Commons Sitting of 3 February 1937

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WALTHAM JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Waltham Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  JUGOSLAVIA AND BULGARIA.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the main points covered by the recent treaty of friendship between the Governments of Jugoslavia and Bulgaria?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have received the text of this treaty as published by the "Ayala" News Agency. The instrument is brief and consists of two articles only. The first provides for inviolable peace and sincere and perpetual friendship between the two Kingdoms. The second provides for immediate ratification of the treaty and for its entry into force after exchange of ratifications.
  Mr. Riley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the actual proposals to which he has referred in the second part of his reply?
  Mr. Eden: I think they are clearly set out in the information I have given to the hon. Member, but I will send the hon. Member any further information that I have.

  FIVE-OWER CONFERENCE.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further progress has been made as regards the proposed Five-Power Locarno Conference; and whether he will make a statement?
  Mr. Eden: On 5th November last I stated in the House of Commons that His Majesty's Government had on the previous day addressed a note on this subject to the other Governments concerned. That note contained a comparison of the views expressed by the five Governments on certain questions in respect of which preparation was considered to be essential before the conference met. On 19th November His Majesty's Government addressed a further note to the other Governments concerned giving their views as to how the various opinions expressed by the five Governments could best be reconciled, and inviting the views of the other Governments on this question. On 19th December His Majesty's representatives at Berlin, Brussels, Paris and Rome were instructed to inquire whether the respective Governments expected shortly to be able to reply to their memoranda. The French Government replied on 19th December, but no reply has yet been received from the Belgian, German or Italian Governments.
  Mr. Henderson: Would it be possible to put a further specific request to these Governments to ascertain whether they intend to participate in this conference or not?
  Mr. Eden: It is just as much in their interests to answer as it is in ours.
  Mr. Mander: Is it any good addressing further inquiries in view of the contemptuous treatment to which this country has been subjected?

  INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether general negotiations for the peace of Europe, as proposed by the German Government on 31st March, 1936, are taking place; and, if so, whether he can make a statement thereon?
  Mr. Eden: As the hon. Member will be aware, the German Chancellor, in his communication of 31st March last, did

  1575
  not propose any immediate general negotiations other than a new security agreement for Western Europe between the Locarno Powers. As indicated, however, in the communiqué of 23rd July last, it has always been the expectation of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that progress in the negotiation of a new Western agreement to take the place of the Treaty of Locarno would lead to a widening of the area of the discussions so as to include other problems, the solution of which is essential to the peace of Europe.
  Mr. Henderson: Is it still the view of the Government that the organisation of peace in Europe depends not only on the conclusion of a Western pact but also on the conclusion of a pact between Germany and the Eastern Powers, including Czechoslovakia and Russia?
  Mr. Eden: We still stand by the terms of the communiqué of 23rd July.
  Mr. Henderson: Do the Government still accept the view laid down by the present First Lord of the Admiralty in August, 1935, that the conclusion of an Eastern Pact is the corner-stone of progress in Europe?
  Mr. Eden: I do not think that my right hon. Friend said exactly that, but if the hon. Member will look at the communiqué of 23rd July I think he will find his anxieties allayed.

  GERMANY.

    COLONIES.
    Mr. Donnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed visit, officially announced, of Admiral Foerster, formerly commanderin-chief of the German High Seas Fleet, to the former German colonies in Africa, will be of a quasi-official character; and whether he has any information as to the object of this visit?
    Mr. Eden: I have no information regarding this visit.
    Mr. Donner: Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the public Press that this visit of Admiral Foerster is to be of a quasi-official character?
    Mr. Eden: I have no information about it, but I understand that this admiral is no longer in command of the German Fleet.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action the Government propose to take with reference to the German demand for colonies, as reiterated in Herr Hitler's speech on Saturday; and whether he will make it clear that this matter, whether dealt with by extension of the mandate system or otherwise, can only be considered as part of a general settlement in which Germany would return to the League of Nations and co-operate in the collective system, and that the paramount consideration, in any event, must be the welfare of the natives?
    Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 18th December last, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not perfectly clear that an overwhelming collective force and a willingness to use it are the only arguments to which Germany is likely to listen?
    Colonel Grettton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not only the United Kingdom that holds mandates, but that the Dominions also hold mandates?
    Mr. Eden: Certainly.

    HOLLAND AND BELGIUM (INTEGRITY).
    Mr. Lambertasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to secure the assent of the German Government to a treaty guaranteeing the integrity and sovereignty of Holland and Belgium?
    Mr. Eden: The question of the treaty relations between Germany and her Western neighbours will be a matter for consideration in the course of the negotiations for a new system of security in Western Europe, the arrangements for which are still under discussion.
    Mr. Lambert: Will the right hon. Gentleman request the British Ambassador in Berlin to pursue this matter with the German Government?
    Mr. Eden: This is, in the first instance, a matter for the Governments concerned.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    RAW MATERIALS (INQUIRY).
    Mr. Burkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the Committee on Raw Materials set up by the League of Nations Council; and, in particular, what are its terms of reference?
    Mr. Eden: On 26th January the Council approved a report by the representative of Poland regarding the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the question of raw materials. I am arranging for copies of this report, together with the provisional minutes of the discussion of the Council, to be made available for hon. Members in the Library of the House. The committee's terms of reference were defined in the Assembly resolution of last October, paragraph 1 of which reads as follows:—
    "Considering that the time has now arrived when discussion of and inquiry into the question of equal commercial access for all nations to certain raw materials might usefully be undertaken with the collaboration of the principal States, whether members or non-members of the League, having a special interest in the matter."
    The nature of the raw materials to be considered will be at the discretion of the committee.
    Mr. Burke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that there will be no question of the transference of territory in this matter?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what countries have accepted the invitation, and whether Germany is prepared to serve on it?
    Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down. I have some information, but I would like to make sure that what I say is correct.

    SPAIN (HUMANITARIAN WORK).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the organs of the League of Nations have been co-operating with the Spanish Government in humanitarian work since the last meeting of the Council?
    Mr. Eden: In accordance with the terms of the resolution passed by the Council the League of Nations at its
    1578
    meeting last December authorising the Secretary-General to make available the assistance of the technical services of the League in regard to humanitarian work in Spain, a mission consisting of three delegates of the Health Organisation of the League recently visited Spain at the request of the Spanish Government to draw up a report and to furnish recommendations for the further organisation of relief for the Spanish civilian population. At a meeting of the Council at which the mission's report was considered, the Spanish representative stated that the recommendations made by the mission were receiving the urgent consideration of his Government. I understand that the Spanish Government have also approached the Secretary-General of the League, asking that the League should recommend the name of an expert who might be employed by the Spanish Government for various humanitarian purposes, notably in connection with the evacuation of the civil population of Madrid. I understand that certain names have, in fact, been put forward by the Secretary-General for the consideration of the Spanish Government.

    FOREIGN NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the action of the Swiss Government in expelling from Switzerland Signor Carlo a Prato, a journalist accredited to the League of Nations and editor of the "0Journal des Nations"; and whether he will consider the advisability of bringing before the Council of the League the question of the best means of securing freedom for foreign journalists attached to the League to carry on their work?
    Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the question is Yes, Sir. The position of foreign newspaper correspondents at Geneva has, at the instance of the President of the Council, already formed the subject of preliminary discussion at Geneva among the members of the Council.
    Mr. Mander: Has this particular case been considered?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir. We were not asked to consider it.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ARTIFICERS (RE-ENGAGEMENT).
    Sir Robert Youngasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men of the artificer branches of the Royal Navy have responded to the re-engagement request to continue service after completing time for pension; and what are the terms offered to induce engine-room artificers to continue and the number of them who have done so?
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Samuel Hoare): The number of men of the artificer branches who have re-engaged for a further period of three, four or five years' general service after completing time for pension, including pensioners re-entered after a break in service, is 100, including 73 engine room artificers. They receive the pay of their rating on the scale of pay introduced in 1925, and in addition receive a special bonus of a shilling a day and are allowed at the same time to draw their pension. Those who re-engage without a break in service are given the option of not drawing their pension and of remaining instead on the 1919 scale of pay with a special bonus of a shilling a day, their further service counting for increase of pension.
    Sir R. Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the response?
    Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir; I should like to see a larger response.
    Sir R. Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to find out from the artificers themselves what can be done?
    Sir S. Hoare: I shall be glad to have assistance from anyone, and if the hon. Member will send me any suggestions I will give them careful attention.

    PUBLICITY.
    Sir R. Youngasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any person designated the publicity officer of the Royal Navy; and, if so, what are his exact duties, his rank and qualifications, and the salary paid to him?
    Sir S. Hoare: There is no person designated publicity officer of the Royal Navy. There is, however, at present, in addition to the Admiralty Press officer, a recruiting publicity officer employed on a part-time basis at a salary of £150 per annum. He is a Commander, R.N. (retired), with journalistic experience.

    STAFF CONDITIONS, MALTA.
    Mr. Kellyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the staff organisation concerned is still awaiting the decision of the Admiralty to its request that the pay conditions of locally entered staffs at Malta shall be referred to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal; that this request was made originally in July and that repeated efforts to secure a decision have proved unavailing; and whether, in pursuance of the undertaking which he gave to ensure an early decision on the matter, he will arrange for the Admiralty's conclusions to be communicated to the staff association concerned forthwith?
    Sir S. Hoare: A communication will be sent to the association in the course of the next few days.
    Mr. Kelly: Do I understand that they will agree to arbitration, or do they propose to make an offer to these people?
    Sir S. Hoare: I think the hon. Member had better wait and see the communication. I think he will find it not unsatisfactory from his point of view.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (WAGES).
    Mr. Thorneasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the rates of wages paid to and hours worked by the engineers, patternmakers, boilermakers, iron shipbuilders, shipwrights, carpenters and joiners, plumbers, blacksmiths, steam hammermen, fitters and turners, painters, and draughtsmen working in the Royal Dockyards?
    Sir S. Hoare: As the answer includes a large number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The rates of pay for a 47-hour week for hired workmen of the occupations stated in the Royal Dockyards at home, including a bonus of 17s. a week, are as follow:

    Patternmakers

    from 67s. to 72s.

    Boilermakers

    65s. to 72s.

    Shipwrights

    65s.

    Joiners

    65s.

    Plumbers

    65s.

    Blacksmiths

    from 65s. to 72s.

    Steam hammermen

    56s. to 61s.

    Fitters and turners

    65s. to 72s.

    Painters

    64s.

    Draughtsmen in the Royal Dockyards at home constitute a salaried class of several grades, the lowest of which is paid £196 6s. a year and the highest a maximum of £456 8s. a year. These rates are for a 41-hour week.

    REFUGEES, SPAIN.
    Mr. Toucheasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make a statement regarding the work done by ships in the Navy in rescuing refugees from Spain?
    Sir S. Hoare: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder) on 11th November. Since then the number of refugees evacuated has substantially increased, but exact figures are not at present available.

    LEAFLETS, PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the First Lord of the Admiralty on whose instructions plain clothes police were called to the Unicorn Gate, Portsmouth Dockyard, on 27th January to confiscate leaflets relating to the recent dismissals at Sheerness and Devonport that were being distributed there?
    Sir S. Hoare: The naval authorities, having been informed that it was intended to distribute certain leaflets to dockyard employés, the dissemination of which in the dockyards would be contrary to the regulations, drew the attention of the Portsmouth city police to the position. The subsequent action was taken solely on the authority of the city police.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman provide us with the regulations which empower the civil police to take quite ordinary leaflets advising members of trade unions out of the hands of ordinary civilians?
    Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I have no jurisdiction in the field of the city police. All we did was to give the city police certain information, and they were responsible for the action they took, and not the dockyard authorities.

    NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOTS (EMPLOYES).
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether plans for building new munition factories and increasing the output of existing factories
    1582
    will provide any opportunities for better promotion of present employés of the Royal Naval armament depots in view of the technical knowledge and experience possessed by these men?
    Sir S. Hoare: Due regard will be paid to the qualifications of the present employés in Naval armament depots when consideration is given to the selection of personnel for such services as those referred to which may require to be provided for the Admiralty.

    PORT EDGAR (WATCHMEN).
    Mr. Mathersasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take steps to improve the position of watchmen at the Port Edgar base, seeing that they now work an average of 84 hours per week for a wage of 52s.?
    Sir S. Hoare: The rate of pay of the two night watchmen at Port Edgar was reviewed as recently as October, 1936, and an increase of 3s. a week granted to them. This rate was fixed in relation to the rates ascertained to be paid locally for comparable work in outside employment.
    Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, in comparing these wages with outside employment, that this is a very depressed area, and is he satisfied with the number of hours that these men are called upon to work? Are they not quite out of keeping with Government practice?
    Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member communicated with me on the subject, and I made very careful inquiries. I found that this did compare favourably with the normal conditions of labour in the neighbourhood. As to the question of hours, I will look into that point as the hon. Member has raised it again.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these two men are not dismissed because of subversive conduct?
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: Will the First Lord give a lead in this matter by seeing that these men get at least one day's holiday a week?
    Sir S. Hoare: I do not think that arises directly on this question, but I personally looked into the case of these two men, and it appeared to me, from the information I received, that the conditions were not unfavourable.

    EMPLOYE'S DISCHARGE, DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
    Mr. Jaggerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that H. S. R. Easthope was dismissed from the service of the Admiralty at Devonport after one week's service; whether East-hope was dismissed as a result of communications from the War Office; and, if so, what was the nature of such communications?
    Sir S. Hoare: H. S. R. Easthope was entered in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, as an electrical fitter on a casual basis on 25th August, 1936, and discharged on 1st September on completion of the work for which he was entered. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. Jagger: Do I take it that the fact that he had been the week previously dismissed by the War Office had no relation to the fact that he was dismissed after a week's service at the Admiralty?
    Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, it had nothing to do with that. The man was taken on for a particular job as a casual workman; the work came to an end after a week, and he went, as many casual workers go in similar circumstances.
    Mr. Jagger: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. Alexanderasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what orders for new cruisers have been placed in the last two months; what is the tonnage of each ship; and whether they are to have any special characteristics?
    Sir S. Hoare: No cruiser contracts have been placed during the last two months, but Portsmouth and Chatham yards have each been directed recently to commence on 15th March next the construction of a cruiser of the new Dido class. The estimated standard displacement of these vessels is about 5,000 tons; their other main characteristics will, in the normal course, be published in future Navy Estimates as the vessels near completion.

    NEW BATTLESHIPS (INFORMATION, FOREIGN POWERS).
    Mr. Ede (for Lieut.-Commander Fletcher)asked the First Lord of the
    1584
    Admiralty, to what foreign Powers particulars of His Majesty's ships "King George V" and "Prince of Wales" have been furnished; and whether such particulars will be furnished to the House?
    Sir S. Hoare: As the hon. and gallant Member is doubtless aware, certain information concerning ships that have been laid down has been communicated for a number of years, under the Washington and London Naval Treaties, to certain other Governments. The communication of this information is continued under the Protocol of signature to the London Naval Treaty (1936) to the Governments of France and the United States of America. Similar information is exchanged with the German Government as an outcome of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935. Particulars concerning the two ships referred to in the question will be furnished in the usual way in the annual return of Fleets of the British Commonwealth of Nations and foreign countries, which will be laid before the House shortly before the introduction of the 1937 Navy Estimates.
    Sir Percy Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the information furnished by foreign Governments is generally reliable?
    Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, I think so.
    Mr. Cocks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the German Government furnished particulars of their new battleships?
    Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir; under the Anglo-German Naval Treaty there is a reciprocal exchange of information.

    SHIPS (READINESS FOR SEA).
    Mr. Ede (for Lieut.-Commander Fletcher)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ships of the Navy, in each category, are not in all respects ready for sea?
    Sir S. Hoare: Apart from ships of the Reserve Fleet, which are maintained at varying periods of notice for sea, about 16 per cent. of the ships of the Navy are at present not in all respects ready for sea owing to being under repair, refit or alteration. The hon. and gallant Member will, of course, appreciate that a certain percentage of ships must always be under refit, and the percentage at present is not abnormal.

    EAST AFRICA (AGRICULTURAL ADVISER'S VISIT).
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information on the mission of the Agricultural Adviser to the Colonial Office to East Africa to advise on the problem of overstocking and soil erosion; which territories he will visit; and how wide are his terms of reference?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The visit of my Agricultural Adviser to East Africa can hardly be described as a special mission. He is visiting Zanzibar, Tanganyika, 'Kenya, and Uganda in the normal course of his duties for the purpose of conferring with the Governments of those Dependencies on various local agricultural problems, including those mentioned by the hon. Member.

    SOUTHERN NIGERIA (STRIKE).
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House regarding the strike of the Commercial Motor Transport Union in South-West Nigeria, stating how long the strike lasted; what were the demands of the strikers; and whether the Government granted full facilities to the leaders of the union to negotiate a settlement of the members' grievances or whether any obstacles were placed in the way of negotiations?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have ascertained from the Acting-Governor of Nigeria that a strike organised by owners of commercial motor vehicles in Southern Nigeria began on 7th January and lasted five days. No demands were addressed to the Government of Nigeria by the strikers either immediately before or during the strike, but it is understood that the strikers were dissatisfied with the licence lees in force and that they alleged irregularities by motor traffic police. The Acting-Governor reports that no obstacles were placed in the way of negotiations, and that it was made clear to the leaders that any representations they wished to make would be impartially examined with a view to improvement of the economics of the transport services. The Government has since issued a public statement to this effect. The Acting-Governor adds that the complaints against the police will be investigated.

  PALESTINE.

    ROYAL COMMISSION.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangements will be made by the Royal Commission on Palestine to hear evidence in this country from himself and other persons having special experience of, or connection with, that mandated territory?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would invite the attention of my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 3rd November last to the question addressed to me by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). As I then pointed out, the matter is entirely one for the Royal Commission itself.

    LAW AND ORDER (PRESERVATION).
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that law and order have been restored in Palestine; and whether our armed forces there are considered sufficient to prevent any further outbreak of violence?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As regards the first part of the question, I would invite the attention of the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 19th January to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), to which I have nothing to add. As regards the second part of the question, it is never possible for armed forces to be sure of preventing an outbreak of violence from taking place. The arrangements which have been made are, in the opinion of the High Commissioner for Palestine and of the competent military authorities, such as to enable disorder to be effectively dealt with should it again occur.
    Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the policy of saying "Please" to the Mufti and sacrificing our friends has failed, he will give to General Dill and the military the opportunity to restore peace and preserve order in that country in a manner more in consonance with British traditions and British interests?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that question should be put on the Paper. I cannot answer a complicated question of that kind.

    MALAYA (TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the estimated cost at completion of the telephone equipment which is to be installed in Malaya for the purpose of establishing communication between London and Malaya; and have any unforeseen difficulties been experienced in the completion of these arrangements?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The cost of the equipment, including freight, insurance, etc., but excluding local costs of installation, amounts to about £1,840; so far as I am aware no unforeseen difficulties have been experienced.
    Mr. Day: Is everything progressing satisfactorily with this installation?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly, as far as I know. I have heard nothing to the contrary.

    GOLD COAST (HEALTH CONDITIONS).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Gold Coast Medical Department Report for 1935, which records a grave increase in the infantile and ordinary death rate; whether he is aware that a set-back to the health of the people has been experienced because of the immigration of under-nourished and diseased natives from neighbouring territories, the low standards of hygiene in rural and mining areas, and the increased facilities for the dissemination of disease and malnutrition; whether he will give his careful attention to this problem, particularly that aspect of it relating to immigrants and the necessity of a mobile medical unit for use among the immigrants?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, it will be clear to the hon. Member from the report to which he refers, that the situation is engaging the close attention of the Governor of the Gold Coast and his medical advisers, who are giving particular consideration to the problems connected with immigration and mine labour. A mobile unit was employed a few years ago in the Gold Coast on an experimental footing, and though it did
    1588
    useful work, the conclusion was reached that the funds available could be more usefully spent in other directions such as the opening up of medical stations.
    Mr. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any recent inquiries have been made into the health conditions of Africans who are, or have been, working in connection with mining developments on the Gold Coast; and whether he has any statistics as to the incidence of silicosis or tuberculosis?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: An inquiry into health conditions in the mining areas of the Gold Coast was carried out in 1935 by the Deputy-Director of Health Services, and in that year new regulations were issued governing the sanitary control of mining and mining health areas, including the medical inspection and housing of labourers and various other matters. Silicosis could only be contracted in a very few of the mines, and no statistics are at present available as to the incidence of silicosis and tuberculosis in the mining areas; but I can assure the hon. Member that the Governor of the Gold Coast is fully alive to the importance of this question and has under consideration measures for its investigation, and I have asked him to consider the engagement for this purpose of an additional medical officer, with special experience of tuberculosis.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AERODROMES AND FACTORIES (SITES).
    Sir Walter Smilesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the site numbered 6 on the plan of sites in Lancashire available for aircraft production has been considered by any of the firms concerned in the shadow-factory scheme; and whether the site and the suitability of the labour available in Preston, Blackburn and North East Lancashire will be considered before deciding upon a site for any new aircraft factory?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): This site was inspected last week and its relative advantages as compared with other possible sites will be fully considered.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many acres of agricultural land have been purchased

    1589
    for new aerodromes and aeroplane factories during the last two years; and the average price paid per acre?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The answer to the first part of the question is 14,400 acres. As regards the second part, I think it would be undesirable to attempt to assess an average price per acre as the circumstances vary so much in each case.
    Sir P. Harris: Before the right hon. Baronet's Department decide upon the purchase of land for aerodromes, do they consult other Departments concerned such as the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Health?
    Sir P. Sassoon: We discuss such matters with all the Departments concerned.
    Mr. T. Williams: Would it not be possible to obtain the figures relating to the acreage of purely agricultural land which has been purchased?
    Sir P. Sassoon: As I have already said, I think that to publish these particulars would be misleading and would also prejudice further negotiations.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what area of land was acquired for the aerodrome at Finningley; from whom it was purchased; and what was the total price paid?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The area being acquired at Finningley is 433 acres, the bulk of which is being purchased from the Finningley Park Estates Company. As regards the last part of the question, information is not yet available as the price to be paid to the company is to be settled by arbitration.
    Mr. Loganasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is now able to make a statement in regard to the Speke aerodrome site being acquired for Government work?
    Sir P. Sassoon: No, Sir. A number of sites are being inspected, but no decision has yet been reached as to which one will be selected.
    Mr. Logan: Would it be possible for I he right hon. Gentleman to say when he can give a reply?
    Sir P. Sassoon: I am afraid it would not be possible.

    ACCIDENT.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the Royal Air Force aeroplane crash which was discovered to have been caused by a rag in the petrol tank; and whether investigations have diclosed how such an occurrence could have arisen?
    Sir P. Sassoon: I am aware of the case which my hon. Friend has in mind. It has not been found possible to establish how or when the small pieces of rag got into the petrol tank, but even if this point were cleared up the cause of the accident would remain obscure; for very careful practical tests have been carried out using the actual sump of the petrol tank of the machine in question, and they throw considerable doubt upon any probability that the presence of the rags can have been the cause of the engine failure.
    Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Baronet consider discharging some innocent people on account of this incident?

    DISPLAY, HENDON.
    Captain Balfourasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Royal Air Force will take part in the Coronation air review; and, if so, where and when this will take place?
    Sir P. Sassoon: It is not intended that there should be an air review on the occasion of His Majesty's Coronation, but my Noble Friend is very glad to be able to authorise me to state that His Majesty has graciously intimated his intention to attend the Royal Air Force display at Hendon on 26th June.
    Captain Balfour: Are we to understand that the Royal Air Force display at Hendon will be enlarged this year, so as to make it an even better spectacle than usual?
    Sir P. Sassoon: I would like to have notice of that question.

  AVIATION.

    ABERDEEN AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
    Major Neven-Spenceasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Minister has considered the application submitted by Aberdeen Airways,

    1591
    Limited, dated 13th December, 1936, requesting that certain air-lines they are operating should be licensed; and, in view of the recommendation made in the report of the Maybury Committee that air-lines should be licensed, will the Air Ministry exercise their power under the Air Navigation Act, 1936, and license these airlines at an early date?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The application submitted by Aberdeen Airways, Limited, has been received, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that no licensing system is as yet in existence and if the recommendation of the Maybury Committee to which he refers is adopted it will be necessary, before any further steps can be taken, to lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend His Majesty in Council to make under Section 5 of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, and to await an affirmative resolution of both Houses. My Noble Friend has the whole matter under careful consideration.

    ORKNEY AND SHETLAND.
    Major Neven-Spenceasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why, in view of the growing importance of air transport to the counties of Orkney and Shetland, the Air Ministry has approved landing fees for Wideford aerodrome, Orkney, and Sumburgh aerodrome, Shetland, substantially higher than those charged at Croydon, e.g. 25s. for aircraft, such as Dragons, of 4,500 lbs. gross weight, and 38s. for aircraft, such as Rapides, of 5,500 lbs. gross weight; and whether, in view of the fact that the fares across the Pentland Firth and between Orkney and Shetland are £1 and £2 10s respectively, he will take steps to reduce the landing fees and so make it possible to operate profitably a six-seven seater aircraft at 50 per cent. load?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The principle followed in fixing aerodrome landing charges is to approve such rates as appear to be reasonable, having regard to the cost to the aerodrome proprietors of providing and maintaining the facilities accorded to air traffic, and the use made of the aerodrome. These considerations were taken into account when rates were approved for the Wideford and Sumburgh aerodromes, and there appears to be no justification for revising them at the present time.
    Major Neven-Spence: Is the right hon. Baronet aware of the recommendation of the Maybury Committee that there should be a standard scale of charges for all aerodromes throughout the country, licensed for public use and that owners should conform to that scale?
    Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, Sir, that has been considered.
    Major Neven-Spenceasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that no petrol or oil can be bought at the Sumburgh aerodrome, Shetland; that no hangars are available there; that Aberdeen Airways, Limited, have been refused permission by the licensee to erect one; and, in view of the fact that Sumburgh is the only practicable landing ground in Shetland and that the licensee there has a virtual monopoly of landing facilities in Shetland, will the Air Ministry take over this aerodrome and operate it impartially in the public interest?
    Sir P. Sassoon: As regards the first two parts of the question, the licensing of an aerodrome for public use is not conditional upon the provision of fuel or housing accommodation for visiting aircraft. As regards the third part, I regret that I have no information but the question of granting such a facility must be regarded as a matter for the owners of the aerodrome. As regards the last part, it would be contrary to Government policy to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend in regard to acquisition of the aerodrome by the Air Ministry.
    Major Neven-Spence: Is it not the case that the Maybury Committee has recommended very strongly that the main aerodromes at least should not be in private ownership; and in view of the fact that there is only one possible landing ground in the whole of the Shetlands, will he undertake to reconsider the whole position carefully'?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The Maybury Committee also recommended that it would be unfair to discourage or displace existing owners of aerodromes.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is this licence subject to renewal; and if so, will the right hon. Baronet undertake not to renew it until the aerodrome provides the facilities

    1593
    which are in demand in the district and which Aberdeen Airways are ready to supply?
    Sir P. Sassoon: We have no powers.

    MAYBURY COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
    Captain Harold Balfourasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any action has been decided on arising from the recommendations of the May-bury Committee?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The report of the Committee is under active consideration by the Government, but no decisions have yet been taken.
    Captain Balfour: If I put down another question in three weeks' time, will the right hon. Baronet then be able to give an answer?
    Sir P. Sassoon: I will try to do so.

    THE CORONATION.
    Mr. W. H. Greenasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the recent decision of the London Passenger Transport Board only to grant consents for motor-coach proprietors to operate tours of the decorations and illuminations during May on condition that a protective fare of 5s. per person is charged; and, as coach proprietors have indicated that they would be prepared to run such tours at 2s. 6d. per head and the fixing of 5s. will preclude a large number of Londoners of limited means from participating in such tours, will he ask the London Passenger Transport Board to reconsider their decision in this matter?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. HoreBelisha): This is a problem which affects not the board alone but such matters as street capacity, police control, safety and larger issues all of which I understand will be taken into account. Incidentally it should be borne in mind that the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, places an obligation on the board to provide adequate services.
    Mr. Brookeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, why it has been considered necessary to close Westminster Abbey to the public and to disfigure Parliament Square and other parts of the
    1594
    Coronation route by the erection of stands four months before the Coronation: whether such a long period was necessary for the purpose; and whether he can state the estimated cost of these preparations?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson)(for the First Commissioner of Works): The fitting up of Westminster Abbey and the provision of stands along the Coronation route necessitate great demands on labour and materials, particularly in respect of steel and timber. Work in connection with the Coronation will also be carried out by local and other bodies, and it is inevitable that a shortage, which is already in evidence, of both labour and certain materials, would become acute if undue restrictions of time were enforced on the contractors engaged. For these reasons it has not been possible to concentrate the work in the Abbey and on the stands within a shorter period of time. An estimate of the total cost will be laid before this House in due course.
    Mr. Mander: Who is going to have the letting of these seats; who is going to sit in them?
    Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member must put that question down.
    Mr. Ede (for Lieut.-Commander Fletcher)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now announce a decision regarding the presence of African chiefs at the Coronation ceremonies; and if chiefs, in addition to native official representatives of colonies, will be invited?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. His Highness the Kabaka of Buganda and Yeta III, the paramount chief of Barotseland, have been invited to the Coronation. The Kabaka accepted, but I am sorry to say that he has since been advised on medical grounds not to undertake the journey to England this year. I very much hope that the paramount chief will attend.

  TRANSPORT.

