has been put on all foams of property for the last 20 years. That has deliberately prevented the building of houses. The great case in point was the famous Land Tax Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), which had the most appalling effect on the building of houses in the five years immediately before the War. There are many of us who are just as alive as hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway to the need for more and better houses and to the horrors of bad housing and of the unemployment situation, but we believe sincerely that you cannot get the thing right until you stop the subsidizing which sends up the price of houses and takes the money out of the pockets of the people whom we want to spend it on those houses.
The hon. Member himself said it was one thing to build houses and a totally different thing to get people to live in them, because of the rent. The reduction of wages and the shortage of money to pay the rent is due to high taxation, and the more you increase your housing subsidy, and the more you have public expenditure on that or anything else, the worse your situation will be and the more difficult it will be to get decent conditions for those who are employed. We have been going forward since the War on a policy of more Government works, more taxation, and more public expenditure, and the situation has got worse and worse, and, unless we realise that that produces a deterioration and not an improvement in conditions, we shall never cure the housing problem. It can only be cured, not by artificial State action but by the ordinary common sense laws of supply and demand and by getting the money to pay for the houses back into the pockets of the people who have to pay for them.

1665
I apologize for having embarked on that side of the question. It is not what I really rose to say, but I felt it important that the House should realise the economic side of this problem and should not be led away with the idea that you are going to solve it by building more and more houses irrespective of how they are going to be paid for. It is no use having a lot of houses if you cannot get people to live in them, because they cannot pay the rent and cannot at the same time pay for food to eat. I want to draw attention to an aspect that has not come up much so far in the speeches that I have heard. I have very little experience with regard to urban property, but I have had something to do, as a private landlord and as a member of a local authority, with the question of providing houses for the workers in the country. I want to impress on the Government, in any new legislation that they are introducing, to recognise, what has not been recognised in the past, that the problem in rural areas is entirely different from the urban problem. There is no great shortage of houses in the rural area, but there is a shortage of decent house at reasonable rents, and the legislation and the council activities of the last 10 or 14 years have done very little to help that problem. It has only been materially assisted by the fact. which we all deplore, that the drift of the population of the country to the towns has left vacant houses into which people have gone, and if, as we hope, that drift is going to be turned the other way, there will be a serious housing shortage in the country.
The housing of the agricultural labourers has never been an economic problem. From time immemorial the cottages in which they have been housed have never been at an economic rent. There has been no attempt to make them so. It is part of the rural system, which you may like or dislike but which exists and which, even under a Socialist Government, would take a great deal of changing. The workman on the land, as part of his most inadequate wage, is provided with a house let at an uneconomic rent, near his work, and that is regarded, both by landowners and farmers and the workers themselves, as part of the system on which the working of the land is based. They realise that you cannot get proper results if the workers are not
1666
properly housed on the spot, and the aim of those connected with the land has been to provide these houses at low rents which the rural workers can afford to pay and treat them, in effect, as part of the wages. I am not now talking about the tied cottage, but about the average cottage in an ordinary country village, which may belong to the farmer for whom the man works, to the local landowner, or to a small property owner in the district. The whole system is the same. We get cottages which have been built for £200, £300 or £400 let at rents which may vary from a shilling to 3s. 6d. a week.
Legislation in the past has treated the country problem and the town problem in very much the same way, and the local councils in the country have had practically the same subsidies as have the councils in the towns. The result is that you have had put up all over the rural areas most unsightly houses, erected by the local councils, to whom has just been given the power to look after the beautifying of the countryside, at rents twice or three times those of the old cottages, with rates on top. Those houses are not, in fact, occupied by the rural workers. They are occupied by people from the towns, who go there because the rates are less, or for one reason or another. Local Housing Acts have made very little contribution towards the rehousing or the improvement of the housing of the agricultural labourer, for the reason that the rents charged are far greater than the rural worker can afford to pay with his present most inadequate wage. When the Government come to tackle this problem, I hope they will bear that fact in mind and realise that you cannot house, or rehouse, the rural worker at anything like an economic rent, and that, if you are going to tackle the reconditioning of the countryside, you have to call to your help the owners of the existing houses. There are many houses that could be reconditioned—some of them are reconditioned—under the Rural Housing Acts and made perfectly good and useful without their rents being increased. I know one such house that was let at 7d. a week. It was reconditioned under the Rural Housing Act. The rent was increased to a shilling, and it is now a perfectly good house. The trouble about that Act is that in so many cases the small surveyor of a rural district council

1667
is put in charge of its working and, without seeing into the merits of the thing, he has not, in effect, used his powers so as to get the best benefits out of the Act.
I would urge the Government to realise that in the matter of rural housing there are three factors that have to be taken into consideration. The first is the effect of taxation on the man who wants to build houses for the habitation of rural workers to work on his land. Secondly, the effect of the rates is very important. Under the present rating system, the more a landowner improves the housing of his estate the higher his assessment and the more he has to pay in rates. It is no encouragement, where the landlord pays the rates, as is often the case, that, if he reconditions a cottage let at some such figure as £10 a year, the rates are immediately put up to £15 without his having increased the rent. In dealing with this problem, the first matter to be taken in hand is the reconditioning of existing houses, and, if they can do anything in their new Bill to assist local landowners or farmers or small property owners to recondition their houses and put them in a proper state of repair without raising the rents, or only raising them by a negligible amount, they will be doing far more to assist the rural housing problem than by continuing or increasing the subsidy, which in rural areas has only had the effect of putting up the prices to the local authorities and to the private builder and, consequently, injuring rather than helping the solution of the rural housing problem.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member in an essentially Tory speech—it was anything but a working-class speech—advocated the reconditioning of workers' cottages in rural districts. Everyone who is not a Tory and who has the welfare of the working-class in his mind knows that the only thing that can be done with those cottages is to pull them down and build modern houses in their place. It is impossible to recondition old, unhealthy houses which were built for slaves and not for men and women who have the minds of free men and women, as the working-class have to-day. The hon. Member said he had listened to one or
1668
two speeches. He was not long in the House before he was called.
Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I have been in before.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I know. He said that the speeches were very good, but it all meant money and the Government could not get money. If war was declared to-morrow, they would find millions, and we have declared war on poverty. This is as serious a war as a bloody war, and there are as many killed in this war as there are in a bloody war, only people do not see it in the same way, but it is as effective and more damaging to the welfare of the people with unhealthy homes. Those in the Labour movement have made up their mind that at the first opportunity they will do all they can to abolish the problem of poverty. That is what we are here for, and nothing else. We are here to fight against it. We are not sent here to make friends with our opponents. I have been sent here to fight them, and fight them I will. I have been sent here to represent the working class and not the ruling class of this country.
My colleagues and I are indebted to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) for introducing this Debate today. In his introductory remarks he mentioned my native city of Glasgow. It was our education authority who put an investigation on foot in order to find out the reason for the high death rate among children in working class houses. They found that in the East End wards of the city of Glasgow the death rate of children in their first year was nearly 200 per 1,000, and that in the West End of the city, which is represented by the present Home Secretary, the death rate is only 45 per 1,000. They found also that the height of boys and girls brought up in one-apartment houses was deficient. England knows nothing about one-apartment houses. It is a distinct poverty problem which particularly applies to Scotland. The back-to-back houses in Leeds cannot be compared with them, though they are bad enough, I admit. Of course, we will assist to abolish back-to-back houses in Leeds. But we have one-apartment houses. The best Minister of Health this country ever produced, John Wheatley, was reared in a one-apartment house, and, therefore, he had in the marrow of his bones hatred of the ruling

1669
class of this country who imposed those conditions upon our class. I was about to say that the Education Authority also found, in regard to the one-apartment, two-apartment, three-apartment and four-apartment houses in Glasgow, that the children attending school from the higher types of houses were bigger and better in every way. I have said in the House of Commons before that it is not because the mothers in the better homes of the country or cities are better mothers than the mothers in the poorer areas that the children in those areas die at the rate of 200 per 1,000. It is because of the hellish conditions. I can use no other term. I know the conditions. I have lived in them, and I am a product of them. I can never forget the conditions in which we were reared in the tenements of Glasgow.
We are very fortunate in having the Minister of Health present. I have seen in the Press that he is to bring in a Bill to do away with the Wheatley Act. I hope that he will never be a party to any suclh act of treachery to the working class of this country. If ever there was a piece of beneficial legislation carried in this House, it was the Wheatley Act. It is the best bit of Socialist legislation which this House has carried out up-to-date. The conditions at the moment are of such a character that they do not warrant any discouragement of the building of houses. Take Glasgow. I have here information which has been got out for me by the City Assessor of Glasgow, Mr. Alexander Walker, the best authority we have in Scotland upon this question. He informs me that up to the year of the War we had nearly 19,000 empty working-class houses in Glasgow. Of these, nearly 10,000 were the most common type of house; occupied by the working-class, that is, the two-apartment house. I am a product of the two-apartment house. That is the common house in Glasgow. In the first year of the War there were 9,762 empty two-apartment houses in Glasgow. What is the situation up-to-date? The figures for 1931–32 show that 155 only are empty. Surely it is evidence that there is a shortage of houses in Glasgow when it is remembered that the number of working-class houses in Glasgow is 250,000 and that there are only 155 two-apartment houses—room and kitchen—empty at the moment. I hope, therefore, that the
1670
Minister of Health will not nullify John Wheatley's great gift to Britain.
I was John Wheatley's close associate when he was putting through his Bill, and I remember well how he was harrassed on all sides of the House, how he brought together all the building operatives, employers and employés, and how he drafted a scheme to be carried on for 15 years, and well do I remember that he told me that the greatest opponent of his scheme was the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Snowden, who, he said, was the greatest Tory in the House. Hon. Members who were in the House at the time will remember how the Minister of Health was worried by people to take in improvers. They said, "There is a shortage of bricklayers, and it is because of the strict rules which hold with the trade unions that we are not getting on with the building of houses. Those bad trade unions; those villains of the piece who always have the last ounce! They will never give up anything!" The fact of the matter is that, during the War, the trade unionists sacrificed every right, believing that they were doing the proper thing for their country. I, as an individual, opposed the part which was being played because I held that those rights were not ours to give away but to defend. Our forefathers had sacrificed their all to secure those rights in order to safeguard their interests. What was the result, after giving away every protection we had in the building trade and everywhere else? Lord Weir wanted to get into the building industry in order that he might reduce that industry to the level of the engineering industry. One way or another, by economic pressure, they reduced the whole of the working-class to the same level.
When the Lord President of the Council was Prime Minister he visited Glasgow and saw the slums there. He was taken round by a friend of his whom I know also. The Lord President of the Council was so shocked that when he came back he called a Cabinet meeting and got the Government to give Scotland an extra on each house in order that they might get on with the building of houses. I could go on and on dealing with the question of houses, because I have spent nearly 40 years of my life trying to inculcate into my race the idea of a higher standard of housing in Scotland. What

1671
struck me when I came to England nearly 50 years ago was that the housing conditions of the working class on the average were much better than the housing conditions in Scotland, and I wished to introduce into Scotland the cottage homes of England. But our folk had it in their minds then—it is largely done away with now—that "What was good enough for my father is good enough for me, and will have to be good enough for my children." All that has gone by the board.
Hon. Members talk about private enterprise. The hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley), as an old master builder, advocated the provision of houses by private enterprise. Who are responsible for the shortage of houses in Scotland? Who are responsible for the one-apartment houses in our great industrial centres and in the country townships? The housing conditions of our people are a standing disgrace. If I were a member of the ruling class of the country, I should be ashamed of myself. One wonders how the British race have been able to attain to such heights under the awful conditions in which they have had to live, move and have their being. We have no idea to what heights that same race might have attained if we had had proper housing conditions. The hon. Member for South Battersea said that you had the tradesman going into a bigger house than the labourer. The labourer really needed a bigger house than the tradesman, and because the labourer had not sufficient wages to enable him to pay for the same kind of house as the tradesman, the labourer was being superseded by the tradesman in that respect. I never heard such a shilly-shally argument in my life. It never seemed to dawn upon the Tory reactionary mind that it is the rich who lend the money for building the houses. That is the problem. They are the thieves who are running away with the business. They have tried to start the hare that the hon. Member started—dividing, or trying to divide, the working classes, putting the tradesmen against the labourer and the labourer against the tradesman. They try to make out that the tradesman is getting an advantage over the poor fellow at the bottom, the man who has to carry him. He has to carry the hon. Member for South Battersea. The hon. Member has managed to retire as a result not of
1672
his own labour, because he could not do that, but because the workers, the heirs of a glorious inheritance, enable individuals to retire so that in their old age, with grey hairs and diminished strength, they may come to this House as Tory Members of Parliament.
This is a place for mm who are prepared to fight for what they believe to be true. What we on these benches believe to be true—and it is the root of the problem—is that because of the moneylender we are in our present difficulties. Ten shillings in every pound which is paid for rent goes to the moneylender in interest. If the bricklayer built the houses for nothing, it would not take two shillings a week off the rent. If we got the land free, dear as the land is in the West of Scotland, it would not take one shilling a week off the rent of the house, hut if we got the money free of interest it would have the rent of every house. There is a new spirit abroad in the land. The working classes have no money to lend. They lend their all, their labour, their bodies to those who employ them, in order that they may live. They are asking themselves this question, which is a murmur just now, but it is deep down: "What is this idea of the working class paying interest to men while we take care of their money?" Those who have money to invest do not want to keep it in great quantities in their houses. It would not be safe; the robber is abroad in the land. Therefore they say to themselves: "It will be safe if we invest it. It will be taken care of, and we shall get interest on it." The workers are beginning to view this question very seriously. They are asking themselves: "What is this fly game that is being played upon the workers, that men lend money, we are to take care of it, and then we have to pay interest on it. If it was not for such interest the rent of our houses would be halved." The workers are going to demand that if they are to take care of money that is invested they are going to be paid for taking care of it.
We are living in a peculiar age. The working classes, with all their drawbacks, were never so intelligent. They never took such an interest in politics as they are doing to-day. We of the Labour party have gone all over the country telling them that politics is a bread and butter

1673
question. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes.
"They toil not, neither do they spin. And yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
They will have to give an account of themselves. The working classes are saying that when they have to raise the wind they have to go to the pawnshop.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Motion before the House, which relates to housing conditions.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am very sorry, but I. can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if you bad been here the whole of the time, as I have been, you would have found that hon. Members were covering as wide a field as I am. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) covered the whole field. so much so that the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) drew my attention to it. If there is anything that has proved that private enterprise has utterly failed it is housing. After the War people were up against it. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had a Commission appointed to inquire into the housing question, and discovered that we required 2,500,000 houses. We supported the right hon. Gentleman at that time because, just as John Wheatley advocated and tried to put it into force, we saw that it was not a question of reconditioning the rural cottages or reconditioning the slums in the great industrial centres but of building new towns, new cities, taking the people away from the slums, leaving the landlords and factors there with their old houses; building new cities, towns and villages arid making a Britain that everyone would he proud of. There is not one hon. Member who would dare to take his friends into the great industrial centres to view the housing conditions; they would be ashamed to do so. You give better quarters to your racing horses. Your beagles, your dogs live under better conditions than the workers who have made Britain the mightiest Empire on which the sun ever shone.
6.24 p.m.
Sir J. WALKER SMITH: It is not my intention to pursue the hon. Member into the slums of Glasgow, but I am fully conscious of the deep sincerity with which he speaks on this matter of housing. It was my privilege to work very intensively for
1674
some years for the purpose of improving the housing conditions of Scotland, and it may be some small satisfaction to the hon. Member to know that I did much to introduce into Scotland that which he so devoutly desires—the cottage home of England. I know better than any man in this House the slum conditions of Glasgow and the housing conditions throughout Scotland which, I regret to say, are regrettable in the extreme.
There can be none in this House, and I should think very few outside, who would not subscribe to the general proposal of the Motion that there should be a speeding-up of the building of working-class houses, but I am not quite so sure about another part of the Motion which suggests that the Government should use their influence with local authorities for this benevolent purpose. I ant not at all sure that it would be possible for the Government, at least with the Ministry of Health being administered as it is at the present time, to pursue that benevolent purpose with the local authorities of this country, but inasmuch as the Motion does provide for the utilization of, "any other practicable means," I see something of considerable virtue in its terms. I think the Minister of Health, too, must have seen in that short phrase, "any other practicable means" there is a possibility of his doing something to meet the present housing administration in this country. He must have had something of that kind in mind when he gave notice to-day of the presentation of a Bill to withdraw housing subsidies. That, on the one hand, offers encouragement to private enterprise and, on the other hand, it reveals the hopes and the possibilities of doing something very much better for the speeding-up of housing in this country than is possible at the present time.
I should like to explain briefly the reasons for the diffidence I feel with regard to the Government bringing any influence to bear upon local authorities, even for a benevolent purpose. It is quite contrary to the present policy of the Minister of Health to do anything with local authorities or with anyone else for the purpose of speeding up the production of dwelling houses. Indeed, his policy is quite -ate reverse. His policy tends, and perhaps it is so intended, to retard that progress instead of speeding it up. It is common knowledge that he

1675
is pursuing a very vigorous campaign, which he terms a campaign for economy of capital expenditure amongst local authorities. He issued Circular 1222. The terms of that Circular are irreproachable, but the manner in which he is administering the affairs that are dealt with in the Circular are very far from being irreproachable. He is, I greatly fear, doing his best to deter local authorities from submitting to him proposals for capital expenditure involved in the building of workmen's houses. In those cases where local authorities, emboldened to consider the matter for themselves, and to take a proper perspective of the position, submit proposals for increased capital expenditure for the building of new houses, it is at that stage that he exercises a further deterrent by placing obstructions in the way and retarding progress. The influence of the Government with local authorities is the influence of the Minister of Health, and the influence of the Minister of Health is very great, and the prestige of his office is very high. His influence is derived from two main sources, (1) he is the central loaning authority in regard to housing, and (2) he is the central authority for the administration of the Housing Acts. In those two capacities he is able to exercise a profound influence upon local authorities, and that profound influence is exercised in the direction of retarding their housing activities.
I will give one instance, which was brought to my mind by a question on Thursday last by the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) with regard to certain proposals which have been submitted to the Minister of Health for the building of 100small houses by the local authority of Willesden. The scheme involved not only the building of these small houses but the construction of a few simple roads. The local authority of Willesden is a large and important semi-Metropolitan district. They have built thousands of houses, they have a very highly qualified technical staff, their experience has been very considerable and they know the requirements of the Ministry of Health. Notwithstanding, in respect of this small scheme they did, rightly and properly, before they made their formal submission, confer with the technical officers
1676
of the Ministry of Health to see whether or not their simple proposals would meet the requirements of the Minister of Health. Having taken these precautions they submitted their proposals to the Minister. One would have anticipated that they would have received an official reply certainly within a month at the outside, but they did not get any official sanction until six months had transpired. And then observe the reply of the Minister. He said that certain difficulties had been found. I agree. The difficulties had been found by the Minister by the aid of a microscope. He must have looked at the scheme with the intention of finding difficulties. He must have gone through that simple scheme with a toothcomb for the purpose of finding difficulties. I know that difficulties were found, but however trivial they may have been they could have been most easily overcome if it had been the purpose of the Minister to encourage, not discourage, the building of houses. The difficulties could have been overcome perfectly easily but they were taken as the excuse for a delay of over six months in granting the official approval.
I have seen schemes of many local authorities not so well prepared and with nothing like the same technical skill submitted to the Minister of Health and pasesd through all their stages within a week, but that was when the policy of the Minister was to encourage the building of houses. If the policy is the reverse, if the policy is one to discourage the building of houses, one can well understand long and serious delay. I fear that this House has been misled with regard to the Ministerial policy on housing. Quite recently in closing a Debate the Attorney-General made some observations with regard to the Ministerial policy, and his pronouncement was such as to seriously mislead the House. I will read what the learned Attorney-General said:
"So far as housing is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman appears not to have been aware that subsidised houses completed are practically as many as during the same period last year. So far as non-subsidised houses for March, 1932, are concerned, there were only 2,000 less than for March, 1931. If you take both subsidised and non-subsidised houses together, the total for the six months for Marcia, 1932, exceeded the corresponding period, when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Health, by no less than 6,000 houses.

