DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.

HC Deb 22 November 1932 vol 272 cc7-70

Mr. ROY BIRD

(in Court dress): I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth: Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. 3.10 p.m.

Possibly, Mr. Speaker, the same thought that has occurred to me has occurred to many hon. Members sitting on the back benches of this House, when they have risen in an unsuccessful effort to catch your eye for the purpose of addressing the House, and some of whom, I know, were anxious to deliver their maiden speeches—that it would have been much easier if they could have risen at a certain time and have addressed the House crowded to its very doors. But, now that I am in that favoured position, I realise that things are not always what they seem. Doubtless it is because I am overwhelmed with the great honour that has been conferred, not only upon myself, but upon my constituency of Skipton, which I have had the honour of representing for eight years—a very large Division which extends over a distance of 60 miles by 40, and comprises within its bounds pretty well every industry.

My one regret this afternoon is that, in the customary division of the King's Speech between myself and my learned leader, I shall not be able to touch on agriculture, because in my normal condition, when I am not a solicitor or a politician, I am a farmer, and I know quite well what the difficulties of farming are and how easy it is to lose money. I have every confidence, however, in the fact that I am to be followed to-day, against all precedent, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies), a learned King's Counsel, who, as a general rule, takes precedence over a mere solicitor. I know that it is a tradition of this House that the Mover of the Address must not be controversial, and I hope that if, inadvertently, I hurt the feelings of some hon. or right hon. Member, I shall be forgiven in the same way in which I was once forgiven when once before I hit a certain hon. Member in this House by mistake.

The Gracious Speech from the Throne refers to the Conference on the reduction and limitation of armaments, and I am certain that everybody in this House anticipated such a reference, because the people throughout the land, almost from day to day, have followed the labours of that Conference with profound interest. I feel sure that the words of the Gracious Speech exactly represent the feeling in the country. Go where you will, throughout the length and breadth of the land, you will find a keen interest in the importance of the Conference and a determination that whatever happens, whatever action this nation may take, it shall prove a success. Of this I am certain, that there is in this country that most essential thing, the will to peace. The main purpose of Disarmament is to achieve a lasting and secure peace, and it is because this nation is so certain that only by a positive measure of Disarmament can peace be secured that we are taking such an interest in that Conference.

I feel sure that I shall carry the whole House with me when I venture to congratulate the Government on the most recent step that they have taken at Geneva. I hope and believe that the declaration made on behalf of the Government by the Foreign Secretary on Thursday last week will prove a new step forward in the problems that face not only our country but every country through- out the world. It does not pretend to be a complete plan which is going to produce disarmament to an expectant world to-morrow, but at least it shows some way by which we can proceed forward with our efforts. Above all, it faces realities. All countries must co-operate on an equal basis, because, unless we cooperate equally, we shall not get very far, and I feel that this Note will enable all countries, and in particular Germany, once more to take their part in the Conference and will enable some useful steps to be taken in achieving the aim that we all have in view.

The Gracious Speech also makes reference to the World Economic Conference that is to be held next year. I need not deal with the causes of the economic sickness, as everyone is well aware of them. It is sufficient to say that every man and woman, not only in this country but throughout the world, has felt its effects. The causes are world-wide and its effects have made themselves felt by everyone. The sickness being world-wide, it cannot be successfully attacked by purely national effort. It must be attacked by international effort with all nations working for the same end. A variety of features, economic, monetary and financial, have tended towards creating what may be described as a vicious circle of depression in world trade; and, because it is world-wide, it must be dealt with from an international point of view. It is only to be expected that different nations, according to their different situation, will have different ideas as to how the problem is to be tackled, as to which phase of the problem should be attacked first and what the mode of the attack should be, but I am certain that everyone is beginning to realise the gravity of the situation, and I believe it is leading to a more general realisation of the necessity for combined action and for accommodation and adjustment between the different views held by different nations. It is, therefore, to be hoped that, when the Conference meets, the different countries will be prepared to take the long view and to see what is best not only for themselves but for the whole world, so that the ultimate interest of everyone will be to join together in a concerted effort for the purpose of find- ing a solution of our difficulties, upon which depends the restoration of confidence throughout the world and a revival of world trade.

In facing the problems and difficulties of the coining Session we can look back, I think, with some degree of satisfaction on what has happened during the past one. We have adopted various measures, not always with the approval of everyone, but, after all, those measures have at least succeeded in balancing the Budget, and, to a certain extent, in assisting industry. By means of strict economies the Budget was balanced, and we have turned an enormous adverse balance of visible trade, which, I believe, last year amounted to something like £410,000,000, into a figure which is very much lower. Further economies, of course, are necessary, but, after all, with the assistance of the funding of our Debt, which has just been so successfully concluded, and with other economies which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend has in mind, we shall make further progress on our way. But I would ask him not to adopt in toto the recommendations which have appeared quite recently in a publication which has reached my hands, at a rather belated date it is true—[Interruption]—and which, if the hon. Member has not got he can purchase for the modest price of 1s.

The industries of this country, which have so long been swamped by what I might call the vicious protection of foreign countries have, through the efforts of the Government, received some measure of defence. The Agreements reached at Ottawa, too, have provided means for greater inter-Imperial trade, and they not only deal with inter-Imperial trade but deal indirectly with international trade, because it is to the interest of other nations that they should now enter into negotiations with us for the purpose of fixing trade agreements, and, in fact, I believe already many countries have applied to enter into such agreements with us. At present, the Argentine, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland are in negotiation with us. The Government have applied certain remedies which do not appeal to everyone in this House, but which I condently believe will prove successful. Should they not prove successful, I am proud to think that I belong to a section of supporters of the National Government which is not a hidebound party, and if, in practice, the remedies that have been applied should prove a failure we have not got to the end of our tether. We can apply other remedies, and I trust that the Government will not be frightened. I hope, if it should be necessary, they will apply other remedies which in other times and in other places and in other circumstances might have had a, label attached to them which might have offended the susceptibilities of one or other section of the National Government.

We are all accustomed in our daily lives in cases of illness to call in a medical practitioner. His treatment is not always a success, and it is sometimes necessary to call in a second opinion. The second medical attendant does not always agree with the first, and the treatment is changed. The first medical attendant does not leave the sick room with the wish in his heart that the patient will die, and I suggest to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that they should at least behave in the same way as the medical profession, and that, if we have applied a treatment which does not really appeal to them, they should at any rate in their hearts wish us and the country success. When I left school my father gave me a quotation which he said would help me through life. It was, "Possunt quia posse videntur." I was in the same predicament as I expect hon. Members and, indeed, perhaps some right hon. Gentlemen in this House are in, that the money spent on my classical education had been somewhat wasted, and my father, observing that intelligent look on my face which signified ignorance, gave me a translation. It was, "They can, because they think they can." There are many difficulties and problems still facing this country, but I am confident that, if we face them in the spirit of that quotation, if we go forward with a united front with good will, and if we see that every class of the community has a square deal, the problems that face us will not prove insurmountable.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES

(in Court dress): I beg to second the Motion.

3.28 p.m.

I should like to pay a tribute to one who, for to-day, perhaps, in legal circles would be regarded as my leader. To him to-day I wish to pay this tribute for his able, powerful and most comprehensive speech to which we have listened with such great pleasure. The honourable duty of seconding this Motion has been entrusted to me as Member for the county of Montgomery. The fact that this duty has been entrusted to a representative of a constituency which depends entirely on agriculture is an earnest of the promise of the Government to assist the oldest industry in this land, which finds itself to-day in tragic and in almost calamitous circumstances. In the Gracious Speech from the Throne the attention of Parliament is directed particularly to this subject. Less than a fortnight ago Members of this House, in one of the most instructive Debates, emphasised the close relationship between agriculture and other industries. Men may not live by bread alone, but men must have bread. Throughout the world to-day men go in fear of unemployment. It is estimated that in the civilised world, as it is called, between 30,000,000 and 40,000,000 men have now realised that fear. There is a constant and deep concern among the rulers and the peoples of all countries as to how they can solve this tremendous problem. Were there not a humane and kindly feeling in each country—a realisation that in truth and in fact each is his brother's keeper—there might to-day, throughout the world, be starvation facing millions at a time when the land was never more bounteous, production easier, and transport snore rapid.

The causes of these conditions—the most extraordinary in the story of mankind—are manifold. Some attribute them to the War and the fact that millions of men were for four years taken away from their ordinary avocations and put to the appalling one of self-destruction. Some blame the monetary system and the artificial debasement of the standard of barter. Others blame national and narrow prejudices which refuse to recognise that there is a world brotherhood and an interdependence among all peoples. To my mind, while all these arc factors which contribute to the general distress, the fundamental cause is the failure of every one of us to re-adapt our lives to the swift-moving changes brought about by science. We live in a wonderful age—the most wonderful and most interesting of all time—but the world has moved so rapidly during the last 50 years that the whole of past human experience avails us but little today, and in no branch of life is this so conspicuous as in agriculture.

The growth of scientific knowledge and the rapid increase of mechanical inventions have given us the telephone, the wireless, the aeroplane, and the motorcar—discoveries which have transformed our mode of life. In themselves they are amazing, but in no industry has this speeding up been so conspicuous as in agriculture. Through many thousands of years man has had to devote his time, attention and energies to agriculture, and he has done so laboriously and faithfully with astonishingly little improvement during all the centuries. Within the last 50 years, during my own life time, agricultural practice and production have been revolutionised. We often speak of the desertion of the country-side, the drifting away of the finest yeoman to the large towns, driven there by the poverty of conditions on the land, or attracted there by the wealth which might he offered by other industries. But do we realise that possibly the root cause of the depopulation of the countryside is mechanisation; the substitution of machinery for human labour. When I was a boy 10 men working a full day of 14 hours could mow 10 acres of grass, and I was privileged to take my place in such a team. To-day one man and one machine can do the same work in the same time. Nine men are off the land. Nine men are out of work and production remains the same. The march of science is ruthless. The problem facing the rulers, statesmen, and peoples of every land is the fair redistribution of the labour of all. When that problem has been solved with the assistance of all, there will remain even a greater one which will face, not merely the statesmen or the rulers, but the educationist, the teacher and the prophet, and that problem will be: "How is man to use the increased leisure which he has obtained?"

We were all grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture for his admirable speech during the Debate on Unemployment last Session. We all appreciate the work which has been done, but we look forward to the day when, if I may quote from the Gracious Speech, further plans. … necessary to enable agriculture as a whole to take its proper place in the economy of the nation, will not only be formulated but carried out, so enabling that industry to put itself in a position to take full advantage of a return to more favourable conditions. Britain, the greatest industrial country in the world cannot afford to allow its own agriculture to be ruined or its own land, which is small enough, to be put out of cultivation. Agricultural wages are too low. There is no farmer in the land who would not raise them if he could possibly pay them, but even the low wages are beyond his means to-day. On the other hand, the farmer must remember that, if he asks for interference, he must put up with interference. Even the individualistic Liberal knows that the greatest freedom for the individual can very often be best obtained through State interference.

Undoubtedly to-day we are suffering from defective and antiquated methods of marketing. In my short experience there have been many changes. Cattle and horses, sheep and pigs, used to be brought down to the market in my own little country town on the last Thursday of every month. We were in a privileged position. We had a market, but we did not know what supplies our neighbour would bring down. We did not know what buyers would be there to meet us, still less did we know anything at all about the prices which we should ask or even get. There was, within a very short distance, a new and probably a better system. It was a system whereby Smith-field was assembled. The farmers brought their produce there, and there was open bidding. The result was that you had a market price established, but it was only a local and a particular price in the particular market for the particular day. Even to-day the auctioneer who organises the Smithfield does not know how much produce will come down the next week, nor does he know how many buyers will come to purchase the produce. Consequently, there is no constant national price. Prices are fixed haphazardly, and the country suffers.

We are all glad to know that the Bacon Commission has already reported. We are awaiting the report of the Milk Commission. I hope that the Government will also set up a commission to inquire whether we cannot stabilise prices with regard to stock generally, and store stock in particular. Inquiries, however should not be an end in themselves. The Government must put into force the recommendations of those whom they have called upon to advise them.