    SPEED LIMITS.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Transport how many orders made by local authorities for speed limits under Section 29 (4) of the Road and Rail

    1595
    Traffic Act, 1933, have not been confirmed by him; and in how many of the cases where orders have not been confirmed has there been no public inquiry?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Twenty and ten.
    Mr. Montagueasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the conclusion of the inter-departmental committee on road safety for children that accidents to children and other pedestrians are generally less serious in areas where speeds are limited, and that on open roads and the outskirts of towns where speed is higher there is a greater proportion of fatal accidents, he will consider the enforcing of a proper speed-limit in every case where circumstances render it desirable on roads coming under his jurisdiction irrespective of whether a stretch is technically described as urban or otherwise?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. FOOTPATHS AND LIGHTING.
    Mr. Edeasked the Minister of Transport the total mileage of the trunk roads as defined by the Act of this Session on which there are no footpaths and only one footpath, respectively; and what steps he is taking to be able to remedy this state of affairs as soon as possible after he becomes the highway authority for these roads on 1st April, 1937?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There is no reliable information, and the first step to be taken will be to make a survey of existing conditions and requirements.
    Mr. Ede: Are we to understand that a survey is now being made, or is the right hon. Gentleman waiting until after 1st April next?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There are certain difficulties in this matter. I have no authority to make a survey of these roads, but nevertheless I am trying to arrange with the authorities concerned that the survey may proceed.
    Mr. Edeasked the Minister of Transport how many lighting authorities there are on the trunk roads from London to Dover, Portsmouth, Penzance, Holyhead and Edinburgh, respectively; whether he proposes to call a conference of the authorities on each of
    1596
    these roads to discuss with him and the gas and electricity supply undertakers the problems connected with the adequate and uniform lighting of these roads; and what action he is taking in the meantime to have these roads surveyed and their lighting problems considered?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: A survey of the needs of the trunk roads in this and other matters is already being put in hand.
    Mr. Edeasked the Minister of Transport how many county councils in England and Wales have exercised their power of contributing towards the lighting of roads in their areas; and in respect of how many miles of roads such contributions have been promised or made?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Departmental Committee on Street Lighting are collecting this information.
    Mr. Guyasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information in his Department as to the comparative costs of installation and maintenance of the sodium and mercury vapour electric lamps for street lighting?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I should not be justified in making a pronouncement on this question at the moment.

    ROAD SURFACES (SKID RESISTANCE).
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department have arrived at any definite decision in connection with the experiments conducted to determine the skid resistance of various road surfaces in varying weather conditions; and can he give particulars of any deductions that can be made?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The conclusions reached are summarised in publications entitled "Experimental Works on Roads" issued annually by my Department and in a special report entitled "Road Surface Resistance to Skidding" published recently in conjunction with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
    Captain Sir William Brass: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of not allowing any grant to local authorities which do not put these surfaces down in the different areas?
    Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Levy: Will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that skidding may be due to the camber of the road apart from the surface of the road?

    YORK-TADCASTER ROAD.
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Transport the date when the scheme for the reconstruction of the York-Tadcaster road was first submitted; the estimated cost of the scheme; and can he account for the delay in granting sanction?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The scheme was submitted in June last for widening six miles of road and reconstructing two bridges at a cost estimated at £265,000. Certain amendments were effected as the result of discussions with my technical officers, and the council were informed in November last that the scheme was approved in principle and that a grant would be issued subject to their acceptance.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISMISSALS).
    Mr. Shortasked the Prime Minister whether, as he has now had an opportunity of considering the feelings of the House, as reflected in the Debate on the dockyard dismissals, the Government will now consider setting up some appeal court to act in future cases should they arise?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I cannot add anything to the statements made on behalf of the Government in the course of the Debate of 26th January.
    Mr. Attlee: In view of the widespread discontent over the matter of these dismissals, and a number of other cases of dismissal that are now being brought forward, will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up a committee of Members of this House to investigate the question of these dismissals?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot undertake to do that.

  DEFENCE.

    CALCIUM CARBIDE.
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the question of the establishment of a factory for the manufacture of calcium carbide in. South-West Durham will be kept in
    1598
    mind, considering that abundance of first-class limestone and coal are in close proximity, while electric power is at hand, and unemployment is rife among the quarrymen and coal miners of that district?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): The supply of calcium carbide is under consideration, and I regret that I can give no information at present. The hon. Member may rest assured that the claims of South-West Durham, together with those of other areas, will receive full consideration.

    FOOD STORAGE.
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence when he proposes to make a full statement upon the Government's food storage proposals?
    Sir T. Inskip: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) on 27th January.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to publish a White Paper outlining the Government's proposals in this matter?
    Sir T. Inskip: I certainly do not propose to publish a White Paper stating what we propose to do before we have done it.
    Mr. Morrison: Is it the policy of the Government to make all the arrangements first and tell the House of Commons afterwards?
    Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there are certain difficulties connected with the policy of food storage as well as certain advantages, and those difficulties and advantages have to be considered together?
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman let the Minister of Agriculture into the secret when he has made up his mind?
    Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Minister of Agriculture knows all that is being done.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Would not the best plan be to encourage a greatly increased agricultural production in this country?

    WHITEHALL GARDENS BUILDING SCHEME.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, on what grounds it has been decided to suspend the building of the big block of new Government offices in Whitehall; whether the scheme is only to be temporarily or permanently abandoned; whether any alternative proposals are being considered; and to what use is it intended, in the event of the scheme being abandoned, to put the area where houses have already been demolished and foundation preparations started?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Monday last to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Nuneaton Division (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher).

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BARNSLEY POST OFFICE (REDECORATION CONTRACT).
    Mr. Pottsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, as Barnsley Post Office is to be redecorated throughout by contract, he will state the firm who obtained the contract; and, having regard to Barnsley's volume of unemployed people, will he give an assurance that Barnsley's skilled decorators unemployed will be given first preference for work by the contracting firm who obtained the contract?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: The contract was obtained by Messrs. Dearden Brothers, Limited, of Leeds, in competition which included offers from five local firms. I am afraid that it would not be reasonable, in these circumstances, to lay down any such conditions.
    Mr. Potts: Does the hon. Member think it would be right to bring workmen out of Leeds to do work in Barnsley with hundreds of men walking about Barnsley town unemployed? Can I have no answer and no guarantee on that matter?
    Mr. Hudson: The contract is subject to the normal Fair Wages Clause, and as long as fair wages are paid, I do not think it is reasonable to impose any further conditions.
    Mr. Potts: I am not talking about the Fair Wages Clause. We will watch that. What I want to know is whether we are to have our Barnsley people who are unemployed, skilled people, working on this job instead of bringing people out of Leeds every day?
    Mr. Hudson: I have already said that as the tender was open to local firms and not one of the local firms was successful, owing to the prices quoted, it would not be reasonable, in our opinion, to impose the conditions suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Member not aware that in many cases, when local contractors do not get a job, the contractors are advised to take on as many local people as possible?
    Mr. Thurtle: Will the hon. Gentleman, without imposing a condition upon the contractors, make representations as to the desirability of employing Barnsley people on this job?
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that procedure, and that when an outside contractor secures a contract local authorities attempt to influence him to employ as many local people as possible?
    Mr. Hudson: Yes, but this is not a contract given by a local body; it is given by a Government Department.
    Mr. Potts: As this contract was given by a Government Department, will they not adopt the same policy as local authorities adopt in such circumstances?
    Mr. Hudson: I will consider that, but I cannot possibly give any undertaking in the matter.
    Mr. Potts: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory reply to this question, I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    ASSISTANCE (LANCASHIRE).
    Mr. Gordon Macdonaldasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases now being dealt with by the unemployment assistance boards throughout Lancashire; the number that have had reductions; and the number that have had increases in their determinations in consequence of the new regulations?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): During the week ended 15th January last the numbers of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance allowances in Lancashire was 104,564, of whom about 47,000 were receiving more and 47 were receiving less than they would have received under the Standstill arrangements.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it not desirable to issue a White Paper showing the gains and losses in all parts of the country on the lines of this question?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not think that that is necessary at the moment.

    JURY TRIAL, LEICESTER.
    Mr. Johnasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that, in a recent case at Leicester, in which a motorist was charged with manslaughter but convicted of dangerous driving only, the learned Judge said that the evidence was conclusive in support of the charge of manslaughter, that the jury's verdict was not in accordance with the evidence because they were terrified, and that the failure of juries to do their duty in such cases was responsible for the failure to

    —

    1935.

    1936.

    London.

    District Registries.

    London.

    District Registries.

    Petitions presented

    …

    …

    …

    3,987

    1,170

    4,352

    —

    Decrees Nisi

    …

    …

    …

    3,432

    1,115

    3,724

    —

    Petitions pending at the end of the year

    1,515

    86

    1,689

    —

    The figures for the district registries in 1936 are not yet available.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIA).
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have carried out their obligations under the Export Credits scheme; what is the profit made on the scheme; will consideration be given to the need to reduce the guarantee charges, and the need to increase the Soviet purchases from this country of pottery, cotton, and other manufactured goods; and will he take steps to make the
    reduce the number of road accidents; and will he state why such a trial was not removed to the Old Bailey as was done in the case of the three Welsh Nationalists?
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): No action of the kind suggested could in the circumstances have been taken in this case. As the jury convicted on one charge and acquitted on the other, no question of removal of the trial could arise, as the trial was over and there was nothing to remove.

    DIVORCE STATISTICS.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Attorney-General the number of divorce petitions presented during the year 1935–36 to the nearest available date; the number of decrees granted for that period; and the number awaiting hearing?
    The Solicitor-General: As figures are concerned, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Civil judicial statistics are compiled yearly, and full details relating to divorce proceedings will be found in Table II on pages 21 and 22 of "The Civil Statistics for 1935."
    The particulars asked for are as follow:
    necessary financial arrangements to improve the trading relations?
    Captain Euan Wallace (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has fulfilled all its financial obligations up to date under the Export Credits schemes. The surplus shown in the accounts of the Export Credits Guarantee Department (which are presented annually to Parliament) cannot be regarded as a profit so long as the Department has large contingent liabilities. In regard to the Department's charges and the need for

    1603
    financial facilities, no further action appears to be necessary, in view of the arrangements made between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Soviet Government in July last whereby £10,000,000 was made available for the export of manufactured goods to the Soviet Union. The particular kinds of goods for the purchase of which this credit may be employed (subject to the proviso that 5o per cent. of the sale price is derived from expenditure on United Kingdom labour or materials) are selected by the Soviet purchasing organisation.
    Mr. Smith: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that up to now only the heavy industries, with big finance companies behind them, have benefited out of this arrangement, and in view of that fact, will the Department take steps to see that financial backing is given to light industries in this country, so that they also can benefit from this arrangement?
    Captain Wallace: One of the disadvantages of dealing with a dictatorship is that they only buy what the Government choose.
    Mr. Thurtle: Are we to understand from the hon. and gallant Member's reply that the profits which are made from transactions with the Soviet Government are being made to meet the losses which are made from transactions with capitalist countries?
    Captain Wallace: The hon. Member must not understand anything from my reply except what is in it.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Magnayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any report has been received by him from the Import Duties Advisory Committee which, as he told the House on 15th July, 1936, he had asked to examine all data regarding the iron and steel industy, to report on the position of the industry and the general lines of its future development, and also to consider whether any further extension of plant should take place until all the social implications involved had been considered?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): The Import Duties Advisory Committee's inquiry into the iron and steel industry is being actively pursued. It covers a wide field,
    1604
    and I understand that the report will not be completed for some time.
    Mr. R. Acland: Will this report be published when it is completed?
    Dr. Burgin: I think that is another question.
    Mr. Magnayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Import Duties Advisory Committee were aware of the proposal to commence new steelworks at Scunthorpe; if so, when did they report it to him; what were the terms of such report; and when can this House have an opportunity of considering it?
    Mr. Jaggerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a new steel works is to be built in Lincolnshire; and whether he will intervene to secure that the United Steel Company shall divert this new development to Jarrow?
    Dr. Burgin: The Import Duties Advisory Committee have been for some time aware that developments in the Lincolnshire ore field, and particularly at Scunthorpe, were under consideration. In the light of the progess already mane with the committee's general inquiry into the industry, including evidence from independent experts as to the importance to the industry of development in this ore field and the present position of demand in relation to productive capacity in the industry, the committee have informed me that they are satisfied that such a scheme of development in this area is necessary and in the national interest. It will not, however, preclude consideration of suitable schemes for other areas.
    Mr. Magnay: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the whole trend of the discussion on 15th July last was that the full requirements of the trade were then met by the factories which were then set up, and that it was the plain intention of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that nothing at all should be done until this House had had the benefit of the advice of this Committee and its recommendations?
    Dr. Burgin: I hope the House will not have concluded anything of the kind. At a time when there is tremendous expansion in iron and steel and an enormous demand for the products of that industry, to suggest that the whole industry should stand still until a report covering a wide

    1605
    field is made is really quite impossible. The ore field all round Scunthorpe, as anyone knows who has visited the district, is a most important natural resource and ought to be developed as rapidly as possible. This is a unanimous scheme, well backed, and it ought to have the approbation of this House.
    Mr. Magnay: The Committee was set up to consider the economic as well as the social implications—.[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]—In view of the unsatisfactory answer and of the Lord Mayor's conference to be held in Newcastle, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

    IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. Alexanderasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many applications for increases of Customs duties on imported commodities are at present under consideration by the Import Duties Advisory Committee; and how many of these applications have not been advertised by the Board of Trade with a view to objections being heard?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): It is difficult to say at what point inquiries and representations from various quarters become what may be regarded as a definite application, and it would consequently be misleading to attempt to give a figure. With regard to the second part of the question, applications to the Committee are not advertised by the Board of Trade, but it is the practice of the Committee to advertise applications for changes in duties if and when they reach the stage at which it becomes appropriate to secure the views of other interested parties.
    Mr. Alexander: Is it not a grave breach of the rights of the citizen for applications for new duties to be heard without objectors having an opportunity to be heard, and how can they have the opportunity if the applications are not advertised?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I though I made it plain that they were advertised.
    Mr. Alexander: They are not all advertised?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I said that it was the practice of the Committee to advertise when the applications reached the stage at which it became desirable to let the interested parties know.

    COST-OF-LIVING.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the continued increase in the cost of living; and whether any action is being taken?
    Dr. Burgin: The average of the cost-of-living index numbers prepared by the Ministry of Labour was nearly 3 per cent. higher last year than in 1935. The rise is largely due to increases in the world prices of certain foodstuffs.

    RIVER FLOODS.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received reports of land being flooded; and, if so, in what areas?
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a similar question yesterday.
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman informed me that there were several areas where there were floods; is the Department satisfied that the catchment boards are doing their duty?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: The hon. Member asked me whether I had any specific reports, and the answer was in the negative. The catchment boards have ample powers to carry out the work required.
    Mr. Lawson: Who is responsible for seeing that the catchment boards carry out their duties to see that these floods are made impossible?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: If specific reports are received from the catchment boards my right hon. Friend will deal with them, but they have not sent any.

    CHEESE (PRICES).
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Agriculture the average price per hundredweight of New Zealand, Canadian, and Cheshire graded national-mark cheese during 1935 and 1936, respectively?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: As the answer includes a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Short: Do they show an increase over 1935?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the figures.
    Following is the answer:

    Average wholesale prices per cwt. of first quality cheese at Bristol, Liverpool and London in 1935 and 1936.

    Description.

    1935.

    1936.

    Price per cwt.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    New Zealand

    52

    0

    64

    0

    Canadian (a)

    65

    0

    69

    6

    Cheshire graded (b)

    71

    6

    73

    6

    (a) Bristol and London only.
    (b) Liverpool only. The average prices of National Mark Cheshire farmhouse cheese, selected grade, at the cheese fairs at Chester, Nantwich and Whitchurch were 64s. 6d. per cwt. in 1935 and 69s. 0d. per cwt. in 1936.

    DRAINAGE RATES, SHEERNESS.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the House any information in connection with the 600 drainage summonses levied against the citizens of Sheerness; whether he is aware that the controversy has been in progress for nearly two years; and whether he proposes to hold a public inquiry as to whether the proportion of the cost levied on the citizens is a fair amount of the total cost?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is aware that there has been resistance on the part of drainage ratepayers in Sheerness to the payment of drainage rates levied by the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board. This board was constituted under a scheme made by the River Medway Catchment Board in pursuance of their statutory duty under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and confirmed by the Minister after the holding of a public local inquiry. A differential rating order which has had the effect of reducing the rate levied in the greater part of Sheerness to a fraction of the full rate has been in force since 1st April, 1935, and a further differential rating order is now before my right hon. Friend for confirmation, reducing the burden still further. My right hon. Friend is now considering the question of the confirmation of this further order, which incidentally the responsible local authority,
    1608
    the Sheerness Urban District Council, have intimated they do not desire to oppose. Still further relief to the drainage ratepayers in Sheerness is likely to arise from the amalgamation on 1st April next of four existing catchment areas into one catchment area to be called the Kent Rivers Catchment Area. In the circumstances my right hon. Friend does not think that a public inquiry would serve any useful purpose.

  POST OFFICE.

    EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the diminishing number of ex-service men under the age of 40, he will raise to 45 the age limit for entry of men who saw active service in the War into the Post Office service; and whether, in the alternative, he will, in considering applications on the part of those who served in the War, subtract the period of their War service from their age?
    The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The normal maximum age limit for appointment as postman is 30, but this has been extended to 40 in the case of able-bodied men who served during the War. An age extension up to 45 is allowed to pensioners, both disability and long service, and I am not prepared to make any further extension.
    Mr. Adams: Does not the Post Office engage these men up to the age of 60 and 65 at Christmas time?
    Major Tryon: I did not fully catch the hon. Gentleman's question. The point is that the Post Office at the present moment employs 115,000 ex-service men, and last year it took on 7,000 more, which constitutes a record. Our experience shows that it is not desirable for training purposes to engage a higher proportion of older ex-service men than at present.
    Mr. Adams: Will not ex-service men become progressively fewer, and have they not the first claim on the community?

    MOTOR LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Postmaster-General what considerations guide him in selecting post offices in Scotland to be authorised to issue motor

    1609
    licences; and whether he will include the county town of Fife, with other county towns, in the list of post offices so authorised?
    Major Tryon: The principal factors are the distance from neighbouring issuing points in the same licensing area; the estimated demand; and the suitability of an office to undertake work of such a complicated nature as the issue of licences. It has not been considered necessary to arrange for licence business at the head post office of the county town of Fife, as there is a local taxation office in the vicinity at which licences can be obtained.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the issuing of a motor car licence a more complicated business than the issuing of a dog licence?
    Major Tryon: The issuing of a motor licence is much more complicated. For instance, the motor has to be insured.
    Mr. Maxton: And the dog has to be alive.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. V. Adamsasked the Minister of Health when the promised scheme for the insurance of black-coated workers will be submitted to the House?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to say when this Bill will be introduced, but its preparation has now reached an advanced stage.

    BRITISH ARMY (RAILWAY WARRANTS).
    Mr. Smedley Crookeasked the Secretary of State for War the approximate cost to the country if free railway warrants were issued to soldiers who are detailed for oversea service who apply for leave to see their relatives before embarking; and will he consider the advisability for giving free warrants in these circumstances as one of the possible aids to recruiting?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The estimated cost is £7,000 annually. While my right hon. Friend appreciates that any concession is an aid to recruiting, he is necessarily limited by the financial factor and he does not consider that the
    1610
    granting of this particular concession should take priority over others of a more urgent nature.
    Mr. Smedley Crooke: Does my hon. Friend realise that this concession would be very much appreciated by young soldiers, and will he prevail upon the Secretary of State to give the question further consideration?
    Sir V. Warrender: I am not suggesting that the concession would not be appreciated, but there are others that would be more appreciated.

    PERSIAN GULF STATES.
    Mr. Dayasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of treaty engagements under which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have undertaken liabilities in which they have agreed to supply armed forces to protect the territories of the Arab rulers of the Persian Gulf?
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): The Arab States of Koweit, Bahrein, Qatar and the Trucial Coast are in treaty relations with His Majesty's Government, under which they enjoy, in varying degrees, His Majesty's protection.
    Mr. Day: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

    AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
    Sir Gifford Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any arrangements are being made to introduce a standardised air raid warning for the whole country; what its nature will be; and by what date particulars will be announced and the machinery be ready for operation?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The sounding of public air raid warnings will be a responsibility of local authorities, except in London where it is considered that a centralised system will be necessary. The Home Office intends to advise local authorities on means of giving these warnings, in so far as existing sirens and hooters are not sufficient, and on the nature and duration of the warnings. It is not considered that complete standardisation is necessary or possible. Before detailed advice can be given, certain

    1611
    trials with various types of sound-making instruments are to be conducted in London. My hon. Friend may be assured that the machinery will be ready for operation at short notice, but I cannot say at the present moment when it will be possible to give particulars.

    TURKISH WARSHIPS (CONSTRUCTION).
    Mr. Peat (for Mr. Louis Smith)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of the new warships to be constructed by Turkey are being built in this country; and whether the Government can offer facilities for such work to be carried out?
    Sir S. Hoare: No Turkish warships are at present under construction in Great Britain, nor am I aware that any recent inquiries for such vessels have been made in this country. His Majesty's Government will be pleased to offer the usual facilities for such work to be carried out in Great Britain on behalf of Turkey, provided that the Turkish requirements are such that no undue interference with our own requirements would be involved.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936).
  Estimate presented,—of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1937 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
  FIREARMS BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

FEEDING OF CHILDREN.
3.43 p.m.
Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move,
"That, in view of the disquieting reports regarding the physical condition of children, this House is of opinion that, out of moneys provided by Parliament, provision should be made for supplying, in addition to milk, at least one meal per day to every child attending an elementary or secondary school."
The President of the Board of Education has informed the House that the Government's proposals on the subject of physical fitness will be announced shortly. It is, therefore, appropriate that we should deliberate this aspect of the question now. The question of under feeding and improper feeding is closely related to the question of health. I am fortified in that opinion by the views of many eminent experts whose names appear in the annual report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1935. Sir Robert McCarrison says that nutrition is the very basis of health, and Sir Gowland Hopkins expresses the opinion that it is to-day becoming well recognised that right nutrition, especially right nutrition early in life, will profoundly affect the well-being and social value of the individual. These statements alone more than justify the raising of this Debate. This is an eminently modest and practical proposal, which does not go as far as the Labour party would desire. We shall never be content until all children, at school or otherwise, irrespective of parental income, are every day in the year provided not with one meal but with all the meals that are required for their sustenance.
Mr. Levy: At the cost of the State?
Mr. Shinwell: That is the goal at which we aim. We recognise that there are some practical difficulties in the way. We must raise wage standards to a much higher level and unemployment must disappear. We must reorganise production and distribution of foodstuffs before that objective is attained. But meantime we want an assurance from this House that at least one substantial meal a day is provided for children attending school. That is our minimum demand. Although some improvement in health is manifested among school children, the position is far from satisfactory. In the report to which I have already referred the Chief Medical Officer says:
"The reports of school medical officers throughout the country generally do not
1620
suggest that there has been any deterioration in the nutrition of school children. Where statistics relating to heights and weights are given there is almost invariably an increase shown compared with the statistics of previous years."
But he goes on to say:
"The question may, however, be not so much as to deterioration but whether the degree of progress is as satisfactory as it might be. That good nourishment does exist in certain areas and in certain sections of the population is hardly to be contested. There are areas in which severe depression, continued for many years, has left its mark."
That is a very important declaration, which fortifies the case for this Motion. There is, of course, considerable variation in the condition of school children in different parts of the country. In the Special Areas the deterioration is most marked. In Hebburn, for example, according to this report, a substantial increase in the measure of deterioration has recently been recorded. Dr. Burn, the medical officer who went to that district not long ago, says:
"I have tried to examine the children in an unbiased way, and with not too exacting a standard in mind. Perhaps previous experience of areas where unemployment is less severe colours my impression, for I must admit that the state of nutrition of Hebburn children is decidedly inferior to that of the children of more fortunate areas."
Then, be it noted, he goes on to say:
"Our children bear on their bodies the marks of the economic hardships of recent years."
That is a very grave utterance and one which the President of the Board of Education must consider.
Independent investigations have recently been undertaken throughout the country by teachers who are in actual contact with the children and are, therefore, entitled to express an opinion. In Durham County, several of those teachers have declared that there seemed to be a remarkable difference between children coming from homes where there was prolonged unemployment and those where wages were regular, that many of the children were thin and starved-looking and that in physique, mental alertness and ability they were much below the standard of five years ago, and were decidedly backward in lessons and easily tired. One headmaster stated that, in his own school of over 40o children, at least one-third showed the need for more food. He went on to say:
"The provision of milk has prevented the situation from becoming worse, but many

1621
show signs of distress in spite of the milk ration."
I would advise any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway who proposes to speak for the Liberal party upon their Amendment, to take note of that statement.
I referred to the London area advisedly, because it is too often thought that under-nourishment is confined to the Special Areas. That is far from being true. In the London area, 189,203 school children were medically examined during 1935. The result showed that only 32,934 were in excellent health. The ill-health of the remaining five-sixths was regarded as due mainly to under-nourishment. Opinions were expressed in previous reports of the Board of Education in relation to the survey of 3,000 unselected children between the ages of two and six. Excluding dental and eye defects, 27 per cent. of them suffered impairment of health. I could go on quoting from these documents the opinions of experts, educationists and those who have devoted themselves to the study of the subject of nutrition, in order to prove that, in spite of undoubted improvement, the position is far from reassuring. Admittedly, more and better food can effect a substantial change in the health and physique of school children. On this subject I have one quotation from Sir John Orr who, in his book "Food, Health and Income," states that the result of tests on children showed that improvement of the diet in the lower groups was accompanied by improvement in health and increased rate of growth, which approximated to children in the higher income groups. He states:
"In 1927 a series of tests was carried out in Scotland, in which about 1,500 children in the elementary schools in the seven largest towns were given additional milk at school for a period of seven months. Periodic measurement of the children showed that the rate of growth in those getting additional milk was about 20 per cent. greater than in those not getting additional milk. This was accompanied by a noticeable improvement in health and vigour."
The Educational Institute of Scotland conducted a very minute investigation of an educational character into the qualifications of various school children, some coming from poor homes and others coming from homes where incomes were much higher. Therefore, I submit the general proposition that improvement undoubtedly does manifest itself when more and better food is regularly supplied.
1622
I turn from those considerations to the present situation. The Labour party declares that the existing provisions are hopelessly inadequate. The report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health dealing with this aspect of the question refers to a new circular. There was one circular with which we are all familiar and about which there was considerable controversy. It has been withdrawn, or, at all events, left in abeyance. The new circular issued by the board affirms the fact that where parents' incomes fall within the income scale of the board that does not justify the provision of free meals. What does it mean? Two conditions are laid down before meals can be provided. One is the income condition. The incomes of parents must not go beyond a certain scale. The other condition is that, irrespective of the income, however low and inadequate it may be, it must be firmly established, as a result of medical inspection, that a child is unable, because of its physical condition, to absorb education. I say at once that both those conditions are highly objectionable. If it is found necessary to impose conditions, I would rather have the income condition than the other.
If the Board of Education desire to fix a scale which should be a test of the condition established before meals are provided, let them do so, but if, alongside an income test, they desire to establish that the child's physical condition is such as to prevent that child receiving the advantage of education, it is a condition in which, in the circumstances, the parential income is out of the question. I should like the President of the Board of Education to take that point into consideration. In the opinion of the Labour party, all the fiddling restrictions on the provision of meals should be abandoned. If we are to establish physical fitness, and if it be agreed that sound feeding is the basis of physical fitness, the provision of meals, whether of milk or of meals of a more substantial character, should form part of the educational system of this country.
I turn from those considerations to the objections that are frequently raised to the proposals contained in the Motion. The first objection is on the ground of the cost. We are asked, to begin with, whether the State is to make itself responsible for the financial costs that are likely to be entailed. My first answer is this: No matter what the cost is, no price is