1677
The fact is that the Government have made no attack upon the Social Services." —[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 25th October, 1932; eels. 948–9, Vol. 269.]
That is entirely wrong. The Government have made an attack upon the social services, and a very effective attack. I do not object to the figures with which the Attorney-General was briefed, and I cannot expect him to know precisely what the figures would leave the House to infer, but it is perfectly clear that the Attorney-General intended the House to gather that there had been no slowing down in the provision of houses; and figures were given to him to support that view. Those figures had the effect of throwing dust in the eyes of this House. Those were not the figures that should have been given. Though they were correct, they represented only half the truth and they did not reflect in any way whatever the policy of the present Minister of Health. Those particular houses, completed in that six monthly period, were built under approval given long before the Minister of Health commenced his active economy campaign; they were included in contracts made long before he commenced that campaign, and they were in course of erection long before. Nothing the Minister of Health could do, with the best or the worst intentions could have prevented those houses from being completed.
The figures do not reflect in any way the Ministerial policy on housing. If you want the figures which do reflect Ministerial policy you must get the figures which relate to the approvals which the Minister of Health has given during that six-monthly period; and if you take those figures and compare them with the number of houses which were provided in the corresponding period of the previous year you find that the policy of the Minister has been to reduce the rate of progress on housing by one-half. Those are the figures which should have been given; the other figures were singularly misleading.
I fear, too, that the Minister has never fully appreciated the great effect which his housing policy has upon unemployment in this country. I have heard him say that the provision of workmen's houses has a comparatively small effect on employment or unemployment in the building industry. There he is seriously
1678
misinformed. If he will refer to his statistical records he will find that in the year 1927 there were produced in this country small houses to the number of 273,000, and that for the purpose of building these 273,000 houses there were directly employed 300,000 people, direct labour. There were further employed, in ancillary works, an additional number of at least 300,000. In one year, therefore, it is possible to absorb in the building of these small houses 600,000 workmen. That is not a very negligible figure; indeed, it is a considerable number. The effect of the Minister's policy has been to create an enormous amount of unemployment in the building industry. The administration of housing during the last 12 or 14 years has been, on the whole, regrettable. It should be remembered that, prior to the War, all the houses in this country were provided by ordinary private enterprise without incurring one penny expenditure in rates or taxes.
A serious blow was struck at ordinary enterprise by the Finance Act, 1910, but I pass that by. Then housing conditions got into a very serious position during the prolonged period of the War, and after the War it became absolutely necessary, for political as well as for social purposes, that something should be done to resuscitate the building industry and provide houses fit for those demobilised soldiers who were returning to this country, houses fit for the heroes they were. The Housing Act, 1919, was based upon a very unsatisfactory financial policy, but, nevertheless, whatever the policy may have been, it provided for jettisoning entirely ordinary private enterprise upon which we had relied so very satisfactorily for many years in the past for the provision of houses. However, let that pass. It was thrown into the dustbin and full reliance was placed on local authorities. Added to the unsatisfactory financial policy, there was the further unsatisfactory administration of the Act by the Government in urging local authorities to flood the country with contracts for an enormous number of houses, vastly in excess of the possibilities of production. This had the immediate and inevitable effect of raising the cost of houses to such an enormous extent that every house built averaged over £1,000, and the mill-

1679
stone of an enormous debt will be hanging round our necks for the next 40 years.
Then within about seven years there have been eight or nine different Ministers of Health, and each of them has had a different kind of policy. There has never been any continuity of policy, but almost invariably the dice have been loaded against private enterprise and in favour of local authorities and municipal ownership, altering the system which had been so successful in providing houses before 1914. Notwithstanding all this, there is one fact to which I must call special attention. Notwithstanding the fact that the scales have been loaded against private enterprise all the way through the Housing Acts, this fact is outstanding, that without any subsidy whatever, without putting one penny on the rates or taxes, there have been built by private enterprise within the last 12 or 13 years about 800,000 houses. Does not that indicate that it is a virile and effective instrument of British enterprise if it has only half a chance to get down to its work That fact, coupled with the fact that private enterprise provided all the houses which were required—perhaps not of the best kind or design, but that was not the fault of private enterprise but of the regulations made by the Government which, by their extreme rigidity, prevented the ordinary speculator from doing anything else—shows that private enterprise is an effective instrument.
With these facts before us, it is evident that if one can restore private enterprise and prevent the scales from being loaded unfairly against it, it will solve this problem for us. In so doing it will take an enormous step towards the solution of the unemployment problem. I urge this upon the Minister. If he will take this course I am sure that he will do an enormously good service to the operators in the building industry; a service to those who desire houses and to those who have the housing of the people of this country near and dear to their hearts. He will also do a great service to the finances of the nation, and to industry generally.
6.44 p.m.
Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: The Debate has been rather fruitful in practical suggestions. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was
1680
perhaps more eloquent than suggestive, but with that possible exception every hon. Member has contributed something practical or what he thought was a practical contribution, towards the solution of this great problem. I should like to refer in particular to the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Member for Houghtonle-Spring (Colonel Chapman), who really did produce a practical plan —I do not know whether it will work—deserving the close attention of the Government, which would enable private enterprise, through a loan, to build and let houses, not of the smallest and cheapest sort, at 10s. a week. Houses at smaller rents than this present, perhaps, a more urgent problem, and a subsidy must inevitably continue.
I cannot help feeling some slight apprehension when we are faced with the production of a Rent Restriction Bill and the promise of a Housing Bill in the near future, both measures on the face of them designed, I fear, to raise rather than decrease rents. That may or may not be so, but that is the first impression made on many of our minds. The real problem of housing is the question of rent. It is no good producing houses in large quantities at prices which the working-classes cannot and will not pay. The problem to which the Government must, and I hope will, direct their attention, is the rapid provision of houses at the lowest possible rents. Many Members have stated already that never since the War has the time been so favorable as now. The rate of interest is low, the cost of building has fallen, we have had 14 or 15 years' experience of the various schemes, the design is probably better than ever it was, and the lay-out has improved in every respect. There never was so favorable a time as this for the initiation of a housing scheme, which ought to be designed finally to put an end to the shortage of houses from which we have been suffering for 20 years.
It may interest the House if I give one or two examples, not London examples but examples from the Provinces, of actual building schemes of three different characters which are in operation to-day. The first is a scheme designed to meet the needs, not of agricultural labourers exactly but of men who are engaged in work in an agricultural district, that is to say, rural industries, small pits, brick-making, quarry

1681
ing, and that kind of thing. The case which I have here is the case of a—it is rather a contradiction in terms—private public utility society operating under the subsidy and building houses, and very good houses, of different sizes. They are enabled to let two-bedroom, non-parlour-type houses at 6s. a week, and to pay 5 per cent. interest on their very small capital as well. It is a working concern. It costs the rates nothing. It provides an admirable house, and at a rent which can be paid by the type of man engaged in the industries of the locality. The second type is a house designed purely for the agricultural labourer. It is a municipal enterprise at Malton. The house is a three-bedloom, non-parlour house with a bath; it is wired for electric light, and is being produced to let at an inclusive rent 3s. 7d, a week, 2s. 7d, for rent and 1s. for the rates. I believe it will be let at 4s., and the 5d. will probably provide a profit to the municipality concerned.
The third is a case of which my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring knows much more than I do, although it is a scheme in operation in my constituency. My hon. Friend has for many years been a member of the corned of that town and was last year its Mayor, and much of the energy that has, been put into the scheme is due to him. There, houses built in blocks of two flats are being let. They are the two-bedroomed sort, very charming places fitted up with extremely good gadgets, electric coppers for washing, very nice bathrooms, an inside coal-cupboard, a cooking scullery and a living-room which is one of the best I have seen in any of these council houses, with a very large window, so that even on dark winter days there is always ample light. These flats are being let, according to the number of rooms, at rents varying from 4s. 7d. to 7s. 9d. a week.
Those are examples of the kind of building that is being carried out now, and. I cannot help thinking that if the Government will take this matter thoroughly in hand, with a scheme partly designed to stimulate private enterprise and partly designed to preserve the best features of the schemes now in operation, we should really get some very big practical results. There are one or two points about cost. I think it would be well to remember—here I defer to ex-
1682
perts, who know much more about it than I do—the wastage that occurs from redundance of road space. In many of the lay-outs of new housing estates there are too many roads that are main roads. In many cases the estates could be so designed as to give a main road with narrower cul-de-sac roads running off them, and not through roads, thus enormously reducing the cost of the housing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health bears all these things in mind, but they bear repetition.
Another point is perhaps more speculative, and many Members will hold varying views about it. To my mind what the working classes who are bady housed now want is not a luxurious dwelling, which they naturally cannot get, but something that is warm and cheap and decent and which does not necessarily conform to the very elaborate building regulations which are the product of the last quarter of a century. I quite agree that in normal times, with plenty of money and with the country in a state of prosperity, it is a good thing to tighten up the building regulations so as to secure progressively a higher standard of accommodation. But those times are not now. What is wanted now is cheap rents and accommodation that is warm and dry. I think that on the whole the person who is now slum lodged would be happier to find something new which is not altogether in accordance with the present regulations and which is cheap, rather than remain in the slum or he faced with the necessity of paying a much higher rent. For example, I am sure that in some of the big towns, where land is very expensive but where it is necessary that the workers should be housed near their work, some of the regulations that apply to big tenement houses could be relaxed with advantage. I cannot help feeling that the very unfortunate people on whose behalf Members of all parties are pleading to-day, the people who cannot get decent accommodation at any price and who are paying a most exorbitant price for vile accommodation, would prefer to have something new and something reasonable rather than have a lodging which is in full accord with the building regulations.
I would end on a note which is much more unpopular in this House. I would draw the attention of the Minister to

1683
the question of the cost of materials. If, as I hope, the Ministry of Health is going to initiate a big and imaginative programme of house building, it will have to keep a very careful eye on the cost of materials. Even now, when there is a slump in housing and when the vendors of housing materials, I imagine, are extremely anxious to get rid of their wares, even now—the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) gave a very bad instance the other day—when a housing scheme is undertaken and contracts are sent in, it is not unusual for the contractor to be suddenly faced with a rise, which in some cases may be even 40 per cent., in the price of certain building materials which are wholly within the control of a rent. In my opinion that is an indecency against which the Ministry should guard.
The need for cheap and decent houses is, perhaps, the prime need of this country—cheapness above all. If we are to be blackmailed by the rings which in many cases absolutely control the production of certain building material—the Light Castings Association is an instance —the cost of housing is going to rise, rents will be higher, and the whole object which the House has at heart, the provision of cheap and good and numerically adequate accommodation for the working classes, will be spoiled. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, on the first serious occasion when he addresses the House in his new capacity, will give sympathetic consideration to the numerous pleas addressed to him from all sides. If in future the Measures which his Department proposes do not meet with our approval, we shall of course fight him, in the sense that we shall suggest Amendments and press him as hard as we can. But we hope very much that that will not be necessary. The task of the National Government, so far fulfilled in many respects satisfactorily, it will carry on, not only in saving this country in a crisis, but in rebuilding the whole structure of our national life, of which housing is so very great a part.
6.59 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I am very grateful for the sympathy expressed by the hon. Member
1684
for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) for one who has to make a speech on a subject like this without being able to declare what is the intention of the Government. I have got to make houses without bricks, and bricks without straw—and not drop any either. Owing to the fact that the Bill is not yet in the hands of hon. Members, we are all precluded from discussing what really matters. It is just as onerous to hon. Members as it is to me. It looks as though the Mover of the Motion was getting a little restive and apprehensive as to what the Minister of Health was doing. The Minister of Health, not knowing what he was doing, has been working all the time on a separate programme and, unfortunately, he just won. Nevertheless, I think this Debate has not been wasted. We are very grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member. It is not the first time that he has charmed the House with the breadth of his views and his humanity. I can say, quite frankly, that the Government gladly accept the Motion submitted by him, but I presume he does not pledge us to any particular course or to continue any existing policy, but of that he will give us latitude to explore any and every avenue. If our object is the same—to secure the provision of an adequate supply of houses —with this explanation and reservation we can accept his Motion.
It will be for the convenience of the House if I deal in order with the points raised by every hon. Member. Every Member has made a contribution from his own particular point of view. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) ended his speech by asking whether the Government were pressing on with a policy to provide houses to let. One of the most essential parts of the whole programme of any Government, and particularly the National Government, will be to do nothing to prevent an adequate supply of houses to let at economic rents. The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Miss Pick-ford) made a very interesting speech and referred to the relation of rent to income. She pointed out that in her constituency it was sometimes as high as 50 per cent. That is a tragic fact that no one can deny; it is a dividend we have to pay for the great industrial revolution—a revolution which was without plan—and we are still paying for it every year in

1685
the shortage of houses and high rents. There is no answer to her except to say that there is no solution other than an adequate supply of cheap houses.
The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) made his contribution. He painted a picture of housing conditions in this country with not one word of which I disagree. This is a problem which all parties have been trying to face in a non-party spirit, and the more we can rescue housing policy from party politics the better. But there is one sword I want to break with him. He referred to the inactivity of the National Government. He said the Government could not escape its responsibility. It does not wish to escape its responsibility. Perhaps the House will allow me to snake a short survey of the housing conditions fur last year for which the National Government have been responsible. Since the War this country has witnessed the most unparalleled provision of houses that any country has witnessed in history. We are entitled to take credit for what successive Governments have done. There have been built in post-War years 1,901,000 houses, of which 1,101,000 have been assisted by subsidy, and 860,000 houses by private enterprise, unassisted. That is a record of which any country can be proud. One can assume that the bulk of the 1,101,000 houses, consisting mainly of building by local authorities, are the working-class house variety. In fact, the recent white paper, which deals with that statistics of rent restriction, pointed out that new houses to the extent of 700,000 had been built which came within the compounding limits of £13 ratcable value in the provinces and £20 here. That is 700,000 houses which are, broadly speaking, houses built for the working classes.
Now as to the inactivity of the present Government. This last year, taking the period down to September, 1932, 69,000 subsidised houses have been built; that compares with 62,000 in the previous year when the Labour Government were in office. I am not going to apologise for that. Taking the effort of private enterprise unassisted, I find that 133,000 houses have been built in each year and, therefore, taking the total, whereas during the year ended September, 1931, 195,000 houses were built both with subsidy and without, during the year the National Government have been in charge 202,000 houses have been built. We can take
1686
credit for that. Of course, as the hon. Member says, authorisations do enter into the matter, but what I am concerned with is actual achievement, and in this year of the National Government 202,000 houses have actually been built. That compares very favorably with any other year; in fact, it has been exceeded only twice since the War.
The hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley) made a very interesting contribution on the London problem. Speaking as he did with knowledge as the Chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee—and I was very encouraged to hear him say it—he said that it is now possible to build houses, and let houses outside London at between 10s. and 12s. per week. Coming from an hon. Member with such experience of building, that is a very encouraging statement. He said that we could not solve the problem unless we linked up with private enterprise. I will not quarrel with him on that, if he is not dealing with the slum problem. The hon. and gallant Member for Houghtonle-Spring (Colonel Chapman) put forward a very interesting suggestion that the Government should lend to the building societies at 3½ per cent., and that the building societies should lend to the builders, and so forth. I am precluded from making any statement as to the negotiations going on with the building societies, and I cannot go into the merits of that, but when he sees our proposals —perhaps to-morrow if the Bill is ready by that time—he will see that what he is aiming at has been substantially effected.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) struck a new note, and I hate to pass remarks on a member of my own group. He suggested that the dole might be used for subsidising employment. That is rather a matter for the Ministry of Labour, but, so far as I am concerned, I am dead against it, and I tremble to think what would be the state of the employed if the employer were subjected to the temptation of getting labour at half price. I shall talk on the matter with the hon. Member outside. If you make an exception with regard to houses you will have to consider it for every other industry in the land, and I do not like to contemplate the temptation to some farmer who is suddenly faced with a chance of getting agricultural labour at