Twelve months ago drastic but inevitable cuts were made in the earnings of a great number of the people in this country. Ten per cent. had to be deducted from the amount given to the unemployed—the poorest of the poor. A percentage was taken from the teachers who have the care of the future generation. But as much as 50 per cent. and more has, owing to the reduction of prices, been taken from the agricultural yeomen. In my county there are cases where even a chicken is more valuable than the sheep or the cattle upon the moor. The world over, wholesale prices give no proper return to the producer. At the same time, the weekly bills which we all have to face remain much the same as they were 10 years ago. We should like to know what the Government propose to do later on to do away with the disparity which so often exists between the wholesale and retail prices. I think that our professors of economics live too much in the past. They do not have a real regard for the needs of the present, and many of them do not know the horrors of want. Men cannot be moved from one industry to another so quickly as the ordinary economist of today seems to think.

The nations of the world are meeting to-day to consider how best they can further the course of peace, certainly to lessen, if they cannot abolish, the armaments of war. During the coming year the nations of the world are again to meet to consider how best we can live together in times of peace and so remove the fundamental causes of war, the jealousies, rivalries, and disappointments which only lead to bitterness and hatred. The people of this country look to them and to their leaders for guidance in this struggle to save civilisation in our own time.

I make my final earnest appeal to all parties to come to the assistance of the agriculturist in this country. Whether he is a farmer, a smallholder, a cottager, or an allotment holder, who has been so much helped by one society, he is the producer, and his position to-day is desperate. Should he quite lose heart and fail to produce, it is the nation as a whole that will ultimately be the loser. The task confronting our statesmen is that of keeping abreast of and providing against the amazingly rapid progress that science and mechanical invention are making in every direction. With courage, sincerity of purpose, foresight and swift action, the problem of unemployment throughout the world and the problem of Disarmament can be solved. But there must be action, and it must be swift. The nation is calling for action. It has placed its trust in the Government, and we who are supporters of the Government believe that that trust will not be betrayed, but will be carried out.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY

It is customary on these occasions that the speaker who follows the Mover and Seconder of the Address should say some words of congratulation to both of them for the manner in which they have carried out their 'duty. I have particular pleasure this afternoon in saying how very pleased I am that I was able to be present to listen to both speeches. Of all speeches of a similar character that I have heard I think the two to which we have just listened will rank with the best. Without seeming to be invidious, I am sure the Mover of the Address will not mind my saying that I think the Seconder dealt with the world situation and our own situation in relation to it in a most comprehensive manner. If the House, or any proportion of the House, approached the consideration of our national economic problem, and its relationship to the international problem, without any regard to our class, our personal or our sectional interest, I should be quite satisfied with the result of such consideration. When I listen to a speech of that kind I never can understand why I am not marching side by side with the hon. Member who makes such a speech. The hon. Member has this afternoon put the situation as clearly as it is possible to do it.

Both hon. Members spoke, not about the Speech, but very largely about matters that are not in it. When their speeches come to be read, I think it will be found that neither of them discovered very much in the King's Speech to talk about, and I congratulate them on going outside it. If the Mover does not mind my saying it, I did not quite catch the real translation of the classical quotation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) rather got the hang of it in its relation to the Government. "They cannot, because they know they cannot," and the Speech proves it. Before I say anything about the Speech, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman who will speak later if he can tell us what the course of business will be up to Christmas? Also, have the Government any proposals for dealing with unemployment in rural areas, pending a bigger insurance Bill? I think the right hon. Gentleman, after the speech that we have just heard, will agree that something ought to be done as an emergency measure to deal with the problem of unemployment in rural areas.

On these occasions it is usual for the person who speaks first from the Opposition to content himself with complimenting the Mover and Seconder of the Address and then to give utterance to a few generalities, and to wait until another day. I propose to break with that tradition, as we did last time, and as others who have stood here have done on past occasions. The two hon. Members were good enough to speak of their constituencies. If I sat on the back benches, whoever else spoke, I should speak on subjects concerning my constituency. I am here, as I have been reminded by my opponents, very often, because of my advocacy of the claims of unemployed people. I have been charged often with using them as pawns in a political agitation. I am not at all concerned to argue about that. I am here because very poor people elect me and I should not be true to my responsibilities towards them, whether I sat on the back benches or on the Front Bench, if I did not on every possible occasion take up their case and put it before the House.

In regard to the condition of the world and the condition of our country I cannot acid anything to the statement that has just been made, but when I examine the Speech I cannot find any realisation in it of the gravity of the situation. I think this document is quite unworthy of Parliament and quite unworthy of being put into the hands of His Majesty. I think a schoolboys' Parliament, which had been asked to produce a King's Speech dealing with the present condition of the world, would have produced an infinitely better document than this. It does not matter what part of it one reads, it is largely concerned with the future. It is also largely concerned with what has been done but with very little of what ought to be done to-day. When I read it I said to a friend a mine that I was reminded of the present Foreign Secretary. He used to gibe at the Government of which I was a Member and say that we always talked of jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day. This document is action yesterday, action to-morrow, but no really definite action to-day dealing with the great problems that confront the world, and our country in particular.

I know I shall be told that we are dealing with India through the Round. Table Conference, but there is nothing in the Speech to tell us of the condition of affairs in India, nothing to tell us of the repression that is going on in that country, and nothing to tell us that there is any possibility of the people of India, accepting or agreeing to any conclusions that may be arrived at by the Round Table Conference. Nor is there a word about Ireland. Not a word of sympathy for the people of Ireland, who are being subjected to an economic war just now. I should have thought that in a King's Speech at this time some word might have been inserted telling the people of Ireland of some proposal for dealing with the economic strife that is going on. [Interruption.] It is all very well to say that it is the folly of the Irish Government. Al ways when people are in trouble they shove it off on to somebody else, and I find that those who are most vociferous in that respect are those who are the most guilty. The contentious manner—I almost said the contemptible manner—in which this House treats this question, is perfectly disgusting. If the Irish Government are as guilty as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in their hilarity would have us believe, surely there is such a thing, I should have thought, as ordinary, com- mon Christian charity on the part of one set of people towards another.

If you are at war with a nation, you never think it is a good thing that you should starve their women and children. I read in the newspapers of a sort of gleeful exultation that there will be want and suffering in Ireland because of the present economic war. I should have thought that those who are the advisers of the Monarch who rules the Irish Free State at present owe some sort of allegiance and would have put some words in his mouth to let the Irish people know that there was an avenue open by which this difficulty could be solved. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have made up their mind that there is not any solution, but that one side shall eat dirt—[Interruption]. Yes, I am certain that that is the temper of the cheering and jeering, and that what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen want is that Mr. de Valera, as representative of the Free State, shall do exactly what this House requires him to do. There is no answer to that. It is a disgraceful thing that there is not one single word of sympathy in the Gracious Speech, not one single word to indicate a desire that this quarrel, this economic war, should cease. [Interruption.] Those who are proud of it I leave with their pride and their disgrace. There ought to have been a couple of lines in the Speech dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" by which His Majesty the King should have asked Parliament to congratulate the Government on having taken the first step towards the break-up of the British Empire.

The next subject upon which I want to say a word is the World Economic Conference, which is now apparently put off into the distant future. We have heard that it might meet early in January, and we are now told that it might meet in April. What hope is there for anyone in this country who is looking to this Economic Conference for measures to deal with the economic situation if we have to wait another five or six months before it comes together? And who is there who thinks that it is any use the Conference coming together while the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to tariffs is what it is to-day? Hon. Members opposite are continually telling us of the triumph of tariffs and quotas and restrictions in the restoration of trade, but the President of the Board of Trade, who has supported the whole policy of the Government in regard to tariffs, made a speech the other day in which he is reported to have said: Once we step into the world of high tariffs we put an end to that very freedom of international exchange which is) the essence of British trade and industry. That is an amazing statement from a Minister responsible for the protectionist policy of the Government, and perhaps some Member of the Government, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman himself, will tell us how he squares that statement with his support of the tariff policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman also said something else. He said: International trade, which is impeded by the control of exchanges abroad, is also impeded by tariff barriers, quotas, and other devices, all of which are attempting to dam hack a rising flood which may overtop all obstacles. If it does, it may mean financial ruin. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? How can lie square the policy which he advocates in this House with these two statements in which he roundly condemns it? What is the rising flood? Is it a rising flood of commodities? What does he mean by a rising flood which may overtop all obstacles, and which may bring about financial ruin? It may be that his colleagues in the Cabinet have discussed these matters with him and that one of them will be able to tell us what the right hon. Gentleman really means. If these statements are true, it must mean that the right hon. Gentleman has been supporting a policy which he knows, or is now convinced, is perfectly hopeless. What are the Government's plans for stopping this calamity? What are they going to say at the World Economic Conference? What are they going to propose there? Are they going to continue between now and next April, or whenever the Conference is summoned, to do what the President of the Board of Trade says is disastrous, that is to build more and more tariff walls? We ought to know; we ought to be able to cross-examine the President of the Board of Trade on the matter. You may go through the whole of this Speech, and there is not a single constructive proposal except tariffs, quotas, and prohibi- tions. There is nothing else in regard to trade. I challenge anyone to put his finger on any proposal which does not involve tariffs or quotas or restrictions of some sort or another, and because the President of the Board of Trade has joined us in saying that such a policy is perfectly hopeless and calamitous I want the Government to tell us what their policy is in regard to the matter.

The holding of a World Economic Conference is imperative. It does not matter so much that Socialists for years and years have been saying the same thing as scientists. Philip Snowden, when he opened the Debate on Socialism in this House, made almost the same kind of statements which have been made by great scientists and financiers in all parts of the world; that is, that we are coming to a position when we have such an abundance of goods that the system of exchange and distribution is not suitable for bringing about the consumption of those goods. And there are multitudes of people who need them. Hon. Members opposite cheered the speech of the Seconder of the Address this afternoon. He put his finger right on the spot; and I want to know the answer of the Government to him, even if they do not answer me. What is the answer of the Government to those who are continually begging them to take this matter in hand before it passes altogether out of control It is a question upon which not only the future of this country but of the world depends, and I repeat my question: What is the policy of the Government?

In the King's Speech there is a mention of disarmament and war debts. What do the Government propose in regard to the American Debt? When they go to the World Economic Conference what will they propose not only in regard to war debts—they are only part of the problem—but also in regard to the question of debtor nations? You cannot take payments from those countries in the only way in which they can pay you, that is, in goods. The restrictions with regard to beef and meat will hit this country in the collection of debt from the Argentine and other countries. There is no representative of the Government who is standing up at all to this problem. How do the Government propose to deal with the problem of war debts and of debts generally? I have said it once, and I repeat it now, that we are facing the nemesis of usury. Money has been lent by thousands of millions. At first it could be lent arid it went out in goods, and came back in goods by way of exchange, but to-day it is quite impossible for creditor nations to take payment. If they did, they would simply choke their country with goods; and, as the people are unemployed, there is therefore no way of handling them. That is a position which is bound to grow worse and worse unless it is taken in hand. What do the Government mean to do about it? Sir Josiah Stamp has told us that what is needed is a number of good healthy bankruptcies. Another economist has told us that what is needed now is an international bankruptcy court. Let us get down to it and find out in what way we can deal with this question. Until it is dealt with it is no use cheering the speech of the Seconder of the Address and thinking what a wonderful speech he has made, as indeed he has.

The King's Speech tells us nothing at all. You are not going to settle the question of peace and war merely by getting rid of a few armaments here and there. The Lord President of the Council shocked this House the other night when he dealt with Disarmament, and the right hon. Membar for Epping (Mr. Churchill) some months ago, speaking on Disarmament, also put the point which was put by the Lord President of the Council, that if men are desirous for a fight they will find ways and means. The most potent cause of war is the economic cause. It does more to bring war between countries than anything else, and, therefore, it is necessary to hasten the holding of the World Economic Conference in order that economic conditions may be made more tolerable and thus get rid of the menace of war.