1623
too high to pay for the assurance that our school children are being properly nourished. My second answer is that the particulars of costs presented by the Minister himself are grossly exaggerated. If we take, for example, the question of milk costs, the Minister stated, in reply to a question the other day, that if a pint of milk were provided for all school children in State-aided schools it would cost, at present milk values, £10,000,000 per annum, that is to say if milk were provided on school days. But the Minister's estimate is based on the retail price of milk, or a figure approximating to the retail price, Is. 4½d. a gallon. But we know that millions of gallons of milk are sold in this country for manufacturing purposes at round about 5d. a gallon. Clearly, if the farmers, those engaged in the milk-producing industry, had an assured market of the kind that is indicated in this Motion, they could afford to sell the milk at a much lower price than at present.
I will not pin the Minister down to 5d. a gallon. Let us compromise; let us say rod, a gallon. I believe that to be a satisfactory price for the farmers, having regard to the considerations involved and the amount of milk that could be disposed of. That would mean that instead of the cost being £10,000,000 it could be reduced by almost half. Over and above that it may well be that some children will not avail themselves of the milk facilities. If they refuse, that is a matter either for themselves or their parents. Some will prefer to pay for the milk provided and if parents desire to pay for it let them do so. There ought to be no compulsion exercised in that regard, so far as the parents are concerned. But where the children are ready to avail themselves of the milk facilities provided by the Board of Education through the local authorities, they ought to receive the ration of milk without any financial questions being asked. If the Minister regards the cost on that basis as too high, his conception of the needs of school children is quite different from that of the Labour party.
I turn to the costs likely to be involved in the provision of one meal a day. I think it has already been established that in spite of the milk ration the children require more and better food. It has also been firmly established that thousands of
1624
children go short of food. Moreover—and this from our standpoint is the most important consideration of all—thousands of parents, where no wages exist and where there has been prolonged unemployment, are unable to pay for the meals that their children require. There can be no dispute about the facts and we have no desire to exaggerate the position; there is common agreement on these matters. In view of those circumstances we suggest that the Minister ought to enforce the regulations of the Board or to relax the regulations wherever necessary, and where local authorities, because of heavy rating burdens—many of them are too heavily burdened at the moment, as for example in Durham, in South Wales and elsewhere—are unable to provide the funds required, the State must come to their assistance.
What is likely to be the cost involved? According to the Minister the cost of meals, assuming the gross cost to be 5d. per meal, would be about £24,000,000 per annum. I cannot understand how the Minister arrives at that estimate. For example in Bradford, where they have been providing free meals to school children for many years—Bradford is one of the pioneers in this connection—the total cost of supplying the foodstuffs necessary, and of the overhead charges, the cost of canteens, of transport and the like, is 3d. per meal. If Bradford can undertake the provision of free meals on that basis I find great difficulty in appreciating the estimate furnished by the Minister. In many other parts of the country we find that the cost is much lower than the Minister suggested in his reply to the question put to him the other day. For example in Edinburgh the cost of the food is less than 2d. per meal. It is very doubtful whether 3d. is required in order to make up the overhead charges. In London we learn that the cost of the meal alone is less than 2d.
There, again, it would be interesting to have from the Minister some closer approximation to the actual costs than he has already provided. But it may well be that, just as in the case of milk so in the case of the more substantial meal, many parents would prefer to pay for the meal provided or would prefer that their children should return to their homes at mid-day. But where the children require the food they ought to have that food without any kind of restriction. On that

1625
assumption, that some will pay and some will refuse to have the meal, I suggest that the Minister's estimate of £24,000,000 is a gross exaggeration. But even if it cost £24,000,000 it would not be too much, having regard to the benefits that could be derived.
Now I come to another consideration. The reduction in disease arising from the improvement in health conditions that would be consequent from the provision of regular meals, the right kind of nourishment, for school children, would far outweigh the actual costs involved. The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) has stated in this House that the cost of disease to the nation annually is £300,000,000. Sir John Bray has placed the cost at more than £200,000,000. But we need not bandy words and figures on that head. There will be common agreement on this—that if meals are provided regularly there is bound to be some reduction in the amount of disease amongst school children, and to that extent the cost would not be anything like as high as the Minister anticipates.
Let me pass to a further consideration. It is said that the provision of free food would demoralise the parents. I do not suppose it is suggested that it would demoralise the children. The children could hardly appreciate the demoralisation. I speak for myself personally. I can recall when I was a school child in a poverty-stricken home, when the provision of a meal would not have caused me the slightest perturbation of mind, although it might have done my stomach a great deal of good. I have no doubt that when I did receive a meal that was the effect. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in this House the other day, when a question was put to the Minister on the subject of free meals for school children, seemed to indicate that he regarded this proposal as leading to universal pauperisation. That does not come well from hon. Members who are always asking for subsidies. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education prefers to regard this as a subsidy, let him do so. It is the right kind of subsidy, the most economic form of subsidy which can be granted by this House.
In any event, speaking for the Labour party, I make this declaration: We are
1626
ready to endure all the vices of demoralisation that may result from the provision of free meals for school children. Moreover, the same argument has been used at all times in this House when there has been a question of housing subsidies, or a question of old age pensions. Indeed, when the question of unemployment allowances was originally raised we heard a great deal about demoralisation, the sapping of independence, the loss of our national characteristics, and the like—all very fine-sounding phrases, but in view of the existing situation they have nothing whatever to do with the case. If we have an assurance that all will eat when they require to eat, that will far outweigh any trifling consideration of that kind.
Therefore, I submit finally these considerations to the House; This is a proposal which should enlist the support of every Member. I say that advisedly. I do not want to raise any emotional issue, but it is appropriate in the circumstances, because hon. Members, I think without any exception, are well nourished; they receive a sufficiency of food; the question of food rarely troubles them; they know where the next meal is coming from. We want to have the same assurance for our children attending school. I cannot understand why any hon. Members should oppose the Motion. I notice that on the Order Paper there are two Amendments, one by the Liberal party to which I have referred and about which I will just say this further word: The Liberal party is always seeking a half-way house. It has never been able to provide a decent habitation. So far as the Tory Amendment is concerned, what surprises me about it is that it should be sponsored by a woman Member. It expresses the hope
"that, where necessary, the powers already possessed by local education authorities for the purpose will he more fully utilised."
What is meant by "where necessary"? I venture a response: it is necessary everywhere so far as school children are concerned.
Our proposal is justified by the facts. I could have quoted from many eminent experts, but I shall not yield to that temptation. It is supported by a mass of evidence from social reformers and medical men who have devoted themselves to a study of the question. It is admitted that there is undoubtedly a considerable measure of under-feeding among school

1627
children. That is not denied. Again I repeat that we have no desire to exaggerate the situation. There is an abundance of under-feeding, and that has got to be corrected. Moreover, it will be admitted that children's health is being undermined by lack of proper and sufficient food, and that is a proposition which I ask the House to accept.
Furthermore, the largest proportion of children who show signs of under-feeding come from homes where wages are low and there is prolonged unemployment. That cannot be denied. Where children are supplied with milk or meals, a marked improvement has shown itself. The Board of Education have taken credit for the improvement. Let them take more credit if they will; let them provide the meals and let them take all the credit. There exists a considerable disparity between children from high and low income groups in respect of height, weight and general health. That is not disputed. From these facts I derive the conclusion that the whole nation will gain in health, in vigour, in physique, and above all in food production, if this Motion is accepted. It will serve as an important contribution to social wellbeing, to the safeguarding of child life, and to the future of the nation. We are asking in this Motion that the House of Commons shall take care of the children. If it does, we believe that the adult population of this country can take care of themselves.
4.20 p.m.
Mr. James Brown: I beg to second the Motion.
I am very glad to be associated with this Motion, asking that at least one meal per day should be provided for our school children. The Mover of the Motion said that he did not want to talk sentiment, but I would that I were able to awake sentiment throughout the whole House, and raise the emotions of all right hon. and hon. Members in regard to the stern necessity of feeding our school children. I think it is to our credit for once, at any rate, whatever may be thought about other proposals of ours, that the Labour party should be perturbed about our school children. I am sure the Minister for War is perturbed, not about the children, but about the product of our schools in past days, and that if he were
1628
here he would agree with us when we say that, if we are to have a strong and efficient able-bodied populace to protect and guard these islands, we must begin that protection when our children are at school. We think nothing in these days of enforcing education, even upon reluctant folk; we see to it that the child is educated; and, surely, the corollary to education is proper food. As my hon. Friend has already indicated, if the child is not properly fed, it is almost impossible for the child to absorb the education that is offered to it in our schools. We do not allow parents to get off if it is discovered that they are not taking care of their own children. In many cases they are haled before courts of justice and punished for neglect of the children in their homes. Why, then, should the Government be exempt from punishment if they do not protect the children of the nation? They are not really exempt, because the bill comes forward sooner or later. Should we disobey the laws of God and of man, we find that the bill must be met when we require able-bodied men to do any work that is necessary for the protection of our land.
Mention has been made of the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet). I cannot understand why that Amendment has been put down at all. It welcomes all the measures already taken by the Government to promote the physical welfare of children. So do we. We welcome what has been already done, but we want it extended; we want more care to be taken. Further, to talk about local education authorities utilising all the powers that they have is not to talk wisely at all. It is well known that there is a want of uniformity among all local authorities, whether education or otherwise; that is one of the difficulties with which we have to contend in the local areas. Every authority has the power to provide food and everything else that is required, not only in connection with adult life, but especially in connection with child life. But we can call upon local authorities until we are hoarse. Will they come when they are called? In many cases they will not—not in all, I am bound to say. There are many who do look upon themselves as the guardians of the children, and, wherever that is the case, and they take advantage of the powers they already

1629
possess, we have something really useful being done in those areas.
The Motion speaks of State assistance, and of course we require State assistance; that seems to be required by everybody in the country to-day. The Government are never afraid or ashamed to come before this House and ask for subsidies for many things that would never enter the heads of many hon. Members, especially if they were, like myself, confirmed Free Traders. For everything that arises, money must be found, and is found. Last night the House passed two Resolutions, introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, relating to oxalic acid and to knives. The hon. Gentleman was advocating duties on knives and on oxalic acid, and there was really very little opposition. He went to considerable trouble to prove that the protection of the knives in question was needed, because otherwise people in Sheffield might lose their livelihood, and he asked the House to believe that this was really not an imposition at all, but merely taking something out of one pocket and putting it into another. If that statement is correct, I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman that it did not very much matter into which of the pockets it was put.
In this case something must come out of the pocket of the Government. It will, however, go into another pocket where it will fructify and repay itself a thousandfold. Why any hon. Member should grudge even the higher figures that have been named by the President of the Board of Education, why anyone should stumble at either the £12,000,000 or the £24,000,000, I cannot for the life of me understand. Is it not for the good of the country that we should help our children? Sometimes, when we express our thoughts on the misery that we see around us, we are told that we are talking "sob-stuff"; but there 'is no "sob-stuff" here; there is plain common sense in the proposal that we are putting before the House. Could any investment give a better return than feeding our children, making them fit for the battle of life, and bringing them to such a state of health as befits members of this great Empire of ours? I do not think it would be difficult to prove that we should be doing a good day's work if the Amendments were withdrawn and if the House were informed that the objections which
1630
exist in the minds of many Members of this Assembly should be over-ridden by the stern necessities of the case.
As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, in localities where there is great poverty there are children who are never able to perform the ordinary educational tasks as they should do, because they lack everything that is necessary for the making of a healthy child—and a child ought always to be healthy. We ought to take care of our children. They are one of the greatest trusts that God has given to any nation, and, if we can get the nation to believe in its children, and to be always concerned about their wellbeing, as their parents are concerned about their well-being, a new era will begin, at any rate among the juvenile population of this country. I believe it would be a great thing for the country physically if this Motion were carried, and I ask hon. Members to vote for it. I believe in the moral and spiritual welfare of our people. You can never dissociate the two. If we are to be a moral people, if we really are to be a spiritual people leading the nations, as we have done in the past, we must see to it that we behave as Christian men and women ought to behave towards these little ones who have been given into our care. The Master whose name we invoke every day at the meeting of this Assembly loved little children. Why do we not love little children to the extent of being able, without any grudge of any kind, to ask for a very large subsidy indeed, much larger than what were called the exaggerated figures that my hon. Friend mentioned? We are so used to subsidies, we are so inured to giving grants, that I cannot see for the life of me why it stops short of assisting school children to a better and much happier life.
My hon. Friend talked about being in a poverty-stricken home. Looking back on it, I suppose my home was not a very wealthy one but, being a child, naturally I did not think a great deal about it then because all around me were alike. There was no respect of persons. There is never any respect of persons when poverty comes into any home, and there should be no respect paid to any class of the community when we are asking for a very modest subsidy. We are asking that at least one meal per day, as well as the milk, should be granted to our children, and I am certain that many of your hearts

1631
would rejoice afterwards if you could only bring yourselves to the belief that the Government are not always in the right. We want you to believe that occasionally they can be in the wrong. This is one of the times when they are really in the wrong, and we ask you to try to cheer yourselves up with that warm feeling that comes over everyone after doing a good deed. Let everyone here do his good deed to-day. It consists in assisting those who require assistance. Our national poet said:
"Affliction's sons are brothers in distress, A brother to relieve, how exquisite the bliss!"
I want the House to be in unison with us. I want it to accept at least some of our arguments, and to come into line with us here. We do not often ask for a subsidy, but we do with all our heart and soul commend this Motion to the House.
4.34 p.m.
Miss Cazalet: I beg to move, in line r, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"this House welcomes the measures taken by the Government to promote the physical welfare of children, recognises the beneficial results already achieved, as shown by the annual reports of the chief medical officer of the Board of Education, and hopes that, where necessary, the powers already possessed by local education authorities for the purpose will be more fully utilised."
I think we can all agree that any subject which has to do with the physical welfare of the coming generation is bound to arouse interest on all sides of the House, and, although we on these benches cannot agree with the Motion that has been put forward so forcefully and may I say with so much sincerity, we can, at any rate, thank the hon. Members most sincerely for making it possible for us to discuss such a very important and interesting subject. There is no doubt that there is immense interest throughout the whole country, quite irrespective of party politics, on the subject of nutrition in its widest sense. I have listened with the utmost attention to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, and yet I cannot quite understand why they should think that giving one compulsory Government meal a day to all children would deal with certain disquieting reports from certain districts which have been referred to. I think it would be a great waste of public money to insist that all children should be fed,
1632
quite irrespective of whether they require it or not, whether their parents wish them to have it or not, and whether they are being properly fed in their own homes. I do not believe there is any considerable body of opinion in the country which would agree that this was either right, or wise, or just and, anyway, before spending such a large sum—I know the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) does not agree with the figure that the President gave of £24,000,000, but I think he would agree that it would be a large sum—any Government would want to be quite sure that there is a real demand for it. I have yet to hear that any local authority has asked for it, and I do not know that any body of parents really desire this expenditure. In fact, I think many fathers and mothers would object to it, and would feel that it was a real interference with the functions of the home.
I have learned to-day for the first time that this is part of the policy of the Labour party, otherwise I rather thought that perhaps it was an undisclosed plank in the policy of the United Front. But it really is quite impossible to understand why the Government should be asked to feed all children irrespective of whether they need it or not. It really does not seem common sense. One might just as well say that, in order to eliminate slums and overcrowding in certain parts of the country, the Government should be asked to give a subsidy to everybody who wants to put up a house. I do not believe, if the party opposite were in power, the hon. Gentleman would ask them to spend this huge sum and, if he did, I rather doubt whether they would listen to him. The Mover and Seconder concentrated on certain disquieting reports. It is only fair to say that any unbiased person must be deeply impressed with the very many reassuring reports that have been summarised by the medical officer in the report referred to by the hon. Member for Seaham. He said that the reports of school medical officers throughout the country do not suggest that there has been any deterioration in the nutrition of children, and report after report affords testimony to the improvement. Walsall, Eccles, Wakefield, Cumberland, Cannock and a host of others all show that there has been real improvement and that there has been hardly any malnutrition of any sort. I

1633
am sure all of us who have visited schools in different parts of the country will agree that those reports are quite correct.
To my mind this is only natural, when one realises the enormous amount that has been done by the National Government and by local authorities. I think the facts and figures are most impressive and the position not, as the hon. Gentleman declared, hopelessly inadequate. Besides food there are many factors that make for the well-being of the children. The better economic position of the country and the decrease in unemployment play no small part in their general health and physical well-being; also the wonderful housing programme of the Government and the large slum clearances that are going on all over the country, and we know that, shortly, the Government are going to deal specially with the physical education of our young people. With regard actually to the matter of feeding, an enormous amount has already been done in this connection alone. The great Milk Scheme has been described by a medical officer as the
"largest experiment in supplementary school feeding that the world has ever seen."
After all, very nearly 3,000,000 children are benefiting under it and I believe nearly 400,000 are receiving free milk daily. I am convinced that with the right sort of encouragement and propaganda a very great deal more might be done in this direction. With regard to actual meals, it does not seem to me that it is the function of any education authority just to feed everyone, but it is their function to see that all children who attend school are in a fit and proper condition to take advantage of the education. That is surely the main basis of our whole medical and health services in connection with the schools to-day, and it has been emphasised and clarified in the circular from which the hon. Gentleman himself quoted. Paragraph 2 of Circular 1443 says:
"The Board are concerned to secure that all children who are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them should receive such supplementary nourishment as may be appropriate in each case, the meals being provided free where the parent is unable to pay. For this purpose in their view provision may be properly made for any child who shows any symptoms, whether educational or physical, however slight."
1634
I am certain that the large majority of education authorities up and down the country are putting this into operation. I do not agree that the facts and figures are not satisfactory in London. The Medical Officer in his last report said quite distinctly:
"unremitting attention has been given to the whole question of the children's nutrition."
and the results are very remarkable. Out of a thorough examination of almost 190,000 children no fewer than 94 per cent. were found to be quite satisfactory and only 5.7 per cent. were slightly abnormal; and, of that number, actually only 152 children were classified as cases of bad nutrition. I am certain that every one of those cases is having personal and individual attention. The London County Council have recently set up five nutrition centres in different parts of London. These are for the express purpose of studying and helping those special cases which do not seem to respond to the ordinary methods. From what I have seen myself in London, there really is not a single child whose education need suffer because of under-nourishment or malnutrition, and I believe that that is the case in very many parts of the country as well as in London. It is a very interesting fact also that, if you compare the amount that is being spent to-day upon meals with what was spent in 193o-31, when there was a real depression in the country and employment was very bad, you will find to-day, when things are generally so much more prosperous, that very nearly double is being spent on meals alone. That is surely a very satisfactory state of affairs and shows what a very much higher level of nutrition we expect to-day, and shows also that the Government are giving very real attention to this all-important problem.
I will say a few words about the reports, which are not so satisfactory, and to which hon. Members opposite have referred in their Motion as disquieting. It is true that if you study some of the tables of the Chief Medical Officer's report that under the new classification they show that things are not so satisfactory in certain areas, and that there is a higher percentage of children in categories "C" and "D" than any of us likes to see. Although food is not the only factor, we on this side of the

1635
House are as anxious as hon. Members opposite to improve matters in these areas. We all know that the Government are very shortly to introduce legislation to help the Special Areas in this country, and I would ask the Government to do everything they can to ease the situation in those districts where education authorities, owing to poverty, are not able to take full advantage of the powers they already possess. In certain districts, owing to the low income scales, children are not always receiving free meals and milk to the extent that we should like. I am sure that the Government would obtain support from all sides of the House if, when they introduce their new legislation, they would make special provisions to deal with this aspect of the problem.
Like the hon. Member who moved the Motion, I have visited some of the Special Areas and I realise what some of the difficulties are. I pay tribute to the wonderful way in which the teachers, under very difficult conditions very often, have helped to organise the whole feeding of the children both in connection with the milk schemes and the actual meals. Every one of us would wish to do all we can to make their work easier and more effective. But, it is true to say that, as a whole, and generally up and down the country, facts and figures show that the situation in regard to nutrition is steadily improving. There are certain areas in which the authorities are not using all the powers they have, and these areas need gingering up, and I hope very much that the Government will do the necessary gingering. On the other hand, there are areas to which I have referred that do not need gingering at all, but require all the help and encouragement they can get, and I hope and believe that the Government will give them that help and encouragement.
There can be no standing still in any human affairs and certainly none where the well-being of the children is concerned. But it is because I do not believe that by accepting the Motion, which has been moved by the hon. Member for Seaham we really shall be advancing the cause that we all have so much at heart, that I ask the House to reject the Motion, and to accept the Amendment which I have moved.
4.52 p.m.
Mr. Keeling: I beg to second the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend, and I echo what she said when she referred to the interest taken by hon. Members on this side of the House in this question. If you apply any test you like—whether the legislation which has been promoted or the results achieved by this Government or by Conservative Governments in the past—you will find that enormous progress has been made in improving the health of the people. It is true that this afternoon there are not a very large number of the supporters of the Government present, but I attribute that to the extravagant and exaggerated terms in which the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) is worded.
A good case is not served by exaggeration, nor is progress achieved by extravagant demands. The Motion completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of the children of this country are not undernourished, as is proved by the Medical Reports.
My hon. Friend read a number of reports, and I am not going to dwell any more on that aspect, but I will quote one statement in the Report on the Health of the Schoolchild for 1935, to which, I think, insufficient publicity has been given. It is a statement made by the Chief Medical Officer to the Post Office, who finds from his records that the boys of the present day weigh on an average 16 lbs. more and are 1½ inches taller than those in a corresponding social position 25 years ago, and that girls to-day weigh on an average 10 lbs. more and are one inch taller than the girls of 25 years ago. In spite of all this evidence of progress, the Motion demands that whatever the financial position of the parent, he shall be relieved of the duty of feeding his child. I should have liked to congratulate the Mover of the Motion upon his moderation in only asking for a free dinner, were it not that he appears to have repented of his moderation when he came to the House. He said just now that he did not really want only one free meal a day to be provided but three meals a day. Why is that demand not included in the Motion?
As my hon. Friend said, there is no demand in this country for universal free meals for children. If you took a

1637
plebiscite of the country on this Motion, the people would indignantly reject it. They would resent the attempt made by this Motion to pauperise them. It is extraordinarily creditable that the working-class mothers of this country manage to feed their children as well as they do on wages which we should all like to see increased. "The virtue of parents is a great dowry." That was said 2,000 years ago, and I do not think that the nature of parents has changed since then. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said that he desired the moral and spiritual welfare of the people, and I would ask him whether he thinks that it would increase the spiritual and moral welfare of the people to be relieved of the duty of feeding their own children.
Mr. J. Brown: I do believe that such is the case, and I reiterate what I have said.
Mr. Keeling: I assert on the other hand, that it is a right and proper thing, a deep-rooted human instinct, even a law of nature, that parents should themselves feed their children. Are we to sweep away this fundamental principle because a small proportion of the children of this country are underfed? The right course is to lubricate and tighten up the existing machinery, which provides that any child whose health or education is suffering should be given a free meal if the low income of the parent justifies it. The lion. Member for Seaham said that a child could only get a free meal when he showed physical signs of being undernourished. How can he justify that statement in view of the Board of Education circular, a paragraph of which was read by my hon. Friend? That paragraph definitely says that provision may properly be made for any child who shows any symptoms of needing it—whether physical or educational—however slight. The circular goes on to say, in a later paragraph:
"The Authorities should themselves take steps to ascertain the children who are in need of feeding by inviting reports from members of the School Medical Service, or the Public Health Service, from teachers, school nurses, school attendance officers, and others in regular contact with the children from day to day."
Mr. Georģe Griffiths: How long will it take to get them? I know of some children who had to wait 14 weeks; the children could not get meals because the medical officer had not sent in a report.
Mr. Keeling: The hon. Member should address that inquiry to the local education authority. Hon. Members were told last week that the cost of putting into force this Motion would be £24,000,000 for the 200 school days or £43,000,000 for the 365 days of the year. There has been some dispute to-day as to whether these figures are correct, but whatever the sum, is it conceivable that any Chancellor of the Exchequer, even a Chancellor of the Exchequer belonging to the opposite party, would put the scheme into operation? Even if that figure were reduced considerably, it would also have to be increased again to cover the cost of extra premises. The whole sum to be provided for the scheme would come from the taxpayer, whereas it would be administered and spent entirely by the local authorities. Is there any precedent for so divorcing the raising of money from the control of its spending? There is one precedent. [An HON. MEMBER: "The milk scheme!"] The only precedent that I know of is the transfer of the whole cost of transitional benefit to the Exchequer, and as that transfer contributed to the fall of the last Labour Government it is not exactly a happy precedent.
Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday we agreed to a Financial Resolution, despite the opposition from this side of the House, which provides for a subsidy of £2,000,000 for the tramp-shipping industry, and that the subsidy is not to be controlled, supervised or administered by the Government, but is to be left entirely in the hands of the recipients?
Mr. Keeling: I am perfectly well aware of that, but that was not my point. I know of no precedent, except the unfortunate one I have quoted, of money being paid by the taxpayer and entirely administered by the local authority.
Mr. Dingle Foot: Is it not the fact that the system of local public assistance committees administering funds provided by the State began only in 1931?
Mr. Keeling: That is exactly what meant.
Mr. Foot: It was after the advent of the National Government.
Mr. Keeling: It had begun in the last Labour Government.
Mr. Ede: Has the hon. Member never heard of the zoo per cent. highway grants to crofting counties in Scotland?
Mr. Keeling: I must admit that I am only speaking about England.
Mr. Ede: The hon. Member is answering a Scotsman.
Mr. Keeling: The right hon. baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) has an Amendment on the Paper which seeks to cast upon the taxpayer the burden of providing not one free meal, but one free pint of milk for every child attending school. Precisely the arguments which I have already used apply to that Amendment, except that the cost would be less.
Sir Francis Acland: Is the hon. Member not aware that there is considerable contribution made in that regard by the Government without any contribution being made by the local authority to the milk in schools scheme now?
Mr. Keeling: I am perfectly aware of that, and will come to it in a moment. The Board of Education have laid down the principle that free milk instead of or in addition to free meals may be provided when the needs of the child and the means of the parent justify it, and there seems no reason to think that any revolutionary change is required in the existing procedure. It is true that more than half the school children of this country are not availing themselves of this scheme for cheap or free milk, but the main causes of that appear to be not poverty but the indifference of the parent or the distaste of the child. I am told that one child who refused milk remarked that milk that was offered at half price must be half water. This indifference or distaste can obviously be overcome only by education, and except in a few small areas where the milk scheme is not in existence there seems to be no reason to think that children are being debarred from the scheme on the ground of cost.
If the Amendment referred to had been directed to increasing the quantity of milk provided under the milk-inschools scheme from one-third of a pint to some higher quantity, there would be a great deal to be said for it. At present the one-third of a pint which a child can get for one halfpenny, or free if it is
1640
under-nourished, is much less than scientists have said to be necessary and much less than the Ministry of Health's own Advisory Committee have recommended. I should Tike my hon. Friend who replies for the Government to give an assurance that the question of increasing the quantity of milk provided under the milk-in-schools scheme will be very earnestly considered when the report of the Milk Reorganisation Commission is taken into consideration. So long as milk is poured into factories at the price of 5d. a gallon, or less, the people of this country will not be satisfied that it can only be poured down the throats of children at a much higher price.
I return to the Labour Motion. It is true, and I have no doubt hon. Members opposite will draw attention to the fact, that there has been a reduction in the number of free meals this year as compared with last year. The obvious explanation of that is that employment has increased and wages have increased. The decline is not due to any weariness in well-doing on the part of the local authorities. A much fairer test of the progress made is to see how many local authorities have put the scheme in force. The number is increasing steadily and is now, I think, 244 out of 316. I do not suggest that there is not room for improvement. Nothing is perfect. Even in the Garden of Eden some of the food provided was found to be poisonous.
I admit some of the facts that were alleged by the hon. Member who moved the Motion, and I would make certain concrete suggestions to the Government. In the first place I would suggest that more frequent surveys of the nutrition of the children should be made. There have been a good many suggestions by medical officers that that is necessary. It appears that some alteration of the routine medical inspections in schools is also required. In the second place the income scale which qualifies parents to get free meals for their children is in some cases too high. There does not seem to be any evidence that this scale varies according to the political views of the local council. In some cases it does seem to require lowering. Thirdly, there are very poor areas where no solid meals, but only milk meals, are being given. In the constituency of the hon. Member who moved the Motion there are no free solid meals,

1641
but only free milk. If the poverty of the council prevents free solid meals being given, I would ask the Government to take that fact into consideration when preparing their plans for helping the Special Areas, and to let us know this afternoon what their views are on that point. My fourth suggestion is that something should be done, if possible, to improve the quality of meals where they are badly reported on. A statement like this from the report which I have already quoted is a little disquieting:
"Whilst many authorities, great and small, make good arrangements and provide excellent meals of sufficient variety, in many cases there are serious faults, which include—in the diet supplied, inadequacy, monotony or sloppiness; in the administration, inadequate supervision and multiple services, and lastly, defects in the premises and equipment, one of the commonest faults being unsuitable halls."
One of the inspectors reported:
"The meal served (called Irish stew) consisted of a thick soup. I tasted it and came to the conclusion that it was a very poor meal, mainly carbohydrate and of very little nutritional value."
If meals can be made in all cases nutritious and can be well cooked, not only are they better for the child, but they set a standard which the child in after life will, if it be a male, demand, and if it be a female will, I hope, provide.
Lastly, there are a certain number of local authorities which provide canteens where meals are served on payment. In some cases free meals for those who are under-nourished are provided in the same canteen. I think there is scope for an extension of this system. Again, I should like to quote from the report:
"School canteens afford, upon payment, two great advantages to children living at a distance from school, namely, an adequate and well-cooked midday meal, and a relief from the fatigue of a double journey, with the saving of time and energy. … Moreover, a combination of canteen and free-meal-centre might lead to improvement of the service and diet of the latter and thus afford the valuable educational training in diet, hygiene and decorum which can be derived from a well-served and properly eaten meal."
I hope that local education authorities who do not at present provide canteens may be induced to do so.
I would ask the Government to give serious consideration to all these points, and in the belief that they will do so I ask hon. Members to support the Amend-
1642
ment and to reject the extravagant and unnecessary Motion which has been proposed from the Opposition benches.
5.11 p.m
Sir F. Acland: Every hon. Member who heard the two speeches with which the Motion was proposed and seconded must have been very much impressed with them. I particularly enjoyed them and, if I may say so without depreciation of the first speech, I particularly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) who seldom addresses the House but who always delights us when he intervenes. I also thoroughly appreciated the two speeches that we have heard from the other side of the House. It is a good thing to have both sides of the question put, but I do not quite appreciate the Amendment. It is a very large wet blanket if it is intended to smother the Motion, and certainly if the House carries the Amendment, as I suppose it will do, its effect will be absolutely nil. It seems to me as if the Amendment has been inspired by the Patronage Secretary, or, if not, that the hon. Lady has very ably appreciated his style.
The reason why I have put an Amendment on the Order Paper in regard to milk is that in dealing with what I regard as the first essential step of a national nutrition policy I wish to get as wide and general agreement as I can in this House and also outside, in favour of doing something which, although it introduces considerable changes, does make a practical proposition. When one considers the question of including this proposition in the national nutrition policy—I am not now dealing with the question as to whether it ought to be free meals or milk—one realises that there must be some deliberate plan to help the parents with their children's food. I say that because I am perfectly certain that such a plan will sooner or later become inevitable. It will become common ground between members of all parties for the purpose of dealing with the problem of population which, although it does not seem a big problem to us now, will be an enormous problem in the future. We shall have to establish some definite help of that kind, or else a system of family allowances in connection with our system of paying wages, or both, if there is to be any chance of stemming the fall of population. I probably shall

1643
not be alive when that is fully accomplished, but I suggest that such a scheme will become inevitable.
In that connection let me say, in passing, how much I have always regretted the lack of understanding of hon. Members of the Opposition when they were in office, of my Amendment in Standing Committee to the Agricultural Wages Bill, under which a family allowance system might have been introduced in regard to agricultural wages. They did not take the trouble to understand what it meant. With regard to the question of better nutrition, let me quote from Sir F. Gowland Hopkins, President of the Royal Society. He said:
"This country is now courageously facing the housing problem. It is a great mistake to suppose that the problem of nutrition is of less importance. Much attention is being given to the development of the physical training; but to provide gymnastics for the ill-fed partakes of the ridiculous. Adequate nutrition is the primary basis of good health."
We on these benches are not convinced that the primary problem is one of under-nutrition, although there is some under-nutrition. We are convinced that the problem is one of malnutrition, avoidable and unavoidable malnutrition, that malnutrition which arises from poverty, when families with a limited income have to provide meals of varying make-up and composition. Mainly through lack of money these meals are composed in such a way that, while they do not result in starvation, do result in malnutrition in an enormous proportion of cases. On that point let me quote from an article written by Major-General Sir Robert McCarrison, Director of Nutrition Research in India. He says:
"In an examination of the youngest group of children attending elementary schools under the London County Council, 1,635 unselected five-year-old children revealed the presence of one or more of various abnormalities (knock-knee, bow-legs, spinal curvature and mis-shapen chest walls) in 1,433, or 87 per cent."
That is in London, a place where unemployment is not anything like as bad as it is in some other districts, and these are in the main diseases or defects of malnutrition rather than of under-nutrition. That brings me to the reasons why we prefer our Amendment with regard to milk, although I must say that I prefer the Motion of hon. Members above the Gangway to the Amendment under dis-
1644
cussion. I entirely agree with the necessity for a further extension of the provision of meals in districts such as those in the County of Durham for which the hon. Member spoke, and if it is the fact that these districts do not at present give any meals at all it is simply because the state of the rates is such that it is quite impossible for them to provide meals, not because they believe that the children are getting enough. Something should be done on the problem of local rates to enable local authorities to do a duty which they wish to do. Speaking as the chairman of a local education committee I think that in many parts of the country there will be a strong feeling of resentment at the idea that elementary school children must have their main meal free, although I agree with the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) that to talk about demoralisation is absolute nonsense. Although some of us can afford to do without it, there is hardly any one who refuses to take his £400 a year, less Income Tax, and none of us feels demoralised by receiving it. Nobody feels demoralised by living in a subsidised house.
Mr. Ede: Or carrying on a subsidised business.
Sir F. Acland: Half the industries of the country are now on the dole, and nobody feels demoralised because of it. In the new senior schools which are now being built in the county of Devon a proper room is provided for meals and excellent meals are provided at a cost of 3d. per day, which is paid readily and willingly. It helps us to get children from the surrounding villages into the new schools. And the 3d. is not a subsidised price. It pays for the meals and for reasonable overhead charges. Of course many children still bring their dinners, which are warmed up at school. I say that in all schools which are now being built there ought to be proper provision for dining-rooms and for cooking meals, and then it will be for the nation to decide whether the meals shall be provided on part payment or wholly free. I look forward to the President of the Board of Education coming down to the county of Devon to see these schools and to having one of these 3d. meals. I shall see to it that none of the schools knows when he is coming or which school he will visit; he will have to take pot luck.