1687
halt price. On the whole, I think that the problem would be aggravated. Still, we welcome any suggestion which shows the hon. Member is thinking out the problem.
Now as to rural housing, we had a contribution from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). I agree with him that more could be made of the 1926 Reconditioning Act. He has probably studied this problem for longer years than I have. I know the town problem more than the rural problem, and I should be most interested to discuss the whole question with him. If he can make any suggestion by which the machinery of that Act could be improved, the Government would be only too pleased to consider what could be done. Then we come to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I say "Thank God I am not responsible for Scotland." The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will answer the points made by him next week. Then we have the point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Sir J. Walker Smith). He drew a gloomy picture of the policy of the Government and compared authorisations with actual building. I do not accept his interpretation of what my Department is doing. We have directed our efforts upon the provision of a particular type of house of 760 square feet. There has not been a policy of retardation, but a policy of concentration, and I am prepared to argue that with him inside or outside the House.
The final contribution was that of the hon. Member for South Shields. It was a very helpful contribution and he made two points. One is that you must watch very carefully the effect of housing policy on prices and materials—I agree. The other point he made was that this was the most favorable time for house building. Now having answered the major points raised by every hon. Member, perhaps the House will allow me to develop the point made by the hon. Member for South Shields. It is perfectly true that this is a most favorable time for a great step forward, whether you consider the question of the provision of working-class houses, or whether you consider the problem of the attack on the slums. There are four new factors which have completely altered the whole housing outlook. They have been referred to by
1688
many Members this evening. The first is the provision of cheap money, owing to the sacrifices which this country endured last year. "A good deed shines in a naughty world," and the results of that sacrifice are reflected in every Department of His Majesty's Government. We in the Ministry of Health feel the blessing of the economies which were entered upon last autumn. Since October, money has been provided through the Public Works Loans Board at 4 per cent. and every 1 per cent. fall means a difference of 1s. 2d. a week on the rent of a £380 house.
The second new factor is the fall in the cost of building, and these two factors have meant the appearance of a third factor, namely, an economic rent, which we have not had in the post-War years up to now. Hon. Members will have read with interest the report of the Ray Committee in which it is pointed out that in June last the price of houses had fallen to £380 and that every fall of £60 in the cost meant one shilling off the rent. I have here the most recent figures which have come to the Ministry from 23 local authorities, including county boroughs, non-county boroughs and urban and rural district councils. In 23 cases the prices of the houses are under £300, exclusive of land, roads and sewers. If one allows about £60 under those heads, we get the following result. First, the prices of houses in respect of which applications have been made without land are £267, £293, £259, £270, £263 and so forth. If we take the price of the house at £260 and add £60 in respect of land, roads and sewers, we find that we have come down to £320: in other words, we have saved a shilling on the rent, even as compared with the position last July. That shows how the economies which we entered upon last year have operated and fructified.
The fourth factor which, I think, is the most important and which we shall have an opportunity of considering more fully before Christmas, when we hope to get the Second Reading of the Housing Bill, is the appearance of the investor in the small working-class house market. A housing expert told me only yesterday that as soon as you see the petal of the small investor coming up through the hard ground you can be sure that there is going to be a good supply of blossom. All the evidence that we have at the

1689
Ministry and all the evidence given by builders and by those who know is to the effect that there is going to be an unrivalled demand for investment in property of the working-class type—in what are called "weeklies." There is going to be a demand for "weeklies" even at a rate of interest of 4½ per cent. The housing problem was aggravated in the post-War years because there was no one, except the State or the building societies, to come in and provide what had been provided in pre-War days. In pre-War days the builder built his house with an overdraft from the bank, and he knew that within a month or two he could sell the house. The small investor came in, and he liked that type of security, but you only get that state of affairs when you have an economic rent.
In the last month or two, as I say, we see signs of the return of the small investor which is a proof that we have reached an economic rent and once that has happened then we are bound to review the whole question of subsidy. I tem not entitled to say what are the intentions of the Government—though everyone knows them—but I will propound this conundrum. If we continue the subsidy after an economic rent has been reached, we must justify ourselves to the taxpayers, and if we take off the subsidy we must justify ourselves to the housing experts. That is our conundrum. What we have decided to do, the House will know officially to-morrow. But I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government would not dream of reducing or withdrawing the subsidy, unless we were convinced that such a course is justified and that the reduction or withdrawal of the subsidy would in no way affect the provision of those working-class houses at economic rents which the whole House demands.
As to the relation of house building to employment, I, of course, accept the general statement that if you build a house you give employment and if you build more houses you give more employ-meat. But there is a limitation to that argument. If we study employment in the building industry we find that only about one-tenth is provided by the erection of small working-class houses. Only one-tenth of the employment in the industry is due to the building of small
1690
houses and nine-tenths is due to repairs, painting, commercial and industrial activities and larger houses. Therefore, even if one doubled the rate of house-building, as many hon. Members desire, it cannot be assumed that one would make a very great impression on the figures of unemployment. If any hon. Member studies the figures carefully, as I have done every day of the last month, I think he will, however reluctantly, come to that conclusion. In 1925 the number of houses built, subsidised and unsubsidised, was 159,000. In the present year, down to September, 202,000 houses have been built, as I have already explained. Yet in spite of the fact that we are building more houses than were built in 1925, we have about three and a-half times the amount of unemployment in the building industry. That fact alone proves to anybody who is open to conviction that you cannot solve the problem of unemployment in the building industry simply by building houses for the working classes. I wish you could, but the fact remains that the problem of unemployment in the building industry depends on the larger question of a revival of trade and commerce.
My right hon. Friend the Minister looks upon the slum problem as a separate problem. It is not to be considered solely as a housing problem. It is really a question of health, and no one can estimate what we are paying on that side of the ledger. It is an incalculable amount, in misery, ill-health and disease, and, therefore, whatever view we may take about the need of a subsidy for working-class houses, I think if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that private enterprise cannot tackle the slum problem, and that whether you believe in economy or not you must make special provision for dealing with that problem. What the provisions are which the Government have in mind I am not at liberty to state now, but I assure the House that my right hon. Friend has lived with the housing and slum clearance problems every hour for the last month, and has been engaged in negotiations with builders' federations and building societies and everybody who knows anything about it. He has decided on a policy and has get the endorsement of the Government for that policy. It is a policy which, in our view, will not make the problem of slum clearance more difficult

1691
but, on the contrary, will enable this country and this Government to press forward with the task of slum clearance as no other Government has been able to do.
We are confirmed in this belief because two factors are favorable to slum clearance—first the great fall in the cost of building and in the price of money, and, second, the fact that we have by the provision of nearly 2,000,000 houses since the War dealt with the shortage. Everybody who knows the slum problem knows that until you got through the thicket of the shortage you could not tackle the citadel itself. We have tackled the shortage by the provision of nearly 2,000,000 houses, and we are in a position now to tackle the slum problem itself. There is a third factor and in regard to this I must pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) because he has provided us in the 1930 Act with a simplified procedure on slum clearance and we shall use all our influence to get local authorities to tackle this problem.
Speaking, not as a Minister but as a private individual, I have always looked forward to the time when private enterprise could perform its true job of providing houses for the working classes, while the local authorities were left free to tackle this problem which private enterprise cannot tackle. I am extremely sanguine that the day will come, even if it does not come to-morrow, when my view will be realized. Without having referred to the intentions of the Government which, I repeat, are strictly honourable, I hope I have said enough to show that we are seized of the gravity of the problem. We are encouraged by this Debate to-day and by the great interest shown by all parties in this problem to think that when the Bill is presented and we are able to discuss these matters further, we shall have the good will and co-operation of the House in attempting during the next few years to solve these two major problems of our social life.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House urges the Government to use its influence with local authorities, and employ any other practicable means, to speed up the building of dwelling-houses, particularly for persons on low wages, and the clearance of slums; and it further
1692
records its opinion that such an effort would be the most useful and practical means of reducing the present excessive unemployment in the building and ancillary industries."

EMPIRE MIGRATION.
Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: I beg to move,
"That this House observes with great regret that migration overseas is much lower now than before the War, and urges His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to secure the co-operation of the Dominions in comprehensive schemes for migration within the Empire."
7.30 p.m.
It is nearly seven years since I brought forward a Motion urging the Government to take further steps for the development of Greater Britain. My object is the same to-day, but as times have changed and an evolution has taken place, I am asking the Government to endeavour to get the cooperation of the Dominions, or perhaps I might say the Governments of the other nations who owe allegiance to the King and form, with us, the British Commonwealth of Nations, which comprises the British Empire, a far-flung Empire, and as the House knows, an Empire for which the British Commonwealth of Nations would fight in case of war, and for whose welfare in peace time it must continue to have concern. The Empire was built up largely on account of trade and to prevent European countries from hoisting their flag here, there, and everywhere outside of Europe and then claiming those countries as their colonies and refusing to allow other Powers to trade there.
As the House well knows, England's Colonies for many years occupied the position of children, but to-day the larger Colonies have become Dominions and partners with Britain in the British Commonwealth of Nations. When Dominion status was granted, it covered the rights of self-government, self-defense, and self-support. As to the first, we have never interfered with any legitimate action of the Governments of the Colonies; as to the second, we have always been ready, and are ready, to defend any portion of the Empire in case of need; and as to the third, self-support, we have not, in my opinion, given that service which we might have given to the building up of those Colonies which have had to support themselves. Many

1693
of us were of the opinion that the Colonies should provide all the raw material and that we should pay for it in manufactured goods, but that day has gone. Ever since Ottawa we realize that we are working together as a nation, as an Empire, as a, people, that what affects one portion affects all, and that our merchants and our manufacturers and those who are living in the other parts of the Empire will have to work together for the general good of the Empire.
The result of our action was a lack of factories in the Colonies. Some factories existed, but they nearly always had men ready to work, and that was the only reason, as far as I can gather, why there was any objection raised at any time to the immigration from the Mother Country of men to settle on the land in the Colonies. I do not forget that in 1921, at the Conference of the Prime Ministers of the Empire, they called for closer co-operation with England and for the settlement in their countries of the men and women whom we could spare. I do not forget that in 1922 we passed an Act which called for the expenditure of considerable amounts of money on Empire settlement. I do not forget that the Colonies have gone ahead of us in wanting a closer union and have decided that they are going to remain peopled as far as possible with men of British blood. The things that we want would not prevent the immigration into those Colonies of men or women from any country that has been able to send out good colonists and can continue to do so. I want to urge that we call upon the Government to take this more as a business matter, to get the Colonies and ourselves to realize that, although at the present time we may not have a sufficient amount of money to pay for the raw materials from the Colonies, and while we must realize that trade is as bad as it can be, yet this is the very time for us to take hold of this work, not only of increasing the emigration to the Colonies, but of developing the Colonies, so that they may be able to handle those who emigrate to them.
The development of the Empire at the present moment would be merely getting ready for what is bound to come. It. would cost money, but it would be money well invested. It would help to build the railroads, the docks, the factories and houses, to clear the land, and to get
1694
places ready inside our present Colonies, or inside the Dominions, if they are willing, where our people could go and form new colonies within those Colonies, helping not only the Colonies but the Empire as a whole. If our Government would get into touch with the Governments of the other portions of the Empire which have shown their determination and their willingness to act with us, it would be a very useful and beneficial thing, not only to the Colonies, but to us here at home, to the Empire as a whole, and, I believe, to the world as a whole. I have heard it said, "Why should we go ahead and do it now?" I think the House will agree with me when I say that our race has been noted in the past not only for vision, but for enterprise, for courage, and for determination; and if we will only realize that we have got that in the race to-day, we can go ahead and take a vast property like the British Empire, that belongs to the race, develop it, and secure that in the future we shall have some place that will be prospering, in which we shall find a home not only for those who are in over-populated portions of the Empire, but for the coming generation.
Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I beg to second the Motion.
7.38 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. S. Benn) has moved the Motion in a speech which marks the long experience which he has had of the Dominions, a speech which one might almost describe as the prospectus of "British Commonwealth, Unlimited." He has urged that the Homeland and the Dominions should get together at this time, when migration is practically at a. standstill, and prepare for the time when it will begin again, a time that must come. There is another speech to which I might refer, the speech that sometimes one hears, but which I hope we shall not hear from the Front Bench this evening, the speech which says, "Migration is at a standstill. We have more people coming back than going out. We are doing our best to revive trade between this country and the Dominions. Let us wait for the revival of trade, and with that revival will come the revival of migration." The Secretary of State has done a great work at Ottawa. Ottawa was a great success and

1695
marked the beginning of a new era in the history of the Empire. In that work my right hon. Friend has played a large and honourable part, and this Motion is in the nature of an appeal to him to continue that work, to take thought for this great subject of migration, and to make preparations for its revival.
It is true that migration is at a standstill at the moment. None the less, that problem of migration remains the greatest Imperial problem that the Empire has to solve. It is a problem of congested cities and of vast vacant spaces, and those are great facts. We want to bring together those people in the congested cities and those great vacant spaces, and surely it is not beyond the capacity of the British race to solve that problem. The problem will remain with the British race for generations, and there is no time like the present to begin to solve it. It is not only the greatest of our Imperial problems; it is an urgent problem. Is it to be supposed that the world will continue to look for ever at those fertile vacant spaces in the British Empire? Does Australia realize that one-half of the population of the world lives on and around the South Pacific? Do the trade unions of Australia realize that, but for the British Navy, there would be no White Australia, that it would be Yellow Australia, that the yellow races would pour into it? Let them remember Manchuria in that connection. The philosophy of the trade unions of Australia seems to be, "We have a continent, and we have a high standard of living. Let us keep them, and after us the deluge." But the deluge for their children, unless they can fill their vacant spaces with people of the British stock, would be a yellow deluge.
Is Canada aware of the great pressure of the surplus populations of Central and Southern Europe, who are longing to go to the vacant spaces there? The problem is as to whether these great spaces are to he filled with people of our own race, and the sooner we set about comprehensive plans, in conjunction with the Dominions, to solve that problem, the better it will be for the future of the race. What are our home needs, and what are the needs of the Dominions? Our home needs are elbow room and markets, and the needs of the Dominions are settlers
1696
of the right type, capital, and markets. It is a well-known fact, which sometimes the Dominions seem not to realize, that new settlers create new markets, and that is a principle that we must go upon. The boom years in Canada in emigration were 1901 to 1913, and in those years 2,000,000 emigrants went into Canada, but at the same time £500,000,000 worth of British capital went into Canada. Settlers and capital go together. Since the War we have spent nearly £1,000,000,000 on doles, and we have not spent £10,000,000 on Empire development, Since the War we have invested £1,000,000,000 in foreign Government and municipal stocks, and we have lost most of it, and we have not made losses in similar investments in the British Empire.
I say with the utmost conviction that the best investment that this country could make would be the investment in considered settlement and development in the British Dominions. If we had sat down with the Dominions after the War and had thought out comprehensive schemes for the settlement and the development of the Empire, what would we not have saved in doles and relief and in every direction? We passed an Empire Settlement Act in 1922. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who knows more about this question and the British Empire than any Member of the House, was in charge of that Measure. It could have been of great use, but it has disappointed us. We expected much more from it. It proposed to put at the disposal of Empire settlement and development £3,000,000 a year, but not 10 per cent. of that money has been spent. We made other plans in a spasmodic and scrappy way, but they have to a large extent failed.
What are the present agencies for dealing with this great question? There are the voluntary societies, such as the Salvation Army, which has done great work. The Boy Scouts under Captain Sutton has migrated a large number of boys and young men with great success. Then there is the Society for Overseas Settlement of British Women, which has done good work, and Miss Irwin's society for the migration of Scottish women. Then there is the Young Mens' Christian Association under Mr. Bavin, who settled thousands of boys in the Dominions.

1697
Although the migration of boys has ceased, Mr. Bavin has initiated a plan in conjunction with the National Farmers' Union for settling boys on farms in this country. He has settled over 30 boys in this way, and it is a most promising plan. These are the chief of the voluntary agencies, but their machinery is getting rusty. We have to keep it in being. Beyond that there is the Overseas Settlement Department of the Dominions Office, and that, too, is in a state of coma. It had an advisory committee of able men and women, who met once a month. I believe that they have now ceased to meet. Their advice was excellent when it was given, but they had no power, and that Department was found to be ineffective in working the settlement Act.
I would suggest—and this suggestion is supported by some of those who have thought most deeply on the question—a board of about five members consisting of men of great business experience, who can give their whole time to the work— for it is a whole-time job—men of wide experience and knowledge of the Empire. They should have great powers and should set to work in conjunction, if possible, with their opposite numbers in the Dominions to make an Imperial survey to see in what direction settlement and development could best be undertaken. It should not merely be settlement on the land but industrial settlement, mining development and rail development. What could not be done, for instance, by building feeders to the two great Canadian lines? Directly they were built, settlements would spring up on each side. The result would be that the district would be developed and greatly improved. Markets would be created and employment provided. Moreover, from those districts would come an increasing demand for the products of this country, and therefore more employment here. One of the first duties of this board would be to take into consideration land settlement at home. The report of the Astor Sub-Committee of the Economic Advisory Council, which dealt with Empire migration, says:
"Land settlement in Great Britain is, in the long run, an essential condition of extensive migration for land settlement in the Dominions."
This sub-committee dealt with migration and expresses a strong opinion on the necessity for land settlement in this
1698
country. In conjunction with land settlement here, there would have to be the question of training. We have a certain number of training centers in this country; they are testing centers, and they will be of the greatest use in connection with land settlement in this country. The hoard would also have to consider the relation between the social services in this country and migration. The Maclean Report dealt with that question some years ago, and came to the conclusion that the effect of the social services upon migration then was not large. Since that report was issued four or five years ago, however, the effect on migration of the very large benefits conferred by the social services in this country has been increasing. People are less and less disposed to leave this country for the Dominions where no such system of social services exist. The board would have to consider, too, industrial, mining, railway and agricultural development, and in particular how development can be forwarded by chartered companies in each of the Dominions backed by guarantees in this country and the Dominions.
Mr. HANNON: Guarantees by whom?
Mr. SOMERVILLE: Guarantees by the Government. If these questions were attacked in a large and comprehensive spirit by a body of men of the right type, men of knowledge of the Empire, men of courage and vision, I believe that a, new wave of life and of hope would go through the Empire. It is said that sometimes the spirit of adventure is dead in this country. I do not believe it for a moment. While this spirit of enterprise and adventure may be latent, it is there in as full a measure as it has ever been in the history of the race. If this question is attacked, as I hope it will be, by the present Government, which has already done so much to rescue this country from the difficulties and despair in which it found itself, I believe that there will be great hope of a new movement in the history of the Empire.
7.55 p.m.
Captain GUEST: I have attended in the last ten years a series of Debates on this subject, and I have had the temerity on more than one occasion to try and take part. I am glad to see opposite to me this evening my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), because as far back as 1926, when we had a Debate on