I come now to what is the most sinister part of the Speech. It is probably the only part which I shall be told is really constructive. The Cabinet did put the truth into the mouth of His Majesty in the passage in the King's Speech: Large numbers of My people are still unable to find employment and the persistence of this situation causes Me the greatest anxiety. I should think it did. These millions of unemployed are still in our midst, in spite of the fact that we have had some 15 months or so of a National Government and a riddance of the Labour Government. I heard over the wireless last night the same old lie that unemployment and the financial crisis of August 12 months ago was due to the Labour Government. I thought that no one outside Bedlam ever gave utterance to that lie now; I thought it was dead and buried. Every one knows that the same world conditions that are quoted here as the cause of unemployment prevailed two years ago. They prevailed even when the right hon. Member for Epping was Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have prevailed all the time that there has been a capitalist system. [Interruption.] Yes, of course they have. Anyone would imagine that unemployment was a new problem. The right hon. Member for Epping made his first speech of statesmanship when he was responsible for the introduction of the Bill establishing Employment Exchanges. He was then at the Board of Trade. He knows that the problem of unemployment is not a new one. It has been with us ever since he was born, and since long before I was born. Obviously, the cause of it is something that is not new. The only difference to-day is that it has mounted up. If there is one right hon. Member in the House who ought to know something about the growth of unemployment during his own lifetime it is the right hon. Gentleman. In his time the story was "Establish Employment Exchanges. Regularise movements. Let people know where the jobs are." Sir William Beveridge said: "If you let people know where the jobs are, and if you give them facilities to move about, you will get rid of unemployment." We know now that that was all fudge. We know that, clever and brilliant man though he is, he did not know what he was writing about when he wrote that nonsense. There are not enough jobs to go round. The right hon. Member for Epping found that out when he first established the Employment Exchanges.

What is the policy of the Government for dealing with unemployment? Look at the King's Speech. When we were in power we were challenged again and again with the question: "What is your policy? Where are your plans? What are you going to do about it?" When the present Postmaster-General was on his side of the House, he stood at this Box and danced around, and all the time e was asking: "When are you going to start?" I was told one day that the only thing we thought about was shovelling out money, doling out doles. But his is a champion dole Government. Only its doles are too low, too small, too mean, too contemptible. The one note of construction in the King's Speech is in the sentence: any provision for unemployed persons should not only afford material assistance hut should also be designed to maintain their morale and their fitness to resume work when opportunities can he found. What does that mean? I listened the other day to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and his speech was in effect, "Back to 1834." I listened also to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. It was the same with him—no more doles, no more free education, in fact no more anything that every one of them told the electors he was in favour of during the election. We are to have an Insurance Bill which is to separate the sheep from the goats. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Epping remembers. He ought really to be sitting on the Front Bench. He and the Lord President of the Council will recall that there was one great occasion when Sir Warren Fisher and a commission were sent down to South Wales, and that they came back with a great report. They told us that the one thing that would settle the problem was transference. They said in effect: "Let us shift them. We must not let them stay there. We must move them about." The miners were moved about, and filled the East End of London, and we have them on our hands now. No one talks to-day about transference as a solution. I see opposite the right hon. Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), who was Minister of Labour at that time. He will remember that transference was then the slogan—"We will shift them round." I protested then and have protested ever since. I know it will be said: "Your Government did it." Right hon. and hon. Members opposite can chalk it up against me; I do not mind. One has to bear the sins of one's pals as well as the sins of others. My point is that trans- ference, like the establishment of employment exchanges, never did one iota to find a new job for a new man. It merely put a different man into a job that was available.

I repeat my question to the Government: What are they going to do? They are going to train people again. I have a training establishment nearly next door to my home. The London County Council send to that establishment men who are nearly my age, to get them trained and to keep them fit. I see the men going backward and forward. They do physical jerks and drill and all that kind of thing. Personally, I am in favour of people having occupation. If they cannot get work, I would like to see organised occupation of one sort or another, but I am not going to be a party to saying that training men will be a means of finding them work. I beg the Government to face up to this before the Bill is brought in. It is quite true that you keep body and soul in the men and that there are probably 1,000,000 men and women whom economic causes have shoved outside the general run of the employed. But if you take these out and put them into jobs for which the men who are outside are competing, you simply take one man out and drop another in his place; you do not solve the problem; you do not help the problem one bit; you simply waste your energy and direct your attention to that which really is of no effect whatever.

What this House has to do is to face the fact that either you have to spend considerable sums of money in maintaining the unemployed or to find them work, even if you take some of those of whom you are already beginning to talk, those less fit and less capable. How did they become unfit and less capable? Because of economic conditions which do not allow them to go to work. Here and there you may have a man who never wants to work. There are many such men at this end of the town as well as where I live. But they are a very tiny fraction in any class in the country. It is the bigger thing that the Government have to see, that men and women are constantly being driven down. Although the Government may devise means of pulling them out here and there, that is not the way to deal with the situation. All of us should face up to the fact that it is going to cost a lot of money to maintain these people. It would be infinitely better if the Government were to settle down and to say that pending the meeting of this International Economic Conference they would set about reconstructing this country.

The Seconder of the Motion spoke about the condition of agriculture. I remember that in 1911 I sat on the second bench opposite and begged the then Government to face up to the problem of agriculture. I learned what I knew about agriculture by going to Denmark and sitting at the feet of Sir Horace Plunket and others like him. I am confident that if years ago the problem had been dealt with on the lines of real land development in this country, our land would not be in the condition in which it is to-day. But there it is. All that we are doing is talking and talking and talking about it. [Interruption.] I do not mind a bit who jeers. Hon. Members did not jeer the Seconder of the Motion when he said the same thing. He said, "We do not want merely to talk about things, but we want action." I say to hon. Members opposite that I will stop talking when they take action, but I shall not stop talking until they do. I am not going to stand in this House and allow a continuance of the make-believe that the Government are dealing with unemployment or with agriculture when no effective means are being taken at all.

Whether hon. Members opposite know it or not, myriads of people in this country, as was said the other night, are rotting in body and soul and mind. That was stated by two hon. Gentlemen, not friends of mine, but a Conservative and a Liberal. They said that the unemployed, their women and their children, were rotting in body and soul and mind. I ask the Government, what are they going to do about it? What comfort is there in the King's Speech to any one of them? What is there of comfort to the people in my division 7 Hon. Members may describe as sob-stuff what I am about to state. They can if they like. A man came to me while I was at dinner last week. He had not a pair of boots on his feet. He said, "George, you told me and the unemployed that we ought to wait. What am I to do? I begged the public assistance committee for a pair of boots, and they said 'No.' I have not come here to get them from you. I have come here with this question, what am I to do? Have I to wait four years till you can win a majority?" [Interruption.] The only thing some people can think about is jeering at the man who is starving. After all this man knew perfectly well that we hope some day to be in a majority in this House. I ask the Government, What is their answer to that man? I ask the Prime Minister, what is his answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "What is your answer?"] My answer is that this nation is rich enough to see that no child, no woman, no man, need go without a pair of boots. While I have two pairs of boots, or any hon. Member of this House has two pairs of boots, no person ought to go without one pair. That is my answer. To say that we cannot afford it is sheer, downright cant and humbug. The country can pay for these things. When I hear someone mention what is done for these people, I reply "Do not think of what is done for them, but think of what is done to them."

The other night we were talking about sons and family incomes, when discussing the need test. Someone said that the sons left home, and every one around cheered. They said, "A good job too, the right thing." I was asked to go down the Embankment on the other side of the river to a shelter in the Belvedere Road. I invite any hon. Member to go there to-night, when the place will not be prepared for him. He will see some of the finest specimens of boys and young lads there. I asked some of them why they were there. They replied, "We could not stand it at home any longer." These lads are tramping the streets and lanes and highways, and there they are, lying on boards, covered with paper night after night, and going hither and thither. What are the Government going to do about them? What is the answer to that? The Government have the biggest majority they ever had in this House, and, having that power, what are they going to do for them? The Dominions Secretary, the Prime Minister and myself have been to those people and said to them, "When we have got power, Parliament can, and will, change these things." They have got power; I have not. What are they going to do for them? Go down the Belvedere Road and tell them. These people are not Socialists or Communists, but just people who have been driven from their homes. Continually it is said that there are families with £4 or £5 a week coming in. Yes, earned by boys and girls and parents. We in this House say that the nation cannot pay for unemployment, but that the family can. The family must pay for it. Why? In Britain to-day you are pulling down the standard of life not only of the unemployed but of the employed, too. You are driving a wedge, a bitter, cruel wedge into family life, and it is a brutal, disgusting thing that we should be doing that with our eyes open.

There is another thing I want to say, and perhaps hon. and right hon. Members will jeer at this. I do not mind. I have had experience of it; all my life I have been an agitator. I went to the end of this place to-day, and, as I stood there, my mind was full of this document, because I had seen it yesterday and I had had time to think about it. I stood there. I say nothing at all against any individual, but when I looked round at the diamonds and the numbers of the well-fed men and women, I remembered the people I have to face every morning, men who go to the canteen on the other side to a bit of bread and a little weak tea—hundreds of them every morning. When I see the stream going down to the public assistance committee I compare them with that. I would have liked to have taken His Majesty and the whole of that assembly and planted them in two streets in my division—Devas Street and Donald Street. I would have liked them to see the conditions under which the people live, to show them the rooms where six and seven people are herded together. I would like to make them understand that riches and poverty are two things which come into the world together. Riches come out of poverty. If this world would only do what the Seconder said—distribute the goods, distribute the produce, distribute all those good things which mankind produces, there would be no poverty. There would be no children hungry—and children are hungry. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I know what I am talking about. Here in London they take into account the miserable meals given to a child in school, and take it out of the money though the mother thinks she could spend a few coppers better for the whole of the family. Nothing so mean or contemptible has been done by any local authority as that which has been done by the London County Council.

This is my final word. We cannot do much in this House, and probably we cannot do much outside. Probably outside we cannot arouse people to revolt. You merely destroy the old spirit of our people. A handful will make a noise; the great bulk of them are crushed, as the hon. Member said last week, body, soul and spirit. It is something for the National Government to be proud of, something for the London County Council to be proud of; but it is breaking the hearts of decent, wholesome men and women, and it is breaking the bodies of children. The children in the elementary day schools are gradually deteriorating. Every social worker will tell you so. Every social worker will tell you that malnutrition is going on everywhere.

I am going out to those people as one man, and I am going to tell them that this Parliament callously, cynically, knowing what it is doing, is imposing these conditions on the people. If we cared we could give every one of them a decent maintenance. If you ask me how, I say: If it were a time of war, if the enemy were at the gate, we should all say, "Share and share alike." I say that I have no business to have a half-crown meal here when 2s. is what you reckon to keep a child seven days. I have no right to a half-crown meal while there are children under those conditions. If we are so poor, if we cannot do it in any other way, let us come down as we should in a plague, an earthquake or a war, to one dead level. It is not Soviet Russia which we are discussing; it is England, and whether 3,000,000 people, or, if you like, 2,000,000, shall be treated as decent human beings, or continue to be half-starved. If I could I would bring all these people here in a row, and let you see them and make you answer the question they put: "What are you going to do for me?" You made pledges and promises to them. You have not fulfilled them. You charge us with not having done so. What are you doing? You are doing worse. You are piling more and more burdens upon them.

4.39 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald)

The House will be very pleased to hear that I am going to begin on traditional lines, and the traditional line for the first two speakers, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, is to congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Address. There was one sentence which, I thought, was a good and profitable sentence in the speech to which we have just listened, and that is that the Leader of the Opposition heartily congratulated the Mover and the Seconder. I think that this is about the tenth year since I had this duty to perform for the first time, and I cannot remember any Mover or Seconder who with more quiet modesty and yet very fine penetration into the subjects with which they had to deal, moved and seconded the Address. It was very curious that the Conservative representative of the National Government dealt with Disarmament, while the Liberal representative of the National Government dealt with agriculture. Behold the testimony of the Coalition parties for the purpose of advancing national interests!

Mr. MAXTON

Good staff work.

The PRIME MINISTER

No one better understands staff work than my hon. Friend, but let us put that on one side.. There was a question put to me which I will answer straight away. It was: What is to be the business until Christmas It is very unusual to put that question in that very full and comprehensive way on the opening day of the Session, but, as soon as we have disposed of the Address, we shall take the London Traffic Bill. The later Business to be taken will be duly announced.