1645
I hope he will not feel demoralised at being asked for the 3d. I think it is essential that dining-rooms and provision for cooking meals should be provided in all our new schools and that the children should come to regard it as a normal part of their attendance. That is as far as we think it right to go at the present time. We are not convinced that free meals all round should be provided. You come against a practical difficulty. Until schools have dining-rooms and kitchens it is difficult to see how meals could be provided. That is obvious; and dining-rooms and kitchens are not places which can be easily improvised.
I want to put forward one or two arguments on the subject of milk as an alternative. A rather interesting thing has happened in the West of England lately. We have had a series of talks on the regional broadcast about running the county, and have had conversations between different types of people. One of them was between a travelling grocer who went round the villages and an inspector of food supplies. The travelling grocer said that the most interesting change which had taken place in the last 20 years was the large amount of tinned milk he now sold in the country districts. People naturally wrote to the Regional station, complaining that it should be necessary in the villages to sell tinned milk, and in summing up the series of talks, as I had to do, I made this comment which perhaps explains the matter—namely, that if a family of five has a pint of milk per head per day it means 8s. 9d. per week, which is, of course, an impossible amount for them to spend on one article of food, however valuable it may be. It is difficult to show the virtues and advantages of milk without quotations from many eminent authorities. I am unwilling to do that, but I must say that I have become more and more impressed with the strength of the milk case as I have worked with that practical body, the Children's Minimum Council.
One has to admit that milk by itself is not a wholly perfect and sufficient food for every one at every stage of life, but there is no doubt that milk with the addition of a little cod liver oil or orange juice forms a complete and perfect diet for younger children. That is a fact, and of nothing else can it be said that it needs so little supplementing and balanc-
1646
ing to provide all those mysterious factors which are necessary for perfect nutrition. I am not going to talk about vitamins and calories. I assume that hon. Members know all about them. Let me give one quotation from Sir John Orr, to whom we owe a very great deal for having made this important question a matter of practical politics. He says:
"It used to be thought that the well-known difference in health and physique between the well-to-do and the poor was due entirely to heredity and environment, but when Mr. Walter Elliot was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in 1927 a test was done of school children to see the effect of improving their diet. It was found that the addition of a pint of milk a day removed 90 per cent. of the deficiencies of the diet and made it approximate in health value to that of the well-to-do, and was followed by a 20 per cent increase in the rate of growth."
I have also a quotation from the Mixed Committee of the League of Nations, which puts the matter just as strongly, but I will not weary the House by reading it. With regard to the rate of growth, there is one thing which I have had an opportunity of realising in this House, and in speaking of it I do not wish to offend anybody. It is the duty of the party to which I belong sometimes to go into the Division Lobby with my hon. Friends above the Gangway and sometimes with hon. Members opposite—that may be wholly undesirable, but we are not discussing that now. The point is that when I am in a crowd near the exit of the Lobby with, as often happens, my hon. Friends above the Gangway, and I want to have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. R. Acland), who is much the same height as I am—I am just under and he is just over six feet—I have merely to look over the heads of hon. Members in the Lobby. On the other hand, if I am in the Government Lobby, I can never see him and have to wait until he comes out of the Lobby. I reckon there is an average difference of three inches.
An Hon. Member: Brains on one side and brawn on the other.
Sir F. Acland: That may be. If any hon. Member above the Gangway inadvertently strays into the Government Lobby, he will see that there is that difference; and yet hon. Members opposite are the pick of the class from which they come. If there is one thing which is responsible for that, it is a deficiency of diet

1647
when young in the case of my hon. Friends above the Gangway, who so admirably represent the class from which they come. I remember that when I was a young civil servant, I was interested in a boys' Rugby club in Notting Hill. We used to beg or borrow bicycles, and I took the young fellows out on Sundays. All of them were boys who could—and often did, if I gave them a chance—knock me out in boxing. When one goes out of London on the north side, one sooner or later comes to a hill, and there the boys used to say, "Take you on, Sir," and would spurt past me at the beginning of the hill, but before getting to the top of the hill they would be pushing their bicycles and I would still be pedalling with a spurt in reserve for the top of the hill. That was not because I was an athlete, for I have never had anything that could be called muscles, but because of the stamina produced by better food and more milk than those young fellows ever had a chance of getting. On the long hill we were in entirely different streets; one could not blame the boys for it, because it was the inevitable result of their surroundings and particularly the food they had had. The fact is—to cut short a long story about milk—that although experts on diet differ, there is absolute uniformity on the policy of the necessity of a pint of milk a day. The Advisory Committee on Nutrition of the Ministry of Health, for instance, is generally agreed that a pint per day is advisable, and it says:
"A pint of milk per day should be allowed and special care should be taken to secure that the full amount is, in fact, received by each child under 16."
The point is that that is the ration which each child should have every day, and it should not be given only to those who, because of poverty, do not get enough at home. As to the suggestion that in some homes, at any rate, from which elementary school children come, the children are receiving a reasonable amount of milk, it is right that we should look at the information that has been collected on that matter, for it is of a remarkable nature. From a mass of information which I have, I will take one case, that of Cardiff, which represents neither the highest nor the lowest, but, as far as I can judge, about the average. The information, which is per head of the
1648
family, relates to 1933, and shows that in good middle-class families, which I imagine would not normally send their children to public elementary schools, there was an average consumption of half a pint; in good working-class families, a quarter of a pint; in the new housing areas—this is interesting, for it shows how the amount decreases because of the people having to pay more in rent and therefore having less to spend on milk and other things—it was only one-fifth of a pint; and in poor working-class families, under one-sixth of a pint per head per day.
If it be said that that information relates to the "per head" consumption, and that the children would get more, I must point out that that is not the case, for it was always found that the consumption per head per day was greater where there were no children and less where there were children. Therefore, if anything, the figures are probably exaggerated as far as the amount of milk received by the children is concerned. There you have the clearest evidence that the children do not get a pint per day, or anything like it; indeed, as an hon. Member above the Gangway said, at the present time they only get milk in their tea.
The question is, Can a pint of milk per head per day be supplied? The milk-in-schools scheme has been very useful and has shown the way, and I am very grateful for the improvement which it has introduced; but it is limited and it has got stuck—it is even going down and everybody is trying to stimulate it, although nobody can. Consequently, the whole scheme needs looking into. Less than half the children now receive the third of a pint for a halfpenny which the scheme supplies, and only 7 per cent. of them receive free milk on production of a medical certificate. The scheme is very valuable as far as it goes, but it is very limited, and I am afraid milk is not being supplied to a large enough proportion of the children. In spite of what has been said by an hon. Member opposite, I am convinced that poverty is the main reason for the refusal to pay a halfpenny for the milk. A halfpenny is not much money, but when there are two or three children from the family at school, it mounts up.
Moreover, I know that in the county to which I belong and in which I have gone into the reasons for this refusal, it is a fact that very many of the children

1649
give some reason other than poverty when they are asked—a very natural thing for them to do and something for which they cannot be blamed. They say they do not like it or that it does not suit them, whereas really if the 2½d. a week were easily forthcoming, they would be very glad to have the milk. Although I have never heard a proper medical explanation, it may be that milk does not suit some children, and if that be so, I am convinced that the main reason—it is an undoubted fact which we have known during the last 5o years and which my grandfather used to preach most assiduously in Devonshire—is that cold pure milk, especially if drunk quickly, is apt to be indigestible. It needs to be slightly warm, to have a little water added, and to be drunk slowly if it is to be assimilated as the almost perfect food which it is.
It may be said that milk cannot be supplied to all the schools, and I agree that there is difficulty now in supplying it, particularly in the rural districts, where there ought to be no difficulty. Many of the schools in the county to which I belong are very small ones—as is the case in other parts of the country—and many of the suppliers have to supply only about 20 bottles containing a third of a pint each a day, which makes less than a gallon altogether, at a payment of only is. 3d. a gallon, a low retailing margin and subject to the levy of the Milk Marketing Board. That does not amount to very much, and one can-riot blame the farmers for not being willing to make a special journey to the schools when they can only deliver a small amount under such conditions. However, that difficulty would be very easily overcome if the quantity and consequently the money received by the farmer were increased. I do not believe there are any difficulties, administrative or otherwise, that could not be overcome if the Government were in earnest.
I come now to the effect on distribution, and I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte), who represents a rural constituency, has been kind enough to come to listen to my remarks on this very practical point. Everybody knows that the thing which threatens, every year more dangerously, to bring about a breakdown of the Milk Marketing Board, as other boards have
1650
already broken down, is the increasing surplus of milk which goes to the factories at about 5d. a gallon, or less. On this matter I have exact information, thanks to the courtesy of one of the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, of what would be the effect on this surplus, which is threatening a breakdown in the milk scheme, if the milk-in-schools scheme were broadened as I have suggested. In all the schools affected by the milk-inschools scheme, there are 6,570,000 children, and the present level of consumption of milk from all sources in those schools is 25,000,000 gallons a year. The total of manufacturing milk is at present 407,000,000 gallons a year, so that the milk-in-schools scheme takes only about one-sixteenth of the available surplus. If all the children had a pint of milk each school day, it would amount to 164,000,000 gallons, which would take up about two-fifths of the surplus, and if they had it for 365 days a year, it would take up 300,000,000 gallons, which, taking the present surplus of 407,000,000 gallons, means about three-quarters of the surplus. If that amount were taken from the factories and the factories were made to pay a little more for their milk, it would do no harm; it would cut into the very high profits which are at present being made by the factories and would not mean that they would have to add anything to the price of the products which they turn out; and it would be better for the producers of the milk.
There are two more points to which I would like to refer. The first is the cost. I have heard estimates of £6,000,000 and £8,000,000, and I was surprised to hear £10,000,000 stated. The cost would obviously depend on the arrangement made between the Milk Marketing Board and the Government. I am not suggesting that it should be done on a basis which would make a fortune for the farmers, but obviously if all that milk could be sold at a shilling a gallon, or even less, it would make a great difference and would preserve the marketing scheme, which is at present threatened with collapse. My second point is this. People will ask: Would you provide a pint of milk per head per day for all children, whether they can afford to pay for it or not? I take exactly the same line on this matter as I take about school books or school arithmetics. I say that the milk is as necessary as either the

1651
books or the arithmetics. But we do not dream of charging parents, even those who can perfectly well afford to pay, for the books or arithmetics. If the milk is as necessary as I believe it to be, I do not see why the parents should be charged for it either. Putting it in another way, I believe that milk is a necessary medicine as well as a very pleasant medicine and that we ought to see that the children get it.
I conclude with a North Country story of a widow who described to the vicar the passing of her husband. She said: "The time came for him to take his medicine but he did not want it and I said that he should have it, because it had been paid for. I got him to take it somehow and he just crowed like a cock, and never spak mair." It would pay this country to take up the attitude of that good lady, and to pay for the milk and see that the children have it because it has been paid for. In my story the medicine did not effect a cure, but in this connection let me go back to Sir John Orr's point that milk for school children in the amount suggested would cure nine-tenths of the defects which at present exist, leaving the remainder, at any rate, a manageable proposition which could be isolated and dealt with in other ways. Let me repeat a valuable figure quoted by the Mover of the Motion. The lowest estimate of what preventable ill-health costs us is £200,000,000 a year, and I hope that the House with that figure in mind will press on the Government the practical possibility of making a start in the direction in which hon. Members above the Gangway want to go by giving all round a pint of milk a day to every school-child.
5.49 p.m.
Mr. W. Astor: It is a most encouraging feature of politics to-day that all parties are taking a great interest in this question of nutrition. Though the situation as regards nutrition is not as bad as it might be made out by taking certain carefully selected figures from the works of Sir John On and others, yet no one on this side of the House or anywhere else would pretend that it is satisfactory. But I submit it is a false antithesis to say that you should either spend money on subsidies to industry or spend it on subsidising nutrition, because in so far as
1652
trade and industry revive and people are put into employment and into progressively better employment, to that extent poverty, which we are often told is the main cause of malnutrition, is decreased. The trouble with which we are faced is to know the best use to make of the resources of the Government in order to secure that the whole body politic shall be healthy.
A great deal has already been done and the Government deserve much credit for being the first administration to tackle this problem directly. But I am sure that the Government themselves are convinced that a further move must be made, and I hope that one of the first steps taken will be the establishment of canteens in all schools where children, whether they are necessitous or not, whether they live at a distance from the school or near the school, will be able to get hot dinners at cheap prices. The Medical Research Council has told us of the serious results of malnutrition or wrong nutrition. By providing such meals at cheap prices we would give the children a chance of getting one meal a day containing the proper constituents, cooked in the most scientific manner. The report of the Medical Research Council mentions many cases in which such a scheme would be helpful. There is the case of the child who is given a few pence with which to purchase food. Naturally children very often spend more of the money on sweets than on better forms of food. Or there is the case of the child both of whose parents are out of work, who is able to get only cold bread with lard or margarine and who does not get the proper hot meals which it ought to have.
The medical officer of the Board of Education has recommended a policy such as I have indicated in the case of children living at a distance from school. We hope that meals will be made available to all children and will be provided free in the case of necessitous children. I take the liberty of saying that the board's estimate of the cost of providing such meals is a little high. The figure of 5d. has been quoted, but experience in voluntary nursery schools where meals have been provided, suggests that it can often be done at 3d. or 4d. Many of the voluntary nursery schools have had to do it on rather meagre resources and have succeeded in a remarkable way,

1653
indicating that some of the estimates of the cost which have been made are exaggerated. With the facilities which boards and local education authorities would have for bulk purchase, there is no reason why the cost should not be kept low. Parents of limited means could spend the money required for feeding the children, with better results through the school canteen, than by buying the food individually and cooking it at home. Bulk purchase and bulk cooking would make it more economical.
Much has been done in the nursery school movement, and those who are interested in nutrition sincerely hope that nursery schools will one day become universal and indeed compulsory. Until that day comes, it is to be hoped that the lessons which have been learned in the nursery schools on this question of feeding will be put to use in the elementary and secondary schools. As regards the supply of milk, it is to be hoped that there will be intensive propaganda, not alone by the Government but by Members of all parties, to bring its advantages to the attention of parents. In all classes of the community there are some parents who are more alive than others to the advantages of milk as a food, as there are parents who take more care than others about the feeding of their children. It is true that poverty is a factor in some cases, but certainly not in all. Many school teachers tell one that the children who do not take milk are not always from the poorest homes. If hon. Members opposite through their political organisations, and through such bodies as the Women's Co-operative Guild, and hon. Members on this side also, would take advantage of every occasion to press the importance of this matter upon parents and to educate the parents on this point, much could be done. There are many children now who can spend a few pence a week in going two or three times to the pictures. That money might be spent with greater advantage on milk.
Mr. A. Bevan: What grey lives they would be compelled to lead.
Mr. Astor: One realises the great temptation there is to the child to spend the money on the pictures rather than on milk. No one blames the child, but the parent ought to be made more alive to the great advantages of milk as an article of diet.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is making a suggestion which has been made on many occasions. Does he not realise its implication? If working-class folk were so rational as to be able to take that view of their budgets, the hon. Gentleman and his class would have been shifted out long ago.
Mr. Astor: I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion at all. Anybody who is considering a budget, whether it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer considering the national Budget or the poor housewife considering her household budget, finds that there are many desirable things on which they would like to spend money. The point which has to be decided is, which are the most desirable things? I hope that we shall hear from the Minister to-night approval of this proposal and a definite programme of what is to be done in the future in this respect. The provision of hot meals cheaply is a way in which we can help to improve nutrition without calling upon the taxpayer for a large sum. It is not a question of subsidy but of organisation. By organisation we can provide cheaper and better meals than the individual working-class mother would be able to provide at a similar cost. We do not want to make this compulsory. We do not propose that it should be free in every case, but we do suggest that it ought to be the next step.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: I do not think that the House could debate a question of more vital interest to the nation than that which we are debating this evening. We often discuss here our standing among the nations of the world, and in the last 12 months particularly we have on many occasions discussed armaments and capital ships and our security as a people. Amid all those discussions the thought has often struck me that, while we may have armaments and while we may boast of our standing among the nations, the most vital asset that we or any other people can possess is a healthy, virile manhood and womanhood. We cannot attain that unless we pay attention to the child. It has been said to-day that local authorities have the power, if they wish, to carry into effect provisions for the feeding of necessitous children. It is also being said that some authorities do not carry that

1655
Act into operation because they cannot afford to do so.
I wish to place before the House the conditions prevailing in the County of Durham. It is a county which has suffered appreciably during the trade depression, where rates are high, and where the condition of our people is very bad indeed. For public assistance committee purposes we levy a rate of 8s. 4¾d., against an average for the country of 2s. 11¼d. The rateable value per head in Durham is £3 14s., against an average for England and Wales of£7 5s. I now come to a point which is of vital importance to us as a county, as far as providing that which is so necessary in the life of our children is concerned. The produce of a 1d. rate per unit of average attendance in our elementary schools in Durham is 1s. 8d., in Cheshire it is 5s., in Surrey it is 9s. 1d., and in Glamorgan it is 1s. 10d. We are placed in this position in Durham that although we wish to do the very best for our children, in the process we have to levy a very heavy rate. For elementary education we have a rate of 5s.1¼against 2S. 1d. in Cheshire and 1s. 6½d. in Surrey. We have to take this into consideration as an education authority, in looking after the best interests of our children in that county. We have 67,900 persons receiving Poor Law relief, and we have to expend on that £1,128,894.
We have asked the Government time and again, while we have been doing our best in the interests of our children, that they should come to our aid and give more than they do give in grants as far as the educational side and the feeding of our children are concerned. The percentage of insured unemployed in Durham is 26.3, against an average for the country of 13.1. One can quite understand that in a county where we have this large percentage of insured unemployed, no matter what our desires may be in regard to looking after the best interests of our children, we are somewhat handicapped through lack of funds. But in the midst of it all, from October, 1933, to October, 1936, we have provided in the administrative county of Durham 21,043,219 milk meals, and we are daily giving to our children in the county—25,000 of them—those meals. It is costing the authorities £28,359 per year. We would like to do
1656
more, and we would like to provide solid meals for our children, because we realise this, that in a county which is hard-hit through industrial depression, where rates are high, and where unemployment is rife, there may not be that going into thousands of our homes which would provide adequate meals for the children who are attending our elementary schools.
It has been suggested in various reports submitted by medical officers of health that malnutrition is not so apparent as one would think it should be in the circumstances, but I would like to put the position as I see it. I remember reading a report submitted by the Unemployment Assistance Board in 1936, in which it is mentioned that the children in the Special Areas appeared to be well clothed and well fed, and there was no apparent suggestion that those children were suffering from malnutrition. But that report follows on and says that the women in those areas were showing signs of the continued battle against poverty. What is happening in the Special Areas is this: You may not get that amount of malnutrition that you anticipate to find there. The reason for that is, to an appreciable extent, that the mothers in our homes are going without in order that the children might be supplied. I submit that in the interests of the children and to help the Special Areas the Government ought to see their way clear to give, not a percentage of the cost of providing those meals, but the whole no per cent., so as to give a better chance to our children and to the local authorities who have not got the necessary finance to carry this work out as they would like to do. I remember that in 1926, while the national stoppage took place, we in Durham spent approximately, during that stoppage, £300,000 in feeding the school children, and the results were apparent. Those children got two regular meals every day —good meals—and the parents were willing that they should have them. After a few months that regular giving of good food showed in their little bodies, and they were much better physically at the end of the stoppage than they were at the beginning. That was a lesson to us in Durham county, and although it was a large amount of money to be spent by a local authority, still we did believe—and we do to-day—that it was money well spent, because it helped to build up the child

1657
life of our county and kept away from it the horrors of a general stoppage in the country.
Remembering those things, I, as a Member for Durham, would like to do more than we are doing in the interests of our children, but, as I have already said, our finances are limited, and it is owing to that fact that we cannot embark upon a scheme of greater magnitude than that on which we have embarked at the moment. Consequently, I firmly believe that many children in Durham and perhaps in other places are not getting exactly what they ought to get if things were normal. I do not understand why, in twentieth century Britain, it should be necessary to debate in the Mother of Parliaments the question of feeding the child life of our land. If the Government, who are responsible, would see that industries were established in the Special Areas and that work was provided for the parents of those children, it would not be necessary in any township of the country to provide for the feeding of children, and I do urge the Government to deal with this question and to give us 100 per cent. of the cost, and also to consider the question of seeing to it that industries are diverted from the South of England and set up in the Special Areas. Then we shall be able to feed our own children without any Government aid.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Lovat-Fraser: I should like to reecho the words used by the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet), who moved the Amendment, that thanks are due to the hon. Member who introduced this subject and gave us the opportunity of discussing it. Questions regarding children will become more and more frequently discussed as the years go by. I entirely agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) about the problems that may arise in the future out of the decline in the population. If I had my way, we should have a Ministry of Childhood. At the present time matters affecting children are dealt with by the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health, the Board of Education, and the Home Office. I would have the interests of the children placed in the hands of one Ministry, devoting its whole time to dealing with the needs
1658
of the children. There are such bodies in other countries. There is in the United States of America a Federal Children's Bureau, where children's problems are delegated to one Ministry, which devotes itself entirely to that work. Malnutrition is tending to increase in all large centres of population. It is not only in Great Britain that we have this problem to face, but in the other industrial countries of Europe as well. We have, I think, faced this problem in a wise and useful way. The Government may not have done all that perhaps some of us think they should have done, but they have done a good deal. Sir George Newman, in his report to the Ministry of Health, has said:
"There can be no question that the nutrition of the English people is better today than at any past period of which we have record."
He goes on to say:
"But that does not say or mean that present standards of health and nutrition cannot or should not be improved."
Of just under 2,000,000 children submitted to routine examination, 1.11 per cent. were malnourished and required treatment and 1.28 per cent. were undernourished and needing observation. The Ministry which deals with the problem of nutrition sent out a circular in September, 1934, directing that any child should receive free meals who showed any symptoms, however slight, of inability to take full advantage of its education. In the following month the milk-in-schools scheme was inaugurated, as a result of which, during 1935, 2,250,000 children and juveniles received a daily ration of milk at a reduced price and about 400,000 children received it free. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Government have not faced the position. Although most of us would have wished the Government to go further, we cannot refuse them the praise that they deserve.
There is no question that unemployment is largely responsible for what malnutrition there is. That is proved from the figures of the Nutrition Committee of the British Medical Association and the Advisory Committee on Nutrition of the Ministry of Health. One of the satisfactory features of the decrease of unemployment is that it has had the effect of decreasing malnutrition. I have here a letter which I quoted the last time I had the honour of speaking in the House on

1659
this subject, written by Dr. E. H. T. Nash, who is medical officer of health for the borough of Heston and Isleworth. Writing to the "Times," he said:
"A headmaster coming from a semi-rural school to a new school in an area where parents were in and out of work found that the children could not last more than half the time at their games and lessons, and that after dancing for a short spell they shuffled their feet instead of lifting them from the floor…. Part of the malnutrition is due to money wasted on what Gissing called 'windy deficiencies.'"
At a tea given to children in Dr. Nash's area, he picked out 13 children suffering from malnutrition. In 12 cases either the father was dead or had been out of work for the six months previous. Dr. Nash had not time to go into the thirteenth case. It is proved, therefore, that children are suffering from malnutrition as the result of unemployment. It is a stimulus to us in fighting unemployment to know that it has that result.
Milk does not suit everybody. My own recollection is that as a child I did not like milk, and, as an hon. Member said, milk may cause indigestion and other ailments. Some children, of course, simply refuse to take it, and it will be the function of those who are in charge of the distribution of milk to provide them with substitutes that will prove equally advantageous. All children take far too much tea. I take this from the "Times" of 20th November, 1936:
"The Hannah Dairy Research Institute at Kirkhill, Ayr, have published the results of an 'inquiry into the drinking habits of children of school age, with special reference to milk drinking,' by Dr. Norman C. Wright … Of the 13,317 children included in the inquiry, 7,017 did not drink milk at all, while 4,323 took it only once daily.… These results are in marked contrast to those obtained for tea drinking. Only 5 per cent. of the children failed to take tea at least once, while 50 per cent. took it three or more times in the day. Over 90 children took tea five times daily, and one-third of these being under 10 years of age."
That is obviously very unsatisfactory, for tea is not a good drink for young children. That is a matter which those dealing with nutrition will have to face. Another matter that will have to be dealt with is the amount of smoking that goes on among young children, for it helps to bring about bad health. Mr. Valentine A. Bell, Principal of Battersea Day Continuation School, had an investigation made on behalf of the Carnegie United Kingdom
1660
Trustees. He found that signs of underfeeding and malnutrition were obvious at Jarrow, Hebburn, South Shields, Sunderland and Bishop Auckland, where he was struck by the pinched faces and undersized bodies of several of the boys. Lads had to be excused physical exercises because they were not strong enough to stand the strain. Much of this inefficiency, in the opinion of the superintendents, was due to too much cigarette smoking. It is sometimes said that the women of the working class do not possess—
Mr. Cove: Rubbish!
Mr. Lovat-Fraser: I am saying that it is said—I do not agree with it—that the mothers cannot cook and that they give their children inferior food. There is abundant authority for proving that that is not correct, and that allegations of unwise expenditure by mothers are grossly exaggerated. The Mersey-side Committee in its report said that there was no evidence of consumption of tinned food, except condensed milk, in families below the poverty line. There is much, of course, in regard to this question that one could dwell upon. I am satisfied that everybody realises the importance of it. I was very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown), whom I have the privilege of calling my friend, quoting Robert Burns. I am going to quote him too. Robert Burns says:
"To make a happy fireside clime
For weans and wife
Is the true pathos and sublime
Of human life."
How can you have a happy fireside clime if the children are underfed? May I mention a little experience of my own, quite a physchological matter too, not very long ago? I was in Edinburgh and wanted to see the house where lived Clarinda, a lady to whom Burns wrote some beautiful poems. I went to a shabby street where she had lived and there was nobody but a little girl of whom I could inquire. I asked her, "Can you tell me where Clarinda lived?" She nodded that she did not know. I repeated the question, and added, "Clarinda, the friend of Robert Burns." "Oh, yes," she said, "I know that; that is the house there." The little girl was obviously very much under-fed and under-nourished. Her cheeks were shrunken and drawn in, and her little hands and arms were pain-