1699
this subject, we came very nearly to general agreement. To-day, I was looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 25th March, 1926, and it encourages me to put forward an idea which I had on migration, but which at that time seemed extravagant in its outlook and did not meet with general support. The manner in which this Motion has been moved and seconded encourages me to join with the supporters of it with the intense desire to persuade, if one can, the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench really to do something. Debate after Debate takes place on this great question, and nothing is done. An instance of that was given by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) in the fact that as far back as 1922 a grant of £3,000,000 per annum was allocated by the Treasury for migration and less than 10 per cent. of it has been spent. There has been a series of Ministers in charge of this subject since that period. I blame them all, irrespective of party, for doing nothing to utilize that immense contribution which the State was prepared to make.
We meet at this particular period of our national history at a moment of the gravest possible crisis. What is happening in the economic situation is far beyond my skill to describe; perhaps it is only just within my skill to appreciate, but I read general statements delivered by public leaders, and I am struck immensely by two which were delivered in the last few weeks. I read that the Lord President of the Council lately found it necessary in making a speech to say that you have to find remedies for situations with which no one is familiar and for which there are no precedents. I listened only a few weeks ago to the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the world is going downhill. The tackling of the question of migration may not be the only solution for our economic problems, but I am not so certain that it is not at the bottom of our problems and that, if time and trouble were given to the subject, it would not prove to be one of the most important.
I will not delay the House for more than a few minutes, because the case has been made by the proposer and seconder of the Motion, but I want to add one or two views which they omitted to bring to the attention of the House. The two statements made by the Lord President
1700
of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition encourage me to make a proposal. We start from the position of affairs where it looks very much as if unemployment has become static. I think most students of the industrial difficulty are of the same opinion. Probably we have to look forward to a long period of static unemployment, and may be it is likely to be intensified rather than alleviated. Every year we live machinery develops and labour-saving devices increase, and it would appear to those of us who are merely onlookers that the unemployment roll is likely to remain the same, even if it does not grow bigger.
If that be so, I submit the simple statement that the country is over-populated; and, if that be true, the situation must be faced. The question how to get people back to the land of England is a problem of its own, but no country in the world except Great Britain—and in that I include the possibilities of the British Empire—has such an opportunity to spread its population and do good by so doing. The facts as they present themselves to me are alarming. First of all, we have the curious anomaly of immense luxury and terrible poverty side by side in our Empire. We have a condition of world affairs in which food is even being destroyed. We have a monetary situation under which money can be borrowed for short terms at 1 per cent. or a little more. All these things make me think that the mess-up or muddle into which the world has got, and into which, unfortunately, the British Empire has got, demand the most extraordinary and drastic performances. A drastic performance in relation to migration I propose to submit to the House. It may be answered at once that finance will stand in the way of any great scheme. I submit that that objection is completely brushed aside by the figures given us by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion. In the last 11 years we have spent something like £600,000,000 on the dole and £700,000,000 on unemployment relief, a great deal of which expenditure, I am sorry to say, has not been productive. The fact that in those 11 years we have lost, from the point of view of productive labour, round about £3,000,000,060, seems to suggest that money is not the difficulty. If any Government were to tackle a big scheme of

1701
migration I do not think the money would prove an obstacle.
That brings me to my attempt to make a contribution to the Debate. Some years ago, at a time when the unemployment figure was little more than 1,000,000, about the time of the difficulty in the coal trade, when there were evidences of complete villages being thrown out of employment, I submitted a plan to the House. My mind turned then to the question of migration not by driblets but en masse. By that I mean that instead of leaving it to the individual spirit of adventure of some young man or young woman who wanted to make a way for himself or herself in the world, an entire community should be moved, and not only moved but taken care of by the State, until the people were in a position of security and able to earn their livelihood and stand on their own feet. At that time I went very closely into what it would cost to move 1,000,000 people. I run the risk of my proposal being looked upon as a fairy tale, and as an impossible and impracticable suggestion; but it was not impracticable in the days of the War to move people by the million, to feed them by the million, and to organize them by the million. Surely there is no physical difficulty in the way of moving vast numbers of people and putting them safely and happily in any part of the world. We have the advantage of having friendly countries in which we might make them homes and bring them up. It may be said that they cannot make a fortune because times are bad in those parts of the world. My answer is that even though they could not make a lot of money in these times of depression, at least they could make a livelihood, and they would be occupying themselves intelligently and industriously and saving their morale, which is going down sadly.
There are other sides to the question with which I will not trouble the House to-night, but I would add to this movement, which I described previously as an expeditionary movement, almost in military terms, which were laughed at when I introduced it seven years ago. It is a quite simple undertaking. It does not mean an immense amount of skill to do what I am suggesting. There are plenty of suitable people who would go as officers and plenty of people who would go as rank and file. I am told that the
1702
Dominions would not want such a scheme; but I am told it in a very halfhearted way. The Dominions have never been asked. I am not suggesting that we should foist large populations upon unwilling Dominions, not at all. I am suggesting that we should point out to the Dominions the immense advantages which would accrue to them before 10 years have gone by. As previous speakers have said, every one of these settlers becomes a potential purchaser of both Dominion and home-produced goods. In my opinion, it is only a question of patiently making thoughtful arrangements with the executives of the Dominions, and carefully fostering the people who are sent out—staying with them till all the difficulties and obstacles of settlement have been overcome; and who will say that the same English folk who have by their adventurous spirit overcome obstacles in every part of the world will not overcome them in those parts of the Dominions which lend themselves to this class of settlement?
Taking up a remark which the hon. Member who seconded the Motion let fall, I would say, Is it too much to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions to send out what I would call reconnoitering patrols in this connection? It may be quite reasonable for him to say that my fairy tale presents difficulties from a political aspect, I do not think it does, but, even if it appears to be difficult, it is not difficult for him boldly to inform the House what he has done; and if not much has been done—and I think it is obvious that nothing has been done—reconnoitering patrols should be sent to every part of the British Empire with a view to ascertaining how much could be done if the project were undertaken on a big enough scale. The dribble system in migration has not only dried up, but the dribble is beginning to flow back in this direction. I do not think mass emigration would meet with the same difficulty. I think it would overcome the obstacles, because the most obvious truths underlie the value of the movement if it is successful. I would urge the Secretary of State for the Dominions to take notice of the remarks I have quoted from the Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition, both of whom say that these are times when one must break with

1703
precedent. In facing difficulties with which we are unfamiliar we must be afraid of no scheme; we must try to overcome them and do something for the unfortunate army of the unemployed.
8.9 p.m.
Lord APSLEY: The right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest) has made a contribution to this Debate which, I think, will be remembered in times to come. It is a constructive contribution, and has in it the seed of what may possibly be a great movement. I disagree with him on two points only. One is his statement that the Secretary of State for the Dominions has been doing nothing in this matter, or is not likely to do anything. I know too much about the right hon. Gentleman to expect him not to do anything. We need have no fear that the Government are not moving. The other point on which I do not agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend is that it is possible to send out people in large numbers to the Dominions and Colonies. We cannot send people anywhere. It is quite impossible. If we do so, we have to accept full responsibility for them, and that takes away their own initiative. They expect to be looked after, mothered and nursed, and have everything done for them, and they become of no earthly use to themselves, the Dominions or this country. We cannot send out under those conditions men and women who are British subjects and voters and responsible for themselves; they must stand on their own feet; but what we can do is to initiate a movement. It is quite possible that such a movement may be initiated, but it has got to spring from its own seed. Whether that seed may be sown by the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend, I do not know, but I am not sure that it may not.
I believe such a movement might spring from the youth of this country. It would have to be a movement similar to that of the young Communists in Russia, or the Nazis in Germany or the Fascists in Italy—it does not matter what you call them; it is only a difference in name, it is exactly the same movement. It is a movement of youth with the idea that service is the most important thing in this world, and that self is comparatively small. The effects of such movements in
1704
those countries, under conditions which it would have seemed impossible for them to overcome, have been truly amazing; and it is quite possible that when the youth of this country get tired of doing nothing very much, of going to dog races and smoking cigarettes, a movement of this nature may grow, and they may want to do something more both for themselves, their country and their families than they are doing to-day.
How that movement will be developed it is not for me to say. It is quite possible that it will be developed first at home. Possibly the training centers for youths started by the Ministry of Labour may be the beginning, the skeleton framework, into which such a movement may be fitted. Possibly they may seek agricultural work, seek to grow food for themselves and their families on allotments, or to assist in work on farms. But there is a great difficulty in that. In England a townsman does not fit easily into agricultural conditions. He has an intense dislike of cold and wet weather, and the systems which we employ in agriculture in England are not easily assimilated by a man who knows nothing of them and who has not been brought up on a farm. It is true that many of those in the towns are the sons of men who have come in from the country, and that occasionally they go back to the land, but the numbers who do so are few. I have had experience myself with farm lads who left the land to go into the mines. When a period of depression in the coal-mining industry has come along, they have been begged by their parents and employers to go back to work on the farms. They go back for a time, but they will not stay long, and return to the mines as soon as they have an opportunity. The fact of having worked for a few years under different conditions, and of not having to work in the rain and the cold, takes them back to the mines or to some town occupation as soon as the opportunity arises. I cannot place any great faith, except for purely training purposes, in a movement to get the surplus population in the towns back to the land in this country though I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member that there is a surplus population in the towns and in industry, and that there is likely to be for some time to come.
One thing which I expect has struck hon. Members in their constituencies is

1705
the genuine and deep fear among working-men, and especially the young ones, that machinery will gradually supersede manual labour. Whether times are prosperous or whether they are bad, every industry and every firm in this country is trying as hard as it can, while increasing production, if markets are good, to make that production easier and cheaper, and to save labour by getting new machinery to take the place of men. No matter where you go, there is this constant and continual movement. Deeply seated in the minds of the people in this country is the idea that this is a movement which is bound to overtake the numbers of people required to satisfy the labour demand no matter how prosperous we may be. There is therefore a very great foundation to the suggestion that we should seek some outlet for our surplus population. If we cannot find it on the land here, we may find it in South Africa or New Zealand, where the townsmen can get an open-air life in a warmer climate when they will not be discontented and disconcerted as they may be by the climatic conditions and the conditions of manual work in the old country. The suggestions of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) and the right lion. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth which have been essentially the same, are very sound.
This is not so much a time for development upon a large scale as for taking stock in order to see what we have accomplished already, and whether in the future it is to he done by a committee or by the Dominions Office itself, or by an even greater authority than that, an Imperial Committee in another place. It is time that we took stock of the situation, in order to see what developments can be undertaken as soon as it is possible once more to go ahead with overseas settlement. There is the matter of finance which must be thoroughly overhauled. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he could make a statement this evening showing the financial situation at present, in regard to the loans that were made for overseas settlement in Canada and, especially, in Australia. What is the amount of money that has actually been spent on those loans and how much is at present outstanding and at what rate of interest? Since those loans were made, starting in 1923, con-
1706
ditions have altered to a very great extent. Money is far cheaper than was considered possible at the time when the Overseas Settlement Act was passed. That difference might considerably alter the whole question of finance. If money could be got at 2 per cent. instead of at 5 per cent.—I can find no evidence as to what was the actual interest on the loans—it might be possible to overcome many of the difficulties that are pressing on the settlers overseas.
I have no knowledge of the difficulties in Canada, but I have many friends who have settled in Australia and who write to me regularly and give me a very good idea of what is going on at the present time. Their chief fear is this question of debt that is hanging over the head of every settler, that neither they, their sons or their grandsons will ever be able to wipe out the debt. I am aware that the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs would probably not say that it is likely that the Government will forgive the debt or will even make inquiries which would lead to any remission of it, and possibly it is just as well that a statement of that sort cannot be made. If a man knows that his debts are to be taken away from him, he will have less incentive to work, and then he may be disappointed. The way to do it is to see first whether it can be done, or to what extent relief can be given and then to do it without saying anything at all. As far as the share of the Dominion State Governments is concerned, it should be remembered that areas in Victoria, New South Wales, and Western Australia have been developed which would never otherwise have been developed at all, and the settlers will pay rates and taxes, and there will be new people coming in. That will mean extra revenue, apart from the revenue that Australia has obtained during the last few years, from the tariffs imposed on goods imported from this country. I am sure that the States would not be the losers by such settlement. Debt is a very real danger and difficulty, and in these hard times it has taken the heart away from many settlers who have been on the land; some of them have quit and gone back to the towns or have come back to England.
I should be glad if the Dominions Secretary could make a statement as to whether he has any information of the result of the committee of inquiry which

1707
was set up in regard to some of the settlers in Victoria. The settlers went out there in 1926. Some went out to Gippsland and some to the Mallee. The Gippsland farmers sent a great many complaints to this country that the land they were given was not fit to put anybody on. I understand that the land given to that group of settlers had formerly been lent to Australian ex-service men, but had been found unfit for them and was vacant. They did not know what to do with it, and so they put the British settlers on it. The land was entirely unfit for anybody to settle upon it and great hardship was caused. Many of the settlers were ruined, or were in very severe distress as a consequence. I am not sure about the situation of the other group, the Mallee farmers. Some of them who have written to me have not complained so much yet. I will admit that they had more bad luck than anybody could expect when they first went there. They had seven years of light crops in a dry season. When at last rains came, in a favorable time, they had three years of bumper crops; and then the price of corn suddenly dropped. It had been £5 per bag and it dropped to about £2. Now it is considerably below that. The situation is enough to defeat any settlement scheme.
There have been great troubles with this Mallee district. But I hope that the district is not going to be abandoned altogether. It happened before, when pioneers went out there. They took up the land but were defeated by drought, and they lost all their sheep. They were ruined, and the country was abandoned. The great irrigation dams running down from the hills are too valuable an asset to be entirely lost, and, even if bad corn prices, and the possible non-success of wheat operations there until the land has been better cultivated, and cultivated for a longer time, make its full development impossible for the moment, the country is even now quite a good sheep country, better than a great deal of land on which sheep are running at the present time, and a living can still be made there by settlers with sheep and a certain amount of mixed farming, and also by the introduction of that very valuable animal the goat.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever considered what might be
1708
done with goats. In the Dominions, and in this country as well, there is an increasing demand for tubercle-free milk. Every town and every local authority is continually insisting upon the desirability of a supply of milk perfectly free from tubercle, and it cannot be got; even "Grade A" milk is seldom to be had entirely free from tubercle, and I believe that will always be the case, because tubercle is conveyed mostly by rabbits, and, in a year when there are many rabbits, there is an increase of tubercle germs in the grass and from thence to the milk. There is no doubt about that whatever. However well the milk is graded, unless, it is pasteurised—when it becomes extremely indigestible—it cannot be guaranteed free from tubercle. On the other hand, goats never get tubercle, and their milk is far better for children than cows' milk. Children thrive on it, and put on weight. Goats are comparatively easy to keep, not only in this country, but especially in Australia. In the north of Australia, where they cannot keep cows at all, they keep large numbers of goats, and a great deal might be done towards improving the milk supply of large cities like Melbourne by running large herds of goats as well as sheep and other stock in the Mallee.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had any information about Western Australia. I have only had information myself from settlers actually living there, and it appears that the group settlements in the South-West are in a better condition than many of those in Victoria. That may be simply because they have established in Western Australia—I admit they spent a great deal of money in doing so—a dairying industry, which it had never had before, so they are assured of a market. At the same time, the settlers who went out there—they are all married people—are suffering from the heavy debt which is on their shoulders, a debt which was incurred purely because the scheme, excellent though it was in theory, was far too extravagant in practice.
We all spent too much money during and just after the War; all of us—individuals, Governments and nations—were far too extravagant. We did not realize the true value of money in those days. Western Australia was as bad as any, or even, perhaps, rather worse. Wages were extremely high, £4 a week being the

1709
minimum for anyone, no matter how small or how easy his job. The four-roomed houses—log cabins—in which the settlers lived cost a minimum of £400, for which amount an excellent cottage can be built in this country nowadays, with water, gas, and every other convenience. The land, too, was cleared at about double the price that a contractor could have quoted. All the money spent in that way has been laid to the account of the debt on the settler, and he has the awful thought in his mind that at some time or other he will have to pay it off. He cannot see his way to doing so. If that difficulty of the debt were removed from their minds, I believe that these group settlers in Western Australia would stand a good chance of making good and of living a healthy and happy life, with the certainty of good food, good education for their children, and property for themselves. They have, however, this burden of debt on their shoulders, and it would be a great relief if at some time or other it could he revised, so that they might have a definite chance of becoming solvent in time and of being in the position of owing money to nobody.
I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will consider these questions, which, I am sure, play a large part in the question of helping the settlers who are already in Australia. Once we have taken stock of our present position—and no better time could be found for doing BO than the present—and have made a bold inquiry into the possibilities of further development when the time comes, I believe we shall see a real development of British enterprise throughout the Empire, not only in the Dominions but in the Colonies, resulting in a certain market for our goods to them and for their goods to us. That will go a long way towards helping at any rate the Commonwealth of British Nations to be the first to recover from the world depression.
8.31 p.m.
Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not want to intervene in this Debate for more than a few minutes, be cause the subject has been so well brought out by previous speakers. I do not think there can be any doubt in the mind of anyone in this country as to the necessity for developing migration in the Empire. The arguments as to over-population and similar points are very clearly before us, and
1710
cannot be disputed. On the other hand, we must realize that the difficulties which exist to-day are almost insuperable for the moment, and we have to realize also that those difficulties are not merely at home, but confront the various Governments of the Dominions at the present time.
I had the opportunity some three years ago of going right through Canada and discussing with various provincial people the possibilities of developing migration in that country. I have a son settled out there, and am in close touch with the points in regard to that country, perhaps more so than with other countries, though I have had to do with those also. I found that, although a great deal was being said here about our failure to do certain things, there was a rather different story out there, and I think that we should do much better by not looking back and thinking that we have made mistakes. We may have made mistakes, but I do not think that they have been half as serious as people imagine, and the difficulties have been very great. As regards the question of the community settlement, I found that there was not only the same difficulty of getting people from the towns on to the land that there is in this country, but that, when our own people went out there, large numbers of them from the towns, they did not like being a mile or two away from their nearest neighbor, and the women of the family thought that they were going to be left in a very awkward position.
The great point that has been made to-night is that we must develop migration, that we must set our minds on working out with the Dominions some scheme by which it can be developed. Whether on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), or on other lines, or whether the Minister himself has anything in his mind, something, surely, should be done at the present moment in the direction of studying how migration can be developed later on. For one thing, the Dominions themselves have to be educated as to the advantages which will accrue to them, because, unless we have them as co-partners equally willing with ourselves, we shall not succeed in any scheme. On the other hand, we have to educate our own people in a very different way from that in which they have been educated in the past, because

1711
the circumstances have changed so much. Therefore, this question calls for very close study, not only in connection with preparatory work by the Government, but among the various societies and others who take a deep interest in these matters in this country.
If we are to educate our people, we must set to work more systematically and more unanimously with the various societies which deal with these matters. I am chairman and vice-president of one of the leading Empire societies. There are 20 or 25 of them with more or less the same objects in view. Why on earth cannot they be brought together? Why cannot we combine, instead of being divided, to bring all our common strength to bear on what is of immense value to the Empire? The Imperial Institute stands out in a peculiar way as an educational establishment for the whole Empire. I am not referring to that, but to those societies, active, earnest, and full of people who want the very best for the Empire. They are devoting themselves heart and soul to it, but how infinitely more could they do if they combined and worked as one. We have succeeded to this extent that we have all the voluntary emigration societies under one umbrella, but that is all.
Let us consider whether we cannot get them together and then work with one common object in view, which certainly should be to educate our people as to the great advantages that may be obtained by getting the right people and not blindly sending people away because they are not wanted here. That is cruel, and it is not the right motive to-day. In the old days, when we had not the benefits that we can get to-day, the force of necessity drove people. It is not that which will take people away to-day, but the sense that they have an open field and an opportunity that they have not got here with advantages for themselves and their children in certain directions which they can develop. It must be a mutual development and a mutual education between ourselves and the Dominions to bring about the desired result. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may have something to say on the point that I mentioned just now. I am confident that his contribution to the Debate will be very valuable. I am sure we owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the
1712
Member for the Park Division (Sir A. Benn) for having brought forward a Motion on a matter of general interest to all concerned, not only in this country but throughout the Empire.
8.38 p.m.
Mr. LUNN: We are discussing a Motion which has been brought forward by two Empire enthusiasts. Those of us who listened to the speech of the Mover had no doubt as to his Imperial sentiments. He did not speak long, but he gave us full measure in the short time that he addressed the House. I have long known the Seconder as one of the most interested Members in Empire migration. When he suggests that we should develop the Dominions, I want to ask where the money is to come from. Is it with the British taxpayers' money that we are to develop the Dominions, or see that they are developed as they ought to be, and as I believe some day they will be more than they are today? I think he put his finger on the spot when he said our people are more and more reluctant to leave this country and to go overseas, where there are no social services whatever. Not only are there no social services, but there is a vast amount of unemployment. I have heard before the scheme of the Mover for the mass settlement of 250,000 people in Australia. I think that is a matter that should be considered at the next Imperial Conference, though I have not heard many people who will give any support to the idea of mass migration. The Noble Lord was very critical of such a proposal being put into operation.
I think we can say that this is a pious resolution, and it is shown by the attendance of Members how far it is possible to do anything at present in the way of migration. I regret as much as anyone that economic circumstances in the Dominions and here are such that there is no migration and no possibility of migration at present. We have 3,000,000 unemployed and the number is increasing, as we see by the figures published this week. They are ready to go to work anywhere if work can be offered them and if they can be guaranteed a livelihood. There has never been any difficulty in getting our people to go overseas when there were known opportunities, and, if there were known opportunities of a livelihood to-day, they would be equally ready to go.