I am perfectly certain that, whatever the King's Speech might reveal, the right hon. Gentleman opposite could see nothing in it. I am perfectly certain that whether there was anything in it or not, in so far as the King's Speech was vague, the speech in reply would have been vaguer; in so far as the King's Speech consisted of words, the speech in reply would have been still more wordy and still more empty. I was surprised that my right hon. Friend did not remember his experience when he himself joined in producing a King's Speech. He knows perfectly well that the King's Speech is a general statement of the subjects which the Government are to bring forward for the discussion of the House of Commons. That we have done, and when he reads about unemployment, will he take my word for it, and not only my word, but will he draw upon his own experience, that that means that legislation dealing with unemployment is going to be produced during the Session? Will he take it from his own experience that when references are made to certain special points regarding the condition of unemployed people, that indicates that those points are also going to be the subject of legislation? The fact of the matter is, that if hon. Members will take this King's Speech and compare it with previous ones, they will find that the indications in this Speech are far more definite regarding long and strenuous sittings and much legislative work, and I want to prepare the House for a very strenuous Session with very important legislation on the Floor of the House of Commons.

I want, in the name of the House, and for the sake of the House, to protest most strongly against the frequent attempts of the right hon. Gentleman, when hon. Members laugh, to convey to outsiders the impression that it was not what was going on in the House, not the way in which things were being said or the conduct of matters in this House which caused hon. Members to laugh, but that the House was jeering at the state of the unemployed. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that such is not the case.

Mr. LANSBURY

I know them as well as the right hon. Gentleman knows them.

The PRIME MINISTER

The greatest outburst of what the right hon. Gentleman called hilarity occurred when he himself made this observation—that those who get into trouble always rim away and make others responsible.

Mr. LANSBURY

I did not say that.

The PRIME MINISTER

The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is going into the country to expose to the people of the country the mind of this House. So, I hope, are hon. and right hon. Gen- tlemen who sit here. I am going to do a little of that in this week. Before this week is over I shall have something to say on that very subject outside—[Interruption.] I ant very glad to hear of the right hon. Gentleman's intention. Nothing will expose that which has been put to us to-day, more than the right hon. Gentleman going up and down the country and repeating the speech which he made to-day. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman has given me nothing to which to reply. He drew his great picture of what happened to-day in another part of this building. Was the right hon. Gentleman there to-day for the first time? The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to take all those who were there to-day down to some streets in his own division. But he was there in 1929. He was there in 1930. I think, if anything, the display in those two years was a little richer than it was even to-day. What is the use of talking like that? What contribution does that make to the solution of the question which concerns us all?

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman—I do not know if he meant it, but he certainly conveyed this impression—takes the view that nobody cares for the unemployed except himself and his immediate friends. But that does not meet the case which we put up the other day—the case that if you are genuinely interested in the unemployed, you have to face the question of how to produce legislation and create conditions which will solve their problem. The right hon. Gentleman tried for two years. We all tried, with all our hearts, with just as much enthusiasm as the right hon. Gentleman, if with less grandiloquent expressions. We tried with enthusiasm and with determination to get at the facts of the case, to get at the root, as the right hon. Gentleman would call it, of the problem. We tried to deal with it by certain methods of providing relief for the unemployed. We failed to deal with it by expenditure on what was really relief work—certainly on things that were being specially pushed ahead and things that were being undertaken on a particularly large scale owing to the fact that there were unemployed men who required work. Work was created for that purpose—a very beneficent purpose, a pur- pose which is still in front of us. But we failed, because at the moment when that expenditure was highest, the unemployed figures were going up faster and faster. As a matter of fact, comparing the conditions then and now, if we could only have seen it, that state of unemployment was really worse than it is at the present time.

What is the policy of His Majesty's Government? I will explain it very shortly. All I have to do to-day is to go very generally over the chief points of the King's Speech. What is the position of His Majesty's Government? His Majesty's Government have studied that experience to which I have just referred and they have come to certain conclusions about it. They will encourage every normal expansion of municipal enterprise. Everything that is normal expansion, everything that is capable of being turned to good use will be done. But we warn the municipalities and this House that rates and taxes cannot be drawn upon extravagantly. Moreover, in the study of who the unemployed are, and what are the prospects of the unemployed is this country, even if normal trade were restored, we are faced with this fact and nobody can deny it. We are faced with the fact that a large number could be reabsorbed into industry. If the coal trade improved, through hydrogenation or by any other expedient, more miners would he employed. If iron and steel revived more iron and steel workers would be employed but as my hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Resolution pointed out, we are going to have, in the future, a larger production by the use of scientific methods than we have ever had before and a very substantially lessened body of working men and women engaged in production.

What is to be done about the remainder? There is the problem, and this Government is the first Government to face the actual problem that when trade has become as brisk as anybody can naturally expect trade now to become for this country we shall still have a residuum. We shall still have a population which, were they not human beings, one would describe—merely for the sake of making quite clear what their position was—as scrap. Are we going to allow, is this nation going to allow, great bodies of risen and women, perhaps even amount- ing to a couple of million, to be, to all intents and purposes, in our society, superfluous scrap? The Government, so far as they are concerned, say "No." Therefore, the problem of unemployment is not one of temporary relief. The problem of unemployment as regards the first section to which I have referred, that is the men and women who have a good chance of being reabsorbed, may be covered by insurance, by extended insurance and perhaps by temporary measures. But that is going to leave us with the most harassing, the most heart-breaking section of the problem of unemployment as it has grown to-day.

These boys and girls—and I think this is indicated in His Majesty's Speech—these young men and women are growing up to years of adult age; they have never been inside a factory or workshop door, never disciplined, never trained, never given the skill by which they can earn their living. A Government which, at the end of 1932 with all the experience that we have got, all the record that is behind us of years and years and years of perfectly honest experimenting with the unemployment problem—the Government which to-day imagined that that section, which is a large section, could be dealt with by spending £100,000,000 on public works, ought certainly to be turned out neck and crop. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you going to do?"] I am not going to shirk it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite could not give a satisfactory answer to a man who only wanted a pair of boots because that man had certain points. He had a very commendable pride about him—I wish there were some more—and he said to the right lion. Gentleman, "I did not come to beg from you."

Mr. LANSBURY

Hear, hear!

The PRIME MINISTER

Certainly, and I say this, that the right hon. Gentleman did not give that man a satisfactory answer.

Mr. LANSBURY

Of course, I could not.

The PRIME MINISTER

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman could not, and I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]

Mr. LANSBURY

Who are they jeering at now?

The PRIME MINISTER

I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman and I wish one could really forget that this is a mere scrap. The point here is that the Government have to face this problem in a way that no Government have hitherto faced it, largely on account of the fact that all our predecessors assumed that this was a temporary thing and that by spending large sums of capital the nation and the localities—the municipalities—the taxpayer and the ratepayer would both be recouped. I want to put this to anybody who is going to refer to unemployment, during the many Debates that will arise on that subject in the course of this Session. I challenge any hon. Member to base an argument upon the assumption that this is only a temporary state of unemployment and that the whole body of unemployed can be treated as though they can be absorbed into ordinary industry. We have a different problem altogether. That problem we are facing, but I want to say to the House, and I speak for my colleagues in the Government, that we are not going to promise the production of schemes within a month. Questions can be put about it, and sneers can be made regarding it, but we are going on working out the problem with every assistance we can lay our hands upon, the Departments concerned co-ordinating, outside bodies being used.

They talk about the state of the nation at the present moment being like that of a country at war. I will use an expression which carries out that idea. A Council of War sits, plans, consults, and it will produce its proposals without delay, and beyond that I cannot say. Certainly not; no honest Government would say more. As I say, we are blazing a trail. I am not going to treat of agriculture, because I can leave that in the very competent hands of the Minister of Agriculture, but the revival of agriculture is essential to the plans that we are working out. The unused land, the partly used land, the badly used land, land which is not put to use which is the most efficient and the most economical under 1932 conditions, must be absorbed steadily, with the idea that we can put a much larger percentage of our people in direct contact with the land than has been happening during the de- velopment of the factory system in this country.

As regards the foreign part, I want to say quite plainly that the International Economic Conference, about which I made some references the other day, is finding some obstacles in its way. Will the House believe me when I say that His Majesty's Government will continue to press for the earliest meeting of that conference that it finds possible? I am certain—and I do not want to say more than would be helpful—that if before the politicians met at Lausanne experts had been put in charge of the conflicting materials, the conflicting interests that we had to face at Lausanne, and if the experts had worked it out, and worked it out, and worked it out before that conference of politicians met, we should still have been sitting at Lausanne without any conclusions having been reached. The expert is a great servant, and in this country and in every other country of economic development there is a body of experts that every political negotiator must thank, and thank, and thank again on account of their extraordinarily valuable help in all these negotiations. There are a great many difficulties. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tariffs."] Supposing we do go to this International Conference and face tariffs as a problem, I would like to know what contribution hon. Members opposite are going to make, because they tell us they are neither one thing nor the other.

Mr. LANSBURY

Read "Labour and the Nation," which you wrote.

The PRIME MINISTER

My right hon. Friend told me the other day he had scrapped it.

Mr. LANSBURY

I did not say so.

The PRIME MINISTER

I do not want to get into an argument, but as a matter of fact he did.

Mr. LANSBURY

Well, I did not.

The PRIME MINISTER

He did, because he declared, "I am no longer one of the evolutionary pragmatists, the people who have been hanging upon my coat-tails while I have been trying all these years to put into action the perfervid orations that I make here."

Mr. LANSBURY

One of your dreams.

The PRIME MINISTER

It may have been, and I am going to nourish the dreams, and by nourishing them probably I shall be far more efficient, as an old-fashioned Socialist, in changing the face of the earth than by making perfervid speeches that ramble all over the world in order to find an uncomfortable resting place at the end. I want to give the assurance to this House and the country that the Government will do everything they possibly can to get over the little hold-ups that have happened in order that the International Conference may meet at the very earliest moment. The world cannot afford to wait. One is appalled sometimes when one reads articles as though the world is going at the rate of five miles an hour. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is going quicker than that."] It is, and the hon. Member will find it on this side, not on that. The reason is that the politicians, the direct representatives of this Government, that Government, and the other Government, brought face to face, will much more quickly find an accommodation, a way out, and will be so minded knowing the larger issues outside, knowing the tremendous importance of getting an agreement—the direct representatives of the Government meeting the direct representatives of other Governments will much more quickly and much better, as a piece of workmanship, find the accommodation which will lead to a great world agreement.

As to disarmament, I want to say nothing beyond what my right hon. Friend said here the other day and at Geneva more recently, but I would like to say—and I am perfectly certain the whole House, with practical if not with total unanimity, will support me when I say—that the message which we send this afternoon to Geneva is that we have complete confidence in the representative of this country, our Foreign Secretary. I need not go any further. I can assure the House that it is going to have a very strenuous Session and that Ministers will have an even more strenuous Session, a much more strenuous Session, than private Members. But if this House at the beginning of this Session makes up its mind that it will put the same dauntless courage, the same well-founded confidence, the same generous helpfulness behind the Government as it did last Session, this Session will add one more great contribution, not merely to the recovery of this country, but to the recovery of the whole world.

5.10 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL

My first duty is to join in the encomiums that have been passed upon the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Bird) told us that he was a man of varied occupations, and I have no doubt that, as solicitor, he has been fully able to redeem his losses as farmer. So, in the same way, the loss which he has caused to the House hitherto by his too constant silence as a private Member, he has redeemed to-day by being its Mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. Member revived the medical simile, of which we heard much at the time of the General Election, comparing the Government to a medical attendant. I rather suspect that he himself may prove to be like that very loyal patient who had so much confidence in his doctor that he said he would rather die under his care than be cured by anyone else. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) gave us a very able analysis of the agricultural situation, not merely the momentary situation with regard to the markets of to-day, but the underlying causes that have given rise to its present distresses, and I am sure the House heard with great interest and attention his able and thoughtful speech.