1661
fully thin, so much so that for the rest of the day I had a kind of vague feeling of sorrow. I thought to myself what a beautiful poem Robert Burns would have written if he had met that girl. I strongly believe in this movement for combating malnutrition, and I am glad to have the opportunity of hearing the excellent discussion that we have had this afternoon.
6.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Shakespeare): Perhaps it would be convenient if I intervened at this stage to state the views of the Government on this vital question. I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion, dealing with a subject which, perhaps more than any other, lends itself to misrepresentation. The hon. Gentleman, I think, made a very fair statement from his point of view and avoided misrepresentation. He slipped up in quoting some London figures, but that was unintentional and I shall deal with them in a moment. The Government welcome the discussion on a vital question like the physical welfare of school children, and I personally welcome the conversion of many hon. Gentlemen opposite to the recognition of the vital part that nutrition plays in physical welfare. I do not remember that in 1924 or 1929 or 1930 or 1931 this question was ever raised by any Member of the party opposite. On the contrary, since the National Government have been responsible for the last six years this question has been constantly before them, both at home and abroad. Only last September I was one of a delegation at Geneva on this subject, following up the lead that had been set by two British delegates the year before on the important question of nutrition.
No one can read the chapter on nutrition and school feeding in the Annual Report of the School Medical Officer, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), without being impressed by the unanimity of the school medical officers on the fact that there is no general deterioration in health in spite of the strain of economic circumstances. I put it no higher than that. One might well say, as the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) said in her very convincing speech, that that chapter was very reassuring. Indeed, anybody who is interested, whether he be
1662
an expert like a school medical officer or attached to local government service, who compares the state of children now even with the state 10 years ago who compares their appearance, their alertness and physical well-being, must clearly see the great improvement that has taken place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) speaking in 1928 on this point, said:
"I invite you who feel depressed to go through any public elementary school and take a look at the fine class rooms, examine the equipment and curriculum; but chief of all, if your school is in a slum district, look at the children, from the babies to the boys and girls in the upper classes. Pessimism will flee away if you can also stand in the playground and see the happy boys and girls come bounding out of school, romping, shouting, playing as if life for them had no trouble."
He went on to show how, by the cooperation of all concerned, and the advance of medical science, the environmental conditions were being overcome. Let me briefly enumerate the measures taken by the Government, either through legislation or administratively through the Board of Education, in partnership with the local authorities, which have done much to combat and to check what otherwise might have been the serious effects of the depression. There are six weapons on which we rely, and which have been employed to counter the effects of the economic strain. First of all there is the increasing attention given to the state of nutrition in the routine inspections, and the assessment of the state of nutrition on more careful and uniform lines.
Mr. Cove: That is by the doctors.
Mr. Shakespeare: Yes.
Mr. Cove: And we do not know what the standard is.
Mr. Maxton: And that is once in five years.
Mr. Shakespeare: There is also the growing practice of arranging special nutritional surveys at short periods. The second weapon is the increasing provision of supplementary nourishment, whether milk meals or solid meals, for children whose parents are unable to pay. I do not know whether the House realises the very steady progress which has been made in this respect. I have chosen three years to show how steady has been the advance. In the year 1924–25 132

1663
local education authorities provided for some 70,000 children 7,500,000 free meals, whether they were solid or milk meals. In 1930–31 153 local education authorities provided 185,000 children with 27,000,000 free meals, and in 1935–36, 235 local education authorities provided 479,000 children with 86,500,000 free meals. In other words, in that interval the number of local education authorities providing free meals had grown from 132 to 235, the number of children fed had increased sevenfold, the number of meals provided had increased II times and the cost had quadrupled. Clearly there has been great progress in the provision of free supplementary nourishment. In spite of the fact that distress to-day is less than it was in 1931 there are three times the number of free meals provided to-day as compared with 1931.
The hon. Member for Seaham raised the question of Circular 1443, of December, 1935, which was issued in agreement with the Association of Education Committees. That Circular made plain what was the qualification for free extra nourishment, and laid down that it covered the cases of all children who needed it and were unable to pay for it. Such provision could be made if a child showed the slightest symptom of inability, through lack of food, to profit by its education. The House will note that it is not left to nutritional surveys to take note of these symptoms. It was made plain that teachers and others who are in constant touch with the children could make recommendations on this basis. The hon. Member for Seaham asked about the income scale, and recalled that, as has always been the practice ever since 1906, when this extra nourishment is given it is the duty of the local education authority to recover the cost from those parents who can afford to pay. We at the Board of Education do not lay down any scales, but the local authorities lay down a scale which assures that the children of those who are employed at low wages or who are unemployed come within the category of those who can be provided with free meals.
Mr. Shinwell: That is perfectly true, but only if, after examination by the school medical officer, they are found to
1664
possess symptoms which indicate that they are unable to absorb education.
Mr. Shakespeare: Of course, we look at it from an educational point of view. We say that where, through lack of food, they are unable to profit by the education given, free nourishment shall be provided.
Mr. Maxton: You say the teacher may be the judge of that.
Mr. Shakespeare: Certainly the teacher may recommend a case as coming within that category, and the child is subsequently examined by the school medical officer. Let me meet a point which is sometimes made that children may not be able to profit by physical training. Education now includes physical training, and, if a teacher thinks there is the slightest symptom of a child not being able to profit by physical training on the ground of lack of food, free extra nourishment can be provided.
The third weapon on which we rely is what is commonly called the milk-in-schools scheme, and over 2,500,000 children have been provided for by facilities which cover school attendances of over 90 per cent. of the elementary school population. One hon. Member referred to this as the greatest single nutritional experiment in the world, and I think that is true. We have only to read the glowing accounts of School Medical Officers in the Chief Medical Officer's report, to see how very widely this scheme has benefited the children. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), who has apologised for being absent now, said that if milk were given free up to a pint a day, far more children would take it. In his view the reason why only just under 50 per cent. of the school children took this cheap milk, supplied at half price, was that the others could not afford it, that their poverty was a bar. Let me give one or two reasons why that argument cannot be maintained. We are naturally concerned with increasing the scope of this scheme, and would like to see many more children enjoy the benefits of it. With that end in view we sent a skilled investigator last year to find out why no more than 50 per cent. of the children took this free milk. He reported that poverty was not an important reason for non-participation by the other 50 per

1665
cent. of the children. In the areas where, owing to distress, there is poverty, and one would expect non-participation to be high, the contrary is the case, and in areas where the people are better off there is very often a low participation.
In a senior school at Brighton only 10 per cent. of the girls took this cheap milk, but in areas like Nelson and Todmorden 73 per cent. of the children participated. In areas like Richmond only 33 per cent. participated. In areas of poverty and distress there is usually high participation. I noticed in a Newcastle paper it was reported that the headmaster of a North of England school had asked his boys how many of them would take free a pint of milk a day, and 128 told him that on no account would they take it, even though it were free. It did not say how many would take it if they were paid to do so. The report of our investigation confirms what has been my own impression since I have been at the Board, that non-participation is due either to indifference on the part of the parents or, more usually, a distaste for milk on the part of the children. I have been into dozens and dozens of classes in the last few months and have asked questions about it, and it is astonishing to find the number of boys and girls who do not take milk, who do not like it and would not have it if it were free. Therefore, I do not attach the same importance to the provision of a pint of free milk, as I am very much afraid that until there has been more publicity about its value there will not be a considerable number of children who will take advantage of the facilities.
The fourth weapon on which the Government rely is the promotion of physical welfare by improving the facilities for and the standard of physical training in the schools. I will not develop this point, but clearly it is obvious that part of the mental and physical improvement among the children is due to the better standard of physical education and recreation in the schools. The fifth weapon on which the Government rely was referred to by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall and the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. W. Astor) in his very interesting speech. We are encouraging the provision of meals at school canteens and the building of school canteens where there is a local demand. Indeed, in connection with the
1666
reorganisation of our education services, which is actually going on, the senior schools have, as a rule, school canteens at which the children can get at least a good dinner at a reasonable charge. I find that in Kent some 63 public elementary schools have canteens serving dinners to 5,000 children. In East Sussex some 25 elementary schools serve 1,800 children, and in East Suffolk 15 schools serve 1,208 children. Those who are interested in the subject may have seen the interesting pamphlet, No. 93, on the East Suffolk canteens.
Mr. Cove: Has the hon. Member any figures of the same nature for Glamorgan-shire, Monmouthshire, Durham and other distressed areas?
Mr. Shakespeare: I think that Durham does not provide meals. I do not think that Glamorganshire does either.
Hon. Members: Why?
Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that the reason why some county councils do not provide meals is because of the high rating burdens, which make it impossible for them to undertake the task?
Mr. Shakespeare: I would not say that. Clearly one reason is that in the larger counties they have to deal with smaller and more scattered populations, and the authorities do not find it an economic proposition. I am speaking particularly of the rural areas. We encourage the building of canteens in those circumstances and the provision of dinners. I find that the charge in the canteen arrangement for meals varies from 1s. to 1s. 8d. per week. That charge does not, as a rule, include overhead costs. The hon. Member for Seaham seemed to question the cost of 5d. per meal, but the figure was obtained after ascertaining from local authorities all over the country their cost, and taking the average. No doubt in the rural areas, the cost, including a fair appreciation for overhead charges, may come out a little higher.
Mr. G. Griffiths: Is that for elementary or secondary schools?
Mr. Shakespeare: I think it is for elementary schools. Another important point is the instruction of boys and girls in the new science of nutrition. It takes the form of teaching cookery, and 91 per cent. of the girls, aged 11 years or over, who receive instruction in cookery, also

1667
are instructed in nutrition. They are taught such matters as food values, the cost of food and the planning of meals. I attach great importance to that teaching, especially when the girls use the implements that they are likely to find in their own homes. They are taught a knowledge of dietetics and what are the best foods to cook. I am not sure that the experts and the scientists have yet made up their minds as to what is a completely balanced diet. Views change, and I have not the slightest doubt that all of us here will live to see the vitamin discredited. There may be some other discovery. Nevertheless, in spite of all that, there is not the slightest doubt that there is much ignorance among all sections of the community as to what constitutes a balanced diet.
If the hon. Member for Seaham will not take my view on this matter, perhaps he will take that which was expressed in the report of the Mixed Committee on the Problem of Nutrition, set up by the Assembly of the League of Nations. In their very interesting book they said:
"Ignorance of the principles and main features of the modern science of nutrition is one of the commonest causes of deficiencies in nutrition. That is abundantly proved by the information at the Committee's disposal. Ignorance is prevalent, not only among the poorer classes of the population, where it aggravates the ill effects of lack of resources; investigations made in the wealthiest countries have revealed the fact that defective, inadequate or ill-considered nutrition exists, and that even among the wealthier classes there is ill-considered nutrition due to inadequate knowledge."
If, for example, I were to ask the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) what were the relative nutritional values in an equal weight of herring, white fish and oyster, he probably would not know.
Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman had better give me the answer.
Mr. Cove: Give him the oyster.
Mr. Buchanan: I will take a bit of each.
Mr. Shakespeare: People who have studied the matter tell us that, taking equal weight of the fish—if we may call the oyster a fish—herring is three or four times as nourishing—
Mr. Broad: As tripe.
Mr. Shakespeare: Tripe is also very nourishing—and that the herring is 39
1668
times more nourishing than an equal weight of oyster. A great deal can be done by cookery classes and lectures for children, to enable them to understand this new science of nutrition and to take advantage of their knowledge. I have not the slightest doubt that the digestions of the next generation will be improved as a result. I do not believe that the mothers of my generation ever received such instruction.
I should now like to give very briefly some figures in relation to the physical welfare of children that are given in the report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education. The House will remember that, in his survey, children were divided into four categories, A, B, C and D, according to whether their nutrition was excellent, normal, slightly abnormal or bad. Out of 1,687,000 children examined in England and Wales in 1935, 14.6 per cent. were found to be excellent, 74.1 per cent. were normal, 10.6 per cent. were slightly subnormal and 0.7 per cent. were bad. In regard to London, I think the hon. Member for Seaham unintentionally made a slip in giving his particulars, because he assumed that every child that was not excellent was in ill-health. Out of 189,200 children, 08 per cent., that is, 152, were bad and 10,646, or 5.67 per cent., were slightly subnormal. The rest were satisfactory. It does not follow that if a child is slightly subnormal the primary cause is lack of food. The cause may be environmental, like bad housing and lack of sleep; or functional. It may be the result of disease, infectious or otherwise. I do not know whether any hon. Member has had an opportunity of seeing the experiment recently conducted at Aldershot on the sub-standard recruit. When I asked the doctor in charge to what he attributed the improvement in the physical welfare of those sub-standard recruits, he said that clearly good nutrition was a factor and that intensive physical training was another factor, but that in his judgment the regular hours of routine to which the recruits were subjected was a factor no less important.
I have described the measures upon which the Government rely, and which are revealed in a record of statistics of which any country should be proud; now we have the Motion of the hon. Gentleman for Seaham that all children, re-

1669
gardless of their state of health and of the circumstances of their parents, should be fed. In other words, in order to deal with the 10,000 children who were slightly subnormal and the 152 who were bad, out of the 189,000 in London, we are to spend £130,000—just to catch that small number.
Mr. Shinwell: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but is it not true that all the children who are under the "excellent" standard are in need of more nourishment and, if that be so, why does the hon. Gentleman use only the figure relating to subnormality?
Mr. Shakespeare: If a nutritional survey has shown the state of a child to be normal you cannot put it into the same category as a bad one, where extra nourishment may be needed. If 89 per cent. of the school children are found, by survey, to be satisfactory, the hon. Gentleman's proposal would mean that in order to deal with 11 per cent. you have to take the 89 per cent. by the scruff of the neck and feed them, whether their parents, the education authority or the children themselves want it or not. That is what it amounts to.
Mr. Shinwell: May I correct that impression, if it is in the mind of the hon. Gentleman? What I said was that if the children require food they ought to have it as an assistance towards education, and that if the parents desire to pay they ought to do so; moreover if the children do not want to go to school for their meals and prefer their meals at home, they should remain at home. That was the case I tried to put.
Mr. Shakespeare: I can deal only with the Motion on the Paper, which says that out of moneys provided by Parliament both meals and milk should be provided. It is true that, when faced with the appalling cost, the hon. Gentleman did say that, in certain cases, if parents wanted to pay they should be allowed to do so, but if you are to provide free milk and meals at a cost amounting to over £40,000,000 during the school period, or over £60,000,000 if you feed the children all the year round—
Mr. Shinwell: I did not ask for that.
Mr. Shakespeare: —out of moneys provided by Parliament, it is no good saying that the parents who want to pay
1670
may do so. There is not a Member of this House who, if he were asked to spend £40,000,000 to promote and improve the physical welfare and nutrition of school children, would not take one-thousandth part of Mat sum and devise a better way of spending it. If the children of Durham, Monmouth or Glamorgan show signs of being slightly subnormal, it would be better to spend one-hundredth part of that large sum on these children and not dissipate this largesse all over the country, at Bournemouth, Hastings, London and elsewhere, where the same need is not shown. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened-in to the boxing match the other night.
Mr. Shinwell: I was here.
Mr. Shakespeare: The House was up.
Mr. Maxton: And Petersen was down!
Mr. Shakespeare: You might as well suggest that to knock out Neusel you must first of all knock out all the spectators at the Harringay Ring.
Mr. Maxton: Why not?
Mr. Shakespeare: I have tried to show on what plan the Government rely to improve the physical welfare of the nation. I should not like anyone to infer that we consider the present state of affairs satisfactory. We are always watching the position. Let me give very shortly one or two examples of how the present powers exercised by local authorities could be more fully utilised. As regards the provision of free nourishment, we are constantly in touch with local authorities to make quite sure that their income scales do not prevent children who really need extra nourishment getting it. The other day I answered a question about the scales in a certain county which we considered unreasonably high. Then, again, we are pressing on local authorities the importance of more frequent nutritional surveys to make sure that the symptoms of malnutrition are detected at once. We are pressing on with physical training in the schools. About that I need say nothing; it will be the subject of debate soon. Fourthly, we are considering how we can increase the scope of the milk-in-schools scheme—whether we can do it by introducing a delicate flavour into the milk, or by intensive publicity by every agency at our disposal. Lastly we are gathering evidence here of the cases of those local

1671
education authorities who are pursuing a forward canteen policy, and we hope to make an attractive pamphlet which will be sent round to all local education authorities to show how beneficial a good system of dinners at canteens can be.
For all these reasons, I hope the House will reject the Motion. It is quite impracticable, unnecessary, and, I think, grandiose. As far as we are concerned, the Amendment moved by the hon. Lady for East Islington, and so ably supported by the hon. Member for Twickenham, does, in fact, give a truer indication of the present position, and shows the line of advance along which we hope to go.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. Morgan Jones: I should very much doubt whether friends of the hon. Gentleman opposite, after having listened to his speech, will feel that he has presented a convincing case on behalf of the Government. I would like to take up one of his first remarks. For some unaccountable reason he went out of his way to congratulate hon. Members on this side for beginning to take an interest in this matter. I wonder on what ground the hon. Gentleman presumed to make a statement of that sort?
Mr. Ede: Ignorance.
Mr. Jones: There is no party in the State that has more consistently drawn attention to the necessity of looking after the physical well being of children than has this party.
Mr. Shakespeare: I was referring to nutrition.
Mr. Jones: I assumed that the hon. Gentleman regarded nutrition as being somewhat remotely, at any rate, connected with physical well-being. We can claim that the pioneers even in the matter of nursery schools belonged to this party. Rachel and Margaret Macmillan were associated in the earlier days with the Labour movement.
Mr. Astor: These ladies left their connection with the Labour party and supported Conservative candidates because they received more help for their nursery schools and more enthusiastic support from Conservatives.
Mr. Cove: And more private money.
Mr. Jones: In an answer which I gave as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education when we were in power in 1931, I said that we had then provided for 40 nursery schools and we had before us plans for another 40 schools. I wonder how many the hon. Gentleman's friends have approved since then. It comes ill from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to speak to us about our lack of interest in nutrition, for it was his Government which issued not only Circular 1443, but Circular 1447. Circular 1447 made it abundantly clear that there was to be no help to these children unless there was evidence of malnutrition. It was because of the pressure brought to bear on the Government that they shifted their ground slightly and introduced Circular 1443. Even Circular 1443 was somewhat parsimonious in its attitude to this matter. It said that the Ministry cannot regard the fact that parents' income falls within an authority's scale as by itself justifying the provision of free meals, so that that is not a big departure from the Ministry's earlier stand. When the hon. Gentleman next feels inclined to call attention to people's sin he might begin to do a little reclamation among his own friends first.
There are two proposals before the House—that submitted in an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and that submitted by the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet), and between the two there is a great gulf fixed. It is no use our beguiling ourselves into the belief that there is no substantial and fundamental difference between them. The hon. Lady is content with things as they are. She invites the House to welcome the Measures taken by the Government to promote the physical welfare of children, recognising the beneficial results already achieved, and so on. We are dissatisfied. We think that much more fundamental changes should take place, and that a much more radical attitude should be taken up in regard to this matter.
The hon. Lady, in a reasoned speech, put forward the case that the Government have already faced up to these problems, and among the measures she cited was that of slum clearance. Let us all agree that slum clearance, as far as it goes,

1673
is excellent. We are heartily in favour of it. But she forgets a point which the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) brought out. It is well known that in certain areas very close examination and close comparisons have been made between the effect of giving milk to certain children in the new housing estates as compared with children who have remained in slums; and the singular result has been arrived at that, in point of fact, the child in the slums profited more than the child in the housing estate. The reason was that where milk was available in the housing estates the extra cost of house rent interfered and prevented the full benefits being achieved. The more you move people out of the slums into the new housing estates, good as that may be, the more you must face the fundamental problem of giving these people a much larger purchasing power to meet the new situation.
We on this side boldly put forward a new proposition, that there should be made available for these children a free meal per day. I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary and ourselves take a totally different view of the place of this school meal in the education system. I have the advantage, if it is an advantage, of being an old teacher, and I take this view—I am sure that my teaching friends in this House on both sides take the same view—that there is an educational advantage in getting children to sit down together to a meal. The provision of the meal at midday should be part of the service provided by the school, just as the provision of books is part of the school service. That is not to say that every child must participate, but there is provided for all children a free meal. That is where we stand, and we need not in the least degree apologise for it. The sitting down of children together to a well-organised meal not only has an advantage physically, but there is an educational advantage to be derived as well.
Why is one driven to this conclusion in favour of a free meal? I know that there are in my part of the country—South Wales—and I dare say the same applies to other parts, well-meaning local authorities who are in every sense desirous of doing all they can to help the children under their charge; but they are handicapped, not by want of the will to help
1674
those children, but by want of the means. They would like to give meals to those children, but their rates are so colossal that they cannot face the additional burden unless the State comes to their assistance. In the absence of such assistance, and because of the board's circulars, they are driven to some sort of principle of selection. What happens? They invite teachers to be on the look-out for some child who may be showing tendencies that indicate malnutrition. I do not think that that is quite a fair job to force upon a teacher, because the teacher is not always capable of judging these matters; he has not sufficient technical and scientific knowledge. I will quote a medical authority in support of what I am saying. Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, in an article in this month's "Highway," writes:
"What proportion of the population is at the present time actually suffering from under-nutrition or malnutrition? It must be admitted that medical officers of health and others who are asked to give an answer to this question in numerical terms are faced with a real difficulty. Except in severe cases, malnutrition in the individual is not necessarily indicated by objective signs which can be certainly or uniformly recognised. It may exist to a degree which, especially in young children and adolescents, will ultimately undermine the health, and yet at a given moment may be leading to no clear-cut symptoms recognisable on simple inspection."
Therefore, we are in this position, that, while there are large areas where we might naturally expect evidence of malnutrition, this medical expert tells us that, for all your observation, you may not be able to see evidence of malnutrition, though it may be there nevertheless. Teachers and others are not able to discern it, and, therefore, are not able to certify that malnutrition exists. Quite frankly, I am unwilling to run the risk of there being any children at all suffering from malnutrition owing to lack of capacity to detect the symptoms, and the only way of getting over that difficulty is by providing free meals for all who care to participate in them. That, as my hon. Friend has said, does not mean that everyone must participate, but it does mean that we must provide for all who desire to do so.
Have we any experience to guide us as to the beneficial results of doing this? The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is such evidence available. I will not take an area like my own in South Wales; I will not take a distressed

1675
area, or anything approaching a distressed area; I will take the area of Colchester. I find, in the annual report of the school medical officer for the Borough of Colchester for the year 1935, certain returns, which are contained in the following statement:
"Arrangements were made for Lexden children recommended for free dinners to be fed at a house near the school, and this has been an improvement. Altogether, 239 individual children received free dinners, 264 received free milk, and 51 were given free cod liver oil."
Then follow the results, headed in black type:
"Alteration in Weight of 33 Children who received Free Dinners for nine months.

Increase 12–18 lbs.

2

Increase 3–6 lbs.

5

Increase 1–3 lbs.

22

These three categories, therefore, accounted for 29 of the 33 children. The next table is as follows:
"Alteration in Weight of 34 Children who received Free Dinners for six months.

Increase 7–12 lbs.

3

Increase 4–7 lbs.

3

Increase 2–4 lbs.

10

Increase ½–2 lbs.

13

Surely, these figures prove abundantly, as a result of practical experience in Colchester—and I could give similar figures with respect to Burnley—that the provision of free meals has enabled certain children to gain weight which otherwise they would not have gained. I submit, therefore, that experience has proved conclusively in certain areas that the provision of free meals has been physically beneficial to large numbers of children.
I want now to turn to some of the items in the armoury of the Board of Education. It is a real arsenal of blunt instruments. I have already referred to the first item—attention to nutrition in respect of routine inspection. The doctors who may go round are in a better position to judge than the teachers, but where you impose upon the teachers the task of spotting those children who may be suffering from malnutrition and those who are not, you are imposing upon them a quite impossible task, as Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins has indicated. The hon. Gentleman said that the number of children in receipt of supplementary nourishment is going up. So far, so good, but I think it is well to remind the House that even now we
1676
are only just touching the fringe of the problem. In the year 1935–36, there were 800,000 children attending schools where there were no feeding arrangements whatsoever—not even milk; and there were only 143,000, out of a total of something like 6,500,000, who received free breakfasts, teas or dinners at any time during the year. The highest figure given by the hon. Gentleman this evening did not reach 500,000. So far, so good; I do not complain at all. All that I am saying is that it does not really cover the problem which confronts us at the present time.
I pass over the reference to the provision of milk in schools, because that has been so thoroughly discussed by previous speakers, especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall, and I come to the fifth item, namely, the proposed scheme about which we are to read more during the week-end, namely, the scheme with respect to physical welfare and physical training. I am not going to discuss that now, any more than the hon. Gentleman himself did, but will he tell me what is the good of embarking on a scheme for improving physical welfare unless the children are fed adequately? Are they going to be any better for physical jerks? Really, it is monstrous to suggest calling upon many of these children, who are ill fed, to go through an accentuated course of physical training. I dare say it is all right as far as it goes; I have not seen the scheme yet. The purpose may be all right, namely, to improve the physical welfare of our children; but the purpose will be vitiated unless they have the stamina to avail themselves of it.
Mr. Shakespeare: I did deal with that point, and mentioned that any who showed the slightest sign of undernourishment would qualify for free meals, and so their physical training would be helped.
Mr. Jones: I think I have indicated to the hon. Gentleman that to ask individuals like teachers and others to detect those signs is to ask for what is impracticable. Moreover, when malnutrition is detected, the board refuse to provide an adequate amount of money to deal with it. I do not want to pre-judge the physical training scheme, but I say that it is beginning at the wrong end. First see to the nourishment of these children—

1677
see that they have the chance to build up the bodily stamina which they need—and then do your physical jerks if you like. I think it has been shown from this side of the House that our case is well founded, not only in theory and on educational grounds, but on grounds of good health as well, and the experience of those areas
in which it has been tried abundantly proves the wisdom of the Motion which we are submitting.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 178.

Division No. 66.]

AYES.

[7.28 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Price, M. P.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Pritt, D. N.

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Ammon, C. G.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Ridley, G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hicks, E. G.

Riley, B.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Ritson, J.

Barr, J.

Hollins, A.

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

Batey, J.

Hopkin, D.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Bevan, A.

Jagger, J.

Rowson, G.

Broad, F. A.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Salter, Dr. A.

Brooke, W.

John, W.

Sanders, W. S.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Sexton. T. M.

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Shinwell, E.

Burke, W. A.

Kelly, W. T.

Short, A.

Cape, T.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Silverman, S. S.

Chater, D.

Kirby, B. V.

Simpson, F. B.

Cluse, W. S.

Lathan, G.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Cocks, F. S.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cove, W. C.

Leach, W.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Dalton, H.

Lee, F.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leonard, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Day, H.

Leslie, J. R.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le Sp'ng)

Dobbie, W.

Logan, D. G.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Lunn, W.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Ede, J. C.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Thorne, W.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

McEntee, V. La T.

Thurtle, E.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

McGhee, H. G.

Tinker, J. J.

Foot, D. M.

MacLaren, A.

Walkden, A. G.

Frankel, D.

Maclean, N.

Walker, J.

Gallacher, W.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Watkins, F. C.

Gardner, B. W.

Marshall, F.

Watson, W. McL.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Maxton, J.

Welsh, J. C.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Messer, F.

Whiteley, W.

Gibbins, J.

Milner, Major J.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Montague, F.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Muff, G.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Grenfell, D. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Owen, Major G.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Parkinson, J. A.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Potts, J.

Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

De Chair, S. S.

Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

Bull, B. B.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Butler, R. A.

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Apsley, Lord

Carver, Major W. H.

Duggan, H. J.

Assheton, R.

Cary, R. A.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Eastwood, J. F.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Channon, H.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Ellis, Sir G.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Clarke, F. E.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Errington, E.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Fildes, Sir H.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Bossom, A. C.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Furness, S. N.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Bracken, B.

Cross, R. H.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Brass, Sir W.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Grelton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Magnay, T.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Grimston, R. V.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Guy, J. C. M.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Harbord, A.

Markham, S. F.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hepworth, J.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

Morris-Jonas, Sir Henry

Spens, W. P.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Holmes, J. S.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J

Munro, P.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Storey, S.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Patrick, C. M.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Jackson, Sir H.

Peake, O.

Sutcliffe, H.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Penny, Sir G.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Petherick, M.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Porritt, R. W.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Procter, Major H. A.

Turton, R. H.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Radford, E. A.

Wakefield, W. W.

Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Lees-Jones, J.

Ramsbotham, H.

Warrender, Sir V.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Wayland, Sir W. A

Levy, T.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Liddall, W. S.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J

Ropner, Colonel L.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

M'Connell, Sir J.

Rowlands, G.

Withers, Sir J. J.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Scott, Lord William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

McKie, J. H.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Miss Cazalet and Mr. Keeling.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 125.