1713
I was sent a copy of the Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire by the Empire Parliamentary Association yesterday, and I noticed that there had been discussions in some of the Dominions on their present economic position during recent months. In Canada not long ago the Minister of Labour said that the Dominion Government had provided 150,000,000 dollars for the provincial Governments and municipalities to deal with unemployment and that they had provided work for 741,465 individuals. In such conditions there is not much hope, and not much common sense in desiring to send more people to Canada. In the Australian Dominion Parliament there o. as a discussion on the Budget, and the Minister said that the Government had decided, in conjunction with Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, to raise £3,000,000 for winter relief in connection with unemployment. If I go to the only other Dominion where we can expect migration to be put into force, I see also a report of a discussion in which there were rather strong statements made with regard to unemployment in New Zealand. A Labour Member of the New Zealand Parliament made use of these words:
"If the Government pursued its policy of forcing men, under the lash of starvation, to go into relief work camps against their will, they would create nests of discontent from one end of the country to the other."
I am giving, from a book which many of us get as members of the Empire Parliamentary Association, quotations of what has taken place in Dominion Parliaments as to their economic position which make it look ridiculous that we should be urging the Government to go in for comprehensive schemes of migration at this moment. Then there is another matter. The economy policy of the present Government makes the second part of the Motion meaningless. If we had had any money which could be used, it would have been better if, at this moment, we were seeking to settle our own people upon land in our own country and were leaving this subject to be dealt with when conditions had improved. I readily admit that it is the men, women and children who have gone horn this country who have populated and developed our Dominions, as far as they are developed at the present time. Even to-day no one would say that the
1714
Overseas Dominions, comprising 7,500,000 square miles of land, with a white population of less than 30,000,000, are overpopulated and that they are even capable of developing to the full all the natural resources which they possess. They are suffering economically and financially, and there is no possibility in the near future of anything being done to encourage our people to migrate to any of them.
I ask the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to tell the House to-night the condition of the many thousands of people who went from this country to Australia and whose terrible plight not long ago was brought to the attention of this House. Are they in the same condition to-day? Has there been an improvement, and what are the prospects for those people, with regard to whose economic condition petitions were presented to us some time ago. I associate myself with the Noble Lord on the question of the Victoria-n settlers. When those people went out to Australia nearly all of thorn took a fair amount of capital. I remember one man coming tome who had given up a good position in Birmingham and had gone out with between £3,000 and £4,000 and had lost every penny of it. But he was not concerned about himself. He had wasted four or five years of his boy's life, and all he was concerned about was that something should be done for his boy who had then reached 21 years of age and saw no hope of getting employment. As a result of efforts in this country a Royal Commission was set up to go into this question. It has been sitting for a very long time. It has not completed its work yet, I believe, and we ought to know when it will complete its work, and when we may expect to see a report of what has been done. There is another matter which a Debate such as this gives an opportunity for ventilating, and it is the fact that large numbers of our people have been deported from Canada. They have had to make themselves into semi-criminals almost in order to secure an opportunity to come back to this country. The right hon. Gentleman might give us up-to-date figures of the numbers who have been deported from Canada, and tell us whether that policy is being continued.
I would say to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion that there have been

1715
many schemes for migration arranged between the Government in the United Kingdom and the Dominion Governments. Most of them have gone by the board. Under the Empire Settlement Act, I have seen a good number of those schemes, and I have seen them work. We had a £2 ocean rate for agricultural workers, and then we had a £10 rate for any who desired to settle in Canada, and large numbers of people migrated. There have been land settlement schemes in Australia and New Zealand, but to-day, I think I am safe in saying, that there is no scheme in active operation, and there are more people returning to this country than are leaving its shores for the Dominions.
I have supported migration, and I still support it to-day under good conditions; there is no question about that. While I realize, as everybody must realize, that it is no cure for unemployment, and cannot be regarded as a cure for unemployment, I believe that if conditions were better in the Dominions our people would go to the Dominions. But the fact is that the depression is not only in our own country but is world wide. In the 10 years from 1904 to 1913 there migrated from this country to the Dominions 2,168,000 people, and to the United States of America and other foreign countries 1,427,000, a total of 3,595,000. That was before there were any Government regulations or any Empire Settlement Act. People went under those conditions and braved the storm, because they thought that across the seas there would be better opportunities than they could see in this country. We had an outward balance of 1,932,831 people who left our shores in those 10 years. In the following 10 years, while the number dropped by 1,000,000 in respect of the United States of America, the outward balance was 1,132,000. If we take the year 1913 and compare it with the year ended March, 1931, the outward migration from the United Kingdom was 241,997 persons in 1913 against 7,414 last year. Although there were more than 7,000 who left these shores, over a 1,000 more returned from the Dominions than went to the Dominions.
There is one thing which has not been said in this Debate which really ought to be kept in mind, and that is that migration is almost at its highest when conditions are good. Our people who
1716
would migrate and who would desire to migrate—and the spirit of adventure is not dead in our people even though conditions are bad to-day—would rather go with money of their own, or at least with some money of their own, in their pockets knowing that when they arrived overseas they would have something upon which they could rely instead of having to be dependent upon what might be charity. I should like to see—as we all would—a return to conditions which would make it possible for our people to make use of the spirit which is in them to-day and has always been in them.
I should like to put two questions to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Am I right in saying that the United States Government offered to pay the passages of any aliens who desired to leave the United States and return to their own countries? Has he any information upon that matter, and, if so, what are the number who have returned as a result of that offer? I have also mentioned the question of the deportees, on which I should like information. We have a right to consider the welfare of our people when we encourage them to migrate. We have no right to cut them off from our shores as if we had no responsibility for them. There is no opportunity for them to-day to go out and find work and a livelihood overseas. There will be plenty of time to consider whether the Empire Settlement Act, which was passed in 1922 for a period of 15 years and has therefore another five years to run, should continue, as I hope it will, when possibly the conditions will have improved; but there is no reason for a revision at the present time.
I believe that the Empire settlement idea has worked. In nine years we have settled more than 400,000 people in the Dominions under more favorable conditions than ever we knew before or were ever known to those who went overseas. We have been able to arrange for and see to their welfare. Whilst I admit that the numbers of voluntary societies in existence to-day is too many, it is certain that they have rendered invaluable service in welfare work and in the aftercare of many people who have gone overseas. I do not believe that any case has been made out for altering the fifty-fifty basis as laid down in the Empire Settlement Act. It will be soon enough to con-

1717
rider whether that should be done when the opportunity comes about and there is a change in the economic condition of the people in the Dominions and this country. We have never had to compel anyone to migrate. We have never had any compulsion in this country for migration, and I hope there never will be compulsion, or any semblance of it, for our people to go overseas.
When this matter is considered again there is one thing that will demand to be considered more seriously than hitherto, and that is that in any scheme of overseas settlement we shall emphasise the necessity—when there is an opportunity of getting a livelihood—of family migration, which is the best form of migration to encourage. With regard to the organizations for migration in this country I think they ought to be carefully gone into, overhauled and revised. There is room for considerable change. One thing that has told against migration has been the emphasis of Ministry of Labour interference. Whenever we deal with the subject again or revise the Empire Settlement Act there ought to be a separate department dealing with migration, and Ministry of Labour influence ought to be removed as far as possible, although its machinery in some respects might be used to advantage. The House is ready to give time to a ventilation of any subject, but I am afraid that no one can see a useful purpose as a result of this Debate so far as migration taking place in the immediate future is concerned.
There is one thing that the Government missed at Ottawa. I understand that they did not discuss migration. I have never heard it mentioned that migration in any shape or form was discussed at the Ottawa Conference. The distressed conditions of many thousands of people in Australia, the case of the Victorian settlers and the deportees from Canada ought to have been discussed when all the Governments were present. I should like some information upon these matters and if we do get information I shall agree that the Debate and our time have not been wasted. I can support the Resolution, although I know that at the moment nothing is likely to be done, because I favour Empire co-operation, and I hope there will be more of it in the future. When there is an economic
1718
change for the better I am sure that will he one of the questions that will have to be taken in hand by the Government. Meanwhile, if we have any money to spare our first duty is to settle the people in this country upon our land at home.
9.4 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I do not think that any apology is needed on the part of the Mover or Seconder of the Motion for the time taken in discussing a subject the importance of which has been demonstrated by the Debate. I frankly admit that there has been no greater Imperialist than my hon. Friend the Member for the Rothwell Division (Mr. Lunn). I say to the House and the country that on all Imperial issues, and especially that of migration, no Member of this House and no Minister ever devoted himself more wholeheartedly to the cause than my hon. Friend. Being such an enthusiastic supporter, like myself, he was in terrible difficulties this evening in saying one word that could be construed as opposition to the Motion. That was his difficulty throughout the whole of his speech, but when I remind him of the exact terms of the Motion I think there will be general agreement that hon. Members in all parts of the House can not only sympathize with it but approve of it. If the Motion said that the Government should immediately enter upon a scheme to send hundreds of thousands of people to any of the Dominions it would not be only in this House that there would be opposition; there would be opposition in every Dominion. But that is not the Motion. It says:
"That this House observes with great regret that migration overseas is much lower now than before the War."
There can be no hon. Member who does not deplore that fact. We are not discussing why migration is going down or whether it is due to our fiscal system, or to any other system. The figures given by the hon. Member are the most eloquent testimony to the fact that, while we deplore our own unemployment figures at home, we cannot minimize or ignore the tremendous influence of migration on those figures. Let me give the House some figures. I take the years 1923 and 1931. In 1923 there left these shores

1719
for Canada, 75,866 people. They were not forced to go; they were people who went of their own free will. They were the people who are the back bone of the Empire, those who are always prepared to take a risk, to take a plunge, and who do not want to be spoonfed all the time. I agree with my hon. Friend that that spirit is not lost to-day. When he was in charge of this particular branch of work there were never fewer on our books than 50,000 people who were ready and anxious to go. I want to see that spirit encouraged. In 1923 there left these shores for Canada 75,866 people, but last year, instead of that number going to Canada, the figures were against us, and 10,244 left Canada for this country. In 1923, 31,500 people left these shores for Australia, but last year—I am taking the net figure in each case—7,288 returned from Australia to this country. In 1923, 7,188 people left this country for New Zealand, and last year 1,357 returned from New Zealand to this country.
There is a moral to be drawn from these figures. I hope that we shall never associate migration with our own unemployment problem; that is to say, in the sense of conveying to the Dominions that we are only concerned in sending to them people we do not want. Nothing is more fatal or more damaging, nothing does us more harm in the Dominions, than to associate migration with our awn unemployed, but while these figures demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt the relation of our own unemployment figures with migration, we have never said, and I desire to emphasise it on behalf of the Government, that when dealing with the problem of migration we intend to deal with it as part of our unemployment problem. My hon. Friend will find in these figures the answer to the question of the deportees.
While there are complaints, considerable complaints, as far as Australia and Canada are concerned, about what is called unfair and preferential treatment as between migrants who are unemployed and their own native-born unemployed, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that neither in regard to Canada or Australia have I any evidence to-day that there is preferential treatment of any sort or kind. Having regard to the complaints that have been made, it is only fair that
1720
I should give the House that information. My hon. Friend knows very well that he received hundreds of letters, and it was always a question of investigating the facts. It is not fair for a Minister to accept any statement made by anybody which indicts a Dominion without close investigation. Nothing is mere cruel to one of the Dominions than to say that in dealing with their unemployed they gave one treatment to the native-born unemployed and singled out those who were migrants for different treatment. I can assure the House on this point, having studied the latest information, that I have no evidence of any preferential treatment. I shall always take up any question which is brought to my notice of any preferential treatment.
Another problem raised, quite legitimately, and which has to be faced when you are dealing with the question of migration, is what is called the different social services in different Dominions. In 1928, when I was in Canada, I met a number of people who were mates of mine in the old days, and a number of them put this problem to me. They said: "We are here, and we have sisters here. They are married, and we are married. Our parents at home have their old age pension, and we should like them to be with us in their old age to enjoy the comfort of association with their own family. But we cannot afford to keep them, and, indeed, the old people are a bit independent. Cannot something be done to deal with that kind of problem? "It is common knowledge that I at once acquiesced, on behalf of the Government, and made arrangements that the veterans of industry, men and women, who went to Canada or Australia or any of the Dominions or Colonies, in order to join their own families, should not be deprived of their old age pensions.
That brings me to another side of the migration problem. No one knows better than the Mover and Seconder of the Motion that we do not intend to send, and their intention was not that we should send, our unemployed to Canada or Australia or New Zealand or South Africa, all of which are unfortunately dealing with the same unemployment problem as we have. Nothing would be more ridiculous than to send such people there at the present time. But having

1721
regard to the importance of the question, having regard to the large numbers of our own people in this country who would desire, given a fair chance, to go to the Dominions, the present time provides the best opportunity, not of agreeing to a scheme, but of having the machinery ready so that when the time comes we can not only tackle the problem but profit by our own past experience. In that connection, I have no hesitation in saying, speaking for myself, that I wholeheartedly favour family migration as against any other. When you send a family, father and mother and children, you not only keep the home spirit, the family traditions and associations alive, but the incentive, both for father and mother and children, to win success, is always there, and in Canada or elsewhere it is just as potent as in this country.
Now that we are in this unfortunate position we will go very closely into the whole question of the future of all these migration schemes. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. Shirley Benn) that I do not think that all the investigations that have taken place or that could take place would justify the mass migration that he had in mind. The matter has been closely investigated. Let me deal for a moment with the suggestion that a sum of £3,000,000 per annum was sanctioned and that only 10 per cent. of it has been spent. The facts are that we were committed to a maximum of £3,000,000 per annum, provided the other 50 per cent., or whatever the amount, was supplied by one of the Dominions. It is quite true that so far not 10 per cent. has been spent, but I would remind the House that that is not our fault.
That brings me to another aspect of my hon. Friend's question. If we want to make a success of any migration scheme, two things must be kept in mind. One is the voluntary spirit, the spirit of adventure, the spirit of the man who says: "I am going to do my bit and take my risk." That is a primary asset. The other is that the Dominion itself must be ready to welcome and help the person or persons who migrate. Both these aspects of the question must be kept in mind because they are fundamental to any successful scheme. I was asked about the inquiry regarding the Victorian Land Settlement Scheme. I deplore the delay
1722
in this particular matter. I am told that the Commission concluded its sittings on 2nd December. A report is being prepared, but as the evidence covered 10,000 pages the House will understand the reason for the delay in issuing the report. The settlers' counsel took 16 days to address the jury, and some allowance must therefore be made for the time that is required in the preparation of the report.
Another speaker drew attention to the large number of societies, all doing useful work but overlapping in their activities. The hon. Member thought there were 20 such societies. Exclusive of the Imperial Institute, which is in a separate category, I believe there are 33 of these societies, each with a separate organization, many of them with separate offices, many of them canvassing in all the Dominions and Colonies and here. The result is that a large number of people not only get mixed up and confused, but get fed up with all the overlapping. I do not want to say a word that would be construed as reflecting in the least upon the Imperial activity or sentiment and loyalty of these societies, but I do say that a real effort ought to be made to bring these 33 bodies together. I believe they could do more effective and useful work under one machine than under 33. I most heartily agree with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.
I congratulate the Mover of this Motion on having availed himself of a Private Members' day to call the attention of the House and the country to an important and vital problem affecting the Empire and this country. My hon. Friend said that there was no record of migration having been discussed at Ottawa. No one knows better than the Members of this House that if we had started to discuss unemployment in this country, the only useful contribution that could have been made in the end would have been our ability to say: "There will be more trade in this country as a result of your effort." That is fundamental and therefore when we met at Ottawa we sat down for a month and hammered out schemes—I am not arguing now whether they were good or bad, for that is not my point—conscientiously believing, as the Dominions did, that the result of our negotiations would improve their trade, would add to their prosperity, and would