The House meets to-day for its second Session, I may truly say, gravely disturbed at the long continuance of the trade depression and at the absence of any clear signs of its speedy ending. The country—and here perhaps I may not have such universal agreement in this House—in our view is disillusioned with respect to the tariff measures that have been taken, sceptical with regard to the results of Ottawa., and gravely uneasy at the absence of any definite plans for early future action. As the Lord President of the Council has said, the state of trade is appalling. In this country and other great industrial countries there are now at least 30,000,000 of working people unemployed. The right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), although his actual proposals may not have commended themselves to many Members, was right, hardly exaggerated at all, in his picture of the distresses of those who are now unemployed. It needs saying in this House, and it should be listened to with attention and respect, for the right hon. Gentleman is expressing here on the Floor of the House what is undoubtedly the feeling uppermost in the minds of millions of people in the great industrial districts.

But what of the remedies? To-day, though it was otherwise when we dealt with the unemployment question more fully a week or two ago, his proposals were only a treatment of symptoms, not an effort to arrive at the cause and cure. Undoubtedly the main cure must be international, and I was very glad to see in the King's Speech that the World Economic Conference was given pride of place, that it occupied the foremost position in the proposals of the Government this Session. I deplore the long delay that has taken place in the summoning of that Conference. Lausanne was concluded last July, and it was, on the whole, highly successful. His share in that success is one of the greatest achievements of the Prime Minister's career. It was intended that Lausanne should be quickly followed by a conference of all the Powers with a view to arriving at the causes of the world-wide depression. Now we are told that it is unlikely to meet until next April. If that be so, a full year will have elapsed since the conclusion of the Lausanne Conference before any results can be expected from the World Economic Conference. While economists falter, while statesmen tarry, while Parliaments hold Debates such as this, the march of economic events goes on and the people suffer. It cannot go on indefinitely. Close behind I seem to hear Time's winged chariot hurrying near. It is essential that the effort to be made at the Economic Conference should be begun speedily. As the Prime Minister has said, if the experts who have been meeting at Geneva are unable to make practical proposals at an early date, the Conference must not wait, and statesmen themselves should take the matter in hand. The outcome of that Conference, if it is to be useful, must remove restric- tions on trade. There is universal assent as to that. The Prime Minister asked what contribution hon. Members of the Labour party were able to make to the agenda for that Conference. I would venture to lay before him one definite and specific suggestion which we on these benches desire to make after consultation with some of the ablest economists and others outside the walls of this House. We recognise, though we recognise it with regret, that it is impossible in the present state of world opinion to expect a universal levelling of the barriers against trade. Although it is recognised now in many countries which were strongly Protectionist hitherto that high Protection is a great evil and a cause of the universal depression, vested interests, such as those we have been busily creating in this country iii recent months, are too strong to enable any sweeping measure of change to be effected.

We suggest therefore, that we should follow the road that has already been indicated by some of the smaller Powers—Belgium and Holland in particular—and that the Government at the World Economic Conference should endeavour to form a group, as extensive as possible, of the low tariff Powers and of all who are ready to join it. This group should undertake that tariffs should be reduced among themselves to a maximum of 10 per cent.—either 10 per cent., or less, or nothing on certain articles, apart from revenue duties which should be defined. We suggest that this association of low tariff countries, which may, if circumstances are favourable, gradually enlarge its membership until it includes a large part of the commercial area of the world, should by adopting this method show the way to a general change in international fiscal policy. It will be necessary to modify the most-favoured-nation Clause of our treaties—not to abandon it, but to supplement it. There are already recognised exceptions in that Clause, and in the general interest it may be found possible to agree to other exceptions enabling such a combination of states to be made. It will also be an undertaking of this combination that they will not increase their tariff's against the other states which remain outside it, and that all shall be admissible.

The present negotiations which are being conducted by the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers must prove inadequate on account of the most-favoured-nation Clause. Again and again it has been pointed out in the House, though the country has not yet realised it, that we cannot make concessions to either Sweden or Denmark or any of the states with whom we are now negotiating without making equal concessions to every other country in the world, and they cannot make concessions to us without doing the same. It is therefore essential, if we are to do more than touch the fringe of the subject, to secure the modification of that Clause by general consent.

Secondly, we suggest that some check should be put upon future tariff increases by resolution of the World Economic Conference. As things stand, tariffs are regarded as matters of domestic interest and of no concern to neighbouring countries. We suggest that a different policy should be adopted by agreement. Armaments were regarded until recently as a purely domestic and internal matter, but it is now realised that they affect all countries and should be altered only by agreement. So with regard to tariffs we urge that there is need for a, new economic covenant to be signed by the nations of the world undertaking that tariffs shall not be increased without consultation and due notice. Here, again, the way has been shown by other countries in the Convention signed at Oslo by the Scandinavian States and Belgium and Holland. If it were generally adopted throughout the world, it might show the way again to better conditions.

Thirdly, it is unanimously agreed now in all countries that in order to relieve the economic world-wide depression it is essential to arrest the fall in world prices and to secure some recovery from the low prices that prevail. We urge upon the Government that, if the efforts to raise prices are merely local and national and limited to this country while the world fall continues, the results will be not merely futile but dangerous. They will tend to restrict our exports; they will tend to encourage our imports; they will worsen the balance of trade and further upset the exchanges. What methods should be adopted is a question of great complexity and difficulty. Ex- periments in what is called reflation are going on on a large scale in America and on a smaller scale in France, Italy and Germany, and I have no doubt that that aspect will be examined at the World Economic Conference. We shall be pressed there by other nations to return to the Gold Standard. The present position without any stabilised standard is a precarious one, and it is dangerous. We should stabilise, but the usual opinion is that we should not stabilise yet, and we cannot stabilise until the restrictions on international trade are lessened and the question of war debts settled. Unless these objects are achieved before a return to the Gold Standard, the same forces that drove us off the Gold Standard might force us off it again.

Something has been said in the House to-day about debts and the payment of our debt to the United States, and probably it is wise that the House should be very restrained on that subject. It is a matter which is very much in our minds, but on which we can say little to advantage and little that might not embarrass the Government. I wish that we could, in Canning's famous phrase: call in the new world to redress the balance of the old "— the balance in this case being the trade balance, but it depends on whether the Americans can see that it is not only a question of whether Europe can afford to pay, but whether America can afford to receive; and whether, in view of the necessity of a trade recovery, the transfer of great sums of money coupled with exclusion of goods must not injure prosperity both in the United States and all other countries in the world.

We on these benches welcome the emphasis in the King's Speech upon the need for disarmament. We regard the Disarmament Conference at Geneva as by far the most important event now happening in the world. I had the privilege of taking some part in those deliberations for several weeks earlier this year, and one impression among others which I derived from that experience was that the delegates of all the Powers were keenly conscious of the pressure of public opinion in the background. They knew that the nations were watching, and that if the Disarmament Conference did not arrive at definite results there would be, throughout the world, not merely dis- appointment but vehement resentment, and that failure would be an encouragement to subversive forces in the various countries. There is, I believe, an intense public feeling in this country upon this subject. During the many years I have taken part in public life, I do not think that I have ever known public opinion among the general body of citizens more keenly alive than it is at this moment on the subject of peace and disarmament.

I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council that the solution of this problem is a matter for the younger generation. The responsibility rests on the statesmen of to-day, and the right maxim is one that is sometimes used—"Stop the next war now!" The recent declaration made by the Foreign Secretary at Geneva indicates a considerable step in advance, particularly in relation to air armaments. With regard to the Army, I was glad to know that the Government declared a favourable view to the Hoover proposals. I trust that they will favour also the French suggestion for reduction in the terms of military service. It is with regard to the Navy that some disappointment is felt, and if the proposals are accepted for the abolition of naval aircraft and submarines, and if the other naval Powers are willing to agree, I am inclined to think that the attitude of the Government with regard to the big battleship will need reconsideration. The Memorandum of the Foreign Secretary, which has been presented to the House as a White Paper, indicates that as Germany is to enjoy an equal status, she must be permitted to build ships of the same size as may be ultimately agreed to by the other Powers. If that be so, the question of the size of battleships becomes of even greater importance for, unless it is very considerably reduced, it will mean that we are opening the door to the resumption of rivalry in the building of great battleships. I am sorry that the statement made no reference to the possibility of budgetary limitation, which is an important matter in this connection.

We on these benches find ourselves in full accord with the paragraph in the King's Speech on India. We shall gladly co-operate in giving full effect to the Declaration which has been endorsed by this House, and we dissociate ourselves entirely from the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), whose return to the House in restored health we are all glad to welcome. We feel strongly that we cannot permanently govern a great people like the Indian people merely by measures of crude coercion. We regret that the Labour party have withdrawn their representatives from the conferences that are now taking place. We consider that that was an error on their part. There ought to be full national unity in working out the details which are necessary to give practical effect to the Declaration of the House, of which the Labour party approved. For our part, through Lord Reading and Lord Lothian, we are cooperating in this effort and shall continue to do so until the new Indian constitution is carried into law.

Perhaps I may be allowed to mention one omission from the Gracious Speech. It is only a departmental matter, but one in which I have been keenly interested as a former and, indeed, recent Home Secretary. I am sorry that there is no reference to any measure of penal reform. The recommendations of various committees and other proposals are numerous and practicable; the time is fully ripe for a large and important measure of reform of our penal system, and I could have wished that this opportunity had been taken for passing it into law.

Finally, one of the latest paragraphs in the Speech is that which deals with unemployment, but the most relevant paragraph on the subject is the first one, touching the Economic Conference. In old days the King's Speech used to be divided fairly definitely into two compartments, foreign affairs and domestic affairs. Now, the two are inextricably intertwined, and the paragraph most relevant to unemployment is that dealing with international affairs. As to unemployment insurance and the provision of temporary work for those who are out of employment, such measures are, indeed, necessary, and I hope that the whole House, without distinction of parties, will co-operate in carrying a large amending Bill into law. But any such measures cannot be in any degree a substitute for the measures needed to restore the workless to employment in their ordi- nary occupations or in other effective work which the economic needs of the country require, and which ought to be carried into effect. The Prime Minister spoke at some length, but with much vagueness, as to the plans of the Government in this regard.

We asked in the recent Debate on unemployment whether, in view of the new financial conditions, the Government were proposing to take any definite action for the development especially of housing plans. We have had no answer of any kind. The Prime Minister has merely said that the Government will encourage municipalities to resume their ordinary work. Now that money is cheap and building costs have been lowered, there are many experts who think the time is propitious for housing plans on a large scale; and particularly if the provision of houses were combined with the provision of gardens, which could be done at no great increase of cost, it should be not impossible in existing conditions to provide houses which are urgently needed not only on terms much less onerous than hitherto, but on terms that might involve little or no loss at all. The advantage to the building trades, which are suffering particularly from the depression, would be immense, and I think the House is entitled to have some answer from the Government as to whether they are giving serious consideration to this matter, whether at least they will not inquire whether the different financial conditions now prevailing would not justify a more forward policy than has hitherto been followed.