Division No. 67.]

AYES.

[7.38 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Cross, R. H,

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Jackson, Sir H.

Apsley, Lord

De Chair, S. S.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Aske, Sir R. W.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Assheton, R.

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Duggan, H. J.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanlev

Duncan, J. A. L.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Dunglass, Lord

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Eastwood, J. F.

Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Lees-Jones, J.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Ellis, Sir G.

Levy, T.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Liddall, W. S.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N,

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Errington, E.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Bossom, A. C.

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

M'Conneil, Sir J.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Fildes, Sir H.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Bracken, B.

Furness, S. N.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Brass, Sir W.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

McKie, J. H.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Gower, Sir R. V.

Magnay, T.

Bull, B. B.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Carver, Major W. H.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Cary, R. A.

Grimston, R. V.

Markham, S. F.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Guy, J. C. M.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)

Harbord, A.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Channon, H.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Clarke, F. E.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Hepworth, J.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Holmes, J. S.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.

Patrick, C. M.

Peaks, O.

Scott, Lord William

Titchfield, Marquess of

Penny, Sir G.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Petherick, M.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Turton, R. H.

Porritt, R. W.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Wakefield, W. W.

Procter, Major H. A.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Radford, E. A.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Warrender, Sir V.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Ramsbotham, H.

Spens, W. P.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Reid, W, Allan (Derby)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Storey, S.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Rowlands, G.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Sutcliffe, H.

Miss Cazaletland Mr. Keeling.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Harris, Sir P. A.

Price, M. P.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Pritt, D. N.

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Ammon, C. G.

Hicks, E. G.

Ridley, G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Riley, B.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hollins, A.

Ritson, J.

Barr, J.

Jagger, J.

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

Batey, J.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Bevan, A.

John, W.

Rowson, G.

Broad, F. A.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Salter, Dr. A.

Brooke, W.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Sanders, W. S.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Kelly, W. T.

Sexton, T. M.

Buchanan, G.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Shinwell, E.

Burke, W. A.

Kirby, B. V.

Short, A.

Cape, T.

Lathan, G.

Silverman, S. S.

Chater, D.

Lawson, J. J.

Simpson, F. B.

Cluse, W. S.

Leach, W.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Cocks, F. S.

Lee, F.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cove, W. G.

Leonard, W.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Dalton, H.

Leslie, J. R.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Logan, D. G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Day, H.

Lunn, W.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Dobbie, W.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Ede, J. C.

McGhee, H. G.

Thorne, W.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

MacLaren, A.

Thurtle, E.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Maclean, N.

Tinker, J. J.

Foot, D. M.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Walkden, A. G.

Frankel, D.

Marshall, F.

Watkins, F. C.

Gallacher, W.

Maxton, J.

Watson, W. McL.

Gardner, B. W.

Messer, F.

Welsh, J. C.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Milner, Major J.

Whiteley, W.

Gibbins, J._

Montague, F.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Muff, G.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Grenfell, D. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Owen, Major G.

Young, Sir R, (Newton)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Parker, J.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Parkinson, J. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Potts, J.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Mr. N. Maclean: On a point of Order. When I went into the Division Lobby just now I found that the Tellers had gone, and the Clerks at the Table refused to record my name as having voted, and I want to know what steps to take to have my vote recorded.
Mr. Speaker: If the Tellers for the "No" Lobby agree that the hon. Member voted, his vote will be recorded.
Resolved,
"That this House welcomes the measures taken by the Government to promote the physical welfare of children, recognises the beneficial results already achieved, as shown by the Annual Reports of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education, and hopes that, where necessary, the powers already possessed by local education authorities for the purpose will be more fully utilised."

CONDITIONS IN LANCASHIRE.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Silverman: I beg to move,
"That this House views with deep regret the conditions under which the people of Lancashire are now and have for long been living; deplores the wastage of natural resource, acquired skill, and human life that such conditions entail; declares that their continued existence is an indictment of statesmanship; and calls upon His Majesty's Government, whether or not such measures are within the limits of the existing social and economic order, to take such measures as may be necessary to secure to Lancashire's unemployed part-employed, and employed workers a standard of living commensurate with modern industrial potentialities."
I have no desire at all to overdraw the picture or to represent Lancashire as being in any way down-and-out. Lancashire has great assets. I should like to quote from the contribution which the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton) made to a Lancashire newspaper the other day, and would like, with respect, to adopt his tribute to Lancashire therein contained. He said:
"Here we have abundant labour, excellent transport, road, canal, and rail communications of the best, we are in the central focus of the May bury scheme for air routes organisation and we have the skilled heads available for just such an industrial unit as the Government seem to require. Further, and this is not the least important, Lancashire was first and foremost in the Industrial Revolution. Its people established a skill, a proficiency, and an aptitude for industrial pursuits which are unrivalled. It may be said that there is no population in the world which can turn over so readily from one skilled industry to another. There is one other point: technical skill in management and operation is available in Lancashire to an unequalled extent. Lancashire has also a capacity for cohesion and mutual assistance in the engineering trade which other parts of the country have not exhibited."
That very eloquent catalogue of Lancashire's industrial and commercial assets is almost complete, but I would add to it one other asset which not all the indifference of His Majesty's Government to the tragic conditions under which the people of Lancashire are living, and not all the difficulties of the world situation can destroy, and that is, the courage and grit of the Lancashire worker which he still has and which, given suitable conditions, he may still use in order to create for Lancashire not merely a future happier than the present, but a future happier than the past.
What is the condition of this great potential unit so full of the natural re-
1684
sources, skilled labour, organisation, cohesion and all these other magnificent things? I have in the last few days asked various Government Departments for some figures, which they have been kind enough to supply, and to which I will draw the attention of the House. In Lancashire, including 17 county boroughs, there are in receipt of relief from public assistance authorities, including dependants—I quote the nearest round figure—220,000 people. There are in receipt of standard unemployment benefit 260,000, which figure was not supplied to me by the Department, because the figure supplied did not include the dependants, but a note indicated that I could make the adjustment for myself if I allowed 81 dependants for every 100 claims. I have made that adjustment to the best of my arithmetical ability, and I find that the figure is 260,000 people. Making the same adjustment, there are in receipt of payment from the Unemployment Assistance Board no fewer than 190,000. So that there are in this magnificent industrial community, so full of potentialities, in receipt of public relief in one form or another, 670,000 souls.
I will quote some further figures shortly about separate industries and areas, but are we not entitled—those of us who represent Lancashire in any quarter of this House—in face of these figures, to say that there should be some greater display of Government interest and assistance than we have seen so far? Reading these figures again this afternoon in preparation for this Debate and the Amendment which certain hon. Members have put upon the Order Paper, I was almost amazed at the courage of the Amendment. I do not mean that it will require so much courage in this House, because no doubt hon. Members who sit on that side will not fear occasionally to give the Government a gentle pat on the back and encourage them to go along the path which they have chosen. The courage that they will require in advocating the Amendment will be that which, I have no doubt, they will display when they come to explain the Amendment to their constituents in Lancashire. Not that I want for a moment to enter into the rather sad competition between area and area, and district and district, for the somewhat dubious glory of being catalogued by the Government as a Special Area. I may see reason later in the Parliamentary Session, I hope

1685
not too late to alter my view about that, but I am bound to say, with the candour which this House rightly expects from those who address it, that nothing I can see in the record of the Government with regard to these areas which they have already scheduled as "Special" encourages any other part of the country to press unduly for a share of those benefits.
I read, not merely with interest, but with the same alarm as was exhibited in many quarters of the House, the report of the late Commissioner for the Special Areas. I do not desire for a moment that this should become a mere debate about the Special Areas and their claims, but a specific debate. At the same time, there is the figure quoted by Sir Malcolm Stewart which shows that the rate of improvement and the revival in those parts of the country which were not scheduled as Special Areas was very much in advance, as a result of the special care which the Government have given to the Special Areas, of that in those Special Areas themselves. We all hope that, when the Government present to this House their second thoughts on the Special Areas Bill, when they tell us what new powers they are seeking from this House, and what new remedies they propose to apply, when they tell us that they are going to take powers to see that the advantages of employment are more fairly and more equitably spread as between the depressed and the non-depressed areas, then, perhaps we shall be entitled to say to the Government that Lancashire as a whole, or many parts of it, are as much entitled to the assistance that they will then be able to give as any other part of the country. Nor will the House expect that, speaking for Lancashire, we should regard it as any consolation in our sufferings that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to forecast for Birmingham and the Midlands during the next 12 months a period of prosperity such as that area has never known before, especially when that prosperity is achieved, not merely by the neglect of these areas, but largely at their expense.
I hardly think that anyone will venture to claim that the considered policy of the Government since 1931, whoever it may have been designed or calculated to benefit, could do any real service, or indeed, anything but harm to the export trades
1686
—the coal trade, the cotton trade and shipping—which are the three industries upon which Lancashire depends. Indeed, on this point I am able to cry in aid no less an advocate than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who warned the country in a speech the other day that the prosperity of which he boasted, and of which some parts of the country have undoubtedly seen the benefit, cannot be maintained, unless greater attention is paid to the export trade than has been paid in the past few years.
I have said something about the general conditions of Lancashire as a whole. The House may be interested to hear some figures with regard to the cotton trade. For all these figures, except one set of them, which I shall indicate later, I am indebted to Government Departments. Does the House realise how seriously the cotton trade has contracted during the last 10 years? I wonder how many Members of the House, how many Lancashire Members, realise the significance of the figures which were given to me, I think, yesterday. I will give round figures, in order not to weary the House. In 1925 there were employed in the cotton industry 473,000 adult persons, but in 1935 the figure stood at 325,000, a drop in 10 years of 30 per cent. In 1925 there were of the insured unemployed 47,000, and in 1935, 97,000—a rise of 110 per cent.
Major Procter: Can the hon. Member give us the figures for 1929–31?
Mr. Silverman: I have not those figures. If hon. Members opposite think that the picture that I have drawn as representing the position between 1925 and 1935 is not correct, and if they have the figures for which I have now been asked, I should be grateful if they would give me those figures. I doubt very much whether those figures will do anything but emphasise in one way or another the general picture of decline and restriction in the cotton industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is true!"] One hon. Member says that the picture is true. If that be so, then perhaps the picture which I have drawn may be allowed to stand.
I have been dealing so far with the figures of insured workers, employed or unemployed, in the cotton trade in Lancashire up to and especially in the year 1935, but I have not dealt with a peculiar

1687
aspect of the cotton trade. I would especially draw attention to this aspect, and particularly would I direct the attention of those hon. Members in different quarters of the House who sometimes say that Lancashire is not really a depressed or Special Area or entitled to special treatment, because the figures are only this, that or the other percentage of unemployment. The aspect to which I would direct attention is this. The conditions in the cotton trade are such, the organisation is such, and the mode of payment of wages is such that nearly all those engaged in the weaving section of the industry are only part-employed, and their periods of unemployment, for which they can earn no wages, are spent on the employers' premises in the factories, standing idly by, so that while they are not qualified, according to the system of payment, to earn wages for that idle time, neither are they entitled to apply for unemployment benefit in respect of any portion of that time.
I understand that many months ago the Minister of Labour received a deputation on that subject, when the whole matter was explained to him, as I have no doubt it has been explained by the qualified officials in his own Department. I do not know whether any action is contemplated as a result of that interview, but I do know that no action has yet been taken. There have been very small increases of wages recently, which are not taken into account in the figures I have given, but, even if adjustments were made, they would not alter the general outline of the picture which I am drawing. I have not the slightest desire or need to overdraw the picture or deepen its shadows in any way.
I have taken results of a wages census in 16 of the chief weaving centres, and have added the totals and worked out the average as best I could, and I find that for those 16 representative centres of the weaving industry the average wage taken home by the weaver at the end of a full 48-hour week is £1 12s. 6d. I suppose that in no other part of the country can it be said with so much truth that it pays the head of a family, with dependants, to remain unemployed and rely upon what he can get under the various systems of public payment as the unemployed head of a household rather
1688
than to work 48 hours and to go home with the wages which he would earn.
Major Procter: Is the figure which the hon. Member has just given, £1 12s. 6d., the figure for adults, or is it the average figure for men, women and children?
Mr. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Member has devoted a keen and intelligent observation to this question and the result of his own investigations must lead him to realise that the figure I have quoted is the average wage of the adult weaver. Less than 10 per cent. of the weavers in Lancashire, the most highly skilled operatives in a highly technical trade, earn 50s. or more per week. At the other end of the scale, at the end of a 48-hour week weavers go home with earnings of 20s. or less. That is part of the general restriction and contraction of the trade that we have experienced in this generation. However much people may try to lay the blame for that contraction upon world conditions, which no one is able to control, it would be less than honest not to say that the major portion of the responsibility for the continuance of the contraction of the cotton industry and for the competitive conditions abroad, about which Lancashire manufacturers so bitterly and repeatedly complain, is due to conditions which they created themselves. Japan, China, India and other parts of the continent of Europe learned the cotton trade from Lancashire. Lancashire provided the training and the machinery which has created the competition from which they now seek to be protected.
There never was a time even when Lancashire was most prosperous, even when Lancashire supplied the cotton needs of the world, when the Lancashire operative could get a square deal from the manufacturer. It was because of the frightful conditions created in Lancashire by the forbears of the present manufacturers that it was necessary to introduce Factory Acts by the Tory party in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Have the manufacturers learned their lesson yet? At the very moment when to-day they are complaining of the competition of Japan and other places, and of the unfair conditions in other places, which handicap them in competing, what is their attitude about the international regulation of these conditions? Let me read to the House an extract

1689
from a report made in the last few days to the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners by the secretary:
"This Association feels that the matter is one of greater importance than might appear at first sight"
The matter is the seeking for regulation by international convention of a 40-hour week in the textile trade:
"It may be that the somewhat nebulous deliberations of international conferences seem unlikely ever to have any concrete effect upon the Lancashire textile industry, but that is not the case. The workers are unanimously striving to have a convention recorded by the International Labour Conference, and many foreign Governments, notably Italy, France and the United States of America, are favourably inclined towards the project. Unless the textile employers"—
that means the British textile employers—
"take the opportunity of putting forward their opposition at every step, it is probable that the convention will be passed, and once it is in existence it will come more prominently into the arena of political controversy, pressure may be brought to bear upon His Majesty's Government to ratify it and thereby bring a 40-hour week into legal operation in this country."
I understand that it is the policy of the Government to continue the contraction and restriction of the cotton industry. I asked the other day whether the principles of the Cotton Spinning Industry Act were being applied to the weaving sections of the industry, and the reply, to put it mildly, was non-committal. At any rate, there was no great enthusiasm on the part of the Government, in its wisdom, to say that the policy of restriction which they had applied to the spinning section had been so overwhelmingly successful that they were going to apply it to the weaving section of the industry at the earliest possible moment. They did not say that. It was made perfectly obvious by the President of the Board of Trade throughout the Debates on the Cotton Spinning Industry Act that the policy of restriction was being applied to the spinning section first and was intended to be continued, because, obviously, you cannot scrap 70,000 or 100,000 spindles as being redundant and maintain in existence the weaving looms which those spindles used to keep working. We have to contemplate that contraction and restriction of the cotton trade has now become a policy to be recommended and enforced. But what is going to happen to the people in Lancashire who
1690
will, ex hypothesi, become as redundant as the spindles, as redundant as the looms and as surplus to requirements as the machinery. If you contract still further the scope of the industry the figures of unemployment and part employment will not expand.
Take the shipping industry. There are many Liverpool hon. Members who are better qualified than I am to go into the details of this matter, but I have been for some years a member of the Liverpool City Council and I am at the moment a member of its finance committee. Everyone associated with the council on any side of politics knows what tremendous efforts have been made by Liverpool to persuade the Government to recognise the tragic situation in which Liverpool finds itself. Here again one or two figures may tell the story more eloquently and more significantly. Take the average number of unemployed, reckoned as a percentage of the number of insured between the ages of 16 and 64. In Liverpool it is 28.7 per cent. Compare it with one or two areas which I take out at random and which are accepted by the Government as being Special Areas and entitled to all the benefits which perchance they may derive from being included in that definition. In Newcastle it is 23.8 per cent., in Blaydon 27.5 per cent., Chester-le-Street 24 per cent., Consett 9 per cent., Houghton-le-Spring 26.6 per cent.
But take some other figures. Take this really shocking figure showing the number of persons per 10,000 of the population who are in receipt of Poor Law relief in January, 1936, over and above, be it remembered, the unemployment figures. In Liverpool the number in receipt of Poor Law relief per 10,000 of the population is 1,143, the highest in the country out of a list drawn up by the Ministry of Health, comprising 42 English county boroughs. Compare that with Gateshead 818; or with South Shields 450. What does this cost? For the year ended the 31st March, 1936, the amount expended on out-relief by the public assistance committee of the Liverpool Corporation was no less than £1,156,534. If hon. Members ask me for special figures for the years 1929, 1930 and 1931, let me give them the figures for Liverpool. These are the total number of persons in receipt of relief, excluding persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief and excluding

1691
casuals, at the end of December for the years 1930 to 1934 and for part of the year 1935 ended in September. The number of persons in 1930 was 42,000; in 1931, 54,000; in 1932, 77,000; in 1933, 82,000; in 1934, 99,000; and for the part of the year ended September, 1935, 93,000. And that is in a period, as I am told, of rapidly advancing prosperity.
I should like to have said something about the third Lancashire trade, the coal trade, but I do not want to speak too long and I know there are other hon. Members well qualified to deal with it. Indeed, the story of the coal trade in Lancashire is exactly the story of the coal trade everywhere else, in South Wales and Durham, and it needs no further words from me to add to that tragic story. I shall be asked what remedies I advocate. I noticed that a very respectable newspaper this morning said that the Motion which I have the honour to be moving now is magnificent in its failure to make a single suggestion. I believe that to be right. As I conceive it, the purpose of a private Member's Motion is to call attention to grievances. If I am able to satisfy the House that the grievances which I have described are real and just grievances, it then becomes the duty of the Government of the day to remedy them, and not to call upon the individual private Member who directs the attention of the House to them for a policy which it is the very purpose of Government to formulate and execute.
However, perhaps I might be permitted to suggest the general direction in which remedies might be sought. It is not difficult. Nobody asks for very long how to cure the hunger of a starving man. Feed him. Nobody treats as a difficult problem requiring lengthy philosophic disquisition the question of how to remove the evils of an ill-clothed man. Clothe him, house him, treat his ills. There has been general talk of advancing prosperity in this country, and indeed there has been advancing prosperity. What has been the cause of it? Hon. Members opposite are fond of saying that it is all due to a return in confidence naturally inspired by the succession of the National Government to the disastrous Labour Government of 1929–1931. But is that so? The Budget to-day is unbalanced to a much greater extent than it was in 1931.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member's Motion deals with Lancashire, and he had better keep to it.
Mr. Silverman: I am dealing with general remedies for a situation which depends upon unemployment, the suffering consequent upon unemployment and the standard of living. The argument which I propose to address to the House, with your leave, is that the same causes which have contributed to the raising of the standard of living in other places would equally apply to Lancashire. I will endeavour strictly to obey your Ruling and not go outside the terms of my Motion. The only point I wish to make is that the returning prosperity in other parts of the country has not been due to any psychological cause of that kind or to a balanced or unbalanced Budget, for they were equally unbalanced under both regimes. An unbalanced Budget is an unbalanced Budget; it cannot at one and the same time undermine confidence in 1931 and restore confidence in 1936.
What has really happened is that the expenditure on armaments has had the effect of pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into industry and into people's pockets, putting money into circulation and as a consequence setting the wheels going round everywhere. I do not say for one moment that the revival is confined to the armaments trade, but it began there and has spread to other industries as a natural consequence. Far be it from me to recommend that as a continual thing. To relieve unemployment by armaments is far too dangerous a device. It is rather like paying a man in the condemned cell wages for spinning the rope with which he is to be hanged. It is rather like burning a house in order to have the pleasure of spending the insurance money. The money has been spent on battleships, bombs, guns, tanks, and poison gases, which are dangerous things if one begins to play with them: the point, as far as my present argument is concerned, is that it would not matter in the least if one took the whole of those armaments out to sea and sank them. That would not end the boom and prosperity; it would increase prosperity, because the Government would start at once to replace the armaments.
From the point of view of my present argument, it would not matter if the money were spent on nothing; it would

1693
not matter if it were spent on roads, on bridges or on something else for which at any rate we would have something to show to posterity. The important thing is that purchasing power has been placed into people's pockets, and it is that which has caused the revival to the extent to which revival has taken place. I say that that remedy could also be applied elsewhere. I would like to draw the attention of the House to two statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only the other day. He was referring to events abroad and said:
"That has necessitated our embarking upon by far the largest programme of Defence that has ever been undertaken …"
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must keep to the Motion, and not wander over all policies.
Mr. Silverman: I do not intend for one moment to discuss the rights and wrongs of that policy. I am discussing its results upon questions of unemployment and trade generally and upon the standard of living.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is exactly what the hon. Member must not discuss.
Mr. Silverman: Of course, I accept your Ruling, but I submit that I would be entirely within my rights on this Motion if I attempted to deal with the methods whereby the standard of living in Lancashire might be raised. That is the only point I am endeavouring to make. The point of the quotation to which, if you permit me to proceed, I would like to draw the attention of the House is the amount of money that has been spent and the effects which it has had. If that is not in order, I will willingly leave it alone.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must deal with the Motion. He has already occupied a very long time.
Mr. Silverman: I do not wish to occupy an undue amount of time. I wanted to relate that matter expressly to Lancashire, but if it is of somewhat doubtful propriety, I will leave it alone. I would like to ask the House whether our whole attitude towards questions of unemployment is not completely misconceived. We are all wringing our hands in despair over what is, in effect, the very dividend of civilisation. What has civilisation been trying to do during the last 100 years?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must restrict himself to Lancashire, or I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Silverman: I submit, with respect, that the relief of unemployment in Lancashire must be precisely the same as the relief of unemployment everywhere. Our attitude towards unemployment in Lancashire is misconceived. We are treating as a semi-penal or criminal thing the leisure which is the result of the mechanical genius applied in Lancashire, as everywhere else, during the last 100 years. The whole purpose of the machines which have been invented is to save labour and create leisure. Our modern method of crowding all that leisure at the bottom end of the scale and treating it as a semi-penal or semi-criminal thing, entitled to a lower standard of living than that enjoyed by the employed workers, is a complete misconception of the whole purpose of society. I can hardly think that that argument is not in order, because it goes to the very root of my Motion, which deals with the standard of living of the unemployed, the partly-employed and the employed workers. Instead of treating the unemployed and partly-employed as people who are only entitled to a lower standard of living, we ought to give them the opportunity of contributing of their best to the wealth of the country in so far as we are able to use their services, and when we are not able to use their services they ought not to suffer because of that fact. What have they done, these unemployed, part employed and lowly employed workers, that they should be on a lower standard of living than the rest of the community?
I say that if you abolished the means test, raised wages, kept children out of industry to a later age and paid them full maintenance, took the older people out of industry and gave them adequate pensions, so as to spread the amount of work available more equitably among those who are ready to do it, you would, in a very short time, raise the standard of living as we all think it ought to be raised in Lancashire and elsewhere. I may be told that it is impracticable for this, that or the other reason to do so. Well, I am ready to abandon this proposal in favour of any proposal from the Government which will relieve the injustice of that depressed and depraved standard of living here and now. Long

1695
ago, in the years just before the War, there was a gentleman writing poetry and prose with great acceptance, one G. K. Chesterton, who was never looked upon as being Socialist in his outlook. Writing at a time when no one thought of the imminence of the crash of the Russian Empire of those days he wrote these words which I strongly recommend to those on any side who desire to see justice done and peace preserved:
"It may be we shall rise the last, as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath, and our wrath be the worst."
8.40 p.m.
Mr. J. Henderson: I beg to second the Motion.
I believe there will be general agreement with the tribute which was paid by my hon. Friend the Mover of this Motion to the qualities of the Lancashire work-people, and this Motion is intended to indicate to the people of the country that the idea that Lancashire is a prosperous county is illusory. Hon. Members opposite may ask what remedies we have to propose. I do not want to enter into that question on a Private Member's Motion further than to say that the party which occupies these benches has proclaimed over and over again its policy with regard to two of the key industries of Lancashire. I know from experience in this House that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, at least those who sit on the Front Bench, are well primed as to the publications of the Labour party and that they readily, and, I suppose, legitimately, unearth pamphlets and policy reports, and quote speeches of eminent men in the Labour movement.
Mr. Kelly: And sometimes have been converted by them.
Mr. Henderson: Lancashire can claim to be the most intensely industrialised county in the Realm. It has a population of 5,040,000, an acreage of 1,201,966, a rateable value of £33,567,000 and it sends to this Mother of Parliaments 62 Members. It cannot, therefore, be flippantly ignored, and I believe that whatever else eventuates from this Debate, it will be made very clear in the end that there are patches of Lancashire which are in a more parlous state than some of the areas designated as distressed areas. I agree that there has been an
1696
improvement in certain branches of industry in Lancashire. My hon. Friend who preceded me has referred to the rearmament programme and that, I believe, has given an impetus to the engineering industry. But it is a very well-founded belief, and one stated by authoritative persons recently, that this is only a passing phase and that the so-called prosperity is artificial.
The products of Lancashire fall largely under the three heads of cotton, coal and engineering, and reference has also been made by my hon. Friend to shipping. With regard to cotton, I wish to go back a few years and to give a few figures which are necessary in order to clarify the position. In 1921, the Lancashire cotton industry had 592,974 employés, and in 1931 that figure had shrunk to 370,336. In 1924 there was exported from this country £153,000,000 worth of cotton piece-goods and 10 years later that figure had shrunk to £39,000,000. I do not emphasise the question of wages more than to say that, as one who is prominent in the trade union world, I have great difficulty in getting trade unionists in the transport industry to accept the incredibly low, the scandalously low wages paid to adult employés in the cotton industry, an industry which demands a high degree of technical skill. In order to indicate the deterioration in the cotton industry I propose to read one or two passages from a report on "Readjustment in Lancashire" by members of the Economic Research Section of the University of Manchester. This report which was published only last year contains the following illuminating passage:
"In some of the weaving towns many of the weavers registered as unemployed were unlikely ever to find employment in the cotton industry again because they had become unfitted to it. The kinds of cloth woven now are more intricate and difficult to weave … Older people particularly those who have been out of work for some time find it impossible to cope with these changes and they may remain unemployed, while the looms stand idle for lack of suitable operatives."
They sum up:
"The standard treatment for unemployment, the transfer of workers to other districts and industries can touch only the smaller part of unemployment in Lancashire. In the first place there is a large group of older people who are no longer strictly in the field of employment. They constitute the social wreckage of the past decade, with its declining employment and its changes in technical methods. It should be seriously

1697
considered whether it is worth while to continue the pretence that they are fit to reenter industry, and that they should still be subject to all the elaborate safeguards set up to discourage malingering in the unemployed.
In the second place, a large part of the female working population, anxious and able to work, cannot, for elementary social reasons, migrate. Work for them, if it is to exist at all, must be work in their own towns.
In the third place, there are special difficulties in the transfer of the unemployed among the youngest group of industrial workers. They, in fact, should not be in the field of profitable employment either, but at school."
That is not an ex parte statement, but is one made after the most searching investigation into the cotton industry, and it would take, on the part of anyone who tried to controvert it, a great deal of answering. It is notorious that in the cotton weaving areas people have had to have recourse to Poor Law relief, and I will quote a few figures in that connection. Taking the years 1931 and 1936, in Bolton, in a given week in 1931, 2,697 persons sought outdoor relief, and in 1936 5,629; in Oldham, 1,082 in 1931 and 5,115 in 1936; in Preston, 759 in 1931 and 2,665 in 1936; in Rochdale, which a lady of renown claims as her birthplace, 88o in 1931 and 2,740 in 1936; In Blackburn, 2,337 in 1931 and 4,293 in 1936; and in Burnley—I am informed that the Burnley team is going to win the Football Association Cup this year—1,794 in 1931 and 4,147 in 1936. I think that, in an abridged form, is rather indicative of the rapid deterioration of the cotton industry. I would have quoted, if I had had time, from the very excellent report of the Lancashire Industrial Development Council, but as many other hon. Members wish to speak, I will refrain from doing so.
In the mining industry in Lancashire and Cheshire in 1924 there were employed 105,575 persons, and in 1934 that number had shrunk to 62,327, a decrease in 10 years of 43,248. In 1924 there were produced 23,235,751 tons and in 1934 16,544,043 tons. In 1928 things were in such a distressed state in Lancashire, in the mining industry, that the average of unemployed miners was 19 per cent. At Hindley and Wigan the average was 23 per cent., whereas the national figure was 11 per cent.; and in that belt of townships including Aspull, Blackrod, Hindley and Westhoughton, with a population of 7,000,
1698
3,000, 22,000, and 16,000, respectively, 10 years ago there were 17 collieries, whereas to-day there are only two. The rateable value of Hindley in 1923 was £26,543, but in 1926 it had shrunk to £1,122. The infantile mortality rate in Hindley in 1935 was 85 per thousand, whereas the average for the country was 57. One can understand this alarming infantile mortality rate when one recognises the terrible housing conditions of some of the Lancashire people. I will illustrate that point from a report which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" on 23rd October last year, and I do not think anyone will dispute that that is a very credible newspaper. This report was culled from some facts obtained by the Unemployment Assistance Board's officials, and I take it that that board is accepted as a non-partisan body. What are the very alarming disclosures that they gave? Here are some of the appalling conditions noted by the board in Lancashire:
"Man, wife, and seven children (1 to 13), another expected. Two-roomed house. All nine persons sleep in one room.
Man, wife, and seven children (2 over 13). All sleep in one room—six daughters in one bed, son (15) in one bed, man and wife in another. House very damp; repairs badly needed.
Man and two sons in single bed in one room; five children in large bed in second room; wife and infant in single bed and child in cot in third room.
In one room man, wife, baby, and six daughters in two double beds, one single bed, and a cot; in another room … two sons sleep in single bed. House due for demolition; damp and filthy.
Man, wife, and eight children. Man sleeps on couch in living room. In one bedroom wife, daughter, and baby in double bed, three daughters in single bed, daughter in cot; in other bedroom three sons in double bed. One boy (10) returned from sanatorium and attends tuberculosis clinic, which is also attended by boy of four. Daughter (11) with infantile paralysis and wears surgical boots. All children have had pneumonia and are in general bad health. House has to be sprayed daily with disinfectant. In atrocious condition; roof leaks; all rooms damp; plaster dropping off walls; bedroom floors falling in."
That is a report, not of a Socialist, but of a very authoritative body, namely, the Unemployment Assistance Board, and when one reads a disclosure of that description one cannot help understanding this infantile mortality rate in Hindley in 1935, stupendous as it appears to be. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has given some figures for