1723
give them a better chance of consuming our goods. Common sense told us that, if that were true and if that were the result, if we succeeded in improving their position, that in itself would be the best contribution we could make to the reopening of the question of migration, because, whatever scheme you discuss and whatever arguments there may be on any particular scheme, you always come back to this fundamental fact, that unless the Dominions are prosperous you cannot hope for them to take any of your people.
Therefore, I conclude by congratulating the Mover on having secured second place in the Ballot. I hope I have given sufficient indication that I am not only sympathetic, but that the Government are sympathetic to the objects of this Motion. I feel I express the sentiments of the whole House and of every party when I say that we hope the day is not far distant when the Dominions will be able to welcome to their shores large masses of our people who are anxious to go, and, above all, that we will take advantage of the present opportunity, so that when the time comes to revive the question of migration we shall profit by our mistakes in the past, and, we hope, have better schemes.
9.28 p.m.
Major Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I have listened to the Debate, and I should like to add my congratulations to the Mover for having utilized the fortune which came to him in the ballot to introduce this vital and most important topic. I am a little disappointed, on the whole, that the Dominions Secretary could not go further than to tell us that he was in deep and real sympathy with the object of the Motion. I feel certain we are all sure of that. We know his sympathy and interests in the Dominions and his Imperial ideals, but we want something more than that. At the present moment no one suggests that migration should be encouraged, because there is great unemployment in the Dominions, as at home, but surety this is the time for making plans and preparations, and one would have liked the right hon. Gentleman to say, if it were possible, that he was definitely engaged day by day and week by week in thrashing out schemes with representatives of the Dominions which would be ready for operation im-
1724
mediately times improved and the Dominions again became prosperous.
I was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about family settlement. I have been very much interested in the group family settlement in Western Australia, and the House may be interested to know what has been the result of the experiment of sending a number of families from the industrial centre of Leeds—not from a country district, but from an industrial centre—into the Bush in Western Australia under the group family settlement scheme some eight years ago. Of those families, about half are still there, and but for the fall in agricultural prices they would be now decidedly prosperous. The fall in prices has hit them, as it has every agriculturist in the world, but they are now well-established on their blocks and in normal times would be doing well. It is an extraordinarily interesting experiment, because it is frequently said that you cannot take a man and his family who have been accustomed to all the allurements of the town and put them into a place like Western Australia, with its wild wastes and bush and so on, and expect them to succeed. The experiment carried out by the citizens of Leeds has succeeded and has proved that it is possible to send men and their families, if they are properly selected, and that they will make a success if their character is such as can stand the hardships. It is essential, if that is done, that these families should be grouped. It is no good expecting an isolated family to make good under such circumstances, but if there are grouped a number of families from the same district at home, going to the same locality in the Dominions, then I believe that, being able daily to see their friends and talk in their own language—which is very important in the case of Yorkshiremen—they have every chance of success.
But, of course, there are hardships and difficulties in Western Australia. The Prime Minister, Sir James Mitchell, who was exceedingly anxious to make a success of the scheme, went ahead far too quickly. Far too many families were admitted before they were ready for them, and the result was that a great many families were actually located on ground which, after they had spent a long time in clearing it with great labour,

1725
was found to be utterly unsuitable for agriculture. The result was that the Government of Western Australia, with, I am afraid, some of the money that we had supplied from home, had to move those people to fresh blocks in order that they might make good. That was an unfortunate circumstance. They also had great difficulty in finding enough foremen, and grievances occurred because the foremen were not of the right type.
Among the settlers in the neighborhood of Northcliffe under the family group scheme there is a desire that there should be a representative of the Dominions Office at home on the board of control for the settlers. A matter of this sort wants very carefully handling, but whether it is possible for the Dominions Office to appoint someone to sit on the board of control in connection with group family settlement is a matter which is worthy of consideration. As far as the provision of the money is concerned, inasmuch as we have provided a considerable part of the cost of settlement, I think there is some claim that we should be represented on the board of control. I want to emphasise, in conclusion, that if family settlements are to succeed—and I believe they will succeed when times improve—they must be families who are grouped. They must, if possible, be connected with the same area at home, and there must be constant contact between a family and groups in the bush and the location at home from which they come. Contact is a great thing, especially when they first get there, and everything is strange and unusual.
Something has been said to-night about the figures of emigration and immigration since the War. I do not think that, even now, it. is realized what an immense effect those figures had on employment in this country. If emigration and immigration had continued since 1913 on the same basis and at the same rate as previously, there would be 3,500,000 fewer people in this country than there are to day. In other words, when we take account of all those who have come in and all who have gone out, if people had continued to go out as they did before the War to the various parts of the Empire, there would be 3,500,000 fewer people in this country to-day. That is a
1726
startling fact and is of sonic interest and encouragement to those who may be disposed to regard the difficulties of employment as almost insuperable. We are to-day trying to employ 3,500,000 people who, in normal conditions, such as existed before the War, would now be populating the different parts of the Empire. We have succeeded after much labour in balancing our Budget. Having achieved a. balance in our money matters, surely we ought to turn to the problem of balancing our surplus population.
9.37 p.m.
Mr. LYONS: I am sure that every hon. Member who has participated in this Debate is grateful to the Mover of the Motion for having given the House an opportunity of discussing a matter which they rightly regard as of prime importance. I would like to say how much those who are interested in this question appreciate the statements of the Dominions Secretary. As one who for long has had a great interest in Empire settlement f appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said on behalf of the Government and I hope it will be made clear throughout the country that in expressing our views on the importance of this subject, we are not doing so merely because we think it is connected with the question of unemployment. I would put the matter in my own way, thus—that on the proper incidence of our population throughout the Empire depends the future prosperity of the whole Empire. Empire settlement is a vital matter, both from the standpoint of those who are employed and from the standpoint of those who, unhappily, are not in employment. We must realize that in the vast scope of our Imperial possessions there are illimitable opportunities for great numbers of our people who are at present prevented by circumstances which we want to overcome, from taking advantage of those opportunities.
Reference has been made to the difference between the social services in this country and those in other parts of the Empire and to its effect in preventing the opportunities which exist oversea being availed of more fully. I venture to draw attention to a new phase of that question. The efforts made by the Dominions Secretary to secure facilities in this respect for old age pensioners who desire to go abroad have been greatly appreci-

1727
ated. We gratefully apprehend that the old age pensioner who desires to go elsewhere from this country under the British flag should retain his right to pension. I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of an extension of that right which the old age pensioner now has and of embarking on some scheme when circumstances permit, whereby a citizen who leaves one part of the British Empire for another will not surrender any rights which he enjoys under the social services in the country which he is leaving.
Those associated with Empire settlement are not blind to the fact that in the situation of extreme financial stringency in which the country now finds itself, it would he impossible to embark upon a scheme involving large expenditure. We know the difficulties both here and overseas and we know that any proposal of magnitude such as those outlined by some hon. Members to-night must for the moment be relegated to the future. But as the Dominions Secretary so aptly said, it is desirable that we should discuss this matter and co-ordinate all the ideas and suggestions that are offered upon it and have the machinery ready for the time when, as we all hope, there will be an opportunity of putting into effect some of the principles which we have been discussing. In considering this question as one which interests those who are in work as well as those who are not in work, one realizes that the first difficulty for the potential emigrant from this country is this question of the surrender of the safeguards which he enjoys under the social services of this country. The man who is in work or the man who is out of work is entitled to say, "I have my rights under various schemes in this country. Why should I be expected to take the grave risk involved in going to another country where those services do not exist? Notwithstanding any spirit of adventure which I may have I must think of those to whom I have a responsibility."
I suggest to the Dominions Secretary that he might consider with the officials of his great Department, the possibility of having an actuarial computation made of the benefits to which a man in this country is entitled in respect of insurance and the contributions to insurance standing to his credit. Such
1728
a computation could be made in the case of the employed man who has never drawn on the fund, just as in the case of the unemployed man. There must be some inherent right in this matter which is capable of actuarial computation, and a man who is leaving this country might have some capital figure credited to him in that respect. It will probably be asked and with great force: What would be the good of getting a man to relinquish his right for a capital payment which he might lose at an early date through some unfortunate circumstances, leaving him without any benefit at all? I hope the Government will consider this matter, not as if this country was standing in isolation but that they will regard themselves as belonging to a great Imperial committee. I do not think it should be beyond the wit of man to devise an arrangement whereby, with assistance from the Dominion and Colonial Governments, a sum of that kind, actuarially assessed, could be used for a migrant's benefit and added to by the Government of the country to which he desires to go. It could be represented by a capital holding to he administered by the Dominion Government on the man's arrival in that Dominion.
I do not make this suggestion for the first time. I have discussed this matter at length in at least one Dominion and allowing for the difference between conditions then and now, I think that such a scheme to-day would find great sympathy in the Dominions. The Dominions should be invited to contribute to this capitalization and administer that sum total which would stand to his credit. They would realize that they had men coming from this country of the right kind and the right stock with capital holdings as a basis on which to start as settlers with a stake in a new land of opportunity. I am happy to have traversed the whole of Canada from Atlantic to Pacific, and I daresay that such a scheme would have the same usefulness and the same effect in any other of our great Dominions. The opportunities are there. Give a man who is considering leaving this country some assurance that he is not going to surrender, once and for all, the right to benefits to which he has contributed, but that he will have some actuarial right upon which he can count, and I think one

1729
of the real difficulties preventing migration now and for years past will have been removed.
Some observations were made about various settlement schemes. I think I am right in saying that the scheme known in Canada as the 3,000 families settlement scheme was recognized by every Commission that considered the matter, as well as by the Canadian Government themselves, as one of the most successful schemes of migration, and largely because it was a family settlement. People went out in families, they settled next to families whom they knew, they became there a little parish on their own, there was no loneliness, there was no feeling of distance, they had the benefit of communal centers from the very start, and the great difficulty that besets the lone settler on his first establishment in the Dominion was entirely missing in the case of the settlement of the 3,000 families.
Something was said to-night about those who came back. I desire to say, with great sincerity, that one of the most unfortunate things I ever saw in crossing the provinces of Canada was the waiting for return to England of a number of people who had been misplaced in their settlement. I spoke to many of those people, who were waiting for a train from Winnipeg to take them to a place of embarkation back to England. They had gone out to Canada, young fellows, good citizens, full of hope, full of desire, full of good purpose, and they had failed. Of those that I saw in no case, I think, could you say they had failed through any fault of their own or through any desire of their own to be failures or to shirk responsibility in the new country. They were wrongly fitted for the work to which they had been sent, and one of them expressed it to me most aptly when he said, "You cannot take an unemployed bricklayer, give him a trip across the Atlantic in a liner, and then expect him to be a farmer when he arrives in Manitoba," Of course you cannot.
I urge that before any scheme of migration is undertaken by the Government of the day, there will be the establishment of what will operate as real selection boards, composed largely of people who, come from the districts in which the proposed emigrants are about to settle, who will look at this matter, not in the
1730
theoretical sense, but with the practical knowledge of Manitoba which is essential if you are sending men there, and who will be able to place men on farms in that province. That is the kind of man who should be on a settlement board. In reference to the scheme which I have outlined to the House just now, it should be added, as an essential before any capital sum was allowed to a proposed settler, that he would have to have his application considered and approved by a joint settlement board representing both this country and the Colony to which he was to go, knowing the conditions of both, and you would have a first-hand examination before any national commitment was undertaken.
Can anybody question that the great successes that have attended the Hudson Bay scheme are due largely to the fact that they exercised very careful scrutiny as to the men whom they accepted? They trained them, both in England and in Canada, before they were accepted as settlers, with the result that they have succeeded, and you have seen little hamlets and townships growing round these settlements that have been a great influence in the good settlement and trade of the Dominion of Canada. Other schemes run by the Canadian Pacific Railway have been the same. Every one of those schemes where there has been some practical control has been successful owing to the fact that they have had the right to select their applicants.
We cannot insist too much that those of us who go into this question of migration do so, not with a mere desire to get rid of the unemployed. Neither must migration he looked upon as a means of getting rid of any "family skeleton." You have to consider it from a British point of view and from a Colonial point of view, and predominating always is the desire to take advantage of the great spaces and opportunities which we have in the Empire. It is not only a question of agriculture. It must be realized that Canada will go far in becoming one of the great manufacturing countries of the world. Industry is developing there. The Province of Manitoba is no longer merely an agricultural province, and the Province of British Columbia is no longer merely a lumbering province. Industry is growing by leaps and bounds, and has been for years past,

1731
and it may very well be that in the course of a little time Vancouver, the extreme West of British Columbia, will be at the crossroads of the world's commerce. We want to be ready to take advantage of these opportunities, both for industry and for agriculture, and to have a population fitted to take advantage of our great Imperial opportunities.
The question of after-care is vital, and whether you are dealing with men, women, girls, or boys, there must be proper after-care in the new country. I desire to assert, from close personal investigation, that the after-care given to British settlers in Canada leaves nothing to be desired. We want to be satisfied that after-care exists in any Colony and that after-care is represented upon any selection board that is considering migration from this country in any substantial quantity. This assurance for after-care treatment must be given to all potential migrants.
There is one other question that has to be considered, and that is the question of juvenile migration, because juvenile migration, properly handled, must receive very serious consideration from the Government. One hon. Member mentioned to-night that there is a number of voluntary organizations, some of which must overlap the others, and I think my right hon. Friend the Dominions Secretary gave it as his view that there should be co-ordination to prevent that overlapping. This is of course right but it seems to me that we should not rely entirely upon voluntary organizations. I remember staying at one place in Nova Scotia, the Dakeyne Street Boys' Farm near Windsor in that Province, which was established and maintained through private enterprise by a gentleman who was greatly interested in juvenile migration; and, in view of the small number they handled, they were about to give perfect training and aftercare in excellent conditions. They trained these boys to become first-class men and I saw some of them established as first-class citizens and settlers. I gladly pay my tribute to the great work of that farm which is an example of the basis of real settlement, and I should like to see, under Government supervision, some organization of that nature dealing specifically with young boys from this country who desire
1732
to go to another country under the British flag and get their full share of the great benefits which we as an Empire have to give.
The question of quarter sections will, I hope, receive the attention of the Government when the migration problem comes within the realm of practical politics, because that was a great success, mainly due to the fact that you had men from the same territorial district getting quarter sections. When there was a free grant of a section you got four people from the same district each getting a quarter and making his homestead in different ends of the quarter, so that the section forms a little village to which the Post Office and the filling station and the little store come. To these matters a newly constituted board would direct its attention, and I hope that we shall remember, while deploring, as my right hon. Friend said, the facts which are disclosed in the Motion that we must be ready. I would remind the House too, that we are getting in the Dominions now a generation which does not know this country. We want to keep the Dominions united by bonds of trade, sentiment and understanding under the British flag. I join in the appeal which other hon. Members have made that we shall consider this question from every angle, desiring to give what we can of our individual contribution to what we believe is a great cause, which will give British populations to the British Empire, and which will once and for all regard this problem not as one solely connected with unemployment, but as a great national problem demanding in the interests of the British Empire and the British race the greatest contribution that all can give to the Empire.
9.56 p.m.
Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I agree with the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) that migration, if it p.m. is to be successful, needs careful planning. I have been prompted to intervene in the Debate because of the speech of the Secretary of State for the Dominions. To some extent, I was disappointed with that speech, because I cannot dissociate the Motion from the events of the last 12 months. Between the Motion and those events there ought to be a very real connection, but the Secretary of State rather conveyed to me the impression that His Majesty's Government were awaiting an

1733
opportunity. I suggest that it is not the business of the Government if they really hold the ideas which have been sponsored during the last 12 months, to await opportunities. It is their business to make opportunities, and from that standpoint I am disappointed with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) talked about what he called the spirit of adventure not being dead in this country. The Secretary of State also used the same phrase. That is really lifting what has happened in the past into the realm of rhetoric and poetry. Let us try and get down to solid ground in this matter. When we do that we shall be agreed that migration in the past has been fundamentally, however much you may allow for the spirit of adventure, the seeking of economic advantages that could not be found in this country.
It is perhaps unfortunate that migration for this country is most important when conditions are bad and less important when conditions are good. We have been told in this Debate that there is little hope of migration until economic conditions in the Dominions improve. I entirely agree with the hon. Members who have said that it is perhaps undesirable to connect the question of migration with unemployment, but can we really divorce the two? It may not be nice to talk about it in that way from the point of view of the Dominions, but I would remind hon. Members, as I would the Secretary of State were he present, that we have during the past 12 months been talking a good deal about Empire economic unity. Surely that will involve many other things. If hon. Members are not afraid of their own ideal, if they are not fearful about the things of which they have been talking so much during the last 12 months, the accomplishment of their ideal will surely involve some redistribution of population within the Empire. To talk about waiting on the opportunity is for hon. Members opposite to run away from their ideals altogether. They should be making opportunities.
I want to make reference to a speech of the Prime Minister in the House a short time ago. He referred to what would remain in this country when everything possible had been done to stimulate the normal revival of trade and industry. He did not use the phrase disparagingly, but he talked about our residue as in-
1734
dustrial scrap, using the phrase in figurative sense. I have been reading lately with a good deal of interest four of the industrial surveys of various parts of the country which have been published by the Board of Trade. I do not know how many hon. Members have taken the trouble to read those surveys. Each survey makes a final statement on the basis that, if we returned to what are now regarded as the relatively prosperous conditions of 1929, certain conditions would remain in the industrial areas which have been surveyed. I am quoting from memory, but I think that in the case of Lancashire it is stated that even if we returned to the relatively prosperous industrial conditions of 1929, there would still be 150,000 persons who would never be able to get a job in that county.
Sir JOSEPH NALL: That is, without paying any regard to the possibility of new industries under the present system.
Mr. BROWN: That, of course, depends upon the question whether the tariffs which have been instituted will make a contribution of new industries. The figure in the south-west Scotland survey is given as 150,000 workers; for the north-east coast, 80,000; and for South Wales, 40,000. All these statements are being made on the assumption that we return to the relatively prosperous conditions of 1929, when, we have been told, business was remunerative, and, according to what the Prime Minister said the other day, a return to those conditions is the most the Government are hoping to do. What will happen when the whole of these industrial surveys have been prepared and the facts made known as to the total for the whole country, I do not know, but it seems to me that this question of the redistribution of the population will have to receive consideration in relation to the idea of Empire economic unity. All I say after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that I sincerely hope the Members of the Government will not, at the very beginning, run away from the ideal which they have upheld so vehemently during the last 12 months. If they are really going to have Empire economic unity they must embark on an economic planning of the Empire, which would involve concurrently, if it is to be effectual, a redistribution of the population. I cannot dissociate the Motion