Similarly with regard to smallholdings and land settlement. There, again, the Prime Minister though encouraging, was exceedingly vague, and we should like to know whether any specific, definite steps are being taken to review the whole situation. The matter is urgent, not only on account of the needs of the unemployed, but also because these money conditions may not long prevail. As soon as trade begins to revive they will gradually disappear, and the time for any action to be taken is now, if it is to be taken at all. No doubt economy is essential. We are not suggesting any lavish or wasteful expenditure, or any expenditure on objects that involve an onerous charge upon the rates or the taxes, and we entirely agree with the paragraph in the King's Speech which says that careful supervision of public expenditure is still necessary. By a great effort last year we redeemed the financial situation, and it is essential that we should not slip back into the position in which we were then. But when that has been said all has not been said. True, we must not impose fresh burdens on the rates and taxes, but we do urge that, subject to that condition, there should be an inquiry as to whether works could not be carried out for national development which would not involve the evils to which I have referred. We look to the Government for action in those matters. Besides the medical simile we have had the nautical simile of "All hands to the pumps." It appears to some of us that we are in danger of finding ourselves in a ship which is all pumps and no engines. There is a need of motive power. The nation does require from the Government a policy in these matters of vigour and of action.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO

I wish to raise certain points with regard to unemployment which I vainly tried to raise at the end of last Session. The question of unemployment is so urgent and so grave that one does not feel justified in delaying in putting forward any proposals which might be of assistance. The Gracious Speech says: In the view of My Ministers any provision for unemployed persons should not only afford material assistance but should also be designed to maintain their morale and their fitness to resume work when opportunity can be found. The proposals I wish to put forward fulfil those qualifications, I think, and I am also impelled to submit them by the remarks of the Prime Minister when he said that unused land, or partly used land or badly drained land would have the particular attention of the Government with a view to its becoming productive and giving employment. In the Black Country we have had for many years a scheme for the reclamation of waste lands. Those waste lands consist of slag heaps, mine dumps, pits and stagnant ponds, which are a general waste and desolation and an eyesore to the neighbourhood, and reflect very seriously on the chances of new industries settling there and restoring prosperity to that great industrial area. We have been busy on this subject for some time. Members of Parliament representing Black Country divisions have had various meetings to discuss this reclamation scheme, and although they cannot all get into the Debate they are all very anxious to help forward these proposals. I see in front of me my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie), who, I know, tried to get an opportunity to speak only 10 days ago. We want to get adopted a scheme which will enable us to level that land and to use it for factory sites and building sites. I quite concur with the statement of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that we ought to press on with housing. I believe the building societies are anxious to come to some arrangement with the Government, and the more quickly they can do so the better, because there is a vast amount of unemployment in the building trade. We want houses in the Black Country, and we want gardens and allotments and extra spaces for parks and recreation grounds.

We have already started. Various small schemes have been put through. In Bilston, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, we have already levelled about 50 acres at a cost of £11,000, and we have on that site four factories. We employed 100 men for nine months in doing the work, and we are now employing 150 men—I hope permanently. I would press upon the Govment that this is not merely a temporary scheme to employ men for a few months in the winter. If we can get that land levelled and made available for practical use we shall get regular employment for the very men who are clearing the sites, because we shall get factories there which will give the men permanent employment. I am told there are at least 10,000 acres in these dumps and waste lands in the Black Country. It is not like remote moorland, where communication would be bad, houses would have to be built and drainage and water supply provided. This is land in the very middle of what has been the greatest industrial area in England, with railways running all directions, with canals, excellent roads, up-to-date housing, sewers and everything else that is needed, and why should we be so foolish as to leave that land untouched? The clerk to the Bilston council, who has been largely responsible for these schemes, and has acted as secretary for eight local authorities who joined into a group for the reclamation of land in the. Black Country, came to London 10 days ago to see about these things. I advised him to go to the Unemployment Grants Committee. He did so, but was there told, so I understand, that no schemes were being considered or sanctioned at the present moment. I want to press the Government to remedy that state of affairs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in the House on 8th November: we may, and I hope we shall, find a certain number of schemes that would justify Government action.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1932; col. 260. Vol. 270.] We shall not find them unless we look for them, and unless we consider very carefully all the schemes that are put forward, and I feel confident that, this Black Country scheme, if it is considered, will be one of the first to be adopted. What they want is a grant of 75 per cent. towards wages. That is another point of the scheme. The whole money goes direct in wages to the unemployed. It is a very practical way of employing labour. They want 75 per cent. from the Government, as they have had before, on the terms that when the land is sold the Government draw back 75 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale. Then they also want authority from the Government to borrow money to enable them to buy the land. If the Government can see their way to do this, and to make it for a term of years and not merely for a few months this winter, and we can get a scheme going, it will prove riot only of temporary benefit to the unemployed of the area but of permanent benefit to the area. I would prefer to see the money distributed over as large a number of people as possible. I would prefer to see a larger number of people employed for a few hours a week than a few people for the whole of the week. That would benefit a great number of people who, owing to the low rates of unemployment pay—necessarily low because the money for it has to come out of industry—and the working of the means test, are undoubtedly living on the verge of destitution. If we could distribute this extra money in small sums for a few hours a week, it would, as ex- pressed in the Gracious Speech, enable the unemployed to maintain their morale and their fitness to resume work. It would enable them to bridge over these very bad times. We are up against difficulties in that direction, because I imagine that if we adopted such a method of payment it would bring down the means test and we should not be very much more forward so far as the financial position of those unfortunate individuals went. I do not know what the views of the Government would be on this suggestion, but it is possible that the local authorities might have a certain amount of authority not to reckon the whole of the proceeds against the means test. I am sure that it would enable a lot more to be done and that it would spread the available relief over a much wider area.

May I now refer to the Road Fund? A good many industries in this country depend upon the making of roads, not only those who manufacture the road materials, but those in which steel trucks and rails are made. A great many people in the Black Country depend upon the making of roads. I was told that the Road Fund had been two years in debt and that therefore no further grants could be made from the Road Fund. That was a year ago, and I presume that now the fund is only one year in debt. I respectfully suggest that the debt should he gradually, and not suddenly, written off. If we wrote off 25 per cent. of the debt in each of the next four years, that would be a reasonable way of meeting the situation. The position of this country to-day is a little like the position of a drug addict. If a man has been taking drugs for a number of years, you cannot expect suddenly to cut him off and give him no more drugs. We have been spoon-feeding the country and spending hundreds of millions of pounds on various schemes, such as road schemes, to relieve unemployment. If you suddenly cut that off, you are treating the country unfairly and you are not giving it a chance to recover. We should be more gradual in our efforts, and we should allow the Road Fund to spend at least three-quarters of its income.

One further point with which I wish to deal concerns the coal trade and hydrogenation. The Prime Minister has told us that the Government are considering that question and are anxious to do what they can. If they could reduce the duty on petrol from home sources and from home coal, it would give a favourable impetus to our own coal production and prevent the importation of so much petrol and oil from abroad. I cannot see that that needs an enormous amount of consideration. I should have thought that it would give an immediate benefit to our industries.

I hope that in the unemployment legislation something is going to be clone to help industrial cripples. At the present time we are doing nothing to provide for the training and rehabilitation of those who are injured in factories and mines, in motor accidents, or in other such ways. Practically nowhere in this country can an adult get training or rehabilitation. We are very much behind the rest of the civilised world in that respect. I took it up with the Government, and I was told that the Government Departments are looking into it. I hope that they will look into it quickly, because when we do get employment restored it will be a disgrace to us if we have a large number of industrial cripples who cannot be put hack into employment. We have the money. Vast sums of money are spent in compensation for industrial or motor accidents, and only a small proportion of it will be required for the training and rehabilitation of those men. It does not need taxation. All it needs is administration and possibly sonic legislation. All it needs is for some Department to produce a scheme to deal with it. I urge the Government to deal with it, in order to bring us at least abreast of the Continent and of America in this respect.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. BATEY

The Prime Minister left some of us wondering what he really meant by some of the statements that he made. I was rather amused when he began, because he pretended to be angry with the Leader of the Opposition for criticising the King's Speech. I think the Leader of the Opposition was extremely mild in his criticism of the King's Speech. This is the eleventh King's Speech that I have heard since I came into the House, and I am bound to say that it is the most vague of any. It is the vaguest King's Speech that we could possibly have. It seems just like a skeleton of dry bones. There are no fleshy parts, and there is no life in it. If King's Speeches have descended to this, one can imagine that they will be soon abolished altogether. The Prime Minister said that the object of the King's Speech was to say what the Government proposed to do during the Session. If we have to learn from this King's Speech what the Government are proposing to do during the Session, there is very little cheerful reading in it for the bulk of the working class of this country. Apart from the London Passenger Transport Bill, which the Prime Minister says the Government are proposing to take as soon as they get clear of the Address, there is nothing in the King's Speech that will give any hope to the working class.

The Prime Minister has been responsible for five King's Speeches. This is his fifth. He was responsible for the first three under the Labour Government. None of the five was anything to boast about. The first three were poor affairs that never satisfied any of us who sat on the back benches behind him. His last two have been worse. Last year's was the worst up to then, but this year the King's Speech is the worst of all. If the House of Commons cannot look beyond this King's Speech, there is very little to hope for during the coming Session. The Prime Minister did not tell us what the Government propose to do in order to find work for the unemployed. Neither did he tell us what the Government propose to do to help the unemployed who cannot get work and who, he said, were not temporarily but permanently out of work. I would have liked the Prime Minister to have told us what the Government propose to do to help the unemployed who have no prospect of getting work. This reference in the King's Speech to legislation to deal with the unemployed simply proposes to make the situation worse. The legislation which the Government proposes will impoverish the unemployed and will make their position worse than it is at the present time. There is nothing in that to give the least ray of hope to the unemployed.

I am interested in a matter that affects my own district. This morning one has read that the Government have de- cided, in dealing with the means test and transitional payments in Durham County, to set aside the public assistance committee and to appoint three commissioners. They propose to appoint three bogy men to examine the people of Durham in regard to transitional payments. If the Government were determined that the unemployed in Durham should be starved, I would rather three bogy men should go down and attempt to do it than that the public assistance committee should do it, and in that sense I do not complain. I complain of the Minister of Labour having the power to supplant elected representatives of the public. There is no man alive good enough to set aside men who have been publicly elected to represent the county. I believe in public representation. I believe that the only people who ought to deal with public representatives are the people who elect them.

I want to make this protest here. This will not be the last occasion. We shall have a lot more chances to deal with this question of the action of the Minister of Labour, in supplanting the public representatives upon the public assistance committee in Durham and filling their places with three bogy men who will do just what he says in order to starve the people. The Prime Minister is still sitting for a constituency in Durham. I would like to know where he stands in regard to this action, and whether the Minister of Labour, before he took the extreme step of appointing commissioners to Durham, had the permission and the sanction of the Prime Minister to do it. Naturally, one is bound to blame the whole of the Government and to hold them responsible. One does not hesitate to hold the Prime Minister responsible for this dastardly action of the Minister of Labour in supplanting the public assistance committee in Durham, without coming to the House of Commons or of saying a word in order to give the House of Commons a chance to discuss it. The action of the Minister of Labour is a dastardly action and one that we cannot too strongly condemn.

The very district to which he is applying these three commissioners, and insisting that they shall impoverish the unemployed, is one of the distressed areas in the county. The Government are doing nothing to help the coal industry in Durham. All that the Government have done since they came into office has been to make the condition worse in Durham. Large parts of the county are simply derelict. I have a statement that was sent to me to-day showing that there are 77,000 fewer miners employed to-day than in April, 1924. There is no place where they can get work. Pits are closed, and the men are rivetted to the colliery villages. All that the Government can do is to say: "We will not allow the public representatives in Durham, who know you best, to keep you. We will see that three commissioners go to Durham to carry out what the Ministry of Labour decides to carry out, and they will insist upon impoverishing all those in receipt of transitional payment." That is a very black outlook for our people.

The Prime Minister stood at that Box before the House adjourned last Session, and said that the Government had been considering for the last 12 months the question of hydrogenation, and, when one turns from the question of the men who are unemployed, and likely to remain unemployed, to the question of finding work for them by promoting industry, one naturally looks at that statement of the Prime Minister, that for the last 12 months the Government have been considering the question of hydrogenation. As a matter of fact, the Government have done nothing in the matter of hydrogenation. The Seconder of the Address talked about the march of science. Science has taught us that, in the hydrogenation process, low temperature carbonisation, colloidal fuel, and pulverized coal, there are several ways in which the coal industry might be restored, and might be restored now if we only had a Govern-merit that would take an interest in the industry and would try to help it.

When the House adjourned last Thursday, a Message was read as to what the Government had done for agriculture. This present Speech, if it says anything at, all—it does not say very much—says something about what the Government have done, and what they propose to do, for agriculture. I have no objections to the Government helping agriculture, but when, in doing so, they help the farmers and the landlords, and when one remembers that our mining classes will have to pay for that in increased cost of living, I submit that the Government, while they are helping agriculture, should also be prepared to help other industries at the same time, and certainly the mining industry. In spite of the fact that we have so many thousands of men unemployed, I believe that, if the Government wanted to help the mining industry, they could do so, just as they are helping agriculture now.