1699
Liverpool, which I do not wish to repeat, but the Lancashire public assistance committee—this is in order to prove the poverty existing in that county in 1936–37—estimated that their expenditure would be the huge sum of £1,632,655, an increase on the preceding year of £56,588. In Wigan, in 1934–35, the public assistance committee, owing to the poverty that existed in the borough, overspent by £7,000 in out-relief, and the total expenditure for that year on public assistance was the huge sum, for a borough of that description, of £90,983, or, in other words, 33¼ per cent. of the total expenditure.
It is assumed that Manchester is, relatively speaking, in a prosperous condition. With a population of 766,000, the number of persons in a given week in June, 1930, that were on Poor Law relief was 22,736. In June, 1936, the number had increased to 43,641—and this in the midst of the era of prosperity, so-called. The outdoor relief expenditure for a given week in July, 1930, was £5,794, and for a week in January of this year £18,091—a tremendous increase. The public assistance committee of Manchester granted relief to outdoor poor on 16th January this year amounting to £18,694. The recipients—men, women and children—assumed the large total of 41,929, those receiving institutional relief numbering 5,289, making a grand total this year, after all the talk about prosperity and an admitted increase in the numbers employed in engineering trades, of 47,215 persons. The Manchester public assistance committee expended during 1935–36 a total of £1,545,000 for domiciliary relief, institutional relief and various incidental items. At the exchanges in Manchester on 14th December last year there were registered 37,982 persons as wholly unemployed. That is in addition to the 47,215 who were on outdoor relief.
I will take the division which I have the honour to represent, namely, Ardwick. I give the figure with reserve, for it cannot be accurately ascertained, but it is estimated that there are at least 7,000 unemployed in my division. I know men who have anxiously sought work but have been out of work for six or seven years. When I went there in 1930 these men were buoyed up and fortified by the knowledge that in the pre-war days the
1700
Unemployment Insurance Act envisaged simply a temporary lapse from employment, and that that condition would be perpetuated in the post-war years. As year by year goes by, however, hope gives way to despair, and I see these men with pinched faces, with the same clothes that they had four or five years ago, threadbare and heavily patched, and with footgear of a very slender character. I ask any hon. Member from Lancashire to picture their plight in the distressing weather of last week-end in circumstances of that sort. The womenfolk in the great division of Ardwick have year after year carried on a heroic struggle in terrible conditions. I defy refutation, and I do not think I am overstating the case when I say that if any hon. Member from the Government benches cared to traverse this division and went there with equanimity, they would soon be shaken out of it. In the Ancoats area the housing conditions are ghastly. The city council in embarrassing circumstances are making commendable efforts to do away with overcrowding and slums. That is instanced by the fact that in one ward alone, that of Ancoats, the city council has, as a commencement, scheduled houses to be demolished in order to rehouse 7,000 human beings. In St. Mark's Ward already 2,000 people are being rehoused.
When one realises the bad housing conditions in Ardwick and bears in mind that 75 per cent. of the time of a married workman's wife is spent inside her house, it will be agreed that it is not an extravagant thing to say the women are playing an heroic part in trying to keep the home together. Commendable as are the efforts of the city council, I find in my talks with people that the demolition of these homes is regarded with some concern. Many of the people have been out of work six or seven years, old men are without hope, and young men are in despair, and for them the rent factor is a material thing and the removal of their homes to some distance away will involve transport charges. One hears pitiable stories in this division. Let me instance a case in Shakespeare Street, Ardwick, of a man who has a wife of 26 suffering from diabetes. The public assistance committee of Manchester allowed them 12s. 6d. a week extra in order that special diet could be bought to keep the poor

1701
woman alive. On transfer to the Unemployment Assistance Board that amount was reduced to 6d. a week. After a protest to the relieving officer—not by a Labour councillor—the Board increased it to 2s. 6d., but even that was a decrease of 10s. I am assured that this gentleman is a badly crippled soldier and that the whole of his pension goes in buying special diet for his wife. I have seen the man, and I am sure that both he and his wife are of a good type, clean, neat and sober, and have a nice little home in which they take a pride.
I have tried to indicate how things are deteriorating in Manchester and in Lancashire as a whole, and I am supporting this Motion in order that something can be done by legislation or some other Measure that the Government may undertake in order to tackle this problem speedily. After all, to use a local phrase, these gradely folk of Lancashire, by their unexampled aptitude and unchallenged skill, have contributed much to this country's greatness and material wealth in years gone by. It is a sad commentary on things as they are that science has placed at our disposal the means for ensuring to all a high standard of life providing we have the intelligence to use them. I hope that something will ensue from this Debate that will give to these gradely people an opportunity to live the life that I am certain the great Divinity ordained that they ought to live.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Cary: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"this House recognises that employment in Lancashire and activity in the many industries of the county are of great importance to the country as a whole, notes with satisfaction that efforts made by the Government to promote these objects have already yielded results sufficient to show the value of a policy of active governmental support, and therefore urges the Government to give the fullest consideration to the needs of Lancashire industries in formulating their future course of action, more particularly in the matter of obtaining favourable and secure conditions in overseas markets."
In moving the Amendment which stands in my name and in the name of some of my hon. Friends, I want to say that, while we on these benches are fully aware of the suffering in Lancashire in the immediate past, and the suffering
1702
which still exists and has got to be cured, and will be cured by this National Administration, so also we have in the past two years taken the trouble to examine the Government's proposals and to follow the work of the Government in so far as it has brought either direct or indirect benefit to Lancashire. I need hardly add that everyone on these benches would associate himself with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), who moved this Motion, that the skilled worker of Lancashire has suffered a lot, that he is an artisan of the highest skill and, given the chance, can turn out the greatest measure of perfected work. It is the intention of the Government to get that type of worker back into employment in Lancashire, and as far as possible to prevent him from being sucked away from the county to the South of England. But before I deal with that question I would turn to the Motion. To my mind it reads rather like a solicitor's letter. I have been reading it and listening to it as it was read out in the House, and I feel that if it had been possible to do it within the framework of Parliamentary procedure it ought to have been begun with the words "We are instructed" and to have been ended with the words "Unless we hear from you within seven days."
Mr. Kelly: He ought to have put that in.
Mr. Cary: The hon. Member also referred to a leading newspaper which made some reference to the Motion. The "Manchester Guardian" also made a most pertinent reference to the Motion.
Mr. Silverman: It was the "Guardian" I referred to.
Mr. Cary: I find my version is this, that the Motion as it stands contains a tremendous lot of chaff and hardly any discernible wheat. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne opened the Debate on his Motion by talking of the inadequacy of this Amendment, and said that my hon. Friends here and I would have to return to our divisions one day and answer that Motion. What, may I ask, will my hon. Friend say in his division when everyone there has read this Motion?
Mr. Silverman: They will probably have the intelligence to read my speech also.
Mr. Cary: There is one point, and a devastating point, with which I must deal at Once before coming to what I have to say. The hon. Member raised a point about the unemployed in the cotton trade. I had not the figures when he quoted them, but I took the trouble to get them. I am going to give figures, not for the years for which he gave them, but figures of those in the cotton trade out of work on 29th June, 1929, and those out of work in June, 1931. On 29th June, 1929, there were 70,000 out of employment—Labour Government in—and in June, 1931, there were 209,000 out of employment—Labour Government out. That shows a very substantial increase in unemployment in the cotton trade within the lifetime of a Labour Government in this House. I admit, in fairness to the hon. Member, that there were circumstances governing those figures over which the Government at that time had no control, but I would also remind him, if he now complains of the speed at which the National Government are carrying out the task of bringing back prosperity to Lancashire, that the National Government succeeded in 1931 to a difficult period. If he is going to apportion blame let him divide it evenly. If he charges the National Government with any lack of statesmanship may I ask him to turn to the leaders of his own party?
What are the true facts of the National Government's policy in relation to Lancashire? Since the hon. Member opposite opened with the cotton trade let me make a few observations about it. The figures given in this Debate have been rather free and frequent and I shall not weary the House with any long array, and shall put the position of the cotton trade only in quite general terms. Since the National Administration have been in power, that is, since 1931, no fewer than 180,000 workers have gone back into employment in Lancashire, and in the trade about which there has been so much complaint, the cotton trade, no fewer than 22,000 people have returned to employment.
Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Member tell us from what authority he is quoting those figures?
Mr. Cary: I got these figures from the Ministry of Labour. If the cotton trade is to benefit in the future it must have the fullest possible help that it can get from overseas trading agreements, because we are within measurable distance, if not of reaching saturation in the home market, at least of meeting demands. Therefore, if we are to make any substantial increase in the figures of employment in the Lancashire trade we must help the Government as much as we can to get every possible advantage from overseas trade agreements.
Let me show the House the lamentable position of the Lancashire cotton trade to-day, although let hon. Members mark that it still has an export trade in manufactured goods amounting to 160,000,000, representing the greatest export industry in this country to-day. But 10 years ago that figure of £60,000,000 was no less than £200,000,000. In that time, the number has been reduced to almost one-quarter. Therefore, we cannot expect that during the next two or three years an enormous slice of that export trade can be won back to Lancashire through the agency of cotton. But is there any reason why it should not be got back through other industries, the heavier industries, or by tempting new industries to come to Lancashire?
In 1932, the Government introduced the Ottawa Agreements to the House. These were passed, and were accepted by every Parliament in the Empire. The South African one has brought the greatest measure of benefit to the country. In the case of the Indian Agreements, the position is not particularly happy, and the 5 per cent. benefit that was subsequently granted brought no direct benefit to the cotton industry. I would use the opportunity which I have in this Debate to beseech the Government to do all they can in the immediate future to help Lancashire in the direction of what I may call its Indian contracts.
Let me now turn to the question of alternative industries. What do I mean by alternative industries, apart from Defence, and the benefits that must have found their way into the country as a result of it? Would it not be possible to provide local authorities in the worst districts—such as Ashfield, Hindley, and Wigan—some form of monetary grant wherewith to prepare their sites, without

1705
necessarily the introduction of a special commission? At no very distant date we shall have to debate a new Special Areas Bill, and—but I have no authority for saying this—it is possible that certain areas of Lancashire may be included in it, and other areas of the country taken out. We are not unaware that districts such as those I have mentioned are in the most distressed condition. Therefore, if any scheme of Government work to aid the Special Areas is to be given to Lancashire, I suggest that it can best be given by allowing the local authorities to have direct access to the Ministry of Health and to the Ministries that are interested in their particular properties.
The Government are charged, in the Motion, with not bringing any direct and immediate benefit to the Lancashire people. May I point out to the hon. Gentlemen opposite that the establishment of the Chorley scheme, as well as the setting up of a gas mask factory at Blackburn and now the aircraft factory, snatched from Maidenhead to be placed upon a suitable site in Lancashire, are the latest and best gestures which His Majesty's Government have made to the Lancashire people? As an individual, I would like to see the factory site somewhere between Bolton and Wigan. I do not wish to see the benefit of Government contract work which is placed in Lancashire as a result of the Defence programme, go to what we may call the Metropolitan area of Manchester, or the fairly prosperous area by the Cheshire border. Let us push it farther up north, in case by any chance we can bring a direct measure of benefit to the Merseyside and to Liverpool. In the switching of the shipping of this country from eastern to western ports, there is a reasonable prospect that, in a fairly short time, Liverpool will gain a direct benefit from the work of the National Government. Everyone is aware of the vulnerable position of London. The imports into London amount to about 36 per cent. of the total imports of the country, and provision will obviously have to be made in the future for Liverpool to take some part of the cargoes.
When the hon. Gentleman taxes His Majesty's Government with lack of statesmanship and for upholding a system that can no longer benefit the skilled and partly skilled workers of Lancashire, I suggest that he is not only trying to mis-
1706
lead this House but is endeavouring to mislead his own constituents.
Mr. Silverman: May I—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We really have had very long speeches, and each interruption makes them longer. The hon. Member who is addressing the House must be allowed to make his own speech.
Mr. Silverman: I only wanted to—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order!
Mr. Cary: I would remind the House, in conclusion, that there was a recommendation in the Special Areas Report of Mr. Malcolm Stewart that the question of controlling the location of industry in and around London must be grappled with if the North of England is again to benefit from anything that the Government care to do. I would suggest, if London is to be controlled, that the Government introduce, some time in the future, a Measure whereby industry may be forcibly returned to the North of England. I would also make this last plea to the Government, that from now onward every effort should he made to prevent the skilled worker, of whom every Lancashire Member is so proud, being tempted away from Lancashire to the South of England.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Amendment.
We are indebted to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) for introducing the Motion. We cannot have too much Debate about the state of Lancashire and the industries of Lancashire, so serious is the position. It has been said that the Government are indifferent, but I hope to prove that the Government have been anything but indifferent, and to tell the House a few of the things which they have done. What has been said to-night by hon. Members opposite does not tally with what has been said by the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, who is in daily touch with trade, and who has stated that in many respects the outlook for Lancashire is brighter than for many years past. That is certainly true in my part of Lancashire, the spinning part, where there is a definite and growing shortage of juvenile labour and very few women are unemployed.

1707
But there are still the men, and in this connection I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that in Rochdale—I mention this because my constituents are partly governed by it—on 26th October last there were over 500 men between the ages of 21 and 64 who had been continuously unemployed for more than two years. That is what we are up against. They have worked in the cotton trade and have lost their skill through unemployment or age. There they are, anxious for any reasonable offer of employment, but unable to get it except under the Corporation. The Corporation has created quite a lot of employment, more than most places. Notwithstanding that, there is still this surplus. If we can, we must devise ways and means of engaging these men. There is the uncompleted arterial road between Liverpool and Hull. There is railway electrification, but at the present time I am afraid that the railways do not see eye to eye with us on that point. These two large pieces of work, if they could be put in hand, would engage a great deal of this labour, which is more or less of a labouring class.
Three or four years ago some of us used to complain that the Government had not done much at that time for the cotton trade. Things are considerably different now. Legislation was passed to give effect to the agreement in the weaving section of the industry. As soon as the employers had discovered among themselves what they wanted legislation was passed. On the other side of the industry the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill went through the House of Commons and the full results of that Bill have not yet been seen. But the main way in which any Government can encourage the cotton trade at the present time is by means of trade agreements to stimulate exports, because we are still the greatest exporting industry in this country. As a result of agreements which have been made under this Government the figures of exports of cotton piece-goods to the Dominions and the principal foreign countries with which agreements were made in 1933—the Argentine, Denmark, Norway and Sweden—have increased from 475,000,000 square yards in 1932 to 565,000,000 square yards in 1935, which is an increase of 19 per cent. and no
1708
small matter. Exports to Canada and South Africa have more than doubled as a result of tariff concessions.
The Argentine is now the most important foreign market for our cotton goods. Reductions in the duty over a wide field have been obtained there as a result of agreements. A large mass of frozen debts there has been liquidated and sterling exchange is available to anyone who wants it. We now have a 20 per cent. advantage in the Argentine over our chief competitor there, Japan. That again is no small matter. Nearly two years ago, in May, 1934, the imports of cotton and rayon goods from foreign countries into our Colonies were restricted. As a result our exports, which for the 12 months ended June 1934, amounted to 117,000,000 square yards, now in the 12 months just ended, June, 1936, amounted to 278,000,000 square yards. That increase has more than justified the Government's action in taking that course with our Colonies. Therefore to say that the Government are indifferent or have done nothing is completely and utterly untrue. But that does not mean that we can rest there and say that everything is all right and that we need not bother any more. In those markets where agreements were not made Japan has increased her penetration latterly. Whereas to China four years ago we exported 72,000,000 square yards, now we send only 4,000,000 square yards. That is a serious position.
There is plenty more to be done. There are plenty more trade agreements which one would like to see made. Our exports since 1932 have declined very considerably to a low figure, in spite of all we have tried to do. There is a wide field still open for trade agreements, and in those trade agreements cotton must come first. We Lancashire Members have tried to insist upon that, and we insist upon it, if we may use that word, more than ever to-night. We cannot afford to be left out in the cold. We Lancashire Members will back the President of the Board of Trade, or whoever is responsible for these agreements, to the best of our ability. We want fair treatment—that is all—for Lancashire. My hon. Friend has mentioned the question of India, where the new agreement which is shortly to be made will be so vital to our county's future trade. We want a fair rate of tariffs, bearing in mind all the time that

1709
we take a very great deal more of India's raw cotton than we used to take. That, in my view, should have some effect in getting better terms. We have to concentrate upon that during the next few months, and if we do so and get more satisfactory trade agreements which bring more trade, as has been the case with the other agreements that I have quoted, we shall, I am sure, forge ahead during the coming year. Let me close by quoting the chairman of Martins Bank in his recent review at the annual meeting of the bank. As hon. Members know, Martins Bank is intimately associated with the cotton trade. He said:
"While we are able to record some real improvement, we have yet to reap the full reward of much patient effort in many directions to bring about better conditions. The Cotton Spinning Industry Act, now formally in operation, the price maintenance scheme, which it is hoped will be consistently carried out, and other measures, may be expected to have their looked-for effect, but it is not unlikely that general trade recovery throughout this country and abroad will supply a natural demand for the output of Lancashire's main industry and render artificial measures unnecessary. Facts may be left to speak for themselves, and the increasing number of mill companies now making profits or cancelling out losses is eloquent. The recovery may be slow, but it is gathering strength."
The Chairman of Martins Bank gives in that speech a very excellent reason why the Motion should be decisively rejected.
9.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Lieut.-Colonel Muir-head): In a Debate like this, with a decidedly local flavour about it, it is inevitable that a comparative foreigner like myself must occasionally find himself at a disadvantage. It is not for me, for instance, to follow the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. J. Henderson) in his prophecy that Burnley are going to win the Cup; and it is also not for me to say whether Rochdale ought to be the more famous for having given to the world of entertainment a lady of renown or for having given to us here the hon. Member whom we have in our midst. But I think that perhaps, on some of the wider questions, it might be helpful to the House if I intervene for a short time now in what has been a very interesting Debate. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), who moved this Motion, spoke of the conditions under which the people of Lancashire have for long been living, and he emphasised, quite rightly,
1710
the fact that the difficulties of Lancashire have extended over a long period—a long period covered by successive Governments, as he pointed out, of different political complexions. They have also been due, undoubtedly, to a considerable extent to world conditions. Although the hon. Member endeavoured to anchor world conditions on those who were running the cotton industry in dim and distant days, it is certain that, as regards cotton, world conditions have played a great part.
The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion and those who moved and seconded the Amendment were, I think, to a certain extent on common ground. They all agreed that there was much good in Lancashire; they agreed that that good was of great importance to the nation; they agreed that there should be, and might be, more prosperity; and they were hopeful that the Government in some way or other would give more assistance. After that, however, they seemed to diverge. The Amendment emphasises, quite rightly, the improvement in Lancashire's conditions which has taken place comparatively recently, and, when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne uses in his Motion the words "continued existence" without any reference even to a temporary improvement, I do not think he is making the allowance that he should make for the improvement which has undoubtedly taken place. That some improvement has taken place is confirmed by a work which has already been quoted approvingly to-night, and which I also would like to quote approvingly—the book on "Readjustment in Lancashire" undertaken by the Economic Section of Manchester University. It draws attention to a certain measure of improvement, and that improvement is not what I might call a mere statistical improvement, but an improvement touching the whole basis of Lancashire's economic life. Everyone who has spoken so far has been studious to avoid giving the impression that Lancashire ought to be known as a depressed area, but I think that, unless some credit is given to the improvement which has taken place in Lancashire during the past few years, there is a great danger of giving the impression that Lancashire is a static area—that it has not had the enterprise to take advantage of some of that general im-

1711
provement which we have seen throughout the country as a whole. To be known as a static area, devoid of enterprise, would be almost as disastrous as to be known as a depressed area.
Having made these preliminary remarks, I should like to pass in review one or two of the industries and subjects to which allusion has been made. Before I refer to specific industries, I should like to say a word on the question of general industrial development and employment in Lancashire; and I want to speak of the figures of employment rather than the figures of unemployment, because the figures of unemployment, good though they may seem, very often have to be corrected by indicating that a considerable number of people have left the industry altogether. That is true of the cotton industry. If you take a certain period, for instance, from June, 1932, to June, 1936, one finds that the diminution in unemployment is more or less counterbalanced by a decrease in the number of insured persons in the industry. If you take a year earlier, the whole year 1931 and the whole year 1936, the figures of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Cary) were quite correct, that is to say, between 1931 and 1936 the cotton industry regained to the extent of 22,000 employed operatives. The year 1931 was the trough of the depression as regards employment. Since then the total employed in all the industries in the North-Western Division, of which Lancashire forms a preponderating part, has risen by 187,000, or 11 per cent.
It is interesting to note that the total number employed in the industries of Lancashire is only 58,000 below the number employed in what we now look back to as the very good year of 1929, and that in spite of the fact that there has been a considerable fall since then in the industries of cotton and coal. How is it then that Lancashire has contrived to keep up so well in the figures of the total employed? It has undoubtedly been due to the fact that Lancashire has been both developing the large number of industries which she possessed already, and has now been receiving a large number of new industries which are coming to her for the first time. That again is emphasised very much in the book "Re-adjustment in Lancashire." Those new industries which have been developing coming
1712
from elsewhere have not simply been coming into those parts of Lancashire which have, perhaps, not been doing too badly already, but some have been coming into the hard-hit areas. Now we see among these new industries light engineering, clothing, foodstuffs and a very wide number of miscellaneous occupations, and I cannot help thinking—and for the good of Lancashire trade it ought to be emphasised—that there is in Lancashire what so many industries are looking for, a very large consuming population at its very door. I think that wants emphasising in a Debate like this. With regard to the diversity of industries, I cannot do better than quote from a recent article by the general manager of the Lancashire Industrial Development Council. He says:
"Former spinning mills in the Oldham District, for instance, have been occupied by firms making perambulators and toys, corkboard, spring interiors and clothing. Similar buildings in the Bolton, Hyde and Stalybridge District have been adapted to industries some of which are quite new to the particular locality, paper bag making, building materials, men's clothing, industrial starches, waterproof garments and brushes. In other districts weaving sheds have been found admirably suitable for new business beginning production of slippers (Blackburn), special cables (Rams-bottom), varnishes, paints and ancillary products (Hindley), metal stampings and turned parts (Atherton), leather goods (Blackburn), spring interiors (Walton-le-Dale). Some of these establishments it is to be borne in mind are either branch factories of firms in other parts of the country or represent transfers of businesses from the South of England or 'most satisfactory of all' have been set up by industrialists from the Continent."
I think that makes a not unsatisfactory picture. The policy of the Government during the years it has been in office has been to stimulate the economic position of the country as a whole, but it is true that it has, in the course of doing that, tried in certain instances to direct certain industries to certain places. I know quite well that Lancashire does not in the least want to have the term "Special Area" or "depressed area" applied to it, though technically, of course, certain districts are depressed areas. The representations made by the recent Lancashire Parliamentary delegation which came to press that at all events in some measure some of the advantages that are given and may be given in the future to the Special Areas should be applied particularly to the districts of which Wigan

1713
and Blackburn are receiving very close attention. I do not want to appear to be lecturing Lancashire, but Lancashire is, of course, by its very nature and its past history what one might call "export-minded." Even perhaps though the cotton industry does not regain the peak of prosperity that it once had, I only hope that the prosperity which Lancashire cotton once had may be extended to some of the new industries that are springing up in its midst. Though they are largely devoted to supplying the home market at present, I only hope they may have a great export trade in front of them.
Naturally something should be said specifically on the subject of cotton. Exports of cotton yarn and manufactures have improved in the last two years. In 1934 the figures were £59,100,000, and in 1936, £61,500,000. The yarn exports rose from 130,000,000 lbs. in 1934 to 151,000,000 lbs. in 1936. It is true that the export of piece goods has declined, although the value is maintained, indeed has slightly increased, but think the most welcome sign is the retained imports of raw cotton, which is actually the highest figure since 1926. Further, in the first five months of the season 1936–37 the raw cotton delivered to spinners showed a distinct increase over the corresponding period of the previous season.
On the subject of wages in the cotton industry, I should like, first of all, to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne when he deduced an average wage of 32s. 6d. Nothing is more insidious than an average wage, and that the impression should be created that perhaps the sole bread winner of a family gets 32s. 6d. for a full week's work, and that is all there is for the family to live on. One has to remember that in the weaving industry an enormous number of the operatives are women, and I think, when that fact is stated, the false deductions that might be drawn from an average wage of 32s. 6d. fall to the ground.
Mr. Kelly: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that men and women receive the same wage?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am certain that the hon. Member will agree that the idea that the main breadwinner hardly gets 32s. 6d. on the average creates an entirely false impression.
Mr. Silverman: I readily grant that there may be in one household a number of people, each of whom earns that average wage, but that does not always apply. Suppose it should happen that a weaver employed in the industry has no other member of the family so employed, he, too, will be earning that average wage, and, therefore, I submit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the point I made was a perfectly fair one.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: When one is dealing with the question of average wage you cannot always stretch the average wage to cover the individual as you would wish. I only want to emphasise to the House, what, I have no doubt it has seen already, that there is a great loophole in the argument on the question of the average wage, and having done that I will say no more on the subject. There are three points I would like to emphasise on the subject of wages. Recently there has been an increase of wages, which included an increase in the remuneration of the big and side piecers of 2s., which is over and above the 2s. a week granted in 1932. We have seen in operation—and I think that it is very significant—the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, which, as the House knows, legalises voluntary agreements with regard to wages. It has done a great deal in connection with the prevention of undercutting in wages, and it has undoubtedly had a satisfactory effect upon the morale of the industry. It embodies very big and far-reaching principles, but to what extent it will be extended I am not here to prophesy. It is satisfactory to note that yesterday the period for raising objections to the second draft order incorporating the recent voluntary agreement expired, and there have been no objections to it at all. I think that that shows to a great extent the satisfactory working of this particular Act. In so far as there is under-employment in weaving—and undoubtedly it is a problem that we have to face—it is only fair to say that the question is receiving at the present moment, from all concerned, closer consideration than it has ever received before.
The hon. Member for Eccles and the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) covered the ground with regard to the question of foreign trade so well between them that there is really not very much

1715
left for me to say. They showed that we had gained distinct advantages from the operation of the Ottawa Agreements, and that in the 1933 Agreement with the Argentine, which dealt largely with the exchange position, we had now received a 20 per cent. preference in that market. We know, too, that within the limits of our Colonial Empire the present Government took considerable action in order to try to meet the danger to our cotton exports from Japanese sources. When one comes to the question of India, I would remind the House that in May, 1936, following a Tariff Board inquiry in India, the duty upon United Kingdom cotton piece-goods other than prints was reduced from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. ad valorem. [Interruption.] I am aware that many hon. Members are not satisfied with its operation. With regard to the future of the Indian trade, I can only say that the revisions of the Ottawa Agreements are now under consideration, and in the revising of these agreements negotiations are in the preliminary stages. The Government will, naturally, have the closest regard to the whole of our export position, including that of the cotton industry.
Mr. Kelly: What about the other trades?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I had some remarks on the subject of coal, but it so happened that to-day the question of coal has hardly been raised at all, or, at any rate, not to a great extent. But I will, if the hon. Member wishes, say a word on coal. It is true that the coalfield of Lancashire is comparatively old, which means high cost of production relative to the rest of the country. These are, perhaps, difficulties which it is difficult to overcome. There is at the moment a slight favourable trend, and we ought not to neglect this trend even though the figures may not be impressive. The Lancashire and Cheshire coalfield, in 1935, showed an improvement of 400,000 tons over the previous year. In 1936 there was a further improvement of 500,000 tons, showing that Lancashire is not exactly lagging behind the rest of the country. At the present moment Lancashire has got back to 98 per cent. of her 1930 production as compared with a figure of 94 per cent. for the 1930 production of Great Britain as a whole. It is true that there are fewer people em-
1716
ployed in that coalfield now than there were in 1932, but, on the other hand, we have an average working year of 248 days as compared with an average working year of 206 days at that time. If one translates those two figures in terms of man-days worked there is a distinct improvement in the number of man-days worked in that coalfield.
The question of the effect of the rearmament programme has been touched upon. I do not want to stress it very much because people can always say that it is likely to be of temporary duration. The only point I want to make is that, when it is a question of what the Government are doing to help a district like Lancashire, I would emphasise not only the need for factories at Blackburn, Chorley and Bolton which have all been mentioned, but that another factor enters into the general policy of the Government, namely, that in considering the allocation of its contracts, a preference is given other things being equal to certain areas where the incidence of unemployment is heavy. A very large proportion of Lancashire is in a position to enjoy this preference. That is merely an instance of the fact that the Government have the situation of Lancashire particularly in mind. The Motion of the hon. Member
"calls upon His Majesty's Government, whether or not such measures are within the limits of the existing social and economic order."
I do not exactly know what he means by "the limits of the existing social and economic order." Certainly I cannot define it. The achievements of the present system have been sufficiently evidenced by the fact that there are more people in employment in the country now than there has ever been in our industrial history. The idea of trying to make out that you can lay down a hard and fast economic system, governed by a sort of set rules, and that you can play a particular game under one set of rules and another game under another set of rules, is something which does not exist in reality. The value of the present system lies in its elasticity of operation in comparison with that of one confined within narrow theoretical limits. What we have done in the realm of foreign trade, what we have done in transforming our tariff system in the last six years, in trying to direct certain industries to hard hit