1735
from the ideal which the Government have upheld for so long. I am not going to express any opinion of my own as to the ultimate outcome of what the Government are trying to do, but I put it to the Members of the Government that if they think there is anything in it at all they should not, at the very beginning, run away from the ideal which they have been sponsoring.
10.6 p.m.
Mr. ROBINSON: In times of stress like the present, when people all ale world over are suffering, it is necessary that we should give very careful thought to the policy of Empire migration. Not only in England, but in all the countries of the Empire, people are suffering from the scourge of unemployment, and for the first time, perhaps, in our history, we find men wishing to return here from the Dominions because they have not succeeded in finding jobs out there. I believe we should welcome those men as pioneers who have made a real effort to advance the cause of Empire migration. I am glad the Secretary of State said we were not proposing Empire migration as a mere solution of the unemployment problem. We cannot tell the Dominions that we are proposing to send our surplus population to them, and leave the rest to them. We must start very carefully, and must take a long-term view of national planning. If we take that long-term view and offer the men who go out some reasonable chance of earning a living I believe we can build up an organization which will facilitate a free and willing migration.
To that end I urge upon the Government the consideration of some form of group migration, because if we could get together a number of people and send them out in a body we should have some chance of success. I would compare the situation with the reconstruction of France after the War. Towns all over England adopted towns in France which had been shot to pieces. They took a fatherly interest in those towns, and formed local committees to raise money and foster their reconstruction. I think the same principle can be adopted in the development of new settlements in the British Empire. If we could persuade our great cities to adopt new settlements, to give to the settlement the name of the
1736
old patent town here looking after it, and send to it people from that town and the surrounding area, we could open up a new channel of natural migration. We might persuade the great area of Liverpool and the Merseyside to get together those of its inhabitants who wish to venture abroad to try to find a living. If they were being sent out under the auspices of their parent city to form a new Liverpool somewhere further afield, real interest would be aroused. We could easily acquire the land from the Dominions, and if the home areas were backed by our Government and we could provide the capital, we could easily find the men to take advantage of the opportunity. Perhaps we might issue at a low rate of interest loans for productive development, and when we recall the vast sums we have spent in unproductive ways a productive scheme of this kind is well worthy of consideration.
The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) rather suggested that we were wasting our capital upon the development of the Dominions, and should look after our own people. Surely that is not the case. If we put our money into such a scheme we do so with a view to making opportunities for our people in these isles. U we could start these new communities they would need every sort of skilled workers—bricklayers and doctors and others; and as the communities grew up they would want their mayors and town clerks for their own local administration. Later, such a settlement, bearing the name of the parent town in England, would attract to it people from that town who would go out not with a fear of venturing into something about which they knew nothing, not with a feeling that they were going into a strange land, but with a feeling that they were going where they would be welcomed by people from their old town. Given such a scheme we might inspire our people with ideas. We could get them to work together on a common task with courage and perseverance, and under such conditions we should develop successfully the great heritage which belongs to us.
10.13 p.m.
Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I am sure everyone will agree that this has been one of the p.m. most interesting evenings we have had in the House for many a long day. The House has been a

1737
truly Imperial Chamber. There has not been one word of hostility to the general idea put forward by the Mover of this Motion. Before I say anything which might be regarded as at all critical—and it will not be very severe—about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, I would like to say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) for the broadminded national appeal he made to us on this subject. Broadly, I agree with most of the points he made. Also, I am delighted with the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown). It is really a great thing that he should come here to ginger up the Government to take the next step along the line of Imperial Preference. We are all very grateful to him. I beg the hon. Member for Rothwell to realize that if the House was not as full as it should have been when he spoke, it was because all parties feel that we are pressing against an open door. We all want to see a policy of migration carried out the moment the time appears to be opportune.
Without hesitation, I offer a word of support to the idea put forward by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest). Unfortunately, I did not hear his speech, but I understand that he ventured to speak of mass migration. I do not suppose anybody remembers it, but in the first speech I made in the House after the War I endeavoured to point out that it was inevitable that we should have a great army of unemployed in this country, which our home industries could not absorb. I offered those remarks at the time when everybody else was talking about booming trade. I could not see how it was possible, when all that vast wealth had been blown into the skies, that the momentary conditions of progress that we saw after the War could continue for any length of time, until we had gone through a long process of reconstruction. At that time I expressed the view that the one solution of this question was not to send out large numbers of our people to compete with the workers in the cities of the Dominions, because inevitably the Dominions were going to have their unemployment problem. An hon. Member says that they have that problem to-day.
1738
It was clear that that policy would not be a sound or a wise one.
I suggested then, and I suggest this evening, that the bigger question has never really been tackled. I agree with what was said by the Secretary of State for the Dominions with regard to the progress of migration, but no Government in this country has made a real effort to get into touch with the Prime Ministers of the Dominions overseas in order specifically to plan out a great scheme by which we could distribute the population of the Empire. I think there is much to be said on the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Robinson). If we could get communities to go out, they would be of different quality. It is no good sending out agricultural laborers, dumping, them clown in the prairie and saying, "Now, get busy!" You have to make big cities, away from vested interests, new colonies in the middle of the Dominions. You have to plan out a whole scheme of a central town, build your railway, take out your constructional men for your railway work, take out your small tradesmen in order to start your original towns and villages, and endeavor to plan out a real new colony in the Dominions.
It would be unfair on a private Members' night to develop this scheme for more than a moment or two. I believe that this question has to be tackled on a grand scale. So far, the plans that we have had have only been drops in the ocean. It must be clear to anyone that this problem is not like creating work of an unproductive nature in this country. It does not come under the category, which I for one criticize, of merely spending money by raising loans in order to put people to work on any kind of job. You can raise a great loan either through the joint action of the Home and Dominion Governments, or through a chartered company. I believe that you could raise a very large sum of money quite easily on the security of the land, and the increment that that land is going to bring after you have developed it will repay your development loan with interest. I will leave that topic.
I want to say one or two words before I sit down with regard to the other side of the question. The Dominions Secretary told us that this is not the day when we can do anything. I quite agree that to-day is not the day, but I should like

1739
the right hon. Gentleman to indicate to the House that His Majesty's Government are now getting together the greatest brains in the Empire in order to plan out something. You are going to put the primary producers, I hope, once more on their feet. If you can do that as a result of your Ottawa policy, you have done the greatest thing you can for migration. Migration will follow trade. Encourage British capital instead of American capital to go into Canada, and into the new industries that are springing up, and you will find that your workers will follow the capital as sure as night follows day. If we set to work now to plan, we shall be ready if, as we all hope, that time comes. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the world that no big Empire migration scheme could be carried out without preparation for one, two or three years, and, therefore, I urge him and, if I may, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Conservative party, to follow up their Ottawa policy and to regard this, as suggested by the hon. Member for Mansfield, as the next great step.
I think I shall be exonerated in this House from being an enemy of the Dominions overseas. I have many times proclaimed Imperial sentiments, perhaps with a leaning towards the Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders with whom I have fought and whom I have seen die for the Empire—not because I have not a preference for my own people, but because of what they have done in building up the greatness of our common heritage. I may perhaps say, therefore, that I think the Dominions are sometimes wrong in their attitude towards Empire migrants. I hear too frequently from numerous friends in the Dominions the suggestion that we are inclined rather to send them the riff-raff of this country. What did one find, however, in the United States? They had a, test, physical and mental, of the whole of the armies of the United States before demobilization, and the result of that analysis was that, of the hotch-potch of nations making up the United States at the present time, England—if the Scots and the Irish will forgive me for a moment—came out right at the top. It was for that reason that their Commissioner of Immigration raised
1740
the quota of British, immigrants six months afterwards. It is nonsense for anyone in the Dominions to say that our people are inferior. It is proved by this test in the United States that our migrants are the best in the world even to-day. If the Dominions realize that great fact, they will see that those whom we send to them are not riff-raff, but people who really, if I may so put it, have the spirit to seek work and no longer to be an embarrassment to their friends and relations in this country.
Then there is something that must be done by us on this side. We have to try to get our people to realize once more what an immense thing it would be for their fellow men if they would make this great effort under an organized scheme. I think that no one on the Socialist benches will be annoyed with me if I remind them of the fact that three generations ago the younger sons of practically all the big families of this country, whenever there were difficulties in the family and a new life had to be sought, went out with perhaps a £10 note in their pocket.
Before I sit down, I should like, if I may, to tell a story. We have heard this evening of failures in the Dominions overseas, but we rarely hear of the successes. Long years ago, a young man was serving under me in my old volunteer company, as it was called in those days, and also working on the farm where I lived. This young man came to me after the South African War, and said, "I want to try my luck in the Dominions overseas." He had not a bean in the world, but he had lots of courage. He used an un-parliamentary word. He said: "I have plenty of guts, and I want to try my fate in a great big country while I have a chance." I said: "Very well. If you want to try your luck, I will help you all I can, because I thank you for what you have done." He was one of the volunteers who went out to the South African war. I lent him a £10 note, and I never expected to see it again. Eight years afterwards, when I was sitting in this House, a green card was brought in to me and on it I saw "Mr.—of Toronto, Canada." I went out and there was this orphan, brought up in the workhouse in my native town. He had come back dressed in a frock coat and top hat. He said: "I want to pay you back your £10

1741
note with interest for the succeeding years." He was not a failure. He was a real trier, and he meant to succeed. I believe that the moment we see the results of the Ottawa Conference coming, the moment we see primary production in the Empire going ahead, we ought to be ready with a great scheme by which we can move a. mass of our population to the Empire overseas.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have a point of view which has not yet been put. The lament of the hon. Baronet, like that of many others, is that those who have been in charge of this country, or this Empire, for a number of years have lacked breadth of vision. I want to remind the hon. Baronet that the great outstanding personality that he supports, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery), was in charge of the country under a Tory Government, and he made a hash of the business. We are still paying for it, and our fellows are out in Australia desperate to get back. We also remember that we who went across Canada as a delegtion from this House, the guests of the Canadian Government, had to intervene on behalf of the harvesters that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook sent out there. There was no preparation made for them, and they were bankrupt and starving in many instances.
I come to the present Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs who is allowed on all hands, irrespective of politicial opinion, to be one of the ablest men that our movement has produced, a very sagacious negotiator second to none, in my opinion, in the trade union movement. He made a gigantic failure. He took on this job. He went to Canada himself. He told us all manner of things that he was going to accomplish. What did he accomplish? Nothing—just the same as everything that this or any other Government will do when they get up against this question. It is the question of this system versus Socialism. That is what you are up against. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs found, when he got to Canada, that they can grow more wheat now than they can get rid of, and they have more workers than they can employ. It was not the rag, tag and bobtail who went across the seas. Let me quote the Earl of Chatham:
1742
"I have no local attachments. It is indifferent to me whether a man was rocked in his cradle on this side or that side of the Tweed. I sought merit wherever it was to be found. It is my boast that I was the first Minister who looked for it and found it in the mountains of the North. I called it forth and drew into your service a hardy and intrepid race of men. These men, in the last War, were brought to combat on your side; they served with fidelity, as they fought with valour, and conquered for you in every part of the world."
That was the Earl of Chatham speaking on 7th December, 1765. These are the individuals. They are not the scions of the rich at all. It is true that there are one or two individuals but they are not going to get away with the idea that it was the scions of the rich who built the British Empire, because it was nothing of the kind. This is the reason why they are up against it, and why, with all their ability, they cannot get round it. The work is all done. When migration was going on we were sending workers from the Clyde by the thousand every Saturday. The best blood of Scotland went out. What was it to do? The railways were to be built, docks and canals were to be made, factories were to be built, roads to be made and houses and cities to be built. All that work is done now. The position is just the same in the old country. Think what it would mean if we had the railway to build from London to Glasgow, if we had all the railway systems in the country and all the railway systems in the world to build, as we had. It is no idle boast. In my father's day Britain was the workshop of the world. We built all the engines and the ships. We did the world's work. Now that work is all done. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] All the work the worker can do. There is no work for the hardy son of toil, because all work has largely been eliminated. This Government, like every other Government in civilization, is the heir of all this glorious inheritance which has been handed down to us. It is ours. We are living in the age about which the poet and the seer dreamt.
I want this Government of ours to work in conjunction with every Government within the Commonwealth of Nations, because if we are not able to make friends with the men and women across the seas who understand our language, whose kith and kin are our kith and kin, who are bone of our bone and

1743
blood of our blood, how is it possible for us to extend the right hand of fellowship and make friends with individuals with whom we are unable to converse? We have a Prime Minister who claims to be a Socialist Prime Minister. Let him and those who claim. to be Socialists within the National Government approach the question from a Socialist outlook, because the trouble we have is that the people in the Dominions think that the Dominions are theirs and that everything is theirs, and that we have no claim whatever, in the same way as the ruling class think that everything in Britain is theirs and that the workers have no claim at all, except that when they are out of work they get 15s. 3d. a week. All that has to be changed. That is all I have to say about it.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. CAMPBELL: As one who happens to have been a Colonial for about 30 years, who migrated without any money and came back a little more fortunate than when he went out, I want to say a few words, because the speeches of hon. Members of the Opposition always tend towards imagining that it is a question of sending people out to the Dominions and banishing them from this country. I look at it from the opposite view point. For healthy young fellows, who possibly have not been particularly brilliant in their schools, but who are physically fit, there is a very fine career for them if they migrate to the Dominions or the Colonies. It is highly beneficial to the Dominions that they should get young men from this country. If one goes to any Dominion one finds that there are large colonies of Scots. The hon. Member who has just spoken deplored the idea that some of the best Scots had gone abroad. In any case, some of them are coming back again, and this House, I am glad to say, is full of Scots.
I should like to urge upon the Government the necessity, as the Resolution says, of immediate steps being taken to co-operate with the Dominions in comprehensive schemes for migration. We all know that at the present time it is not an easy thing to migrate people to the Dominions. I am particularly interested in boys' club work. We are
1744
doing our utmost to find opportunities for boys who really want to go to the Dominions, but the difficulty is to get an opportunity for them to go. However, times will change. I hope the time is not far distant when the Dominions will realize the necessity of allowing more migration into their countries. Take Australia as an instance. If they do not very soon take steps to obtain migrants from this country I am afraid that they will get migration from Eastern countries which they will probably not appreciate. Therefore, in their own interests it is highly advantageous that they should allow as many people as possible from this country to go out there. Whatever may be done in that respect, it is absolutely necessary that some scheme should be put in hand forthwith so that we may have the necessary machinery prepared when the day comes.
Whatever the Dominions may say today, the occasion will come when they will need a larger population. When we think of the vast territories of Australia and Canada, when times are better, when some of their factories are going, and their land needs to be opened up, they will require more of our people. Therefore, it is urgently necessary that we should get some scheme in hand now. We are told that we have an Overseas Settlement Department. A few days ago I looked up a speech that I made six or seven years ago on this subject, also questions which I put to the Colonial Secretary at that time. I said then that I had no faith in the Empire Settlement Department, or Committee as it was then constituted. It was out of date, far too large, and composed of far too many officials. I should like to see fewer men, all active and keen on getting people migrated. I have pleasure in supporting the Motion, and I hope that the Government will do all they can to help young men with enterprise, young men with guts, as the hon. Member said, because if they have not got guts they might just as well stop at home. Anybody who does migrate must realize that he is not going to have it sunny all the time. He will have ups and downs, but if he sticks it he will be able to come home in a better position than he was when he left this country.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved—
"That this House observes with great regret that migration overseas is much lower now than before the War, and urges His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to secure the co-operation of the Dominions in comprehensive schemes for migration within the Empire."

WATER SUPPLIES AND DOMESTIC DRAINAGE.
Mr. LEVY: I beg to move,
"That this House regards the provision of adequate water supply and drainage as a prime necessity, especially in rural areas where the primitive character of these services constitutes a great danger to public health."
10.42 p.m.
It is very late and I do not propose to detain the House. I will just give the broad facts without any elaboration. It is a question of the inadequacy of the water supply and drainage system of this country. It is not unreasonable to ask that in the greatest civilized country in the world, in this twentieth century, all members of the community should have a sufficient supply of pure, clean, cold water and that they should be provided with efficient domestic drainage. If a fairy godmother were to appear and say that she was prepared to grant one wish, the one wish we should all desire is that of good health. What are the two essentials to good health? The answer must be pure, clean water, and plenty of it, and a hygienic domestic drainage system. Whilst giving credit for what has been clone in the past, the conditions in the rural areas to-day, in a good many of the areas, can only be described as appalling.
The water supply in a number of these areas depends on a communal well, of doubtful purity, and the drainage is primitive in the extreme, and is a definite danger owing to water pollution to public health. In these rural areas an improvement could be made by public service lines, but the cost is so great that this is not possible; and the same argument applies to efficient drainage. It was not until the Local Government Act of 1929 that the cost of rural water schemes of a purely parochial nature was removed and gave place to more comprehensive schemes which would supply water for large areas. But the application and the consideration that has been given to
1746
these schemes has been very slow, and very unsatisfactory. For example, the unsatisfactory nature of these drainage undertakings is to be found in Middlesex. It was only last year that the County Council of Middlesex, with the authority of Parliament, undertook a scheme covering a large area. They took in 19 areas. They abolished 28 local sewerage works, and the density of these sewerage works can be well understood when I state that there was one sewerage works to every five square miles, and most of them were unsatisfactory. In these cases the remedy is being applied, but not in other cases up and down the country, in spite of the unhealthy conditions and the many complaints.
I will read a couple of extracts from reports of Medical Officers of Health. In his annual report the Lincolnshire Medical Officer said that it was much to be regretted that the local rural council, owing to the cost, had turned down a scheme for the provision of a pure water supply for five villages. Had the council carried out a proposed scheme at that time the Unemployment Grants Committee would have contributed 75 per cent, of the principal and interest, whereas now it had been reduced to 50 per cent. This meant that villages would never have a chance of getting pure water at a cheap figure. Obviously they are still getting impure water in those five villages.
The Medical Officer of Health in a report to the Pateley Bridge Rural Council said that serious problems were presented with regard to water supplies in surrounding districts. Within 10 miles of Bradford's reservoirs in the Nidd Valley, villages and isolated groups of houses were suffering from a water shortage, although many miles of pipe line from the Leeds Reservoir at Leighton in Wensleydale ran through the rural area. The Medical Officer of Health added that although the Bradford reservoirs were so near it would not be feasible at present to take water from their source. The most practicable course would be to buy from Leeds, but the difficulty was finance. Here is another case where the villages are not getting pure water. At a recent Ministry of Health Inquiry it was revealed that the village of Cwmdare, in South Wales, had been without a water supply each day from 9.30 in the morning until 4 in the afternoon for 37 years.