When the Labour Government were in office, they made an arrangement with the banks to come to the help of industry, and in that way it was understood that they should help the cotton industry while it was reorganising. In my opinion, now is the time when the Government might say to the banks, "You have an abundance of money which you cannot use; help the mining industry in order to put it on its feet." One of the troubles at the present time is not that coal-owners would not build plant or attempt the development of the extraction of oil from coal; the trouble is that they have not the capital. I hold that the Government could encourage the banks to stand behind the mining industry so that the industry might erect the necessary plant and extract oil from coal. One sees from to-day's papers that the President of the Board of Trade was at Newcastle yesterday examining some Diesel engines, and there again there is hope for the coal industry. When miners see in the Press that there are these possibilities of helping the coal industry, they begin to think that there is some hope, but, although they hope on, nothing is done.

The Prime Minister talked to-day as if the Government wanted to help the unemployed. Here is a chance for them to help an important industry. Ministers can discuss as much as they like plans and schemes for heaping the unemployed, but there is only one way to solve the problem, and that is by putting our basic trades on their feet. Here is one most important basic trade which could he put on its feet if the Government only desired to help in doing so. The slow starvation that is going on in our mining villages, with no hope or prospect for the people there, is so tragic that we cannot leave it alone, and we are bound, in this new Session of Parliament, to keep hammering away at the Government to do something. It is not sufficient for the Prime Minister to talk in the vague way in which he talked to-day; I want the Government really to try to do something to help the mining industry.

The Seconder of the Address referred to the use of machinery. A great many committees and commissions have been appointed, but I wish we could get the Government to appoint one more to inquire into the use of machinery and the way in which machinery is displacing men. I have a suspicion that, although machinery is supplanting so many men, the machinery itself does not reduce the cost of production, when you reckon the capital cost of the machines and the working cost of the machines. I should like the Government, if they could, to have an inquiry as to whether it is wise to develop so much machinery, and whether, seeing that men have got to live, so much machinery should be allowed to develop and to supplant men.

I take it that, after the Prime Minister's speech to-day, we have to believe that the Government are sincere and want to do something to help the unemployed. I have suggested, first, that they should help the installation of plant for the extraction of oil from coal, and, secondly, that they should look into the question of the installation of machinery which has displaced men. My third suggestion is that, if the Government were to inquire into the overtime question, and whether something could not be done in the way of curtailing the hours of overtime worked and so giving other men a chance, the time would be well spent. I conclude on the same topic with which I started. i see that the Lord President of the Council is here, and I want to express to him my regret that the Government should have sent three commissioners to Durham to supplant the local public assistance committee without giving this House a chance to discuss the matter. We shall be bound to take every opportunity of bringing that matter before the House, with a view to restoring, if possible, public representation, and not allowing any one man, no matter who he is, to have this immense power of supplanting public representatives.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON

The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) will forgive me if I do not follow all the very interesting points which he has raised, but there is one of them to which I should like to refer. I am no defender of the bankers, but, when the hon. Member says that the bankers have plenty of money, and ought to make advances to the mining industry, I think everyone will agree that there is no difficulty in any mining company getting money from any banker if they are prepared to put up adequate security. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that it is the duty of the bankers to look after the money of their depositors. If he were a banker, he would surely consider it his first duty to preserve the money of his depositors, and not to advance it without adequate security. I am confident, however, that no banker would refuse accommodation to any mining company that was able to provide definite security.

I observe that, although there is no representative of the Treasury present, the Lord President of the Council is here. He was at one time at the Treasury, and, while he has now no direct responsibility with regard to the Treasury, I have no doubt that he takes an interest in it, and he is responsible, with other Cabinet Ministers, for policy. Therefore, he will perhaps allow me to ask his attention to one omission from the Gracious Speech. It contains no reference whatever to the very important question of monetary policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently very courteously answered a question of mine in which I asked whether, in view of the sudden fall in the value of the £ and the fluctuations in exchange, he proposed to take any steps to restore the value of the £ so that the notes might be equal in value to the gold to which they represented. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, referred me to the statement which he made at Ottawa to the effect that he could not see any prospect of a speedy return to the Gold Standard, nor was he prepared to say at the present time at what parity such a return should be effected if and when it took place. In answer to that, I said that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should take an opportunity at a date convenient to the right hon. Gentleman of raising this question, either on the Adjournment or on some other occasion. This seems to be an appropriate occasion.

There are many who say you cannot have a return to specie payments until certain things have taken place, such as a settlement of the debts question and a rise in commodity prices. I hope I shall be able to show that that is not so, and that there is no reason at all why you should nit have a standard of values, just as you have a yard measure. Important as these other questions are, I believe that the return of a sound currency system would advance the debt question. For example, take the question of the interest on the American debt. As a result of the depreciated exchange, I believe it is approximately £58,500,000, whereas in normal conditions it would be £30,000,000. Many Americans are very anxious that we should return to the Gold Standard. I admit that it must in the nature of things be gradual, but, if the British Government were to indicate that that is their intention, that would tend to induce them to revise the question of the debt. It would be to their interest to do so, because it is to their interest that we should return to parity, and. if we showed a disposition to move in that direction, it would unquestionably hasten the movement in the United States towards a revision of the debt question.

Many people may ask why we should get back to the old parity. They say it would entail a great deal of distress and unemployment. They say that being on the Gold Standard accentuated unemployment and, when we went off it, there was immediately a stimulus to trade and a feeling of relief. That is true, but the stimulus was only temporary. it only lasted while we had goods on Oil r shelves that we wished to dispose of, but it penalised our imports, so that our last state was worse that the first. It is also argued that it would entail very serious deflation and a still further fall in prices. We all desire to raise prices provided it is brought about in a legitimate way, but to raise prices by manipulation of the currency would, of course, leave us in a worse state than before. [Interruption.] An hon. Member suggests tariffs. I am trying to avoid anything of a controversial character and to confine myself entirely to what will appeal to all, irrespective of whether they are Free Traders or Protectionists. We are all desirous of having a sound monetary policy. That prevails in the United States, where they are Protectionists, and also in many countries in Europe. The tariff question does not enter into it, and I do not propose to bring it into the argument. Many people argue that a return to the Gold Standard will entail great distress, and they ask how will this raise prices. We are all anxious to see a rise in the prices of commodities.

The great call to-day is that the prices of the great staples are standing at such levels that there is no profit for the producer. If we can, by reducing costs, increase profits it does not alter so much the actual price at which the article is sold, the price which wool and wheat commands in the markets of the world. Surely the real question is whether commodities are selling at prices which bring a profit to the producer. I believe the profits will be brought about by the restoration of a sound monetary policy, and I suggest, as a means to that end, that the British Government should take measures for the restoration of a sound monetary policy. It is held in many quarters that our going off the Gold Standard last October was largely due to the enormous commitments that we had abroad, frozen credits, debts and so forth. While these are very important matters, I do not see why the establishment of a gold standard of values cannot be achieved, just as you have established the yard measure. The maintenance of the Gold Standard does not depend on your commitments abroad. For many years before going off the Gold Standard we had an adverse exchange. If you have an adverse exchange, there is some reason for it. In 1929 no less than £80,000,000 of gold bullion was exported.

Mr. MAGNAY

Was not the gold hoarded?

Mr. MASON

It is immaterial whether it was hoarded. It was taken from the Bank of England because it was profitable to take it. When the rate of exchange reaches a certain figure, it becomes profitable for anyone to take gold. The point is that there was some cause at work which created that unfavourable exchange. When we were working normally in the City of London, so delicately poised was this balance that £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 exported turned the exchange either in our favour or against us. When we find that during that year no less than £80,000,000 was exported, that indicates that there was something at fault. The cause was that you had too excessive a fiduciary note issue. Your notes were redundant. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposed to take so that the notes should be equal in value to the gold that they represented. The redundant fiduciary issue created an artificial extension of credit leading to a still further depreciated exchange. Instead of contracting the note issue it was increased by no less than £15,000,000, so that the fiduciary issue to-day, instead of being £260,000,000, is £275,000,000. The late Government accentuated the position by running into debt to the extent of £1,000,000 a week, and the large deficit undoubtedly had an effect on foreigners who lend their balances to London. How are we to attract foreign balances to London again? If you are to re-establish London as an international banking centre, you must be able to show the foreign banker that he will get back what he lends you, and that your system is a sound one. When he saw the increase in the fiduciary note issue in August, he began to withdraw his balances. That became a run and that, accentuated by other factors, led to us going off the Gold Standard. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have challenged us to produce some constructive suggestion.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE

Can the hon. Member explain how the effect of restoring London as a monetary centre will do away with unemployment and put our industries on their feet?

Mr. MASON

If you reduce your note issue so that the exchange rises and your notes are equal in value to the gold that they represent, there will be no difficulty in maintaining the Gold Standard. Our role is that of a great international banker, shipper and export trader, and the fact of restoring London, so that a bill on London is as good as gold, will mean that the foreigner will keep large balances in London, and these are the resources of the London money market. When you have restored confidence and have large funds accumulated in London, you are in a position for the flotation of foreign loans. There is a great field for development in China, India, Bolivia and in all parts of South America. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in England!"] Certainly, but not perhaps to the same extent, and that is why proposals to have large loans and, so to speak, to take in each other's washing in this little island, are not going to settle unemployment. You have to restore London as a monetary centre and to have great international loans. There is a demand for such a railway loan, say in China. If you had a loan floated, say of £1,000,000, for China it would not mean that it would go to China in cash, but in the supply of rails, locomotives and equipment; and it would be the same in regard to South America.

The hon. Member was anxious to know how that would affect unemployment, and I submit that I have now shown him how to get rid of unemployment. If you restore London as a monetary centre and get rid of those restrictions, encourage foreign lending and bring your note issues so that they represent money actually held against them, there will be no difficulty whatever in maintaining the Gold Standard. I have said already how this would unquestionably stimulate and advance the settlement of that important problem. It would encourage America, which is anxious to see a recovery in world trade, to revise her debt claim. It is to her interest that we should restore the Gold Standard in this country and again come into line with them and the other great Powers. I believe that if we carried out this reform it would be of great advantage. I observe that there is now a representative of the Treasury present on the Front Bench, and I shall be glad if I can, in any shape or form, impress him with the importance of the consideration of this problem. There is no reference in the Gracious Speech to a monetary policy, and the importance of expediting the country's restoration to sound finance instead of waiting either for the settlement of War Debts, or until prices rise, or until you get rid of the maldistribution of gold. If you restore the position here, these things will tend to come back to this country. All things you desire will be likely to open up to you if you pursue what I believe to be a sound policy, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to submit the consideration of this problem to His Majesty's Government.

6.33 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I have heard indeed a voice crying in the wilderness for the return of the Gold Standard, but I have heard a plea that this country should again allow its industry to be crucified on the cross of gold. The speech to which we have just listened puts the view of the City of London, and the City of London alone, and it is a speech which we might indeed have expected to-day from the ornamental figure, with the top hat and the button hole, who sat for such a short period on the Front Bench. I do not want to follow the argument on gold or silver, but I think there is much more to be said for the legalisation of silver as legal tender than getting back to the Gold Standard. But these are Treasury matters and it ill behoves a private 'Member to join in debate on these particular points. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] It is for the Minister to answer and not a private Member.

After a short holiday of three days, we are now back in a new Session and the Order of Procedure of this House must indeed have a very big effect upon the business done and upon our deliberations. At the beginning of this Parliament, Sir, when we had the great privilege of electing you to your Chair, you gave to us what His Majesty has given to us to-day, a gracious speech. It is, I think, the only time that you are allowed to address us, and, frankly, I would very much like to see the Rules of Procedure altered so that every year from that Chair you were allowed to deliver a speech to us upon procedure and the general behaviour of Members. I think that it would be of advantage to the House and would be appreciated by all.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Why not give one every day?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

To some people Mr. Speaker does speak every day. You made an appeal, Sir, when you spoke from that Chair that Members of the House of Commons should speak for a shorter time, and nothing was more admirable than the sentiment contained in that wish. I have always tried to conform to such an appeal. I almost adept a shorthand type of delivery. But, looking through the OFFICIAL REPORT, I find this distressing thing, that those people who speak the longest are called the most. I appeal to you, Sir, if you wish us to conform to your wishes, that it will indeed help us if those who speak for a short time get encouragement and if those who are garrulous are riot, perhaps, noticed by your eye to the disfavour of those who occupy the time of the House for lesser periods.