1717
areas, what we have done in the cotton industry by the Temporary Provisions Bill is another side of our operations. Under our present system there is no limit to what can be done in the way of cooperation between a Government which inspires confidence, and industry which possesses resource.
I am very glad that hon. Member in his Motion mentions the "resource" of the people of Lancashire. He refers to "the wastage of natural resource." Resource is an immense asset in industry, but it requires a suitable field within which to operate, and I cannot think that Lancashire with the resource that it possesses and the great tradition of enterprise which lies in its past and also in its present, I cannot think that Lancashire and its people would be content within the rigid limits of a strict governmental control which I understand would be part and parcel of the system of pure Socialism as preached by its zealous adherents. The Government have given, are giving and will continue to give assistance to Lancashire not less than to the rest of the country, and I believe that Lancashire has before it just as glorious a future as it has behind it a glorious past.
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Parkinson: I am rather surprised that the Minister said that coal has not been mentioned very much in the Debate. The Debate has ranged over a wide area, and it is impossible to touch production in every area. We must be satisfied to stress such points as we are able to deal with. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that the present depression was something which touched the whole basis of the economic life of Lancashire. It certainly does. Later in his remarks he made a statement about the new industries which have come to Lancashire, but I would point out that those new industries have not come into the depressed areas of the county. I am not complaining that they have come to Lancashire or as to where they have been put, but there are certain districts in Lancashire which are absolutely starved. The Minister also said something about oil, paint and varnish works which have come to Hindley. There may be 12 people employed in that new paint works, but as against that, only last week a colliery closed down affecting 450 people,
1718
and this week at another colliery where many Hindley people work notices have been served affecting 1,300 people.
The Minister also said that Lancashire people were export-minded. That applies to the manufacturing side of the county, but it does not apply very extensively to the coal mining areas. He further stated that the greater production which had taken place in 1935 and 1936 was evidence of greater prosperity. I agree with that statement. He also said that the miners had worked more days during the last few years than for some considerable time, and that in 1936 compared with 1935 there had been an extra 42 working days. I agree that that is a very great improvement, because nearly all the collieries were working short time, but many of them to-day are not woring to full capacity. Is the Minister aware that in 1936 there were 10,000 fewer people employed in the mines of Lancashire than in 1931, and that the output increased by 100,000 tons? More machine mining is taking place. We are not grumbling. Machines have come to stay. Machine, mining has taken its place in the underground workings, and the inevitable trend will be for fewer people to be employed and for there to be a greater amount of output of the product. We cannot very much grumble about that except that when men are displaced by machinery there ought to be something to which they can turn as a second line of defence. Instead, they are simply cast on to the unemployment market, they get standard benefit for a certain number of weeks and then graduallly drift down until they become almost derelict.
One hon. Member spoke of 500 people in one area who had been unemployed for two years. In the Wigan district there are over 5,000 miners who have been unemployed for over five years and have never done a day's work. That is the kind of situation that we have to face. We want the Government if possible to do something to relieve this particular distressed area of South West Lancashire. It is, practically speaking, a self-contained area in a similar sense to Liverpool. The general manufacturing or the textile industries of the county are spread right through the county and not confined in the same area, as is the case with coal mining. I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. Member

1719
for Eccles (Mr. Cary). He said that the position of Lancashire could be cured by the National Government, and that it is their intention to get the unemployed into work in Lancashire. He referred to the Ottawa Trade Agreement, and said that the benefit Lancashire was receiving came from overseas trade. Is he not aware that not long ago Lancashire Members were blaming the Government for not doing what they ought to do to help the cotton industry, particularly in its export trade?
The hon. Member for Eccles also said that the Government ought to make money for a grant to districts like Hindley, Aspull and Wigan in order that they might clear their ground. What did he mean by clearing the ground? We have appealed to the Government from our area and appeals have been made from other areas for the last six years asking them to do something to help us to remedy the evil of the dumps, which are a great sore upon the land. He also said that the Government had done something in establishing a gas-mask factory in Blackburn. They have done something there,but it depends upon the number of people who will be employed in that factory whether or not it is going to relieve the position there. There has, of course, been soma talk about the factory which has been placed on the borders between Chorley and Leyland. It has taken hundreds of acres of our best land and spoilt one of our beauty spots. The Government have avoided placing it anywhere near a depressed area. The people in this particular area do not want it. In Chorley there is hardly any unemployed at all, and in Leyland there is not a single person unemployed. If it had been placed between Bolton and Wigan it would have tapped a large number of unemployed; whereas it has been taken to an area where they neither need it nor want it. In fact, Leyland is the most prosperous part of Lancashire to-day.
Something must be said about Wigan and the coal area. We have been constantly told of the prosperity which is coming to the county, but so far as the Wigan area is concerned it is as yet very small indeed. In December, 1935, there were 10,547 people on the register, that is taking the whole of the totally unemployed and the partly unemployed men
1720
and women; and in 1936 there were 10,099. That means that 34.8 per cent. of the population are unemployed. There is not much sign of prosperity there. In the whole of the last 12 months the conditions have improved to this extent, that 250 men and 190 women have gone off the register, a total of 448 people who have been found employment during the last 12 months. No one will say that this shows much improvement. Now another calamity has fallen on this particular area, Hindley, one of the most depressed areas of the county, with more than 60 per cent. of its people unemployed, as it was announced last week that the Strangeway Colliery, the last one in the township, would close down, affecting 450 workers. This makes a total of 19 collieries which have been closed down during the last 10 years. In addition to that, during the past week, the people employed at the Westleigh Colliery have been given notice to the number of 1,300, which means that in a fortnight about 1,750 people have been thrown out of employment by the closing down of two collieries.
What is going to be done? Spread over the three districts of Hindley, Leigh, and Wigan, the December figures of unemployment are higher than they were 12 months ago. Really, it is no use talking about the prosperity which is coming to the county when we who live in these awfully depressed areas know that no new industries are coming along and that our people are feeling the conditions cruelly. The outdoor relief in Wigan from 1931 to 1935 has increased by £21,000, or a rate of 9.6d. in the £. The number of able-bodied men receiving relief in 1931–32 was 122, and to-day it is 330. In 1930 the cost of this relief was; £3,257, whereas to-day it is £13,468, which is equal to a 5d. rate. The local authorities cannot continue to raise rates out of unemployed people. Whatever they pay to these unemployed people in relief has to be recovered in rates levied upon the inhabitants of the town, and if the poor are to go on living on the poor, eventually the local authority will be in a calamitous position. The average amount of money spent on milk and food in schools in Wigan alone is over £4,000 a year. The number of children receiving milk at the moment is 930, and the number of those receiving meals is 400, making a total of 1,330. There are

1721
now 26 fewer industrial assessments in Wigan than in 1921, and the population has gone down by no less than 6,700.
I would like now to refer to the position in Aspull, which is in the Westhoughton division, to the east of Wigan. This has always been the poorest part of the whole area, and if the figures for this particular part could be separated from those of Wigan, they would prove that for years the district has had over 50 per cent. of unemployment, and sometimes as much as 65 or 70 per cent. The district is absolutely derelict. There is not a single works in it, and it is two or three miles away from any other employment. Only a short time ago the local authority advertised for three temporary employes, and there were 500 applicants. With regard to Hindley, in its annual report for the year ended July, 1935, the Juvenile Employment Bureau of the Hindley Education Committee stated that a total of 409 children left school during the year then closing, and that
"efforts have been made to induce boys and girls to accept work in the Midlands and South, where the demand for juvenile labour is greater than the supply, but our efforts so far have not been very successful."
There were 112 boys and 115 girls either totally or partially unemployed on the live register of the Bureau in July, 1935. The infantile mortality rate in Hindley, to which reference has already been made to-night, is much higher than the general average. The mean rate for Hindley for the five years 1930 to 1934 was 98; the average for 1934 was 71 and for 1935 it was 85. The average throughout the whole country for 1934 was 59.
The School Medical Officer reported that during 1935, approximately 1,305 school children out of an average attendance of 2,964 were supplied with one-third pint bottle of milk once, or in some cases twice, per day. The number of children receiving this free of charge was 364. The number of scarlet fever cases rose from 45 in 1934 to 51 in 1935, and measles from 45 to 255. Many statements have been made to-night about malnutrition and so on, but I want the House to try to visualise the conditions of the people in this particular area, where they have no opportunities of finding work. Practically speaking, a large proportion of the population go out by omnibus and train to find employment. Children, both from Wigan and other
1722
areas to which I have referred, have to go in trainloads as far as Bolton and Manchester in order to find employment.
It is time that something more was done, and while I do not propose to suggest to the Government how they ought to do it, I would point out that they had the opportunity of placing a great munition filling factory in the centre of this area which would have dealt with a large number of the unemployed. They have refused to do so, and there was also the opportunity of a new factory being built which would have supplied the demand on the other side of the depressed area. Why they should have neglected this opportunity I do not know. We find that in Westhoughton the number of free meals given to children attending elementary schools in 1935 averaged 321 per day, and the number of children under five years and expectant mothers to whom milk was supplied free for the year ended 31st March, 1936, averaged 279 per day. The number of maternity cases assisted was 32. This kind of thing must be taken into consideration. It is no use saying that all this is not having an effect upon the morale of the people. It is having a serious effect, as we know who go there practically every week-end. We find the conditions getting worse every time we go there. It is heartbreaking for us to go to these districts among people with whom we have been closely associated for the greater part of our lives and to find them in such a derelict condition and with no opportunity to work.
Enough has been said, I think, to cause the Minister and the Department some alarm. These children and young people will never forget the hardships through which they have passed in the last few years. The memory of these days will remain with them, just as a Sunday school education remains with many of us all our lives. The memory of their early hardships and experiences will remain with the young people and the bitterness of those memories will not lessen but will grow deeper, and will in many cases give way to the spirit of revolt. That is what we are going to have in the next generation—a spirit of revolt in the minds of all the people right through the industrial areas. The Amendment "notes with satisfaction the efforts made by the Government" I would like to ask the hon. Member for

1723
Eccles and the other signatories of this Amendment, where support has been given by the Government to the promotion of employment in Lancashire. Have the Government established factories or instituted any kind of work in any part of Lancashire with the exception of what has been done in the last six months?
The Government know the conditions which prevail as well as I know them. I was on a deputation to the Ministry of Labour years ago and we could make no headway then. We have derelict land and all kinds of things on which money could be spent with great benefit to the locality and the country while at the same time providing work for the unemployed. But we cannot get a move on with the Government however we try. We have made requests, we have submitted schemes, we have offered to put schemes into operation but nothing is done. As far as I am concerned I do not usually speak with bitterness, but at the moment I feel more bitter about this situation than I have ever felt about anything in the whole of my life. I think that the starvation, and it is nothing less, of the people in the South Lancashire central coal area is a deliberate thing of which the Government ought to be ashamed.
It certainly is the most distressed part of Lancashire, and if the Government could do anything in the way of helping the unemployed people in this area, they would get all the help and support possible from every one of the local authorities in it. Those authorities are willing to help the Government to do this work, but the Government do not come along. When you find people living in distressed conditions like these, when you know that they are called upon to live year after year under conditions of poverty, and when you bear in mind that they remember the prosperity of Lancashire in the past, when there were opportunities for work and everybody was working and living, if not in affluence, at least in a comfortable condition of life, all that I can say is that the present conditions in Lancashire are heartbreaking.
10.31 p.m.
Sir Joseph Nall: In a Debate of this kind, although we express our formal opinion in words on the Paper which differ as between different parties, so far
1724
as the main theme of the Debate is concerned, there is a consensus of opinion which bears no relation to the ordinary political differences between the parties. When the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) makes a speech such as he has just made, feeling as acutely as he does the conditions which exist in the Wigan area to-day, he can be assured that many of us on the other side of the House feel just as acutely on the matter as he does. Therefore, when we put on the Paper an Amendment in terms differing directly from those contained in the Motion proposed by the Labour party, we do so, not because we are not alive to the motives which inspired the original Motion, but because we believe that we must be constructive and must guide the Government in the way that they should go and, if necessary, indicate the way in which we would desire them to go.
In dealing with the industrial interests of one county, I ask the House to bear in mind that we are not dealing with some parochial concern in a small corner of the country. We are, in fact, when we talk about Lancashire, dealing with an area which, according to the census of 1931, contains one-eighth of the population of the country, concentrated in something less than one-thirtieth of the territorial area of this country. Its population is concerned with a wide variety of industries in addition to the principal industry, the textile industry. Reckoned in industries which employ more than 5,000 persons each, there are no fewer than 42 different industries located within the county, 22 of which are related to 20 per cent. or more of the total aggregate of persons employed in England and Wales, while in the remaining 20 of the 42 industries our percentage in the county has been between 10 and 20 per cent. These include such occupations as coal mining, which is considerable, printing, silk and artificial silk, constructional engineering, the making of electric cables, lamps, and wires, paint and varnish, artificial stones, concrete, furniture, and so on; and in these 42 industries, taken as a whole, our county contains 17 per cent. of all the workers who are employed in those industries in the whole of Great Britain.
It follows that we are not dealing with a parochial subject when we are dealing with the problem of Lancashire and its industries. We are dealing with some 42

1725
industries, of the workers in which some 17 per cent. are in the county. There is one point on which I differ from the hon. Member for Wigan. He said that there had been no indication from my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment that the Government have done anything to meet the situation. In the Ottawa Agreernents certain things were done, and my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment referred to them. I would like to give the House some indication of what can be done when trade agreements with foreign countries or agreements with our own Dominions and Colonies, such as the Ottawa Agreements, are really pursued to their logical conclusion from this country's point of view, and are not whittled away or allowed to go by the board on some half-baked and unfinished formula if the Department is not quite up to scratch on a particular occasion.
Let us take a case which illustrates the advantage of these agreements measured in terms of our principal exports, namely, cotton cloth. Comparing 1932—which was the last year before the Ottawa Agreements or the trade agreements were in operation—with 1936, the result is really striking. To the Union of South Africa in the last pre-agreement year we sold 51,000,000 square yards of cloth. Under the conditions prevailing in 1936 that had risen to 121,000,000. To Canada the 27,000,000 in 1932 increased to 73,000,000 in 1936. In regard to foreign countries, the 19,000,000 to Sweden in 1932 increased to 22,000,000 in 1936. To Norway the 17,000,000 went up to 20,000,000, and to Denmark the 34,000,000 rose to 52,000,000. These five examples are illustrative of what the Board of Trade can do when it really sets about it.
If we have a quarrel with a Government Department—not with the Department of my hon. and gallant Friend who replied, and who made a speech for which we are grateful—it is with the Board of Trade. While they have agreements with the five countries I have quoted, there is a very different story in some other quarters. India is the worst of those. India is important because negotiations for a new trade agreement are about to be undertaken, and I want to say here and now very emphatically that if our delegation cannot get an adequate and tolerably fair agreement with India, let India understand that we would
1726
rather not have an agreement at all. If she refuses to have an agreement on the lines of the Ottawa terms, let her be treated as a foreign country, and let her look to the value of those markets she enjoys in this country.
Let the House have a record of what the facts are in relation to this important question of our export to India. Speaking again in terms of cotton cloth by the square yard, our pre-war trade to India was about 2,000,000,000 per annum. In 1928, which was the best of the post-war years which I want to quote, it was 1,541,000,000 square yards. In 1929 it had begun to dwindle, and the figure was 1,374,000,000. I pause to mention, for the benefit of hon. Members of the Labour party, that 1929 was the last year before the Labour Government came into office. In 1931, when they went out of office, the 1,374,000,000 had fallen to 390,000,000, a most formidable reduction and a loss which we have never regained, although there has been an improvement here and there and ups and downs. [Interruption.] It was the year of the Indian boycott; that was 1931, when a Labour Government had been in office here for two years. There was a recovery after that, and in 1934 we got to the figure of 582,000,000, but that has dwindled again, notwithstanding the reduction of duty to which my hon. Friend refers. That reduction in duty, I want to emphasise, is utterly useless. The percentage of reduction was shown by the delegates at the time to be inadequate and the result has proved that it was, as is to be seen in the fact that last year the exports to India were 416,000,000 square yards.
That is the worst case, but it is not India alone with which we are concerned, because there are other countries with which we can do better deals with trade agreements, and I want the Parliamentary Secretary to pass these things on to the Board of Trade. Egypt, which supplied a large volume of cotton used in the cotton industry, was once a good market. In 1932 Egypt bought 82,000,000 square yards, and in 1936, 64,000,000 square yards. Morocco, a foreign market, took, in 1932, 52,000,000 square yards, and last year we sold Morocco 4,000,000. To Iraq we sold 39,000,000 square yards in 1932 and last year 5,000,000; to the Dutch East Indies 44,000,000 square

1727
yards in 1932 and the figure dropped to 27,000,000 in 1936. As to China and the Far East, that is an entirely different case. We cannot recover the ground merely by trade agreements. I quote the position there for the information of some of those who object to our restoration of armaments and our ability to maintain our position overseas. China, which was a market for 500,000,000 square yards in pre-war days, took 72,000,000 square yards in 1932, and last year took 4,000,000 square yards. [Interruption.] No, it was the lack of guns which lost us our prestige in the Far East.
I give one more instance of what can be done within the Empire. In our British Colonial markets the effect of Japanese competition is very considerable, but if there is really determined action something can be done. I give as a comparison a group of five countries, which are grouped not for any geographical reason but simply because the figures happen to be in that form. They are British West Africa, Malaya, Ceylon, the British West Indies, and British Guiana. In 1929, we sold to that group of countries 257,000,000 square yards. In 1931, the figure had dropped to 137,000,000. In 1934, although there had been a recovery in the meantime, the figure was down to 135,000,000. Last year, under the influence of arrangements which have been made through our Colonial Office and the Board of Trade—another example of what can be done when Departments put their backs into their jobs—we got up to 301,000,000 square yards.
The hon. Member for Wigan declared that the Government had done nothing. We all admit the legitimate grounds of complaint, but we can point to really established results which have accrued from other instances of Government action. When we come down to the hard facts of the case, this matter of the textile industry is the most urgent and is the field which might be most fruitful, if we got the requisite action for the restoration of our export trade. The Parliamentary Secretary read out the records which he had of mills which are now making toys or paints, and from the point of view of his Department, and also of those immediately concerned, I know it is very gratifying, but the sad and
1728
lamentable fact is that those premises and those people are no longer employed on the great staple export industry which did so much to build up the strength of the Empire.
We are asking the House to recognise that employment in Lancashire and the activities of many industries in the county are of great importance to the country as a whole. We believe that the House really appreciates that it is upon the maintenance of the aggregate volume of the export trade that the future development of this country and the solidarity of the Empire depend. It is upon the improvement or the restoration, partial, at least, of the volume of the export trade, that we look for the restoration of industry, which will not only restore employment and the prosperity of Lancashire but, in the long run, is the surest way of retaining the integrity of the Realm and of the Empire overseas.
10.49 p.m.
Mr. Burke: We have other industries in Lancashire besides the cotton industry, but Lancashire is very largely a cotton county. Even her engineering organisation has been built up in close connection with the cotton trade. We have heard a lot of futile talk about the figures for 1929 and 1931, but what does that matter? Anybody who knows the cotton industry knows also that the real position is, and this is the problem of Lancashire, Labour Government or any other kind of Government—that the trade has been declining. A few years ago we exported 8,000 million square yards of cotton cloth. To-day it is clown to less than 2,000,000,000. We had 786,000 looms; to-day we have about half that number. We had about 61,000,000 spindles; now the total is down to 41,000,000. This has happened since the War, in an industry which has contracted because of world conditions. While we were fighting the War other people took our trade.
The question is—what has the Government done to replace that contracted industry and the other industries depending on it? Burnley, for instance, in addition to being the greatest weaving centre in the world was the greatest loom-making centre. The Government has done nothing in the bringing of factories into Lancashire. When local authorities

1729
have asked the Government to make grants in order that the towns might be put in a decent condition, sites cleared and towns made to look presentable, the Government has done nothing. In seven months the Government has given 4,000 contracts. How many of those contracts have gone into the area round Burnley, where 500,000 people are dependent on cotton? Precisely ten. The hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) has told the House that in Lancashire there is one-eighth of the population. They get 10 contracts out of 4,000. Yet hon. Members on the other side say, "We are satisfied with the record of the Government."
Overseas trade and agreements regarding it are vital to maintain what industry we have in Lancashire at present. What has the Government done about that? In 1933, and that is a long time after the Labour Government, Japan sent into this country 124,000 square yards of cotton cloth. In 1936 that had jumped up to 20,000,000 square yards—cloth that comes here in the unfinished state, is finished here and goes out as United Kingdom cloth. That is something the Government might tackle. I know that 20,000,000 square yards is not much compared with the whole cotton trade of Lancashire, but when it grows in that alarming way in three years surely a live Government would have done something to remedy it. There have been deputations from Chambers of Commerce to the Government, and we hope that a little pressure from Lancashire Members on their own side as well as on ours will induce the Government to take up that matter. I am sorry that all Lancashire Members were not backing one Motion to-night in order to bring united pressure to bear on the Government. It is true that a few of our people have drifted into new industries, but it is a small number. Before the War the cotton industry supported 600,000 operatives; there are now only 300,000. Something has got to be done to find work for those 300,000 people. You bring a paint factory into Hindley which employs 12—
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That has been referred to three times. I do not know exactly how many it is employing at the moment, but it is expected that it will employ 200.
Mr. Burke: It may employ 200, and we do not object to small mercies, but, when the coal trade has lost thousands and the cotton trade has lost hundreds of thousands, to regard as a serious contribution the fact that it is going to employ 200 people seems to be entirely trifling. It has been said that employment has gone up and unemployment has gone down. It is perfectly true that short-time unemployment has moved a bit, but all the while you have not touched for 15 years the hard core of permanent unemployment in Lancashire. In the cotton trade there are 7,500 men and 6,500 women who have not done a day's work for 12 months or more; they have simply been resting all the while and cannot be touched. That is the kind of problem which the Government have to face, and it is a problem which a Government calling itself a National Government would tackle seriously. It is true that the question of Lancashire has been getting more attention in this House, but it is not getting sufficient attention, either from the House or from the Government. I hope they will take up the question of overseas agreements, and I hope they will not think that the few industries that have come into Lancashire because of the work that local authorities have done are by any means sufficient. Something bigger, something far more adequate than that, will have to be done. You will have to enter into a scheme of national planning to replace these contracted industries. We are planning at the present time in the Regency Bill; we are looking a long way ahead for contingencies that might arise. Cannot the Government plan the great industries of that county, which laid the foundation of our industrial and commercial supremacy?
10.58 p.m.
Major Procter: In the minute or two that remain I should like to emphasise one or two points. In the first place I should like to say how sorry we all were not to hear from the Mover of the original Motion any constructive ideas, particularly as to the cotton trade. The Means Test and the raising of the school age are simply Socialist propaganda. I would ask the Government whether, in their new scheme for attracting new factories, they could not make it possible for urban district councils to have the power to borrow money—
Mr. Silverman Mr. Silverman rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Major Procter: —to recondition the factories which are left. If they would do that, I am sure many urban district councils would take advantage of it. Boroughs have this power, but urban district councils have not. Will the Government kindly look into that matter?
Mr. Silverman rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.10.59 p.m.
10.59 p.m.
Mr. Hopkinson: There is still time to put a point in regard to Lancashire. The prosperity of Lancashire in the past has been entirely due to the brains, courage, enterprise and energy of the leaders of industry in Lancashire. If that courage, those brains, and that enterprise and energy have not revived in the leaders of industry in Lancashire, Lancashire had better shut up shop right away instead of sending Members to this House to squeal for assistance.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 99.

Division No. 68.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Potts, J.

Amman, C. G.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Ridley, G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Riley, B.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

dagger, J.

Ritson, J.

Barnes, A. J.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

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

Barr, J.

John, W.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Batey, J.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Bellenger, F. J.

Jones, H- Haydn (Merioneth)

Rowson, G.

Broad, F. A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Brooke, W.

Kelly, W. T.

Sexton. T. M.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Shinwell, E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Kirby, B. V.

Short, A.

Burke, W. A.

Lawson, J. J.

Simpson, F. B.

Chater, D.

Leach, W.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cluse, W. S.

Lee, F.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Day, H.

Leonard, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Dobbie, W.

Leslie, J. R.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Logan, 0. G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Ede, J. C.

Lunn, W.

Tinker, J. J.

Foot, D. M.

McEntee, V. La T.

Walkden, A. G.

Frankel, D.

MacLaren, A.

Watson, W. McL.

Gardner, B. W.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Welsh, J. C.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Marshall, F.

Whiteley, W.

Gibbins, J.

Mathers, G.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Messer, F.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Milner, Major J.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Montague, F.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney,

S.) Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

uff, G.

Groves, T. E.

Parker, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Parkinson, J. A.

Mr. Silverman and Mr. Joseph

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Henderson.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Cross, R. H.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. 0. J.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Hopkinson, A.

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

Aske, Sir R. W.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Assheton, R.

Eastwood, J. F.

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. S.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Keeling, E. H.

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Errington, E.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Bossom, A. C.

Fildes, Sir H.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Brass, Sir W.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Furness, S. N.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Bull, B. B.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Lees-Jones, J.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Liddall, W. S.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Grimston, R. V.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Channon, H.

Guy, J. C. M.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Harbord, A.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Crooke, J. S.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

MoKie, J. H.

Hepworth, J.

Magnay, T.

Crookshank, Capt H, F. C.

Holmes, J. S.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Prooter, Major H. A.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Markham, S. F.

Radford, E. A.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Ramsbotham, H.

Touche, G. C.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Turton, R. H.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Wakefield, W. W.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Munro, P.

Rowlands, G.

Ward, Irene M, B. (Wallsand)

Nail, Sir J.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Neven-Spenoe, Major B. H. H.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Peake, O.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Penny, Sir G.

Spens. W. P.

Petherick, M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-

Porritt, R. W.

Storey, S.

Mr. Cary and Mr. Sutcliffe.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."
Mr. McEntee Mr. McEntee rose—
It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Denman: I beg to move,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Queen Anne's Bounty (Powers) Measure, 1937, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  It is usual for the convenience of the House for these Measures to be moved formally unless they contain matter with which the House ought to concern itself. I should this evening have moved that this Measure be submitted to His Majesty formally, but for one fact, of which, I think, the House should take note. This is, as far as I know, the first occasion on which the Government have deliberately used the machinery of the Enabling Act to lighten the burden that would otherwise be cast upon them and upon Parliament. The Measure arose out of the Tithe Act. What happened was that, in the course of the framing of the Tithe Bill, Queen Anne's Bounty had to represent to the Minister the large number of administrative problems that needed treatment. There came a point when the Minister said in effect, "We will put into the Bill what is of substance and of general interest, but we must ask you to deal, by means of the enabling Measure, with matters of purely domestic interest." From that procedure this Measure arises. It is interesting for the House to note that the Government
  have adopted this method of lessening the burden that would otherwise have been cast upon the Minister and his Department. But for the Enabling Act, all the Clauses of this Measure would have had to be incorporated in the Tithe Act itself. The question is purely an administrative one. The Measure has been before the Ecclesiastic Committee of both Houses, who have examined it and given it a clean bill.
  Sir Francis Fremantle: I beg to second the Motion.
  11.11 p.m.
  Mr. Batey: We should have far more information with regard to this matter. It seems to me to be an important Resolution. It deals with property and compensation. We ought to know what lies behind the Resolution before we agree to it, and unless we can have further information we shall vote against it.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Denman: I can speak again only by leave of the House. I am most delighted to respond to the request of the hon. Member. The object of the Measure is primarily to provide that the income payable by Queen Anne's Bounty to incumbents shall be paid to them regularly by quarterly instalments. Under the Tithe Act they obtain their income half yearly, but for the convenience of the incumbents it is proposed that they should receive their stipend quarterly if possible. This Measure provides the machinery by which that can be done. There is a further Clause—Clause 10—which deals with the ecclesiastical corporations. In their case the annuity would pass Queen Anne's Bounty who do not in the normal way concern themselves with the income of these ecclesiastical corporations. These are dealt with primarily by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. This Measure provides the machinery by which this money can

  1735
  be transferred from Queen Anne's Bounty to the Ecclesiastical Commission so that they may deal with the ecclesiastical corporations. That is substantially the purpose for the Measure.
  Resolved,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this
  1736
  House do direct that the Queen Anne's Bounty (Powers) Measure, 5937, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Eleven o'Clock.