1747
There is no need for me to weary the House with details of the epidemic that recently broke out and still exists in the Malton and Denby Vale district of Yorkshire. We all know that in that plague there were over 260 affected, that there have been 20 deaths and that the doctor who so heroically attended to the victims has died. We know that the epidemic was caused by impure water. There is no doubt that the contamination was through defective drains.
The provision of a proper water supply and proper drainage in this country must be regarded as a national service. I consider it is the duty of the Minister of Health and the Government to call all the rural and local authorities together with the idea of bringing forward a comprehensive scheme on a large scale, whereby the rural areas that do not at the moment get pure water may get pure water. If we go into a rural area and see a well on the one hand and cesspool drainage on the other, we must realize that the percolation of the impure water must contaminate the water supply. If it does not, there is always danger that it will.
I am making an appeal to the Minister to do whatever he can to see that the inhabitants of this country are provided with pure, clean water and asking that he shall call the authorities together, and that it shall be a part of his duties to see that proper drainage is provided. It is not sufficient for him to say that the responsibility is the responsibility of the local authorities. I say quite definitely that the primary responsibility may be with the local authority, but that there is a responsibility which rests on the Government and on the Minister of Health. Therefore, I say that, with the knowledge of their responsibility they should see that these undertakings are so arranged that the least we shall expect is pure water and modern hygienic drainage. I have not had time to develop any arguments, and I have endeavoured to stick rigidly to the facts, because I feel that the Minister would like to have an opportunity to reply.
10.52 p.m.
Mr. GLOSSOP: I beg to second the Motion so ably moved by the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy). While I appreciate the absolute necessity for trying to
1748
improve the water supplies of the country, I realize that in a time of national economy, such as we have at present, it is very difficult to expect the Government, or for that matter the local authorities, to embark on elaborate schemes in regard to further provision of water supplies in the rural areas, and I do very respectfully suggest to the Minister of Health that a great deal can be done if only local health authorities will enforce and carry out the powers which they have already under their control, under Clause 2 of the Public Health Act, 1878, which definitely states that it shall be the duty of every local authority to ensure that there is an adequate supply of water within range of every dwelling-house. One has to appreciate that in purely rural areas it is quite impossible to have a main supply. Therefore, of course, one has to have water supplies from surface wells and storage tanks, but that is not altogether satisfactory, because with regard to purely local supplies, such as surface wells and tanks, we all know how rapidly the typhoid bacillus is able to spread. The House and the country have had a very painful experience of this during the last few months in the case of Denby Vale and Malton. Even though there was an adequate water supply from the public supply, it was possible for the typhoid bacillus to get into the water with very disastrous and very tragic results involving the death of many people in those two areas. If that can happen where there is a public water supply, how much easier is it for it to happen where there is no proper main supply.
It is, I suggest, a crime for local authorities not to enforce the powers they have to-day. It is a crime to allow houses to draw water from surface wells while at the same time there is very often within a few yards a proper supply of water running along the street or road from a water undertaking. I know that there are local authorities who do not carry out their duties properly under the Act of 1878, and, although there is an adequate supply of water going along the roadways in front of the houses, they are not compelling the people to take that water. With regard to the question of rating of water undertakings, there are, as the House knows, two types of water undertakings. There are those run by local authorities which are run on behalf

1749
of the ratepayers, and there are those run by statutory water undertakings. Although these companies are run for profit, the provisional Order or Act of Parliament under which they operate, strictly limits the profits. At present, the system of rating water undertakings is most inequitable. The rating is upon the basis of the difference between the revenue and the expenditure without any regard to other considerations. This method inflicts a great hardship on the undertakings and also on the consumers of water from those undertakings. The rates which the undertakings pay are not used for the benefit of the ratepayers in that particular locality. A large proportion of the rates are utilized by the county in which the undertaking is situated, with the result that those areas which have adequate supplies of water are contributing more than their fair share and those which have not an adequate supply have an unfair advantage over those which have. I suggest that there is great need for a revision of the rating of water undertakings in this country.
10.58 p.m.
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I much regret that I have only a minute and a half in which to reply. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Glossop) for raising this question, and I sincerely hope that they will raise a subject of this importance again at a time when we can give all our minds to it and at a time which will enable some representative of the Ministry of Health to reply. May I suggest that such an occasion will arise on the Estimates if not before. It is a subject of vital importance and the danger of neglecting water supplies has recently been brought home to everybody, particularly in the Yorkshire district. Let me correct one misapprehension. If any local authority has a scheme, I do not want such authority to think that it is debarred by any economy circular from applying to the Ministry for consideration of its scheme. I want to make that perfectly clear. Although economy has to a certain extent affected the position, because as hon. Members know, the grants have ceased, nevertheless we are anxious to encourage the supplying of pure water particularly in rural areas,
1750
and if any hon. Member has any particular scheme in mind and if that scheme is submitted to the Ministry, it will have sympathetic consideration.
Mr. LEVY: Then I understand that if these authorities submit their schemes to the Ministry those schemes will receive favorable consideration and that the hon. Gentleman asks them to submit such schemes?
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Every scheme will, of course, be considered on the merits.
Mr. LEVY: I appreciate that.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House regards the provision of adequate water supply and drainage as a prime necessity, especially in rural areas Where the primitive character of these services constitutes a great danger to public health."

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (BASIC PRICES).
Ordered,
"That the Lords Message [6th December] relating to Gas Undertakings (Basic Prices) be now considered."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered,
"That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider and report whether, as one of the methods of giving effect to the basic price system of charge by gas undertakers in those cases in which a power to make a differential charge in respect of any part of the existing or intended limits of supply is proposed to be continued or granted, it is expedient to authorize a separate basic price in respect of each such part, arrived at by adding to the basic price fixed in respect of the area for which no differential charge is proposed a sum representing the differential charge as proposed to be authorized or continued, or as actually made."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Dr. Hewitt, Mr. Oswald Lewis, Captain Peake, Mr. Thomas Williams, and Mr. Ernest Young nominated Members of the Committee:
Ordered.
That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit."
Ordered.
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Ordered,
"That Three be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

FOREIGN WORKERS (ENTRY PERMITS).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]
Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I wish to raise a question of which I gave private notice yesterday to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I wish to ascertain what principles govern the advice given by the Board to the Ministry of Labour regarding the admission of aliens to this country as teachers of British workers in new processes to be established here. The question that I put yesterday was answered, I consider, in the most evasive manner. It is a common custom for Ministers, junior and otherwise, to try to ride off back bench Members and to put the blame on other Ministries. Everyone knows that actual permits for aliens coming into this country are issued by the Ministry of Labour, but in a concrete case like that in my constituency, of a firm which desired to establish a factory here and, in order to make that factory possible, desired to get a permit for 12 months only for two German workers to come here in order to instruct 30 of my constituents, who would be permanently employed, presumably, the Ministry of Labour could have no possible interest in excluding those two alien workers, who, so far from taking work from British workmen, were about, by their instruction, to provide work for 30 of our own people.
There is an old-established glass firm in Germany which has been supplying several wholesale English houses with retort glass and chemical glass for over 30 years. Owing to the exchange and to the tariffs, Messrs. Schuller, the proprietors of this firm, wished to establish
1752
a factory in this country inside the tariff wall. Their agents came to Slough, in my constituency, and selected a site for the factory. Before definitely taking a lease for the site, they applied to the Ministry of Labour for permits for two German workers to come in for 12 months to instruct my constituents, but, greatly to their surprise, they were refused. The managing director of the Slough Trading Estate, thinking that these foreigners had not been able to explain their case accurately, went to the Board of Trade and was told that the Germans could not be admitted. He argued the case and said he could give letters from no fewer than seven English wholesale houses which desired this firm to be established here. In fact, one firm went so far as to say that whether or not the German firm was established here, they would continue to buy their retort glass from them, either in Germany or in Slough. The Board of Trade gave a statement in writing to my constituents, in which they said:
"The admission of alien labour to establish a new undertaking can only be justified on the ground that the product which will be made has special qualities of design or workmanship required by the market here."
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies under what Act of Parliament the Board of Trade has assumed those powers. I have visited many factories in my constituency. A fortnight ago I saw foreign workers in quite half-a-dozen factories. It is a common boast on the Front Bench that 27 factories have been established in Slough since the tariffs. Had it not been for this decision, there would have been 28 now. I want to know where the consistency comes in. There are factories which make such commonplace things as nails and margarine in which foreign workers are teaching our people the processes. They are here for only six months under a permit and then they go back to their own countries. Their employers do not want to keep them here because they are expensive. Why in this particular case is the Board of Trade sticking in its toes and refusing to allow foreign workers to come here?
My reasons for raising this case are briefly these. I contend that by its decision the Board of Trade has condemned 30 of my constituents, who would have been fully employed, to walk the streets

1753
without work. Any Member is bound to raise such a question affecting his constituents at a time of unemployment like this. Unemployment in Slough is worse to-day than ever it has been. My second reason is this. I fail to see any consistency in the action of the Board of Trade. I fail to see why the Board should allow foreign teaching in one industry and refuses it in another. My third reason is a wider one. This practice of the Board of Trade calling in an expert and asking his advice as to whether a particular product that a foreign firm wishes to make can be made by other existing British firms in this country, and deciding on that advice to advise the Ministry of Labour to refuse these permits, is a thing which any hon. Member will see at once is liable to extraordinary difficulties and misconstruction. No doubt a decision like this is in the interest of the shareholders of existing British firms which purport to be making this kind of glass, but it is not in the interest of the consumer because it tends to establish a ring and prevents healthy competition.
I have been a Protectionist all my life. I was a Protectionist long before the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary became Protectionists, but I do not stand for this kind of Protection at ale I want a tariff wall round England. I do not want a all of Protection round existing industries to prevent healthy competition by foreign firms coming in here. What would have happened to the trade of this country if the Huguenots and Flemish weavers had been prevented from coming into this country? Is not that the way that trades have grown up in this country, and should we not encourage every foreigner to come here? English firms are still buying this German glass in spite of the tariff. That proves that this German firm makes the kind of glass which the existing British firms cannot make now.
11.9 p.m.
Mr. LAWSON: I do not understand even now that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made his explanation, why the Board of Trade is answering this question rather than the Ministry of Labour. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised a serious matter, which has been raised by other Members before.
1754
Grave charges have been made against the reasons for not allowing certain people to come into this country. I make no reflection on the hon. Gentleman, but probably the Ministry of Labour would be in a better position to reply, as they have been so regularly questioned upon this matter. I know that the representatives of the Ministry of Labour actually visit these factories in order to investigate the conditions and to make quite sure about the grounds upon which any foreign worker is allowed to come in or even to stay in. It is pre-eminently a question for the Ministry of Labour. Although, as the hon. and gallant Member has said, the Board of Trade give certain advice in these matters, it is the fact that the Ministry of Labour maintains a direct and regular contact with conditions in the factories. I put that point because it seems to me this matter is becoming increasingly important in view of recent legislation, and it would be far better if we could have a representative of the Ministry of Labour with the hon. Member, or, indeed, replying.
Sir A. KNOX: I put this question purposely to the Board of Trade, because the agent of the foreign firm carried on all his negotiations with the Board of Trade and it was the Board of Trade who were the active people in refusing this permit.
Mr. LAWSON: I should question that very much, although I followed the Minister's answer with some interest, because it was my experience, when I was a Minister, that we regularly had to look into these important matters and decide whether to give permits or to send people out.
11.13 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) kindly gave me notice yesterday that he was proposing to raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night. It arises out of a question addressed to the President of the Board of Trade and replied to by myself on Monday. In reply to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) I may say that if there had been a little longer interval between the answer and notice that the matter was being raised to-night, in all probability a representative of the Ministry of

1755
Labour would have been sitting by me. I have no complaint that the matter has been raised on the Adjournment, and I am more than happy to give the facts within the knowledge of the Department on what is obviously a matter of importance. I regret that the hon. and gallant Member should have thought fit to suggest that an answer given on the authority of the President of the Board of Trade was evasive. Obviously remarks of that kind do no good to the hon. and gallant Member or anybody else.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Surely a Member, if he thinks a Minister has given an evasive answer, has a right to tell him so. When did Ministers become immaculate?
Mr. SPEAKER: I might point out that the Minister has a right to reply.
Dr. BURGIN: I am much obliged to you, Sir. The facts of the matter are that under the Aliens Order, 1920, Article 1, Sub-section (3, b), the responsibility for granting or refusing a permit in the case of an alien applying to take up a position in employment in this country lies entirely with the Ministry of Labour. Any advice that may be given by the Board of Trade is given purely in a consultative capacity, because the Board of Trade has very considerable information, in its Industries and Manufactures Section, dealing with industries in this country. It is quite outside the power of the Board of Trade to give, either in answer to a question or when a matter is raised on the Adjournment, the reasons which operated on the mind of the Minister of Labour in reaching a particular decision. It is a pure assumption, a gratuitous assumption, without any evidence whatever to support it, to suggest that the Minister in this particular case formed his opinion on information tendered by the Board of Trade.
Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. Member deny that?
Dr. BURGIN: I say that it is entirely beyond my power to give the reasons which induced the Minister of Labour to come to an administrative decision. I have no information one way or the other which induced him to do so. Nor has the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am
1756
in possession of the official files. This is not a case of workers from a friendly country with a desire to instruct those who were out of work, being refused admission. The case is quite different. The case is that of an application made to the Ministry of Labour for permission to import certain German specialists, with a view to the manufacture in this country of a certain article already manufactured in sufficient quantity to meet the whole of the Home, Dominion and export needs, an application objected to most strongly by glass makers in this country, all of whom made their representations to the Board of Trade in identical manner to those supporting the application.
The evidence on both sides was most carefully considered, and it was, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, overwhelmingly in favour of showing that there was adequate supplies of this glass available to users, and that the only effect of setting up another factory to make the same would be, perhaps, to put 30 people into work at Slough, and 30 out at St. Helens. The Board of Trade was compelled to advise that, on industrial grounds, the information in their possession did not justify them giving a favorable recommendation in this case. The only matter that is submitted to the Board of Trade is: "What is your knowledge of the manufacture of this particular article within this country, and what have you to say to the suggestion that it would be advisable or inadvisable for another factory to be erected here to make the same article?"
Sir A. KNOX: If the facts are as the hon. Gentleman has stated, how can he account for the fact that, since this decision, in the month of November, a considerable quantity of this glass has been imported from this German firm into England?
Dr. BURGIN: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates that there is no reason why regular users of this glass should not continue to buy from the German factory in Germany.
Sir A. KNOX: Is it not better that Englishmen should make this glass?
Dr. BURGIN: The object of this Government is to encourage employment in this country by any means in their power. There is no objection raised to German or any other technical experts coming

1757
to this country to instruct, but it is an overriding consideration that more harm should not be done than good, and that when it is proposed to start an industry in this country if the effect of it would merely be to duplicate something existing in adequate quantities here, then no particular facilities would be granted to that industry.
Mr. DAVID MASON: Does not that confer a monopoly? Who gave the right to the Board of Trade to be the judge as to what should be considered proper supplies?
Dr. BURGIN: I have tried to point out that the Board of Trade are not judges of anything. The Board of Trade are asked in this matter for their opinion as to the nature and state of the industry, and whether or not an additional manufacturing unit within the United Kingdom would be of advantage to the nation. The Board of Trade without fear or favour examine these cases on the merits and give their decision. I have here the actual representations made and the names of the bodies which made them—the makers of glass, who asked the Board of Trade in this ease that on no account should a recommendation in favour of this application he made. It is useless to suggest, when recommendations are made in favour, as they were in this case, or against, as they were in this case, that the Minister was proceeding with a closed mind, or with any ulterior object. A judicial function is exercised, the pros and cons are balanced, and in this case, when the facts are looked into, it will be found that the Board of Trade tendered advice exactly in accordance with the evidence submitted to them by those best qualified to know—the makers of this special chemical glass, used for scientific chemical experiments, and, in particular, test tubes. There are at least 15 manufacturers of scientific glassware and tubing in this country—
Sir A. KNOX: Are not they interested parties?
Dr. BURGIN: They are, of course, interested parties, in the sense that they are co-partners engaged in the industry. They are knowledgeable people making and dealing in this article. The Board of Trade has its own experts in glass as in other matters, and when an application of this kind comes before them, they
1758
hear both sides and, having formed their view, tender advice to the Ministry of Labour, on which the Ministry of Labour are perfectly free to act or not as they think fit. There are many considerations besides the state of the industry. The Minister of Labour has the statutory authority to say whether or not those conditions are adequately fulfilled and whether or not permits should be granted.
Sir A. KNOX: Are not these 16 manufacturers of glass in this country directly interested in keeping out a foreign competitor?
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is it to be a function of the Board of Trade in future to say that no industry shall be set up other than those already in existence?
Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member must understand nothing of the kind. When an application is made to the Minister of Labour under the Aliens Order, 1920, to permit a particular alien to apply for a position in this country, that application has to be considered on its merits. All relevant factors have to be taken into consideration. The Ministry of Labour have no obligation to refer the matter to anyone outside the Department. In practice, however, when the matter relates to an industry or manufacture peculiarly within the province of another Government Department, namely, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour seeks consultative advice from the records in the possession of the Board of Trade. The matter is then referred to the Board of Trade for advice. Is this an industry which will be welcomed? What is the state of employment in the industry? What is the likely effect of another unit being started? Is that likely effect to be to discharge British labour? Surely there is no one in the House who would say that the Ministry of Labour should grant a permit to a foreigner to come here if the direct and natural consequence of his doing so is to discharge more British labour than it will engage.
Mr. CURRY: What assurance have we that the advice put forward by interested parties will be solely directed to the aspect of the displacement of labour and not to the aspect of the maintenance of profits?
Dr. BURGIN: I am sure the hon. Member is not crediting the President of

1759
the Board of Trade with much perspicacity. He is as alive as any Member of the House to the fact that you cannot only seek advice from those who are most interested in proving one particular side of a question. The whole matter has to be looked into. Internal evidence is taken; files are consulted; external evidence is taken; representations from the industry, makers and consumers alike, are considered. All those matters having been taken into account, advice is then tendered to the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour, after having made their own inquiries, of which the inquiry of the Board of Trade is only one, come to their conclusions, and in this case came to the conclusion that there was available in this country labour of the kind sought, and that there was therefore no justification for granting the permit asked for by the German manufacturers. When the whole of the facts are examined the matter is really unarguable, and what looked like a very plausible case when the hon. and gallant Gentleman opened it is found when one looks into the facts to be devoid of justification.
11.26 p.m.
Sir JOSEPH NALL: The Parliamentary Secretary may or may not be right in the view that he advances, but he seems to be inconsistent. He says, on the one hand, it would be wrong to displace labour in one part of the country in order to employ it in another, with which most Members will agree. He goes on to ask, "If these people wish to import this material, why should they not?" He cannot have it both ways and, if a volume of this glass is being imported, that would
1760
appear to be a sufficient answer to the plea that he advances that the supply in this country is already adequate.
My hon. and gallant Friend in bringing forward this matter has ventilated a question which requires further consideration. The House is not concerned as to which Department is dealing with the matter or whether two Departments agreed upon the matter. All that we are concerned with is what action the Government are taking. We do not want to know the relations between the different Departments. That is beside the point and rather begging the question. My hon. and gallant Friend has put the proposition, that here is a demand for a certain article which is, in fact, being imported into this country as things are to-day. If the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary would say that that importation is in fact prejudicing the employment of the firms which already exist in this country one might be disposed to sympathize with him, but he does not say anything of the sort. He says, "Why not let the importer go on importing if he wants to do so." It is a complete negation of the present policy of the Government as far as it is understood in that part of the House to which I usually attach myself. The Government ought to make further inquiry into this matter in order to convince the House that the action which has been taken up to date is founded upon sufficient fact, and that the Government are not, unfortunately, lending themselves to what may be a very unpleasant ramp.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.