There is another point I should like to say a word upon with regard to procedure. There was a time when the parties in this House were numerically more or less evenly divided, and in that case there was a speech from one side of the House and a speech from the other. Consequently, the House of Commons obtained a reputation for being the finest debating Chamber in the world. That was true. But those circumstances have entirely changed, and to-day we find, so to speak, four parties in this House, and it is preposterous to have a Debate conducted on the basis of one speech from the party in power and one speech from the three other microscopic parties which constitute the Opposition. We are in a preponderance of no less than five to one, and, in that speeches of this House have repercussions and an effect throughout the country, it seems to me that we can almost claim the right of four Government supporters' speeches to one Opposition speech. I am not trying, I assure you, Sir, to lay down any recommendations to you. I should be both to do such a thing as that, and I know that from your point of view the desire is to keep the Debate going upon a high level. But, with a preponderance of no less than five to one, sometimes we back benchers think that these microscopic parties from the Clyde, and the various shades of Liberal opinion have rather more than their share of the Debate. I do not complain at this particular time, because I know that early in the Session the Government are never very hurried and time can be given to various things quite easily. But as we get more and more towards the summer the business gets more congested. We ask for your help to have shorter speeches in order that the Government may get through their business as efficaciously and as quickly as possible, and so turn the speeches in this House into action by the Government.

6.40 p.m.

JOHN WITHERS

I associate myself practically with the whole of the suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), but I only propose to trouble the House for five minutes. I think that one ought to be able to say in five or 10 minutes what is necessary if he knows what it is he wishes to say. From the Gracious Speech there is one very serious omission, and that is the question of legislation with regard to the railways. The position of the railways is an extremely serious one. The earnings of railways are decreasing and causing a very serious state of affairs, and, if it goes on in the same way, in a little time the position will be desperate. The matter ought to be looked at from three points of view. First, the national point of view; secondly, the point of view of employés; and, thirdly, the point of view of the proprietors. If we look at those points of view in that order, we must come to the conclusion that the matter is very serious indeed. From the point of view of the nation, the national efficiency must seriously be affected if the railways are allowed to go on as they are. Secondly, unemployment must steadly increase. In fact, a large number of men have already been thrown out of employment.

As regards the holders of the stock, the position is really very serious indeed. In 1931 no dividends were paid on £111,000,000 of capital, and on £95,000,000 only one-quarter was paid, and for the first six months of 1932 no interim dividend was paid on £391,000,000 of capital, as compared with £371,000,000 of capital for the first six months of 1931. An important Commission, known as the Salter Commission, reported at the end of July, and made certain unanimous recommendations. I do not for a moment say that we should be tied to the different unanimous suggestions, but something really must be done without any further delay. In another place a very important Resolution was recently passed, on the initiation of Lord Buckmaster, calling the attention of the Government to it, and all I can do now is to reiterate that appeal and to beg of the Government, notwithstanding the omission from the Gracious Speech of reference to the rail- ways, to do something as early as possible during the present Session.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. RAMSDEN

I wish to take the opportunity afforded by this Debate to call attention to the very serious effect upon our export trade, and consequently upon unemployment, of the exchange restrictions and other devices which are being used by foreign countries and which have the effect of making it impossible for so many of our exporters and manufacturers to obtain payment for goods which they have sold and which also make it difficult to sell further goods. The matter is a very serious one because the restrictions apply to over 30 countries. I am afraid that we cannot quite judge by the Trade and Navigation returns if we desire to form an estimate of the amount of damage which is being done to us. When we abandoned the Gold Standard, the export trade was given a certain advantage in selling goods in markets which had been closed to us for some time, and at the beginning of the present year there was, not a boom, but a temporary increase in our exports. Now, unfortunately, with the restrictions which exist in many countries business is becoming increasingly difficult.

The problem divides itself into two. There is, in the first place, the question of goods which have been delivered and for which it is impossible at the present moment to obtain payment. These are generally known as "frozen credits." This in itself is an extremely serious matter, because it means that the capital that could be utilised in developing business in other directions is frozen at the present time in those countries. The next problem is the difficulty, and in many cases the impossibility, of selling in the 30 odd countries to which I have referred. One understands, particularly those who have visited and traded with those countries, the troubles and trials that they are going through, and one sympathises with them, but our first sympathies lie with our own exporters and manufacturers and those who are unemployed here because of these foreign exchange restrictions. I will give briefly one or two examples of what is happening. Take Chile. Chile formerly was an extremely good market for British goods, but to-day it is impossible to get one single penny out of Chile. Owing to the restrictions that have been placed upon the payment of foreign exchange the position now is that one cannot get money in payment for any accounts that one has in that country.

Greece is another example of a country where restrictions have been imposed which are making the position very serious. Under the regulations that exist In Greece to-day one can only obtain payment for goods in a period of five years. Settlement has to be made in 10 instalments, payable every six months. I admit that a slight amendment has been made, to the effect that if the exporter on this side is willing to accept the coin of the country, drachmas in the case of Greece, the account may be paid in two years, but, with the exchange as it is, that is of very little value. I am sorry to say that I consider the Greeks have been most unfair in their treatment of our nationals and, what is still more to the point, they have not even carried out the agreements into which they entered. Hungary is another case where very severe exchange restrictions are making business extremely difficult not only from the point of view of receiving payment for sales that have been made in good faith, but also for the sale of goods in the future. I had the opportunity of visiting Hungary during the present year and I saw the handicaps that were being placed in the way of those Hungarians who were desirous, and, in some cases very willing, to pay their accounts.

The offer that has been made by Hungary under what is known as the "Stand-still Agreement"—not, incidentally, an agreement between the two countries but merely between certain banks in this country and the National Bank of Hungary—is that debts should be paid at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. This may be a satisfactory arrangement so far as the bankers are concerned. To obtain a return of 5 per cent. per annum on the capital that has been invested in that country may be considered to be adequate remuneration, but to pay a trade debt at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum is very unfair. It means to many people who are borrowing money from their banks at the present time that the 5 per cent. they receive merely goes to pay the interest on their overdraft. At the end of 20 years the amount will have been paid, but they will still be owing the capital to the bank. Those who are in business realise that 20 years is a long time not only in the history of a country but particularly in the history of a business firm, and the individual or firm to whom goods may have been sold in 1930, 1931 or 14132 may not be in existence in the year 1950, when this system comes to an end. Uruguay is another country which is telling the trading community that they must rely upon a Gold Bond for the payment of the goods they have sold. These bonds are supposed to be redeemable in five years, but what they will be worth then one cannot say. Speaking as a, Yorkshireman, I want to see actual money and not bonds of either Uruguay or of any other country. Bonds of this type are very difficult to turn into actual cash and they are of very little value in financing a business.

These are merely examples of the numerous exchange restrictions in over 30 countries which are not only penalising our exporters because they cannot obtain payment for the goods they have sold, but are making it very difficult to carry on trade at all. Turkey, Estonia, Rumania, Czechoslovakia and other countries too numerous to mention also have put on all kinds of restrictions in the way of our doing trade. I should like to mention, as an example, two things that have been done in European countries which I consider to be extremely unfair and against the interests of trade in this country. Rumania has placed restrictions upon the payment of currency for foreign accounts, by means of a Government decree, issued a short time ago which make it impossible to obtain sterling exchange in payment of a British account unlss three months' credit has been given. In many cases in a country like Rumania one is prepared to sell goods on cash terms, that is, cash against the document, but to say that we must be compelled to give 90 days' credit is unfair treatment of our nationals. In Yugoslavia they have also done something which appears to be unfair. They have allowed their nationals to settle their accounts at the rate of 200 dinars to the pound, which is well below the actual rate of exchange that exists to-day. The rate of exchange on which business can be obtained is something like 255 or 280 dinars to the pound sterling. The Yugoslavian Government, however, has laid it down that payment at the rate of 200 dinars to the pound is a satisfactory settlement of a debt. I feel that they have done something which must be contrary to Treaties that are in existence. I understand that with practically all the countries of the world we have commercial or other treaties which stipulate that the nationals of the two countries shall receive equal treatment. It is certainly not equal treatment when British subjects are compelled to give credit while their own nationals are not forced to do so or are paid a sum which is a good deal below that which we have a right to receive. It appears to me that many countries have taken action which assists their nationals to break contracts and to repudiate the payment of just debts in a way which should never take place between countries that are on terms of friendship and peace. Hon. Members may say: "You are criticising the arrangement made. What do you think should be done." I have my own definite views, and I feel that the Government ought to make it very clear to foreign countries that we are no longer willing to allow our nationals to be deprived of the payments due to them, while our people in turn are expected to pay for the goods that they buy in those countries. All that I ask is that we should get fair treatment. All countries with credit restrictions are selling quite freely in this country, some of them more and some of them less. There is no impediment placed in the way of the payment of our debts to them, but, on the other hand, there are considerable restrictions placed in the way of payments to us. Each country ought to be treated on its merits. It is necessary that we should take action and see that the credits that we have here are utilised for the payment of foreign debts that are Owing to us.

I should like to read an extract from the "Manchester Chamber of Commerce Journal" for the month of October. With regard to the question of foreign exchange restrictions it says: Having given the subject renewed consideration in the light of existing conditions, the Manchester Chamber is convinced that it is highly important for the preservation of British export trade that action should be taken by His Majesty's Government with the least possible delay to bring about some amelioration in the difficulties caused by the foreign exchange restrictions. It goes on to say: If it were made clear to the countries in question that His Majesty's Government were not prepared to continue indefinitely to tolerate a situation in which British exporters were being gravely penalised, the Chamber considers that the authorities in the different countries would speedily find ways and means of meeting the British position much more adequately than they do at present. I agree with that view entirely, and I also agree with another paragraph: Such measures— Here they are referring to practical steps to be taken— might take the form of assuming control, either over the sterling credits arising from the sale of imports into this country from the countries affected, or of limiting, by the method of quota or otherwise, the volume of British imports from these countries. Whatever the method chosen the object would be to protect this country from the obvious injustice of the maintenance of a trade balance favourable to countries which nevertheless continue to withhold from British traders reasonable facilities for bringing home the funds arising from the sale of British goods. I agree very cordially with the views of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and I feel that it is necessary in our own interests that we should take energetic action. The matter has been rather allowed to go by default. I do not think the effect of these restrictions is being realised as keenly as it ought to be. Other countries, such as Italy and Germany, faced with exactly the same position that we are in have taken action, energetic action, which certainly has been beneficial to their own traders.

We know that at the present time tariff negotiations are taking place with a number of countries. I hope that no tariff negotiations will take place with any country where exchange restrictions exist which make it impossible for us to obtain payment for any goods that we sell there. One of the soundest rules of business is that you do not sell your goods unless you can get payment for them. Any reduction of tariffs by any of these countries which at the present time may come to us to seek to enter into a bargain will be of no value whatsoever to us. It may be of value to the other country, because if we reduce our tariff and give them a more favourable opportunity of selling here they will gain by it, but even if the tariffs of the countries where these tariff restrictions exist were removed entirely to-day it would be impossible for us to do business, for the very good reason that we cannot possibly get payment for the goods we sell. I have spoken on the first day of the Debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, because I am desirous of having this question ventilated. It is of the greatest importance. Unless we are careful we are going to have serious injury inflicted upon us by foreign countries who are not using the tariff weapon but other weapons which are still more harmful. I hope that His Majesty's Government will not wait for the Economic Conference, which is to take place sometime within the next few months, but will act energetically at once and make it clear to foreign countries that we are not prepared to tolerate a system whereby we pay for the goods we buy while they (to not pay for the goods which they get from us. If the present situation is allowed to continue it will have very serious effect on our trade and, consequently, upon employment in this country.

Motion made and Question, "That the Debate he now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Sir G. Penny.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.